This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Apologies for reopening this, but I would like to request a minor clarification - I don't intend to dispute your decision. Is the consensus for subproposal three limited to athletes, or does it extend to other participants such as coaches? BilledMammal ( talk) 01:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Wugapodes, given you closed the RFC, you should be the one to edit WP:NSPORTS to reflect your reading of the consensus. It is entirely inappropriate for any other editor (from any, or no, sides) to do that. Giant Snowman 19:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline..
The ammount of opposition suggests this is in fact not the consensus understanding(regarding articles needing to meet GNG), beyond the fact that it shouldn't be saying that (as the previous consensus, that they do, was not repealed) seems inaccurate, or at least focuses on a rather minor point, as the main argument of those who opposed was not that GNG was not required (although there were a few, or some who did not provide a rationale at all), but rather claims that requiring GNG would be a "backdoor to abolishing the SNG" (an argument whose validity is very much questionable, but that doesn't change the fact there probably was no consensus on the specific subproposal, so let's not get bogged down). Looking at the proposal in depth provides hard evidence to back this up. Beyond some additional opposition which is either not at all persuasive (opposing because this "unfairly targets sports" - I hope that's not from the same people complaining this was a trainwreck, because then that would've been even worse) or actually clearly not disagreeing with GNG ("Agree with athletes must demonstrate GNG, but proposal overly bureaucratic"); the vast majority of opposition was not that GNG shouldn't be met (only 3 comments that directly mention this), but that this was a "backdoor way of removing SNGs" (17 comments, by my count). In fact, many of those arguing against didn't argue much but just pointed to Cbl62's comment, which says, rather explicitly,
I favor imposing a requirement of including one example of SIGCOV (above and beyond a database) as a better solution.So rather clear that GNG (or a slightly less stringent requirement, at least as a temporary measure) must still apply.
There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline, and this is not strictly true. WP:N states in the lead that
A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG), and the section WP:SNG references specific guidelines that are substitutes for the GNG. This is a nitpick, of course, but I point it out as an example of how consensus has changed in the last 5 years. For example, the October 2017 version of WP:N has no section on SNGs, it was added later and the lead never changed despite that closure. A 5-year-old discussion is helpful, but what's important is how participants understand policies and their relationship now. So as a further example, consider the opposition you characterized as arguing proposal 1 being a "backdoor way of removing SNGs". In my reading, those comments were indirectly referencing WP:SNG, the section of N which contradicts the 2017 consensus you reference (this isn't just my invention, Jkudlick specifically references the conflict with WP:N in their 13 Feb !vote).So let's return to proposal 1 of the discussion. Supporters argue that it is documenting the status quo by documenting the conclusion of the 2017 discussion. Others argue that it's not the status quo (pointing to, e.g., WP:SNG which was added after the 2017 discussion and contradicts it) or that it shouldn't be the case (e.g., because it will increase systemic bias). These are not frivolous objections, and they cast doubt on the idea that the proposed change is simply a documentation of existing understandings. It helps to think about it from the other direction as well: if we accept the supporters' arguments that this simply documents an existing consensus then we should see robust agreement to implement it. Except we don't. The discussion is better attended than the 2017 discussion, so it's hard to argue it's because of a lack of participation. Opposition references the current version of N, one of our most fundamental guidelines (arguably policy), so it's hard to say it's not policy backed. We get DRVs which uphold closures that interpret SNGs in line with N, so it's hard to say that the interpretation is unreasonable. We got pretty good agreement on proposal 5, so it's hard to say that participants couldn't come to a consensus if they wanted. The central question to consider is: if we take as true the claim that proposal 1 documents the status-quo consensus, why did it struggle to actually achieve consensus?I don't propose to answer that question. I don't think I can, but it points out the issue of "no consensus retains the status quo" in this situation: the discussion cast doubt on what the status quo even is. So I think we all agree that, without consensus for the proposed wording, the existing "should" language is retained for now, but what does it mean? Some people think it equals "must" others think it is more lax than that, and the "status quo" is found in a 5-year-old discussion that's of questionable utility based on this discussion. The best answer I have, and what I tried to articulate in the close, is that there's no consensus on any of this. Right now the community simply hasn't agreed on an answer. There's no consensus to make "should" into "must", but there isn't consensus to outright remove a connection between NSPORTS and GNG. The obvious solution, in my eyes, is to just sidestep the issue and use the existing wording with its usual meaning: "strongly recommended but not strictly required". Subsequent RfCs can clarify this---I think that would be a good idea---but at the moment there simply doesn't seem to be a consensus on this.The policy at WP:NOCONSENSUS tells us what we should do in normal situations, but I don't see this as a particularly normal situation. No one seems to agree on what our policies say or what they ought to say. It's attractive to paper-over that disagreement by pointing to some distant past where we did agree, but given my reading of the discussion, I don't think that's an adequate summary of the community sentiment. — Wug· a·po·des 00:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
"backdoor" into removing SNGs altogether. Many of them explicitly cited Cbl's !vote, which was itself quite open to having some form of relationship between NSPORTS and GNG. So your reading of the discussion, that
The ammount of opposition suggests this [n.b. "this" being "the existing consensus that In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline"] is in fact not the consensus understanding (see also deletion review outcome)., seems inaccurate, as most of the opposition has nothing to do with GNG, with only very few of those opposing the proposal opposing the application of GNG.
So as a further example, consider the opposition you characterized as arguing proposal 1 being a "backdoor way of removing SNGs". In my reading, those comments were indirectly referencing WP:SNG, the section of N which contradicts the 2017 consensus you reference (this isn't just my invention, Jkudlick specifically references the conflict with WP:N in their 13 Feb !vote).The GNG is part of a wider guideline, and its relationship to SNGs is written about other places than just NSPORTS. The relationship between them does need clarified, but I do take the point that that part of the close may lead to interpretations that are more strict than is warranted. — Wug· a·po·des 02:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. How is this not compatible with SNGs "predicting" which subjects are likely to have "appropriate sourcing", and then defining the latter as "multiple pieces of SIGCOV in ISRS"?
A rule stating that passing NSPORTS would have zero effect in AfD discussions would render meaningless the "presumption of notability" created by the SNG....
A topic should have at least a year after the article is created for editors to search for SIGCOV in libraries, paper archives, etc.
Full accounting of !votes
|
---|
|
The fact that this is getting so much opposition should be a hint that it's not merely codifying existing accepted practice. If that was the case it wouldn't be controversial.(2) It doesn't, but some editors think it should. "or" in English is ambiguous between inclusive or and exclusive or. A significant minority of editors believe meeting an SNG should be sufficient, and this is consistent with wider policy. (3) You conveniently leave out parts of Cbl's comment which contradict your interpretation.
This is an entirely new and different RfC that would dramatically change NSPORTS....imposing new restrictions that do not apply to academics, entertainers, politicians, businessmen, or any other group or category.(emphasis added). I'd suggest that you consider whether you're actually looking at this discussion objectively. To get to your actual question though: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, decisions are not made by voting, and a previous consensus is not an iron law that must be "overturned". Consensus is a statement about the level of agreement in the community at a given time and place, and the community does not agree that the "NSPORTS equals GNG" interpretation is correct. If it was correct, we would have seen your proposal to add such wording pass easily, but it didn't. This was explained to you, directly, in the original discussion. If you want to assert that a particular interpretation has the force of a policy or guideline, you need something stronger than a technicality. (4) Proposal 11 had minimal participation, mostly from people who (continue to) bludgeon the discussion. I ignored proposal 11 because there's no consensus to be found there given the low and biased participation. Perhaps "failure" was too strong, but the point is that using proposal 8 to get around the lack of consensus at proposal 1 is gaming the process. Raising the same point over and over again until opposition tires does not make a great case for consensus (see WP:BLUDGEON). That aspect of proposal 8 was brought up repeatedly in the discussion, and is reflected in the relatively low participation compared to the earlier proposals in the RfC. — Wug· a·po·des 01:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
There's a big difference between saying "the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" and "all subjects of sports biographies will be deleted at AfD unless evidence that the subject meets the GNG is presented right now".The former is the status quo ante for NSPORT, the latter was proposal 1, and your quote from Hut 8.5 was strictly concerning opposition to the latter. I cannot stress enough that these should not be conflated! b) That comment was made shortly after sports project editors were canvased through very non-neutral RfC notices, and ultimately it is inapplicable anyway since the sentiment in subsequent weeks was much much more supportive.
There's a big difference between saying "the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" and "all subjects of sports biographies will be deleted at AfD unless evidence that the subject meets the GNG is presented right now".The latter is exactly what Cbl62 is objecting to in his comment, it is exactly what many other !voters were opposing, and it also happens to be what the majority of proposal 1 participants !voted for.
"the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG"was not the topic of the proposal, and the (minority) opposition to the proposal absolutely does not override the consensus interpretation literally invoked in the overwhelming majority of AfD and DRV closing statements that directly addressed the NSPORT-GNG relationship, or the hundreds of AfDs where an SSG-meeting athlete was uncontroversially deleted.
Rewrite the introductory paragraph to put this guideline on a similar footing to other SNGs, removing the dependence on the GNG, which directly confirms the accepted NSPORT interpretation was that it is "dependent on the GNG". JoelleJay ( talk) 03:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD, so I don't take seriously your assertion now that
"the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" was not the topic of the proposal. 20 people, many of whom bludgeoned discussion for over a month, self-selected from a discussion of nearly 90 is low participation and it's not valid to draw conclusions from it.I don't plan to respond further. I think it's obvious by this point that I disagree with your reading of the discussion and your ability to objectively assess the consensus in that proposal. If your question is "why" I did something, I've explained it to you multiple times, in multiple ways, for a week now. If you think I'm wrong, I've opened a close review where you can try to convince the community of your arguments. — Wug· a·po·des 20:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
There's a big difference between saying "the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" and "all subjects of sports biographies will be deleted at AfD unless evidence that the subject meets the GNG is presented right now". A significant proportion of the opposers explicitly acknowledged this difference in their !votes, many more are aware of and recognize that the current guideline requires GNG is met and eventually demonstrated. I don't know how this could be any clearer. I will indeed take this to the closure review. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Problems
Changes later this week
uselang=qqx
to find localisation messages, it will now show all possible message keys for navigation tabs such as "View history".
[4]deletelogentry
and deletedhistory
rights through their group memberships. Before, only those with the deleterevision
right could access this special page.
[5]Future changes
Events
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. —
Wug·
a·po·des
21:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Welcome to the twentieth newsletter from the Growth team!
The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in Wikimedia projects.
As of February, 300,000 suggested edits have been completed since the feature was first deployed in December 2019.
Add a link is the team's first structured task, deployed in May 2021. It has improved outcomes for newcomers. The team is now working on a second iteration based on community feedback and data analysis. Improvements will include: improved algorithmic suggestions, guardrails to prevent too many similar links to be added, and clearer encouragement for users to continue making edits. After adding these improvements, we will deploy this task to more Wikipedias.
Add an image is the second structured task built by our team. It was deployed in November 2021 to four pilot Wikipedias. This is a more challenging task for newcomers. However, it adds more value to articles (so far, over 1,000 images have been added). We are currently learning from communities and from the data on what is working well and what needs improvements. The project page contains links to interactive prototypes. We are very interested to hear your thoughts on this idea as we build and test the early versions. We will soon deploy this task to more Wikipedias as a test.
"Add a link" and "Add an image" now both have a limitation on how many of these tasks newcomers can do per day. It is meant to discourage careless newcomers from making too many problematic edits.
Over the last two years, the Growth team has focused on building suggested edits: easy tasks for newcomers to start with. We have learned with this experience that these tasks help many newcomers to make their first edits. Now, the team is starting a new project : " positive reinforcement". Its goal is to make newcomers proud of their editing and to make them want to come back for more of them. With the positive reinforcement project, we are considering three kinds of features:
This project is just beginning, and we hope for community thoughts on the direction. We know that things can wrong if we offer the wrong incentives to newcomers, so we want to be careful. Please visit the talk page to help guide the project!
Some wikis have created userboxes that mentors can display on the user pages. If your wiki has one, please link it to Wikidata!
Previously, at most Wikipedias, only 80% of newcomers were getting the Growth features. This was done for experimentation, to have a control group. We have changed this setting. Now 100% of new accounts at all Wikipedias get the Growth features ( except a few, kept as test wikis). We invite communities to update their onboarding documentation and tutorials. Please include the Growth features in it. To help you, we have created an help page that can be translated and adapted to your wiki.
Do you have questions about the Growth features? This translatable FAQ contains answers to the most common questions about the Growth team work. We regularly update it.
Interface translations are important for newcomers. Please help for your language, by translating or copyediting interface translations for the Growth features.
Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
17:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Template:Ussc/rewrite has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 12:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, Wugapodes. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 00:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
New code release schedule for this week
Recent changes
Future changes
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Wugapodes! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! Your many contributions since then are appreciated! {{u| Sdkb}} talk 17:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC) |
{{u| Sdkb}} talk 17:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Sir,
How can change name space? Could you please help me? -- Ajitkumarpanicker ( talk). 11:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Wugapodes, that persistent disruptive editing person is back again with another ip 172.58.172.5. drmies had his other ip blocked last month for 6 months but now he's back with another one. This guy has a long history of this kind of stuff going back 4 years. Please help. Thanks Doriden ( talk) 16:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for support in the RfC for DYK - music with a chance to listen, - the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices afterwards call "Freiheit!" instead of "Freude". Music every day, pictured in songs. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Changes later this week
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
19:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
hello -- Proguyyh ( talk) 01:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Stanley Kubrick on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, the review has been archived without any clear consensus on whether proposal 3 should be implemented. Soon after page protection was lifted proposal 3 was implemented on the NSPORTS page with the mass removal of participation criteria. I reverted that on the basis that more discussion and a consensus is needed. Can you please give your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) as that will help resolve the matter, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I have done my best to suggest replacement policies and approaches that would help editors comply with the new policy, but most of my efforts have been thrown back in my faceI would like to look into this more. Could you point me to those discussions? — Wug· a·po·des 08:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I think just the one sig at the bottom of the closing statement would have sufficed, if it's all material written by you. Because, originally, the bottom of your closing statement was unsigned (and in plain text), which was visually confusing to me. Anyway, thanks for the ping, I guess, but I'll never look at that page again, so no need to include me in any further anything regarding it. I am blocking it out of my mind. See ya. El_C 12:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
that [it] would be ideal for meif that were to happen.
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Will Smith on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey. Thanks for blocking that editor, I was in the process of writing up an ANI thread for them. Any chance you could hide/revdel the personal attack made here please? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I need someone to make me an article for something. I will provide you with the details once you respond back to me. -- GamingSquiddy ( talk) 00:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Apologies for reopening this, but I would like to request a minor clarification - I don't intend to dispute your decision. Is the consensus for subproposal three limited to athletes, or does it extend to other participants such as coaches? BilledMammal ( talk) 01:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Wugapodes, given you closed the RFC, you should be the one to edit WP:NSPORTS to reflect your reading of the consensus. It is entirely inappropriate for any other editor (from any, or no, sides) to do that. Giant Snowman 19:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline..
The ammount of opposition suggests this is in fact not the consensus understanding(regarding articles needing to meet GNG), beyond the fact that it shouldn't be saying that (as the previous consensus, that they do, was not repealed) seems inaccurate, or at least focuses on a rather minor point, as the main argument of those who opposed was not that GNG was not required (although there were a few, or some who did not provide a rationale at all), but rather claims that requiring GNG would be a "backdoor to abolishing the SNG" (an argument whose validity is very much questionable, but that doesn't change the fact there probably was no consensus on the specific subproposal, so let's not get bogged down). Looking at the proposal in depth provides hard evidence to back this up. Beyond some additional opposition which is either not at all persuasive (opposing because this "unfairly targets sports" - I hope that's not from the same people complaining this was a trainwreck, because then that would've been even worse) or actually clearly not disagreeing with GNG ("Agree with athletes must demonstrate GNG, but proposal overly bureaucratic"); the vast majority of opposition was not that GNG shouldn't be met (only 3 comments that directly mention this), but that this was a "backdoor way of removing SNGs" (17 comments, by my count). In fact, many of those arguing against didn't argue much but just pointed to Cbl62's comment, which says, rather explicitly,
I favor imposing a requirement of including one example of SIGCOV (above and beyond a database) as a better solution.So rather clear that GNG (or a slightly less stringent requirement, at least as a temporary measure) must still apply.
There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline, and this is not strictly true. WP:N states in the lead that
A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG), and the section WP:SNG references specific guidelines that are substitutes for the GNG. This is a nitpick, of course, but I point it out as an example of how consensus has changed in the last 5 years. For example, the October 2017 version of WP:N has no section on SNGs, it was added later and the lead never changed despite that closure. A 5-year-old discussion is helpful, but what's important is how participants understand policies and their relationship now. So as a further example, consider the opposition you characterized as arguing proposal 1 being a "backdoor way of removing SNGs". In my reading, those comments were indirectly referencing WP:SNG, the section of N which contradicts the 2017 consensus you reference (this isn't just my invention, Jkudlick specifically references the conflict with WP:N in their 13 Feb !vote).So let's return to proposal 1 of the discussion. Supporters argue that it is documenting the status quo by documenting the conclusion of the 2017 discussion. Others argue that it's not the status quo (pointing to, e.g., WP:SNG which was added after the 2017 discussion and contradicts it) or that it shouldn't be the case (e.g., because it will increase systemic bias). These are not frivolous objections, and they cast doubt on the idea that the proposed change is simply a documentation of existing understandings. It helps to think about it from the other direction as well: if we accept the supporters' arguments that this simply documents an existing consensus then we should see robust agreement to implement it. Except we don't. The discussion is better attended than the 2017 discussion, so it's hard to argue it's because of a lack of participation. Opposition references the current version of N, one of our most fundamental guidelines (arguably policy), so it's hard to say it's not policy backed. We get DRVs which uphold closures that interpret SNGs in line with N, so it's hard to say that the interpretation is unreasonable. We got pretty good agreement on proposal 5, so it's hard to say that participants couldn't come to a consensus if they wanted. The central question to consider is: if we take as true the claim that proposal 1 documents the status-quo consensus, why did it struggle to actually achieve consensus?I don't propose to answer that question. I don't think I can, but it points out the issue of "no consensus retains the status quo" in this situation: the discussion cast doubt on what the status quo even is. So I think we all agree that, without consensus for the proposed wording, the existing "should" language is retained for now, but what does it mean? Some people think it equals "must" others think it is more lax than that, and the "status quo" is found in a 5-year-old discussion that's of questionable utility based on this discussion. The best answer I have, and what I tried to articulate in the close, is that there's no consensus on any of this. Right now the community simply hasn't agreed on an answer. There's no consensus to make "should" into "must", but there isn't consensus to outright remove a connection between NSPORTS and GNG. The obvious solution, in my eyes, is to just sidestep the issue and use the existing wording with its usual meaning: "strongly recommended but not strictly required". Subsequent RfCs can clarify this---I think that would be a good idea---but at the moment there simply doesn't seem to be a consensus on this.The policy at WP:NOCONSENSUS tells us what we should do in normal situations, but I don't see this as a particularly normal situation. No one seems to agree on what our policies say or what they ought to say. It's attractive to paper-over that disagreement by pointing to some distant past where we did agree, but given my reading of the discussion, I don't think that's an adequate summary of the community sentiment. — Wug· a·po·des 00:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
"backdoor" into removing SNGs altogether. Many of them explicitly cited Cbl's !vote, which was itself quite open to having some form of relationship between NSPORTS and GNG. So your reading of the discussion, that
The ammount of opposition suggests this [n.b. "this" being "the existing consensus that In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline"] is in fact not the consensus understanding (see also deletion review outcome)., seems inaccurate, as most of the opposition has nothing to do with GNG, with only very few of those opposing the proposal opposing the application of GNG.
So as a further example, consider the opposition you characterized as arguing proposal 1 being a "backdoor way of removing SNGs". In my reading, those comments were indirectly referencing WP:SNG, the section of N which contradicts the 2017 consensus you reference (this isn't just my invention, Jkudlick specifically references the conflict with WP:N in their 13 Feb !vote).The GNG is part of a wider guideline, and its relationship to SNGs is written about other places than just NSPORTS. The relationship between them does need clarified, but I do take the point that that part of the close may lead to interpretations that are more strict than is warranted. — Wug· a·po·des 02:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. How is this not compatible with SNGs "predicting" which subjects are likely to have "appropriate sourcing", and then defining the latter as "multiple pieces of SIGCOV in ISRS"?
A rule stating that passing NSPORTS would have zero effect in AfD discussions would render meaningless the "presumption of notability" created by the SNG....
A topic should have at least a year after the article is created for editors to search for SIGCOV in libraries, paper archives, etc.
Full accounting of !votes
|
---|
|
The fact that this is getting so much opposition should be a hint that it's not merely codifying existing accepted practice. If that was the case it wouldn't be controversial.(2) It doesn't, but some editors think it should. "or" in English is ambiguous between inclusive or and exclusive or. A significant minority of editors believe meeting an SNG should be sufficient, and this is consistent with wider policy. (3) You conveniently leave out parts of Cbl's comment which contradict your interpretation.
This is an entirely new and different RfC that would dramatically change NSPORTS....imposing new restrictions that do not apply to academics, entertainers, politicians, businessmen, or any other group or category.(emphasis added). I'd suggest that you consider whether you're actually looking at this discussion objectively. To get to your actual question though: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, decisions are not made by voting, and a previous consensus is not an iron law that must be "overturned". Consensus is a statement about the level of agreement in the community at a given time and place, and the community does not agree that the "NSPORTS equals GNG" interpretation is correct. If it was correct, we would have seen your proposal to add such wording pass easily, but it didn't. This was explained to you, directly, in the original discussion. If you want to assert that a particular interpretation has the force of a policy or guideline, you need something stronger than a technicality. (4) Proposal 11 had minimal participation, mostly from people who (continue to) bludgeon the discussion. I ignored proposal 11 because there's no consensus to be found there given the low and biased participation. Perhaps "failure" was too strong, but the point is that using proposal 8 to get around the lack of consensus at proposal 1 is gaming the process. Raising the same point over and over again until opposition tires does not make a great case for consensus (see WP:BLUDGEON). That aspect of proposal 8 was brought up repeatedly in the discussion, and is reflected in the relatively low participation compared to the earlier proposals in the RfC. — Wug· a·po·des 01:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
There's a big difference between saying "the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" and "all subjects of sports biographies will be deleted at AfD unless evidence that the subject meets the GNG is presented right now".The former is the status quo ante for NSPORT, the latter was proposal 1, and your quote from Hut 8.5 was strictly concerning opposition to the latter. I cannot stress enough that these should not be conflated! b) That comment was made shortly after sports project editors were canvased through very non-neutral RfC notices, and ultimately it is inapplicable anyway since the sentiment in subsequent weeks was much much more supportive.
There's a big difference between saying "the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" and "all subjects of sports biographies will be deleted at AfD unless evidence that the subject meets the GNG is presented right now".The latter is exactly what Cbl62 is objecting to in his comment, it is exactly what many other !voters were opposing, and it also happens to be what the majority of proposal 1 participants !voted for.
"the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG"was not the topic of the proposal, and the (minority) opposition to the proposal absolutely does not override the consensus interpretation literally invoked in the overwhelming majority of AfD and DRV closing statements that directly addressed the NSPORT-GNG relationship, or the hundreds of AfDs where an SSG-meeting athlete was uncontroversially deleted.
Rewrite the introductory paragraph to put this guideline on a similar footing to other SNGs, removing the dependence on the GNG, which directly confirms the accepted NSPORT interpretation was that it is "dependent on the GNG". JoelleJay ( talk) 03:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD, so I don't take seriously your assertion now that
"the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" was not the topic of the proposal. 20 people, many of whom bludgeoned discussion for over a month, self-selected from a discussion of nearly 90 is low participation and it's not valid to draw conclusions from it.I don't plan to respond further. I think it's obvious by this point that I disagree with your reading of the discussion and your ability to objectively assess the consensus in that proposal. If your question is "why" I did something, I've explained it to you multiple times, in multiple ways, for a week now. If you think I'm wrong, I've opened a close review where you can try to convince the community of your arguments. — Wug· a·po·des 20:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
There's a big difference between saying "the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" and "all subjects of sports biographies will be deleted at AfD unless evidence that the subject meets the GNG is presented right now". A significant proportion of the opposers explicitly acknowledged this difference in their !votes, many more are aware of and recognize that the current guideline requires GNG is met and eventually demonstrated. I don't know how this could be any clearer. I will indeed take this to the closure review. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Problems
Changes later this week
uselang=qqx
to find localisation messages, it will now show all possible message keys for navigation tabs such as "View history".
[4]deletelogentry
and deletedhistory
rights through their group memberships. Before, only those with the deleterevision
right could access this special page.
[5]Future changes
Events
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. —
Wug·
a·po·des
21:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Welcome to the twentieth newsletter from the Growth team!
The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in Wikimedia projects.
As of February, 300,000 suggested edits have been completed since the feature was first deployed in December 2019.
Add a link is the team's first structured task, deployed in May 2021. It has improved outcomes for newcomers. The team is now working on a second iteration based on community feedback and data analysis. Improvements will include: improved algorithmic suggestions, guardrails to prevent too many similar links to be added, and clearer encouragement for users to continue making edits. After adding these improvements, we will deploy this task to more Wikipedias.
Add an image is the second structured task built by our team. It was deployed in November 2021 to four pilot Wikipedias. This is a more challenging task for newcomers. However, it adds more value to articles (so far, over 1,000 images have been added). We are currently learning from communities and from the data on what is working well and what needs improvements. The project page contains links to interactive prototypes. We are very interested to hear your thoughts on this idea as we build and test the early versions. We will soon deploy this task to more Wikipedias as a test.
"Add a link" and "Add an image" now both have a limitation on how many of these tasks newcomers can do per day. It is meant to discourage careless newcomers from making too many problematic edits.
Over the last two years, the Growth team has focused on building suggested edits: easy tasks for newcomers to start with. We have learned with this experience that these tasks help many newcomers to make their first edits. Now, the team is starting a new project : " positive reinforcement". Its goal is to make newcomers proud of their editing and to make them want to come back for more of them. With the positive reinforcement project, we are considering three kinds of features:
This project is just beginning, and we hope for community thoughts on the direction. We know that things can wrong if we offer the wrong incentives to newcomers, so we want to be careful. Please visit the talk page to help guide the project!
Some wikis have created userboxes that mentors can display on the user pages. If your wiki has one, please link it to Wikidata!
Previously, at most Wikipedias, only 80% of newcomers were getting the Growth features. This was done for experimentation, to have a control group. We have changed this setting. Now 100% of new accounts at all Wikipedias get the Growth features ( except a few, kept as test wikis). We invite communities to update their onboarding documentation and tutorials. Please include the Growth features in it. To help you, we have created an help page that can be translated and adapted to your wiki.
Do you have questions about the Growth features? This translatable FAQ contains answers to the most common questions about the Growth team work. We regularly update it.
Interface translations are important for newcomers. Please help for your language, by translating or copyediting interface translations for the Growth features.
Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
17:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Template:Ussc/rewrite has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 12:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, Wugapodes. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 00:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
New code release schedule for this week
Recent changes
Future changes
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Wugapodes! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! Your many contributions since then are appreciated! {{u| Sdkb}} talk 17:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC) |
{{u| Sdkb}} talk 17:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Sir,
How can change name space? Could you please help me? -- Ajitkumarpanicker ( talk). 11:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Wugapodes, that persistent disruptive editing person is back again with another ip 172.58.172.5. drmies had his other ip blocked last month for 6 months but now he's back with another one. This guy has a long history of this kind of stuff going back 4 years. Please help. Thanks Doriden ( talk) 16:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for support in the RfC for DYK - music with a chance to listen, - the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices afterwards call "Freiheit!" instead of "Freude". Music every day, pictured in songs. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Changes later this week
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
19:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
hello -- Proguyyh ( talk) 01:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Stanley Kubrick on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, the review has been archived without any clear consensus on whether proposal 3 should be implemented. Soon after page protection was lifted proposal 3 was implemented on the NSPORTS page with the mass removal of participation criteria. I reverted that on the basis that more discussion and a consensus is needed. Can you please give your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) as that will help resolve the matter, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I have done my best to suggest replacement policies and approaches that would help editors comply with the new policy, but most of my efforts have been thrown back in my faceI would like to look into this more. Could you point me to those discussions? — Wug· a·po·des 08:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I think just the one sig at the bottom of the closing statement would have sufficed, if it's all material written by you. Because, originally, the bottom of your closing statement was unsigned (and in plain text), which was visually confusing to me. Anyway, thanks for the ping, I guess, but I'll never look at that page again, so no need to include me in any further anything regarding it. I am blocking it out of my mind. See ya. El_C 12:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
that [it] would be ideal for meif that were to happen.
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Will Smith on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey. Thanks for blocking that editor, I was in the process of writing up an ANI thread for them. Any chance you could hide/revdel the personal attack made here please? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I need someone to make me an article for something. I will provide you with the details once you respond back to me. -- GamingSquiddy ( talk) 00:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)