Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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

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

RfC: Revisiting the perennial US/U.S. debate

NEWEST VERSION (2017)
There is consensus to use the Newest version (2017). A majority of editors favored this version because it is clear, is consistent with MOS:ABBR, and contains language to ensure article stability. There is consensus that US is currently the dominant form of the abbreviation, but also strong consensus that edit wars over this issue should be prevented. — Newslinger talk 22:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Should MOS:US (WP:Manual of Style#US and U.S.):

  1. Retain its current wording (after some reverting), arrived at several years ago, and stable until October 2017, and stable since then?
  2. Use the newest (recently reverted) version, implemented in a lengthy October 2017 consensus discussion?
  3. Revert to its even earlier wording, which was stable though the early 2010s, despite frequent debate?
  4. Say something substantively different from any of these?

00:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The central matter is whether "US" or "U.S." is the dominant spelling in current (not historical) North American English, across all style guides and reliable sources (i.e., not limited to a particular genre or field). The previous discussion involved detailed source review to answer this question. The current version, based in MOS:COMMONALITY without citing it, relies on "US" being demonstrably dominant; so does the (reverted) newest version, explicit about COMMONALITY; while the MOS:ENGVAR idea suggested in the old version depends on the opposite (ENGVAR only applies to a consistently dominant usage in a country).

The issue raised, for editing, is this: the current version gradually favors "US" over time, and the newest version does so more explicitly, while the old version would keep "U.S." indefinitely in most articles that use it.

Current version (dates to mid-2010s):
US and U.S.

In American and Canadian English, as elsewhere, US has become the dominant abbreviation for United States. However, U.S. (with periods [full points] and without a space) remains common in North American publications, especially in news journalism. At least one major American style guide, The Chicago Manual of Style (since 2010), now deprecates "U.S." and recommends "US". Because use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article, use US in an article with other country abbreviations, and especially avoid constructions like the U.S., UK, and USSR. In longer abbreviations (three letters or more) that incorporate the country's initials (USN, USAF), do not use periods. When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective (France and the United States, not France and the U.S.). Do not use the spaced U. S. or the archaic U.S. of A., except when quoting. Do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical/formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes and FIFA country codes).

Newest version (2017):
US and U.S.

US is a commonly used abbreviation for United States, although U.S. – with periods and without a space – remains common in North American publications, including in news journalism. Multiple American style guides, including The Chicago Manual of Style (since 2010), now deprecate "U.S." and recommend "US".

For commonality reasons, use US by default when abbreviating, but retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it. Because use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article, use US in an article with other country abbreviations, and especially avoid constructions like the U.S. and the UK. In longer abbreviations that incorporate the country's initials (USN, USAF), never use periods. When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, US (or U.S.) may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective (France and the United States, not France and the US). Do not use the spaced U. S. or the archaic U.S. of A., except when quoting. Do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical and formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, FIFA, and IOC country codes).

Early version (early 2010s):
US and U.S.

In American and Canadian English, U.S. (with periods [full stops] and without a space) is the dominant abbreviation for United States, though at least one major American style guide, The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.), now deprecates U.S. and prefers US (without periods). US is more common in most other national forms of English. Use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article and congruent with the variety of English used by that article. In longer abbreviations (three letters or more) that incorporate the country's initials (USN, USAF), do not use periods. When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective (France and the United States, not France and the U.S.). Do not use the spaced U. S. or the archaic U.S. of A., except when quoting. Do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical/formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes and FIFA country codes).

Please avoid empty WP:ILIKEIT / WP:IKNOWIT comments, as well as wikipolitical arguments about why we have/shouldn't have a style guide, whether a wikiproject should/shouldn't "own" articles in its scope, etc. Please stay on-topic.

This is a procedural RfC suggested by someone else, though dispute since the 2017 change has been minimal. A footnote about inconsistent journalistic usage was elided from the current-version and newest-version copies above, for brevity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No preference version
US and U.S.

US and U.S. are commonly-used abbreviations for United States. U.S. – with periods and without a space – remains common in North American publications, including all works of the United States government and in news media, while US is more often used elsewhere.

  • When used as a noun in article prose, prefer United States (avoiding either abbreviation) for better formal writing style. This also avoids mixed-use constructions like the U.S. and the UK in favor of the United States and the United Kingdom, and provides an opportunity for commonality.
  • As an adjective in article prose, either US or U.S. may be used, but don't mix dotted and undotted within the same article. Generally speaking, U.S./U.K. is appropriate for American or Canadian English national variations, and US/UK for others. Prevalence in reliable sources can also be used to determine which to use. Use of either style should be retained in existing articles that they have been established.[a]

US should always be used in tables where other ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 two-letter country codes are in use. Longer abbreviations that incorporate the country's initials (USN, USAF) never use periods, but partial constructions like U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force may. Do not use the spaced U. S. or the archaic U.S. of A., except when quoting. Do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical and formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, FIFA, and IOC country codes).

Well if this RFC is actually going forward limited to only handling of US/U.S., here is the version I suggest, which does not prescriptively prohibit either style, but gives guidance to avoid the abbreviation for commonality. It recognizes that both dotted and undotted are commonly-used and acceptable, and that neither is a default nor forbidden. This will prevent edit warring and also prevent editors from being sanctioned for following a style they've know their whole lives. I intend to present an expanded form of this sometime in the future to cover other geographical acronyms (like Canadian English frequent use of dotted geographical acronyms like P.E.I., B.C., etc.). -- Netoholic @ 04:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ This section has changed in the past and may change in the future, mass-changes to articles should be avoided.

Comments on US/U.S.

Extended discussion of US/U.S.

RS citations, with direct quotes (and analysis by SMcCandlish):
Sourcing

I'll get this started, using the stack of style guides closest to my desk (leaves out some stuff like Scientific Style and Format):

  • "10.4", "10.33". The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.). University of Chicago. 2010. pp. 489–490, 500:. 10.4: Periods with abbreviations. ... Use no periods with abbreviations that appear in full capitals, whether two letters or more, and even if lowercase letters appear within the abbreviation: VP, CEO, MA, MD, PhD, UK, US, NY, IL .... 10.33: "US" versus United States. In running text, spell out United States as a noun; reserve US for the adjective form only (in which position the abbreviation is generally preferred). See also 10.4. US dollars, US involvement in China, but China's involvement in the United States.((cite book)): CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) It has a side rule to use "U.S." in publications that use "traditional" US state abbreviations like "Ill." and "Calif.", but WP is not one of these, and CMoS recommends against the practice anyway. This edition's material on this is a reversal from the 15th ed. which still favored "U.S." Notably, MoS began when CMoS 15th was current, and has seen extensive revision over time to match the 16th (as it has also been being updated to match post-2010 editions of New Hart's Rules / Oxford Style Manual and Fowler's, etc., as the rest of the world does.
  • "10.31", "10.32". The Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.). University of Chicago. 2017. pp. 573–574, 585–586:. 10.4: Periods with abbreviations. ... Ues no periods with abbreviations that include two or more capital letters, even if the abbreviation also includes lowercase letters: VP, CEO, MA, MD, PhD, UK, US, NY, IL. [Also has the previous edition's rule to prefer "U.S." with "Ill." abbreviations.] 10.31: Abbreviating country names. Names of countries are usually spelled out in text but may be abbreviated in tabular matter, lists, and the like. [Recommendation to consult dictionaries for abbreviations rather than making up new ones.] ... Certain initialisms, on the other hand, may be appropriate in regular text, especially after the full form has been established .... 10.32: "US" versus "United States." Where necessary, initialisms for country names can be used in running text according to the guidelines set forth [in previous sections about overuse of abbreviations, etc.] Note that, as a matter of editorial tradition, this manual has long advised spelling out United States as a noun, reserving US for the adjective form only (where it is preferred) and for tabular matter and the like. In a departure, Chicago now permits the use of US as a noun, subject to editorial discretion and provided the meaning is clear from context. US dollars, US involvement in China, China's involvement in the United States or China's involvement in the US.((cite book)): CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) Brand new edition; hasn't had much real-world impact yet. CMoS has clearly softened on its stance about nouns.
  • Burchfield, R. W., ed. (2004). "acronym". Fowler's Modern English Usage (Revised 3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 17–18. Gives no explicit rule, but uses "US", "UK", "USSR" style throughout, and says of things like "U.N.E.S.C.O." that this is an intermediary stage in adoption of an acronym. This material is a bit dated; we don't actually do it that way any longer; a newly introduced acronym will appear as SNRKL not "S.N.R.K.L." in most publications. Burchfield also favors the confusing practice of writing some true acronyms as if words and capitalizing their first letter even if they're not proper names, e.g. "Aids" for AIDS; this practice seems not to have caught on except among some British/Commonwealth news publishers, and I think one or another of the stylistically weirder American publications (New Yorker, maybe? New York Times, but not consistently).]
  • Butterfield, Jeremy, ed. (2015). "acronym". Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 16. Uses essentially the same wording as Burchfield's edition.
  • "1.6: Abbreviations". MLA Handbook (8th ed.). Modern Language Association. 2016. p. 95. Use neither periods after letters nor spaces between letters for abbrevaitions made up predominantly of capital letters: BC, DVD, NJ, PhD, US. Has no noun/adjective rules but urges (on the same page cited here) reserving abbreviations for tabular data, citations, and other compressed material.
  • "8.3: Geographic Names". MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Writing (3rd ed.). Modern Language Association. 2008. pp. 264, 269. [S]pell out in the text the names of countries, with a few exceptions (e.g. USSR). In documentation, however, abbreviate the names of states, provinces , countries, and continents. [List of abbreviations begins] ... US, USA: United States, United States of America Does not include "U.S.", nor a noun/adjective rule.
  • "7: Shortened forms". Style Manual of Authors, Editors and Printers (5th ed.). Australian Government Publishing Service. 1994. pp. 107, 116–117. 7.5 Abbreviations that consist of more than one capital letter or of capital letters only are written without full stops: ACT, RSPCA, PhD, GPO, IBRD, USA. ... 7.7: Acronyms ... Acronyms are written without full stops. 7.67: The names of countries, except for the former Soviet Union, which is usually designated USSR, should be spelt out in general text. For example: The United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Japan have agreed ... not The UK, the USA, Australia, NZ and Japan have agreed .... For text, this rule should be waived only in heavily statistical or greatly condensed scientific work. 7.68: In text that uses many shortened forms, the standard abbreviations for name of countries may be used adjectivally: UK tariffs have ...; In her study of NZ foreign policy ..... 7.69: Standard abbreviations for names of countries are used in tables, figures, notes, references and bibliographies, where space considerations are important: UK, USA, Statistics Act 1975 (NZ), s 37. There may be a newer edition out now; last time I looked it was still in production, but that was a few years ago.
  • Hull, Christine A.; Huckin, Thomas N. (2008). The New Century Handbook (4th ed.). Longman / Pearson Education. pp. 810, 872. 48d: Avoid common misuses of periods. ... Do not use periods with acronyms and other all uppercase abbreviations. [Emphasis in original.] The recent trend is not to use periods with common abbreviations for states, countries, organizations, computer programs, famous eople, and other entities: CA, NOW, MIT ... USA, MS-DOS, JFK ... HTML, AAA .... 56e: Avoid most other abbreviations in formal writing. Place names, including the names of states, countries, provinces, continents, and other locations, should not be abbreviated except in addresses and occasionally when usd as adjectives (for example, in US government). Uses dot-free acronyms throughout, except for latinisms (e.g., p.m., i.e.). Specifically illustrates
  • Waddingham, Anne, ed. (2014). "10.2.4. All-capital abbreviations". New Hart's Rules (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 174. Acronyms and initialisms of more than one capital letter take no full points in British and technical usage and are closed up: TUC, MA, EU .... In some US styles certain initialisms may have full points (US/U.S.). There isn't an adjective/noun usage distinction maintained in New Hart's.
  • Ritter, R. M., ed. (2005). "10.2.4. All-capital abbreviations". New Hart's Rules (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 170–171. Acronyms and initialisms of more than one capital letter take no full points in British and technical usage and are closed up: TUC, MA, EU .... US English uses points in such contexts: U.S., L.A.P.D., R.E.M. This was wrong even when it was published; the two leading US style guides (CMoS for academic writing, and Associated Press Stylebook for journalism) were already condemning this, and dominant usage of "LAPD" is provable in seconds [5] by an N-gram constrained to US English and the decade leading up to publication of Ritter's book. Ritter's comment appears to be material left over from the 1980s Hart's Rules, when it might have been closer to accurate. "REM" in the sleep sense has been absolutely dominant without periods for decades [6], and in the case of the band name, it's a proper name (also from the '80s) styled however the band likes (the band consistently used the dots, but the press did not [7]).
  • Garner, Bryan A. (2016). "U.S.; U.S.A". Garner's Modern English Usage (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. As shortened forms for United States, these terms retain their periods, despite the modern trend to drop the periods in most initialisms. ... U.S. is best reserved for use as an adjective <U.S. foreign policy> although its use as a noun in headlines is common. In abbreviations incorporating U.S., the periods are typically dropped <USPS>, <USAF>, <USNA>. Garner seems (at first; see next entry) the primary hold-out in the style-guide world for "U.S.", and does not even acknowledge the usage shift, or that non-US usage might differ. This is weird because the current edition is taking pains to be more descriptive (even extensively using N-gram data) with hundreds of entries updated with usage-shift info; this entry was not updated. Whether this represents Garner not getting around to it or studiously avoiding it is anyone's guess. Despite being published by Oxford, this is a thoroughly American work, and Garner is not a linguist but a lawyer, steeped in legal writing (he's the editor or author of various works on legal writing); it's a register that in the US always uses U.S. except in longer acronyms like USAF. See next entry, however.
  • Garner, Bryan A. (2016). The Chicago Guide to Grammar, Usage, and Punctuation. Chicago University Press. p. 388. 537. Use a period to indicate an abbreviated name or title. (The salutary trend, though, is to omit periods with acronyms and initialisms—hence BBC ...) I looked at every page the index said had anything to do with abbreviations, acronyms, initialisms, the period, proper names, and proper nouns. There's nothing about "U.S.", nor did I see it used in the prose while skimming, and he uses "UNESCO"-style throughout. This may be evidence that the entry in GMEU, above, simply didn't get updated since the last edition, or it may reflect editorial changes made by someone at the respective publishers; no way to really know.
  • Williams, Malcolm (1997). Bucens, Vitalijs (ed.). The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing (Revised and Expanded ed.). Public Works and Government Services Canada Translation Bureau / Dundurn Press. pp. 20, 25, 30, 55. 103: Periods. In recent years there has been a trend toward omission of periods in abbreviations. This is particularly true of scientific and technical writing, but the practice has been spreading in general writing as well. a) Do not use periods with the following: [Emphasis in original.] ... abbreviations or acronyms consisting exclusively of upper-case letters or ending in an upper-case letter (except those for personal names, legal references and most place names), e.g.: NAFTA, PhD, YWCA, UN, GST, MiG, CTV. (b) Use periods with geographical abbreviations, e.g. B.C., P.E.I., but not for the two-character symbols recommended by Canada Post. This appears to be self-contradictory, since the CP two-letter symbol for British Columbia is in fact BC. This seems to imply using U.K., U.S., etc., but US is used on p. 30, then U.S.A. on p. 55. So, I give up on what they really want. Regardless, it doesn't actually appear to reflect typical, current Canadian style (it is 20 years old); I lived there in 2005–2006, and did not regularly encounter "U.K." and "U.S.A."
  • "Chapter 4. Abbreviations". Editing Canadian English (2nd ed.). Editors' Association of Canada. 2000. pp. 51–52. Geographical designations: ... 4.19. Abbreviations for names of countries can be used in special circumstances (tables, charts, lists). In text copy, names are usually spelled out. ECE provides no rule against using dots, and illustrates US/U.S. and UK/U.K., even USSR/U.S.S.R.. However, in the preceding sections on acronyms (§4.8) and initialisms (§4.9) it uniformly illustrates all of them without dots, a clear preference. It has no noun/adjective rule.
  • Hacker, Diana (2006). "38a. The period". The Bedford Handbook (7th ed.). Bedford / St. Martin's. p. 423. In abbreviations: ... A period is not used with US Postal Service abbreviates for states .... Current usage is to omit the period in abbreviations of organization names, academic degrees, and designations for eras. So, doesn't state a country rule, but illustrates use of US.
  • AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors (10th ed.). American Medical Association / Oxford University Press. 2007. pp. 334, 451. When not to use a period: ... [D]o not use periods with honorifics (courtesy titles), scientific terms, and abbreviations .... JAMA, NIH ... 14.5: Cities, States, Counties, Territories, Possessions; Provinces; Countries. At first mention the name of a state ... or country should be spelled out when it follows the name of a city. [Elided long note that JAMA doesn't do it with "United States" after US places only because its readership is largely American.] ... Names of cities ... and countries should be spelled out in full when they stand alone. ... Abbreviations such as US and UK may be used as modifiers (ie, only when they directly precede the word they modify) but should be expanded in all other contexts. The authors surveyed representative samples of urban populations in the United States and United Kingdom according to US and UK census data. Uses "US" throughout. [Aside: This passage is, incidentally, proof of use of ie for i.e. in a US style guide; along with frequent use of i.e. in British publications that aren't newspapers, that kills the bogus ENGVAR argument for ie that we were seeing here about a month ago.]
  • "4. Abbreviations". MHRA Style Guide (Third [corrected] ed.). Modern Humanities Research Association. 2015 [2013]. p. 31. 4.4: Use of full stop ... Full stops are omitted in capitalized abbreviations or acronyms for: ... (b) Countries, institutions, societies, and organizations (none of them italicized): UK, USA, BL, BM, UNAM .... [Aside: This publication is proof of use of Oxford spelling ("the Oxfrod -ize") in British publications besides those of Oxford University Press. It also calls for Latinisms to retain dots when abbreviated: i.e., e.g., and so on]
  • Style Guide for Business and Technical Communication (5th ed.). Franklin Covey. 2012. Self-inconsistent and confusing. The chapter on abbreviations gives all acronyms and initialisms in RAM and GNP style, but in an abbreviation list wants to not only use U.S. but to use U.S.A. to mean United States of America versus USA to mean United States Army; that's a "diff-caps" approach that is far too assumptive of the reader being in lock-step with the writer's intent for us to use it here.
  • American style guides dating to the 1990s and earlier are more apt to use (and sometimes have a rule in favor of) U.S., e.g. the ACS Style Guide from that era.
  • In academic American style guides this appears to be rare now; the only semi-recent one I can find so far in favor of U.S. is Publication Manual of the APA (5th ed.). American Psychological Association. 2001.. It otherwise uses UMI-style acronyms/initialisms throughout (it gives U.S. as a special exception). It also has the adjective rule for it. No idea what the more recent edition says; the 6th dates to 2009, and I have one around somewhere.
  • US legal style guides use U.S. consistently, because this is the style required by most of the courts that have issued style requirements for legal filings, and is also the preference of the US Government Printing Office's manual, which means that regulatory agencies (which whom lawyers often have to communicate) also use it.
  • I found one 2005 work, The Cooper Hill Stylebook, 2nd ed., still advocating dots in all acronyms and initialisms.
  • Strauss, J.; et al. (2014). The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation (11th ed.)., doesn't appear to address the matter, though it seems to give acronyms and initialisms throughout in no-dots, all-caps, no-spaces style.
  • The AMA Handbook of Business Writing'. American Marketing Association. 2010., appears to be agnostic on dots with initialisms and acronyms, and doesn't address country names in particular.
  • American journalistic style is all over the place, and contradictory. (British/Commonwealth is not; it's all "US" or "USA".) Many news publishers (especially those who employ all-caps headlines) use U.S. in headlines but not in running text; others use U.S. all the time; others don't use it at all, including most non-North American news publishers.
    • "U.S.". Associated Press Stylebook (2015 ed.). (arranged alphabetically by entry, which is more specific than page numbering; 2015 is the most recent edition I have) strangely recommends to use U.S. in body copy but US in headlines (probably because it recommends against all-caps headlines but for maximal headline compression).
    • The Wall Street Journal Essential Guide to Business Style and Usage. 2002., says to always use U.S. and never give United States, except "in quotes or for special effect". That's obviously not an encyclopedic writing style.
    • The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (5th ed.). 2015. (arranged alphabetically by entry, which is more specific than page numbering), which says "U.S. for United States, but only in headlines, summaries, tables and charts, and when unavoidable in picture captions." Seems like AP Stylebook, right? But then it insists on URL but U.S.A.I.D., U.S.S.R., V.A.; then VC and VCR; but a surprise dodge to Unicef and Unesco, yet U.N.; and finally has a total meltdown: "U.N.AIDS (no spaces) for the United Nations program on H.I.V. and AIDS." Wow. There's just no rhyme or reason to this at all. Pretty much no one else in the world would contemplate writing "U.N.AIDS", much less "H.I.V. and AIDS", or "U.N." then "Unesco".
    • "Reuters Handbook of Journalism". Reuters. 2017. abbreviations. Retrieved 8 October 2017. Generally, omit full stops or periods in acronyms unless the result would spell an unrelated word. Most abbreviations of more than two letters do not take periods. But use periods in most two-letter abbreviations: U.S., U.N. (Exceptions include: EU, UK). That's an idiosyncratic house style.
    • "BBC News Style Guide". 2017. Grammar, spelling and punctuation section. Retrieved 8 October 2017.. Uses "US President James Tucker" [a hypothetical example, obviously]; advises "UN, Nato, IRA, BBC"; this is consistent with typical British press usage ("US" not "U.S.", but treat pronounceable "word acronyms" in Aids and Unesco style), which can be verified with online style guides from The Guardian, The Economist, London Times, etc.; I'm not going to include them all individually.
  • News search: Just doing a Google News search clearly demonstrates a preference for "US" even in American publications, though (as noted above) particulars vary all over the place, with "U.S." sometimes used in main text but not headlines, or vice versa, or not at all, or in both.
  • Google Ngrams can't be used for this to check out book usage, unfortunately, as they processed "U.S." and "US" as synonymous and merged them.
  • I recall from previous digging that some business-English guides other than that of the Am. Mktg. Assn. also favor "U.S." Marketing ones, which are otherwise similar on many points, tend not to, because they deal with a lot of fancy logo typography, and know that dots in abbreviations in signage and ads impair quick reading when they're superfluous.
  • Sabin, William A. (2005). "When to Use Abbreviations". Gregg Reference Manual (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill. p. 146. Has no explicit rules that are relevant here. Illustrates and consistently uses no-dots upper case for most acronyms and initialisms: IBM, ZIP, AIDS, CT or CAT scan, URL, CST and EDT, NAACP, SEC. Makes conventionalized exceptions for a few things: Ph.D., laser, a.m./p.m., A.D./B.C.; wants dots after Co., Inc., Ltd. However, does use "U.S." in several examples (at least some of them quoted material).
  • Faigley, Lester (2012). "50b. Acronyms". The Penguin Handbook (4th ed.). Boston: Longman / Pearson. pp. 680–682. Punctuation of abbreviations and acronyms: The trend now is away from using periods with many abbreviations. In formal writing you can still use periods, with certain exceptions. Do not use periods with: 1. Acronyms and initial-letter abbreviations: AFL-CIO, AMA, HMO, NAFTA, NFL, OPEC. 2. Two-letter mailing abbreviations: AZ (Arizona) .... 3. Compass points: NE (northeast) .... 4.) Technical abbreviations: kph (kilometers per hour), SS (sum of squares), SD (standard deviation). Entire section illustrates all acronyms and initialisms in AIDS, NASA, etc. style (except for assimilated-as-words acronyms like laser, and Latinisms like i.e.). Doesn't make an exception for US, or address it directly.
  • Faigley, Lester (2015). "47b. Acronyms". The Brief Penguin Handbook (5th ed.). Boston: Longman / Pearson. pp. 519–521. Exact same text on this material as in the larger previous edition.

This is just a start, though it took several hours and I'd rather not do more unless really necessary.

Conclusion so far:
"US" is dominant in English generally. "U.S." is still present aplenty in North American writing, but its usage is wildly inconsistent in American news publishing (even opposite from publication to publication as to whether it's used in headlines vs. body copy), now eschewed in academic publishing (what MoS is almost entirely based on), though found consistently in US legal writing. There's no recent style guide evidence that the dot-bearing spelling is preferred in Canada (the stuff that favors it is also from the '90s); the 2000 Canadian source doesn't favor "U.S." The rule to abbreviate adjectival but not noun use is common but not universal, and may be eroding (CMoS thinks so); however, various guides that do not have this rule instead do not want country names abbreviated at all except in tables, citations, etc. Some just do not really care, though. [Side observation: All these sources in favor of acronyms and initialisms in the form UN and FBI are also in favor of no dots in PhD and other degrees and titles. A semi-recent RfC on that closed without consensus as I recall, because no one did the style-guide research. If it comes up again, the sources in the above list can be used to ensure a closure with consensus for dropping the extraneous dots.]
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC); updated 08:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I've changed the hatting note to reflect that this is no simple list of sources and quotes, but also includes SMcCandlish's analysis and viewpoints. -- Netoholic @ 05:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure. I don't see what the point is, when if you actually read the material this is obvious; but whatever you like.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thread in response to Netoholic's objection relocated here to keep the comment section un-mired.

The "neutral" proposal does include 'Generally speaking, U.S./U.K. is appropriate for American or Canadian English national variations', which I may suggest is advocating that 'U.K.' is acceptable. I do not see 'U.S.' as being the same as 'U.N.I.C.E.F.'--one is an acronym; the other an initialism. My personal preference is for the so-called "journalese" 'Unicef', but I recognize that there is little chance of that viewpoint being adopted. Having just come back from a six-month break, I had rather hoped that the argument would have moved away from combining these two issues. There is compelling evidence for 'US' rather than 'U.S.' If editors choose not to take notice of it, we must offer them a clear choice, rather than trying to prompt them into selecting one style over the other. –Sb2001 00:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not certain what you mean. If they're offered a choice, then they'll have to select one style over the other. I think you're indicating that MoS should recommend something specific rather than present a choice for such selection.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Not at all: I am stating that it is unreasonable to offer a choice and present one side as being more "logical" than the other. Ie, neutral wording should be used in order that it does not appear that decision making is being swayed. Of course they have to make the choice; that does not mean that we have the right to influence it when no decisive conclusion has been drawn on the "US v U.S." issue. –Sb2001 15:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Where's that coming from, though? No one's made a logic argument. There's a practicality one, and a how-well-does-it-reflect-reality one, but those aren't arguments about the intrinsic logic of either style. Punctuation is pretty arbitrary, and it shifts over time. That is, after all, why this debate even exists; the usage has shifted over about the last 30 years.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps 'logical' was the wrong word ... I'm not talking about which is the "better" one--if it were up to me, I would discourage people from using 'U.S.' The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with a completely unresolved debate, and one which I doubt will be resolved in the foreseeable future. If the MoS does not favour one style, it should not be presenting one-sided wording alongside it. That is the only point I am actually making here: if, amongst ourselves, we are unable to decide, we must actually leave it at the discretion of the individual. –Sb2001 00:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
It does favor one style; see MOS:ABBR. We were making a single, lone exception for a while for "U.S." on the assumption that it was dominant in current American writing, but this turns out not to be true for some time now. It's not a "completely unresolved debate"; the sourcing is firmly in favor of "US", and so has MoS been for several years (both the current and new wording) until someone decided to try to rewrite it to suit their preferences, against the last rather comprehensive consensus discussion on the matter. We're not unable to decide amongst ourselves; the response so far has overwhelmingly been in favor of either the new or current wording, not the early 2010s wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Update: The Chicago Manual of Style 17th ed. (2017) wasn't included in the original source run (I didn't have it yet at the time). Despite Netoholic's strange claims to the contrary [8][9], it's almost word-for-word identical to the advice in the 16th ed., never even mentioning "U.S." except in the context of old-style envelope addresses using traditional state abbreviations ("Mass., U.S.", "Calif., U.S."). Here's the full relevant text:

The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed. (2017), University of Chicago Press, ISBN: 9780226287058

10.4 Periods with abbreviations.
...
3. Use no periods with abbreviations that include two or more capital letters, even if the abbreviation also includes lowercase latters: VP, CEO, MA, MD, PhD, U, US, NY, IL.
4. In publications using traditional state abbreviations, use periods to abbreviate United States and its states and territories: U.S., N.Y., Ill. Note, however, that Chicago recommends using the two-letter postal codes (and therefore US) wherever abbreviations are used....
...
10.28 Abbreviations for Canadian provinces and territories. ... may be abbreviated in bibliographies and the like—using the two-letter postal abbreviations, which have the advantage of applying to both the English and French forms. AB [=] Alberta; ... PE [=] Prince Edward Island ....
...
10.31 Abbreviating country names. ... Certain initialisms, on the other hand [i.e., in lieu of spelled-out names], may be appropriate in regular text, especially after the full form has been established.... UAE (United Arab Emirates), US, UK, GDR ....
...
10.32 "US" versus "United States." ... Note that, as a matter of editorial tradition, this manual has long advised spelling out United States as a noun, reserving US for the adjective form only (where it is preferred) and for tabular matter and the like. In a departure [i.e., from the 16th ed.], Chicago now permits the use of US as a noun, subject to editorial discretion and provided the meaning is clear from context. US dollars; US involvement in China; China's involvement in the United States or China's involvement in the US.

I skipped 10.27 (US states and territories) because it gives the same advice (two-letter postal codes, no dots) as 10.4 and 10.28. This is the same advice as in the 16th ed. (2010), aside from a few copyediting tweaks, and the new "In a departure" note, quoted above.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

"except in the context of old-style envelope addresses" - THAT is the very meat of this issue. We're NOT talking about data tables that might use either a list of state/province postal codes or that use ISO two- or three-letter country codes. The question at hand is handling of abbreviations in running article prose, for example when an article mentions "actions of the U.S. Navy", "information regarding P.E.I. officials", "historical sites in Vancouver, B.C.", or "U.S. Interstate 787 which terminates in Albany, N.Y.". This is exactly why this RFC needs to be called off and re-thought... the scope doesn't seem to be clear to its opener. You seem to be trying to argue that should be using postal codes in these scenarios. -- Netoholic @ 09:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
We already have a whole guideline page on this, MOS:ABBR, and it's clear on this: WP gives acronyms without the dots. It does not matter that a style with dots is attested; it isn't the style we use. You wanted an RfC about MOS:US, after briefly revert-warring [10][11] (after objections [12]) to change it without discussion – and accusing others of having done so when there was actually a large consensus discussion about it before you arrived. Now that there's an RfC, you've switched gears and want to change our entire treatment of acronyms? No. That is not this discussion. You can go start a new RfC on that, because it's a radical change to how WP has been written for about 17 years now. That belongs at WP:VPPRO, being a major proposal, not a minor P&G clarification.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Is it clear on this? "WP gives acronyms without the dots" seems inaccurate because I see several places where U.S. is used in the examples: "New York is in the U.S.", "U.S. Central Intelligence Agency" and "U.S. government", "Great Northern Railway (U.S.)". #Miscellanea and #Abbreviations widely used include several acronyms with dots (lower-case ones and compass directions). As an aside, why does this page give advice to "please create redirects that contain (US) and (U.S.)" but not the same advice for (UK) and (U.K.) or any other geographic abbreviation? I have never heard of anyone actually doing that in either case, but its just weird how one is singled out. -- Netoholic @ 10:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Because "U.S." is a permissible exception (depending on context) by long consensus. That doesn't mean "U.K." or "P.E.I." are. There is no wording contemplated in this RfC or in any of the editwarred-over versions at MOS:US that make "U.S." never permissible. But nor do any of them make U.S.S.R. or H.I.V./A.I.D.S. permissible; "U.S." is a one-shot variance and only because of constant bickering about that one initialism. What changed (in order) was that "U.S." stopped being mandatory in US English articles something like a decade ago (but was to be left alone if already used), then stopped being mandatory to never change in a US English article that already used it (i.e., it became desirable to normalize "US" to match "UK", etc., if present) a couple of years ago, finally to "US" being actively favored for MOS:COMMONALITY reasons. It strikes me that the RfC isn't even covering that version; I should probably add it for completeness since it was the most recent. I was so used to the version I listed as "current" that I didn't even notice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
"permissible exception" ... "only because of constant bickering about that one initialism". Wow. To frame this in that way. Wow.-- Netoholic @ 12:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Clearly demonstrable; just read the past discussions [13]. You'll find a marked lack of drama and demands for, say, "U.K." or "N.A.T.O." or "M.S.-D.O.S." Only for "U.S.", and perpetually strident, grounded in a mixture of traditionalism-based emotion and claims that it's the dominant style in US writing, a notion that's been conclusively disproved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Derp. I actually did have the 17th ed. in the original source dump, but mislabeled it 16th. Sorry for the duplicate cite, folks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Chicago style is USA (without periods), but we also accept both US and U.S. Other authoritative style manuals and dictionaries vary in their recommendations.

— The Chicago Manual of Style Online. The Chicago Manual of Style 17th edition, 2017.
If a style manual is going to be referenced in WP:MOS, it should be referenced correctly. Neutral wording is best when the subject is not conclusive. Pyxis Solitary 09:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
No page or section cited. Where are you getting this from? The wording you're giving simply doesn't appear. I've quoted in complete relevant text with section numbers (which are consistent between print and electronic editions) of all the applicable material from CMoS 17, and will do so again below. You appear to actually be quoting staff blog material from ChicagoManualOfStyle.org, specifically copy-pasting from this page; the cross-references it provides (§§ 10.4 and 10.33) do not say what that post says they do, and I've quoted what they actually say verbatim, below. I.e., the website material is contradicting the actual book; the post appears to have been unrevised from the 15th edition (since the 16th says what the 17th does, except, as noted below, in one spot). Their forum even indicates complaints that the book doesn't address "USA/U.S.A." (see second entry here).

Here's what the book actually says:

10.4 Periods with abbreviations.
...
3. Use no periods with abbreviations that include two or more capital letters, even if the abbreviation also includes lowercase latters: VP, CEO, MA, MD, PhD, U, US, NY, IL.
4. In publications using traditional state abbreviations, use periods to abbreviate United States and its states and territories: U.S., N.Y., Ill. Note, however, that Chicago recommends using the two-letter postal codes (and therefore US) wherever abbreviations are used....
...
10.27 Abbreviations for US states and territories. In running text, the names of states, territories, and possessions of the United States should always be spelled out when standing alone and preferably (except for DC) when following the name of a city.... In bibliographies, tabular matter, lists, and mailing addresses, they are usually abbreviated. In all such contexts, Chicago prefers the two-letter postal codes to the convention abbreviations. Note that if traditional bbreviations must be used, some terms may not be subject to abbreviation. [... A table is follows illustrating the difference, with examples like NE versus Neb. or Nebr., and showing not to abbreviate short ones like Ohio in the latter style, only in the postal code style, OH.]...
10.28 Abbreviations for Canadian provinces and territories. ... may be abbreviated in bibliographies and the like—using the two-letter postal abbreviations, which have the advantage of applying to both the English and French forms. AB [=] Alberta; ... PE [=] Prince Edward Island ....
...
10.31 Abbreviating country names. ... Certain initialisms, on the other hand [i.e., in lieu of spelled-out names], may be appropriate in regular text, especially after the full form has been established.... UAE (United Arab Emirates), US, UK, GDR ....
...
10.32 "US" versus "United States." ... Note that, as a matter of editorial tradition, this manual has long advised spelling out United States as a noun, reserving US for the adjective form only (where it is preferred) and for tabular matter and the like. In a departure [i.e., from the 16th ed.], Chicago now permits the use of US as a noun, subject to editorial discretion and provided the meaning is clear from context. US dollars; US involvement in China; China's involvement in the United States or China's involvement in the US.
...
10.33 Mailing addresses—postal versus standard abbreviations. Standard abbreviations preferred by the US Postal Service (first column) are in all caps and do not use periods; these forms are most appropriate for mailing addresses. In tabular matter and the like, Chago prefers the form of abbreviations presented in the second column. ... In running text, spell out rather than abbreviate. [... Table provides examples, e.g. AVE versus Ave., BLDG vs. Bldg.; none of these pertain to placename abbreviations like US or PEI.]

— The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed. (2017), University of Chicago Press, ISBN: 9780226287058
This is the same advice as in the 16th ed. (2010), aside from a few copyediting tweaks, and the new "In a departure" note, quoted above.

PS: The dominance of "US" isn't "unsubstantiated"; see #RS citations above. If you want to prove a counter-claim, Pyxis Solitary, you have a tremendous amount of sourcing to do, with works somehow more authoritative than those already cited; I don't see how that could even be possible.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  1. Why did you edit my comment? Why did you alter my comment by removing the quote frame? Where in WP:TALK does it say that a quote box is discouraged or is not appropriate?
  2. What do you mean "Where are you getting this from?" Click on the CMS FAQ link I included when I quoted CMS and you'll see it.
  3. You quote the CMS publication as if everyone has a copy of the book. I'm not going to buy one just to double-check that what you're quoting is precisely what appears in it. Provide a link to those sections. It's not available online? Then I take what you've posted with a grain of salt.
  4. "the post appears to have been unrevised from the 15th edition (since the 16th says what the 17th does, except, as noted below, in one spot)". Scroll down to the bottom of the webpage I cited and you will see: "The Chicago Manual of Style 17th edition text © 2017 by The University of Chicago. The Chicago Manual of Style 16th edition text © 2010 by The University of Chicago. The Chicago Manual of Style Online © 2006, 2007, 2010, 2017 by The University of Chicago." That's what CMS has published — that's what CMS says.
  5. You are trying to push your position down everyone's throat. Provide a reliable source that can be verified by everyone. When it comes to MOS, quoted content from a book that many if not most Jane and John Does don't have at their disposal is insufficient validation.
  6. Life is short, and since you took it upon yourself to lord over my original comment ... this is the last time I am going to respond to this topic. Shame on you. Pyxis Solitary 12:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Generally speaking, we trust editors to be honest about quotations. Complete? Well, maybe not always. But honest about the parts that they type. We do this partly because we're fond of WP:AGF, but also experience has shown that that experienced editors are reasonably smart about their self-interests, at least to the extent of not wanting to get caught in an outright lie. You might not personally happen to have a copy of CMOS at hand, but plenty of other editors do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
And can you imagine me of all people lying about the content of a style guide, when half the people I argue with have the style guide? LOL. I would have be possessed by Donald Trump to do that. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I think this all demonstrates that CMOS is not consistent on the issue, as the website FAQ doesn't match the printed book. This could mean that either is wrong, or that there has been a change since the publication of the book. I don't think it matters which is which - either its inconsistent or wrong - neither of which point to a reliable source on the matter. -- Netoholic @ 03:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
To take these in numbered series:
  0. Why are you picking fights about talk page trivia, and pretending people who disagree with you are dishonest? No one cares about the former or will buy the latter.
  1. I didn't edit your comment, I editing the disruptively obnoxious framing around it. Your posts are not magically more important than everyone else's that they need to draw attention to themselves with huge visual gimmicks. The talk page guideline permits refactoring of this sort. Taking a "There's not a rule against what I want to do" approach is wikilawyering. It doesn't mean "I can do it no matter what and no one can stop me." Other editors are permitted to refactor within reason. You do not own a talk page you post to, not even your user talk page.
  2. It's called a rhetorical question, which is obvious, since I answered it myself in the sentence that followed.
  3. That's a serious failure to assume good faith. See also Verifiability policy: No one has to buy a source for you, and sources being available online for free is not required. You also seem to be unaware that discretionary sanctions apply to style/titles-related policy discussions, especially with regard to casting aspersions without evidence or otherwise excessively personalizing such disputes.
  4. You're sorely confused about what The Chicago Manual of Style is. It's a book, available in paper and (for a fee) online, with identical text. The webpage you cited is not the CMS or part of it, it's part of the staff-written Q&A blog materials about the CMS, at the CMS website. You also don't seem to understand that a copyright notice applied by a script to an entire website has nothing to do with the last time the content in a page on that website was substantively updated. "That's what CMS has published" is not a sensible statement. The CMS is a publication. The publisher is the University of Chicago Press (also the publisher of the website). It's like mistaking The Magical Mystery Tour for Apple Records, or confusing Game of Thrones with HBO. "That's what CMS says" is a demonstrably incorrect statement, though I ascribe this to the above-mentioned confusions, not to any intent to deceive. You actually do appear to believe what you're saying, despite all evidence presented to you that you've erred.
  5. Source already provided. If you don't want to buy the book, get it from interlibrary loan for free, or just look at a copy in your local bookstore. Or just ask anyone else here who has a copy to look for you. Providing sources and challenging false statements isn't pushing anything down anyone's throats, it's providing sources and challenging false statements. It's much of what we do all day every day here.
  6. Yes, life is short. See point 0, above.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I said I would not respond to this topic again. And I'm not.
    However, this thinly-veiled attempt by SMcCandlish to intimidate me in response to my 9 July 2018 comment in this discussion is a form of harassment. I've responded to this misbehavior on my talk page.
    I suggest that this discussion be closed until another editor that is not so obviously personally vested in the subject creates a new but similar topic. Pyxis Solitary 04:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what to make of a "this is the last time I am going to respond" statement followed by a response that says it's not a response and reminds us there will be no response then also points us to another response in user talk. That seems very unclear on the concept of not responding

    A ((Ds/alert)) template is not a threat or intimidation, or anything like WP:Harassment. This template (and this template only, without modification) is required by ArbCom to be delivered (not more frequently than once per year) to anyone whose editing seem to indicate they are unaware of the discretionary sanctions (DS) that apply to that particular topic area. It is awareness notice, not a threat or an accusation. I made it very clear when posting it that it had nothing to do with any action I would take myself. Per your request, I have closed this discussion, since it is off-topic anyway.

    If you don't like the template and its wording, see fortuitously ongoing discussion at Template talk:Ds about revising it. If you don't think these templates should be necessary but that DS should still apply, try raising this at WT:ARBCOM. I have tried several times to get rid of this bureaucracy, but ArbCom always refuses or ignores. If you don't think DS should apply to MoS at all, join the club. I tried to have them removed about two weeks ago and ArbCom unanimously refused. We're stuck with it, at least for now. If you have an issue with me personally, use User talk:SMcCandlish; it's what user talk pages are for, not what Village Pump is for. If you plan to respond with grandstanding of this sort every time someones leaves you a procedural notice in user talk, you're going to find that will not go over well.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(1)You are in no position to deliver an ArbCom notice to me about my 9 July 2018 comment -- specially since you're so emotionally involved.
(2) "Per your request, I have closed this discussion. You know very well that the "discussion" is the topic, not my comment. Pyxis Solitary 06:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment: How about avoiding U.S: and UK altogether? We can easily write United States and United Kingdom without wasting ink. --NaBUru38 (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Doing this is what most style guides recommend, at least for noun usage ("Relations between Canada and the United States") but many like the abbreviation for adjectival cases ("US sanctions on Cuba"). Chicago Manual, weirdly (given its traditionalism) has now started "permitting" the abbreviation in noun use, as do the journalism style guides. Real-world usage isn't consistent. I think people will object that always having to use "United States" (and thus probably also "United Kingdom") will be onerous and pedantic. Even among those who don't mind it in running text, we'd still have the issue tables and other circumstances where the short form would often be desirable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:BMB

WP:BMB basically allows us to delete everything contributed by a banned editor. However, we see cases where banned editors (through socking) are contributing to (or creating) articles which are later substantially edited by other editors, as well as banned editors (through socking) bring good material which can subsequently not be reverted. WP:BMB talks there about that being paradoxal in some cases - the banned editor 'uses' that material to show that they do good.

I am aware of an extreme case of this, where the banned editor is actively participating in article-for-creation drives in order to 'collect' such mainspace 'trophies' to show their good (which includes bragging about their good work, and participating in local ánd 'global' drives using the en.wikipedia article creations/expansions to be eligible for the offered prizes). Some of those 'trophies' cannot be removed through deletion or reverting.

Would it be in the spirit of, and allowed by, WP:BMB/WP:BANREVERT to blundly use revision deletion on the content of the revisions contributed by a banned editor (a condition that could then be added to G5) on those cases where information cannot be deleted, up to a level that in the end there is no visibility of content that the banned editor contributed? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocking on Wikipedia is supposed to be entirely for protective reasons (prevent damage to the encyclopedia), not punitive reasons (do something painful to the people who have committed some infraction). So I find the premise of your posting here, that we should somehow prevent socks from making good contributions in order to punish them by diminishing their bragging rights, to be entirely nonsensical. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
David, what you now state here is a contradiction of WP:BMB. In both cases we are in the good place to discuss that, but your comment is a different thread. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The editor in question, and all banned editors who 'try to do good to show they are not bad' are, with those edits, disrupting Wikipedia. It is not 'punishment' to delete those edits, it is protecting Wikipedia against the disruption. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:BMB doesn't say to delete the edits of banned users. Are you proposing that WP:BANREVERT should be made more strict?—Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
You are right, this is more application of WP:BANREVERT. I would not say more strict, more whether our banning policy would allow the use of revdel to assist G5/reverting (which you then could see as an independant recreation of deleted content in case of artice deletions). This is probably more correct than copy/pasting the deleted content into a new article as I have seen suggested (and which I think is prohibited here), or to leave it stand as in the specific type of examples where it feeds the paradox of BMB. At the moment, any 'substantial edit' (whatever that may be) lets significant content of banned editors stand, which feeds the BMB paradox. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It has always been accepted that for an article submitted by a banned editor, any editor in good standing may adopt it. When I do this , I do not do this lightly. I only do it when I think the subject is so notable that the 1r would be harmed if we did not have the article, and usually only in a field where I normally work. For subjects of just ordinary importance , or ones where I do not work regularly enough to judge or to be confident in rewriting, I generally delete them instead of fixing them. In fact, I've deleted many thousands of such articles. I have rescued only a few hundred. I agree completely with the general policy of removing the work of banned editors, unless there is some reason not to.. The decision of an established editor to adopt on a selective basis is such a reason. (I would think it very improper for an editor to indiscriminately try to rescue all the work of a banned editor without considering which were appropriate, and I do not think that any current established editor here is doing that, though some have come near this is the past) . For these few cases where the article is adopted, I do not think it harms the general effect of denying recognition. RevDel should not be overused, and I don't think it necessary here. It should be limited to where the material is actually improper to be retained because it would harm the encyclopedia. )and consequently I do very little rev del except for copyvio) DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@DGG: I agree that revdel should not be used lightly. But first of all, most socks do not 'need' a total wipe-out of their edits, simple reversion and deletion is fine (RBI/BRI-style, with a sauce of WP:DENY), and even if something remains is not an issue. And for those where it is, it is anyway a limited situation, most material can be reverted and most material can be deleted (as you describe), only few articles 'need' to stay (I still somewhat disagree with that: even if that person is super-notable, an independent re-creation is nothing of an issue anyway). I would, normally, not care the least about whether there is material left behind, and have in this case repeatedly said that I have no problems with independent re-creation.
It is however those extreme cases (of which I think our resident sock is one) where only a total wipe-out may get the message accross that their contributions here are not welcome. I am certainly not arguing that we should wipe ALL contributions of ALL socks of ALL banned editors. I am arguing whether that, in extreme (IAR?) cases, it would not be prohibited by our banning policy, or whether we should codify that into our banning policy that this is an option that could be considered (making it not prohibited if it is). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I think this attitude is just wishful thinking. We frequently had more hassle with the Best known for IP, a community-banned long term abuse case, than necessary, because people indiscriminately reverted his edits and got tied up in edit wars. Because he was a good-faith but disruptive editor, when he argued about the merits of the content (albeit by edit warring with personal attacks) it was difficult to simply dismiss them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I am rather convinced that 'leaving him be' is here going to be more problematic. As I said elsewhere, this editor has argued to be eligible for prizes after all their contributions were wiped and they were blocked for socking. Each sockmaster needs their own application, comparisons may not work. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The reasons you have expressed above seems to me to be more an application of Spite (game theory) ie being more concerned about the fact the sock is seeking 'prizes' rather than by demonstration that their contributions are so near universally likely to be in violation of Wikipedia content policies and guidelines as to require indiscriminate deletion. G5 exists to deal with/minimize the disruption from problematic recreation of articles that are simply not worth the time to, or are too difficult to ensure are policy compliant.
Either 'content is king' or 'punishing trolls is king' it is not possible to have it both ways and this is why BANREVERT is still a subject of controvercy even in the case of single articles or even edits (eg restoration of vandalism because a banned editor removed it) Since it has been shown to be controversial in minor instances I would think that a reasonable attempt to gain consensus should have been made before doing so on a mass scale. Needless to say I do not find "because they will get prizes" to be a reasonable argument for a mass application of G5. Jbh Talk 15:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, my argument is that the contributions are by a banned editor who is known for copyright violations (and has remarks as recent as the last sock regarding attributions, and other attributions are .. thin where their articles are machine translated copies of copyrighted material. But I get the point, we prefer to have banned editors game the system. I am sure your (pl) encouragement is noted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, is that all. I've been doing that for years. Not sure we need additional policy on that. There's several trolls I've had a "nuke on sight" policy against for the better part of a decade. I'm sorry that I mischaracterized your point. I thought because your started this thread you were looking to do something new. --Jayron32 22:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Maybe I have not been clear. You were on point with damnatio memoriae, except that I want to use it as an extreme measure and not by default, but that I cannot because we insist that certain 'good' material needs to be kept and that encourages the continued disruption. It was why I nuked their contributions, but in thiscase received a backlash. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
From cursory reading, I believe the "backlash" you received was because you were not aware that the WP:MASSDELETE feature did not automatically filter out articles where other editors have also contributed. You were then accused of ignoring WP:BANREVERT for deleting those articles. Frankly, such a filter would be nice feature improvement (if not an oversight to begin with). In the meantime, use WP:POPUPS (if you aren't already) as an easier way to access an article's history. Otherwise, there should not be a problem in your deleting the users' other pages. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
It was not a big deal, I have tried to undelete where needed and/or requested (and seen the AN thread, I am not sure whether I misread BANREVERT (or the whole of the banning policy) or that people just have different opinions on the application of it). Soit. I have seen on earlier socks admins undeleting without informing me, and in all cases I do still think that (especially in this case) a fresh rewrite is a much better option (which would avoid below suggestion, and if the person is soooo notable then it should not be an effort). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Reset of BMB/BANREVERT discussion

OK, as it is apparently not clear (or just blatanly misinterpreted) that I here plainly suggest what you are almost all blaming me not to suggest, case study number 1:

That is the situation that stands at the moment that we block the banned editor. Lets, for the sake of argument, assume that the content is not violating core policies like copyright violations or so, and that someone may want to keep it. Regardless of the content, I MAY chose to delete the whole article at the moment, or I may leave the article (no must!). I have to make a judgement, do I leave the article or not. But I have another possible action I could take with the technical possibilities at hand:

Now the content stands (woohoo, I did not delete the article that you don't want me to delete!). It is all there, untouched. But the content cannot be attributed to the banned editor. It can be edited at will, it is NOT deleted. Heck, you can start a XFD if it is not notable, or extract a DYK from it.

Case study number 2:

That is the situation that stands at the moment we block the banned editor. Could very well be a notable subject, but deletion will very likely upset editor Y (who would ask for immediate undeletion). But we can revdel the content and the username of edit 1. The article still stands, you can still extract a DYK from it. But the DYK cannot be attributed (nor needs to be attributed) to the banned editor.

Case study number 3:

I could rollback the edit, or I can do:

Again, I have KEPT the content. Maybe edit 247 was a revert of vandalism in edit 232, I did not revert to a vandalised state. But it cannot be attributed to the banned editor.

And it is still a choice .. in all three cases I still have the choice to do nothing, to ignore the edits. But some banned editors should not be encouraged to make even the good edits. They are banned, and that is not an action that the community takes lightly.

My whole proposal is to KEEP all the content that we all so desperate want to keep (and only to delete material that violates core policy, or after XFDs), my proposal (well, actually, it was not even a proposal or an attempt to create policy, it was just a question) is to ONLY remove the attribution of the edits of the banned editor in cases where the attribution of the content is the sole/primary reason why the socking editor is continue to sock (and it is still 'may', 'choice', a, how did I word it above, 'allowed', it is not 'must', it is not 'forced', words that I have never used here or anywhere in the last 24 hours regarding our banning policy). I am NOT arguing for a damnatio memoriae for all sockpuppets, I am NOT arguing that I HAVE to delete/revdel everything that any banned editor contributes, I am not even arguing that all edits by a banned editor should be reverted (I am even arguing to keep that). I am only asking whether BMB/BANREVERT allows to apply revdel, or whether this should be an option. (my apologies for my sarcasm) --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me that should someone do as you suggest they would have committed a willful copyright violation by removing attribution of the person who actually wrote the text. There is a huge difference between taking responsibility for a banned editor's edit and taking credit for it. Jbh Talk 21:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
REVDEL does not remove that. The record still exists, it isjust not public. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
But that is why I asked in the first place.. is this allowed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I would think not. If the attribution is no longer public then it is not, as I understand it, adequate for copyright purposes. Copyright attribution needs to be visible to everyone not just admins. Jbh Talk 21:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
do not think that I think this is the best solution, but if we did, it would be another of the cases where excessively detailed attention to the nuances of copyright apparently prevent us from doing things we need to do to improve the encyclopedia. We could solve it in the way we usually do when our mutually incompatible absolute rules box ourselves into a corner--devise some elaborate workaround.-- in this, perhaps a list of the (banned) editors for each part we keep, word by word if necessary. Or we could use our other customary device, make a rule that causes great inconvenience, and just ignore it. I know enough not to suggest the heresy, that substantial compliance with copyright is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I think the 'revdel but keep content' is already at the stage of "elaborate workaround" and solidly into policy violating. See below. In the case of removing attribution from entire articles or large swatches of creative content we would not even be in "substantial compliance with copyright" (is that a thing?). IANL and all but I rather strongly suspect that the 'perpetual license' granted when clicking save changes goes away if Wikipedia fails to comply with the attribution requirement. Just think of the trolling opportunities! Jbh Talk 12:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The really important conclusion from this discussion is that no editor or admin should take action involving multiple articles that might be controversial without obtaining consensus, especially if the action will be difficult to un-do. But if it should happen that someone should do such an action thinking it totally uncontroversial, and find out otherwise, it shouldn't be a matter for blame, just a guide to everyone for the future about what is acceptable here--this sometimes can be hard to predict. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I do not believe policy allows revdel to be used simply to remove attribution. Delete the edits and their content – fine. Delete the edit, keep the content – nope. REVDEL#5 (deletion under deletion policy) is for content', keep the content and it is not applicable. REVDEL#3 (disruptive & little or no relevance or merit to the project) is no harbor either. If the content is being saved it obviously is relevant to the project. IAR is a great safety valve but WP:REVDEL being a policy and copyright being a law I think it better for the project overall that they not be ignored, better to delete ie remove the material completely. This, of course, brings us back to the 'is it better to discourage trolls or is content king' issue.
That, in my opinion, comes down to the question of is the content any good. Which brings us full circle to examining material case by case by case until, in general, either a consensus forms for mass deletion or one is able to articulate a reason why material from a given account/sockmaster is more likely than not to be 'bad'. I would also like to note that this is analysis of what I think is allowable per policy and recognition the controversy over the implementation of BANREVERT in the community. I do not know where I really land on the BANREVERT issue other than to say when using discretion one should consider only benefit/possible harm to the encyclopedia and not externalities like 'prizes'. WP:DENY has a place in that calculation but so long as the community's primary concern is content it can not be the overriding concern. Jbh Talk 12:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@DGG and Jbhunley: As I see this analysis of Jbh (and the way I looked at it after their earlier comments) I think indeed that using revdel in this way may be a stretch of copyright here. Thank you both, this discussion is now going in the direction of where my initial concerns are, and the solutions that we could find to resolve this. Either we (I) accept that we keep encouraging the sockpuppetry, and continue our game of whac-a-mole, or we go a delete-and-independently-recreate type of game. By the way, Jbh, I don't think that selective deletion (as opposed to revdel) is a solution then either, it still removes the attribution. Revdel is only a solution for the revisions that do not stay.
The solutions are then: or we selectively keep the material that is adopted (a status quo, and the whac-a-mole game continues), or we concede that we throw away some good material, that through adoption could be independently recreated (collect the crude data and the refs out of the deleted revisions to assist). I don't think that content drivers will concede to that solution (seen how I was approached on some of my deletions), and I am sure that any noticeboard discussion on such topics will go nowhere. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Is one of your primary concerns that this banned user will collect a trophy via a sock? It seems like it should be common sense to vacate any trophies retroactively if it was won while in violation of a ban. Would that decrease the motivation to delete "useful" edits?—Bagumba (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Basically my concern is that certain socks get encouragement because their contributions are kept (and in extreme cases, they (may) get awarded (win monetary prizes or just get recognition) for those contributions). I am trying to explore if we have ways to perform 'damnatio memoriae' in such cases. If I identify these socks early on, which I have sometimes, that is basically what happens - those accounts do not have content edits left after nuking their material. But their game of staying under the radar and getting the recognition (which they in this case very clearly get!) is enough encouragement to keep socking. Add in this case NFCC problems, iffy translations and bad attributions we have a case of encouragement to continue disruption. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
(1)"Copyright is a law" -- enWP policy deliberately takes a very limited employment of the legally very broad fair use permissions . For CC, there's only the legal need for substantial compliance, and we meet it more fully than any other large site in the world.
(2) at this point, removal of content is the only available weapon against undeclared paid editing, and the socking that is invariably connected with it.
(3) The incompatible needs of keeping content and discouraging socks, together with the immpossibility fo finding all socks, will always make it impossible to have a hard and fast solution. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Hence my question here (I was afraid there were problems with this solution). So the only way to fully apply WP:DENY in such cases is full deletion and independent re-creation of the articles (which will never gain consensus as it may delete contributions already made by several editors). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
However, WP:BANREVERT precludes speedy deleting pages where others have made a substantial edit. I wouldn't be compelled to change that policy to support the DENY essay either. There's just as much of a chance that this rogue editor is doing what they are doing merely because they can and to watch others react. What I would suggest could be done is to explain to the other editors of the affected pages about the situation with the banned editor, and ask if they would waive their edits and support speedy deletion with no prejudice if they recreated it with their own wording.—Bagumba (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
That is basically what I meant. Seen the reactions to my last spree .. I don't think that that will gain a lot of traction. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It would on a case-by-case basis, possibly with different editors involved, so the results might not always be the same. It's liekly the best option, barring newfound support for policy changes. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Naming conventions proposal for Taiwan stations

Hi. I am proposing a naming conventions for Taiwan stations for better consistency. Feedback welcomed at User talk:Szqecs/Naming conventions (Taiwan stations). Thanks. Szqecs (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the formalization of Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects (or variant) into a policy or guideline

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Withdrawn. Brainfart resulted in wrong question being posted. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects (or a variation of it) be formalized into a policy or guideline? --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

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

General Sanctions page

Please take a look at WP:General sanctions. That page has never been classified as a policy, essay or just what it is. Please offer your thoughts in that page's talk thread found here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

When to use the press template on an article talk page

I searched for past discussions without success, so posting here.

Hoping to find where there's been consensus on when it's appropriate or inappropriate to add the ((Press)) template to an article talk page, and the sorts of articles that should be included.

((Press)) adds a box in the top/banner section of the talk page with a list of sources under the heading "This page has been mentioned by [a/multiple] media [organization/organizations]".

Is this only for reliable sources? If not, is this for any mention of the article anywhere? Should all instances of being mentioned by included? If not, how should we select?

In many or even most cases, none of this would be controversial and we can just say "whatever the local consensus is." But I think it would be useful to have some kind of guidance, especially for controversial topics that attract comment from partisan sources displeased that the Wikipedia article does not fit into a preferred narrative.

We see this sort of complaint pretty consistently with our articles on pseudoscience topics, for example. We've also seen it with US politics-related articles where one side or the other is upset at the coverage of a topic or the conduct of users editing a topic.

The press box is one of the first things someone will see when coming to the talk page. If you have some concern, and you see it sensationalized in an unreliable partisan source, that will intensify the ensuing discussion. If you didn't have a concern, and see an ill-informed complaint in the headline of a source in the press box, that will have an effect on the ensuing discussion. Why is it desirable to involve these mentions in discussions of how to improve our article? None of this is to say that external sources are never useful. It is indeed useful to understand how uninvolved/outside parties view Wikipedia. But editors can link to them on their own in the context of those discussions without accumulating them to display as a smorgasbord of uncontextualized knee-jerk reactions, opinion pieces, unreliable sources, etc. in addition to the thoughtful critiques.

Ultimately, I think that we need some sort of even loose standards for these boxes. Either their use at all (i.e. maybe omit from controversial subjects, perhaps defined by those subject to discretionary sanctions), their content (using reliable sources only, for example), or their styling (adding a link to media coverage on a separate page, collapsing by default, etc.). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought the point of those was to alert regular editors that people might be coming to the page because of the press mention and to be prepared to deal with an influx of (possibly angry) newbies. In which case it wouldn't be limited to RS mentions, but rather to mentions that would be expected to generate high volumes of traffic and edits. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
If this were the case, we would presumably only keep them there for a short period when that would be relevant. I don't think that's typically why we use those, however. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
As to inclusion, there simply has to be some standard for reliability. As a thought experiment, you can't go write a blog entitled Wikipedia editor GreenMeansGo was a total dickhead on this one article. and then post it in a press template because it's "some coverage" of the article.
As to the issues of BLP raised on the Jeong article, I'm less than sympathetic, so long as the source would otherwise be reliable enough for us to normally use in an article. If the Guardian writes an article entitled Wikipedia editor GreenMeansGo was a total dickhead on this one article., well, they're a reliable source of the type we regularly use in articles to support BLP content, and the issue of POV by weight doesn't really apply to the talk page the same way as it applies to the article...and maybe it would be helpful for that guy to consider that his behavior was worth mentioning by the Guardian. Reliable sources are what determines if article content is a BLP violation, but BLP doesn't apply to the content of sources themselves. GMGtalk 17:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
If we're only using reliable sources, we're often going to be omitting the ones that have the most potential for sending a bunch of "none too pleased editors". Breitbart, to use the example above, is not typically considered a reliable source for most things, especially a BLP like Jeong. Also, just so you know, The Guardian has told me repeatedly that they won't publish that article. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, BLP reins supreme. So any benefit of notification is always going to be outweighed wrt policy if the source is of such low quality, making such a large claim that we couldn't use it in mainspace. Not saying it must be used in mainspace to count, because that has an interplay of other considerations like WEIGHT. In the case of Jeong, the article was also mentioned by the Atlantic, which is the kind of thing I would expect in a lot of these cases.
But in the case of Jeong, including the title of the piece was including content on a living person. Specifically calling her racist, because that's exactly what it said in the title of the piece. That's not something we would normally put into mainspace and be satisfied sourcing it to Bb. If on the other hand, the content that was added to the talk page in the form of the title was something like Giant Wikipedia edit war over NYT reporter., well then that's a claim about an event that happened on Wikipedia, which has a much lower burden of proof than whether someone is racist, and that might be something that Bb is acceptable for. GMGtalk 17:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy applies to all pages, including talk pages and the use of external links, and so the use of this template must also comply with this higher standard. Do not use this template to highlight poor quality sources, of the type that normally would not be sufficient to support article content. This is especially important when dealing with contentious material, although any poorly sourced material on living persons, even that which is neutral or positive, can and should be removed. When in doubt, discuss the appropriateness of the template and sources on the article's talk page, or consider seeking input at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

Thoughts? GMGtalk 12:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Good starting point. I took another stab at the wording based on this, in part to avoid talking about BLP then RS then BLP in that order (but with some other tweaks):

Do not use this template to highlight poor quality sources that would not normally be sufficient to support article content. This is especially important on the talk pages of contentious subjects. Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy applies to all pages, including talk pages and use of external links, and poor sources should be removed from talk pages of articles about living persons even if neutral or positive. When in doubt, discuss the appropriateness of the template and sources on the article's talk page, or consider seeking input at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

I would say we should move the specific wording discussion over to that page, but I'd like to hear from those dissenting that we should take this approach. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
A quick note before the discussion moves elsewhere. This is just a phrasing tweak, but "use of external links" isn't a type of page, so the parallelism doesn't quite work.

Do not use this template to highlight poor quality sources that would not normally be sufficient to support article content. This is especially important on the talk pages of contentious subjects. Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy applies to all pages, including talk pages, and to the use of external links. Poor sources should be removed from talk pages of articles about living persons even if neutral or positive. When in doubt, discuss the appropriateness of the template and sources on the article's talk page, or consider seeking input at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with any of these versions. Brought it up here because the talk page for the template looks pretty dead. I'd say let's just be bold and add one and see if anyone objects. GMGtalk 19:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok. For the sake of moving forward, since nobody has expressed an objection to these proposed bits of text, I went ahead with XOReaster's version. Wasn't sure whether to create a new subsection or just put it near the top. Opted for the latter. Anyone can change, of course. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the formalization of a policy/guideline pertaining to wiki linking drafts inside articles

Manual of Style WP:LINKSTYLE already says that articles should not contain links to drafts.


Closed early per clear SNOW that LINKSTYLE resolves this issue. Alsee (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Should a policy or guideline be developed/formalized relating to the cross-namespace wiki linking of drafts within articles (ie article A contains a wikilink to Draft B, which itself does not have a mainspace article)? To clarify: I dont mean redirects, I am talking of links to drafts within articles. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  • @TonyBallioni: That is what I am proposing. That a policy be developed regarding (most likely not allowing) this practice. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FOOTYN, NFOOTY and sports teams.

I have noticed an issue recently on AfD's on football teams. People are citing WP:FOOTYN as if it is a subject specific notability guideline (SNG). It looks like a link to an official SNG (the correct link is actually WP:NFOOTY), but FOOTYN is an essay maintained by Wikiproject Football. FOOTYN as a keyword seems to me to clearly be a lookalike POV-fork of WP:NFOOTY, and also easy to mistake for that one. Moreover, its contents are contrary to the official SNG on the topic, which clearly states that teams must pass the General Notability Guideline (See: Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Teams). Teams used to be covered by WP:NCORP, before it was rewritten earlier this year, when teams were excluded from NCORP. In the old NCORP guideline teams were given no special treatment or automatic notability criterion either. After NCORP was rewritten, Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Teams was changed to redirect to WP:GNG instead, which essentially changed nothing about notability for teams (still given no special treatment and still subject only to the GNG).

As far as I can see, members of Wikiproject Football seem to be making up rules that are contrary to our guidelines as written, and citing them as if they were an official Subject Specific Notability Guideline. We need to do one of two things:

  1. Make an official SNG for sports teams.
  2. Properly enforce the requirement for teams to meet the GNG.

Which should it be? I'd like to hear some other views on this situation. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 16:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of where its being in AFDs? I mean, I agree that FOOTYN should not be overriding NFOOTY/NSPORTS as the community SNG for sports. --Masem (t) 03:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I've only ever seen this happen for people trying to cite WP:NFOOTY, but getting the wrong acronym. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The essay WP:FOOTYN is currently being cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dontan PCCM F.C.. FOOTYN clearly says it's an essay, though I can see where some people might not click on it or read the fineprint. I don't know if there is any reason to belive that the name is meant to deceive that itis NFOOTY, or if people just misunderstand that a "real" SNG should not reside at a WikiProject.—Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting that there was originally a listing for (English) football clubs on NCORP, but it was removed for being too specific, rather than not being a valid SNG. There have been a few discussions at WP:NSPORT about adding clubs to the guideline, but IMO it would be difficult as there would be different criteria for each sport and probably also each country within each sport (as every country will have a slightly different cut-off point), so it would have to be extremely long and detailed. As a result of this lack of formal notation in an SNG, the club notability criteria has ended up being listed at the FOOTYN essay, so that it is available somewhere for reference in discussions. If there is unhappiness about this, perhaps it might be better to have this listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, as there's clear consensus on club notability for certain countries derived from AfDs over the years. Number 57 09:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Number 57: The removal you cite was in 2007 it was inserted without discussion after a brief discussion between two editors here and was only part of the page for a little over 6 months. I didn't link the AfD because I didn't want to canvass it, but its been linked above by someone else. The AfD that brought this to my attention was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_Ensign_F.C._(2nd_nomination). SNGs should generally be a guide which helps us identify notable things easily, not which help non-notable topics cheat their way onto Wikipedia and skip verification via the GNG. Both these clubs fail to have sufficient sourcing for the GNG, but Wikiproject football editors want to keep them anyway and are citing an essay they wrote as if it were an SNG (some people in the above linked AfD have actually called FOOTYN an SNG). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 12:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Correcting the above, it was not inserted without discussion (the edit summary actually references this discussion). Also, FOOTYN was only cited by one editor in the White Ensign discussion – I referred to the numerous previous discussions that show that there is a consensus around the cutoff point for English club notability. Given that this cutoff has repeatedly been tested at AfD, which is open to the entire community, I don't think it can be simply referred to as some kind of local consensus at the Football WikiProject. Number 57 13:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Corrected above, but it really has no relevance whether or not two editors discussed something and it was added to the policy page over a decade ago and remained on the page for half a year. It isn't there now, and these clubs don't meet the GNG, that indicates that whatever the criteria that Wikiproject Football has decided on as a good bar to represent a rule of thumb for notable topics, it is too low of a bar and needs to be raised. It totally is a local consensus, and it is rather clear that most of the editors !voting on these football AfDs are Members of the Wikiproject or football fans. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I dont know enough about football to say for sure one way or another, but it's conceivable that English football has more coverage, and certain notability criteria may apply there, that might not work in other countries, such as Thailand in this case. The danger I've always seen with some sport SNGs is that they assume coverage is equal in all countries, and "foreign" team articles or bios may take any foreign language source that Google finds without having any idea if it's truly reliable. Other editors might push for equal notability to counter perceived systemic bias.—Bagumba (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Bagumba: White Ensign F.C., the other AfD linked above, is an english club that also has insufficient coverage to meet the GNG, yet was kept by citing the Wikiproject essay and its 'step 6 or above' rule. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I !voted "delete" at that AfD. My point was regarding national cups; they might be sufficient for notability in England, but it's projecting to automatically presume the same applies to all countries e.g. Thailand in the case of Dontan PCCM F.C.—Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
To mitigate some of the naming concern of FOOTYN, I've added a hatnote to the essay pointing to the NFOOTY SNG.—Bagumba (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • In England, there's longstanding community consensus on which leagues are notable based on the level of coverage they receive, which is assumed to pass GNG. White Ensign was promoted into one of these leagues. Under WP:NCORP, notability is not inherited, an undiscussed problem with the AfD. Having a SNG allows all teams in a notable league to receive articles based on inherited notability, since all teams in a notable league should receive similar notable coverage.
  • A couple months ago I created the article Black Forest FC amongst others based off of WP:FOOTYN as they play in the Botswana Premier League. It passes WP:GNG as the Botswana league gets good coverage, but it may not be obvious. Even with editorial control many Botswana news sites use WordPress which may raise flags for some editors and the article's a stub since information is difficult to find. I have created pages teams especially in Africa which get promoted to their country's top flight, in leagues covered by independent sites like Scoresway, and in leagues you can bet on, but information on these teams can be hard to find. I think playing in a country's top flight is a clear notability marker.
  • WP:NCORP isn't really written with football clubs in mind. The coverage received by a football club is entirely different to coverage received by a startup or non-profit. For instance, unlike most of Wikipedia, for a football club, ongoing routine coverage is actually an indicator of notability.
  • I don't think many club articles currently fail WP:GNG anyways. As I pointed out in the Dontan PCCM FC article, while good articles about them were hard to find, they had been covered at several points in time by local television stations (though I am unsure to what capacity), and they received a number of mentions from their F.A. cup game - this being a 5th division amateur club. That AfD felt to me like the exception to the rule. SportingFlyer talk 12:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Notability is not inherited, period. Your first point cannot work - just because they play in a league that is well-covered does not make the teams that play it in well-covered and thus meeting the GNG. If you have an SNG , you have to show that there are merit criteria that exist that would demonstrate that if a team met that, then there is likely coverage to be found in secondary sources (not just routine recapping of games). And I strongly caution that one with country-specific language is going to be problematic under WP:BIAS. It may end up that many England teams will make a cut while many teams from non-English countries will have little or no support. --Masem (t) 13:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
As I've noted, and unlike most other corporations, routine, reliable, secondary independent sports coverage of a team actually demonstrates notability - it means the team is worthy of getting noticed repeatedly again in the media. (The same argument does not hold true for people.) I disagree with you on the inherited notability point - having looked through many different sources, a well-covered league implies all of the teams in the league will be covered to the point of WP:GNG, which reflects current community consensus (over a decade.) SportingFlyer talk 14:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
We will not accept routine coverage as demonstration of notability. Routine coverage in sports (which is primarily box scores and results) is rarely secondary. We want non-routine coverage that goes into facets of the team's history, organization, etc. and not just how well they did season to season, otherwise that just becomes a stat book which fails WP:NOT#STATS And I'm saying flat out that WP does not recognize inherited notability. We will not accept an SNG that says if a league is notable, its individual teams must be notable too. --Masem (t) 14:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: I agree that it would be very unlikely that the club section at WP:FOOTYN would pass as an SNG or inclusion in an existing SNG. Given that it is currently being used as an SNG by members for Wikiproject Football, it might be worthwhile to craft an RfC to demonstrate that the community does not support this. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
That or MFD FOOTYN. An essay being misused that often that bypasses the general approach to developing SNGs is ripe for deletion. (Note that an essay outlining how to use NSPORT/NCORP/GNG to assess notability of a club is reasonable, but not something that creates notability criteria less restrictive than those.) --Masem (t) 21:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I have considered that, but I would expect that any such MfD would be flooded by Wikproject football editors as well. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @Masem: If routine coverage is simply box scores and results, I don't see the issue - it's not as if we say clubs are notable since they have their box scores printed in the back of the paper. The clubs we're arguing about in England get coverage here [19] and here [20] (you can buy this at newsstands), and before the internet you could go to the bookshop and buy books which talked about all of the teams in these leagues. No one is trying to use WP:FOOTYN to shoe-in Bob's Sunday Leaguers into notability - it just reflects long-standing consensus on which teams are to meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 22:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: Using the most recent AfD as an example: You mean this coverage? or this coverage? I'll take your word that those sites are reliable sources, but they have nothing to support GNG for that club. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
You're searching too narrowly, try just "Cray Valley." SportingFlyer talk 22:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I support this edit. I would add a note to clarify "generally," something reflecting the Dontan AfD, where clubs playing in notable competitions that are unsourced, are sourced only to primary sources, or contain unverifiable references, etc. do not benefit from the presumption of notability. SportingFlyer talk 03:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
If a SNG doesn't specially call out to one facet of that subject area (teams in the sporting area), that just means that one uses the GNG for evaluating notability. The point of any SNG is not to show things are "clearly notable" but that in lieu of the time and effort needed to do a full source search (typically requiring searching print works), we presume that a topic having gained some type of merit is notable and sources can be found due at least to achieving that merit. That presumption is rebuttable, so that if someone does do a reasonable source search and finds no sources, we can consider deletion of that topic. SNGs are not inclusion guidelines. --Masem (t) 13:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cray Valley Paper Mills F.C. (mentioned above) has been relisted, and can use more participants to reach a consensus on football notability criteria.—Bagumba (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Let's add Template:Draft to all drafts

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: Let's add Template:Draft to all drafts Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Twitter Centralization

What's the policy on social media and Wikipedia? I think it's not a bad idea to have a Twitter hashtag to highlight articles that need work, for example. The most recent tweets would not necessarily be of most importance, just more recent discoveries or recently created articles. From here, WikiEditors can have a centralized place from which to find new articles to work on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polariz36 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Organizing people to improve the quality of articles (such as to make it compliant with Wikipedia policies such as the WP:MOS or WP:NPOV or WP:V and the like) is a good thing. Organizing people to disrupt Wikipedia is a bad thing (such as to create violations of the above policies). It all depends on intent. If it makes Wikipedia better, do it. --Jayron32 16:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello Polariz36 while you might get some info here (and Jayron has some good points) this ref desk is not really the place for your question. I would suggest you move it to the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) where you will get a better response. MarnetteD|Talk 16:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
There is none, Twitter is an outside organization. This would be no different from having a policy on the user of anything outside of Wikipedia, like forums, Facebook, Youtube, etc... It's nothing we can legislate, or should. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
That can be done using on-Wiki pages: we have maintenance categories, wikiprojects and their article alerts/todo-lists, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 01:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on political userboxes

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I am closing this early per WP:SNOW. The proposal is clearly unsuccessful. There is consensus that "userboxes related to politics" should not be "explicitly forbidden and deleted". Mz7 (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Should userboxes related to politics be explicitly forbidden and deleted? See WP:UBCR and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics. --Pudeo (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

So you do support removing the fascist userboxes, though? Or why should they exist if inserting them on your userpage is instant indef block? --Pudeo (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I refuse to participate in a discussion that draws false equivalencies between Nazism and any other ideology. While I am certainly no fascist, there is a real and meaningful difference between your standard ultranationalist far-right politician and someone who thinks Jews and Roma and other races shouldn't exist. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to badger anyone's oppose, but I just want to state that I don't believe other totalitarian ideologies are necessarily false equivalences. The European Parliament recognizes the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism which will be observed on this Thursday. --Pudeo (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I think Tony was saying it's a false equivalence to equate fascism with Nazism.
I actually agree with him on that point, but actually I don't agree that Nazi userboxes should be banned. I understand I'm probably not going to win on that point. But all the standard arguments apply. If someone actually supports Nazism, better to know. And I don't see any clear place to draw the line. --Trovatore (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, they should be judged on the character of their content, not the color of their skin (I use monobook). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Aside from the fact that this is posted after the thread was closed the link you provided is to comments that are more than 12 years ago. A whole lotta water has gone under (and over) the bridge userbox-wise since then. MarnetteD|Talk 02:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Still, some might find it interesting. (I don't object to removing the comment if you think that the posting after the close is a problem, though.) --Yair rand (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it okay to make an archive page readable?

I was looking for an old discussion and found Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 73, which is rendered increasingly illegible as you go down the page by a series of broken signatures. Of course the boilerplate at the top includes "Please do not edit the contents of this page." I made a cursory search but didn't find a real rule about that. Obviously fixing the broken formatting would be an improvement, so maybe just WP:IAR. What do you think? Ntsimp (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. There's at least one bot trying to get around to this, but if you see something, fix it. I have been. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Ntsimp: for the most part: yes. If you are come upon a technical issue such as a LintError that does not change the meaning of the page, then yes go for it. Don't go on a rampage and "fix" hundreds+ pages without some discussion or a bot request though. For example: If someone has a <s>I support this! ~~~~<s> that causes the whole page to be in strikeout, fix that bad closing tag, don't "fix" it by removing the opening tag. — xaosflux Talk 16:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. The community knows the difference between constructive repair that helps users down the road and vandalism. Thank you, for your un-sung wikignome service. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Basing major layout changes to a Featured List on the consensus of two editors

Main pages: Talk:List of Game of Thrones episodes § Merger proposal, and Talk:List of Game of Thrones episodes § Disputing the outcome of the recent merger proposal

This post regards the above discussions linked. The question is: Can major layout changes be implemented to a Featured List, based on the consensus of two supporting editors, with the changes themselves based only on a guideline?

MOS:TVPLOT, the guideline in question, states that for television series' season articles, an article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary. This is not a policy, and suggests "should not" rather than "cannot". Radiphus proposed a merger proposal of the prose content in each season article to List of Game of Thrones episodes, the Featured List in question, on the Episode List's talk page. He received the support of two editors, and later deemed this enough to close the merger discussion himself with the result of a consensus.

Should such a discussion have been advertised elsewhere, such as WP:VPPOL, WT:TV and/or WT:MOSTV? As can be seen, after the discussion was started, no advertising was made beside the use of merger templates on the article. Is the consensus from two supporting editors enough to make such a change to a Featured List? -- AlexTW 08:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The consensus to merge was determined per WP:MERGECLOSE, as there had been no discussion in eight days, and there was unanimous consent by the participants. The information pages make no distinction between normal, good or featured articles/lists when closing a discussion. All four steps of WP:MERGEPROP were followed carefully. Advertising the proposal is not required, and in this case it would have been unnecessary as well, as the List of Game of Thrones episodes is in the watchlist of 235 users, while each season article is in the watchlist of 90 users. Furthermore, the season articles, where the merger templates were added to notify readers of the proposal, received a total of 114,183 views, while the discussion was open. Wikipedia is not a democracy, where voter turnout is a concern. The discussion was based on arguements, and if anyone did not agree with the proposal or something a participant said, they had the opportunity to object for more than a week. - Radiphus 08:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:MERGECLOSE is another information page, not a policy, and thus common sense should be used to determine the level of consensus required. Two editors on an article promoted so high as a Featured List is by far not enough, especially when zero outside promotion of the discussion was made. Basing this off of the statistics of watchlists and page views is not a valid argument; you do not know that everyone uses their watchlist, or read this specific article's talk page, or saw the merged template added, and how many of those views were from registered editors or at least from users who knew what it even meant? Some time ago, I thought the consensus of eight editors in a discussion based on guidelines was enough to make wide changes, and I left it open for well over a week (possibly more, maybe a month, my memory fails me), and I was very strongly corrected on that by both a number of editors and administrators, with permissions taken away as a result. -- AlexTW 09:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any policies, guidelines or information pages supporting your objections, so it's hard for me to explain to you why you are wrong. As i said earlier, if you disagree with the closure, the established practice is to challenge it at the administrator's noticeboard. I can't deal with WP:JDL arguements. - Radiphus 09:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Then we'll wait for other editors to contribute with more supporting guidelines and policies, and their thoughts on what has happened. It's why I posted this discussion here rather than a noticeboard, after all. -- AlexTW 09:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
If you look at the top of this page, you will see that WP:VPP is for discussing proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines. It's not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. You may proceed as you see fit. - Radiphus 09:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
While three editors is a bit light for my taste for making major changes to featured material, there isn't really an official number required for these decisions. Technically, the procedures were followed, and on any other article, nobody would bat an eye at how that discussion was executed. AlexTheWhovian Do you have any objections to the actual changes, or just the discussion? — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 15:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Oversight question

This edit points out this page. But on that page there is nothing that says how to proceed. How is this done? Michael Hardy (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Click the email link at the top of that page and ask for it. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
More information on how to request oversight can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Mz7 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikisource for archives

I'm not sure if this is the best place to discuss this. I have raised some concerns at Talk:Jehovah#Wikisource. It seems that any user could go edit the Wikisource archive. This may open the possibility to circular issues (summarizing user-altered content) or simply point at an inaccurate archive if it was altered. An interesting thing that I noticed however is that archives link appear to have been preserved at another article where another editor also introduces a Wikisource template: [21] vs [22]. However, while [23] appears to work fine, [24] doesn't. If there's an ongoing effort to archive using Wikisource, likely that there's a proper venue to make sure that these concerns are addressed? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Candidates in Infoboxes on upcoming election articles

After debates at Talk:Illinois gubernatorial election, 2018 and Talk:Ohio gubernatorial election, 2018 regarding what candidates should be included in the infobox, there is now going to be a similar discussion at Talk:United States Senate election in Virginia, 2018.

The rough consensus seems to be to include candidates that get 5% or more in multiple polls. However, supporters of candidates who get less than that are generally unhappy with that decision, and I know of no site-wide consensus on this topic. I wish to find one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums was somewhat inconclusive. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I unarchived Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RFC - Infoboxes and Third Parties BEFORE an election and requested closure at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
As I commented in the Illinois RfC that 5% standard is highly troubling for me as calculating a polling average is not a simple averaging especially in races without regular polling. This approach would mean we'd be doing OR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, there's no way to establish a satisfactory poll methodology without way overstepping the bounds of original research and neutrality. It could be that the best (and easiest to implement) solution might just be to not include the candidates in the infobox until after the election?Rosguill (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
In US elections, at least at the federal level, 5% is a point where if a third-party candidate gets that many votes, they get federal funding in the subsequent election. While that rule doesn't apply at state or other local levels, it is a reasonable bound for a cutoff when there's more than 2 or 3 running candidates. (With common sense limits, such as if the vote ends up being 50/45.1/4.9 , I'd include the 4.9 even though that's under 5). --Masem (t) 03:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
There was a consensus last year at the WikiProject on how to handle this *after* the election. The question is what to do before the election. There's something to be said to avoid the problem by not having an infobox at all before the election. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, here, there's only 3 candidates, and the third-party is confirmed to be on the ballot. It would be different if there were 4 or more, but with only 3, and with significant coverage and endorsements, why not to include. Again, common sense here. --Masem (t) 03:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Like in the Illinois gubernatorial race mentioned above where there are four people on the ballot? I have no issues with the 5% rule after an election but it does seem murkier beforehand. Personally I don't have a problem with listing all people on the ballot in that case. Especially because we don't allow articles for most candidates presence in an info box doesn't seem so bad. But I think no info box or only those with significant RS coverage are both better policies than Wikipedians attempting to be Nate Silver and calculating poll averages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The problem with basing it on ballot access is that ballot access is itself political, and can in some cases be controversial. While that doesn't appear to be the case in the current examples, it could be in future elections, and assessing for each election whether or not ballot access is sufficiently controversial is original research.Rosguill (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I understand better than most the politics behind ballot access but at any given moment someone is either on the ballot or off. If RS report they're on the ballot they're on. If signatures are challenged and a candidate is removed RS will report it. I am curious what you see as the scenario where RS divide on the question of whether someone is on or off the ballot? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this: as long as there's a RS showing they will be on the ballot, we should list them. It's the simplest possible criteria and least subject to bias. Their campaigns need not be covered extensively by the media. There's no reason why we should be limiting the amount of information during the campaign. SportingFlyer talk 06:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
My phrasing was poor. I didn't mean that their status as being on or off ballot would be controversial, but rather that a candidate can still be significant without being on the ballot. Write-in candidates can and have won elections, even as high as the Senate. Thus, to preserve neutrality we should present candidates equally independent of their status of being on or off the ballot.Rosguill (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
In considering this, I think the solution before the election is either to eliminate the infobox, or use a reduced content infobox that only lists the affirmed candidates on the ballot and their political party, but does not include photographs, etc. This should be a temporary state, when the election is over, then the proper rules of determining who to include can be followed. While realistically we know most US elections have two, and sometimes three, leading candidates, we should not try to show preference in the short-form data field that is the infobox. Leading candidates prior to an election can be identified in the body, and subsequently discussed as leading candidates in the lede, but the infobox doesn't have the space to explain this differentiating factor, so it should list all verified ballot candidates. Again, that's only due to it being a placeholder until the election is actually ran. --Masem (t) 06:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Easy fix? Any candidate confirmed to be on the ballot in reliable sources can be added to the infobox, and any candidate whose write-in campaign passes WP:GNG can be added to the infobox. SportingFlyer talk 06:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I've always said that I think every candidate on the ballot should be in an infobox prior to it taking place, otherwise it's an NPOV issue. A fair number of people will come to Wikipedia for information on elections and if they see only two or three candidates listed, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that those ones do the best. Number 57 12:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the previous two people. Include everyone on the ballot for statewide races, and extremely notable write-in candidates. After the fact, maybe change the infobox to reflect major players.74.110.185.157 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, all candidates confirmed for ballot access in any political race should be included on the article for that race, equally, regardless of polling, perception, or assumptions. Significant write-ins should also be included. Anything less would be bias, reduce integrity of Wikipedia, and weaken Wikipedia's reputation. There is a process to get certified to appear on a ballot, and once that has been completed, why take steps to exclude candidates here? Schultzjm1 (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

We seem to be no closer to a consensus here. My sense is that there's a very weak preference towards including all candidates over the other feasible option of including all candidates which have received 5% in a poll (or are considered "major" candidates in a race without polling. Including "candidates with Wikipedia articles" is an unworkable criteria for a variety of reasons, primarily because coverage of candidates purely in the context of a current political campaign is generally not considered sufficient for meeting WP:GNG. New York gubernatorial election, 2018 is another page with a similar dispute. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

At Talk:Illinois gubernatorial election, 2018, I suggested that a candidate who recieves dedicated coverage in reliable sources for a given election should be listed in the infobox. This seems to me consistent with Wikipedia's general goals and content policies. --Eliyak T·C 18:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A policy for interface administrators is being worked on

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

(I'm not a regular at the policy village pump or any other policy page, so I don't know, but it seems to me that a policy proposal should be mentioned on this page, even if it's currently visible via the Centralized discussion list.) --Pipetricker (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I archived the Centralized discussion entry, awaiting a new formal RFC. --Pipetricker (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
And there is now another RfC there, readded to WP:Cent by User:Mz7. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia:Migrating

@Primefac and Bsherr: I think using migration is much better then the current WP:SPLIT and (then) WP:MERGE, using split then merge creates confusion as you're not really doing a proper split or merge, as the page you're moving content to already exist and the page you're moving content from doesn't get deleted. As such the guidelines don't fully describe this process making it confusing for users who are new to this kind of stuff. Also, it's just more convenient, and simpler to look at one guideline that explain the whole process vs 2 that don't explain the process properly. Currently the templates used for this process have totally random names some relating to splitting some relating to merging and some don't even properly explain the procedure and they are made for different processes on Wikipedia. Comment: If you don't like the name migrate and maybe content move would be better? – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 12:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment: We could even rename it Split and merge but that seams confusion and it implies that page talks about two process vs the one hybrid process. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 12:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@BrandonXLF: Yes, Brandon, I definitely agree there is a need for more consistent templates, better template documentation, and information page coverage of the "split and merge" hybrid. I think a separate information page, like you propose, is a real possibility, and I would even see the potential need for a brief information page covering splitting, merging, and their intersection so that editors have somewhere to land first and navigate to the right information page. I'm definitely not sold on the name "migrating" for several reasons. Firstly, editors are already very familiar with splitting and merging. Secondly, the process and guidelines for each of splitting and merging are the basis of their hybrid, and using the same names reinforces that. Thirdly, a word like "migrate" seems to me to emphasize the technical part of the process, the act of taking the content from one article to the other, when it is actually the editorial parts, the splitting and merging, that deserve the most emphasis. Right now I'd be leaning towards just keeping "splitting and merging", but maybe we can come up with a cute WP:Shortcut type abbreviation? "Splerge"? Anyway, I think the best place for this discussion is at the talk page of your proposed information page (for what I have a bunch of suggestions!). Let's make a comprehensive outline of the effected templates, get a solid draft of the information page with input from other editors, and then look at which if any process we need for formal consensus depending on the scope upon which we settle. What do you think? --Bsherr (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bsherr: Sure, we can continue the discussion at the talk page. (Wikipedia talk:Migrating). – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 15:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it time to close WP:RFM?

I had cause to write a bit about Wikipedia dispute resolution processes this afternoon and came to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. On autopilot, I started to summarize its role/policy, and wrote that it doesn't see much use these days. Curious, I went to see just how active it is. I haven't seen any request for mediation linked in an awful long time, but maybe I'm just not looking in the right places.

It looks like there have been two requests for mediation accepted in the past two years, and it's unclear to me how successful they were: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/FXCM and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians.

Practically speaking, does RFM still play an active role in the dispute resolution process? My sense is no, in which case it may be time to talk about marking it as historical and updating our policy pages. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, this is not a proposal but a discussion that may or may not lead to a proposal. I wouldn't want to propose such a thing with my limited experience with the process, and a proposal would really take a formal RfC likely posted to centralized discussion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It certainly needs reform: more activity and less bureaucracy. It's arguable that WP:DRN has replaced its functionality at this point. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
For practical purposes, WP:MEDCOM looks like it's just WP:Ask TransporterMan these days. I don't say that with any intent to deride TM's competence or contributions; he's done a superb job wrangling some challenging issues (and editors). But if it's just a one-TransporterMan show, it might be time to turn out the lights.
As well, I count 23 rejected case submissions so far in 2018, and no acceptances. All were rejected (by TransporterMan; at a glance I didn't note the involvement of any other mediators) for the expected reasons: insufficient attempts to resolve the dispute, referral to more appropriate venues, and/or parties declined to participate. It may be a bad practice for us to retain links to a project and encourage editors to fill out case applications at a venue that almost universally isn't going to be able to help them resolve their disputes. WP:DRN, for instance, already includes referrals to alternate venues as an explicit part of its top-of-page mandate; there's no need to duplicate that function at WP:MEDCOM.
TLDR: WP:MEDCOM is effectively a one-man operation, whose near-exclusive role is as a referral service to direct complainants to other, more-appropriate dispute resolution venues and processes. We could replace the page with a redirect to WP:DRN and streamline things. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed Andrevan, whatever happens here, he is obviously no longer a “trusted user” who we would want mediating disputes. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
First, sorry for the delayed reply; I'm traveling and only have limited online time for the next couple of days. The relative inactivity of the current mediators is less problematic when one realizes that once one is a member of the committee that one remains a member and may remain subscribed to the committee's mailing list. Calls for mediators for particular cases go out on that list, so it is possible for a inactive member to take the case. Were we to get a number of cases which fail due to no mediator being available to take them, then I might poll the inactive member list for someone to take the case (and might do that anyway if needed). I was going to note the differences between MEDCOM and DRN, but this exchange between Rhododendrites and Robert McClenon on my user talk page sets it out well and Robert says everything I was going to say (thank you, Robert):
Hi there,

I was just writing something about Wikipedia's DR processes and realized I wasn't really clear about a couple things. Also want to ping Robert McClenon, since he is also active in these matters.

Could you give me your take on the practical difference between RFM and DRN? DRN has designated volunteers. RFM has a Committee. But beyond that? Has the distinction changed over time? It seems like RFM has significantly waned in activity (2 cases accepted in the last 2 years). My sense is that DRN has also been used less as RfCs have become the more or less default formal consensus building process. What about WP:MEDCAB? Obviously inactive now, but how did it fit in? I'm not certain of the chronology and have only heard about it in passing mentions myself.

Thanks. Also, I opened a thread at WP:VPP about RFM you may be interested to participate in. These questions here are more for my personal edification. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Rhododendrites - DRN is characterized as a "lightweight" process for disputes that can normally be settled in one to two weeks. I have seen cases that took three or four weeks, but not months. RFM is a "heavyweight" process, and cases often do take months. There has been a Mediation Committee since the early days of Wikipedia, and it has always been a relatively formal procedure. When there was MEDCAB, it was then intended as a quicker and less formal procedure for mediation that the Committee. I will comment that both DRN and RFM decline most of the case requests for various reasons, including that editors haven't made a serious effort to resolve the issues by discussion at a talk page. Requests at DRN also get declined because they are conduct disputes, or for a variety of other reasons including cluelessness. DRN is not a binding consensus process, and RFC is a binding process, so that RFC is used to determine consensus, while DRN is used to resolve disputes between two to four editors by compromise. Maybe that answers some of your questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Thanks. Given some similar issues and the relative inactivity of RFM, do you think it might make sense to basically merge them? I.e. to make DRN flexible to lightweight or heavyweight contexts? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Rhododendrites - No. I am not that knowledgeable about how the Mediation Committee works, other than having taken part in two cases and having seen that most requests don't get accepted, often because one of the editors, rightly or wrongly, doesn't agree to mediation. There are also special rules about formal mediation, such as that the proceedings of formal mediation are considered privileged. I don't think it would be easy to combine the two processes. What DRN should do is to refer some disputes to the Mediation Committee. However, part of the problem is that there aren't really that many difficult content disputes for which formal mediation is appropriate and where the parties are civil. That is, too many content disputes are compounded by having at least one of the editors be disruptive or uncivil, and that doesn't work for DRN and doesn't work for the Mediation Committee. I will let User:TransporterMan comment further. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Where Robert refers to "RFC" above, I'm assuming that those are typos and "RFM" is meant...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
User:TenOfAllTrades - No. By RFC I mean Request for Comments. By RFM I mean Request for Mediation. I mean that a Request for Comments is the usual way to ascertain consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah, got it. I had figured that you were drawing the distinction between the binding versus non-binding nature of RFM versus DRN outcomes. (I suppose the distinction between RFM and RfC is that nominally an RfC's outcome is binding on the content, whereas the RFM is binding on the editors....) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Right. Formal mediation is binding only on the editors, and only if they agree to it. An RFC is binding on the content, even on those editors who were in the minority. Since RFC is not voluntary, it is often the best form of dispute resolution when it is content that is in dispute (or when both content and conduct are issues and the misconduct is dealt with). After an RFC, editing against the RFC is disruptive editing, up to the point where a valid argument can be made that [[[WP:CCC|consensus can change]]. I did mean RFC, which does not require the participation of the tendentious editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
As Robert says, MEDCOM does still fulfill a niche that DRN does not, and should not, fill. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, one person isn’t a project. And a project that hasn’t had a case accepted in over a year just isn’t really helping. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I can't speak for the other DRN volunteers or for MEDCOM, but I personally think that two things need to be done. First, we need to make an active effort to get more volunteer mediators. Second, I think that it would be in order to use DRN as a gateway to formal mediation, once there are more mediators. DRN volunteers, although less experienced than the disappearing MEDCOM mediators, should know what is a good case for MEDCOM, namely, a complicated content dispute without too too much misconduct, where the editors can explain what they want. I can see an argument that a case normally should not go directly to MEDCOM without trying something lighter in weight. (Most MEDCOM filings are rejected. Most DRN filings are rejected. Too many disputes either are conduct disputes, or are premature due to failure to discuss, or are due to cluelessness. User:TransporterMan? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I concur with what Robert has said. While we're at a low ebb at the moment, one important thing that DRN does not supply (and should not be required to supply) is mediators experienced in dispute resolution. While we generally discourage brand new Wikipedians from mediating at DRN, we welcome experienced Wikipedians as DRN mediators even if they're not experienced in dispute resolution. DRN volunteers are expected to know Wikipedia; MEDCOM members are supposed to also know dispute resolution. Granted that it looks like we may need to do some recruiting at MEDCOM (one member has contacted me through the MEDCOM mailing list since this discussion began to confirm that they're still available), but as I said previously, there's a considerable pool of prior members to call upon if we have a run of cases. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC) PS: A second member has now also confirmed their availability. - TransporterMan (TALK) 01:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm more active on Commons these days, but I am usually available to take on a mediation case. TransporterMan usually handles the WP:RFM process, but if he disappears I or another could take the chair role. I do think the concern about our lack of cases is valid. Most disputes are resolved through informal talk page or noticeboard discussion, or one party gives up at some point. Cases involving clear, one-sided conduct problems are settled by community or admin sanctions. The rest are complex, long-term issues, and few people can remain immaculate after months in Wikipedia's trenches. Those go to arbitration. This doesn't leave much for the mediation committee.

Still, I have no doubt there are several cases each year which could benefit from mediation. They parties give up (on the issue, or on Wikipedia), or the case escalates to arbitration. Could we do better in identifying these cases and inviting them to WP:RFM? How? —Guanaco 02:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Old timer DR guy here (hello all!). When I looked at MedCom way back in 2012, it seemed reasonably active back then, but MedCab and MedCom largely served a similar purpose. MedCab was marked historical, and DRN was founded with the idea of creating a lightweight process for resolving disputes. Apart from MedCom having some more seasoned mediators in their ranks, a key difference that other content DR forums don't have is that proceedings in MedCom are privileged - the conversations within can't be used in other DR forums (such as ArbCom) and this helps enable free conversation. This doesn't exist anywhere else, and while I do also see that MedCom is very inactive, this element should be considered prior to closure of MedCom. Steven Crossin 06:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Interesting discussion. I agree with Anthony: Formal mediation is useful sometimes. Steve Crossin summarizes its purpose well. It is true that MedCom isn't used as much now as it was in the "early days." I don't see how that leads to the conclusion that it isn't needed, though. I think it is great that Wikipedia has several options for both conduct and content disputes. As outlined on the Dispute resolution requests project page, options for content disputes now include:
  1. Third opinion (WP:3O)
  2. Specialized Noticeboards
  3. Requests for comment (WP:RFC)
  4. Dispute resolution noticeboard (WP:DRN), and
  5. Formal mediation (WP:MC)
It wasn't always thus. When I joined MedCom there was no WP:DRN and other dispute resolution options were not clearly spelled out for editors. The options for content disputes were MedCab or MedCom. Also, frankly, there were many, many serious disputes—between groups of editors of different religions, cultures and theoretical perspectives. As WP grew, most of the pages in serious dispute over content were settled. WP also became better at sorting content from conduct disputes. Editors learned that great articles contain information from a variety of perspectives.
So does this mean that we don't need formal mediation any more? I think that having the resort to formal mediation helps us sort disputes between editors; it is a backstop. And, when things get really nasty, formal mediation can provide a safe place for editors to cool down and learn to collaborate about a topic they all have a common interest in.
Regarding my participation: As User:TransporterMan has said, many of those listed as mediators have been less active on WP in recent times, but we are still connected. For my part, I have been terrifically busy in real life during the past six years. But we are all on a listserve and when a request comes in, we discuss who best to take it. Finally, I would say that, though there have been many MedCom chairs over the years (I did a stint), in the last few years TransporterMan has held it together through thick and thin. Vive MedCom! We are lucky to have it. Sunray (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

A Few Comments on MEDCOM and Mediation

There are two basic problems with MEDCOM which partially offset each other. I would like to try to address them separately. The first problem is that too few cases that are appropriate for formal mediation are being filed with MEDCOM. The second problem, which is almost hidden by the first, is that there are not enough mediators. I will comment that both of these problems are more general problems in Wikipedia that are not limited to formal mediation.

Too few proper cases are being filed with MEDCOM. In 2018, 23 cases were filed, and 23 cases were declined by the MEDCOM. (A total of 276 cases were declined by the MEDCOM since 2013.) Most of them were declined because of one or more of inadequate discussion on the article talk page, failure to use lower-level dispute resolution mechanisms, failure of one or more parties to agree to mediation, or improper filing (not listing the other parties). There aren’t very many disputes, even in a period of a few years, for which formal mediation is appropriate. I will also comment that most of the cases that are filed with the dispute resolution noticeboard are declined, either for inadequate discussion on the article talk page, lack of agreement to informal mediation, or improper filing. There are a relatively large number of disputes that are procedurally declined. Either there are not very many disputes for which formal or informal mediation is appropriate, or there are a number of such disputes that are not being sent to dispute resolution. My own guess is that one primary reason is that there are relatively few “pure content” disputes, because most content disputes also involve conduct issues by one or more parties. Often, such disputes are resolved after the warrior is sanctioned.

I will again suggest that perhaps DRN should serve as a gateway to formal mediation.

There are not enough formal mediators. There are also not enough volunteers at DRN who are actually willing to mediate cases, as opposed to providing help in other ways. We, the community, need to publicize the need for mediators, especially with some sort of outside training in dispute resolution.

I will comment that, about two or three years ago, Jimmy Wales suggested that the WMF hire some professional mediators to provide services to the various Wikipedia communities for dispute resolution. I don’t know whether that offer was meant seriously, or was just meant to divert attention from either the WMF’s excess money or the WMF’s inability and lack of interest in what actually goes on in the English Wikipedia. I have very mixed feelings, because I am not sure whether those mediators, being paid professionals, would give proper respect to the volunteers who are the English Wikipedia, or whether they would try to impose their own ideas.

We need both more mediators with experience in dispute resolution and volunteers to assist in informal dispute resolution. Perhaps we also need to provide more awareness of existing resources for dispute resolution, but perhaps we only have a few “pure content” disputes that are amenable to mediation.


Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I had suggested professional mediation previously, to ensure there are people dedicated to smoothing out issues at all times (it's a large imposition on volunteers to expect them to constantly get involved in energy-draining debates). As hired employees, they would have a demonstrable track record, which could be evaluated by the community. If they aren't getting appropriate results, then replacements can be sought. isaacl (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Good analysis Robert McClenon, I wouldn't call the issues you raise "problems" but rather concerns, which MedCom members share. We are always on the lookout for mediators. I don't see the need to hire "professional" (outside) mediators, but maybe Jimbo sees something we don't. As to professionalism, some of us are mediators in real life. MedCom members have a variety of skills and experience we can draw from. We like to think that we have an effective, though under utilized, team. Bottom line: If WP hires paid mediators, they will find work for themselves. So let's look real hard at whether there is a need. Sunray (talk)
I fully appreciate that there are real-life mediators on the mediation committee; the question is not a matter of quality but ensuring that the mediators' full-time priority is resolving Wikipedia disputes. Regarding finding work, I'm not very concerned: the community can find plenty of work for them. isaacl (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
My concern about professional mediators is that, if they were employed by the WMF (which is who they would be employed by), they might ignore those policies and guidelines of the community that are not established by the WMF. (Most of the policies and guidelines of the community, such as notability, are those of the community. A few, such as BLP, are those of the WMF.) It would be important that they understand that they are servants of the community and not its appointed leaders (as much as the community fails to lead itself). For instance, I would not want any professional mediators to select the disputes (whether from ANI, DRN, RFM, etc.) that they thought needed mediation, when some of them can be handled by the community (including by being closed by the community). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
The key would be for the community to work collaboratively on setting the conditions under which a mediator could be used, how one is selected, and how their performance is reviewed, and to get it written into the job description. (Sure, there's always the risk that the WMF would then choose to ignore this, but not much can be done about that.) Professional mediators are specifically trained to look at disputes even-handedly, regardless of whose paying them; they know their employment is dependent on their neutrality. Personally I see mediators as a resource to be called in, not a group of people who are selecting disputes to be involved in. isaacl (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
isaacl, I couldn't agree more that mediators are a resource to be called on. You correctly point out that MedCom is selecting disputes to be involved in. I doubt that you are advocating that there be no guidelines as to what is mediatable. For example there is a groundrule that individuals only file requests for formal mediation after there have been real attempts to resolve disputes through discussion on the talk page or via other means. There are other basic requirements to ensure that an issue is mediatable. Surely that is important no matter who is mediating. Sunray (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't being clear; when I was referring to professional mediators, I did not mean someone fulfilling the mediator role as part of the mediation committee. I was thinking more of a moderator role that could be called in to help manage conversations between disagreeing parties. This could encompass RfCs, for example. But specifically regarding Robert McClenon's concern, if the consensus ever did shift on English Wikipedia to accept professionals, the community would be able to clearly define the ground rules. isaacl (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a case for paying for formal mediation when we already have that capability using experienced volunteer WP editors. As I've said above, mediation is just one of a suite of dispute resolution methods. which are geared to handling various kinds of disputes. Could we improve our services? No doubt, but let's do some analysis first. It may not be broke. Sunray (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, I'm not really talking about formal mediation as currently defined, but dedicated moderator support. Having a paid person fill this role removes the delays that add up with volunteer assistance, versus someone dedicated to responding rapidly. It would also help provide an outsider's view without any attachment to a specific side. For example, RfCs often bog down right at the start as the supporters of various viewpoints disagree on how to word the question. Having a outsider guide and shepherd contentious RfCs would help them run more smoothly. isaacl (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
If I read you right, you are saying that you don't think that this kind of moderation is happening at present. You give the example of RFCs. Let's say I agree that RFCs often bog down. What is it about paying someone to moderate that would give WP an advantage over organizing a group of (volunteer) editors to do this? Sunray (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Further, how does this relate to the topic of this discussion? Sunray (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I guess it depends on what topic you'd like to discuss. If you want to just discuss formal mediation as currently performed by the mediation committee, then we don't have to continue to explore this particular suggestion. isaacl (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on result field of battleboxes

There is currently an RfC at Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4#Request for comment if anyone wants to comment. EtherealGate (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on skipping levels in multi-level user warning templates

Multi-level user warning templates are used to add boilerplate text on user talk pages to warn of vandalism or other issues; they typically come in four or more increasingly sternly-worded, versions (e.g., ((uw-vandalism1)), 2, 3, 4, im). Your feedback on whether it is appropriate to skip levels is welcome at WT:UW#Skipping warning levels. Thank you, Mathglot (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on blocked editors and their talk pages

There is currently an RfC on whether or not blocked users can edit their talk page for anything other than block appeals. Please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#RfC: Blocked editors and their talk pages. Thanks. Nihlus 16:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice to Wikipedians to contribute images of the National Museum of Brazil?

Hi, guys! I noticed that the Portuguese Wikipedia has a notice asking for contributors to send and upload any items from the National Museum of Brazil, which was destroyed in the 2018 fire, to the Wikimedia Commons. The original notice in Portuguese is here, and I wrote an English version of the message.

I think it would be a good idea to display this notice on ENwiki too, linking to the English translation. Some people visiting the museum were foreigners, and they might also have some key images. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This should probably be under 'Proposals' as its not a policy based issue. But a good idea anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Areas of Cyprus Republic (de jure)/Areas of Northern Cyprus (de facto)

Hello. First of all I want to say that I am a Greek Cypriots. But I believe that I have Neutral point of view. Sorry about using words like "occupied", "free" etc. It's easier to explain that way.

Some areas in the island of Cyprus are belong to Republic of Cyprus De jure and also are belong to Northern Cyprus De facto.

There is no problem having articles for the villages and municipalities of Northern Cyprus. We can do the same as any other village or municipality in the planet. They claim that they are a country (even though not recognized), they have their own administrative territorial entity.

For districts we already have separated articles. (Please see Districts of Cyprus and Districts of Northern Cyprus.

There are six districts in Republic of Cyprus. Of them:

The parts of that districts that is in north Cyprus, are consisting Northern Cyprus. Northern Cyprus is divided to 5 districts.

As you can see, these districts do not identify with the "occupied" districts of Cyprus, perhaps with the sole exception of the province of Kyrenia (Girne), without being absolutely sure ... We have a separate articles for each district of Republic of Cyprus and for every district of Northern Cyprus.

At this point, I would like to mention that Republic of Cyprus, although it does not control these areas, continues to have administrations for them. For example, District Administration of Kyrenia. For districts, I have identified only one problem: population. In Girne District we can write the population as recorded by Northern Cyprus. In Kyrenia District we cannot write the population according to Republic of Cyprus because the census cannot apply to "occupied" areas. And we cannot write the population recorded by Northern Cyprus because the two districts are not the same. Especially in other districts there is certainly no match. For example, in Famagusta District, Republic of Cyprus recorded only the "free" areas. For 2011 census that population was 46629. The population of that district (the way Republic of Cyprus defined it) include people that lives it the area of the district under control of Northern Cyprus. But they don’t count them. And we cannot easily counted them because the "relative" Gazimağusa District has not the same area as Famagusta District.

The main problem is about municipalities and communities (villages). Republic of Cyprus elects mayors, municipal councils, community councils for all "occupied" municipalities, has Geographical codes of the Republic of Cyprus for all of these areas, etc. With always the footnote that concern areas belonging to Republic of Cyprus but not are controlled by Republic of Cyprus because of the presence of the Turkish army. Of course, Northern Cyprus also elects mayors, has their own codes etc.

Problems:

And more other problems like:

I am not sure about any solution. The only I have though:

For communities, we can have two articles for each community. Like:

It that useful? Again, however, it is not certain that each village is terribly identified as Republic of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus mean it, even though they have the same name (translated between to Greek and Turkish).

And the problem is even more complicated for semi-"occupied" municipalities with population in both Republic of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus. An example is Nicosia Municipality (according to Republic of Cyprus). Part of it is in Northern Cyprus. Of course, we have article about North Nicosia.

I have asked the same to wikidata. d:Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2018/08#Areas of Cyprus Republic (de jure)/Areas of Northern Cyprus (de facto). The solution they propose was to have 2 item for each village (Is easiest in Wikidata :). Like Gangwon Province (historical), Kangwon Province (North Korea), Gangwon Province, South Korea, Hwanghae Province (Republic of Korea), North Hwanghae Province, South Hwanghae Province, Hwanghae Province, Taiwan Province, Taiwan, Fujian Province, Republic of China, Fujian, Lianjiang County, Lianjiang County. I already have applied that. The explanations was that there are two distinct and separate structures in place. A Greek and a Turkish structure with only overlap where the structures indicate physical objects like human settlements are in both and create two artocles for not for the settlements but for all the "administrative and territorial units", they are "per country".

Of course, you may believe that we must not change anything. (Sorry about my Enlgish). Xaris333 (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Creation of article on Maria Elvira Salazar

I am stumped about something and am hoping someone can help me out. We have an article on a woman named Maria Elvira Salazar that was apparently created on 25 April 2017 with this edit but a user named Lcast043. What I don't get is how this editor was able to create the article: the creation of this article was and remains his/ her only WP edit to date, but it doesn't look like the article went through AfC or any other review process. The editor certainly didn't have 10 edits and 4 days of editing history— shouldn't that have made it impossible for him/ her to create a new article like this? I am missing something, but I don't understand what. If anyone has any ideas, please let me know. Will check back here regularly for responses. Thanks! A loose noose (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Prior to 2018, editors could create articles without being autoconfirmed. They can still do so as drafts, and then the articles can be moved to mainspace by other editors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, A loose noose. Please see Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, commonly abbreviated ACTRIAL. This restriction on direct article creation by brand new editors went into effect on a trial basis in September, 2017. It is now permanent. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

How to deal with articles meeting SNGs but not GNG?

This RfC is a followup to a June 2017 RfC clarifying the relation between SNGs and the GNG. Consensus was established that SNGs do not supersede GNG, but there was no consensus as to what to do about the articles not apparently meeting GNG. A pre-RfC discussion has show two major issues: What the final result should be, and what to do in the interim to avoid flooding AfD and related venues, which will be discussed as a follow up. The main options are keep, tag, merge, transwiki or delete.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposals

  • @Nosebagbear: The opening sentence of NSPORTS already states that the guideline "is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline" Implicitly, GNG should usually be met by meeting the SNG. Are you stating that articles on modern sports subjects should not be covered by NSPORTS? Or are you saying that some existing NSPORTS criteria need to be tightened to ensure that GNG is likely to be met?—Bagumba (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I would say it is more a case of “A demonstratable lack of source material (non-GNG) can sometimes out-weigh the presumption of notability (SNG)”. In other words... since SNG is based on the presumption that sources are LIKELY to exist, to out-weigh the SNG the nomination needs to make a convincing argument that the presumption is wrong... that (in the specific case) the expected sources DON’T actually exist. Blueboar (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
AfD is generally not thrilled if someone fails to make a case that GNG isn't met. Since in attempts of proving a negative you are somewhat forced to go off the person's assertion that nothing could be found. The only place where some difference might apply is when debating things like marginal Sig Cov cases. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The relationship between the sports-specific notability guidelines and the general notability guideline has been discussed many times and the consensus has been the same since their inception. Closers who fail to acknowledge that the guideline itself says that the general notability guideline must eventually be met and that only meeting the sport-specific guideline doesn't automatically mean an article should be kept are supervoting. The criteria for baseball, hockey, and association football (and I believe others) have been reviewed and revised over the years to improve their accuracy in predicting that the general notability guideline can be met. Suggestions for improvement are always welcome. isaacl (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
No, that's not the discussion that's been had. It's been clearly recognized that if an article meets NSPORTS, but someone does a proper search of sources (as outlined in BEFORE) and finds nothing more to expand on that topic, then the presumption of notability that the SNG grants has failed, and the article can be deleted. However, 90% of the time, at these AFDs, people have not shown a proper BEFORE search for sources to prove this satisfactory (as it generally requires local newspaper archive searches.). NSPORTS remains a presumption of notability with the expectation that more sourcing will come to expand the article. --Masem (t) 21:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what discussion you believe has not been had. As you know, I am aware of what you've said is clearly recognized; I just didn't describe it (people can go look at the FAQ for a precis of the consensus on the matter). Given that the 2017 RfC was really about WP:NSPORTS, I'm don't know if Nosebagbear's desire to narrow the question to WP:NSPORTS is really needed. What we need is for closers to respect the consensus that for sports-specific guidelines, meeting the SNG is not a free pass forever. isaacl (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Proposal to draftify UDP-tagged articles

No consensus as to any definite plan.Please try the idea of a sticky-prod in a new RFC.Thankfully,∯WBGconverse 06:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Currently we have just 780 articles tagged with template:Undisclosed paid (UDP), a particular aspect of more general template:COI. I think mere tagging for suspected UDP editing is toothless - the potential paid editor gets the job done anyway and the article becomes indexed by search engines, hanging around indefinitely until someone cleans it. Moving all UDP-tagged articles to the non-indexed draft space and keeping them there untill they're fixed and ready to return to the mainspace could be a good solution. Also in this option, any new UDP-tagged article might be draftified by any registered user. If adopted, the proposal might entail corresponding addendums in relevant pages. Thoughts (support, oppose, comments)? Brandmeistertalk 13:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The sticky PROD idea looks just as good. How long until the UPE-PROD results in deletion? In the case of the sticky UPE-PROD idea, who is the non-UPE false positive editor supposed to respond? If they make a response, surely it must demand reading before deletion? Who would read it, how would they be drawn to the response?
I think quarantining outside mainspace has the advantage to retaining UPE edit histories that may be helpful to non-admins in detecting patterns. I continue to submit that there are probably far few UPE people than UPE accounts, and that an awful lot of UPE product is the result of a few Wikipedians among us. The deletion of identified UPE product helps prevent detection of the puppet master. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on text highlighting in signatures

Just a heads up to page watchers that I've started an RfC on whether to disallow text highlighting in signatures at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#RfC: Should we disallow text highlighting in signatures?. Comments welcome there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

FOOTYN (again)

The Wikiproject Football notability essay, WP:WikiProject_Football/Notability (commonly linked as WP:FOOTYN), is still being used as an argument of notability/lack of notability in deletion discussions. I attempted to forestall this by adding a link and note at the club section pointing to WP:NTEAM (the actual SNG related to teams) and advising not to use the essay as an argument for inherent notability in deletion discussions. I have twice been reverted by Number 57([27][28]) for adding a supplemental hatnote to the club notability section at WP:WikiProject_Football/Notability.

I have opened a section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability#Hatnote for club section linking to the actual SNG section on team notability to discuss this addition, but wanted to post here to draw wider community input. Please comment at the talk page of the relevant page rather than here. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Editing restriction logging discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions regarding the logging of restrictions imposed as an unblocking condition, as well as formal logging of editor warnings. Administrators and editors are invited to participate in the discusson. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Should WP:TWL be allowed to acknowledge the services they have partnership with in our articles?

Consensus to allow, when it adds something. Supporters and opponents were close to agreement that links should be allowed when where they benefit the reader, from WhatamIdoing's "warning notice", to Das Wolf's previews, to Daask's list. Several voices opposed paywalled links on principle, but others mentioned we have a long tradition of allowing such, again, when they add something. --GRuban (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

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

This is a follow up to User_talk:CitationCleanerBot#Via. According to Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs), they put citations like

by the reasoning "It wasn't used to advertise the service; it was used to acknowledge the access provided by Project Muse to certain Wikipedia users." This is apparently to comply with partnership requirements where they have gained personal access to pay-for-access databases (in this case Project MUSE) through The Wikipedia Library, where in return they need to mention in our articles that they had made use of Project MUSE.

Should the practice be allowed to continue? Or under which condition should |via= be used? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

TWL discussion

Disallow: This is something that is a textbook WP:SPAM/WP:PROMO situation. Citations exist to verify our material, not advertise pay-for-access academic services. While we have links that often point to paywalled ressources, such as DOIs in our article, those are vendor-neutral identifiers are there to help identify the citation. WP:SAYWHERE is clear about this:

The advice to "say where you read it" does not mean that you have to give credit to any search engines, websites, libraries, library catalogs, archives, subscription services, bibliographies, or other sources that led you to Smith's book. If you have read a book or article yourself, that's all you have to cite. You do not have to specify how you obtained and read it. [emphasis mine]

The following

fully complies with WP:SAYWHERE, and links to Project MUSE resources in a way that does not unduly promote a commercial service. Further, using the URL to further link to the paywalled Project MUSE is fully redundant with the DOI, and discourages editors from finding non-paywalled versions of the paper.

Things like

are ridiculous.

This is a horrendous practice, and one that needs to end now. If Project MUSE wants attribution in some way, that can be done in edit summaries, or via the talk page. Not in the main bodies of our articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I’m aware, the parameter was initially added to these citation examples simply because it was present in the citation templates and has uses in cases where the URL doesn’t point to the location the source was found. It’s also useful because it saves you mousing over or clicking a URL to know where the citation is from. Ultimately though, the discussion about whether the parameter is useful is unrelated to TWL.
We’re not concerned whether this parameter is kept in the suggested citation style or not, and are happy to change it based on the outcome of this discussion. Given that the parameter isn’t a requirement of using TWL, however, I’d suggest reframing the discussion around whether use of the ‘via’ parameter is desired in any context. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm very glad to hear this is not a requirement. However, Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Publishers specifically mentions, in the "Exposure and promotion", "Publisher credit using the |via= parameter of our citation templates". Maybe this is the source of confusion? Or possibly pages like Wikipedia:Credo/Citations and other similar pages? If this isn't a requirement, those pages should be updated to de-promotionalize those services. Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs), what led you to believe that using |via= to 'credit' Project MUSE was required/encouraged? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@Headbomb and Xover: The instructions in question are the ones found at Wikipedia:Project MUSE, which say, among other things, that editors should "provide original citation information in addition to linking to Project MUSE resources" and "Cite resources in line with the citation examples provided below or with the examples provided by Project MUSE" (the example in question uses the |via= parameter. The version of the instructions that existed when I received access was even more definitive about this. Vanamonde (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
The RFC is framed neutrality. My !vote expresses my opinion. Nothing wrong with that. You're welcomed to make a support case if you have one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, see, the problem is you've set up a strawman (just about zero of the assertions and underlying assumptions in the current RFC framing are true) and now you're asking me to argue against it.
I have no objection what so ever to discussing how TWL should recommend that citations to sources that happened to be accessed through a TWL partner's donated access be done. Nor to discussing how SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies to cases like these (of which some, but not all, sources made available through donated partner services are examples, but in no way unique in that regard). Nor to discussing the purpose in general, or finer points of application of, the |via= parameter. I might even have some opinions on some of these issues (then again, probably not enough to argue about them). You want to do any of those things, have at it. Heck, if for some reason you need my help with any of those, I'd be happy to step up.
But we can't have any of those discussions, at least not productively, in an RFC framed in an inflamatory way (That is, "in a way that is likely to have the effect of inflaming", not "in a way intended to inflame") and based on incorrect information. So, again, please—please!—reconsider: either by reframing the current RFC, or by withdrawing and trying again when you're less outraged by what is incorrect information! --Xover (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah that's fine, I'm not arguing for a blanket ban on |via=. I'm only talking about cases where there's no URL given, when things are redundant with links that are already provided by identifiers, or that the reproduction hosted by Database X is a faithful reproduction. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • All "via" links should display the same text -- "access notes". This avoids any appearance of spam, and can be a neat, regular format. The "access notes" would be a link, of course, and could be set off with a cute/recognizable box using inline CSS: access notes or some such. And the links, naturally, go to different places depending on the via=parameter.
  • All "via" links link to pages in Wikipedia space, e.g. WP:Access help/Project MUSE. The template can even be designed for reverse compatibility to process the links it receives to add the WP:Access help/ part so the existing via link texts go new places, but new links should name a WP: space page directly (and thus not be altered). The reason for this is that Wikipedia articles are "WP:NOT#HOWTO", whereas what access help should be is absolutely, completely, one hundred percent HOWTO. That's an unacceptable philosophical incompatibility. We want to tell readers any and all options to get access when via= gives a particular mechanism, but are interested there in nothing else about it.
  • Our WP pages should then each explain their particular "via" mechanisms for the readers, including whether they can become editors and apply for access, or pay for it, or try to get lucky with an inconsistent server (I'm thinking Google Books) using any legally acceptable trick like using a VPN or TOR. (Actually I don't know if this works ... obviously the composition of these pages will be the topic of some specialized expertise and debate)
Wnt (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
That forgets one thing: WP:TWL is an editor resource, not a reader resource. The way to help readers access things it to find free-to-read resources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@Headbomb: No, I didn't forget that. If we have a Wikipedia-space page on MUSE we can tell readers they don't easily get access via this route. But we can also point out that they can ask editors about it. And of course, any Wikipedia reader can become an editor -- it's never to be ruled out -- so TWL is at least nominally an access mechanism. I am actually not sure how TWL plays with WP:WRE -- are there TWL editors listed under the latter, or can you request copies of specific resources via that means? The distinction between "interlibrary loan" and "piracy" is utterly mythical and of paramount legal importance. Wnt (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Reasons for the |via= parameter:
  1. To clarify links from multiple sources.
    ((cite thesis |last=Mirkovic |first=Alexander |year=2002 |title=Prelude to Constantine: The Invented Tradition of King Abgar of Edessa |id=Order No. 3047451 |publisher=Vanderbilt University |url=https://www.academia.edu/2028649/Prelude_to_Constantine_Dissertation |via=Academia.edu |access-date=31 August 2017)) Also available via [http://search.proquest.com/docview/276422499 ProQuest].
    Mirkovic, Alexander (2002). Prelude to Constantine: The Invented Tradition of King Abgar of Edessa (Thesis). Vanderbilt University. Order No. 3047451. Retrieved 31 August 2017 – via Academia.edu. Also available via ProQuest.
  2. To help the reader find the item. This can broadly apply to all links to sources other than the publisher.
  3. To alert the reader which subscription service it is behind. When the content is behind a paywall, and the reader may want to know which one if they have subscriptions to some and not others.
Many TWL citations can claim at least one of these legitimate purposes, even if I would prefer the |via= parameter be omitted in most cases. Daask (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on anime film articles

Hello. There's an important RfC regarding which companies are to be listed in the infobox for anime films. It can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Request for Comment: Is it relevant to list all production companies or just main animation studios in the infobox of film articles?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Double images with "left:" and "right:" as their captions are confusing for mobile readers

Some articles contain two images sharing one caption to show that they are related. Often they are captioned with "Left: (Description) Right: (Description)". The problem with this is that on mobile wikipedia, under a certain screen size, the images become stacked which could cause readers on phones to misunderstand them. Because of this a new policy may need to be made to specify how to caption these double images in some way other than left and right but it is unclear how it should be done. Some possibilities are:

🌸 WeegaweeK ^ 🌸 17:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Imo the multiple image template is incredibly overused. Some editors seem to go round converting lots of articles to it for no real reason except practicing their formatting skills. It should only be used where the images form a natural pair for comparison or contrast, and should be deprecated otherwise. The valid concern raised here is only one of the problems with these. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
It's already against the "rules"; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#References from article text. Please fix those problems whenever you see them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Capitalization of Senator

At Talk:Dan_Sullivan_(American_senator)#Requested_move_8_September_2018 it is pointed out that Senator and Senators are often capitalized when they should not be per MOS:JOBTITLES; e.g. should be List of U.S. senators from X, but U.S. Senate and Senator Smith. Do we have consensus to fix this widespread error with the help of scripts, bots, or other tools? -- Dicklyon (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Political titles are often improperly capitalized. I don't think we need consensus to fix those errors. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with the above from Ajraddatz. --Bsherr (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
We do need consensus. I think you both mean we already have it via clear guidelines, so we don't need this RFC. I tend to agree, but when asking for bot help one needs to be sure. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
We have consensus per WP:JOBTITLES. We don't have to litigate every single job title individually, the existing policy covers the lot of them. Given the millions of potential job titles, it would get tedious to start an RFC for each of them. On the question of the use of a bot, I tend to lean against the automated fixing, as there is too much opportunity for doing it wrong. But there should be no problem with a human fixing them. --Jayron32 15:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)--Jayron32 15:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

More specifically, are there any objections to this bot request I just submitted: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot to fix capitalization of "Senator" in specific contexts? I realize this won't fix everything; maybe we can find more patterns that are safe to do automatically. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem with bots is that they are notoriously bad at determining context. This seems like something that should be done manually. Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
As the linked bot proposal shows, this would involve only specific narrow contexts that a bot can easily get right; 250 moves (5 per state) and links to them. Dicklyon (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I've made multiple objections on that page. Most are technical in nature and don't need to be repeated here. However, I'm not convinced that changing "United States Senator" to "United States senator" is correct. I agree that "American senator" or "Colorado senator" is the correct capitalization, as the word senator is merely a descriptor and not a title in that phrasing. While it's not quite the same, the capitalization of United States Attorney does not appear to be in dispute. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm hoping you'll follow up there to explain; I don't understand your objections. Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

On a related note, I have filed a CFD discussion regarding Category:Alabama State Senators; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 17 is the log-page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I support that one. But don't understand your objections to my proposal. Looking forward to clarification on the bot page, as that's where more of the details are. Dicklyon (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I see these category moves were unanimously supported and executed already. That's encouraging. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I support bot treatment, but perhaps it should be by human review. Tony (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The intention is to do by bot only cases in which human review is clearly not necessary. Please review the revised proposal at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot to fix capitalization of "Senator" in specific contexts and say if there are any reservations about the possbility of a bot following that narrow proposal could need human review. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia self-advertising (e.g. 'Monuments')

This repeated badgering of readers is inappropriate, and should stop.

It is irrelevant to our mission - to provide reliable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWheater (talk • contribs) 07:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

What it takes to write an encyclopedia article

If you are interested in the nature of notability – why some potential subjects can be developed into separate articles, while some equivalent subjects are better presented as part of a larger article – then you might be interested in watching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chitty (cricketer). I think there are a couple of thoughtful comments there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Redirects from specific examples to lists that don't mention the examples

It occurs to me that I may not be clear about proper procedure concerning redirects (or concerning RfD).

My assumption is that a band not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia should not point to a list of bands simply because it is a band, that we should not have redirects from websites to lists of websites that don't include that website, and that we shouldn't have a pile of redirects to a list of software from specific examples of that software that aren't mentioned in our list (or anywhere on Wikipedia).

If I'm right, could someone highlight exactly where it says that? If I'm not right, what am I missing? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem you raise may be due to the dynamic nature of Wikipedia... ie the fact that articles are edited and change over time. It may be that the list being pointed to in the redirect did (at one time) mention the band/website/software... but was subsequently edited and the mention of band/website/software removed. In other words, the redirect may have made sense at the time it was created, but NOW no longer does. Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Blueboar: Indeed the list did include them. I'll give the specific context here, since I don't think this comes close to convassing. List of video game emulators was, at one point, kind of a link farm/all-inclusive directory. It's not anymore, but it retains about 60 redirects from the names (and variations of names) of specific software no longer mentioned there or, generally, anywhere on Wikipedia. Some of those articles were deleted at AfD, some were redirected while the list was still all-inclusive, some never existed. When I tagged the redirects for RfD, I was surprised to see two experienced editors !vote keep. Since it seemed like such an obvious case for deletion to me, for the reasons above, I was then surprised that I could not find a clearly articulated policy that says what I thought it said (other than #10, which is sorta kinda). So here I am. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I suppose you are referring to the practice of "redirect term which is not mentioned at its target" as a deletion criterion, yet which does not appear at WP:R#DELETE? --Izno (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
That's the one. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
It can be found reasonably in the intent of RD2, which is The redirect might cause confusion. (never mind the example). I think when a redirect term is not mentioned at its target, it's going to be confusing to the reader who follows the redirect. --Izno (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
There is also WP:Astonish. I believe a reader would be astonished/confused if redirected to an article that does not even mention the term. MB 19:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if this were made explicit. It happens too often as it is, and it's too hard to get rid of them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I think this is overall a bad idea. I looked at RFD just now, and half a dozen people are invoking this non-rationale to delete things like the redirects from music albums, on the grounds that the music album doesn't happen to be mentioned in the current(!) version of the article. In most cases, the harm seems to be hypothetical (Do we really think that some reader who typed in the name of a music album would actually be confused upon being redirected to the article about the band? I'll buy "disappointed", but not "confused" in such cases), and the imagined benefit appears to be, well, imaginary (in most cases). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
A lot of names of music albums are not obviously names of music albums, so I think this could indeed be confusing. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually confusing for someone who already knows the name of the album? (Because how else are you going to type it into the search box?)
And wouldn't this be the sort of thing that gets fixed by editing the article rather than deleting things? I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup even at RFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
An album is very different. It is standard for an article about a band/musician to include a discography of major works. In that case, if not currently mentioned, it would be easy to just add it. It's a rare case of a fairly standard list in an article. That is the exception, though. Many lists, like the one this section concerns, are lists of examples, not exhaustive lists that one could expect to find. It is not the case that just because we have a list of examples of X that any instance of X that exists in the world would make sense to redirect to that list. In the list of redirects to the list of video game emulators, it is not the case that it would be appropriate to add any of them to the list. I don't think this is really about those cases when it's obvious that the [album, etc.] could be added but hasn't yet. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Dab page equivalent MOS:DABRL discourages entries where the blue link does not mention the term. Whatever we decide, I would think the guidelines for redirects and dab entries should be consistent.—Bagumba (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. Dab entries are visibly displayed, and deserve a stricter criterion for inclusion than what a redirect needs for existence. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
A reader should not end up at a page that does not readily give them information on the term that they entered. It's equally annoying if they get to the "wrong" page whether it is via a redirect or a dab page.—Bagumba (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but where you end up and what's displayed on a disambig page are non-equivalent things. Displaying on a disambig page invites one to go there, while a redirect is only invoked if one types it (or links it) explicitly. So the bar is at a different level, imho. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to Adopt Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses as Policy

I'm thinking about proposing that we adopt Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses as policy. Currently it is only an WP:INFOPAGE, but really it describes what I think should be binding policy. Before I do this, does anyone have any reason I should reconsider proposing this? -Obsidi (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks more like a Guideline. Dicklyon (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I wen't back and forth on that. I guess it could be a guidelines of the blocking policy, maybe that is more appropriate. -Obsidi (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The policy is the blocking policy, where most of the important details are already written. We don't need another policy page on the subject, IMO. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with zzuuzz. This is an informational page but anything that should be codified as policy is already in the blocking policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Before even considering making it a policy, the obvious problems in it should be fixed.
One example: it says "If you block an IP address in any of the following ranges, you are required to immediately notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee" but never tells you when and where either the WMF or the Wikipedia community made that a requirement.
Another example: The top of the page has the usual "This is an information page... It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines" language, but two of the section titles are "Policies" and "Guidelines" --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for an update of size calculations for splitting an article

The "rule of thumb" listed in Wikipedia:Article size for splitting an article has not changed since 2008 (at least). Is it possible to update these values? because I feel that some good articles (therefore long) are unnecessarily split by following this rule, thus reducing Wikipedia's readability. Nowadays, articles are significantly lengthened by the increased use of citations (many articles have hundreds of citations, often with external links). Browsers have made significant progress in ten years and can display such large pages; I think it is time for a change. Values in the scale should be at least doubled imo. Another way to improve this rule would be to exclude citations/references from the calculation. T8612 19:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The size guidelines are for readable prose size, so citations/references are indeed excluded. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
If the issue behind this guideline is loading time, why not placing the limitation on this, instead of text length?T8612 19:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
How would a normal editor determine that? People have different experiences with load time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: Then perhaps articles that are listed as vital articles could get an upper limit, as they would really be considered important? T8612 14:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

bureaucrat access to manage copyviobot group

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
checkY Unanimous consensus in favor.∯WBGconverse 06:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T206731
Resolved

Hello all, a new access group was implemented by the Growth Team (copyviobot) which can be used by bots to add a special tag to the new pages feed for suspected copyright violations. See prior discussion regarding the group's creation here: Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#New_bot-like_access_group and an active BRFA that would like to trial this feature here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EranBot 3. I propose the following updates in support of this:

  1. Amending Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Bot_flags to allow bureaucrats to issue and revoke this flag in the same manner as the bot flag
    1. Approve execution of phab:T206731 to enable access for (Bureaucrats) to Add group and Remove group of the copyviobot group.
       Done The developer team has done this already in phab:T206731 - so barring a failure below this part is actually live and we are just looking at updating our internal policies. — xaosflux Talk 18:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. Amending the Wikipedia:Bot_policy#The_"bot"_flag to include this as an available bot access, with such bots subject to the same requirements of other bots

Discuss

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

Proposed new naming convention Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations)

I've started a proposed new naming conventions for articles on railway stations in Ireland at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations). It's modeled after the other former conventions already established for Canada (WP:CANSTATION, Poland (WP:PLSTATION), the UK (WP:UKSTATION), and the U.S. (WP:USSTATION). It was written to follow the unwritten practice already in place as closely as possible. Comments and suggestions are welcome.--Cúchullain t/c 18:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

More