No consensus. Opinions are almost evenly split between keeping Wikibooks and removing it from the results. Some people also suggested moving it to the bottom of the search results if we keep it. Kaldari ( talk) 20:20, 26 July 2017 (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.

---

Apparently, the previous RfC was inconclusive on this point (or at least didn't have enough participants to establish a convincing consensus). [1] Instead of arguing about it, let's just see if there is consensus one way or the other and settle the matter. Should Wikibooks pages be included as part of the sister project results in Wikipedia search results? (See screenshot for an example.) Kaldari ( talk) 21:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose As the previous RfC determined, the content in Wikibooks isn't worthy of being linked here. The sole voice to support inclusion only hoped that seeing the results in Wikibooks would draw drive-by editors away from dumping their useless content at en-wp. Chris Troutman ( talk) 07:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Just noting that if Wikibooks is included I think it should be placed last. Users are trained to expect content in order of relevance, and in the Brazil example on the right, when they get to "World Stamp Catalogue" in the list of cross-project results, they are going to tune out, in spite of the fact that the Wikivoyage result lower down is very relevant to their search. Of the wikis included in cross-wiki search, Wikibooks content is probably least likely to be relevant, so it should go last. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Question, This, that and the other: do you want Wikibooks included in or excluded from the search results? -- George Ho ( talk) 14:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Don't feel strongly either way, but favour inclusion over exclusion. Positioning might be a good thing to adapt, per TTO. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - There are other ways to cross-communicate and cross-contribute. However, saying that Wikibooks is "least likely to be relevant" implies that readers would not want to go to Wikibooks while using their own search terms. I like the "positioning" idea, but that depends on what the community wants and how the community would organize the projects in search results. Does the community want the results in this order: Wiktionary, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, and Wikiquote? (Note that I excluded Wikibooks.) Or does the community want the results organized in relevance order, like this: Brazil, Brazil, Brazil, Brazil, and World Stamp Catalogue?

  Meanwhile, why including Wikibooks if there's either apathy or not much enthusiasm toward the project Wikibooks? I appreciate the developers' work on improving the Foundation's search engine. However, if no one cares for Wikibooks, and almost no one is willing to complete the incomplete books, then don't include Wikibooks. There's no sense on including Wikibooks if the community doesn't care for it. Also, no sense on including it in contrast to the previous RfC discussion. Unless I see compassion and interest toward Wikibooks, which would prompt me into favoring the inclusion, I won't change my vote. George Ho ( talk) 19:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC); changed vote, so see my new comment below. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  – The below "support" votes say limit the query or put Wikibooks to last. If that's the case, then maybe excluding the results from Wikibooks would be a safest bet until I see a newer, fresher enthusiasm toward Wikibooks. Including Wikibooks for the sake of including it, even when limited, is not a good adequate reason to support the inclusion, especially when (as said above) the enthusiasm toward Wikibooks is (nearly) absent. Wikivoyage was limited to just title matches, but the consensus allows the inclusion of Wikivoyage for various reasons, like free travel advertising and driving travel-guide editing out of Wikipedia. I don't see a case here, especially since the consensus seems rarely interested in the project. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Content is lacking; there are just 66 complete (featured) books, and incomplete books don't seem particularly useful to readers wanting to learn a topic. Wikibooks is also just not all that important, judging by the lack of interest in this RfC. Jc86035 ( talk) Use {{ re|Jc86035}}
  to reply to me 17:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of Wikibooks in search results, but make it last, or organize results by relevance to search term. It could be incredibly helpful if Wikibooks has an entire textbook on a subject. I personally use the cookbook, and find that is very helpful when I remember to use it rather than a general internet search. Wikibooks becomes more useful when it is more visible, and I don't see the sense in hiding it from our readers and editors. The Simple English Wikipedia should be included, too. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 17:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - maybe make it so that Wikibooks is displayed only if the search string is matched in the page title. Wikibooks results tend to be mostly almost wholly irrelevant tangential mentions of the search string somewhere deep in a book page. Daß  Wölf 19:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

How would that help? E-textbooks are titled slightly differently. Type either "ESL" or "English as a second or foreign language" or "English", and you'll see partial matches in Wikibooks. Also, the titling varies, depending on b:Wikibooks:Naming policy. If you type in b:English, it redirects to "Subject:English language". Pinging Chris, This, that and the other, TheDJ, Jc86035, and Jack about this suggestion. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Daß Wölf for response. Also, how would title matching help improve "chalupa" search results and include b:Cookbook:Chalupa? -- George Ho ( talk) 02:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it was an idea. The Wikibooks search engine is certainly lagging behind our other projects -- when I search for "chalupa" even on Wikibooks, the only result is b:False Friends of the Slavist/Russian-Polish. Daß  Wölf 23:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support, but some tweaking might be necessary to avoid pointing to books that are only tangentially related to the search query. -- Yair rand ( talk) 21:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support goal of this project from the start.. Jimmy Wales: The birth of Wikipedia . -- Moxy ( talk) 01:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  Jimbo Wales mentioned Wikibooks at the very end of the video, Moxy. It's been 14 years since its creation. Some books are completed, most of them Featured Books. By the way, I typed "risotto", and it doesn't include b:Cookbook:Risotto. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

So your suggesting we improve the search engine.....they are doing just that. Best to try to improve what we have over pusing it under the rug. We need to put our efforts in to problem solving. Your examples are a great starting point.-- Moxy ( talk) 02:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

b:Cookbook:Risotto could be a very helpful search result. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 02:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@ George Ho: this seemed rather strange to me. When looking into it, I realized you cannot even find that cookbook on en.wikibooks itself. I think I have found the cause of that in phab:T170473 — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Umm, TheDJ... you can configure advanced search, select whichever namespace(s) you want to search through, and... voila. :D -- George Ho ( talk) 21:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not how it's supposed to work. The default setting should normally search all content, not just main space. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment regarding purpose of this project from the beginning: Wikipedia actually came from Larry Sanger, the man who did most of the heavy lifting. We should ask Larry Sanger, the man who actually created Wikipedia. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  Hmm... At first QuackGuru, I thought the source was misleading because it doesn't mention Wikibooks and because it's about including the project in the search results. But then... I used Ctrl+F, typed "search", and found what it said: "More users meant more articles, and more articles meant more search engine results, which brought in even more users. It was a snowball effect that would send Wikipedia traffic – and content volume – into the stratosphere." A nifty quote, admittedly. Still, I wonder how it helps to persuade me into supporting the inclusion of Wikibooks. We already have live cross-wiki search results and included Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikivoyage, and Wikisource. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  What is the quality of Wikibooks? What does the WMF say about adding it to the search results? What did QuackGuru mean? Others can decide for us? QuackGuru ( talk) 02:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  Well... I was thinking the third question, QuackGuru. I could answer other questions if I can. Sorry about the previous response; I was either confused or unsure whether your comment was an attempted humor. My apologies if you feel offended. George Ho ( talk) 02:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support I've found Wikibooks to be helpful when learning programming languages, and think it's a valuable thing to link to as a side matter. No doubt the search results need some refining, but that can happen over time. Legoktm ( talk) 01:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose -- aren't Wikibooks collections of Wikipedia articles to begin with? If so, there's no need. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @ K.e.coffman: No, you're thinking of Wikipedia Books. Wikibooks hosts original free content textbooks. Kaldari ( talk) 20:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @ K.e.coffman: Some or many pages were imported from Wikipedia or Wikiversity, like b:Cookbook:Zippuli from Zippuli. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    • • It should be noted that content has gone in both directions, where I have personally moved Wikibook content to Wikipedia to start new articles here.... usually from misguided folks who simply didn't know where to put the content. Also, Wikiversity started on Wikibooks and was hosted on en.wikibooks for nearly five years before moving onto its own server. en.wikibooks also used to be multi-lingual and hosted every language version of Wikibooks at one point. Content has been moved to Commons, Meta, and even onto Wikia servers at various points of time... for better or worse. That from time to time content is also started on Wikipedia and gets moved to Wikibooks is more of a style issue and depends on the content, but Wikipedia is usually not the seed from which books are created. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 02:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment--@ Fram, Dlohcierekim, Beetstra, and WhatamIdoing:--Pinging participants of the prev. discussion.Please share your views on the regard.Thanks! Winged Blades ^Godric 10:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - As a long time admin at Wikibooks and somebody who can be asserted as a champion of the project, I am utterly dismayed at the lack of understanding of what the project even is based on many of the above comments. I might add that among the various users of Wikipedia that are clueless about what Wikibooks is about includes Jimmy Wales himself, even though he supported its creation based upon a policy discussion here on the Village Pump. The featured books would indeed be valuable to link in terms of search results, and as for the incomplete books.... those can and ought to be treated as if they are stubs no different or as complete as stub articles here on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I'd say that the skills necessary to flesh out and finish a book on Wikibooks are far more difficult than it is to flesh out a Wikipedia article (having done both... I can say this with experience). Particularly for featured books, they should definitely be linked in appropriate Wikipedia articles (and usually are I might add). That the project could use some loving from its bigger sister on Wikipedia is no doubt, but I'd also invite those who might not know about Wikibooks to any great extent to simply go over the the project and check it out... and help out if possible. It would be nice for the project to have a search engine display some results potentially to encourage more readers, but frankly I'm personally neutral either way. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 01:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Just as a personal word, know that there are many people supporting the sister projects (I witness this at each event I attend). Unfortunately there seems to be a large contingent of (vocal) Wikipedians, who are against anything that isn't directly benefitting Wikipedia itself. Do not let your enthusiasm be withered by the sour grapes of Wikipedia. You can counter with the fact that Wikipedia sucks because in 17 years they only managed to write 5000 featured article, if that makes you feel better :) P.S. I'm anti- one of the sister projects myself, but that doesn't mean i don't respect the energy people put into it. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 15:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose--Per above.No particular benefits.A hodge-podge project. Winged Blades ^Godric 10:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Robert Horning. Wikibooks is not that large it won't pollute Wikipedia searches. It will help a sister project. It will help users find free open source content the purpose of Wiki. -- Green C 15:45, 24 July 2017 (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.

Post-closure discussion

Somehow, the task to suppress Wikibooks from search results is declined. Then a task to sort search results from sister projects is made. I don't know why "no consensus" should be interpreted as leaving the results as is. George Ho ( talk) 23:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Kaldari and DTankersley in case that they rather discuss at here than at Phabricator. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@ George Ho: I'm not involved in that decision. I was just trying to get some clarity on what the community's opinion was on the matter. Kaldari ( talk) 00:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Kaldari. Would "no consensus" mean defaulting to excluding the results per the other discussion? -- George Ho ( talk) 00:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@ George Ho and Kaldari:--In absence of a concensus, status-quo shall prevail which shall be the exclusion of search results(as consequent of the prev. discussion). Winged Blades ^Godric 12:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Until I get a response from Deb soon (well, not too soon), I thought about taking this to the admins' noticeboard. Thoughts, Godric and Kaldari? -- George Ho ( talk) 13:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's wait for two/three days.Anyway, AN doesn't seem to be the apt place! Winged Blades ^Godric 14:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, Godric, I thought about re-proposal to exclude it. However, I worry that I might rephrase the same question. -- George Ho ( talk) 14:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The community has wanted sister projects to be included in the search results since at least 2009—and has implemented it successfully on various wikis without censoring the projects that are displayed. The idea of this feature is that showing additional search results across projects will not only increase visibility into those other sister projects, but it could also increase discovery into more articles of interest and maybe even encourage additional contributions.

I made the decision to keep Wikibooks in the sister projects snippets on enwiki because (based on the two RfC's that have dealt with this issue) there was no consensus for either removing or keeping the project in the search results, as Kaldari pointed out when the second RfC was closed. However, in that closing statement, there is a recommendation to have Wikibooks displayed at the bottom of the sister project snippets, which I agreed with and created ( T171803) to start that work effort and declined ( T168697). DTankersley (WMF) ( talk) 16:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Deb. When is the best time to propose to exclude Wikibooks? -- George Ho ( talk) 19:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I still think declining the task to suppress the results is a disregard to the "no consensus" to include Wikibooks, and creating a task to adjust the Wikibooks results as a compromise between both sides is an attempt to change the community's mind without further discussion. Isn't this wrong? George Ho ( talk) 21:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Letting things fade away is often helpful. Wait a couple of months by which time people will have a much better feeling for what is going on and what should happen. There is no need for this much discussion at this stage. Johnuniq ( talk) 22:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. You are invited to comment on this ANI reform RfC. Please do not comment in this thread; post all comments on the RfC pages. Thanks, Biblio ( talk) 19:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Any ideas on how to get an editor to leave edit summaries please, for example here and here. Aoziwe ( talk) 14:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Leaving {{ Uw-editsummary}} on their talk page is the standard method I'd know to try. Dhtwiki ( talk) 22:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I will see what happens. Already tried a request. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be not working. Aoziwe ( talk) 10:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Forget about it. People should use edit summaries but unless there are other problems with the editing there is no practical way to force the issue. Cases at WP:ANI have usually overlooked a lack of cooperation regarding edit summaries, or even a failure to respond on talk pages. It's only if there are persistent problems affecting content that action is likely. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Aoziwe ( talk) 12:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Aoziwe, I've seen editors described as not being cooperative if they don't use edit summaries or ever communicate on talk pages (and I do find such editors frustrating because they are so often problematic), but action isn't taken against them unless their lack of cooperation is shown to be a problem; for example, the editor keeps making edits that go against WP:Consensus and isn't trying to work the matter out on the talk page. This leads verbal editors to wonder if the non-verbal editor is actually aware of the issue. Such non-verbal editors are usually blocked on WP:NOTHERE and/or WP:COMPETENCE grounds. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Please come participate: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 27#Template:Recent death Aboriginal Aus. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, the result of the discussion was to delete the template in question. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, there is currently a discussion with the WMF about the length of ACTRIAL that is happening at Wikipedia_talk:Autoconfirmed_article_creation_trial#Trial_duration. All are welcome to give their thoughts. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I notice that the immediately above thread was closed, with the comment that one of the considerations was the need to avoid Biting. Yes. I will take this occasion to offer the perverse thought that, in my opinion, although Do not bite the newcomers, which is officially a behavioral guideline, is, as written, a useful behavioral guideline, as applied, it now does more harm than good. As applied, it seems to have become not merely a policy but a dogma, something that overrides policies and is not subject to reason. It does more harm than good as implemented for three reasons. First, combative new editors use it as a weapon to blow off advice that they should take advice or that they should edit collaboratively, because they have found the Bite dogma, and say that they are being bitten if they are being cautioned. It empowers combative new editors to avoid being oriented to the culture of Wikipedia. Second, as we have seen here, it causes experienced editors to go to bizarre lengths to avoid being "bitey". Third, it causes experienced editors to worry too long in cases where new editors need to be bitten. (Undisclosed paid editors need to be bitten. Trolls need to be bitten. Flamers need to be reasoned with but then bitten, but the Bite rule enables them to bite back too long.)

WP:BITE, as applied, does more harm than good, because it has become a dogma that supersedes reason. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I usually agree with your conclusions, but... :(

So is it your theory that there exists a significant number of combative new editors who currently blow off advice and fail to edit collaboratively but will no longer exhibit these behaviors if we change our of our behavioral guideline? Or is it your theory that there exists a significant number of combative new editors who currently blow off advice and fail to edit collaboratively but will no longer exhibit these behaviors if we allow other editors to bite them?

In my opinion your final sentence ("Undisclosed paid editors need to be bitten. Trolls need to be bitten. Flamers need to be reasoned with but then bitten...") shows that your thinking has gone astray on this one. Undisclosed paid editors do not need to be bitten. Undisclosed paid editors need to be warned, then blocked. Trolls do not need to be bitten. Trolls need to be warned, then blocked. Flamers do not need to be bitten. Flamers need to be warned, then blocked. Collectively, we have millions of examples showing that what we call "biting the newbies" and what others call "feeding the trolls" only results in more trolling. Biting the flamers only results in more flaming. And as a rule the undisclosed paid editors don't even bother reading your response.

    Responding just 
    encourages them! 
           \ 
            >') 
            ( \ 
             ^^` 

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon - By biting them, I mean warning them, then blocking them. Many experienced editors are hesitant to warn difficult new editors because it will seem "bitey". I agree that the undisclosed paid editors won't read the response. I also am not sure that they should be warned, but that is another question. As to the combative new editors, they will stop exhibiting that behavior when we block them. I am not saying that more experienced editors can cause them to change their behavior. (Some of them do listen to warnings. Some don't.) I am only saying that their use of the bite dogma as a weapon in their own defense is a problem that is worsened by our worship of that policy. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I sometimes find it very difficult to tell at the start who is a good faith editor and who an undeclared paid editor./ There are cases of promotionalism from true amateurs, and cases of promotionalism from people who pretend very convincingly to be true amateurs. I have been fooled often by those who are pretending, but I have also sometimes assumed to the worst when it was actually good faith editing. Perhaps there are those who are better at this, but I think we need to be friendly and welcoming if there is any possibility of good faith at the start. Later, if the editor starts insisting on retaining promotional content, or fights an AfD with the arguments common to paid editors, then it can be another matter. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

We must distinguish between a user who makes common newcomer mistakes (including a slight slant in POV, test edits) on one hand and spam and vandalism on the other. In the first case, BITE must apply; in the second case, it doesn't. Warning level 1 is certainly appropriate when in doubt. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Another frequent source of new-editor trouble is the arrival of "style warriors" at MoS talk pages and RM discussions. WP:BITE serves us pretty well here. It is tempting to be bitey, especially when the party in question is pursuing a my-way-is-the-only-True-and-Correct-way-to-write-English WP:SOAPBOX or WP:GREATWRONGS campaign. It's been my experience that a good combination is a firm but polite reminder that flame-baiter behavior will result in administrative action, and patient explanation that WP style (in prose and in titles) is the result of years of carefully balanced compromise between literally thousands of conflicting viewpoints, plus being clear that the new arrival is not pointing out an oversight or raising a new issue. The "conversion rate" of such people to productive editing is quite high. I can only think of two individuals who've had to be topic-banned from the area (both later blocked for not abiding by it). The conversion rate on higher-profile and more controversial things, especially in mainspace (e.g. GMOs, Donald Trump, and other controversial topics) is probably lower, but still worth the effort. We already have the tools to deal with editors who refuse to stop being combative. No editor actually acting in bad faith by continuing to engage in proscribed activities while trying to hide behind BITE in claiming that every criticism and directive to stop is somehow biting them is going to actually get away with that; it's probably the most obvious form of WP:GAMING the system. In the end, WP:ANI (or whatever noticeboard, or individual admin) is going to look at whether the editor's input is a net positive or not, without much regard to their "tenure" here.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

In general, people who are only notable for losing an election to the United States Senate or UK House of Commons do not meet WP:NPOL and are deleted at AfD. As a result, people who are only notable as a candidate for the Senate or Commons are not notable, either. This leads to many contentious debates during election seasons.

Defining which specific lower-level political offices are notable is almost always controversial and should be avoided. To minimize controversy, I feel Wikipedia should generally wait until after the election for deletion discussions. As "important" elections often generate a lot of media coverage, the candidates will meet WP:GNG.

However, having a specific rule for elected offices poses an additional problem. In races where (for example) a mayor is running against a scientist, there is an implicit bias for electing candidates with prior electoral experience. To avoid this bias, either all of the candidates meeting GNG through coverage of the race should be included, or none of them should be included. Power~enwiki ( talk) 19:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Just in the United States alone, there are elections every two, four or six years for 435 seats in the US House of Representatives, 100 seats in the US Senate, 50 state governorships, thousands upon thousands of seats in state legislatures, a few hundred mayors of cities that are large enough to get their mayors over NPOL, and a couple of hundred city council seats in the couple of dozen cities that are large and important enough to get their city councillors over NPOL too. And there are almost always somewhere between two and a dozen (or more) candidates for each of those seats, adding up to thousands upon thousands of articles about candidates. Then you have to do the same for Canada — 338 seats in the federal House of Commons, 750 seats in provincial and territorial legislatures, lots of mayors and half a dozen metropolitan cities large enough to NPOL the city councillors, again times three-to-twelve candidates per race. And then you have to do the same for the UK and Australia and Germany and France and Italy and the Netherlands and South Africa and Brazil and every other country on earth which has democratic elections, in many of which it can get even worse because the number of parties running candidates makes Canada and the United States look like amateurs in the political diversity sweepstakes.

And if your response is going to be "I only mean the candidates who clear GNG", I've got news for you: at the depth of coverage that's normally brought as evidence of passing GNG for most articles about political candidates, every candidate would always clear GNG — covering local elections in their coverage area is local media's job, so every election and every candidate in it always gets some coverage in the campaign context.

And furthermore, Wikipedia has a rule that notability is not temporary — we cannot deem somebody "temporarily notable pending a future condition they may or may not meet, but then losing that notability if they fail to meet it". Notable today, notable forever (except in the rare instance that notability criteria evolve to the point that the person's base notability claim no longer even meets the standards anymore, which is possible but not actually very common at all.)

Again, the core reason that Wikipedia established the notability criteria that we have for politicians, namely requiring that they hold office and only in certain very rare situations get to claim notability just for the fact of being a candidate in and of itself, is precisely because such articles have an extremely high tendency to get misused as promotional campaign brochures. And we simply don't have the editor base needed to properly monitor or maintain tens of thousands of articles about election candidates for neutrality and sourcing issues, any more than we have the ability to properly monitor or maintain every article that some aspiring wannabe in some other field of endeavour (musicians, writers, artists, high school football players, etc.) wants to create about themselves either.

So no, what you propose simply isn't sustainable at all. Bearcat ( talk) 02:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

+1 to excellent Bearcat post. Nailed it. Alsee ( talk) 14:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Me, too. Well written, Bearcat. FWIW, in south India it is not uncommon to have > 10 candidates per seat, and the record was something like 40 for one seat. - Sitush ( talk) 07:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Bearcat is on point here; I will just add that even with NPOL where it is, we have been flooded with low-grade bios, typically for state/province-level legislators. I shudder to think what the outcome may be if we lowered this threshold. Vanamonde ( talk) 06:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Bearcat: What if the candidate is (or was) a major-party nominee for the Senate?  —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  03:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Senate races are one of those offices where a person has a significantly higher prospect of either (a) getting enough coverage to clear the "more than routine coverage of the campaign" bar because genuinely substantive coverage is a lot likelier to nationalize, or (b) already having preexisting notability for other reasons anyway (e.g. having already served in the state legislature or as a member of the House of Representatives, or already having established notability as a lawyer or a judge or whatever), because it's significantly harder (trending toward completely impossible in the largest states) to win a Senate primary if you weren't already a well-known figure with already established notability than it is for the lower-level offices. But it's still not an office where every candidate gets an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of meeting the same conditions as candidates for any other office — they still have to satisfy the same conditions, and just have a somewhat better chance of actually pulling that off than House or state legislature candidates do. Bearcat ( talk) 15:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Even then there are still Senate races where the non-holding major party basically gives it a miss rather than make any effort against an entrenched incumbent and a total unknown can slip through a primary - Alvin Greene springs to mind. He got a lot of attention because others cried out but there must surely be many cases of effective paper candidates for the Senate? Timrollpickering 22:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, sure. I didn't say it was impossible for a person to win a Senate primary without already having preexisting notability — it's effectively impossible in California or New York, where a candidate needs to have an especially massive bank account to handle the expense of campaigning in several ridiculously expensive metropolitan media markets simultaneously, but it's not at all impossible in many smaller states. But as a rule it is harder for a total nobody to just show up and win a Senate primary than it is for one to win a House or state legislature primary. Bearcat ( talk) 15:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• If "every candidate would always pass" were reality, we would simply keep all such articles and there would not be a problem.  Voters must often go to the polls without any information from local newspapers about candidates.  California solves this problem with Voter Pamphlets.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

If voters are going to the polls without any information about the candidates, that's their own fault and not the media's — the coverage was and is there, with the question being whether any individual voter paid attention to it or not. It's kind of like the old wingnut bleat about "how come no moderate Muslims ever condemned 9/11?" — to which the only possible answer, because it's the stone truth, is "they did, but you just didn't pay attention when the media reported the fact". Bearcat ( talk) 14:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Huh?  Your hypothesis is "all candidates pass WP:GNG".  Perhaps you live where there is a local newspaper who makes it their civic duty to perform the role of the California voter's pamphlet.  That hardly makes it a norm.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

That's really, really obviously not Bearcat's position; read this editor's longer post above.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that every candidate generates a level of coverage equivalent to what the president of the United States gets. But every candidate for anything — yes, including school board races too — most certainly does get some media coverage. Bearcat ( talk) 14:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• I concur with Bearcat completely; that's a very good analysis of the issue.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
• I'm with Bearcat too, there's nothing more really to be said. Smerus ( talk) 11:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• If you concur, then you agree with, "at the depth of coverage that's normally brought as evidence of passing GNG for most articles about political candidates, every candidate would always clear GNG".  There is a wide range of political candidates, right down to school boards with people running whom the local papers contacted but who ignored the request for information.  In primary elections with multiple candidates, the local newspaper may have a brief bio, but information essential to making an informed decision is lacking.  Why am I having to state the obvious?  Unscintillating ( talk) 20:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

And if that candidate ignored the paper's request for information, then obviously they're not that serious about their candidacy. At any rate, it's neither our role nor our moral duty to fill in any gaps in the local media's coverage by primary sourcing stuff that the media haven't reported either. We're an encyclopedia, not a repository of campaign brochures for aspiring school board trustees. Bearcat ( talk) 14:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

If candidates are covered by media then of course they have passed notability requirements. Being a candidate itself is not notable, (although it might come up on a list), but if you can find sources covering a candidate even if they lose, then it should be ok for an article. Egaoblai ( talk) 13:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• I believe the regular GNG requirements are already specific enough to determine whether unelected political candidates are notable. I can understand desiring some amount of non-local coverage for unelected candidates, but I disagree with the idea that well sourced and useful national coverage about candidates should just be deleted just because the person is unelected or loses their election. First and foremost, it would be far more difficult to fully document elections and get a complete view of the election when all the coverage for the losing side always gets deleted. We had an extremely widely covered district attorney race recently, and the information about the losing candidate is historically important to understand the race and some of the actions of the winning candidate, even if the loser never does anything else notable. Second, I can understand that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a campaign brochure, but I think the regular policy guidelines are enough to fight cases like that. Third, it seems against the purpose of of Wikipedia to delete well sourced information and national coverage about candidates right as people are looking for and need that information the most. Lonehexagon ( talk) 21:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a spate of as soon as a news story appears of an event which has the word terrorism in it, or has a person shouting religious slogans, or a religious person is involved. There is a mass problem of Wikipedia devolving in to a news site. There needs to be a full and in depth discussion to nip this in the bud or the purpose of Wikipedia will devolve in to a news site and be lost. Sport and politics ( talk) 12:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to "report" news is nothing new... it is a problem that has plagued the project for years... unfortunately WP:NOTNEWS is perhaps our least enforced (and enforceable) policy statement.

I have found that the best thing to do is ignore the article for a few months (i.e. Wait until the topic is no longer a hot news item, coverage of the event dies off, and the interest of editors fades so that no one is bothering to edit the article much anymore)... and then completely re-write the article to give it a more historical and encyclopedic tone and perspective. Blueboar ( talk) 20:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Based on my observations, AfDs started on such an article quickly after the event that led to the creation of the article usually do not get a consensus for deletion. An AfD much later more commonly comes to the conclusion "well, this didn't have long-term consequences after all". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

We should really encourage users to take hot new topics to Wikinews but there is a real lack of manpower there to handle an influx of Wikipedians writing news. :/ ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 21:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we just go with the flow and inform people, and then later, as suggested, evaluate if the event really had any long term significance. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 22:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

One important thing: Should we create some tempolate, similar to {{ current}} and its related templates, for such attacks? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree I also think there should be a speedy delete criteria, and a migrate to Wikinews tag. That way the users determined to include this will have a place to go and put it, and the information can be speedily removed from Wikipedia, when it is clearly unwarranted. Sport and politics ( talk) 11:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea! It would probably helps us track events to a few weeks or so after they have occurred, and then we can remove them and check their notability. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 01:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I found three discussions at WT:Notability (events)/Archive 3 that shows that 7 to 14 days is considered the length of time before which an AfD is not useful.  One of the more specific suggestions was to move the article during that time to the incubator, during which time readers would find a link to Wikinews and an invitation with a link to help draft the article. 

The basic implementation could be like CSD and a guideline called WP:Criteria for Speedy Incubation, with a CSI template for "breaking news".  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, just posting here that Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is currently scheduled to go live on 7 September 2017. This is pending final security review of the code by the WMF. The trial is currently scheduled to last 6 months, with data being reported as the trial is conducted. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Good to know! — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

As an update, this has been delayed until 14 September due to technology problems with visual editor. For more information see WT:ACTRIAL. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't intend to argue ovver a change I made that was reverted. But surely there must be a place where people can post a formal objection to what they feel is a thoughtless, immproper, and unexplained reversion. It is hard to find if there is such a place. I did make a note on the reverters talk page that he was lowering the quality of the article, although ai did not mention that he was violating policy. ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC))

There is such a place and it is called the talk page of the article. Ruslik_ Zero 18:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The talk page of the user, though, is the first step. If it seems to be a habitual pattern, try WP:ANI.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The talk page of the article seems like such a toothless action, as well as pointless. I know one should expect good intentions by all editors, but this route seems so unlikely to be helpful that I just don't care that much, and as a consequence, accept that Wikipedia will be subject to snopes level misinformation. The lie that TEPCO propagated for its own cover is that the grid went down at Fukushima Daiichi. The main article avoids this claim after a long battle, but this is an attempt to re-introduce that claim is a more subtle way, lower down, using the term "blackout", with a link that explains that it can be due to a grid failure. There was a power failure at Fukushima, but not due to grid failure, so the wording and the link are inappropriate. Many obvious proofs, not the least is that Daini, on the same grid, had power. I will post this also on the talk page. Little Good that that will do. I did post an objection on the users talk page, although nothing yet, and I expect little. He made no comment as to his original reversion, even though I explained the edit on the article talk page. Now he has replied - with insults! No point talking to him! Go see for yourself. Talk:Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#loss_of_power_vs_black_out( Martin | talk • contribs 16:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC))

There are also WP:Noticeboards for all the WP:Core content policies. As a very general matter, I don't think raising single-editor issues at article talk pages works very well; it tends to devolve into a he-said-she-said personality conflict that other editors of the article will tire of quickly (bt;dt).  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Building consensus is slow. WP:DR is a good alternative when there are literally only two editors and the two editors reach an impasse. -- Jayron 32 16:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Earlier this month, I went to make sure that the disambiguation page, " Nies" contained Judge Helen Nies, late of the Federal Circuit. I was surprised to find that not only was this entry lacking, but that there used to be a Nies (surname)—a completely innocuous (and useful) list of people sharing that surname—which was deleted with no discussion as WP:G5, a page created by a banned or blocked user. I have seen a number of other instances where perfectly useful and benign pages and redirects have been deleted on this basis, apparently with absolutely no thought going into the process. It is distressing to me to think that our policy is so blunt as to allow (much less require) that we punish our readers for the transgressions of editors through the deletion of good articles on this basis. Is there any way we can refine this policy to avoid outcomes that do more harm than good to the encyclopedia? bd2412 T 23:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Perhaps a gentle reminder for administrators to use good common sense when thinking of deleting the article at WP:G5? Or change the rationale to "Disruptive creations by banned or blocked users"? I also wonder whether there was a historical reason for this criterion that we are now forgetting... Malinaccier ( talk) 00:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Judging by content and not by the author makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjjjdddddd ( talk • contribs) 10:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Deleting a disambiguation page is a bit blunt, but I do want to point out that when G5 is applied to BLPs it is often for the case of the protection of the subject: G5 is most commonly applied to sock farms with likely PAID issues. Unfortunately PAID cuts several ways: you have payment for promotion, payment for blackmail (Orangemoody-esque), and also payment to disparage competition. G5 is a blunt instrument, but it is very effective in helping us protect actual people from harm. For these reasons I'd oppose any change to the current wording, but agree that commonsense should prevail in cases like dab pages. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  Perhaps we have the beginnings of a refinement there - definitely use G5 for BLPs, probably for any article on an extant business, organization, or product. Avoid using it on useful redirects, disambiguation pages, and the like. The problem, as I see it, is that there is nothing presently in the wording of G5 that even calls for the use of common sense. It does say "Pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are legitimately about some other topic"; I don't see how that limitation could have been applied in the case of the page deleted in this instance. bd2412 T 02:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Having seen lists created as supporting material for spam articles, and having seen A7 fall from being a useful deletion criterion to becoming a battleground, I favour leaving the matter at the admin's discretion. While I appreciate BD2412's intent, blocked should mean blocked, and blocked users shouldn't be offered loopholes in their blocks. Cabayi ( talk) 06:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• For non-banned editors, we keep their good edits and pages and revert their bad edits and delete their bad pages. If an editor is banned, we also reject their good edits and pages. If we do not delete good pages per G5 or revert good edits on sight, the only difference between banned and non-banned editors is that the banned editors have to change username once per day. — Kusma ( t· c) 06:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• The principle of a ban is very simple: As long as the edit is just the edit of a banned user, it can be removed - revert an edit to an existing page, delete a new page. If an established editor (not necessarily an admin, but clearly not a sock of a banned user) declares that (s)he is willing to take responsibility for that edit, it ceases to be "just the edit of a banned user". This can be done after the edit was removed as well as before - if you restore a correctly G5-ed page, that is generally taking responsibility for it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

An important principle here is that the meaning of words like may and can is NOT a synonym for the word must. G5's language is fine, but the problem is enforcement. The problem becomes where damnatio memoriae becomes cutting off the nose to spite the face. We shouldn't have to jump through extra hoops to delete contributions of banned users. However, saying that, we shouldn't feel the requirement to delete them where it creates a greater hassle than just leaving it alone. -- Jayron 32 11:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

To quote the first line of the prose of WP:CSD: The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here. The key words here are "at their discretion". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Some administrators seem to be reading "at their discretion" to mean "delete everything without a second thought". bd2412 T 18:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If an admin sees a pattern of bad edits, they may decide reverting some good ones is worth the price of reverting the whole bunch automatically, to avoid the cost of checking every edit which is pretty high. -- Green C 18:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• I quite agree with the sentiment set out above by BD2412, in that we are not doing our readers any favours at all, and the phrase used by Jayron32 above about cutting off ones nose seems apt here. While I agree some banned users' contributions are always problematic, others are not necessarily, and admins should be reminded on these occasions to use appropriate judgement, rather than blindly follow the rules as set out. On reading the actual policy, it says This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or to categories that may be useful or suitable for merging... Perhaps this could be tightened up somehow, along the lines of "Administrators should use their discretion when applying G5, so that it does not unintentionally inconvenience readers". Aiken D 19:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• I can't think of anything better to say than TonyBallioni's comment above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support A number of editors, including some admins, have been interpreting G5, and the banning policy generally, to say that all pages created by banned editors, and all edits made by banned editors, must be deleted on sight. This removes the element of discretion alluded to in several comments above. And deletion is a non-symmetrical operation. It is comparatively easy to find things one wants to delete, for whatever reason -- all our search facilities and navigation aids are in place. But once something has been deleted, an editor must basically already know the exact page or article name to even request undeletion. And only admins can see anything beyond the page title and the reason given in the deletion log. (The log is not really usefully searchable anyway. It is too big, with too many items added every day, and is not in any way indexed.) As a result of this non-symmetry, argumets that deletion is ok because one can ask for undeletion fail. This change would help avoid that imbalance in cases where it should not exist. i would favor going further, and repealing G5 completely. But I don't expect to get consensus for that. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 15:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Repealing G5 completely.....Probably followed by repealing WP:PAID.....And laying a welome-mat for the paid-editors-guild.....Sigh...... Winged Blades of Godric ^{On leave} 15:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose any change. That some admins speedy delete articles created by UPE sockfarms and the like instead of expecting volunteers to verify/fix them is one of few rays of hope that Wikipedia won't end up as a spam-ridden garbage dump. I don't blame editors for deleting seemingly innocuous pages rather than spending hours checking for misrepresented references and all the other tricks UPEs use. Some collateral damage is unavoidable. Rentier ( talk) 16:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unfortunately, some socks are skilled at creating pages which look useful and are full of subtle problems. G5 and BAN allow us to act first and ask questions later. Any established user who is willing to take responsibility for a specific banned user's edit can save it from being removed; however, to require users to check before they revert or delete is unreasonable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any changes since we're making this formal now. I oppose any change that would take the discretion to protect living persons from admins. Actual people are infinitely more important than articles and with sock farms we simply don't know if there is Orangemoody-esque blackmail going or worse, if the article has been created as a coatrack to defame the other person. Both of these happen a lot more frequently than people who don't work in new pages realize. I'd also like to repeat my above call for commonsense and discretion: minimizing the collateral damage here is also important. Having a informal hierarchy of when we should and shouldn't use G5 would also be helpful, and I think that was what this original post was about. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Use a footnote: Nies (surname) is a good example to use in an explanatory footnote that WP:Common sense has to be applied. Using a footnote for this would obviate any need to change the extant wording of G5. Actually, the same footnote could also be used for G4: Do not delete a page that simply has the same name as a page previously deleted. The rationale for the original deletion has to still apply to content of the new page, which may be something completely different, or someone else's much better article on the same topic as the original page. If people don't like footnotes, it could be done as a short section of regular text.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any changes to G5 per WP:BMB. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 12:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any change to G5. Firstly the article is deleted only if the sock or the banned editor is the sole contributor if other editors have made major contributions it is not deleted.Those indef blocked or banned should not edit in the project while blocked or banned Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 19:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support change The sense I have from this discussion is that this rule must be enforced, common sense be damned. Which is ridiculous, & threatens the validity of the project. If a rule violates common sense, then the rule is wrong; we need to acknowledge that there are exemptions to this rule. (As an aside, were I faced with this situation, after verifying the article in question was unobjectionable other than being the production of a banned contributor, I'd make a copy, delete the original article & its edit history, then recreate it under my own name -- thus taking responsibility for any errors it might have. And taking responsibility is at the heart of WP:IAR.) -- llywrch ( talk) 22:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

That's fine - note the sources, preserve the copyright-free infrastructure of categories and Defaultsorts and so on, then re-create the article yourself in your own words, checking the sources and updating "access date". The blocked editor does not get the satisfaction of seeing "their" article survive. I think that's a key element of G5. Pam D 08:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)  :::@ Llywrch: - forgot. Pam D 08:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support It's about time we put a stop to this. Per PamD, if an admin deletes an article under G5, they must rebuild it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Under that regime, if a banned user creates an article full of made up facts and made up references, then the deleter would be obliged to spend far more time, properly researching and correcting it all. It isn't sustainable. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 11:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of going that far. Take RAF Shepherds Grove for example. The admin deleted the article under G12, then re-created it with the copyvio components missing. This is simpler than deleting and revdel-ing. But an admin has to do this work. I cannot access the deleted text because I'm not an admin. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not proposing any such regime, just commenting that if Llywrch finds it offensive to delete an article they are quite at liberty to reconstruct it. That's very different from saying that "if an admin deleteds an article under G5, they must rebuild it". Please don't misrepresent my words. Pam D 12:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose any change per WP:BMB and WP:NOTMANDATORY. Existing policy already allows discretion for good edits to be left as is, but there is no obligation to keep them. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 11:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: a blocked editor should not have the satisfaction of seeing their sockpuppet article creations exist in the encyclopedia; that would only encourage future sockmasters. Pam D 12:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose eroding one of our only measures against large-scale paid editing and other long-term disruptions. Common sense discretion is already part of our guidelines in such cases, but due to the sheer amount of work some human mistakes will happen - any editor in good standing can easily fix them just like we would fix any other good-faith mistake. Also, DABs and redirects have been misused by sockfarms in the past and should not be excluded from admin deletion. GermanJoe ( talk) 13:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI

 – See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture)#Places of worship (churches, monasteries, cathedrals, abbeys)

Not sure if this the right place for what I have to ask: if not, please redirect me. A colleague recently created an article St. James, Levoča; this was then moved by a third party, without discussion, to St. James Church, Levoča. (It's since been moved, and appropriately imo, to Basilica of St. James, Levoča, but that's another story).

On the talk page of the article I noted:

--- This is a tricky one. It seems that all varieties of punctuation are used for this purpose on Wikipedia. For examples:

• St. James' Church, Antwerp
• Church of St. James (Brno)
• St. James Church, Sydney
• St. James's Church, Koper
• Saint James's Church, Stockholm

and sometimes without the '.' after St, e.g.:

• St James's Church, Manorbier
• St James' Church, Enfield Highway

And there are doubtless other versions as well. ---

There doesn't seem to be a WP standard. If it were up to me, I would propose the format St. X's Church, Somewhere. (And, by the way with >'s< even if the saint's name ends with an >s<). Should there be an attempt to create a standard, and if so, what's the best way to go about it? Thanks, Smerus ( talk) 10:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I suspect this is likely to fall foul of WP:ENGVAR. As different countries can puncuate differently. Have you identified if there is a national cause? (eg the US use St. James' Church, UK St. James's etc) Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to lose too much sleep over >'s< or >'< after a name ending in s. But the more important issues for standardisation are a full stop after St, the inclusion of the word Church, a comma before the placename, and the placename itself not in brackets. These ideas are surely not too controversial - or are they?-- Smerus ( talk) 16:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about this myself. However, when looking for examples I noticed similar issues with schools ( St. Paul's School (New Hampshire) versus St. Paul's College, Hong Kong) and streetnames and the like. So if we decide on a consistent application we may should consider to cover those as well. Arnoutf ( talk) 17:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

As to the full stop. please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Full stops and spaces:

Standard North American usage is to end all abbreviations with a period (Dr. Smith of 42 Drummond St.), but in standard British and Australian usage, no stop is used if the abbreviation ends in the last letter of the unabbreviated form, except when confusion could result (Dr Smith of 42 Drummond St).

This would appear to be an ENGVAR issue, so we follow those rules - see, for example, Labor Party (United States, 1996) vs. Labour Party (UK), which illustrates different spellings for the word "Labo(u)r". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This is one where we simply can not set a standardized style... because there is too much variation in reality. The best we can do is deal with it at the article level... on a church by church basis... deferring to the common usages of reliable sources that discuss each specific church. Blueboar ( talk) 22:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I would love to have a standard (specifically the one advocated by Smerus, as ambiguity- and confusion-proof), but we've been over this many times before. The fact of the matter is that some of these places have had set-in-stone names since before English punctuation was standardized, and consequently have "hardened" into strange constructions like St Johns Church without the apostrophe. People who think in an "official name" way argue to keep them that way, and those who think in a "common name" way also make the same argument, because most of the RS use the "official" spelling. This view isn't crazy, it's just prioritizing the expectations of readers already intimately familiar with the subject over those of everyone else, and over consistency.

As for the "James'" versus "James's" matter, it is simply not true that this is a WP:ENGVAR matter; style guides on both sides of the Atlantic recommend both. It's primarily a split between academic-style clarity ("James's") and news-style expediency and compression ("James'"). Same goes for dot-dropping; even in British academic style, the only dots dropped are those in acronyms like AIDS and those in abbreviations formed by contraction so that they start and end with the same letters as the full word (Dr for Doctor, but Prof. for Professor). It's only the British journalism publishers that are dropping almost all dots.

In both cases, because WP is an encyclopedia not a news source or any other journalism publication, we should follow the academic, clearer, hard-to-misinterpret style, as we do in virtually all other style matters. We do this with numeric material (e.g. "9 pm" or "9 pm", "23 cm", "3 ft", etc., not "9pm", "23cm", "3'". We also do it with various non-numeric cases where academic and news style conflict; e.g. is using spaced and unspaced en dashes (for different purposes) and unspaced em dashes, in prescribed ways found in academic style guides, while news style has no en dash at all, and only uses unspaced hyphens (for unspaced en dashes) and unspaced em dashes (for unspaced em dashes and spaced en dashes). I could list out dozens of other examples.
 —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I am assuming a nationalistic split: British journalistic style guides (such as my favourite, Guardian Style) tend to recommend writing "s's", whilst academic ones (like NHR) prefer to lose the second "s"—"s'". From a British perspective, it looks a little odd for a second "s" to be present, but I do not think that it will cause too much of a problem. Im my experience (although I cannot say that I have spent that much time in such places), churches seem to go for ending with an apostrophe, but—again—whilst it may be comparatively rare, it would certainly not come as too much of a surprise to see the extra "s" tagged onto the end. I would go with what the churches themselves choose. I cannot imagine that stylistic purity is their main concern, but we would at least be providing readers with a realistic and truly reflective impression of what they would see (and, presumably (unless they have some national database containing perfectly-styled church names ... highly unlikely), it is the place's proper name). I am sensing a slight link with MOS:TMRULES here, in that the question of whether we should be "correcting" the language of names, etc, seems to be at the forefront of the discussion. – Sb2001 ^{talk page} 23:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Why do we need a standard? It would seem the disadvantages, increased bureaucracy, would outweigh any advantages. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 21:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• That won't do. On the same argument (i.e. that some people would object to it), the setting of any standards in WP would be a non-starter. The reason we have standards in WP is (in part) to attempt to convey reliable and hard-to-misinterpret information. The chaos over church names, if we leave it as it is, is an abdication of responsibility. So I am with SMcCandlish. Smerus ( talk) 10:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• I already answered the "why" question: because it reduces ambiguity and confusion (and thus disputation). There is actually less bureaucracy in imposing a single standard across-the-board than in trying to maintain a system of confusing "multi-standards" and when to apply them and how to resolve disputes about them.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Are there formal standards, though, besides that we do what reliable sources do? And wouldn't this only cause confusion for people who edit, and edit in areas related to churches? I honestly don't think that a new editor or a reader would really notice a specific standard in this area. And it just adds one more to the policy/guideline pages; why don't we just follow whatever reliable sources call it? Isn't that the one standard for articles? Also, I think that such a thing would in fact increase the confusion; if a reader or editor sees a church called in reliable sources xyz, won't they look up xyz? And if we instead have it as xzy, and it doesn't appear in the top search results, then how can we say that we are doing our job? It ignores the standard of following what others have. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 00:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a slew of points and questions, some unrelated, some unclear, and some redundant. I'll respond to them in the order they're presented:

PS: Trying to make your point with a series of rhetorical questions, mostly repetitive and laced with appeal to emotion, is unhelpful. I have the patience, sometimes, to do a point-by-point to try to answer something like this, but most editors do not and will just ignore posts like that.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I will then support a standard, as long as such a standard is not more than a paragraph long. Otherwise, it would definitely be more complex to navigate than is needed. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 20:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I think standardization of church names can only be a good thing. While I agree with most of the above, ENGVAR is definitely a factor and I'd oppose using St. for British churches. My experience on Commons is that without any standard, things end up in a hopeless mess, and imposing a standard shouldn't cause problems.

There are a few other issues around naming of churches: Capitalization (Church or church); Multiple dedications (Ss Peter and Paul or St Peter and St Paul); Variation in Saint name (St Mary or St Mary the Virgin); Repetition (eg St Erth's Church, St Erth)-- Nilf anion ( talk) 01:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The title of the article is supposed to be the commonly-used form of the name. So "St" or "St." will vary (mostly ENGVAR), some will be Church of Saint James Intercisus, others St James' Church, Arnside. What's important to the reader is to have a clear, comprehensive, clearly-orderered disambiguation page like the one at St. James' Church. I don't care what we call that dab page as long as there are incoming redirects from every reasonably imaginable variation, to gather together all the search terms our readers might use: this looks pretty good, though you may be able to think of additions.

So I'd oppose any guideline which tries to standardise titles of articles for churches (and of course there's the additional minefield of "What is a "church"? Are we talking about the body of people who currently meet in the school hall up the road on Sundays and Tuesdays, or the fragmentary stone remains of the 11th century parish church which has not been used for worship for a couple of centuries but still stands as a listed building?"

And while you're talking about the "unambiguous" standard of " St. X's Church, Somewhere", remember the potential problem of "Somewhere": Plenty of churches are known by their street name, or should it be village/suburb, or nearby town? Stand well away. Pam D 08:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It's been one month after the RfC discussion on referrer info was closed. For notification, one of the WMF staff members posted her statement at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy about the discussion. -- George Ho ( talk) 12:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see " Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Merge draft WP:Naming conventions (identity) to MOS:IDENTITY?", a proposal to merge perennial draft material at WP:Naming conventions (identity) to the WP:Manual of Style in one way or another (probably a section at MOS:BIO), since it is a draft style guideline with almost nothing in it that pertains specifically to article titles (i.e., it is not a naming convention).  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

There is an RFC about the capitalization of formal titles such as "Duke" and "King" (essentially, the question is when to capitalize and when to use lower case) that could use input from the broader community (I have already posted a request at the the peerage and baronage Wikiproject). Please see: WT:MOSCAPS#RfC on capitalization of job titles. Blueboar ( talk) 14:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I think time has come to upgrade the status of Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation from a mere essay, so that it standardisation and consolidation process may speed up a little. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 02:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not written in guildeline style, and many points in it are just someone's opinion. A few points in it should probably be integrated into WP:INFOBOX and/or MOS:INFOBOX, as appropriate. What it is, is someone's attempt at an FAQ [or "a FAQ", depending on how you say "FAQ"], which makes it an essay, especially since these mostly do not appear to be questions that are actually frequently asked. Some of the points in it do not really pertain to infoboxes in particular, but are just standard WP:TFD operating procedure for templates in general: we merge redundant ones when possible, to reduce the confusing profusion of low-use templates.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you please guide on how to improve it to standards? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 15:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No, because as I said, "a few points in it should probably be integrated into WP:INFOBOX and/or MOS:INFOBOX, as appropriate", while some of it's subjective, and other parts aren't specific to the issues but are general "what we do with redundant templates" stuff. WP is not in the habit of promoting essays to guidelines, nor creating new guidelines. I can't even remember the last time we did that. We don't need new guideline pages, only refinements to the existing ones, when there's an identifiable problem that can be addressed by doing so. What ongoing, recurrent problem is addressed by anything in that page? In what way(s) is it not already addressed by extant policies, guidelines, and TfD procedures? "I want to promote my essay to guideline status" isn't a valid rationale.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

In that case, can you please help me in integrating "a few points in it into WP:INFOBOX and/or MOS:INFOBOX, as appropriate"? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 05:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

In theory, though this is a busy time. The first steps are identifying specific problems to solve, demonstrating they're real problems, and demonstrating that existing guideline/policy language doesn't already cover it (i.e., it could be a behavioral problem on the part of a certain editor or group of editors rather than a guideline wording problem). We don't have guidelines about problems that are only theoretical. When you've identified a clear hole in the guidelines and that it needs to be plugged, I'm pretty good at wordsmithing the plug for the hole. I want to reiterate that much of that page is just describing what WP:TFD already does, so that's all "rehash" material. What is unique to the infobox issue(s)?  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Such a policy is needed to reduce comments in discussions like [3]. Also check out {{ Infobox fashion designer}} and {{ Infobox Hindu leader}}, such Infoboxes should have been merged long before, but more like these still exist. Arguments like these erupt in almost every merge discussion and then the discussion forum gets converted into polling booth based on such arguments. That is why such a policy is needed as there is a good enough policy to describe conditions for deletion of a template but not for merger, specifically for Infoboxes. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 16:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Another [4] -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 15:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Now even admins doing the same thing here. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 12:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion underway at Wikiproject:Days of the year regarding whether to require direct sourcing per WP:BURDEN. At least one editor thought that a notice should be posted here to ensure we get broad consensus. Toddst1 ( talk) 17:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The wording of Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources is rather confusing. It starts "Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain or other source material", suggesting that the guideline applies to all sorts of sources, but the title of the page refers to primary sources only. I would be interested to hear opinions on whether the guideline applies to articles such as Science and technology in Turkmenistan, which has been copied in its entirety from a UNESCO report, and if it doesn't, then whether the guideline should be changed so that it does. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• As another data point, we most certainly do have many articles on demography that were copy/pasted from the CIA World Factbook and many articles on American municipalities copied from census databases. There is no problem as such with these and I think the idea that we shouldn't host them is silly. Unless someone has a better alternative, then that is exactly what we should do (consider how difficult it would be to write an article on science and technology in Turkmenistan). Wikipedia is not Wikisource but that shouldn't stop us from using quality public domain sources (e.g. 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica) as the basis of articles. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Point taken about demographic statistics, but I think my issue is that whereas those involve copying facts and figures in from external sources, the sort of copying going on at Science and technology in Turkmenistan involves importing opinions (such as "President Berdimuhammadov is far more committed to science than his predecessor"). Copying such large portions of a secondary source such as this presents significant NPOV problems, in my view. Cordless Larry ( talk) 18:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure but the solution is to just change the text. It's in the public domain and no one expects integrity of the original source material (like on Wikisource), so I think we are better off having a copy/pasted public domain article by experts on an obscure topic than having nothing. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I agree that the text should be changed, hence my question about whether WP:NOFULLTEXT prescribes this. Cordless Larry ( talk) 18:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Cordless Larry: The direct answer would be no. Moreover, we also need to be very clear: that there is no minimum requirement for changing the text beyond effectively turning into an article, especially when the content is already encyclopedic in nature with features such as being well written, neutral and well researched. Remember, our goal is to create Encyclopedic content. Sadads ( talk) 13:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, this section of the plagiarism guideline, explicitely welcomes these additions. Sadads ( talk) 13:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• See WP:NOTMIRROR #3, a policy page where the "Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain or other source material" opening words of the Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources guidance seem to have originated from. No, the guideline which, according to its title, only speaks about "primary sources" should not be extended beyond its scope to say also something about non-primary sources: non-primary sources are already covered by policy, and if they need separate treatment in a subsidiary guideline, that would necessarily need to be under a different guideline title. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 19:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• I really don't understand why we would punish or be unhappy with the kinds of additions: expert written content that is reasonably neutral, from sources with a reputation that are reasonably neutral (i.e. UNESCO), is quite commendable. How else can we expect the coverage? Moreover, the bias introduced by the source, if the language and argumentation is sufficiently removed, shouldn't introduce any more bias than an average contributor -- whether new or experienced. We definitely have tons of materials from US GOV sources (including whole articles about military units, NASA-related writing on swaths of space and climate science, etc). We should be encouraging the practice of using open-access content to fill vital content gaps. This feels like favoring rules, rather than the spirit of Wikipedia. Sadads ( talk) 12:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If it was reasonably neutral, I wouldn't have so much of a problem, Sadads, but Science and technology in Turkmenistan is really UNESCO's view of science and technology in Turkmenistan. I've already highlighted "President Berdimuhammadov is far more committed to science than his predecessor" as an example of unattributed POV above, but there are further problems with other articles created from the same UNESCO report. World Science Day for Peace and Development tells us that "The impact of science on people's daily life and its profound societal implications, including those of an ethical nature, make scientific literacy a prerequisite for effective democratic processes". Scientific mobility presents case studies in the manner of an essay. World Conference on Science is worse still. Science and technology in Benin seems to give policy advice: "By diversifying its economy, Benin would reduce its reliance on fluctuating global market prices for commodities and create jobs for its rapidly growing population". These are just a small number of the many issues caused by copy-pasting in article-length portions of text, which could be avoided if contributors used the sources as we would any other source, rather than copying them word-for-word. Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @ Cordless Larry: In general, those articles are reasonably neutral (as opposed to perfectly nuetral) , especially for a relatively new contributor -- its actually of better quality than what we get from most folks with specific background knowledge. I think we need to treat someone doing something like this as if they are learning the practices of our community: we are getting high quality content on topics that would otherwise not be covered. If you notice the less-than-neutral language, you should provide specific feedback, like you would with any other pattern of bias, either by: a) removing the text that is biased or being clearer about the attribution of that opinion (i.e. instead of "By diversifying its economy, Benin would reduce its reliance on fluctuating global market prices for commodities and create jobs for its rapidly growing population" "According to UNESCO, by diversifying its economy, the country of Benin could "reduce its reliance on fluctuating global market prices for commodities and create jobs for its rapidly growing population"); or b) using this as momement where we should be educating the new enthusiastic contributors, with specific and constructive feedback. However, that is no reason to institute additional policy/guidelines by rewriting existing policy/guidelines -- nor to assume that this practice of using open-license text is at the root of the problem -- rather this is a specific directed feedback concern. Sadads ( talk) 13:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I have been discussing this with the editor concerned and will continue to do so, Sadads. My comments here weren't so much a request for instituting additional guidelines, but rather to get clarification on what this particular guideline covers, as there is some confusion about this (see Talk:Chinese Academy of Sciences#Restoration of reform section). This confusion stems in part from the title addressing primary sources but the introduction possibly suggesting that it applies more widely (which I see you have tried to address here - thanks for that). Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
        • @ Cordless Larry:, one of the issues is there is no to very little guidance about transforming text from an external source into the 'voice' of Wikipedia, I've tried to collate some resources and guidance here, in a length that won't cause people to just TL;DR. Do you have any specific suggestions for that? I think using the word bias isn't overly useful as it has such a broad scope. What I'm hearing from you is something like 'attribute any recommendations or points of view to their sources'. Thanks, -- John Cummings ( talk) 14:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Again, the "primary sources" related guideline only covers "primary sources": making it say something outside that scope would not be appropriate under that guideline title. The related policy ( WP:NOTMIRROR #3) is however not limited to primary sources. But I'd stop that route (both the "primary sources"-related guideline as the related WP:NOT paragraph). Seems like what you're looking for is the combination of WP:BALASPS with WP:GNG:
          1. If UNESCO is the only possible source for the "science and technology in <country>" topics, these articles should be deleted or merged while not passing WP:GNG
          2. For each of these articles which have more than one reliable source, WP:BALASPS should be applied: see what other sources say and put it together, summarized, under a WP:NPOV umbrella. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 15:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
          • That looks helpful, John Cummings. I'd suggest trying to explain that attributing points of view is different from attributing the text (perhaps link to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV?), as that message doesn't seem to be getting through. I also think we need to emphasise that relying on a single secondary/tertiary sources leaves us vulnerable to the problem that that source might not provide a neutral or complete summary, and that it should be balanced by including material from other sources where possible, to address Francis Schonken's second point above. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
            • @ Cordless Larry and John Cummings: So I think I have enriched the guidance at with a couple easy-to-act-on recommendations at the revision guidelines and the source selection recommendations. Maybe those will help with guidance for the folks that use the guide. Larry: do you think that points towards the main concern you are expressing here? Sadads ( talk) 20:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
              • That's great, thanks, Sadads (although I don't think the grammar of "With persuasive or argumentative goals; thought sections of the work may appear neutral in tone, Wikimedia tries to include balance as well as neutrality in its surveys of topics" quite works). Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
              • Am I losing the plot, or is your edit not transcluding to Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia#Converting and adding open license text to Wikipedia, Sadads? Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
                • You might try a Wikipedia:Purge. Also fixed the grammar (sorry hacking at this in between other things today). Sadads ( talk) 22:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
                  • The strange thing was that it wasn't transcluding regardless of which browser I used, but it resolved itself before I could try purging. Thanks for your efforts with this, Sadads. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
                    • Sadads and John Cummings, I have changed the part about attributing POV in the text from "or" to "and". As far as I understand it, this isn't an optional alternative - WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV states "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution". Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Is UNESCO a neutral source? Given its makeup, I'm a bit dubious. Who actually wrote the text that was copied into the article? Doug Weller talk 18:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that UNESCO is any less neutral than 1911 Britannica or the CIA World Factbook, say. So while I have some concerns about Science and technology in Turkmenistan they are more about the nature of the content, rather than the fact that material from UNESCO is being added. In my view the article as it stands is overly focused on the present government's policies, and doesn't quite have the tone of an encyclopedia article. That said, those are both things that can be addressed by working on the article. The Land ( talk) 19:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

They can indeed be addressed, The Land, but Science and technology in Turkmenistan is only one of a number of such articles, and according to this news report, there are plans for more. It would be better to get these articles right from the time of creation, rather than us being left with hundreds of them to clean up. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Well sort of - yes it would be nice for people to create only articles that are perfectly referenced and immaculate - but that has never really been the way Wikipedia has worked. I think in this case we need to consider whether the value being added by this initiative exceeds the hassle of any necessary cleanup. To that, I would definitely say yes... after all, we scarcely have any editors already working on topics like science and technology in developing countries, and as a result very little coverage of it. The Land ( talk) 09:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not insisting that the articles need to be perfectly referenced and immaculate, just that they follow some of the basic rules of WP:NPOV. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Other guidance that may be applicable is WP:COI. John Cummings, in residence at UNESCO, is apparently the main editor importing unedited UNESCO text. We could ask this editor to filter out UNESCO's opinions (such as assessing a president's commitment, speculating about the connection between "scientific literacy" and "democracy" or giving advice to the rulers in Benin), or at least set such opinions in quotation marks with in-text attribution (UNESCO's reports are a *primary source* for UNESCO's opinions, so the primary source-related guidance could come in after all). CIA views imported in Wikipedia by someone in residence at CIA have been rejected by the Wikipedia community before (and drastically removed – if I remember correctly even an IP-rangeblock was applied to prevent further editing from within the CIA's premises). So, I'd suggest to start with such filtering out of UNESCO's opinions ASAP. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What I meant to say with the previous paragraph is that there is a huge difference between a Wikipedia editor importing data from the CIA World Factbook (which was used as a commendable example above), and someone sitting at a desk within a CIA building and updating Wikipedia articles with opinions about the reliability of politicians and regimes from the CIA's viewpoint (which was cleanly and forcefully rejected by Wikipedia editors, being dragged to COI noticeboard and so forth). I'm not saying which one of the two situations is most comparable here, but was a bit alerted by the "in residence at UNESCO". -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that Susan Schneegans is doing most of the importing, Francis Schonken. According to her user page, she is the editor of the source material is being imported from. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Imagine this had been brought up at WP:COIN instead of here where it was connected to the less applicable NOFULLTEXT guidance: by this time John and Susan would probably have been in the phase where they would have been begging to get their user rights back... So I'm happy it was brought up here (COIN can be a bit hit-first-think-later). Nonetheless: John and Susan, please consider the filtering I proposed above (and commit to it explicitly), or this will predictably, almost unavoidably I'd say, be sorted as a COI sooner or later. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI

 – See also User talk:Jimbo Wales#WMF Reading team overstepping, mixing Wikidata and en-WP content

After Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#Rfc: Remove description taken from Wikidata from mobile view of en-WP, the Readin Team from the WMF told us that "we have decided to turn the wikidata descriptions feature off for enwiki for the time being."

This turns out to be untrue: online one specific instance of this (standard mobile view) has been turned off, other mobile views (through the Android app c.s.) and other uses of this Wikidata description on enwiki (search, related articles, ...) have not been turned off. Apparently we should have known that the Reading Team is not responsible for what happens for our readers through other channels like the Android App.

The Wikidata descriptions are short, unsourced descriptions of the subject, which are shown in our articles but don't appear in e.g. the history of the article. You can find changes to it by turning on "Wikidata" in your watchlist options, but this also includes tons of unrelated and/or very cryptic changes in your watchlist. The end result is that very little people actually look at these Wikidata changes and patrol them. Vandalism on these descriptions, which is instantly visible to our readers at enwiki, remains unchecked for hours. Only a handful of people patrol this, meaning that such vandalism often remains for hours or days. I don't blame those people who do patrol this, as they are doing a valuable job; however, as a community, Wikidata is not ready or willing to deal with this adequately.

Examples of vandalism or at least poor such edits from today include Margaret Qualley, called a bitch today for more than four hours [5]; Moulden, Northern Territory, an Australian suburb which suddenly had a terrible crime rate for 10 hours [6], and the nasal cavity, which for thirteen hours was described as Jjhghh [7]; Prince, hardly an obscure, unwatched article, was changed from a "singer" to a "pop" in his description 6 hours ago and not corrected at the time of writing [8].

Other BLP violations (like a Mexican actress who suddenly was labeled a swinger for 7 hours( [9]) luckily never made it here because we don't have an article on them yet...

Vandalism also happens here, of course, but at least it is usually spotted and reverted faster, and we can deal with the offending editors (e.g. blocking) or protect the page. Page protection does nothing against changed at Wikidata, and people banned at enwiki are happily editing Wikidata.

Do we really need a new RfC to confirm the very poorly implemented consensus of the previous RfC, or can we just state that the WMF should fully respect the previous RfC and the promise they made there in closing, i.e. remove the use of Wikidata descriptions anywhere on enwiki? @ OVasileva (WMF): as the WMF editor who made that commitment. Fram ( talk) 14:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Olga has replied to the ping. CKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 18:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• It actually seems better to have a "short description" editable on Wikidata than to automate things (PageImages used to automatically produce an image for a page, something that should have human oversight). While Wikidata editing should be integrated more closely with the client wikis (for example, Popups could help me to view Wikidata diffs in my watchlist; Wikidata edits shouldn't behave differently from others in an "integrated" watchlist), I am also really tired of this anti-Wikidata crusade. The wiki spirit is fixing things, not turning everything off because it doesn't quite work yet. What I am missing, though, is a concerted effort to gain editors for Wikidata (it is not currently a particularly inviting place). — Kusma ( t· c) 14:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia itself has plenty of problems, hence the need to fix. Morphing another project that simultaneously relies on WP and also feeds into it is just madness and, well, circular. That's why I am not surprised if there are indeed people on some sort of crusade against it, just like they crusade against Commons.

FWIW, unticking the Wikidata box on my watchlist doesn't alter what is shown. (Firefox 55.02 on Ubuntu 16.04). - Sitush ( talk) 15:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• (ec)"Fixing things", as suggested at the RfC, would mean creating a cross-wiki template which every language would fill, maintain, ... where needed for their own language, and which would be a part of the actual article, using the actual existing interface (watchlist, undo, block, ...) while producing the same end result in mobile view, searches, ... This (a language-dependent text based on the language-independent Wikidata, combining essentially the worst of both worlds) is not the way forward, and spending time on polishing this turd is not "the wiki spirit" but a desparate attempt to push Wikidata without any concern for what is actually best for our readers and for the editors here. "A concerted effort to gain editors for Wikidata" may be the subject of a different discussion, but doing this by forcing editors to watch and edit two sites instead of one (or three instead of two if you add Commons), where the new one has a different structure, culture, ..., seems not the way to go. Fram ( talk) 15:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The stand-alone App has its own development team that is unrelated to the mobile view as I recall, so its unlikely without WMF-top down management getting involved, that anything could be changed on the App end as a result of an RFC here. RE Kusma, it has come up before that Wikipedia would like short descriptions (which are not in themselves a bad idea) to be editable and controlled by Wikipedia, because our policies on verifiability etc, as well as the base editor numbers, mean that a)its less likely to have unspotted vandalism, b)anything that is will be picked up earlier. There is the related issue that the description on wikidata could be in fact sourced and verifiable (from Wikidata's perspective), but be completely out of line with what our policies require. Do you want to guess what will happen if we start deleting information from Wikidata because its causing a BLP violation on a wikipedia article being displayed on Android/iPhone? I am starting to think that essentially we need to migrate enough editors to Wikidata to *enforce* Wikipedia policies on it given the WMF's push to integrate it into everything.

RE Sitush: The comparison with commons is really a different kettle of fish. A lot of the complaints about commons are about the scope of the material contained there, not the useability of the material. Their policies are actually stricter than we allow for on ENWP. So essentially almost anything on Commons is useable in an ENWP article as long as it is in scope. The same cannot be said of Wikidata, because their basic inclusion policies are non-existant. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no way you can enforce Wikidata to "*enforce* Wikipedia policies". First of all, you probably mean "English Wikipedia policies". The Wikipedia in a default language is indeed the biggest WMF project but by far not the only one, and I am very happy that the vast majority of Wikidata admins and active users are monolingual. There is no way one project can enforce their policies on another project. Concerning deleting clearly wrong data - well, Wikidata has edit summaries, and as soon as these are used to explain that the data are clearly wrong, I do not see much of a problem and would in fact welcome this activity on Wikidata. Specifically for vandalism, it is much more productive to revert it to the last non-vandalized version, which only requires an extra click, but even just removing it would be a progress. The main problem of Wikidata is that it is severely understaffed, and indeed users who patrol changes just do not have the capacity to track all of them in real time (it currently has 39 thousand items).-- Ymblanter ( talk) 15:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Only in death, I am aware that the causes of the pushback are different. But, still, people are pushing back. As it happens, and ignoring the content issues re: "porn" etc, I don't think Commons is particularly good at containing a bad situation - copyright violations are legion. En-WP certainly has problems, and Wikidata has a ton more than both. - Sitush ( talk) 23:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Want to bet? 50 more users could have swung the last RFC on Wikidata into having something *approaching* a reliable source/BLP policy. If the complaint is about 'there are not enough people', well if you want more people I am more than happy to rustle up some, but be warned the first goal will be to put in place policies to make wikidata useable on ENWP. I and other editor's don't want to do this because everybody hates canvassing and laying down ultimatums, but wikidata is swiftly heading towards the point where it, as a project, willingly puts acceptable policies in place, or it will be excluded from any relationship with ENWP. Which obviously will put a cramp in the WMF's and the small number of Wikidata user's plans. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You may be sure that as a Wikidata crat I will just cross out the votes which were clearly canvassed, this happened in the past though not so often. But if someone wants to work on Wikidata on a somewhat regular basis, even if this work is just removing statements which are obviously wrong, they are clearly welcome, and their opinions on RfC will clearly be taken into account.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 16:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict) @ Only in death, if you rounded up a bunch of en-wiki people who weren't active on Wikidata to try to sway one of their RFCs, it would almost certainly be declared null-and-void and everyone involved blocked. As a thought experiment, what would your reaction be if POTW canvassed a bunch of his friends to set up accounts on en-wiki and vote to abolish WP:BLP or WP:RS? How would the process in the opposite direction be politically or ethically any different? If Wikidata is causing serious problems, the solution is to cut Wikidata loose until they fix the problems of their own volition, not to arrange an invasion by a coalition of en-wiki and commons and try to run it as an occupied territory. ‑  Iridescent 16:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Well quite, which is why I expect the end result that it will be (attempted) cut off entirely. One of the main complaints from the wikidata crowd is that not enough people want to join the project. People (from ENWP) are not actually interested in joining the project because its base aims are off-set from what wikipedians want to do. The fact that the average wikipedian is accustomed to much more rigorous sourcing requirements doesn't seem to trigger the thought at all that they might want similar standards. In answer to your thought experiment, I have no ethical problems with enforcing standards on a project that is currently (through technical means and the WMF's 'enhancements') enforcing its content onto ENWP's articles without the same level of scrutiny. If we are required to have it encroaching into ENWP content, then it should be required to meet the same standards as anything on ENWP. I have no political or ethical problems with that upsetting people whose walled garden gets a bulldozer from the street to make that happen. I would still vastly PREFER to cut it off entirely, but if we have to go through a fucking humongous bitch-fest with the WMF to do so (as per visual editor, superprotect), it will be extremely contentious discussion. The simplest solution would be for Wikidata to adopt stricter standards than all the projects require (thus satisfying every language's requirements) much like commons, but there is little inclination or indication that will happen. Ever. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do not you fork Wikipedia then? There will be no WMF, no Wikidata, and, actually, no need to have Wikidata.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 16:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

So your solution to 'ENWP has issues with Wikidata having huge sourcing problems' is not 'fix Wikidata' its 'Fork ENWP so you don't have to deal with Wikidata'. And you wonder why I think the wikidata crowd have no inclination to do anything. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Not really. You just seem to be unhappy with the existence of WMF and existence of Wikidata. You generally do not care a fuck about other projects, except for may be Commons which provide images - but images could also be uploaded locally. However you have no problems with using servers they provide and using the code they have written (you are not a developer, are you)? I would guess just fork and be done with it.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 16:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way, it is of course useful for the sake of the argument to label me as a part of the "Wikidata crowd", however just to note that here, on the English Wikipedia, I happen to have made approximately 15 times more edits that you have.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 16:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• AFAIK Wikidata *is* a fork of Wikipedia (from multiple languages' Wikipedias I suppose). At least at en.wikipedia data from Wikidata should not re-enter the encyclopedia per WP:CIRCULAR, which is a policy here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Only in death: I think you are probably right that the motivation for (some) Wikidata editors is indeed "off-set from what wikipedians want to do". When I am editing on ENWP, my focus tends to be at the individual article level, with the aim to make that article as clear and accurate as I can: my enemies are inaccuracy and unclarity and punctuation-inside-quotes, and I want to root them out. On the other hand, on Wikidata my key motivation is improving the results that I and others can get from queries, at scale (in part to make possible a project to upload with proper categorisation several tens of thousands of map images to Commons). As part of that I can accept a certain degree of unreliability in the data -- to some extent it's inherent in handling any data at scale, to some extent it's part of being a wiki, to some extent it's simply part of how Wikidata has been built up. Of course I'd like the data to be as good as possible, but what I *need* is "good enough to be usable". For the applications I have, better coverage and completeness may be worth some unreliability -- if I know the data may have some unreliabilities, I can treat it as such, and try to filter or cross-check or improve it. But I can't filter hits from my query if I don't get hits at all. So yes, it can be a different mindset, with a different set of balance of advantage compared to WP when it comes to false-negatives (data that's not there) against false positives (data that's not right). To some extent it can be the perspective of search -- we can accept some bad search hits, but the priority can be making sure we get the good search hits. That's probably reflected in Wikidata's attitude to unsourced data: sourcing is valued; but unsourced data is better than no data at all; and then it can be up to users to decide what level of sourcing they need, depending on their application.

I think there seems to be a panic here, that some seem to have about Wikidata, which in my opinion is overblown. Realistically, data from Wikidata is only going to be visible in a limited number of templates, most of which will have no BLP-type risk at all. Yes, Wikidata is a wiki, it's not 100% reliable; it may even as a project not have reliablity focus as Wikipedia. But fundamentally, from the article perspective, it's just a different place to store some of the data. The key thing is for tools and processes to be able to minimise the practical effect of the data happening to be in a different place -- eg so that changes ping watchlists and vandal-screens as one would want, but don't swamp them. It's also possible to write templates so that changes on Wikidata don't automatically change article text, but merely lead to a discrepancy being pinged, triggering a hidden category that can then be investigated.

On the other hand, for some templates it is far easier to manage the data centrally on Wikidata. Consider for example {{ Art UK bio}}. The URLs at Art UK are mostly stable. However, they change unpredictably (without any redirects) if Art UK changes either the name or the birth date or the death date of the painter. So they need to be checked regularly. With the data on Wikidata, I can get the full set of the current links with a query in 30 seconds, which I can then feed to a URL-checking script. But if the data is on Wikipedia, I need to run a scraper over all the template instances, just to get where the templates currently point to. Having found out which URLs are broken, and tracked down new values for them, on Wikidata I can update them simply by cutting and pasting from a spreadsheet to a tool called Quick Statements, which will update the statements on Wikidata and the process is all done in a couple of minutes. But if the data is stored on Wikipedia, I would need to write (and get approved) a bot to update each of those template statements. For a job like this -- a large set of (uncontroversial) external links -- having the data held systematically on Wikidata makes it far easier to manage and to check and to keep correct. As well as meaning every other language Wikipedia also gets its links updated as well. For content like this, central management really does make sense. Jheald ( talk) 18:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I have the impression that since descriptions are article as well as language-specific so closely bound to articles, a solution may be to provide an optional template allowing to add those at the top of articles (i.e. {{ description|1=...}}). Internally it would not matter how those were processed/cached/displayed/stored (including on wikidata), but the source would remain directly as part of the article and managed/patrolled by the same language-specific project editors... — Paleo Neonate – 16:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Short descriptions are something we need for mobile. They need to be stored somewhere. A more productive focus (IMO) for this conversation would be: what is the big deal about those descriptions being stored on Wikidata rather than in a field in some non-visible template here -- can we identify what the issues are, and can we fix them, so that it doesn't matter where the descriptions are held ?

- The most important issue (again, IMO) is whether changes to the descriptions get shown in an efficent and useful way in Watchlists and edit-patrolling tools here. (ie: so that the tools pick up all the changes that are relevant, but without getting swamped by all the changes that are not relevant.)

- A second issue is that many of the current short descriptions on Wikidata may not be very good. (But they are usually better than nothing).

- A small third issue is that sometimes the descriptions contain Wikidata "use notes", that really ought to be separated off to a different field.

Wikidata needs short descriptions anyway -- they're generally just what you may want to be able to return in a query to give a brief description of the item retrieved; they're the basis for disambiguation on Wikidata; and they give Wikidata editors useful brief (< 10 word) orientation of what the item is about. So that's why the descriptions are valuable from the Wikidata side. I would suggest that they are also rather more visible (and accessible at scale) on Wikidata than they would be in blind Wikipedia template fields.

To me it would seem to make a lot of sense for the editing efforts of both communities to be combined to refine a single set of descriptions, rather than quality being lost by efforts being diffused. As I said, I don't see why it should matter where the data is stored, so long as the tools are aware of it, and it can be properly policed. Am I seeing this correctly, or is there something I have missed? Jheald ( talk) 16:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI, we had invisible templates before Wikidata existed (can't remember their name currently). After giving Wikidata the opportunity to harvest these invisible data, the invisible mainspace content was systematically removed (after a slow and somewhat painful process of finding consensus on how to do that). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:Persondata is the only one I know of which was invisible. -- Izno ( talk) 17:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one I had in mind. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Jheald, I think what you're missing is that there appears to be little interest from most enwiki editors in engaging with Wikidata as you describe. It's probably true that if a large number of enwiki editors began editing Wikidata enthusiastically, many problems would go away. The learning curve for Wikidata is slow to climb, however, and I suspect many content editors here don't want to do what feels like gnomery. I'm an IT professional and have no problem with the complexity, but I want to write articles. I don't want to keep an eye on a database to make sure the articles I write don't get messed up -- or if I do have to keep an eye on it, I don't want to go to another website to do so. One watchlist is plenty (and turning on Wikidata in one's watchlist is unfortunately not very helpful). I see little likelihood of the WD editing community growing to a size that would resolve this, nor of the editing environment becoming integrated between the two. Without one or the other of those, I don't see this conflict being resolved. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Mike Christie: Good point, Mike, but then this is what some of what is proposed (that seems to be making people come out with the torches and pitchforks) is actually supposed to make easier -- so, an edit box so that people can edit "short descriptions" without leaving Android; a facility to make editing possible through templates, so that people can fix facts without ever having to go to Wikidata, without leaving Wikipedia.

To me, the key issue that I think most needs to be fixed is getting the Watchlist (and vandal-fighting) integration much much better. What I think would make all the difference is to be able to see any change that alters the output HTML of a page -- and not to see any change that doesn't. And for the page-history by default to show any edits that changed the output HTML -- whether the data was changed through a Wikipedia edit or a Wikidata edit -- without showing changes that eg only affect other languages, or indeed no wikis at all. And for the line in the history to have an "undo" button, that undoes the change, regardless of where it was made. And for anti-vandal tools to be similarly agnostic as to whether the data happens to be stored here or happens to be stored on WD.

I think WD will be more accepted when for practical purposes it no longer matters whether the data happens to be stored here, or happens to be stored on WD. I think it's been clear for at least 18 months that this was a major issue that needed to be a priority area for development. I hope that, going forward, it now will be. Jheald ( talk) 18:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Jheald: I agree that those things are probably prequisties for people to stop caring about this issue; there are probably more, though. I suggested here a list of issues that would have to be resolved, drawn from the discussions on that page. I'm undecided on several of those issues. One I think is very important is having a unified, clear, comprehensible watchlist. Without that it seems to be too hard to keep an eye on what's going on with the articles one watches. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It will probably never be resolved. It is unfortunate though that people do not see obvious things. Wikidata was originally created not to provide descriptions for Android. The two immediate goals were (i) to centralize interwiki links (ii) to centralize some sorts of info. For example, we have a lot of information here, on the English Wikipedia, about mayors of obscure Ukrainian towns. This info is typically unsourced and is almost always outdated. Nobody here has issues with it. However, on Ukrainian Wikipedia this info is up-to-date and sources to (unsuprisingly) Ukrainian language sources. There is nobody here who updates the English Wikipedia info on a regular basis, but Wikidata is updated, and often has sourced statements. And this is exactly why it was created. However, an idea that this info can be propagated further to the English Wikipedia meets almost universal opposition, because Wikidata has a different verifiability standard. And, not suprisingly, nobody cares about what data we have here.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 17:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Re. "...not suprisingly, nobody cares about what data we have here" – maybe, as a first step, stop insulting the people you'd rather be trying to charm. For the mayor of an obscure Ukrainian town I think readers should rather go to Wikidata (knowing they're not on en.Wikipedia any more), than being presented, in en.Wikipedia, some data of unclear origin with little or no possibility to subject to a normal WP:VERIFIABILITY vetting. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 18:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

(By your logic, I am insulting myself). The data on Ukrainian mayors is in the English Wikipedia, and is of very poor quality. Check Kropyvnytskyi as a typical example: the mayor in the infobox is unsourced, it has never been sourced as far as I can see, and I see no mechanism how this one would be replaced with the next one when he retires or does not get reelected. Indeed, this is clearly contrary to our verifiability policy and even WP:BLP (may be the person is offended to be called mayor), but nobody hurries to enforce these policies. Wikidata btw does not have a mayor for this city, and in this sense it is better verifiable than the English Wikipedia.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 18:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

So your example is just a red herring. You don't seem to care about the mayor of that town, nor here, nor at Wikidata. In sum: charm = zero for trying to illustrate convincingly this would somehow necessitate Wikidata to override the WP:CIRCULAR policy. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 19:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not see any connection between you write and what I write, and I do not feel like trying to convince people who already have a strong opinion on the subject. I suggest we stop the discussion here. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 19:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I would love to see more data stored centrally (say, on Wikidata) so it can be easily updated on all Wikipedias, and everywhere that some data is used. When a city's mayor or population changes, wouldn't it be nice not to have to find all of the lists that mention this and manually edit all of these pages? (The German Wikipedia solves the population problem by an elaborate and somewhat confusing system of templates; instead of duplicating effort/templates, maybe we could do that centrally?) The main problem is I don't know how to use Wikidata for this, and barely understand its function for interwikis (finally found out today that there is an interwiki problem resolving mechanism, which is backlogged for a rather unflattering couple of years). Is there a tutorial somewhere? c:File:An Ambitious Wikidata Tutorial.pdf isn't one that tells me what to do (other than to build Wikidata without immediate benefit to Wikipedia). The explanation on Wikidata, d:Wikidata:Introduction, tells me I can access the data using a "Lua Scribunto interface", which is linked to mw:Extension:Wikibase Client/Lua, a page that mainly tells me I am not part of the intended audience. There seems to be room for improvement. — Kusma ( t· c) 20:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I am also not a tech wizard, but I think it can be done reasonably painlessly, and even with control over the sources which Wikidata uses for such statements. If there is consensus that this information can be used here (either shown directly via templates, or transferred by bots on a regular basis), one can ask on Wikidata how it could be implemented.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 20:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

One major weakness I find with Wikidata is that there is no clearly marked place for newbies or non-technical folks to ask questions. One issue I've been wanting to bring up there is the fact that the office of Roman consul is almost always occupied by two people, however the data object for it over there does not allow me to intuitively indicate colleagues of consuls. Although there appears to be something similar to the Village Pump over there ("Project chat"), lurking there leaves me the impression it is the domain of techies talking to other techies; much like reading a mailing list on Open Stack for the first time. Also I know from experience techies can be very dismissive about newbies' questions. (And I don't want to explain a thousand years of Roman history in a few paragraphs in order to prove I know what I'm talking about in order to learn how to add a freaking field.)

I'm not bashing Wikidata, mind you. I can see the potential it has for Wikipedia. It's that considering it as a project, it's still very user unfriendly -- unless you are one of the people who are deeply into it, & willing to figure out all of its bits & pieces. (It took me a week to figure out how to add the information that a given fact came from en.wikipedia. And I've spent the last 20 years making a living working with computers -- I can only wonder how daunting it could be for someone not technically inclined?) -- llywrch ( talk) 22:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Llywrch: On the consul point, it looks like Wikidata could use a new qualifier property, "held office with", that could be attached to the statement "position held:" "consul", "start time:" "date", "end time: date".

Wikidata is still quite a young project, and one of its characteristics is the ability to quite easily extend the data model in this way, to capture relationships which are not yet modelled well. So ultimately what one would do would be propose something like "held office with" as a new property to add, at d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization. The proposal would then be open for discussion, as to whether this is indeed the best way to capture the relationship, or whether there's a better way or something else could be re-purposed or whether a slightly different approach might be more general or flexible. But if nobody raises any counter-suggestions, usually a new property like this would be approved in a couple of weeks, and then data could start being loaded.

That's the formal procedure for proposing a new property (like an RfC); but of course it makes perfect sense to see what people think more generally first in a less formal way, by first raising the issue at eg d:Wikidata:Project Chat or d:Wikidata talk:EveryPolitician or d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Heads of state and government. Yes, much of the discussion on any of those pages can often get quite technical, with people thrashing out the detail of quite fine points of how to model things. It's a fair point that Wikidata needs better support for new editors, and perhaps an equivalent of en-wiki's WP:Teahouse. But there's a lot of good will, with editors committed to helping other editors solve problems and improve the data -- if somebody wants to know how to do something on Wikidata, or how to model some relationship, they will get taken seriously, and people will do their best to help. Jheald ( talk) 09:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Llywrch: I've opened a discussion on how to best indicate the other(s) of a set of joint office holders at d:Wikidata_talk:EveryPolitician#Joint_office_holders Jheald ( talk) 21:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Llywrch: So it turns out that there is already a Wikidata property used for this, d:Property:P1706 ("together with"). The data is still rather under-populated, but here's a query to show the consuls for whom there is currently another consul specified: tinyurl.com/ybhqb7ep (hit the big blue button at the mid-left to run). You may want to kill the "query helper" bit of the code display, which isn't very helpful. Apologies for the over-precision in the date shown - this is a known issue with the query service which it's tricky to make combine data held in two different fields (date, date-precision) in its output. Remove the '#' (= comment) signs around the "OPTIONAL" bracket at start of lines 8 and 10 to get the full list of people currently recorded on Wikidata as having been a consul. Or click on any of the Q-numbers in the first results column to see how the data for the person has been entered on Wikidata. Hope this helps! Jheald ( talk) 09:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

According to a considerable group of Wikimedians, complex interfaces are a great way to proof a user's 'competence', because it shows that people are really very committed to participating and have moderate intelligence. So it's probably a feature Wikidata considered worth copying from their predecessors. I'll leave it up to you to decide how this reflects on you and/or that line of reasoning... :) — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

According to my notifications, I've made a shed-load of edits to Wikidata when, to my own knowledge, I've made none at all. That perhaps is something to do with the WMF legals and attribution but it is confusing and not appreciated. - Sitush ( talk) 23:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: exceptions to WP:CIRCULAR allowable for Wikidata?

RfC: Description field from Wikidata in any view of en-WP

Further conversation

There's a response and follow up conversation to this topic happening at Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_State_of_affairs CKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 13:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Do we have a definitive policy statement about deleting articles due to TOU violations? Specifically, undisclosed paid editing. I'm looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Freidman, attempting to close the discussion. One of the assertions there is, The creator violated our TOU so we should delete the article. This is a common claim at AfDs, but I can't find a definitive policy statement one way or another. The TOU certainly gives us the legal right to Refuse, disable, or restrict access to the contribution of any user who violates these Terms of Use, but that's not the same as it being our policy to do so. I'm not looking for advice on how to close the AfD, just a better understanding of our policies. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't have such a policy yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've taken a look and I've read through that AfD again. Wikipedia's general inclusionist philiosophy is sometimes too wildly applied, especially by participants at AfD who may be less faniliar with our guidelines or who may have an axe to grind with other editors in the discussion or the nominator. IMO, in the absence of a local ruling, we should interpret the WMF ToU as being sufficiently broadly construed to delete such content, particularly in the case of a BLP that might technically pass our notability guidelines. It's loss is no grave concern because if it hadn't been paid for contrary to policy, it would not have existed anyway (at that time). That said, I'm in favour of deleting all works by paid undisclosed paid editors but for a very different reason than most people and one that never gets mentioned - but that would be another debate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 22:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Tend to agree. If the subject is self-evidently notable, a clean article about them can be created. We don't want to be in a WP:BOGOF loop, where Company A hires Paid Editor B to create some shlock, and the Legit Editors C through Z spend a lot of time trying to fix the bogus article. We should only have the article if the legit editors conclude we need one and it's done right the first time.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• TOU is a legal contract between a user and WMF. Its enforcement is responsibility of the parties to this contract - WMF in this case. Other persons have noting to do with it unless they are specifically authorized by WMF. So, in absence of a community policy, TOU is irrelevant to any our internal process. Ruslik_ Zero 18:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  Not really. People get blocked for ToU violations all the time, by WP admins, not by WMF attorneys.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  Many of the ToU are included in our policy; violating those policies is blockable by WP admins, violating the ToU is blockable by the Foundation. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  It's this hair-splitting? The short of it appears to be that, yes, people can be blocked for ToU violations. Since Jimbo's backing-away from acting as a "super-admin", all of this seems to be handled by admins anyway, and even in cases where it's not (are there any?), what difference does it make? The end result is the same. If people can be blocked (one way or another) for ToU violations, it would seem to stand to reason that other community actions, like page deletion, can be as well. I do agree that most of the ToU under which that would be common are already also policy-codified, at WP:NOT and elsewhere, but I don't see that any loophole is created, whereby if we've missed a ToU element in the policies, that its somehow fair game to exploit. That's already covered by WP:GAMING and WP:LAWYER.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Local en.Wiki policy can only supersede the WMF terms of use on this matter with a large sitwide RfC adapting a change. We have not done so, therefore removal of content and/or deletion is justified under the TOU unless there is an explicit en.Wiki policy authorizing otherwise. Since there is no special procedure for it, the correct venue for discussions involving clear TOU violations that are not also G5 or G12 eligible is AfD unless the meet any of the other CSD. Until such a point that the local community here authorizes otherwise, undeclared paid editors have as much right to have their content on en.Wiki as copyright violators: both being explicitly disallowed by the TOU. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Technically, the TOU doesn't state what needs to be done about paid editors - only that they are required to disclose their connection with clients. In particular, it doesn't make any statement about contributions - paid editors who fail to disclose may suffer sanctions, but the content they add is not banned as such. Traditionally, we've retained the content of paid editors unless it met the criteria of CSD or failed at AFD, and keeping the content is not a specific problem under the TOU. - Bilby ( talk) 10:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

RoySmoth has pointed out above the passage in question that is applicable. We have the right to remove any content that is in violation of the TOU, and the way we can do that is through the regular deletion process. TonyBallioni ( talk) 12:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If the community wishes to delete paid content, the community is welcome to. I just wished to clarify that your statement was misleading when you wrote "undeclared paid editors have as much right to have their content on en.Wiki as copyright violators: both being explicitly disallowed by the TOU", as the TOU does not explicitly disallow content from paid editors. - Bilby ( talk) 13:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It does, as they have no right to contribute if they are in violation of them. I don't consider that misleading. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Given how the TOU is being stretched recently in regard to paid editing, it is important that we remain accurate in how we describe it. The TOU only mandates that paid editors must disclose - how we manage instances of non disclosure is a choice the community here makes, rather than something directly determined by the TOU. - Bilby ( talk) 13:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Object example of the day: [10]. Wow! — fortuna velut luna 09:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• The policy we do have is WP:PAID which implies that the community can create a policy that all PAID-violations are auto-delete cases (which it hasn't done yet). I myself closed a similar AFD as "no consensus" (as Sandstein did in this case). Basically, the point is that we don't have a " fruit of the poisonous tree" policy (yet) and creating one is not what AFD is for. Regards So Why 10:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the policy has no enforcement power. From the points of view of the people making money creating these articles, and their clients, the only effective deterrent is to delete the article. We allow people to make throw-away accounts, so banning is meaningless. If you hire somebody to create a vanity article for yourself, and that person's account d'jour gets banned but the article remains, You're happy. Your paid editor is happy. Everybody is happy but us. So, we need a more effective enforcement tool, and the only one I can see that will work is deleting the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Feel free to propose an actual change to WP:PAID to that effect. Yours might be a sensible argument to achieve this. However, as noted, current policy does not allow this. Regards So Why 12:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
      • No change is needed: the TOU say that material in violation with them can be removed. Absent an explicit local consensus otherwise, that is the policy. You're right that there is no auto-delete. It is a valid argument at AfD, however, which with PROD is currently our only way to deal with this. Your view that it is not a valid deletion rationale would actually be the change in policy without consensus here. Local en.Wiki policy has not chosen to exempt users from the TOU, because it effectively gets rid of WP:PAID by leaving it with no enforcement mechanism. TonyBallioni ( talk) 12:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Please quote the section of the ToU that says so. I re-read them and I cannot find any such rule. As far as I can tell, the ToU only contain rules, they lack "punishments". That is for individual projects to decide per ToU #10: "The community has the primary role in creating and enforcing policies applying to the different Project editions." (emphasis added). The ToU explicitly call upon each and every project to create rules how to handle violations of the ToU (which is why Commons or Species for example are allowed to have a policy that does not require paid contributors to identify themselves). Regards So Why 14:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
          • Sure, section 5 explicitly prohibits undisclosed paid editing, and also requires a positive consensus to allow for a change to that on a local wiki (as Commons and Species have done). Section 10 allows the Foundation to remove or deny access to any contribution in violation of the TOU. It is the primary role of the communities of the local wikis to enforce, as you have pointed out. Prohibitions must have an effective enforcement procedure, otherwise they are not prohibitions, but merely suggestions. Lacking a clear policy to deal with this specific case, we are empowered to enforce the TOU through our standard local procedures, which are blocks and AfD. To argue that lacking a local policy the TOU cannot be enforced is in effect changing the disclosure requirement to be non-existent, which is explicitly prohibited without consensus. en.Wiki has not created an alternative disclosure policy as of yet, so we therefore have our standard enforcement mechanisms in place to deal with violations. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
            • So you admit that #4 of the ToU does not contain any instructions how to handle such content. The rest is one (imho invalid) interpretation of local policies which explicitly do not cover these edits. WP:BLOCK covers those editors as "disruption only" accounts but it does not say "delete stuff created by those editors after blocking" (neither does WP:BAN incidentally). So if the policies do not allow for deletion of edits by blocked/banned users made before the block/ban, why should it be different for PAID violations? After all, vandalism is against the ToU as well and yet no one would argue to delete all good edits a vandal made just because they were later blocked for vandalism. And neither WP:DEL-REASON nor WP:NOT explicitly list violations of WP:PAID as reasons for deletion. Your POV might be ultimately become widespread consensus but the point is this: Don't try to interpret policies to fit the desired outcome, start an RFC to create a policy that explicitly says so. After all,having it clearly written down one was or another will save us from further discussions like this and doesn't force admins at AFD to judge issues that AFD is clearly not meant for. Regards So Why 16:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It is up to local consensus to determine how to deal with it in each specific case. The POV you are arguing for is essentially trying to circumvent the requirement that local communities must positively adopt an alternative to the disclosure requirements by making the requirements non-enforcable. I also have not said here that current policy allows for speedy deletions of all cases, which seems to be your understanding of what I'm arguing. I think it should, but there is not consensus for that yet. My view is quite simple: where local policy does not have any special procedures for dealing with it, we deal with the articles on a case by case basis through the standard local process, which is AfD. We are allowed to argue global policies and TOU in those discussions, since barring an explicit local consensus, they apply to us. Discounting them has no basis in policy, and is in contradiction of the requirement for an alternate disclosure policy to gain acceptance. You are free to argue at AfDs that we should not delete paid discussions per PRESERVE or WP:N or a policy or guideline of your choice, but arguing form the global TOU is equally valid, and as in all cases where there is a tension in the policies and guidelines, it is up to the closing admin to weight them on their relative strength.

I'd give the same advice to you: don't try to do an end-run on an alternate disclosure policy on en.Wiki, which is what refusal to enforce them is. If you think that we should adopt a Commons style policy, please start the RfC. Otherwise, the TOU control, and we have our standard local means of enforcement to apply. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, deleting content doesn't generally affect the paid editors that we are targeting. By the time we spot and delete the articles, they have generally been paid and have received a positive review. Very occasionally we delete content before the editor is paid, but in most of those cases the editor blames "evil Wikipedians", so the feedback is normally still positive or, at worst, left blank. The problem is that freelance paid editors do not generally have an ongoing relationship with their clients, so problems that emerge after they have been paid don't directly affect them. This is frustrating, as they are generally misleading their clients by not revealing the status on Wikipedia and the additional risks that hiring them entails, making it unethical on multiple levels. - Bilby ( talk) 13:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Since you mention reviews, I assume you are referring to freelancers using sites like Upwork. I think it's safe to say that they are a relatively small fraction of the paid editors. The bulk of the market are paid editing companies and PR firms that create Wikipedia pages as an extra service for their clients. Deleting content they add must surely translate into a significant reduction in leads through referrals, and for those at the higher-end, reputational damage. The second reason I favour deletion of such content is that UPEs tend to use various tricks to maximise the probability that their creations will "stick". These include misrepresented or outright falsified references, sometimes to offline sources, which require a large amount of work to check. Since the subjects are almost exclusively non-notable and borderline-notable living persons and organisations, it's an exceptionally bad use of volunteer time. Rentier ( talk) 16:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of any figures as to whether PR firms or freelancers are responsible for most of the paid editing - my guess would be that the freelancers edit more articles, but that the PR firms make more edits on individual articles. However, it is largely moot, because most of the paid editing we detect seems to be from freelancers, in which case deleting is rarely an effective preventative tool. Very occasionally it makes a difference, but as someone who has been deleting the work of paid editors for many years, I've almost never seen it make an impact on their future jobs. - Bilby ( talk) 17:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of reliable figures, all I can offer are a few anecdotes. The Anatha Gulati group doesn't seem to belong to a freelancer -- and its size dwarfs most other UPE sockfarms. I am not aware of any freelancers who handle such volumes. I also don't think the impact on freelancers is negligible. Following the deletion of a number of articles at the end of July, the number of Upwork jobs awarded to BusInCordoba each month dropped from a stable level of 5-8 throughout 2017 to just one in August. I suspect this was caused by their Upwork success rate dropping below the "top rated" threshold of 90%. The success rate can drop without any visible negative feedback as it's based on a private rating given by the clients. It's just one data point (perhaps the person went on vacation), but it suggests that the deletion can have a preventive effect. Admittedly, the impact of similar deletion on Highstakes00 was much smaller, but so was the fraction of identified accounts to the total number inferred from their Upwork history. Still, their success rate dropped by a few points and is no longer perfect. And even for Upwork freelancers, offline referrals by past clients -- which will dry up if the content is deleted -- are an important source of new business. I know because I used to be one. Rentier ( talk) 11:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I have a list of over 100 paid editors from Upwork. The only means I've found of having an impact by deleting articles is to do so after they've created the page but before they've been paid. This is a very small window, and only occasionally is it hit. Some seem to make it extremely small, although I suspect that comes from the arrangement they have with their client. In some cases I've even hit that window, only to see them get positive feedback and a comment that "it was out of their control". In cases where it happens too often, the paid editor normally starts a new account - it is a bit of a loss for them, but a bigger hit for us. That may prove to be the case with BusInCordoba's recent drop in work. So yes, we can have an impact in some cases, but deleting doesn't make much of a dent unless we can get the articles at the right time, and that's mostly to do with when we detect them instead of how quickly they are removed. Just tagging at the right time is effective, but the solution for me is in rapid detection, rather than in what we do to the article next. - Bilby ( talk) 03:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• We do allow content from banned users (like with COI editing), if other editors in standing accept responsibility to that content. If the article's content does not fail any policy and another editor is willing to vouch for that and take that responsibility from the banned user, there's no point in deleting the content. -- MASEM ( t) 13:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• The Terms of Use state that "If your account or access is blocked or otherwise terminated for any reason, your public contributions will remain publicly available..." So, automatic deletion would itself violate the Terms of Use because the contributions would then no longer remain publically available. You therefore need some other reason to delete besides the ToU violation. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• User:Andrew Davidson That wording should be changed from "will" to "may". Common sense (to me) says we're not legally bound to keep ToU violation content publicly available.
• It would be good to hear from legal department if content given in violation of the ToU is legal for us to licence (i.e. fruit of the poisonous tree / aiding and abetting a civil offence).
• For borderline notability (which is common), we should just delete all promo, and speedily per DEL#4, DEL#14.
• For clearly notable, maybe case by case. I've updated this in WP:BOGOF to reflect this, which basically raises the bar for promo, but doesn't drastically change things. Widefox; talk 15:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• The legal status of all material published by Upwork freelancers without going through OTRS is questionable. All rights to such work are owned by the client. I fail to see how asking a freelancer to post text on Wikipedia implies releasing it under a free license. The clients are generally ignorant of our policies (such as WP:PAID) and it's hard to argue that they are familiar with our licensing requirements. It would be good to hear a professional opinion on this. This is a purely legal question, independent on the attitude one may have regarding the undisclosed paid content. Rentier ( talk) 16:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Rentier, the best place to pose such a question on-wiki would likely be meta:User talk:Slaporte (WMF). TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

There's the copyright which the contributor always retails anyhow (see WP:C), but the question is... if it's not legal to edit, then (due to legals which I'm guessing at)...can we legally licence it? I would guess from the ToU wording above that the legal line is we can retain and use it. If not, it would have to be deleted anyhow. So (thinking aloud) seems ToU doesn't constrain us, but this should be clarified. Widefox; talk 16:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the question Rentier is raising is who retains the copyright for commissioned works: the client or the freelancer or firm. If the client retains it, there is an argument under our copyright policy that we can't host the text without an explicit license from the copyright holder, which the freelancer would be unable to provide. This is an even bigger question for text that is written by a client and given to a freelancer or firm as something to base an article off of. In those cases, the client all but certainly holds the copyright on the text, and its a valid question as to whether or not giving it to someone to post on Wikipedia is the same as licensing it themselves if they were to do it. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, Yes, it's not clear that the editor is the copyright owner, so which of these apply ( Licensing of Content (1. a. Text to which you hold the copyright, 2. c. Importing text found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others needing OTRS). My point is different, more general about whether it's possible to have 7. Licensing of Content agreement at all from a prohibited activity. Widefox; talk 01:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Forgive my naïvety: Is this why we allow paid editors to be OTRS agents? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick note, as this will have implications here. There is currently an RfC on Meta which will require paid editors to provide links from user pages to off-wiki details if they wish to edit. It may be of interest. - Bilby ( talk) 04:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting detail on that page. Most of the oppose !votes have emojis bit none of the support !votes do. I wonder why? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

en.Wiki vs. meta practice. Most of the !voters there probably aren't that active on meta so they just followed our practice. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

But why would the support !voters be mostly people not active on meta while the oppose !voters are mostly people who are active on meta? Not that it matters, but I am curious.

On a more serious note, would it be worthwhile to see how many !votes are from SPAs? Paid editors might be motivated to stack the votes... -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

So that everyone here know WP:ACTRIAL just became active a few hours ago. It is scheduled to run for 6 months, followed by a month off, and then a community discussion to decide how to deal with new content created by new users moving forward. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• I supported the ACTRIAL years ago, and thereafter read some of the discussion from the developers.  Thank you for the good news.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's to that. Even in my state of burnout, I enthusiastically applaud this move. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. The problem was the subject of a VPP discussion this year. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointers to relevant discussions elsewhere.

Comments sought at:

• WT:Manual of Style#RfC: Specific proposal to clarify DATERET (DATEVAR)
• WT:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC 2: Specific proposal to revise the third bullet of MOS:JOBTITLES

Both of these are follow-ups to rather lengthy prior discussions on the same pages.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: This may also be of interest:

• WT:Manual of Style#Proposal to consolidate some MoS discussion

 —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

And this one (involves both WP:NOR/ WP:RS and MOS:TONE/ MOS:WAF concerns and how they interrelate). It's a discussion draft, not an RfC yet, but could use more input.

• WT:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed clarification of reviews' relation to WP:PSTS and MOS:TONE

 —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

We seem to have two articles on the same topic (see: History of the Thirteen Colonies and Thirteen Colonies)... I think they should be merged, but I am unsure where to propose this. Is it appropriate to use AFD for this (noting in the nomination that the desired result is a merge and not a delete). Should it be done as an RFC? In short... What is the correct venue for such a discussion? Blueboar ( talk) 13:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

See WP:MERGEPROP. ― Mandruss  ☎ 13:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Short version: Create an RFC on the TARGET article talkpage, and link to it from the talk page of the article you are proposing be merged. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Blueboar ( talk) 15:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

OK... I think I did everything correctly... but would someone please double check my templating at both pages, and correct any errors. This was my first attempt at a merger proposal, and I got a bit confused as to which templates and parameters went where. Thanks again. Blueboar ( talk) 15:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

With the exception of biographies, I don't see why topics should be notable to have an article. With encyclopedias, to save room and to keep the cost down, they pan out non-notable topics and, in some cases, combine/leave out notable ones. Since this is a website, there should be no need to throw out non-notable topics, as long as they can be accurately sourced. - ZLEA ^{( Talk, Contribs)} 18:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a little semantical point - topics don't have to be notable, they have to be notable because otherwise we cannot write policy compliant articles for them. Wikipedia's definition of notable is not exactly the same as the regular meaning - a better term might be "sourceable". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

WHYN is not as such a part of the guideline.  Historically, it is an idea rejected because it competes with our core content policies.  WP:N is not a content guideline.  Nor does WP:N tell us if there is the material to write an article, rather it tells us if a topic is "worthy of notice" as a standalone document, as opposed to being merged to a broader topic.  That is the work of our core content policies, including WP:DEL7 in deletion policy.  Unscintillating ( talk) 10:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I've always thought that if we used the term noted instead of notable, a lot of explaining and reexplaining at AfD would be avoided. E Eng 18:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually EEng that little re-wording is a brilliant idea. It is also more accurate. Irondome ( talk) 19:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Irondome, I try to be brilliant at least once per week, just to keep the people bedazzled. I've stubbed Wikipedia:Noted not notable – I'm not in a writing mood right now so feel free to pitch in. E Eng 20:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for that link EEng. I have put on my pagewatch and left a comment on talk, primarily at this stage so I don't lose the stub :) Seriously, it's a good idea. Simon. Irondome ( talk) 22:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The discrepancy between our definition of "notable" and the real-world version has been a subject of much debate, many solutions, and no resolution to change it; we've come to accept that we know its a perverted meaning here but too ingrained to change. -- MASEM ( t) 19:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll put in my standard pitch for making more robust SNGs: notability is Wikipedia shorthand for something that should be included in a general purpose encylopedia. To that end, having a robust subject specific notability system is the direction we should be moving in as we evolve as an encyclopedia. The GNG is important because it tells us not so much whether or not something is important, but as to whether it is verifiable. Both relative importance in the world and the ability to verify something are important to determining whether or not something should be included in the encyclopedia. I think SNGs do that better, as evidenced by all the guidelines we have built around the GNG to tell us what it does and doesn't mean. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Why should we follow what an encyclopedia would traditionally include? Traditional encyclopedias, limited by paper, could not fully fill their purpose of being a general reference work. For example, they could not include reference work on subjects such as current events. They also could not include articles on every species in the world. But, Wikipedia has the potential to be able to do that. So why should we limit ourselves to fulfilling the purpose that traditional encyclopedias fill? It seems that we should fulfill the purpose they would try to fulfill if they could; that is, being a reference work on everything that it can. Thus, we should base the inclusion of topics on verifiability; whether they can be shown to be likely to be true through reliable sources. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 19:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say traditionally include, I said something that should be included in a general purpose encyclopedia. I think wording I've used before is reasonably expect to find in a general purpose encyclopedia. The reason is quite simple: we should limit ourselves to what one would expect to find in an encyclopedia because that's what we are. To go further, including poorly sourced and written articles on non-notable subjects decreases the credibility of featured articles on vital subjects. People remember the bad, not the good, and a lot of what has increased Wikipedia's reputation, and thus value to the reader, during the last 10 years has been a move towards higher standards for articles, which has also led to higher standards for inclusion. We used to have an article on every Pokémon, and the Pokémon test was actually a thing at AfDs. Now Bellsprout redirects to a list and Pikachu is a good article.

That's good because it shows how we combine not being bound by paper with encyclopedia standards: one could reasonably expect Pikachu to be included in a general purpose encyclopedia. It was the iconic image of a cultural phenomenon that shaped an entire generation of children. A paper encyclopedia might have to cut it because of space, however. Its important, just not important enough to meet the artificially imposed budgetary cut. On the other hand, Bellsprout would likely never have an article of its own, but might be included in a list. Our current practice follows this on most things.

My argument is that its better for everyone if we have well defined subject specific criteria: they prevent systemic bias and includes as stubs for growth on the things difficult to source extensively, while also giving us a lens through which to judge what is and isn't routine coverage. That's a net positive for all articles, in my opinion. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC) And DGG said in a better way below what I was trying to express. a comprehensive modern online encyclopedia vs. a paper one. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

For me, they need to be notable so we can verify them. This means that I think that notability is basically an extension of verifiability. On the other hand, there are a good amount of people who think that notability is the process by which we judge something to be worthy of being in an encyclopedia. This means that they think that how interesting or of note a topic is is what determines notability. I disagree with that interpretation, but it is popular. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 19:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

See my comment above. E Eng 19:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

(after two of those annoying edit conflicts) The notability guidelines, which explain how to implement policies such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, are designed precisely to ensure that articles can be accurately sourced, and, if so, that their subjects are suitable for an encyclopedia and are better covered in individual articles rather than broader ones. I know that very many editors lose sight of these basic points and argue about irrelevant details of policy and guidelines, but this is the basic reason for the notability guidelines. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• My 2P When making reference to WP:N in discussions or deletion nominations I try to word it as "encyclopedic notability." Some people unfamiliar with our guidelines and policies can understandably be put off by the suggestion that the topic of their new article is not "notable." - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I try to word it just the same. Sometimes I expand it into "sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". But personally, Iwish we had another word. It has led to general confusion for us to use a common word in a special meaning, particularly because the meanings are so close. We also say notability is not importance or significance, but it is so close to the usual meaning of improtant and significant as to add to the confusion.(And I think we should specially try to avoid having to argue about whether a living individual is "notable" -- to say someone is not notable is commonly viewed as an insult. As some possibilities:

"appripriate for an encyclopedia"

"appropriate for WP"

or "significant by the standards of an encycopedia"

When we say "an encycopedia, I expand this into " a comprehensive modern online encycopedia such as Wikipedia" The connection with a "conventional encyclopedia" is that we include everything that would be in a conventional printed encycopedia, and then a good deal more.It's not just a matter of covering current events and not being limited to paper as a medium, or to a limited size. We also include topics in popular culture way beyond what any general encycopedia of the printed era has tried to do. There is a difference in how formal and traditional-education oriented we are in our choice of topics. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

For reference, here is the most recent discussion on renaming Wikipedia:Notability that I am aware of (has it been three years already?). In my opinion, the key issue with any one-word term is that in the real world, people judge whether or not a topic is of significant interest for an encyclopedia based on some set of values. It could be based on the number of people who are affected by the topic, or if it relates to the greater welfare of humanity, or based on the amount of money that gets spent in the field in question, or something else. But the standards for having an article in English Wikipedia are not based on a value system, as it isn't realistic for one to be agreed upon by consensus in such a large community. So instead the existence of adequate sources is used as a proxy for determining if a subject should have an article. For better or worse, this means the real-world meaning of any one-word term is different from what is being described by Wikipedia:Notability. isaacl ( talk) 05:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It's an arbitrary handle, just something we use in discussions to say which policy guideline we're referring to. Content Policy Guideline 5, abbreviated CP5 CG5, would work nicely. One might ask where are Content Policies Guidelines 1 through 4, and the answer would be that those names don't exist. To use CP1 CG1 would imply that it's the most important content policy guideline, which would be misleading, and skipping 1 through 4 would merely emphasize the arbitrary nature. The only thing we can say without being misleading or ridiculously verbose is that it's a content policy guideline. Disclaimer: I have not read the above-linked discussion to see if something similar was considered there. ― Mandruss  ☎ 06:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"Content Policy X" was not suggested in the previous discussion. (Though you did suggest, "For that matter, if you can't find an existing word that adequately conveys your meaning, invent one.") However part of the rationale behind my suggestion, "Standards for inclusion", was that readers couldn't make any assumptions about what is meant without reading the guideline. isaacl ( talk) 06:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that would be an improvement. And then there's Content Guideline X - who needs a number? ― Mandruss  ☎ 06:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Q8378362634? ^Humor — Paleo Neonate – 06:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

If we are looking for a better word, I am thinking noteriety is closer to describing the outcome of all our current efforts to determine what merits inclusion on Wikipedia and what may get deleted. It seems to encapsulate our current best practices. In any case, we do need standards; there has to be a cutoff point. Or else we become just another crappy website. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I have brought up this topic once before but it did not receive much participation. WP:RAPID is the most contradictory policy I can think of. Commonly, "don't rush to delete articles" is employed in AfDs -- without considering the core guidelines of WP:EVENTCRIT -- while its other half, "don't rush to create articles" is kept hush-hush and kicked under the carpet. Ironically, the advice not to rush to create articles is actually rooted in policy, chiefly WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:LASTING:

It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors. Writing about breaking news may be recentism, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is recommended that editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable.

I suggest here that RAPID, alone, should be noted as an arguement to avoid at AfD, persuading editors to look at the actual substance of EVENTCRIT. I also am borrowing Location's idea from an earlier discussion: "I suggest deleting the subsections titled "Don't rush to create articles" and "Don't rush to delete article" and redirect WP:RAPID and WP:ANTICIPATION to Wikipedia:There is no deadline". Effectively, this will convert these sections to an essay, hopefully convincing our editors to look at the historical significance of a subject instead of saying "Per RAPID, let's wait and see if this is notable" (Yes, these are common !votes). TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 01:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I know this is easier said than done, but this is good input for the NOTNEWS discussion already ongoing above. E Eng 15:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Problem:

• Terrorism-related pages, especially lists of terrorist events, are plagued by original research and synthesis by editors. On list pages, often list entries are made where the source does not support the label of "terrorism" (recent examples: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]). Other times, the mere mention that ISIL, Al Shabab, or the PKK are suspected appears to prompt editors to add events to the lists, even if terrorism isn't mentioned (e.g., [18], [19]). The issue here is the assumption that all acts by these groups are, by default, terrorism and not some other form of violence such as insurgency, guerrilla tactics, etc. This assumption, while perhaps often correct, still constitutes original research as it is the editor making the connection, not the sources. Currently, the lists of terrorism incidents address this latter issue by including "attacks by violent non-state actors for political, religious, or ideological motive".
• Related, articles about events often are labeled "terrorism" without proper sourcing or prematurely. This prompted EvergreenFir to make WP:HOLDYOURHORSES because breaking news and first responders too often mislabel events in the initial aftermath. The mere rumor of someone hearing Allahu Akbar sends news reporters and editors into terrorism-labeling mode long before such information is verified by investigators. Examples are the initial reporting on 2011 Norway attacks and 2016 Munich shooting.

Possible solutions:

• Address this issue by amending WP:OR to require:

1. Reliable sources explicitly label an event or related individuals as "terrorism" or "terrorist" in their own voice or that Reliable sources report that some official related to the investigation of the event (e.g., mayor, police chief, government spokesperson) has used the label "terrorism" or "terrorist".
2. Cases where terrorism is "suspected" should be labeled as "suspected" by Wikipedia as well until this suspicion is officially confirmed or denied.

• A guideline be set regarding the lumping of "attacks by violent non-state actors for political, religious, or ideological motive" into terrorism-related articles and lists

Comments: We understand that carving out a specific topic for special attention in policy pages is undesirable to some editors. However, we believe this deserves special attention because of (1) the seriousness of the label "terrorist", (2) the persistence of the problem across multiple articles, and (3) the contentiousness of the topic vis-a-vis politics and religion. We already have discretionary and general sanctions related to this area ( WP:ARB911, WP:ARBAP2, WP:TROUBLES, WP:ARBPIA, WP:GS/ISIL), demonstrating it is a perennial topic for disputes. As such we believe that this broad topic warrants specific attention by Wikipedia policy. The goal of this proposal is to provide clarity to editors and to establish a community norm regarding the application of the label "terrorism".

Signed, EvergreenFir and Doug Weller; Posted by EvergreenFir (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion - terrorism

Before consideration of any formal proposal occurs, I think this needs input and wordsmithing by folks. I'm open to suggestions as to where any such language should go (perhaps a guideline, add to WP:OR, or some other place I've not thought of). Should some consensus emerge, a formal proposal would be the next step I think.

I'm curious if people share my concerns about the automatic inclusion of any acts by "violent non-state actors". Currently, executions by ISIL are included on these lists. I'm personally on the fence about this, but if folks felt strongly one way or another, I think that's fine as long as we can clarify the position. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I do have concerns that very frequently, right after an event like a bombing, that we do get reports "police are treating this as a terrorist event", which does not necessarily mean that the event will prove out to be terrorism-related (and we need to presume that "terrorism" without context means international terrorism as opposed to domestic terrorism). When law enforcement uses that language in the short-term and hours after the event, that means they gain special powers to quickly deal with the matter (eg [20]) but that should not mean to us that the event is a terrorism-related event. Calling something a terrorist event can only happen after arrests have been made or perps identified and their motives figured out, and far too often the media jump the gun on this. We shouldnt be trying to classify these events as terrorism for at least a day after the event and no earlier than until suspects are determined and preliminary motives worked out. -- MASEM ( t) 06:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. We call Juggalos terrorists at Juggalo gangs with citations to US government documents. Falun Gong is listed as a terrorist group by the Chinese government, but we don't mention this in their article (but we do quote someone accusing China of being practitioners as state terrorism because of how they have reacted to Falun Gong.) So if a government calls a group a terrorist group, do we include that information? If other governments disagree (as they do in the case of Falun Gong), do we include that? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Guy Macon and Masem: I agree with both of you. Guy Macon, you make a good point. Who gets to define a group as terrorist? Perhaps we need to leave it to just the sources, independent of the labels used by government officials and law enforcement? But that would mean the sources needs to use it in their own voice, not just quote someone. Or leave it to a third party like an NGO? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon We call Juggalos gangs criminal street gangs, not terrorists, and there's a bit there that looks like a BLP violation as it says someone was arrested for allegedly forming a terrorist group, but see this and this. So we have a paragraph in the article that makes it look as though there was a terrorist plot, but there was no such plot. This looks like an example of the problem. As for who, the Myanmar issue is interesting. Are all the people the government is calling terrorist actually terroists? [21] I don't know. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

As Doug Weller noted above, he removed one of the places where we call (some) Juggalos terrorists [22] (good call on the removal, BTW) before claiming that "we call Juggalos gangs criminal street gangs, not terrorists". Yet the Juggalo gangs article still says "The other 10–15% make up the Juggalo subculture's criminal element, which has been linked to numerous crimes including extortion, murder, domestic terrorism, drive-by shootings, drug trafficking, arson, burglary, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and weapon offenses, and has been documented collaborating with a wide array of street and prison gangs" (Emphasis added). I just looked at the citations for that claim and could not find anything supporting either the "terrorism" claim or the 10–15% estimate. We need rock solid citations before claiming that 150,000 people are terrorists. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles need to best reflect what is commonly accepted as being the case, despite what a state or country's own legal definition of what a "terrorist" may or may not be. At the end of the day common sense ( WP:UCS) has to prevail to best maintain neutrality ( WP:NPOV). The challenge will always be in finding sources that reflect the most commonly established opinion, as it will always be easy to find sources for a incident that is obviously an act of terror, or an incident that is obviously just an act of crime. The tricky part comes in when there is a blurred line of distinction for a specific event. If we find a source that states that it may qualify as terrorism, or it may not qualify as terrorism, we have a duty to report it as being in dispute (and sourced appropriately). However, it should always be reported in the location that someone searching the web would expect to find it in. If it is an obvious criminal gang's crime that happens to fall under some of the definitions of "terrorism", be they national laws, or otherwise, then it should still be listed as a crime. The Juggalo gangs example that was referenced above perfectly reflects this. If it is an obvious terrorist group's terrorist action that happens to not be defined as "terrorism" then it should still be listed as terrorism, on wikipedia's articles (We are less likely to find an example of this). Yet, when it is an incident that some people are reluctant to call terrorism, but to most observers it is clearly so, it should be listed in the appropriate place regardless and a citation made to demonstrate that it is in dispute, in order to preserve WP:NPOV (The most recent incident in Las Vegas comes to mind with regards to this). If a source cannot be found to show that it is in dispute, only then would I argue that it should be excluded, once again to preserve WP:NPOV. The same would apply for an incident that is clearly not terrorism related, but called as such by some group that does not reflect the common opinion (Actions by the Chinese government on Falun Gong is a good example of this). That is why source finding in these disputed cases is so critical, as it gives us the flexibility we need to remain neutral. Otherwise if we can't find a source that a disputed "terrorist act" is disputed then it shouldn't be listed, as we can no longer ensure our neutrality is maintained. This is not the desired outcome though, as our "goal" should always be to reflect common opinion using common sense, which means source hunting. Wiz9999 ( talk) 17:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If there is any place for this (or further need for it), it is not WP:OR but rather WP:BLPCRIME. Ultimately, what is said about some act of terrorism needs to pass that bar. If people are engaging in WP:OR, point them to that particular policy, remove or reword the offending material, and move on. -- Izno ( talk) 11:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Izno: BLPCRIME seems like a good place for cases of individual "terrorists". I think Doug Weller and I were suggesting something more broad because this is a perennial and frankly intractable issue. But perhaps specifying for individuals and pointing to OR in that specification would be enough. Doug might be able to explain the admin side more. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I have a problem with relying on law enforcement sources when calling a group terrorists and especially with relying on law enforcement estimates for how many people are in the group. Law enforcement has every reason to exaggerate the problem, plus they pretty much only have information on those who are caught comitting crimes. Far better would be estimates from academics, especially sociologists. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if sociologists would have better estimates than law enforcement in all cases . Some very reputable ones might, but plenty of sociologists seem to have the opposite bias to law enforcement these days; underplaying the problem in some cases to make minorities or members of certain groups look better. We should use a combination of the most reputable sources available (each case is different), and report on what they say, as usual. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{( or here)} 21:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

True, but in theory a sociologist will actually do a random survey with a defined methodology and publish it in a peer-reviewed academic journal before making a factual claim. A cop has absolutely no way to know how many law-abiding juggalos there are -- they are invisible to him -- and no way of estimating the total number of lawbreaking juggalos; he only sees the ones in his jurisdiction and he only sees the ones who get caught. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Participating here was on my TODO for a while, sorry for the late reply.
WP:LABEL would also be a relevant place to update.
I agree that alarmist tone and improper labeling is common on incident articles. This reminds me of Murder of Sarah Halimi which I helped to improve (political conspiracy theories, antisemitism and terrorism labeling/categorization, etc).
A problem is that even if the policies are clear, some editors will still promote their opinions. I don't object to making policies clearer and better however, as it then suffices for a neutral editor to notice the problem and try to fix it while clearly pointing at policy, then go at a noticeboard in case of resistence. What could help to detect those policy violations would be more efficient patrolling, perhaps with edit filter improvements.
My personal impression is that we could label with attribution when reliable sources do the same, could label without attribution if they unambiguously do, but should avoid doing so when they don't.
It may make sense if policies were even stricter and not permit labeling at all (even with attribution) until sources unambiguously do it without attribution. However, this raises complex issues like what to do when it's attributed to a reptutable analyst or is a government position with various editors rightfully wanting a mention...
Perhaps that in the case of China above, it should still be acceptable to simply say that it's China's position, leaving it to the reader to understand the implications. If only state-controlled papers do it, maybe that should not be used or mentioned, with WP:PUS improved (and we may need something better than PUS that is more to the point and more official)... — Paleo Neonate – 01:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There is an RFC that has been started regarding a potential change in the rules for usernames. Please join in the conversation here. Primefac ( talk) 18:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: WP:Bots/Noticeboard#InternetArchiveBot notices about nothing but archive-url additions

Summary: Proposal to have InternetArchiveBot stop posting one specific kind of notice on article talk pages – namely that it's just added an archive-url to a citation template. The reasoning is that it's a triple-notice (watchlist hit, notice post, and watchlist hit of the notice post) of trivia that doesn't need any human intervention, and clutters talk pages. An opposing view is that all bot notices are useful.

Will not affect InternetArchiveBot notices that may need editor examination, such as problem reports or notices of attempts to repair broken URLs.
 —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to invite you to comment here -- Deathawk ( talk) 05:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

An RfC-like discussion is open at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Bold revision of "US and U.S." section. It started as a regular thread not an RfC, and has gone on to some length, with a lot of sources cited, and various compromise edits already having been made.

Rather than put an RfC tag on it at this late stage, or start a follow-on RfC, it seems more practical to just direct interest editors to the extant thread.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Request_for_comment:_WikiProject_Advice_Pages:_Add_criteria_wording_to_the_examples CuriousMind01 ( talk) 00:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been trying to work out how Wikipedia policy is best applied to the article Catholicism (term), previously at Catholicism. Catholicism was fairly recently changed to be a redirect to Catholic Church, on the basis that the majority of people who search for or link to "Catholicism" will be looking for the Catholic Church (i.e. the church in communion with Rome).

However, the broader concept of 'Catholicism' - which is also employed by Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Old Catholics, and all sorts of other people not in communion with Rome - doesn't really have another word for it; and I'm struggling to even come up with a good disambiguation term. There's a proposal to move from '(term)' to '(concept)', which isn't great but at least a bit better - the article is specifically not about the term, which is covered at Catholic (term).

Is there a definitive answer on what to do when a term has been judged to most commonly refer to one topic (though is not the article title for it); but is also the primary term for a different topic? TSP ( talk) 12:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

A hatnote on the redirect target page is the most usual solution to this problem. See, for example, Catholic Church, Cattle, August 8. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

On the page Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines I propose replacing

 {{subcat guideline|editing guideline|Reference desk|WP:RD/G}}

with

 {{Supplement|pages=[[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]]|shortcut=WP:RD/G}}

This would change...

This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcut WP:RD/G

Category:Wikipedia editing guidelines

...to...

This is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. It is intended to make up for a deficiency considered overly detailed for inclusion in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

Shortcut WP:RD/G

Category:Wikipedia supplemental pages

Reason: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines has never actually been approved as a guideline by the Wikipedia community, just by a few editors on the reference desks at the time it was created. See WP:LOCALCON. More importantly, there are editors on the reference desks who quote this guideline as permission to violate WP:TPOC. In several recent examples, other user's comments were deleted because the editor doing the deleting deemed them to be "worthless". Downgrading this local guideline to a supplemental page will make it clear that WP:TPOC applies when deciding what can be deleted. This suggested downgrade would not prevent deletions as allowed by WP:TPOC such as trolling and vandalism. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The real problem is not the guideline - it's the inability, of some editors (me included, sometimes) to recognize trolling questions when they turn up. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the real underlying problem is that, all to often, we treat the reference desk as an answer desk. We try to answer questions (based on our own knowledge) instead of helping the OP find the answer themselves (by providing actual references) ... and yeah... I am guilty of this myself. As for trolls... I find they get bored and stop posting if you limit your answer to: "See source X"... and refrain from other commentary. Blueboar ( talk) 16:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar, I agree that what you describe is the real underlying problem. Alas, I don't have a solution for it. If you can think of one, I would love to present a proposal that implements the solution.

I do however, have a solution for the far smaller secondary problem of editors on the reference desks who (mis)quote WP:RD/G and say that it overrides WP:TPOC. That solution is at the top of this proposal. Do you have any objections to me implementing my suggested change? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You say "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines has never actually been approved as a guideline by the Wikipedia community, just by a few editors on the reference desks at the time it was created. See WP:LOCALCON." I would argue that the word "community" is more applicable to the Reference desks than to the rest of the encyclopedia. Therefore I think the problem is WP:LOCALCON. It needs to loosen up a bit in this instance. The Reference desks certainly are a part of the overall encyclopedia but a community and a very good community in my opinion has developed at the Reference desks including its own community quirks. It is watched over by knowledgeable and competent people and more than a few administrators. Bus stop ( talk) 19:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. We've had a rampant problem for years with every other wikiproject (and the RD is basically a wikiproject) declaring whatever they come up with to be a "guideline" without any input from anyone else, or any examination by the broader community. We have WP:VPPRO for a reason.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Is the Reference desk "basically a wikiproject"? Are there articles within "WikiProject Reference desk"? Bus stop ( talk) 23:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I have an amazingly easy way to fix those issues. Don't answer unless you are providing a reference, either to a work or a relevant Wikipedia article containing multiple refs. Any responses not containing the above get removed on sight. Close all questions after 72 hours answered or not. Boom, disappearing chatforum, personal knowledge and extensive trolling. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

So you would leave the neo-Nazi posts visible for 3 days? ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Anything clearly offensive/racist can already be removed under existing guidance. However the fact is we have plenty of articles based on subjects that are relevant to the neo-nazis, historical and current, so unless the question is 'How many jews can I gas with a mark 1 gas chamber' your question is meaningless without context. Trolls get bored when you stop playing their game. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. Your hypothetical is in the neighborhood of the types of questions he asks. And he never gets bored. He's been at it for yeas. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Only in death offers a good suggestion, although a bit too dogmatically. It is possible that a constructive response might not contain a good reference. But it is a good suggestion that we should try to adhere too. I have my own suggestion. It is often not clear if an inquiry is a prank (trolling) or a question worth addressing. Therefore I feel it is virtually imperative that the person posing the inquiry must be available for dialogue. We are placing ourselves in a weak position when we allow an initial post to generate a volume of discussion without any further input from the initiator of that thread. They must be available for instance for questions from those trying to help them. If they refuse to be further involved, then it is a good indication that the thread should be hatted. The problem here is a battle of wits. We have to assume that we have the ability, through sustained dialogue, to suss out the intention of the person posting a query. It is my working assumption that pranksters don't have the intellectual rigor required for in-depth discussion of the "topic" that they've raised. The topic is often ill-defined. If they decide to change their question to a more focussed question, then fine, we proceed normally and try to help them get answers to their newly revised question. Bus stop ( talk) 16:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. It won't affect the wording or nature of the material in any way, but will avoid confusion between WP:P&G material that's been vetted by the broader editorial community, versus narrowly topical WP:PROJPAGE essay material that hasn't had the input of much of anyone but its authors.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. The reference desks are not talk pages. They are reference desks as described at Reference desk. A reference desk is not an encyclopaedia, it is a way for the public to access the facility. It requires its own guidelines because it is a reference desk and not an encyclopaedia article or a page for editors to discuss improvements. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy for a long standing guideline to be changed just because someone thinks some hoops haven't been jumped through. Dmcq ( talk) 18:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment. I honestly have no idea what the effect of this change is, nor the validity of the current guidelines. I should point out that their most overbearing use - efforts by a medical lobby to keep people from answering basic questions - won't really be changed because the same people will argue, at very great length, about how the general disclaimer at the bottom of the page means they should delete your question. As a guideline, literally taken, it is not a bad idea to tell people not to give advice (about anything - and the guidelines actually say that but only the medical lobby cares). Then it would simply be a stylistic thing and we'd provide references and ideas rather than being afraid to mention things we can think of. So I think it's mostly a matter of resisting the abuse of policy, rather than what the policy says. I find proposals like only in death's to be bizarre and completely undesirable -- the expiration time of postings has nothing to do with anything, but it's already too short to get decent answers for a lot of questions. And while editors should come with references in hand I don't think we can enforce that strongly because sometimes a suggestion without refs helps someone else jog their memory; I've seen it many times. Wnt ( talk) 10:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Well i do give advice sometimes - mostly of the form of if they had just stuck the title of the query into Google search they'd have got an answer much quicker and with less bother. :) It would be good though if some of the editors there could just either ignore annoying questions or just answer them with a reference rather than doing anything else. Rising to some troll is just stupid. Dmcq ( talk) 12:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The page has been stable and in use for the better part of a decade without widespread changes or objections. That's a consensus as one can get. -- Jayron 32 19:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• I Support the proposed change in tags, which I see as a "clarification" rather than a "downgrade". Also, I think we should consider the advantages of WP:NOTAG for pages like that. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The refdesks are talky, but they're not talk pages — they have a completely different purpose. There are indeed some common issues, and I wouldn't be opposed to incorporating WP:TPOC, the specific concern that seems to be at the top of Guy's mind. -- Trovatore ( talk) 08:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - There is an open proposal to shut down the Reference Desks, here. If passed, it would moot this discussion. ― Mandruss  ☎ 16:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Followup Proposal

WP:RD/G/M has the same problems as WP:RD/G, and is also being claimed to override WP:TPOC. Does anyone object to be downgrading this one to a explanatory supplement at well? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

If you seriously want to approve giving out professional advice, you should discuss it with the WMF first. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• To cut through all the blather here... the question seems to be simple: Should WP:RD/G be considered a) a "guideline" page or b) a "supplement" page? I suggest we hold an RFC here on the VPP to ask this simple question. Then we will know what the broader community thinks of it... and any question of Local Consensus will disappear. Blueboar ( talk) 23:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• That's a really good way of stating the question. Much better than I could have done. Are there any objections to me posting an RfC on this? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well there really needs to be an option to mark it as neither and mark it as an essay until its fit for purpose. Its not a useful guideline because its conflicts with TPOC. Its not a supplement because what it allegedly supplements actually says something different. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Technically, there is no conflict between the RD/guidelines and TPOC, because ref desk pages are not talk pages - they are project pages. This is why the ref desk pages have their own guidelines - TPOC does not apply to ref desk pages (I suppose, however, that it would apply to the talk page that is attached to every ref desk). Blueboar ( talk) 10:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Lets just say if its treated like a talk page, its a talk page. That its technically a project page does not give it a magical shield against the guidelines designed specifically for pages where editors interact in discussion. Although saying that, it would be easier to add a line to TPOC to indicate that it also applies to all pages whose primary purpose is discussion. Would you seriously argue at AN/ANI that TPOC doesn't apply there because they are project pages? Only in death does duty end ( talk) 11:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ha, apparently someone got there first. Last line of the lead for WP:TPG (of which WP:TPOC is a subsection) "All guidelines here also apply to Wikipedia discussion pages, such as articles for deletion." - try arguing the ref desk isn't a discussion page ;) Only in death does duty end ( talk) 11:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Given the trend of discussions here, I have been bold and amended that line... to note that Ref desks are an considered an exception to TPOC, and that they have their own separate guidelines. Feel free to revert (and we can discuss further), but I think my change does accurately reflect consensus. Blueboar ( talk) 13:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

FTR, Blueboar has returned to stable version. [24] I was going to take him up on his invitation to revert his bold. ― Mandruss  ☎ 15:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

But ref desks are not supposed to be discussion pages... their original purpose was to help editors find articles and sources that would answer their questions. We aren't supposed to discuss (or answer) the questions posted at the ref desks ... we are supposed to limit ourselves to pointing the reader to articles and sources ... so the reader can find the answers themselves. Blueboar ( talk) 11:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Well it doesn't go both ways, you cant claim its not a discussion page (when it clearly is - despite the intent) so TPG don't apply, while not actually doing anything to prevent it being used as a discussion page. Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply to 'what is' not 'what we wanted it to be in the beginning but it hasn't been for a long time'. Its currently a discussion page, so guidelines on discussion pages should apply. If you don't want it to be a discussion page, it needs to be *very quickly* have its focus changed. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 12:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Why "very quickly"? Is there a specific incident that demands we rush this? Blueboar ( talk) 12:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Well as a general rule we cant have an entire wikiproject running around ignoring relevant guidelines, but mainly because as you can see there is starting to be significant support in closing it altogether. Without *some* movement towards cleaning it up, I doubt it will last a year. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 07:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Downgrade all this WP:PROJPAGE material; it isn't really guidelines.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I have recently encountered a draft about a politician for lost an election and which is not notable. However when arguing with the creator, I have realized that our stance on sources related to elections is simply not covered in policy or guidelines. Could this be fixed?

@ Primefac: told this person: The "significant independent coverage" that is required for these individuals must be from outside the political sphere to show that they are independently notable from the campaign.

In my opinion this sums up the consensus well, yet I can only find the following to support it, from WP:POLOUTCOMES; "Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted. They are not moved to user space for fear of establishing a precedent that any premature article about an as-yet-unelected candidate for office can be kept in draftspace pending election returns, effectively making draftspace a repository for campaign brochures (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siân Gwenllian.)"

WP:NPOL is totally useless for this, as it does not say such politicians are not notable (instead points to the GNG), nor does it deal with the issue of which sources are acceptable. WP:ROUTINE is not detailed enough to be directly usable, as it only mentions events, and WP:BLP1E does not mention elections or politics. I know it is possible to draw a inference of the consensus from these guidelines, but there is nothing that directly covers the issue of the sources.

It could be argued that they are only passing mentions, as they focus on the circumstance of the campaign, and would not otherwise mention the individual, but this is not defined in guidelines either. Sources related to a person, which do discuss the person at length, but which are doing this for the purposes of covering an election campaign, are clearly not usable per WP:ROUTINE. This is not made clear in WP:ROUTINE, in the absence of something being made clear, it is simply my interpretation of the guidelines.

Consider the draft creator has said things like: "Thanks for providing your logic. However your phrase "outside the political sphere" appears to be your personal interpretation of the criteria about "independent, reliable sources", no? There is also guidance about "non-trivial / non-merely-directory-like details" of the news coverage. The Cairns Post (newspaper) & Sydney Morning Herald (newspaper) & 4CA (AM radio) & ABC Far North (FM radio) both offered multiple, independent, reliable, in depth coverage of the campaign..." and "I will now quote the sentence I wish you would acknowledge: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Why are Wikipedia editors so intent to judge the content of sources. Just check for the above qualities (only) please!!" (see my talk page).

If I have missed some glaringly obvious guideline that covers this then I apologize in advance. Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  12:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the article in question... It is impossible to comment meaningfully without reviewing the specifics of the case. I gather that there was some media coverage... so a lot depends on what the media coverage about him/her says. We would need to review the sources. Certainly a losing politician can be considered notable (example: Jimmy McMillan) ... but that does not mean that all losing politicians are considered notable. We have to judge each case on its merits. Blueboar ( talk) 14:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The article in question is Draft:Kurt_Pudniks Skinduptruk ( talk) 14:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• I would like to clarify and expand upon my statements (which I still stand by) on the draft and my talk page. WP:POLOUTCOMES is a better essay than WP:NPOL because it better describes the losing candidates. In any election cycle there is bound to be a significant amount of coverage about all parties involved - after all, how else would be public know who to vote for? However, all of this coverage pertains to one "event", meaning it falls under the second point of WP:BLP1E. This is why I requested that there be independent reliable coverage of Pudniks from outside the election cycle - it would show that he's more than just a guy who failed to get elected. Primefac ( talk) 16:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it more accurate to say that the coverage all relates to a chain of events (the campaign) culminating in one event (the election). I'm not sure that BLP1E was intended to apply to this.

This may be my US outlook on elections... but I doubt anyone from the US would apply 1E to a US election - where we first have primary elections and then the general election ... each of which could be considered separate "events" (even though they are part of the same overarching political process)... as well as numerous campaign rallies, debates, fundraisers, etc. (which could also be considered separate "events"). Blueboar ( talk) 18:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Aguyintobooks Fwiw, I think you / we're getting punked in this specific case.. See here. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Reddit is not a credible & significant source that is independent of the subject of the article (me, with CoI declared on my user page on 17 Aug 2017 - Aguyintomagazines has been emailed about this)! I wish wiki editors spent more time pondering policy than muck-raking unreliable internet forums (admin Spez has admitted to editing posts at will). By the way, on a serious note, the basic error in Primefac's judgement above seems to be the phrase "independent of the subject of the article". You are reading that as independent of the topic of politics. I think the intent was sources written by authors whom are independent of the person the article is about! With due respect, may I explain that it was quite significant for a candidate in Far North Queensland to get a story in newspapers from southern Australia. ie. No other Qld Greens' candidates got such cover in the 2016 campaign (that I can find). Aus rough humour aside, please accept my sincere thanks you for your interest and time to explore this point of policy. Skinduptruk ( talk) 10:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Has the proverbial cat got your tongues?? 😸 Skinduptruk ( talk) 00:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

On User_talk:Chrissymad#please_define_.22in_depth_coverage.22.3F.3F Chrissymad offers many pigeon holed opinions re the sources, but sadly misses this policy point entirely. Where can I get a fair review around here?!

Aguyintobooks, Drewmutt, Blueboar, Primefac

Skinduptruk ( talk) 15:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that Chrissy's breakdown of the references illustrates exactly why the draft continues to be declined. I'm not sure what policy point you're referencing, since the first line of WP:42 quite clearly says significant coverage, not "two dozen sources that might happen to mention the subject." Primefac ( talk) 15:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Skinduptruk What point have I missed, exactly? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. Please point me to where "significant" is defined? I can only find "not mere mentions" as policy guidance. The point I think you missed: editors are meant to only check against wiki policy, in this case, multiple, reliable, independent, significant (aka not mere mentions) coverage. Instead, you just keep testing these definitions. Please quote policy, or propose / argue the case for your subjective decisions re these aspects listed above. Have a nice day! Skinduptruk ( talk) 16:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You defined it yourself - "not mere mentions". Nowhere on Chrissy's list do I see anything that meets the very list you just now posted. Primefac ( talk) 16:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I am with Primefac on this, but will add that basically the current consenus on the meaning of policy is against the inclusion of this article at his time given the current sources. By all means you may be featured on Wikipedia at a later date,when you are more notable and you may want to collect sources for this. And perhaps petition a biographical dictionary or reliable author to feature your biography in a book, but failing that, and failing actually being elected. sorry. Dysklyver 19:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Please define "mere mention"? With examples of other bios on wiki? Is this consensus an offline discussion or...? I think we are looking at the same SMH link and not agreeing. Mere mention was meant to guard from directory listings. The SMH was a professional reporter & sitting member of Qld Parliament, yet you called it "puff piece / interview" which seems very harsh! Also please re-read above on unelected candidates. A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver made an error saying "and failing actually being elected" Skinduptruk ( talk) 23:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Another editor, another assertion over & above wiki policy! The theme that is developing here, is that wiki policy asks for objective review of the source, not a subjective review of the content of the source, yes? 🤔🤔🤔 Skinduptruk ( talk) 00:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Skinduptruk, your starting point is wrong. The English Wikipedia's "rules" aren't a collection of laws that have to be followed, and everything else must be ignored. See WP:NOTLAW and WP:IAR for just two of the written policies that say this.

But: as an editor who has worked on notability guidelines for years (and years), let me help you understand the point. When you're trying to determine whether a person qualifies for a separate article, then the goal (see WP:WHYN) is to see whether it would be possible to write a decent article (not just a few sentences) while only referring to high-quality, independent, secondary reliable sources. If you can't do that, then it will be impossible to comply with WP:NPOV (which requires that an actual majority of the article about a person be based on source other than the person – since an article that's 90% based on the person/company/political organization's own sources wouldn't really be "neutral").

So a handful of "mere mentions" won't help much towards that goal, will they? It doesn't matter how many sources say "Alice Expert is the head of BigOrg"; if that's all the sources say, then you'd only end up with one short sentence in that hypothetical independent-source-based article.

If you're looking for mechanical rules of thumb, then look for at least two WP:Independent sources that contain multiple consecutive paragraphs about the subject (not including quotations from the subject), ideally 500+ words directly about the subject. Your target is to be able to write at least 10 non-redundant, encyclopedic sentences based entirely on independent sources. If you can reach that target, then your subject will be almost AFD proof. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Concur with WhatamIdoing. As for the OP, I do agree the guideline could use some touch-up, and that these improvements about failed candidates can be based on what the essay says, since the latter is well-received and reflects actual practice. That doesn't really seem like a Village Pump matter, and more a small addition to draft and propose as the guideline talk page.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks for your thoughtful reply WhatamIdoing. Agree with your mere mention example of "Alice Expert is the head of BigOrg". The article in question has plenty of sources that contain more detail than these mere mentions. I will need to read those other policies you linked to as well, thanks for that. Note that, rather than rules based, my query was prompted by other editors confusing "independent of the subject" as "on a subject other than politics"! And choosing to equate "not mere mention" as a puff piece (with no supporting arguments or standards of comparison presented). However I agree the suggested rule of thumb re 10x sentences and 500 words seems quite reasonable, based on years of experience as you said. Skinduptruk ( talk) 06:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I hope that this isn't considered a stupid question. In a content dispute, sometimes an article has been more or less unchanged for a long time, and then it is modified, and one or more other editors agree with the change, but some editors disagree with the change, and cite WP:EDITCONSENSUS and argue that the article should be restored to the stable consensus version. In the cases that I have in mind, there no longer appears to be a current consensus, but editors who favor the previous version of the article refer to the previous version as the stable consensus version. My question is whether there is a policy or guideline that I have missed that overrides or should be weighed against Consensus Can Change to take history into account. That is, is there a policy or guideline about historical consensus, which is apparently what is really being invoked by editors who oppose changes to an article.

We agree that, in the situation where one editor changes an article without prior discussion, other editors may revert the edits, and discussion is necessary. In the situation that I have in mind, which I have seen several times, after discussion, two or more editors support the new version, and two or more editors support the old version, and call it the stable version or the consensus version. Is there any policy or guideline that I have missed that gives special weight to a historical consensus version, and so must be balanced against changing consensus? My own thought is that, in such situations, the best answer is often a Request for Comments, which establishes a new consensus. I haven't found a policy or guideline that states that a historical version should be given special treatment as a stable consensus version. Have I missed something, or have other editors missed something? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You are correct in that in general there is no stable version as such - unless there has been some sort of discussion where a point has been threshed out - which includes RfCs. Featured Articles would be considered de facto stable versions as WP:FAC functions as a detaile discussion or review that comes to a consensus, (hopefully) having discussed all aspects of an article. This is true also of Good Articles to a degree. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:Consensus, “In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.” This is especially true if the prior version had a clear consensus. That version is supposed to remain in place absent a consensus to change it plus a consensus how to change it. Of course, a bold, unchallenged edit creates a new consensus. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear, or perhaps the replies are about other situations than I am describing. An article was stable for a period of a few years. Then, in case A, an editor came along and deleted a section. Another editor restored the section, and another editor deleted it. More editors favored keeping the section deleted than favored restoring it. Editors who favored restoring it called it the stable consensus version, but the consensus was purely historical, because the section no longer had current majority support. In case B, two editors came along, and substantially rewrote the article, with new references. Two editors complained, saying that changing the article away from the stable version was disruptive. So my question is: In either case, do the editors who want the original version restored have a policy-based argument for restoration? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

In case A, “More editors favored keeping the section deleted than favored restoring it.“ If that amounted to a consensus for deleting the section then there is no policy-based argument AFAIK for restoring the original version, unless perhaps there was a recent extensive RFC or the like. But, if there are not so many more editors who favor deletion as to amount to a consensus, then there is a policy-based argument for restoring the original version, because “a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.” In case B, if the two editors who complained were only complaining that there was no consensus without explaining why they disagreed with the actual edits, then arguably there was in fact consensus for the edits, see Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". On the other hand, if they also disagreed with the actual edits, so as to make consensus nonexistent, then there is a policy-based argument for restoring the original version, because “a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.” IMHO. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon can you point out the discussion in question. There should be more relevant policy and guideline reasons being cited than just status quo. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_156#Talk:Microsoft_Hearts.23Mathematics_section . It appears that two editors wanted to restore the section, and said that it was the stable consensus version, and that multiple editors supported its removal. I was officially neutral but did not see any policy basis for restoring the section based on history or consensus. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned, the policy says “a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit”. To me, this means there must be some extraordinary reason to allow changes to the article without consensus for those changes. Were it otherwise, one could just as easily add completely new material that lacks current consensus, as delete old material that lacks current consensus. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

First, what is an extraordinary reason? Second, in the case in point, it appears that four or five editors supported removal of the section, and two editors favored restoration of the section. At the time of the controversy, there was something closer to a consensus for removing the section than for keeping it. So my question is whether the fact that the section had been there for a year or more in itself resulted in a historical argument for restoring it. Am I explaining the situation clearly, or should I explain it differently? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

A clear BLP violation would be an example of an extraordinary reason. Moreover, if there is a current consensus against a previous stable version, then nothing in policy or guidelines requires preservation of the previous stable version, unless some special reason exists (e.g. the previous stable consensus resulted from an RFC, or changing the stable consensus version would violate BLP, etc.). You also discussed other scenarios, e.g. "there no longer appears to be a current consensus" or "In case B, two editors came along, and substantially rewrote the article, with new references. Two editors complained…." and in those other scenarios there is no current consensus to change the old version so the old version is supposed to be restored per WP:Consensus. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Anythingyouwant - I don't understand. What you say isn't clear. Are you saying that the historical version should be restored, or not? Actually, you appear to be saying both that the historical consensus should be restored because it was the old consensus, and that "no consensus" is not a reason for reverting. Is there a guideline that gives weight to historical versions, even when there is a majority for a change, or is there no such guideline? Where is the guideline that says that "stable consensus versions" take precedence over a change in consensus? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

In case A, the majority of editors wanted the section deleted. Should it be restored because four over two is not enough of a consensus to override a stable historical version, or should the new consensus be accepted? (I assume that we all agree that an RFC would establish a new consensus that overrides the history.)

In case B, as a matter of fact, there was extended very lengthy inconclusive discussion (a filibuster). The editors who had rewritten the article said that the rewrite was more consistent with what scholarly reliable sources said. It was my judgment that the complaining editors waited a long time after the rewrite before complaining, and as a result the new version had become the stable version, but I still haven't seen the light about "stable consensus versions". Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not want to comment about whether there is a current consensus in your case A or your case B. I merely said that IF there is not current consensus then the old version should normally be restored per the policy that says “a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit”. I don’t see how I could be any clearer than that. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm still confused. Where is the guideline that says that "stable consensus versions" based on history should be preserved as an alternative to consensus changing? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of no guideline that uses the exact phrase you quote. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure either "side" in the disputes described can really claim a true consensus. A true consensus requires a fairly broad sampling of editors (I would say you need at least 10). I would suggest that you take the specific disputes to a wider audience (file an RFC) and see if that wider audience can break the deadlock. Blueboar ( talk) 01:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I don’t agree that “true consensus requires a fairly broad sampling of editors”. One unchallenged editor can be a consensus. See Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. However, it’s true that an RFC can create a more weighty community-wide consensus that takes precedence over local consensus. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• The general principle is that if consensus for a change cannot be reached, go with the status quo ante (i.e., revert to the version before the dispute broken out), then discuss further until consensus is reached (which can take a long time, sometimes years – it's often best to just drop the matter and come back a year later and open a new discussion).  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with what User:SMcCandlish said, and would only add that consensus for a change means a consensus about how to change it. If one person wants to change the article one way, and another person wants to change it a different way, then there is no consensus and policy ordinarily requires preserving the status quo ante until a consensus emerges: "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit”. N.B. I tried six years ago to make this aspect of the consensus policy crystal clear, but nevertheless it is clear enough. [25] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
    • As a practical matter it can be very difficult to make substantive changes to articles that are stable and have a dedicated cadre of watchers, and even minor changes are sometimes out of the question when they are Featured Articles. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment. Thank you, — swpb ^{T go beyond} 13:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

After the massive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher (2nd nomination) and a few other AfDs in recent months, I think that clearer guidelines are needed as to when Wikipedia should have an article on a person based on media coverage of them before they turn 18 or 21. Malala Yousafzai and Prince George of Cambridge will obviously have articles, but almost every other case is controversial, and most guidelines are written with the expectation that they will be discussing adults. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Which guidelines assume that we're talking about adults? Anywa, while it's certainly true that most notable people only become notable as adults, there are certainly many exceptions. For example, Daniel Radcliffe was clearly notable once the first Harryu Potter film came out when he was 12; Chelsea Clinton was certainly notable at age 13, when her father Bill Clinton became the US president. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Radcliffe was an actor and notable in his own right. Chelsea Clinton was a minor of no accomplishment who happened to have a famous father (at the time). WP:NOTINHERIT is very clear about this fallacious argument. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the best rule of thumb regarding if there should be an article on a minor or not is they are being covered due to their own accomplishments or is it related to the accomplishments of another. Radcliffe would have been independently notable reglardless of whether or not him family was previous famous whereas Clinton, at that time would have almost certainly been a virtual nobody if her did was did not enter politics.-- 67.68.21.146 ( talk) 02:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Which somehow reminds me of the strange Bana al-Abed case... — Paleo Neonate – 03:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

power~enwiki - I favor a few lines for BLPMINOR at the Presumption of Privacy section. There does seem a norm of not having articles for minor children, such as the White House Malia Obama or Barron Trump, with exceptions for PUBLICFIGURE of entertainer or spokesperson and generally a desire to err on the side of caution. But I've also got to note defining 'minor' may be difficult as the legal permissions are gradual and the age involved varies by jurisdiction. Is it 14 when employment is legal, 16 when driving or marriage is legal, 18 when military service is legal, or 20/21 ? Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 23:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• The BLP policy by default favours privacy. In practice we do take the privacy of minors very seriously, and while often it is unfortunately phrased in terms of notability at discussions, what we are really arguing is often: this kid has just received their 15 minutes of fame. Do we really want to invade their privacy for the rest of their (hopefully long) lives by creating an article that will be the first Google result for their name until the day they die?.
  I would support an addition to the BLP policy based on the WP:NHSPHSATH wording that would require prolonged coverage of a minor before they were included. This would fall short of a public figure standard, allowing us to capture biographies of minors that are significant but aren't necessarily public figures, while also taking an important step to protect the real life privacy of children. In terms of the question above, the definition of minor that I would use would be the age of majority in their country of residence. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, the issue is not "having an article", the issue is that of covering the minor anywhere in the encyclopedia.  WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion shows that notability is not a deletion issue when the topic is covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia.  The Holly Neher AfD cited the explanatory supplement to the deletion policy that states, "Unless there is a particular reason to delete a redirect, admins should feel free to interpret Merge and delete votes as Merge....An advanced editor who wishes to argue for a merge and delete should make clear why the redirect would be unacceptable."  Presumably that later point includes the closer.  IMO, the close should either have followed policy guidance and converted the delete !votes to merge !votes, or taken the implied IAR seriously and deleted the topic from the entire encyclopedia.  @ Seraphimblade:.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• Never is WP:NOTINHERITED so literal: articles on minors do need to be looked at to see whether the sources writing about them really only care about the parent entity. That is obvious for Chelsea Clinton but might apply even in the Holly Neher case -- we are seeing a societal transformation in which even the Boy Scouts just started taking girls, so the decision of her school's team (which is what would be said to make her notable) is part of a social trend. A redirect to a general topic like like high school football may be in order, together with a brief description there, which may or may not include the name depending on whether it is useful. We should completely disregard concerns like those of User:TonyBallioni above where Wikipedia tries to trim its sails and tailor its coverage to be of putative benefit to someone by not making an unwanted search result. We have no idea whether this notability will be positive, negative, wanted, unwanted in the long run, and no responsibility for the actions of corporate vermin who fill their overpriced chairs looking up web history to discriminate over rather than looking for competent employees. What we know is that if search engines are permitted to exist for any significant part of this girl's life, which I don't even think we can take for granted any more, then what they do is their responsibility not ours. Above them it is - apparently - the responsibility of Xi Jinping and his emulators throughout the world to sift and adjust what information someone without a security clearance can find out about old news to be consistent with what is judged to be a Harmonious Society; if Wikipedia is to be censored we can at least demand it be done by paid men, not amateur wanna-bes. Our responsibility is to have whatever mention we provide as accurate and well-researched as possible, with the incidental effect that our hit is better than its rivals. Wnt ( talk) 10:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Another object example was the four attempts it took to permanently get rid of an article on Jacob Barnett. The history of these deletion arguments is that the community's desire to put an article in on everything tends to overwhelm its collective moral sense, and therefore BLP policies tend to require more defense than ought to be necessary. In particular, any minor caught in a hype-storm tends to get stuck with an article which requires a major battle to get deleted, even though these are really the textbook case of when we shouldn't be making articles on minors. And I really have to object to the behavior of "corporate vermin" in justifying our own lack of a moral sense. The presumption on these articles should be that, except for a few very narrowly-defined cases (e.g. child actors with substantial careers), these article should be speedied. Mangoe ( talk) 15:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I looked up some Jacob Barnett articles - not hard to find - and I can't see any way that not describing his story makes Wikipedia a better place. Why *shouldn't* we take interest in prodigies? The story of how his parents decided to direct his education should be inspirational - and helpful - for other parents. If we can document it verifiably, we should document it verifiably, unless no editors are interested in doing so. Wnt ( talk) 20:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Prodigies are a huge problem to deal with, because so many cases involve a lot of hype which doesn't pan out. Kids who produce something that an adult would unquestionably be notable for: those would be the rare exception. Barnett did not do that; it was all about his potential to produce something, which proved in the end to not (yet) amount to any real notable achievement. The bar on prodigies needs to be set high, because churnalism produces so many spurious claims. Mangoe ( talk) 20:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If you have reliable Site A and reliable Site B, can Wikipedia say that you can only use one site in an article and not the other? Because that's what Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games is doing, over here. SharkD  Talk  05:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

When two (or more) reliable sources say the same thing, it becomes a matter of editorial judgement and WP:Consensus as to whether to use one, the other, or both. We don't need to create "rules" to settle every minor sourcing dispute. Blueboar ( talk) 14:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind we're comparing OpenCritic to Metacritic, which are only review aggregators and otherwise don't provide novel content (they're tertiary sources) outside of which reviews they count towards their averaging. And presently, in the video game industry, Metacritic is the standard that is used (to a point of causing problems within the industry, but that's not an issue), so it doesn't make any sense to provide both sources when they exist for presenting the average reviews for a game. -- MASEM ( t) 14:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

If the content being sourced is not likely to be challenged in any serious way, and no reasonable editor would object to the reliablilty of the source, then additional reliable sources, while allowed, are unnecessary. However, if it's likely that reasonable editors may object to the content's accuracy in some way and desire additional verification, then multiple reliable sources should be used. Also, if there are two sources for content that only needs one, and editors generally agree that one of the sources is far more respected on the topic than the other, then removing the inferior source, even if it was used first, would be fine (if there are no strong objections) since it would have more credibility. By the way, SharkD: it's "cite" as in citation, not "site" as in Web site. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D ( talk) 16:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I am talking about two websites. WPVG wants to blanket ban Website B across all of Wikipedia. Despite also claiming that Website A and Website B are equivalent (and thus equally reliable?), which multiple other RSs actually disagree about. SharkD  Talk  00:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Scanning the discussion it seems that the issue is whether or not to use Metacritic or, the relatively new, Opencritic. The thing is that Metacritic, as the Open Critic article itself implies, has been embraced as a standard for this sort of thing, so it does not make sense to not use them. Now, maybe down the line it'll be reversed and Opencritic will gain some traction, but we should stick to the one most people use. -- Deathawk ( talk) 04:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

There's no ban, just that there's yet to be any material provided by OpenCritic that would make it more preferred over MetaCritic. It's not a ban, just a case where, for example, we'd use what the NYTimes or BBC reports on the same content of the same story over the Smalltown Gazette. -- MASEM ( t) 04:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• This pops up from time to time. There is also the related issue that someone/people involved with opencritic have in the past attempted to spamlink. Essentially its as the two above state: Metacritic is both the defacto and endorsed standard both outside and inside the industry. Outside, metacritic is the go-to for tertiary sourcing, inside its the metric by which publishers often pay developers bonuses (one of the problems Masem alludes to above). Opencritic is new, not used widely, and really only differs in one area - in that it is, per its name, more open about its methodology (Metacritic obfuscates its weighting given to different reviewers). It always ends the same way, editors are generally of the opinion when opencritic use is more widespread, then it may be considered. The 'pushers' shall we say (which in the past have COI issues or have direct contact with the owner) would like to use Wikipedia to demonstrate that use - which is backwards to how we do things. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 12:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

One should note, where OpenCritic has been covered in the media, it is generally endorsed as a better replacement for MetaCritic due to the above reasons. (Also, where MetaCritic has revealed its methodology, it has been shown that it cannot do math or tally the scores properly, angering some review sites enough to stop using scores at all. Example.) SharkD  Talk  13:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

While OpenCritic has been endorsed by some journalists, it still remains (as best we can tell) that MetaCritic is what drives developers and publishers w.r.t. things like bonuses tied to critical scores, etc, even if their methods have been repeated called out as flawed. That makes it really hard for us to change from that. -- MASEM ( t) 13:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Has this situation arisen before on Wikipedia? I.e. where there are multiple reliable publications, but some were not allowed to be used by editors, ever? I.e. cases where the reliability is not in question, but we're just not using them? SharkD  Talk  01:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The WT:MOSCOMP#Definite article section is proposed, here, to be substantially revised for better agreement with RS practice, linguistics, and MoS norms. This is not RfC-tagged, but is the same sort of discussion.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Inconsistent capitalization of eponym in same context.

The short version: is it okay to use Gram stain then gram-negative when both of these refer to the same thing (a microscopy dye-staining technique named for Hans Christian Gram, with no connection to the metric unit gram)? People have been editwarring about this since 2004, so an RfC seemed wise.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the first few reliable sources I checked use the capitalization you'd expect [26] and given the relative illogic of leaving a name uncapitalized, I don't see why you would do it that way. That said, the talk page cites medical dictionaries and the CDC for the lowercase form, and that's what they say. The reliable sources rule here, and no general policy should override them, so I'm afraid we need to let this be handled on the article talk page, one way or the other. Wnt ( talk) 21:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Style matters don't work that way. RS for facts pertaining to a topic are not RS for how best to write about the topic for a general audience. Otherwise, all our music articles would be written in the style of music journalism magazines, our material on philosophy would be written in the style of philosophy journals, etc., etc. We just don't do that. We have a consistent site-wide style, defined by our multi-page style manual. See WP:CSF and WP:SSF for details.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)