User talk:WhatamIdoing

If you expected a reply on another page and didn't get it, then please feel free to remind me. I've given up on my watchlist. You can also use the magic summoning tool if you remember to link my userpage in the same edit in which you sign the message.

Please add notes to the end of this page. If you notice the page size getting out of control (>100,000 bytes), then please tell me. I'll probably reply here unless you suggest another page for a reply. Thanks, WhatamIdoing

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Colin°^Talk 13:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

TY for your reply

...at the NPOV discussion. As a non-registering editor, I do not engage at Noticeboards, etc. Best that I can do is call attention to issues with potential for becoming superheated. Cheers, and thanks again. 98.206.30.195 (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Your choice, I guess, but if you choose to post a question about how to apply the policy to a specific article on a page that says:

at the top, then I don't think you should realistically expect anything to happen as a result of your post. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

July music

story · music · places

My story today is - because of the anniversary of the premiere OTD in 1782 - about Die Entführung aus dem Serail, opera by Mozart, while yesterday's was - because of the TFA - about Les contes d'Hoffmann, opera by Offenbach, - so 3 times Mozart if you click on "music" ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11, yesterday's was a great mezzo, and on Thursday we watched a sublime ballerina. If that's not enough my talk offers chamber music from two amazing concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page history/2024 July 30b had a baritone, a violinist, a composer and a Bach cantata, - almost too much, and the composer's article, Wolfgang Rihm, improved much over the last days, could still grow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

A Barnstar

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For all of the help you provide at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. I don't think I would have continued editing, or at least wouldn't be editing as much as I currently do if it wasn't for your continuous help. Your knowledge and willingness to help others does not go unnoticed. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm always happy to see your posts there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliable source discussion

I am sorry that I got confused I didnt know that reliable source discussions had their own page Wwew345t (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wwew345t, I will reply at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Grinnell 14

The Grinnell 14 article is so wonderful! I am so grateful you drafted and gave it so much of its contents.

I've been interested in researching more about them, and am a fellow Grinnellian. I'd love to learn what you've dug up so far. Ping me back if you're interested in chatting! Verbistheword (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Verbistheword. Everything I know is in the article. It's possible that the college has more information. I'd suggest contacting the library. https://www.grinnell.edu/academics/libraries/special-collections-archives has a link to a contact form at the bottom of the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! I talked with the folks in Burling basement a few years ago and saw their lil' folder of info.

(And that makes sense, re: article content)

I do wonder—the article references several newspaper articles I don't have direct access to: Might you have copies of them that you could share?

Although I can of course dig them up myself via the citations and various archives, if you happen to have them easily accessible, I'd appreciate the leg up! Verbistheword (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I got the older newspapers through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, which offers free access to Newspapers.com and similar services. I think you need to have made 10+ edits during the last 30 days to get automatic access to these, so go fix eight typos, and then log in at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Ahhhh thank you so much! I had no idea about this service. Such a help. Verbistheword (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

We disagree on a lot…

But I have to say that I enjoy our discussions; they’re always civil, and I do appreciate you finding uses for the data that I randomly throw at you, even if you don’t agree with my conclusions about that data.

Thank you! BilledMammal (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been wishing for some of these numbers for years. Thank you so much for indulging my requests. I'll be interested in seeing the subject comparisons. Have you considered Category:Declined AfC submissions as a potential 'subject area'?

One of the reasons I've wanted these is because telling editors what's "popular" or "typical" tends to reinforce that situation, without making an Official Rule™. For example, thanks to your numbers, we can now say that the median article cites four sources. Editors tend to respond to that fact with a thought process that runs "Wikipedia is good, and most Wikipedia articles cite at least four sources; therefore, citing at least four sources in an article is good". If we let them run with that for a couple of years, then the median article is likely to have five sources – all without any coercion or rule-making, and just strictly by saying what's common/popular/normal. If we tell them that most articles have 2 to 9 sources, then {{one source}} might get more use, and we might someday even get a {{two sources}} to go with it – and in a few years, we might find that the middle quartiles of Wikipedia articles cite 3 to 10 sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point; I hope it works out that way.

Have you considered Category:Declined AfC submissions as a potential 'subject area'?

I haven't, but it's easy to do - only 20,000 articles. I've started running it, and will hopefully be able to upload those statistics tomorrow. BilledMammal (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have some hopes that having information will encourage more uniform behavior. It worked for the heading names in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Notes and references. We told people what was popular, without requiring or banning anything, and through various means, over time, the popular option became almost universally preferred. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

See User:BilledMammal/Declined_AFC_statistics. Sorry, took me a little longer to get around to formatting it then I hoped. BilledMammal (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Are the words and sentences headings backwards? And how's it coping with the AFC template stuff? I looked at Draft:Coordinated Lunar Time and it appears to be overcounting the words and undercounting the sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

They were, fixed.

It won't count content in {{AFC comment}}, or the other templates, if that is what you were asking? BilledMammal (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was skipping that, but then why does it come up with so many words on the page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I looked into it; there was an issue with how I was tokenizing words. I've fixed it, and will rerun when a different program returns. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed and updated. BilledMammal (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal, that's wrong in the opposite direction. Now it says that article only has nine words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there was an issue with the upload - it seems to have truncated all figures to a single digit. Sorry, I’ll look into it tomorrow. BilledMammal (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. There's no rush on my end. BTW, for Draft:Coordinated Lunar Time, I count 295 words and 11 sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

A voice of reason

Hi, I am reaching out to you because you provided a much needed voice of reason over on the Talk Page of the International churches of Christ a few weeks back. Right now, two editors are trying ban an editor who is trying to point out that the federal court cases being referenced on the page have been dismissed and they seem to be interpreting that as him trying to suppress negative press on the church. The admin board is here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Meta Voyager's tendentious editing JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I doubt that a trip to the WP:DRAMABOARD will improve that article, and unfortunately, I'm not convinced that the people willing to work on that article are vested in what I'd call improvements. Its problems likely need to be solved in the Wikipedia:Independent sources before they will have even a small chance of being solved on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011, this is WP:CANVASSING and is not permitted. TarnishedPath^talk 01:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tarnished, Please stop following me around Wikipedia WP:WIKIHOUNDING is also not permitted. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I followed a link from the discussion at WP:ANI which stated that editors had been canvassed to the discussion. Other editors had already highlighted your behaviour. Strike your WP:ASPERSION. TarnishedPath^talk 07:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I wonder occasionally whether editors are capable of understanding the difference between an aspersion and an accusation. I'd classify that as the latter, not the former. I suspect this is part of our WP:UPPERCASE disease, so that it's more important to refer to an ArbCom case about hinting that someone was engaged in real-world criminal activities than to just say that we feel like the person isn't being very friendly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:ASPERSIONS, "On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence". If you want to call it an accusation then the matter is still the same as an accusation has been made sans evidence. TarnishedPath^talk 00:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you like to explain how you decided to read my talk page and post here for the first time since you created your account in 2007? I assume that the answer is "Why, I checked Special:Contributions/JamieBrown2011 to see what they were up to, of course". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal:_Topic_ban where not far under the heading is the following comment "Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)" TarnishedPath^talk 03:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hounding is a behavior – innocently intended or otherwise – in which one editor follows another editor, whom he opposes, across multiple pages. So you oppose Jamie at Talk:International Churches of Christ, you oppose their assumed POV at ANI (where they haven't posted at all, and I haven't expressed an opinion on the main subject, BTW), and you oppose them here. That's three pages just during the last week or so. I'd say that constitutes "evidence" of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, and I bet that ArbCom would, too.

BTW, you and @Raladic might want to consider WP:APPNOTE, specifically the bit about "On the user talk pages of concerned editors", with an example of "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". I did participate in a previous discussion on the specific question of COI edits at the article's talk page – one started by TarnishedPath to discourage JamieBrown2011 from editing that article – and the ANI discussion is partially about COI. It is therefore likely to be an appropriate notification, and since I have declined to participate in the decision at ANI, it would be difficult to claim that there was any harm done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't follow the link to the diff thinking it was in relation to Jamie. I didn't know who it was in relation to until I landed here. So no, there is no evidence of WP:HOUNDING.

Regarding your reference to APPNOTE, I'd consider WP:INAPPNOTE which states that selective notification of editors who you think have a common viewpoint is inappropriate. Your decision to not participate is entirely up to you. It's the selective notification which is inappropriate. TarnishedPath^talk 03:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

As my POV on the ANI discussion couldn't be determined from my prior comment, then I don't think that this is a case of notifying only editors with whom you think you have a common viewpoint.

My decision not to participate in that way should have been obvious to you when you decided to pointlessly warn me against accepting a notification you disapproved of, from an editor you've been fighting with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. I didn't write my comments above as a warning to you, they were directed at Jamie. Personally I wouldn't think twice of it if you did participate. TarnishedPath^talk 04:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If you had only wanted Jamie to see your message, you wouldn't have posted on my talk page.

If you didn't want Jamie to feel WP:HOUNDED, you could have decided against saying anything about it at all. Hounding involves the "singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work...following the target from place to place on Wikipedia". I genuinely don't believe you intended anyone any harm, but you actually have been confronting this editor on multiple pages.

ANI is a really ineffective forum for that type of situation. As I indicated before you posted here, I do not think that participating will do any good. The outcomes will be wasted time, hurt feelings, and a worse article. If we're unlucky, we'll end up with a few more editors who believe that being an ordinary lay member of a religion or other similar organization is generally considered a disqualifying factor for editing articles related to that religion. If we're really unlucky, they'll believe that the community prefers these articles to be written by ex-members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I posted here because this is where I saw their canvassing. Jamie has clearly not been hounded by me and if you think I have engaged in hounding of them I invite you to take it to ANI. TarnishedPath^talk 05:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to take you, or anyone else, to ANI. I do hope you can see how someone might come to the conclusion that you were hounding them. This isn't about your intentions, but about the appearance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no judgement or knowledge of whether you could be involved in prior discussions, I merely stumbled over this notification that was given to you by chance.

But as I read it as an uninvolved editor, without any prior knowledge of the discussion, it had a clear point of view, which is squarely an WP:INAPPNOTE if it was intended to bring in people who share a specific point of view - Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement) - the message JamieBrown2011 left for you here implied a specific point of view, specifically this part here - Right now, two editors are trying ban an editor.. implies an attempt at potential vote stacking, which is why I issued a warning to JamieBrown2011 on their talk page and tagged the ANI per our policies to warn that inappropriate canvassing may have happened.

You may still be perfectly entitled to participate at the ANI per what you mentioned that you were part of some prior conversations, but it nonetheless made the selective notification above an inappropriate notification as it had a specific non-neutral intent in the way of the notification itself. An WP:APPNOTE must be issued neutrally, which the above was not and also - The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions, which is why it further failed. Raladic (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

My prior involvement was not one that could have led anyone to know my opinions about the accused editor's participation in the article. I made an impersonal statement about the usual ways of applying the COI guideline. If it really was "intended to bring in people who share a specific point of view" and I was "selected on the basis of their opinions", then it would have been more pointful to find people who actually share a specific point of view, rather than someone who has never said anything for, against, to, or about the accused editor.

I think you have jumped to unwarranted conclusions, probably on the basis of incomplete information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd have to strongly disagree with that. Jamie said right above "you provided a much needed voice of reason over on the Talk Page". While you may believe it was completely mysterious how you would view the issue, Jamie, the one who tried to canvass you clearly did not. Therefore it clearly was an attempt at canvassing and unacceptable behaviour. AFAIK, I have no previous interactions with Jamie, and I have no idea what this dispute is about and frankly I DGAF. But I find it deeply disappointing you as an experienced editor would excuse canvassing like this. Consider that it's actual Jamie you're likely to harm by doing this, since there's a fair chance if Jamie keeps trying such nonsense, they will find themselves blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, even if Jamie was completely wrong and there was absolutely no reason to believe you'd provide a "voice of reason" given your previous interactions, it's a moot point. The issue is whether Jamie notified you because they believed you were more likely to share their viewpoint than a random editor, and their comment illustrates that they did. In fact, it's hardly uncommon editors are wrong with their preconceptions about how an editor would view an issues, there are many times when an editor says something like "I'm not going to take part in that discussion since you tried to canvas me, but if I had, I'd actually disagree with you". An editor being wrong about the views of the editors they're trying to canvass has never been a significant factor in whether something is viewed as harmful canvassing, instead it's whether the editor notified people in a manner which was clearly not neutral, such as notifying editors they believed, even if incorrectly, would be more likely than a random editor to share their PoV. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

(Of course as Raladic said, the comment was also worded in a non-neutral way so could never be considered a neutral non canvassing notification even if they were notifying everyone who'd participating in the previous discussions or whatever. ) Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote on that talk page? IMO it doesn't take much to be perceived as "a voice of reason" there. You just have to say something like "Here's how Wikipedia usually handles questions like this" when other editors are invoking COI to keep unsourced, WP:CHALLENGED material in an article, or saying "I object to any edit made by an COI editor" in an effort to stop all edits by someone with a different POV, when the immediately preceding comments are about which types of edits are explicitly allowed under our rules, and removing your own (allegedly) COI-tainted edit is one of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm probably the one who did the most defending of JamieBrown2011 at the article and they never wrote me. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Firstly, thank you for providing a voice of reason over at the ANI. 2ndly, sorry for the drama me posting over here caused you, I see they have attacked you for something I did. 3rdly, I see over at the COIN noticeboard, two editors have created a narrative that they are simply trying to prevent the ICOC page from being whitewashed by myself and MV. I think that is a false narrative. As you know I was the first editor to put the court cases into the article. I believe the ICOC should be accountable for sins its members and leaders commit. Accountability can only make organisations and churches better. However, the opposite appears to be happening. Court cases that have been dismissed over a year ago require pages and pages of discussion to convince certain editors to remove them from the LEAD of the article. No consensus is required to label myself and others as COI editors, while "consensus is required" to remove the labelling. When articles are used to accuse the ICOC of cult like behaviour, (some of them from 30 years ago) and other articles are presented where mistakes are acknowledged and changes made, (even apologies made from organisations that previously labelled the ICOC a cult), there is huge resistance to present those perspectives alongside the accusations. Those objecting even saying they are trying to prevent "whitewashing the article" while in my view tarring and feathering a group sincerely trying to learn from its mistakes. So, all that said, I need advice as to whether to make this case over at the COIN noticeboard or simply let it go and let my arguments and editing make that clear over at the ICOC Talk page...JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent discussions. All I required for the LA lawsuit to be removed from the lead was a reliable secondary source which attested to that. Once one was presented along with the edit removing it from the lead I presented zero objection to that change. TarnishedPath^talk 09:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011, I don't think you need to make a case against anyone at COIN. Ordinary POV pushing isn't a conflict of interest. While trying to present a religious organization in a less favorable light is sometimes motivated by personal animosity, that doesn't mean there is a real-world relationship between the editor and the subject, and without a relationship, there can be no COI. Therefore I think this is a problem for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard rather than COIN – assuming the assistance of a noticeboard is wanted at all, which I'm not sure would be helpful at this stage.

BTW, you might try Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library if you're trying to find more sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you on both accounts, those are useful redirects. FYI, I didn't intend to open a new COIN complaint but rather respond over at the current discussion opened by TP. I will try and make my stance clear at the ICOC Talk page, and with much more level headed editors looking on after the recent ANI discussions, hopefully the intimidation tactics and behaviour will improve 🙏 JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If you have capacity, you thoughts would be valued Talk:International Churches of Christ#NPOV JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

WT:MEDRS and Khelif

Thank you for your recent comments on Does WP:MEDRS apply to medical information about individuals? Just to be clear about the "context", there was no specific content that I wanted to include in Imane Khelif - I had no particular interest in the topic and have never intended to include that Khelid is, or according to some may be, intersex. But in discussing a different although related issue (whether to mention the existence of a public debate about her eligibility to compete with women), I made a hypothetical argument [1] that was seen as violating WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS. As there was no real dispute about either content, sources or policies, I am afraid that WikiProject Medicine could not have done anything to prevent such an outcome... My interest in the thread at WT:MEDRS is now mainly theoretical, so to speak. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a case of WP:Bring me a rock; others might call it Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. If I don't want to have any information in that article about the possibility that Khelif might be intersex or if I want to tell The Truth™ about her being a biological female, then of course I'm going to claim that the highest possible sourcing standards apply. Every experienced editor knows that "We are WP:REQUIRED by the WP:UPPERCASE policy to do this" is far more convincing than "Well, on balance, I think we should..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

yep. In this case POV pushing was not even very "civil", actually... Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that this article will be easier to write in a couple of years, assuming Khelif doesn't retire. Either the rules will change and we'll have sources connecting that rule change to her, or she'll be subjected to sex testing and disqualified from future competitions, and we'll have sources making definitive statements that she is able to compete in only in competitions with self-attestation requirements for intersex people, or she'll be subjected to sex testing and allowed to compete in the more restrictive competitions, and we'll have sources making definitive statements that if she's accepted by "Boxing R US", which requires sex testing and doesn't allow intersex people, then she's definitely not intersex. It's just hard right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Infant school FAC candidacy

Hi @WhatamIdoing, I have answered your comments on the infant school nomination. I was wondering if you would like to support it. Llewee (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Single Purpose Accounts

Hi,

A few hours ago you pointed me in the direction of WP:SPA.

In that essay it says: The general test for an SPA is: A user who appears to focus their edits on a particular article or related set of articles in a way which may cause other users to question whether that person's edits are neutral and are reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas. Such users may not be aware of project norms, may have engaged in improper uses of an account, and might not be here to build an encyclopedia (my emphasis).

That being the case, I wonder if you could please clarify for me how, as per your suggestion, I could be credibly accused of being an SPA.

You went on to say that doesn't mean that you're a bad or unwanted editor, or that there's anything wrong with your contributions, right?. But looking at the 'general test' above, it does seem that that is what the term SPA means.

I don't believe I have ever edited in a way that might cause other users to question whether [my] edits are neutral and are reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas, nor do I believe that anyone could credibly accuse me of having done so.

So, to be honest, I believe I am due an apology (which I would be more than happy to accept here rather than in a public forum).

To be clear, I'm not particularly offended by the suggestion, as it seems to be obviously untrue and to have been made while you were under a misapprehension about the meaning of the term 'SPA'. However, I'd be grateful for clarification from you on that point.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 04:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Axad12, This page is already a tolerably public forum.

I think you have perhaps developed an unfortunately partial view of Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (an essay, about which see Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays).

While SPA is regularly used as a smear word, especially at AFD and ANI, it's not always a bad thing. The best new editors are often SPAs, because they're trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage about a subject that interests them enough that they have learned something about it. New editors are never aware of the project norms, etc. (and we do a very bad job of teaching them), and knowing something about the subject often looks like "promotion, advocacy and personal agendas" to people who don't know anything about the subject. I refuse to apologize for you obviously having subject-matter interests and subject-specific knowledge. Instead, I invite you to consider whether you should be winning friends and influencing people at not only at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess but also at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing. Or at least not spending so much time on the drama boards, which is a highly effective method of giving yourself a skewed view of Wikipedia and often results in unhappiness.

Secondly, there is no actual rule against someone editing only one article or articles on one subject. For example, we've crossed paths before at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. While there are some polymath editors who can contribute competently across a wide range of subjects, I'm usually happy to see our healthcare editors stick to what they know, and for non-healthcare folks to come ask questions (instead of, e.g., assuming that whatever they found on some website is correct).

On the more general subject, you might want to add a few tools to your account. I'd particularly recommend the "userinfo" script that you'll see on line 18 in m:User:WhatamIdoing/global.js. You can copy it to Special:MyPage/common.js if you want it to work only at the English Wikipedia, or to m:Special:MyPage/global.js if you want it to work at all the wikis (e.g., Commons). You'll know it's working if you install it (note that the warning about malicious scripts is automatic and universal; search the archives of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) if you're worried), follow the directions to reload the page to activate the script, and come back to this page and look just under the article title at the top, where you should find a note about how long I've been editing and some other things. (You can copy any of the items there, but I recommend this one. If you have questions about what the others do, then feel free to ask me.)

If you aren't already using WP:NAVPOPS, then that's easiest to enable in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets (sixth item). I can see that you haven't used Wikipedia:Twinkle, and that's also in prefs, five items below NAVPOPS. These two tools are extremely popular with experienced editors, and I think you will find them useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, but the general test for an SPA that I mentioned above was located in the link that you had pointed me towards. Since you had pointed me towards it I was working on the assumption that it was a test that you felt might be valid. Under the circumstances I'd genuinely be very grateful if you would clarify whether or not my activity at Wikipedia might cause other users to question whether [my] edits are neutral and are reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas. Much of my time is spent at COIN, which would clearly be deeply inappropriate if my editing could be described in that way.

With regards to your broader comments above, I do agree with your point about drama boards and, indeed, I can confirm the truth of what you say from my own experience.

Personally I'm not sure that I really consider COIN to be a drama board (although admittedly it does occasionally veer in that direction). Most of my activity there over the last few months has been either (a) preventing COI/promo editing in a relatively simple and matter of fact way, or (b) assisting COI-lite type editors who just need a little guidance about how to work within the guidelines. To be honest I find those kinds of work quite rewarding and an area where I can usefully contribute.

ANI, on the other hand, is a different thing altogether. I try to only go there when something arising from COIN needs admin oversight. Otherwise it is a learning experience. For example, recently I've learnt from 2 very similar ANI threads that there is little point in intervening in content disputes where one side is accusing the other of uncivil behaviour. It seems it is pretty much predictable that the other side of the dispute will appear and continue their uncivil behaviour (and the content dispute) and there is no point in trying to intervene and thus putting oneself in the crossfire. Or, at the very least, there is no point in me doing so as I lack the experience to resolve such issues.

I think my contributions in chess and boxing are pretty much over. In chess I've significantly extended some stubs, to the point where I basically wrote the whole article. However, those articles are for the chess openings where I have the necessary expertise to do so. I don't think there are any further chess opening articles where I can meaningfully contribute. I've not edited in boxing for some time. Unfortunately the early boxing articles (where my interest lies) are usually drawn from very poor unreliable recent source material rather than from the extensive late 18th/early 19th century source material. Resolving that problem would be a huge exercise equivalent to cleaning out the Augean stables. I have tried to do my best to increase awareness of that old source material, e.g. by providing direct links to online versions and by discussing it on the relevant talk pages. Unfortunately those Wikipedia articles are very obscure subject matter and I just can't justify the time that it would take to sort them out.

To be entirely honest, I consider walking away from Wikipedia on an almost daily basis, simply due to being disillusioned. I don't know if it will be today, tomorrow, next week or next year.

Many thanks for your assistance above, unfortunately I think I am probably just running down my time at the moment. Axad12 (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

To address the disillusionment, I suggest finding something that you want to achieve. Good content will outlive us. Do you want to make a List of boxers in the 19th century? Get the best book about chess, and mine it to add as many refs to as many chess-related articles as you can? (I usually find e-books handy for this, because you can search for keywords.) I've had wiki-friends whose goals were complete discographies for a particular set, or a tiny stub for every single (notable) skin disease. The goal is to identify something that you think you would be able to look back on, decades from now, and say: I really did contribute something to the world.

As for whether you could be accused: Anyone can be accused. You've probably noticed that disputes on wiki happen have a weird, stylized WP:UPPERCASE (← read this one) form. That is, if you say something normal, like "I think this article would be improved by condensing it to the main points and leaving out minor details", nobody cares. You're supposed to say something that looks more like "We are WP:REQUIRED to WP:SUMMARIZE this because of WP:SIZE WP:RULES because all this WP:TRIVIA is WP:NOT WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC". Since Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, you can often put any shortcut in there that you'd like without anyone noticing. It is not unusual for someone to confidently assert that "WP:SHORTCUT says ____", when that page actually says the opposite. I re-wrote WP:NOTNEWS the other day because I have gotten tired of editors claiming that it prohibits them from adding up-to-date information because it's "only" in the news, and NOTNEWS prohibits us from citing(!) newspaper articles. (In my not-inconsiderable experience, it usually takes two years for a policy change to get noticed, so mark your calendar for 2026, when you can expect someone to quote the new version at me, as if I didn't know what it says. In the meantime, please let me know if you see any evidence that this re-write screws up Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:MEDPOP.)

Back to the main point: Yes, you could be accused, especially by someone who thinks that slinging around some shortcuts will help them win a dispute. Yes, that might even look credible to someone who is already looking for an excuse to complain about you and cares more about 'winning' than about honesty. But the fact is, you will probably encounter such people. About 800,000 registered editors make an account each year. This survey says that 40% of adults admitted to telling a lie during the last 24 hours. Some lies are told on wiki, and half-truths – the carefully omitted context, the partially quoted sentence, the accidentally-on-purpose "forgotten" date – seem to be especially popular on wiki. Additionally, people just honestly do forget things or fail to notice them. For example, a (now former) admin claimed for several years that I opposed WP:ACTRIAL. I was the second-ever editor to express support for it, and I helped draft the original plan for the trial. He'd just forgotten about that. These things happen.

I don't think you should worry about this. These things can be cleared up if they become important. (For example, I eventually dug up the diffs and dropped them into one of his discussions about it, and once he was conclusively and perhaps embarrassingly proved wrong, he shut up about it.) I think you should think about the things you can do that actually make you feel happy and make you feel like you're making a positive difference, and do those. And find some wiki-friends (e.g., in a WikiProject), because when you run into problems, then having someone to help can make a huge difference to your outlook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your very kind comments above.

You are so right. I derive far more satisfaction from the 7 chess articles that I authored (attracting between them >250,000* views per annum) than I derive from preventing some vain nobody from adding puff to their own Wikipedia article. Or indeed from arguing with uncivil POV pushers, self-citing spammers, LLM users, liars, and the various other types of disruptive flotsam and jetsam who unfortunately often inhabit this site.

I'm very grateful that you've reminded me of this.

(*: 250,000 isn't a huge number in the global scheme of things, but it's way more than enough to have made writing those articles worthwhile.)

I do actually have an idea for adding some new content. I will endeavour to spend more time researching that and less time on things that tend to aggravate me.

Many thanks, Axad12 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations on your achievement. That's a quarter million times that people are getting helped every single year. That is no small thing.

I hope that you have a happy time creating that new content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12, I just played with some numbers, and I thought you might be interested in knowing that 250,000 page views, spread across 7 articles, is in the top 2% of all Wikipedia articles for traffic. If you want to compare the articles individually, then in big round numbers, you can estimate:

• 200K page views per year: article is in the top 0.5%
• 100K page views per year: top 1%
• 50K page views per year: top 1.5%
• 35K page views per year: top 2%
• 10K page views per year: top 5%
• 3.5K page views per year: top 10%
• 1K page views per year: top 20%
• 500 page views per year: top 25%
• 100 page views per year: top 40%
• 50 page views per year: top 50%

The most common number of page views per year in the sample set that @BilledMammal created a while ago was: just one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. Very interesting and much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The COI noticeboard...

I noticed this edit at the COI noticeboard where you said "I'd be astonished if Wikipedia:Featured articles#Religion, mysticism and mythology was written only by people who had no beliefs about those subjects. Actually, I'd be surprised if any of the FAC noms had no religious beliefs related to the subjects they dedicated so many hours to researching and writing about." - of the 134 FAs in that category - I am the editor who nominated 33 of them for FA. And I helped with a few others on that list. However, I'm not a Catholic, nor even a Christian. I'm just a person who studied medieval history and thus got interested in those topics by that route. You can't assume that just because an editor worked on a religious topic that they have religious beliefs that correlate to the topic. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I am making any assumptions about what the beliefs are, but I am including, e.g., ex-Catholics as being "beliefs related to the subjects", in the sense that a belief against something is as much a belief as a belief in favor of something.

Thank you for the lovely articles you have given us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Advice

Can you offer me advice on dealing with this editor? Emiya1980 (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I wonder whether you could tell me more about what your interests are on Wikipedia. I tend to run across your name in discussions about changing lead images. Is there anything else you like to do? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Since I last opened this thread, Nemov has opened an admin case against me. When I have asked for criteria from him or others on ways I can avoid running afoul of their standards in the future, they are either silent or tell me are under no obligation to "hold my hand". Are you willing to do so or otherwise point me in the direction of someone who is? Emiya1980 (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't realistically believe that I can help you. At the moment, your process appears to be:

1. Change the lead image to the one you prefer.
2. If you don't get your way, start a discussion on the talk page.
3. If you don't get your way, start an RFC on the talk page.
4. Finally – having had your idea rejected once by the person who reverted you, a second time by the editors who didn't agree with you in an ordinary discussion, and then a third time in a RFC – you will finally give up, and move on to another article, where you repeat the same process.

I think the process that other editors would like is:

1. Just stop caring so much about the lead image. Leave them all alone.
2. If you don't stop changing the lead images, and your change gets reverted, then just stop. Leave it alone. Don't make multiple editors reject your idea a second time.
3. If you choose to start a discussion on the talk page instead of stopping after you've been told 'no' once, and that discussion does not produce a clear 'yes', then definitely don't start an RFC to make even more editors reject your idea.

Many editors have trouble reading the room on wiki. It's hard to know when to accept defeat gracefully and when to push back. It's particularly difficult to understand the difference between what you're allowed to do regularly versus what is nominally acceptable behavior, but should only be done occasionally or unusual circumstances.

Here is a heavily rounded back-of-the-envelope estimate about RFCs that might illustrate the situation from the outside.

• About 800,000 registered accounts will make 1+ edits this year. You are less than 0.0001% of this year's editors.
• About 500 RFCs have been started so far this year. You have started 8 RFCs in the last few months. That means that more than 1% of all RFCs were started by you.

The gap between these two percentages is more than five orders of magnitude. If you're familiar with the idea of someone 'taking up too much space' in a social environment (for example, the boss calls a meeting to get information from the employees, but the boss spends the whole time talking instead of listening), then other editors are probably feeling like you are 'taking up too much space'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Please see my response to your last post over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Emiya1980's use of Rfcs. Thank you.Emiya1980 (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Jedi

	Rescued a Padawan
	Thank you for helping me learn how the Wikipedia world works and giving very helpful suggestions. Music907 (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This simply is not true...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"Earlier this year, you made false COI accusations about an editor – based on off-wiki information that turned out to be incomplete in important ways – that resulted in that editor feeling strongly pressured to disclose the highly personal situation that led to them being kicked out of the religion they were raised in." just not true, there was nothing false about the COI accusation and the off-wiki information was not incomplete (that would suggest to me that you do not know what off-wiki information we're talking about). You need to retract these false claims, immediately. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You posted material that at minimum very strongly implied that editor was a member of a given religious organization, when that was false. The person was not a member of that religion. You are entitled to have your own view of your actions, and even to consider yourself a Defender of the Wiki's Purity if you want to, but I think you hurt a vulnerable person, and I, too, am entitled to my own view of your actions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand, the alledged COI was not with the religious organization... It was with the BYU library and the Association for Mormom letters. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Which is an allegation of belonging to a religious organization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The Association for Mormon Letters is not a religious organization... and the allegations were that they were a former employee of the BYU library not a current one. Both allegations were true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

A huge portion of that discussion was about whether BYU library students should be assumed to be members of the sponsoring religion, and therefore should be considered to have a religious COI in a way that a student employee of a secular library, doing identical research on local historical figures, would not be. Therefore pushing the students to disclose past associations was inherently an act of pushing them to disclose their religious affiliation – and that editor is not a member of that religion. See also False light. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Different students in different programs, this editor was not a participant in the BYU library wikipedia editing program under discussion. The Association for Mormon Letters COI was also the more signficant one, it was the one which was current. People don't have to be Mormons or students to work for the BYU library, so disclosing former or current employment by the BYU library doesn't disclose either religious affiliation or student status. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

In the context of a discussion in which someone apparently using your account says "You'd be expelled if you left the church[10], presumably that would end any student employment", it is difficult to see how demanding to know whether a person worked for that library is materially different from demanding to know what their religion is.

But as I said: You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to my approval. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be moving the goalposts massively... "Earlier this year, you made false COI accusations about an editor – based on off-wiki information that turned out to be incomplete in important ways – that resulted in that editor feeling strongly pressured to disclose the highly personal situation that led to them being kicked out of the religion they were raised in." is a false claim, you need to retract it. The COI accusations were true and the information was not incomplete in important ways. The editor disclosed their highly personal situation in an apparent attempt to deflect from the valid COI concerns, that was after just straight up lying about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The COI accusation was false to the extent that it is making a claim about the editor's religion, and it was based on incomplete information because you did not know that the editor's religion had changed or why.

Or let me rephrase that: If you knew before posting that this editor had been kicked out of their religion for being trans, and you decided to pressure them to disclose their religious and gender history anyway, then I don't want you to tell me that, because that would have been despicable behavior, and I would rather not know that about anyone, even if it's true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

There was no pressure to disclose their religious history, whether or not they were a member of the LDS church was not relevent... Whether or not they were a former employee of the Harold E. Lee Library and a current member of the Association for Mormon letters was. The COI claim was not a claim about their religion, it was a claim about professional conflicts of interest. TLDR its possible to have a religious COI, but I did not alledge that this editor had a religious COI... I alledged a pair of professional COI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that you are very good at predicting the effects of social pressure on other people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

"you made false COI accusations about an editor" put me under immense social pressure... False COI accusations are just about the worst thing you can level against someone... And I did not do that, the COI accusations were true and this was confirmed by admin investigation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Imagine that someone says "I accuse you of working for the Republocrat marketing team. We just spent a thousand words establishing that they basically only hire people who are registered members of the Republocrat political party, but please note: I'm not technically accusing you of being a member of the political party. I'm technically only accusing you of having a job that is basically only available to members."

Would that sound convincing to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding something, BYU will hire employees and accept students who are not Mormons. The job was not basically only available to members. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

We had just established in that discussion that there were almost no non-Mormon students. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If thats the way you want to look at it I'm also technically accusing them of being a US citizen or legal resident... Becuase the job is basically only available to US citizens and legal residents. But thats just not how it works... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not how it works – in your personal opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

So in your opinion I am "technically accusing them of being a US citizen or legal resident" and that doing so is inappropriate? How would one then make an employment based COI claim? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The student employment rules are different in the US, but yes, when a person's physical location or nationality is sensitive, then you really have to respect their privacy and not publicly post that information on wiki. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest says:

"If private information must be shared to resolve a COI issue, it may be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Follow the advice in WP:OUTING: "Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted." The priority should be to avoid unnecessary privacy violations."

You did not avoid unnecessary privacy violations. You did not convey the information to the minimum number of people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I have never said I handled the situation excellently, but the COI allegations were not false. When you tell lies about me it hurts my feelings, especially when you refuse to retract or strike those lies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Whether your accusations were partially false is apparently something that reasonable people can disagree about. Or at least, the two of us can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You did not say that they were partially false, you said they were false point blank and you said that they were based on incomplete evidence. You can't just move the goal posts a bit, either you can support your statement or you can not. You also need to actually say which part was false, so far everything you've brought up as false hasn't turned out to be so... My allegations were true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

When you tell lies ... those lies.

It seems to me that you are hurting another user’s feelings (again?). Would you consider retract or strike that? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate that they are not lies I will retract the statement. In general telling lies hurts the feelings of the person being lied about, not the person telling the lies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

And let us be clear about the more fundamental point: The way you handled that hurt real people's feelings.

It is possible to address COI without hurting people's feelings, but that's not the approach you took. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You didn't accuse me of hurting feelings, you accused me of making false COI allegations, that deeply and profoundly hurt my feelings... Thats why I'm here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2024 (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.

Definitions of some English words

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Of course I can demonstrate that they are not “lies” (as said).

They are the opinion (“own view of your actions”) of a Wikipedia editor.

An editor can be either right or wrong on an issue. Even if, I say if, they are wrong, that doesn’t mean they are lying. “Lying” means what they said differs from what they believed. (E.g., I think he’s ugly, but I tell him he’s handsome.)

I hope people can acknowledge that they maybe hurting different editors’ feelings repeatedly, and can avoid doing so in the future. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2024 (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.

me brain aint brainin

My brain during the golden years

Hiya. My brain does not brain today so I have a question.

WP:EDITCON and H:FIES lead people to believe that all edits must have an editsummary. I think the intended meaning is something like "all edits should be explained in advance or upon request" meaning "communication is required". If one writes "All edits should have an editsummary" then people will still parse that as: "editsummaries are required".

I started a section over at Help_talk:Edit_summary#Editsummaries_are_not_required but then my brain shut down and refused to co-operate. Since you are a wordsmith and not afraid of PaGs, would you be so kind to take a look? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC frequency

Would you happen to know how many RfCs there are started, on average, per day? Bon courage (talk) 06:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks there are 38 in Category:Wikipedia requests for comment today, and most are listed for no more than 30 days, so I'd guess somewhere between one and two.

If you happen to have run across an individual who is starting more than two at a time, and it looks like it might be unnecessary or even potentially disruptive, please drop by WT:RFC with some links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

No it's more a rash of time-wasty ones. I was idly thinking if the volume was low enough whether some additional friction could be introduced into the process to cut down bad RfCs, like them needing a co-sponsor for example, Bon courage (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

It's complicated. If someone like us needs a co-sponsor, then we can easily turn one up. But if a newer or less socially well-connected editor needs a co-sponsor, they might not know how to find one, and we might actually need someone to flag a problem at an article. RFCs are one of our defense mechanisms against cliques and POV pushers on low-visibility pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Speaking of time wasting RFCs. I thought you might want to know this RFC was created. I'd really like to avoid a messy ANI to stop this disruption, but I'm wondering if it's the only way now. Nemov (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  In terms of RFC rules, they've only got one RFC open at the moment, and at a glance, they're following all the other RFC rules. I think ANI is your only option, and I'm not sure that it would be pointful. You'd basically have to make a case that trying to (in their opinion) improve articles is inherently disruptive rather than normal editing, or that following up a revert with a discussion, and if the discussion doesn't go their way, following it with an RFC (and then accepting the results of those RFCs) is somehow bad behavior. It might feel like a Work-to-rule action or Death by Process to everyone else watching those pages, but I don't think it's going to be received sympathetically. I suggest pinging anyone who previously expressed an opinion, so they can repeat their views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  They've created at least 8 RFCs on infobox images over the last few months. Almost all of them ending in status quo results. There's also been name calling, accusations.... given the editor's inability to listen it might end a topic ban from infobox image discussions. The editor is wasting valuable editor time with these pointless RFCs. I don't really care that much about the topic dispute itself. I've just seen all these RFCs about the same topic. Nemov (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but the editor is now aware that there's a limit on the number of RFCs that should be run at any one time, so that means you shouldn't see more than about 24 per year. Back in the day, we could have tried an RFC/U to organize the evidence and suggest a voluntary agreement to accept discussion results without an RFC to confirm them. But that was disbanded years ago, and the remaining option is ANI, which doesn't deal well with low-speed actions that superficially follow the rules. ANI's toolbox includes TBANs, but unless multiple editors are prepared to make a stink over the same thing, it might well shrug its shoulders and declare that there's no violation of any rules, so no action is needed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  I brought it up at ANI. If the community doesn't care I guess there's nothing else to be done. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Nemov and Bon courage: See User:BilledMammal/List of RFCs, which may help answer this question - it appears to be just under two per day in 2024.

I was going to use this for a different purpose, but I've decided to retire from Wikipedia instead at the end of next month and so unfortunately it will remain incomplete, but I hope it proves helpful to you.

Note there are some limitations; it doesn't cover discussions prior to 2007, and there are some data inaccuracies with those being more likely for earlier dates. However, it should be useful enough for these purposes - if anyone is interested, I also have the opening statement and the categories the RfC was in. It's too large to easily upload, but I can try to find another way to provide it, or maybe I'll use a bot to create several dozen pages of tables. BilledMammal (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll post this link at WT:RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The most relevant data point from that is this: Until 2021, we opened about three RFCs per day, and now we're down significantly to just two per day. And complaining that there are "so many", even though there are significantly fewer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry

Thank you and sorry. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for always having insightful commentary on policy backpages. Andre🚐 21:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

There's been a lot of discussion lately where things you say have been particularly helpful, centering, and enlightening for me. I blow hot and cold and worry how I come off to others sometimes, but you always carry conversations in a maximally constructive direction, particularly when it comes to how to get along with others. You're among those who consistently reminds me of my own abilities, if that makes sense. I'm only now completing my first full year of actively contributing, so I wanted to thank some of those who are a part of why I'm still enthusiastic about Wikipedia. Remsense ‥ 论 17:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I'm glad you're here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Gadget/script

Which script/gadget are you using to fill in the editsummaries, if any? I am thinking about writing a Javascript that automatically predicts which editsummary is most applicable. Polygnotus (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

None. I mostly use VisualEditor, which checks your last 200 edit summaries for whatever you type. The Reply tool adds its own ("Reply") if you don't manually override it, which I almost never do. In the 2010 wikitext editor, your web browser remembers your prior edit summaries. I assume the same is true for WP:WikEd, but I've not tried that.

If you'd like to read about some of the prior thinking on this, then phab:T54859 might be a reasonable place to start. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. It already seemed a bit unlikely that you typed the word "Reply" tens of thousands of times.

Note that VisualEditor and DiscussionTools are (collections of) scripts.

This is why something so simple for some is such an unreasonable request for others:

1. Visual Editor (more specifically /VisualEditor/modules/ve-mw/ui/widgets/ve.ui.MWEditSummaryWidget.js suggests and autocompletes editsummaries based on the user's previous edit summaries.
2. (Misconfigured) browsers save form data
3. People use DiscussionTools

So for some, using an editsummary is not much work. On the other hand we have people like myself:

1. Can't use the Visual Editor because it is horribly confusing and buggy
2. Disabled DiscussionTools because it interferes with normal talkpage usage
3. Form data stored in the browser does not persist across sessions

On mobile it is even worse, imagine having to type the same handful of editsummaries every time on a tiny screen on a cheap smartphone using huge fingers on a tiny onscreen keyboard.

Older/cheaper devices can't run all that nonsense, and if they can it is terribly slow.

Nerds hate all things WYSIWYG with a passion. Newbies can't simply select an editsummary they already used, because they are new.

So while my POV may seem very unreasonable for someone using the latest iPhone who has never had to manually type a editsummary in years, it makes much more sense if you walk a mile in my shoes.

Polygnotus (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I remember The Great Editor War, but I thought people had gotten over it. I remember looking down on Macs compared to MS DOS in the 1980s because I thought I could do more with a command line. Eventually, I realized that there were a finite number of commands available in the command line, and the GUI-based OS listed all of them in a point-and-click interface. (Also, the visual editor is rich text instead of WYSIWYG.)

It looks like you haven't actually used the visual editor, so I'll just say that if while all software of sufficient complexity has bugs, people have managed to make more than 100 million edits in the visual editor, so it's probably not so buggy that you couldn't figure out how to use it. It seems to be preferred by people who are doing significant copyediting and editing tables. I have met nobody who prefers editing table structure (e.g., re-ordering the columns or merging cells) by hand instead of doing it in the visual editor. After getting some experience in both, most experienced editors choose the editor that's best suited to the task they are trying to accomplish.

I support the idea of auto-generated edit summaries. I'm not sure that you'll find them easy, and there is a designing for evil problem. Ideally, you want the system to say things like "Replaced a→an" or "Added sentence: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" or "Added 1 inline citation". You don't want the system to create edit summaries that will require revdel or OS to remove ("Added sentence: Johnny Brown is gay and his phone number is 555-1234"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Meh, I think the great editor wars were about tribalism, since in that case both were viable options.

I could of course figure out how to use it, but it would be a significant downgrade for my workflow.

I am not against VE; I would recommend it to others, but it is clearly not for me. VE wasn't made with typofixers in mind.

At least the other side of the editsummary debate seems less unreasonable when you discover that they have all these fancy scripts; and don't comprehend that others do not.

Of course no script should ever trust user input, in whatever form. Polygnotus (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Little Bobby Tables and all of that.  ;-)

I could be wrong, but I think that the edit summary debate is based on two things:

• If people believe that this is good manners, so not adding an edit summary must be rude.
• If people are willing to trust user input, then they will not check edits that have plausible edit summaries, so they see other people's time spent writing edit summaries as saving them time (and the five seconds I save is always more important than the 10 seconds they spend).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Re: Cinnamon Roll Day

Thanks for creating this article. We need more holidays like this. Viriditas (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, though looking at List of food days#United States there are a lot of events that seem a little odd. I understand "Waffle Day", but Oatmeal Nut Waffle Day sounds like something that somebody just made up one day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There's something about the smell of sweet, sweet waffles that makes people put a smile on their face. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not sure that oatmeal evokes the same response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a unique smell of cooked oats in cookies that works just as well, but yes, not oatmeal by itself. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for your positive acknowledgement of my contributions to the article related to the recent outbreak in Rwanda. Steven1991 (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, @Steven1991. It's always good to see a couple of editors working together on an article like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

On making WP:MED less scary

I've heard from a number of both inexperienced and experienced users that editing medical articles scares them. I think we both know that WPMED could use all the help it can get. I've been trying to brainstorm ways to make it a little less scary for editors to contribute. Some ideas I've had are asking the Wikipedia community what areas are most intimidating, making a more simplified kind of "cheatsheet" for the various policies we have, and volunteering myself over at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user to assist with helping newer editors get familiar with WPMED. I was wondering if you had any input or ideas on the topic, seeing as you are very active in the community and have been around for a lot longer than I have. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} WP:MEDFAQ is still a work-in-progress possible "cheatsheet" for WP:MEDRS. WP:MED is a WikiProject so I'm not sure how to de-scarify that! Bon courage (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage Sorry I meant contributing to pages that fall under WP:MED policies and such. WP:MEDFAQ is nice as an add on to WP:MEDRS but doesn't quite simplify things in a way that some newer editors might need. I do understand why MEDRS is so comprehensive and I think it's important that people understand it but if the amount of detail is what is stopping poeple from contributing then I think it would make sense to help break down some of those barriers. That is of course if that is truly what is stopping people from contributing to WPMED related pages which I don't know for sure. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It would probably be good to review/rewrite MEDRS and MEDMOS both from top to bottom, but I'd estimate that as being closer a year's worth of work than a month's. It would have been nice if we'd written a medicine-focused explanation of DUE when we first talked about it (a decade ago? Long enough ago that would probably be doing some good by now, at any rate). Part of the problem with editors' perception of MEDRS is that we have wielded it as a cudgel to solve DUE problems.

I think some people are always going to avoid editing medicine-related articles, but I think we could do better. I have wondered whether we spend too much time explaining/persuading in MEDRS. Long explanations = fewer people reading them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm interested in your ideas in regards to rewriting content from MEDMOS and MEDRS. I think a med focused explanation of DUE would be helpful although I'm not sure how one would go about that. I do agree that we spend a bit too much time explaining in MEDRS and I think this is apart of the issue. Perhaps some of the current bulk could be moved to MEDFAQ or similiar pages. I do think that the long explanations is part of what is turning people away (as I myself am guilty of seeing how long a policy page is and simply avoiding it altogether). I'm also going to ask around off-wiki about what barriers people are finding with contributing.

As for next steps, I'm personally thinking of drafting up a bit of a simplified version of MEDRS myself, even just to save time in repeating myself to new users. Other than that I'm not sure what else to do moving forward. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Consider this section:

Avoid primary sources

Per the Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability, articles need to be based on reliable, independent, published secondary or tertiary sources. For biomedical content, the Wikipedia community relies on guidance contained in expert scientific reviews and textbooks, and in official statements published by major medical and scientific bodies. Note that health-related content in the general news media should not normally be used to source biomedical content in Wikipedia articles. (News sources may be useful for non-biomedical content, such as information about "society and culture" – see WP:MEDPOP.)

Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable (any given primary source may be contradicted by another). Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see WP:Synthesis).

----

Could it be shortened this much?

Avoid primary sources

Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content, because the primary literature is exploratory and often contradictory. Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, restrict itself to clearly stated findings, and describe these findings clearly and conservatively, without undue emphasis.

----

I have removed redundant text and pointers to other pages/sections. If we could make it this short, then we might have room for a couple of examples:

• Y Use primary source to provide a supplementary detail, in a passage primarily based on a high-quality secondary source: "For example, onions are a high-fiber food." (Source: Expert, Alice (2024) "Global Study of Macronutrients in Onions", J. Imp. 123:45.)
• N Do not use primary source to say things that aren't actually in the source: "Wonderpam is a breakthrough in cancer cures that has been proven to cure every type of cancer with no side effects." (Source: Business, Bob (2024) "Proposed Endpoints for Future Study", J. Imp. 123:46.)

Do you think that would that be easier? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes these are the types of changes I was thinking of I imagine this can be done for a lot of the current sections as well. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's do-able, but it's a long-term project. This is not something we could put up for a single RFC and be done in a month.

@Colin, what do you think about trying to de-duplicate MEDRS?

Anybody watching this page: Do you think the colorful examples would be really helpful? If not, then I'm happy to skip them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I can imagine somebody coming along with a primary source which does say "Wonderpam is a breakthrough in cancer cures" and arguing that MEDRS allows it because it only prohibits things "that aren't actually in the source". I applaud the use of contractions though. Wikipedia is stuffy about those. Bon courage (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

MEDRS has certainly grown. Some of it is explanation which isn't really guideline material and could be moved to an essay or project page. Wrt redundancy, I think there is a little danger here that our familiarity with other policy/guidelines pages is not shared generally and so where we might see redundancy with some sentence 2/3 way down WP:V, or whatever, it is that sentence that MEDRS is actually building upon with relevance to medical content. I think it is important to concisely explain and continually remind the community that MEDRS is built on top of our core policies and is a consequence of them, not some clique-guideline where editors imposed a local consensus of higher standards (disinformation I'm sure WAID knows many experienced editors repeat).

In the above example, the paragraph of redundancy and source of problems is arguably the second one. Once you have said to base article text on secondary sources like reviews and textbooks, it is technically redundant to say that primary source are discouraged, and not perhaps wise I think to spend time on examples of the worst practice rather than good practice. But redundancy is not always bad. Sometimes it helps to say the same thing from another angle.

In the first example, an aside about onions being high fibre may appear uncontroversial and safe to cite a primary research source, but what if the article noted that blueberries where a good source of antioxidants, which have been shown to prevent cancer and slow aging. That aside is not uncontroversial but it is still a "supplementary detail", in an article about blueberry muffins.

The second example is one that simply fails WP:V. Don't use any source to say things that aren't actually in the source. We don't need MEDRS to deal with things an editor just made up. It is needed more for the more subtle claims that wonderpam has been found to be beneficial for some lung cancer patients, or that a trial in 2021 found that melanoma was eliminated in some patients taking wonderpam. Such statements lack all the caveats and red flags that the medical-professional author of a good secondary source would be seeing.

Assuming a revised MEDRS contained the same overall structure, a "basic advice" section may well summarise (like a lead) advice that is covered in more detail later. A brief mention here that, ok, when we said to use secondary sources, we didn't mean these secondary sources: newspapers. Avoiding the popular press is one of the fundamentals of MEDRS, so I wouldn't drop that from "basic advice". Elsewhere on Wikipedia, the popular press and news websites are often a key source, particularly for current controversies, and often where readers/editors first learn about some medical advancement or health conditions. So it is surprising to many to find Wikipedia discourages that. Similarly, it is really surprising for many, particularly with an academic background, that a primary research paper in the Lancet or BMJ or NEJM, all top tier sources of medical research and science of the highest quality, isn't what we want. Thirdly, it is surprise that PubMed/GoogleScholar/etc will find research in low quality journals and that "peer reviewed journal" is not a guarantee that all articles are peer reviewed or are sufficient for including on WP. I wonder if these three things are the core messages of most use to most editors. Are there others? While the advice about primary research papers is mainly a DUE matter, the other issues about newspapers or weak journals or opinion/editorial articles are more RS. -- Colin°^Talk 12:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Colin You've certaintly given me a lot to think about. Understandably any changed to MEDRS would need a lot time to impliment but what do you think about making a simplified version of MEDRS? Something similiar to the basic advice section. This could be done as a user essay and wouldn't be intended to replace MEDRS in any way but just meant to give people an introduction in the hopes that they will continue editing and find themselves reading the actual version regardless (ideally reading the full version to start but we all know that doesn't always happen). IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that the MEDRS FAQ is about half the size of MEDRS says this is a hard problem. The FAQ takes a question-answer approach and assumes the reader needs a good deal of hand holding. What's your audience for your simple-MEDRS? Is it things I wish I'd known when starting out editing medical articles? Or things I keep having to tell others when they edit medical articles with bad sources or with claims that shouldn't be drawn from the sources they found. Or something else. As WAID notes, many editors just want "per MEDRS" to be the reason why they just removed the text an editor added. They aren't really citing it to help the editor, but rather to justify their action to themselves and other experienced editors. This is probably true of a lot of policy and guidelines.

I'm conscious about the saying about complex problems having apparently easy solutions which aren't. It is a bit scary to edit a medical article because as soon as you try you realise you are on the start of a learning curve with a fair way to go. -- Colin°^Talk 14:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Colin It may make more sense if I give the context in which I got this idea. I had an experienced user reach out to me after they had to make edits to a medical page in order to removed copyrighted material. I gave them a brief rundown of what sources are acceptable etc. I think it’s cases like this where people just want to make a few edits to a medical article but are overwhelmed by the amount of policies where a simplified version of MEDRS would make sense. It would be more of a starting point for people just wanting to dip their toes into editing medical articles rather than people trying to make huge edits (as that would be something where reading the full MEDRS would be valuable). I hope that helps clarify things a bit. I realize I’m being somewhat vague but that’s because I don’t necessarily want to put time into something that isn’t a great idea or might do more harm than good. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

In the category of what already exists:

• Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia – not specific to medical information, but closely aligned
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/FAQ
• Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?
• Wikipedia:Plain and simple guide for medical editors
• Help:Wikipedia editing for medical experts

Something called "plain and simple" sounds like it could be what you're looking for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey,

WAID, please don’t learn from the other (lazy) editors who didn’t fact check before editing our articles. Do your research first even though you are just making comments, or, just ask! :-) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

We all have our lazy moments. Fortunately, other editors sometimes catch our mistakes. :-)

The article indicates that the classification of foods as yin/yang is not the same in China as in the macrobiotic culture. I imagine that this must be confusing for some Chinese people, as they learn from childhood that peppers 🌶️ are "yang", and then the macrobiotic people say they are "yin". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm

Note that those guys don't like to pay people. So "seminar leaders" are all unpaid volunteers. Lying by omission is a thing. Polygnotus (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The omission of any mention of unpaid activities seemed odd for a volunteer-heavy organization. (I'm not saying the volunteers don't get any benefit. If they're training their volunteers on how to lead effective seminars, then that's a valuable skill that other people pay money to acquire.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a long history, I can dig up diffs if you want them, but they seem to believe that WP:COI does not apply to them as long as they don't admit to having one. At various stages various others have stated that, no matter what they say, they do have a COI. The volunteers do benefit of course, just not financially (the same as us Wikipedians), but not by gaining what I would consider valuable skills. Polygnotus (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't need any diffs. It's not especially important to me. I just thought that if he could honestly say that nobody in the organization knew he was a Wikipedia editor, then he should say so. He seems honest, so I don't think he'd directly lie. After all these years, he might not want to bother, though, so I don't think that a failure to add such a statement should be construed as him admitting the opposite. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am a lot more jaded, in general and in relation to this topic. But that is probably a logical consequence of reading the archives. Polygnotus (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

On WP:NOCON

I recently ran across a policy that was changed based on a Village Pump discussion a while back. The issue is - the individual who closed the discussion stated that there wasn't a consensus on several points which ended up being added to the policy.

Wouldn't a closing statement along the lines of "no consensus regarding X, No consensus regarding Y, consensus was found in favor of Z" prevent "Editors cannot do X in this situation, editors cannot do Y in this situation"? As in, no consensus = no agreement to add to policy? Unless I'm completely misreading WP:NOCON, I thought both a strong agreement was needed for policy changes, and a no consensus is not the same as 'consensus found in favor to exclude/change'.

Appreciate any insight you have on this :-) Awshort (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Awshort, I could rant about that policy section – one of the few I really regret creating – at length, but I think it would be more pointful if I looked at the specific situation. Can you give me a few links?

Also, if you haven't read WP:STATUSQUO in the last year or so, then you might find the difference between what it actually says, and what editors sometimes claim it says when they're slinging some WP:UPPERCASE around in a dispute, to be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The original discussion was at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 165#People's birthdate, conflicting (reliable) sources, and WP:SYNTHESIS , which was added to WP:DOB upon its close.

The closure text Closed with a consensus to include all birth dates for which a reliable source exists, noting discrepancies. There was no consensus to contact the subject themselves, no consensus to include only one "most likely" date or to choose a date from one of two or more reliable sources, no consensus to leave the information out entirely if conflicting dates have actually been reported in reliable sources, and no consensus to attempt WP:OR to extrapolate the date of birth ourselves. Once a clear and consistent date of birth has been widely reported, the consensus is to update the information to reflect this. (Emphasis mine) does not match the policy section text that currently exists If multiple independent reliable sources state differing years or dates of birth in conflict, include all birth dates/years for which a reliable source exists, clearly noting discrepancies. In this situation, editors must not include only one date/year which they consider "most likely", or include merely a single date from one of two or more reliable sources. Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth.

Unfortunately, the added text is widely used in discussions regarding conflicting sources or age confusion, so it cannot be boldly changed. I was thinking possibly a new discussion on either Village Pump (Policy) or maybe the BLP talk page and using the Under Discussion template?

Thank you again for your advice!

Awshort (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hipal and @Thryduulf, it looks like you were both in that 2021 RFC. Do you remember anything about it? I have just read it, and I'm not overly impressed with the closing summary. I saw a lot more editors suggesting omission.

On its face, a strict interpretation of this edit to BLP (made by one of the belligerents) would be inappropriate, as there's no provision for ignoring simple errors. If 99 sources say "Octember 32nd" and one says "Octember 2nd", you really should just ignore that last one. There is no reason to write something like "Most sources give his birthday as Octember 32nd, but The Daily Typo once said it was Octember 2nd". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remember that discussion but I've just re-read it. The closing summary isn't inaccurate per se but it could have been worded a lot better. As for what we should do, I think it's probably best to phrase it something like as follows:

• If the subject is subject is living and it is reported in reliable sources that they do not wish (part of) their birth date to be public; or there is an OTRS/VRT ticket noting they have contacted us requesting (part of) their birth date be omitted; follow their wishes unless their (full) birth date is reported in multiple highly reliable sources by sources that are clearly aware of the subject's wishes (in this situation always include a citation to the awareness).
• If there is a single date consistently reported in reliable sources, there is consensus it should be included
• If the subject has clearly stated their own birth date in a source that is controlled by them or reliable for direct quotes, then it should be included
  • If reliable sources explicitly dispute the date given by the subject then include both the subject's preferred date and a note that this is disputed (in most cases this should probably be expanded in the prose).
• If there are multiple different dates:
  • Ignore outliers and obvious errors (e.g. if 5 sources give the same date and 1 gives a different one) and treat as a single date if there is one
  • If third party reliable sources report on the discrepancy, report the discrepancy cited to the third party sources.
  • If the subject's age or birth date are directly relevant to their notability, report all the dates that are very clearly reliably sourced and note the discrepancy.
  • In other cases omit the date.
• If the reliability of all the sources for the birth date is suspect or unclear, omit mention of the date.
• If part of the date is reliably sourced but the other part is not, include only the reliably sourced part.
• Calculation based on reliably sourced age-as-of-date mentions is permitted (e.g. "born 1984 or 1985").
  • If multiple sources give multiple such dates and they all converge on a single year (e.g. 1984-1985 and 1985-1986) then use "born c. 1985" or "born c. 1984-86")
  • If multiple such dates are present in reliable sources that give non-overlapping ranges, then omit the date unless their age is directly relevant to their notability (in which case give both ranges and note the discrepancy).
• If the birth day and birth year can only be sourced separately, the combination can be included only if there is no contradiction with e.g. age-as-of-dates. If included, both parts should be cited separately.
• Omit a mention entirely if the date can only be determined through original research, unreliable sources, or interpreting clues.

In all cases, use only the highest quality sources suitable for BLPs. Sources that are directly about the subject (e.g. an interview or profile) are more likely to be reliable than sources which mention them incidentally. As a general principle, report discrepancies only if reliable sources do or the subject's birth date or age is directly relevant to their notability.

This would need rewording for clarity and concision and checking for consensus before including anywhere. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That sounds correct to me, and it looks too long for the policy. Are you up for turning this into a {{supplement}} and linking to it in WP:DOB? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but not this evening. Please ping me afternoon/early evening (UK time) in a day or so. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Very good breakdown, Thryduulf!

I'd add a case for the rather common situation where the subject is inconsistent about their own birth date.

...that are clearly aware of the subject's wishes... That's a high bar, though a good one. I'm not sure there's strong consensus for it. Likewise, If third party reliable sources report on the discrepancy....

A new discussion is a good idea. --Hipal (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hipal, WhatamIdoing, and Awshort: I've written a second draft at User:Thryduulf/DOB supplement with the intention that it be moved to Wikipedia space as a supplement when there has been consensus for it. Discussion should be at User talk:Thryduulf/DOB supplement, I'll place a note at WP:DOB's talk page but please advertise it elsewhere/to others too. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Strawman

If you use a strawman then I know that you know. Writing in general is fine, writing articles from scratch didn't work out so well last time. I am trying to help them. It is very discouraging to work hard on, lets say, Unstable DNA sequence and then to discover that Genome instability already exists. Or work on Draft:Shortening of the eye muscle when we have Strabismus surgery. Or work on Draft:Vaccine myths and misconceptions and discover that we have Vaccine hesitancy and Vaccine misinformation already. Or Drugs and sexual performance which ends up being redirected to Sex and drugs. Or Draft:Chromosome mapping and Gene mapping. Or Draft:Anti-HIV agents and Management of HIV/AIDS.

Last time no one helped them figure out which topics to write about. Same with those other drafts. So it looks like our options are to let them contribute to existing articles, or to let someone else make the list of possible article topics. Having them contribute to existing topics fixes the biggest flaw of the previous iteration. We already have a big problem with editor retention, it may be wise to not WP:BITE all those students. I can detect problems that haven't been fixed yet, by anyone, and we don't require that someone fixes a problem before they are allowed to point it out. Polygnotus (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

We're already set up to give them a decent list, so that's not a problem.

The last item in your list may have been wrongly declined. Bluethricecreamman, properly speaking, Draft:Anti-HIV agents is a subtopic of Antivirals. There is more to managing HIV than just the antiviral drugs themselves (e.g., Management of HIV/AIDS#Food insecurity; also, treatments for opportunistic infections). I suggest moving that to the mainspace, ideally under the Antiretroviral name.

The others should probably be moved to the mainspace and tagged for merging, because Wikipedia needs up-to-date medical content, and leaving it in the Draft: space until it gets auto-deleted is not actually helping anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It was a problem at the time of my comments tho. And indeed it is REALLY discouraging to have a draft deleted because the class is over and no one bothered to follow up on the AfC review. So it would really suck to have a new iteration of the same course repeat the same mistakes. And the instructor, who is not a super experienced Wikipedian, can really use some help (and that unfortunately includes things they are not happy to hear). Polygnotus (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I could be wrong, but I smell a WP:LEGITSOCK there. The class isn't making enough mistakes for the instructor to actually be inexperienced.

If the students aren't following up, then I'm not sure how discouraged they would actually be. They might not even notice. We're the ones that are losing out. I am going to die one of these days (you, too; sorry if that's news to you), and good content will outlive us. It would actually be better to get those pages out of AFC's hair and into the mainspace, tag them for merging, and let the WP:MED folks follow up on it. Anything tagged for the project and for merging will turn up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts and be handled in due course. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to say that. Is it a hunch, or is there more? I haven't done an in-depth investigation, but I have seen the instructor make mistakes; the same mistakes I would expect a well-meaning but inexperienced person to make. Why would an experienced instructor let students write a new article on a topic that is already covered? Especially Vaccine myths and misconceptions in 2024, post-COVID? It sucks that AfC is so backlogged, but Category:Articles to be merged isn't exactly empty either. Polygnotus (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the instructor will turn out to be an admin with 20 years experience. A highly experienced editor would never have trusted the "missing articles" lists. But I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the instructor either has a second account (which is fine; there's no reason for the students to know what subjects interest the instructor personally) or has someone close at hand to explain things. For example, you made about 3,000 edits before the first time you tried to move a page. The instructor moved a page – cross namespace – around the 70th edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I checked, and that ain't it (they don't match the pattern). They're just arrogant. And cross namespace moves are probably explained in the WikiEdu tutorial (and if they are that might be a problem because they should use AfC). Polygnotus (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I then fact-checked myself, because that is the kind of (incredibly boring) person I am, and in 908-move-your-page.yml it teachers the instructors how to do a cross-namespace move. Do you agree that they should use AfC? We can ask them to remove that information and teach the instructors to use AfC instead. Also the instructions on how to check if a topic is already covered consist of a single sentence in 907-move-out-of-the-sandbox-new-article.yml so it is not surprising that this goes wrong. The WikiEdu instructions need to be improved, because they are setting instructors up for failure which in turn set up students up for failure. Polygnotus (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Using AfC would probably be better than not using AfC. Would it be worthwhile suggesting they use the article wizard, so that they get the blue buttons? Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. And I love the idea of an article wizard. WhatamIdoing what do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I know you are a busy person, but it would be nice to hear your opinion. If you agree then I can contact User:Ragesoss and make some suggestions. Polygnotus (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm conflicted. AFC can be helpful, and I'd probably encourage that for articles about people and organizations, but when it comes to this particular class, AFC is more likely to reject articles that Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions says they should accept. For example (sorry, @IntentionallyDense; I'm going to pick on you for a moment) Draft:Prescription drug overuse has been declined. It has 36 sources (the median is 4). It has 1800 words (the median is 350). Most importantly, there is no chance of the subject being declared non-notable at AFD, which is theoretically the primary standard for AFC acceptance.

So why was it rejected? Probably because one (1) paragraph doesn't have its own inline citation. For comparison, Prescription drug has 10 uncited paragraphs, and Drug overdose has 4 uncited paragraphs. We are holding these students' work to a higher standard than we use on articles that we've been developing for years, and that is IMO neither fair nor helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

As someone who has literally zero experience with AfC I cannot judge if this is something that happens so frequently that the benefits of AfC are outweighed by its downsides. And I also don't know how fixable this is (e.g. with better instructions, raising the standards for reviewers, having more oversight e.g. a supervisor or whatever). Are you saying that AfC is so flawed that it is more likely to hurt than help? And what if we compare it not to a (hypothetical) perfect system, but to having the articles moved to mainspace by a teacher who usually has little to no experience and is usually underpaid and highly stressed (or at least that is true for every teacher I have ever met). Also, perhaps we could get the Wiki Ed Staff (who are supposed to be experienced Wikipedians) to do the crossnamespace moves instead of the teacher. Based on a quick check on the dashboard it looks like this particular class is the exception (medical topics, a higher standard of quality), so it would still be wise to update the instructions for other classes. Polygnotus (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like there are two things going on here:

1. How can we fix AFC? Answer: Realistically, I think the answer is by not letting anybody complain at or about them for having 'low' standards. And that's not a realistic action, because we could have a 100-person RFC with unanimous agreement on this point, and Editor #101 wouldn't get the memo, or Editor #99 would think "Sure, we agreed not to complain, but we didn't mean not complaining about huge problems like this one".
2. How can we restrict new student editors more than new non-student editors? I think the only relevant answer is: We shouldn't. New editors make lots of mistakes, but student editors make fewer of them.

The first problem is one of the reasons that I've been repeating the facts about existing articles: The median Wikipedia article has 4 refs. Not four refs that demonstrate notability – four of any kind. If you're declining articles with 20 refs at AFC for being undersourced, you are probably screwing up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no issues with being picked on. I turned that article down when I was newer to AFC and if I had to go back I would probably make a comment asking them to fix up the citation needed tags (as I know it's common for editors to simply forget to cite things) but at the time I was a little heavy handed with the decline button. As for a work around with this issue, I'm still quite new to AFC so I'm not 100%. Calling people out for their mistakes (as WAID has done) is probably a good start as well as communicating with the editor more (which I failed to do). Something along the lines of "this article looks really good, do you know where you got that unsourced info from" probably would have been more helpful than just outright denying the article. I don't know the full context of this convo but those are my thoughts. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

{od} @IntentionallyDense, my question is: Why are we thinking that it's necessary to resolve the {{citation needed}} tags before accepting the article?

Before answering that question, see WP:AFCPURPOSE:

"The purpose of reviewing is to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't. Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted. Articles that will probably not survive should be declined. Issues that do not affect the likelihood of success at AFD (e.g., halo effects like formatting) should not be considered."

If this article were nominated for deletion at WP:AFD, would it be likely to survive?

Yes, it will probably be kept.	Then ACCEPT it now. (You can tag non-deletion-worthy problems.)
No, it will be deleted.	Then DECLINE it. Please explain why you believe it would be deleted.
Maybe, but I'm not sure.	Then ASK FOR HELP on the talk page.

A couple of uncited sentences are "non-deletion-worthy problems" that should not prevent acceptance. And yet not only you, but multiple AFC editors, decline articles over those problems. IMO it's because the rules give the theory, and the editors respond to the social system, i.e., to their well-founded concern that if they follow the rules, other editors will yell at them or despise them for being too lenient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, Bluethricecreamman is a really cool name. Polygnotus (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree! WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Clearly I haven't read into the process enough and that is where my mistake came in. As for others, I'm not sure. I suspect some, like me, misunderstood the purpose of AFC and were too strict. In hindsight, it would be nice to resolve all citation needed tags, but it is not necessary. I didn't really understand that when I started out doing AFC but I do now and will going forward. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Your action is pretty typical. It's very rare for anyone to complain if an AFC reviewer upholds "the highest possible standards". I'd suggest accepting that particular one now, but I haven't figured out how to solve the bigger problem. We could set a bot to "welcome" every AFCer the first time they decline an article, but what's needed is a culture shift. We need AFC and NPP folks to believe that their job is about getting deletion-worthy articles deleted, and getting non-deletion-worthy articles out of their queue. Those fact-tags ought to be Somebody else's problem in the mainspace, rather than AFC's problem in the Draft: space. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This may be a dicussion better fitted for the AFC or NPP talkpage as well. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if what they need is something closer to the WP:AE rules, namely some protection from taking unpopular actions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean by that sorry. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

One of the ways that we convince admins to work at AE is to provide them with a level of formal protection for their choices. We recognize that mistakes are going to be made (e.g., due to incomplete information), and we recognize that de-sysopping the folks who are willing to deal with the mess, or dragging them off to ArbCom for every mistake, is not going to help. We accept the mistakes as the price of having admins willing to participate in AE.

We don't have a history with AFC and NPP of tolerating mistakes that are made to accept articles. In fact, we have a history of ugly ANI drama over highly active participants who have an error rate (in the eyes of the beholder, of course) of a small single-digit percentage, because 1% of 2,000 processed articles is 20 mistakes, which looks very impressive when you list them all out with their "obvious" signs of problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that makes sense. I do feel this would be helpful because I know personally I was terrified of accidentally accepting an article that wasn’t ready and that probably led me to be overly harsh. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you remember what steps you took to learn about how to review drafts? Did the instructions leave you more nervous, or did they tend to be reassuring? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

For AFC I felt reassured by the instructions and it felt lower stakes. NPP on the other hand felt very nerve racking. I felt like every move I would take would be scrutinized. I definitely made more mistakes with NPP as well cause the stakes are a bit higher in my opinion. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like a framing problem. You can frame it as a "reviewer" role, which can be perceived as adversarial (like a goalkeeper who shouldn't let trash slip through), or as a "helper" role (as in help them write a better Wikipedia article and use the correct templates and syntax). As someone with no experience with AfC I kinda assumed it would be the latter.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a few checkboxes and a button near the top of the draft. Something like it (1) is not copyvio (2) there is no existing article on this topic (3) is notable then publish. That is only a slight simplification of the workflow. Polygnotus (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus, I think that NPP needs a similar workflow. I don't know if you've ever taken a look at page views for new articles, but right now, what happens is:

• Within the first hour, multiple people check the page for hoax/attack/obvious deletion-worthy problems. These people are not interested in 'accepting' pages; they are interested in getting rid of serious problems. They are duplicating each other's work, with no idea that anyone else has already checked this page.
• During the next day or two, several people look at the article. If the subject is difficult to evaluate (e.g., WP:NEVERHEARDOFIT), then they might add a tag, but mostly they do nothing.
• Eventually, one of a few stalwarts runs through the list (usually looking at articles that are 30–60 days old), and if notability isn't 'demonstrated' (an unwritten rule), then they shove it into the Draft: namespace.

If Special:NewPagesFeed could let NPPers tick off items like 'not db-copyvio', 'not db-hoax', and so forth, then they might waste less time, accomplish more, and feel less stressed about the "huge" backlog of pages that have already been reviewed multiple times. (Another misfeature I'd like to see fixed is the reported age, which is the age of first revision, not days that the page has been in the review queue.)

BTW, it is important to remember that neither NPPers nor AFCers are actually publishing the pages. "Publish" is what happens when you click the big blue button in the editing environment. Publishing is not what happens when a page is removed from the noindex list or moved to a different namespace. There is legal liability involved publishing some things, and nobody should put that on the NPP or AFC folks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I think using Javascript is morally wrong, but it would be pretty easy to add something to {{AfC submission}} like:

Condition 1 [mark this as done]

Condition 2 [mark this as done]

Condition 3 [mark this as done]

And then when you click on them they look like this:

Not copyvio  Checked Polygnotus (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Not a hoax  Checked WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Notable  Checked Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The Javascript should then of course add appropriate categories (and possibly remove inappropriate ones). It could even move the article from draft to main if all 3 conditions are met, although it may be hard to get consensus for that.

It looks like NPP doesn't have an equivalent of {{AfC submission}}, so perhaps it is better to simply move those 3 conditions to under the article title.

This Javascript can then be added as a gadget so that its easy to install for people who want to work on AfC stuff. Thanks to oAuth you could even restrict its usage to people who are, for example, extendedconfirmed or have a specific userright.

My User:Polygnotus/Scripts/TypoFixer also makes an edit when you click on a link.

If NPP and AfC require just 3 clicks per article, perhaps it is easier to reduce the backlog and clearer to reviewers what they should and should not check.

In theory it would be possible to modify Special:NewPagesFeed so that this information is displayed, and people can filter. But it looks like the interface has barely changed since 2012.

It may be wise to just ask the top ~5 reviewers which criteria they check, what the most common reasons to fail a draft are, what they spend most time on, and how we can make their life easier. Polygnotus (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script already exists, though it probably needs an active maintainer. (I haven't checked, but almost all of our scripts need an active maintainer.)

I don't think the "most common reason to fail a draft" is the right point, as they might have a high volume of very easy declines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just wanted to say thank you for weighing in on the Pickathon page. I've since been blocked, but it was incredibly heartening to hear from someone who didn't make me feel like banging my head against a wall. Monkeywire (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, @Monkeywire. BTW, much of the 'practical' content about any established/enduring music festival would likely be welcome at voy:. There isn't an article for Happy Valley specifically, but voy:en:Portland Metropolitan Area#Eastside suggests that either voy:en:Portland (Oregon)/Eastside or voy:en:Gladstone (Oregon) are nearby. Find the ==Do== section, and click the [add listing] button. Fill in the form, and you're done.

In case you want to create an article for Happy Valley (which is plausible), see voy:en:WV:WIAA for a quick explanation of their equivalent of notability. It could also be added to the list at voy:en:Music festivals#USA, but that's already a long list, and they really don't like long lists. Sub-articles about groups of music festivals, or an itinerary that takes you through several of them, would probably be welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I need to step away from Wikipedia, though, at least for a while. I find these kind of altercations super stressful, and they make editing here pretty un-fun. Monkeywire (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Consider making Wikivoyage your bolthole on the internet. It's a nice community, and generally very laidback. They even allow paid editors without significant difficulties, though blatant "touting" is removed. Or, you know, we'll still be here at a later date. Come back when you feel like it, even if it's just to fix a typo you happen to see. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds cool, I'll check it out.

Wiki is lucky to have you. I wish I could copy your ability to problem-solve without getting enmeshed in a fight. Monkeywire (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

From ANI

I wrote It is not normal for productive contributors to Wikipedia to have 34% of their edits to WP:space, for obvious reasons. You responded AFD regulars frequently have a very high proportion of edits in the Wikipedia: namespace, as do people who help out at the noticeboards. For example, Jclemens has 33% of his edits in that namespace, and JoelleJay has 44% of her edits there, and nobody thinks that's a bad thing (except possibly the UPE scammers). Personally I do not think the editing pattern of either of the editors you mention is "normal" for a productive contributor to Wikipedia in my experience. Perhaps more importantly, neither of their contributions to WP:space is remotely like Warrenmck's. It would be better if that discussion had more uninvolved people pushing Warrenmck away from their current path, not suggesting that it is similar to unrelated valuable contributions that people make in WP:space. --JBL (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the idea that there is only one normal way to contribute to Wikipedia is an idea that promotes the community's overall health. We need diversity in types of contribution. Hanging out on noticeboards can be a very good thing, or it can be a very bad thing, and it is frequently somewhere in the middle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I see, your comment has nothing to do with any point I was making, nor with the thread in which you placed it. Ok then. Probably would have been better on my user talk! --JBL (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

In this particular case, I may be a particularly poor example, as my contributions peaked in 2011-12 when I served on the arbitration committee, but before that I was quite active as an administrator in deleting articles, in addition to my current, more modest participation which is indeed centered around AfD/DRV. I'm certain various people have various opinions on whether I'm a productive contributor to Wikipedia or not, but my point is that once someone has gotten sucked from content creation into project maintenance activities, it's uncommon for anyone to entirely abandon those activities. If I were to suddenly find myself with nothing to do but Wikipedia work, I would probably return to GA work which is rewarding but less tolerant of work- or school-associated absences. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's something I've been thinking about: If someone voluntarily moves from 'front stage' to 'back stage', then they tend to stay back stage.

If we nudge high-volume article creators to make that shift, how many will be successful in the back stage? And how many will get disgusted by it all and quit? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not believe, and nothing about any of my comments is meant to suggest, that you are not a productive contributor -- what you're not is a normal productive contributor. (Ditto JoelleJay.) --JBL (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

JoelleJay is important to me: She is willing to persistently disagree with me, and she has the skills to do so without being ugly. That combination doesn't happen as often as might be good for Wikipedia. We still disagree on multiple points, and I still believe that editors ought to think about her reasons and go out of their way to do something nice for her.

Part of the difficulty with the word normal is the implication that average is good. Nobody with 10,000+ edits is a statistically average editor; we are all abnormal in the sense of being statistical outliers. However, most editors with 10,000+ edits are productive, desirable contributors; we are not abnormal in the sense of deviating from acceptable social norms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

War widow

I haven't written this, exactly, but I have written Artis Henderson Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about this article. It sounds like it could be an interesting book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

has there ever been consideration of an SPS Noticeboard?

I got involved in an RSN discussion of whether a page on GLAAD's website is an SPS. (The discussion arose at the RSN because it was initially a question of whether GLAAD is an RS, and it developed into an SPS discussion because the WP text in question involved living persons, bringing the BLPSPS rule into play.) In looking at WP:USESPS, WP:SPS, and some of their Talk page discussions, I was reminded that you're the author of the USESPS essay, so I figured that you might be a good person to ask: has there ever been discussion of creating an SPS Noticeboard where people can ask for guidance about whether a source is self-published? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven't seen any conversations about that. IMO it is a bit 'niche' for a whole noticeboard.

If you're interested in the subject, then let me say that back in the day, the SPS rules were really intended to control the use of websites like Myspace and Usenet newsgroups. This focus resulted in claims, e.g., that a corporate website like https://www.coca-cola.com couldn't be self-published because the company employed too many lawyers. It may be useful to keep that intention in mind when you think about SPS issues. This tension between "a corporate website is created by and published by its employees, so technically it's self-published" and "but they have lots of lawyers, so they're not going to publish libelous comments!" is one of the reasons why SPS sources are not automatically bad sources, even under BLPSPS. For example, a corporate/organizational website (also press releases) is acceptable under BLPSPS for statements about the organization's staff.

If the dispute you mention hasn't been resolved, then one question that's often helpful for SPS question is: If this were a press release instead of a webpage, would you still want to use it? If not, then it's probably worth looking for another source (and sometimes, looking for another source is the fastest solution anyway). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I wondered about a noticeboard because I've more than once been uncertain about whether a source is a SPS, and I've also seen more experienced editors have very different opinions about whether a source is a SPS. But I trust your opinion that it's too niche to merit its own noticeboard.

I do recognize that SPS sources aren't automatically bad, which is why they're allowed if someone is an expert in the field they're writing about. However, statements like "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" and "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people" make it sound like it's unacceptable to use, for example, a university's website as a source in an article about an NPROF at the university, unless the website's text was written by the NPROF themself. Andy Mabbett recently added a line to BLPSPS saying that it was OK for the situation you describe, and also OK to use the website of an outside organization that gives a notable award to the BLP's subject. FWIW, the text in USESPS that "Almost all websites except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations) [are self-published sources], including ... Business, charitable, and personal websites" and "If the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same" certainly makes it sound like the website of an organization like GLAAD is SPS, but many people in the RSN discussion say that it clearly isn't one. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The obvious cases are obvious: Chris Celebrity posting on social media is self-published; the daily newspaper is not self-published.

For something like GLAAD, it's not really either of these obvious cases. Part of their business is to publish things (e.g., their media guide at https://glaad.org/reference, now in its 11th edition), and those things appear to have the kind of editorial control that we'd expect from a traditional publisher. Similarly, governments issue reports (e.g., the United States census), and we generally treat those as non-self-published.

However: A traditional publisher can issue a press release (e.g., "buy our new books for the holiday season" or "please stop taxing our industry so heavily"), and that's self-published even for them. GLAAD engages in advocacy work that goes beyond their traditional publishing work. And in the case of a government publication, we impose even stricter rules on courtroom transcripts per WP:BLPPRIMARY, and a speech made by a legislator should probably be considered self-published even if it's been transcribed into official records.

I don't know if you'd ever noticed this – I didn't, until someone pointed it out – but we don't technically have an official definition of a reliable source anywhere. IMO the actual definition is something like "a source editors are willing to accept for a specific use". I think that we sometimes get hung up on the details of various labels and criteria, when we really ought to ask ourselves whether ____ is acceptable and appropriate for a specific sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk page stalking here, not to argue with you on how reliable source is defined. But woulnd't that type of definition subvert neutral point of view? To be uncharitable, that definition sounds a lot like sources that I like, and a lot of NPOV discussions fall back on we're just documenting reliable sources. To me it just seems to boil down to, we're documenting what the sources that we like say, which sounds so very POV. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kyohyi, I've just been cleaning up Cannabis edible, which is an area in which "documenting what the sources that we like say" unfortunately sounds like a pretty accurate description of editors' behaviors. Rest in peace, Tanner Clements, age 4. His mother has received a life sentence of grief, plus 10 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter because she didn't seek medical care soon enough to save his life after he ate a box of THC gummies. I hope that our article, which has been cheerfully telling readers that children have never died from overdosing on edibles, played no part in her decision to delay seeking medical care.

About the definition: I agree that such a definition is open to bias. It's also circular, at least in some contexts (Which sources are reliable? The sources editors accept. Which sources do editors accept? The reliable ones.).

But I'm not sure that it actually changes the level of bias, but it might admit to it a bit more openly. Right now, for example, Death#Problems of definition barely notes that religious views exist but goes into great detail about medical tests. Religion is relegated to a section at the end, and the article overall has twice as many words about dead volcanoes than about death in Judaism. IMO this is because we are biased towards hard sciences and against religion. We don't want to think about whether the Buddhist definition of death is about the departure of an immaterial soul from the heart and proven by signs of decomposition rather than neurological activity or heartbeats, or whether the Orthodox Jewish definition is the departure of the divinely instilled breath from the lungs. We want to talk about stuff you can see and touch, and we choose sources based on our preferences.

I arrived at this definition after discarding others (e.g., it can't be that it's non-self-published, because {{cite twitter}} exists), so it's entirely possible that someone else can come up with a different definition that would be better. If you've got candidates, I'd love to hear them. I'm always interested in this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I suppose I was looking more for a sanity check on how I was seeing things. If I were to try to write it better, I would probably start with determining among whom the reputation of fact checking and accuracy has to be. Right now, it appears that the reputation is amongst Wikipedia editors, and I'm not sure that should be the case. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Kyohyi, in principle, we want the source (e.g., the newspaper, the scientific journal) to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. In the case of newspapers, this is proven by the existence of corrections; in the case of, say, the The Rush Limbaugh Show, it is disproven by the non-existence of corrections and the widespread complaints about his made-up content and inaccuracy. In the case of a scientific journal, it is proven by the information on their website about peer review, and it is disproven by accusations that it is run by a predatory publisher.

There is an element of editorial judgment in there: Which sources do we investigate the most? How do we handle sources that are borderline or contradictory (e.g., MDPI, whose peer review standards are better now than they used to be, which means they were pretty bad in the past)? Whose complaints do we elevate, and whose do we ignore (e.g., if the complaints are all from 'that' end of the political spectrum, does that matter)? Consequently I agree that the real rule, in practice, is "Wikipedia editors' perception of the reputation", but I don't think that is a solvable problem.

Adding another layer of complexity, consider the case of the public figure who is accused of a crime. He appears on social media to say "I am not a crook". We aren't really looking for fact checking and accuracy in that source. Our interest is more akin to a right of reply because it is more neutral to briefly acknowledge his denial than to omit it. There, we are not looking for a "GREL" source; we are looking for a source that is reliable for the specific claim in question (namely, that he denied any guilt). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond; I'm always appreciative of experienced editors who make time to help me and others. You reminded me that an organization may publish a mix of SP and non-SP material (something I knew but wasn't holding at the front of my mind) and that I need to be more careful about that in discussions. The GLAAD page in question is part of their Accountability Project (GAP), which has individual pages for ~250 public figures/groups, where each GAP page consists of evidence (e.g., quotes) illustrating the figure's/group's "anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and discriminatory actions," along with brief statements about why the rhetoric/actions are problematic, and where the pages get updated with new bits of information over time. Does every addition to a page get independent editorial review? I don't know. Hopefully we'll reach consensus at the discussion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

For the mix of self- and non-self-published material, I like to use the example of The New York Times (or any reputable newspaper). The news content is non-self-published. The advertising rate sheet is self-published. It is similar to WP:ALLPRIMARY: every website has some self-published content (even if it's just the terms of use/privacy policy), but generally reliable sources also have some non-self-published content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for your keen eye

I realize, as I made my way to the end of your talk page, that you are indeed occupied, preoccupied and busy, so I apologize in advance for requesting that you look once again at the Landmark Worldwide talk page. I am an admitted participant in Landmark's programs, and as such have refrained from any editing and merely spoken up on the talk page. But your looking clarified the conversation with myself and Grafell, and if you are able I think your judgement and comments would be valuable. Thanks in advance. Ndeavour (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ndeavour, thank you for your note. I've pinged a few folks. I don't know their views on Landmark Worldwide at all, and I don't remember most of their views on cults in general, but they are already deep in discussions about a different subject's possible cult status, so they'll at least already know what a cult is and how Wikipedia's usual rules apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you mind if I email you?

I am hoping you can help me with an application of WP:NOR re; List of common misconceptions. Best, Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If you feel like it shouldn't be discussed in public, then Special:EmailUser/WhatamIdoing is available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Watch what you write

At WT:RFC you hinted that an identifiable editor is antisemitic. I know you didn't write exactly that, but your phrasing "I frankly couldn't fault other editors if they cynically wondered whether the real desire is to know whether the person who started that RFC is Jewish." is a stock-standard way to make an assertion with plausible deniability. You are lucky that the issue involves ARBPIA, where I do not act as an administrator, as otherwise I would have blocked you. Casual charges of antisemitism are increasing in this place and the practice has to be stamped out. Take someone to a drama board if you have actual evidence against them. Zero^talk 01:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Zero0000, I think we have very different ideas about what I wrote. I think that, when a contentious subject is involved, requesting to re-write the RFC rules so that the person's identity is front and center will result in bystanders wondering whether the stated goal is the real one.

I think this partly because such a request is a significant departure from our usual rule to Wikipedia:Comment on the content, not the contributor. I think this is also partly because editors who hang out on policy pages have learned that demands for rule changes are often prompted by a single, specific situation, and we have consequently learned to cast a jaundiced eye over any complainant's contribs in response.

The resulting speculation will naturally vary with the question. For example, the 2018 identity demand was about an unsigned RFC proposing more restrictions on admins. I'm sure you will not be surprised to learn that the unsigned OP was a non-admin with a sizable block log. When the RFC is about a divisive subject, some editors are going to believe (rightly or wrongly) that the demand is being made for partisan purposes.

NB I'm not saying any people "should" do this; I'm saying some people "will". People do not generally feel constrained to "actual evidence" when they react to such situations. They often react intuitively or even illogically, and their reaction is often rooted in their own personal experiences.

On this point, I think you might be interested in reading the "No subtle -isms" explanation at https://www.recurse.com/social-rules. Not everyone will agree on what counts as a subtly exclusionary action, and, even if everyone did agree, not everyone will feel it the same way. You and I could agree that centering the OP's identity doesn't bother us, but that doesn't invalidate how other editors (especially the targeted OP) feel about it.

Also, the context for my sentence is IMO important: Every request to center an editor's identity in RFCs (that I remember) has been on a divisive topic. People do not demand rule changes for unsigned RFCs about fluffy bunnies. They only demand this rule change when a high-tension dispute gets an unsigned RFC.

Any unsigned RFC suggesting that the article be either "more pro-____" or "more anti-_____" (anything with serious real-world divisions) risks some speculation (voiced or not) about why the OP didn't sign it, and any complaint about it being unsigned risks some speculation (voiced or not) about why the complainant finds the OP's identity so important to the discussion that he insists we change the rules to accommodate his desire.

In theory, this cuts both ways: If the RFC question suggests minimizing Israel's perceived guilt, then some people will wonder whether the identity demand is motivated by anti-Israel bias; if the RFC question suggests maximizing Israel's perceived guilt, then some people will wonder whether the identity demand is motivated by anti-Palestinian bias. In practice, however, there have been about 50 unsigned RFCs this year, and two demands that the RFC rules be changed to require a username. Both of those demands appear to have been prompted by an RFC that I personally would classify as being pro-Israel in nature. We'd have to collect subject matter data for all 50 unsigned RFCs to determine whether that is statistically significant vs just an odd coincidence, but with just a quick glance down the list, I notice that the numbers look something like this:

• 100% (2 out of 2) of the identity demands were about unsigned "pro-Israel" RFC proposals.
• 33% (2 out of 6) of the unsigned RFCs related to conflict in the Middle East prompted these complaints.
• 0% (44 out of 44) of the unsigned RFCs unrelated to conflict in the Middle East received any such complaints.

This pattern could well be a coincidence, and 2 is a pretty small n. I also suspect that unsigned RFCs are not randomly distributed. However, if you remember that "subtle isms" thing I mentioned above: Even if we could prove statistically that it is merely a coincidence that 100% of the demands for identity were "pro-Israel" unsigned RFCs and that 0% of the (many more) non-Israel-related unsigned RFCs received any such complaints, it might not land that way to any editor who feels targeted and excluded by these complaints.

I realize that this may feel awkward for you, because you started the first of the two complaints this year (which arguably makes you WP:INVOLVED, I suppose). As it happens, I didn't attribute any disreputable motivation to your request; my perception at the time, rightly or wrongly, was that you were more surprised by the old rule than anything else. But when I imagine this from the POV of an editor who identifies in any way with Judaism or Israel, I'm not sure whether I'd have read it that way, and the fact that since the present war in Gaza started, only "pro-Israel" unsigned RFCs have produced these complaints – well, those numbers wouldn't tell me a reassuring story about our community. Perhaps casual charges of antisemitism aren't the only thing that needs to be stamped out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Of course we can't stop people speculating about each others' motivations, but speculating out loud does nothing except increase the toxicity for everyone. In my opinion you crossed the line, especially because you were referring to a particular editor. You really must suppress that impulse in the future.

When one of the main protagonists in a dispute doesn't sign an RfC, their opponents suspect that they are hiding their involvement so that people who come along without knowing the background will !vote without understanding what the consequences will be. This especially happens when the originator is involved in an ongoing dispute and knows how to write RfC questions that are superficially neutral but in fact designed to get what they want. This is the same thing that pollsters take pride in: very subtle variations in the question can produce large changes in the response. RfC questions in contentious topics very often don't contain all that is necessary to know in order to make a reasoned decision. I'm not saying that's a fair description of the two cases you mention — I haven't even looked at the recent one and I don't edit that article.

I might be wrong, but you seem to have the impression that disputes in ARBPIA are about Jews versus others. That is far from true and there are countless exceptions in both directions. Zero^talk 10:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if we should continue this conversation in e-mail. You've just posted a comment that could be (mis)understood as saying that "a particular editor" (who appears to watch this page, by the way) is being intentionally and skillfully deceptive ("superficially neutral but in fact designed to get what they want"), and I understand that that's an antisemitic trope. In another context, we'd all read this as run-of-the-mill accusations of very ordinary Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, but this isn't another context. Special:EmailUser/WhatamIdoing is open to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

I really appreciate what you did at the human penis article. If you're up for a somewhat similar project where there's some dubious broad statements about women in wikvoice, there's Parental investment#Application of Trivers' theory in real life. That content has bugged me for ages. I even started a noticeboard thread about it: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 113#Parental investment. A part of me really wants to be bold and fix things but I don't know how and it really isn't my area of expertise. But my instinct looking at that content is not great. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss, I'd like to encourage you to have a go at it. If it's sufficiently bad, then anything will be an improvement, so you can hardly screw up. For example, I just blanked a long paragraph except for one sentence, because only the one sentence had anything to do with the subject of the article, and the rest was an effort to connect that one sentence to something else, i.e., SYNTH.

As a general rule, editing for concision will help, and in particular, removing intensifiers ("very influential") is good encyclopedic writing style. I'd also suggest, as an easy place to start, blanking the worst sources from the strings of Wikipedia:Citation overkill in the Parental investment#Paternal investment section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm just really hesitant to touch it when I don't really have that background to know for sure what's normal and what's bunk. I had a concerned message on my talk page for even starting a noticeboard thread about this. [2] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Since I disagree with the claim that evolutionary psychology is a "hard science", that editor and I are perhaps unlikely to come to any sort of agreement. You might partner up with the folks that responded to the NPOVN question (pinging Elmmapleoakpine, Bluethricecreamman, and Hydrangeans), and see if the four of you could accomplish something together.

m:Eventualism is a good approach here. Even if you only improve one small part, it's still an improvement.

If you feel like you need more eyes, then I'd suggest Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard next time. That crowd is usually good at differentiating between scientific consensus and the ...other stuff. @Bon courage, can you think of anyone offhand who'd be worth asking for help with Parental investment? It's not really as awful a subject as, say, Parental alienation, but it's looks like it might have the same problem with distinguishing between what researchers say and how social media twists that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

i’ve been told through the academic grapevine much of the literature by anthropologists (especially older anthropologists) is tremendously racist, sexist, orientalist etc… assuming evolutionary psychology is a sort of rebrand for the sort of thinking Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I tried. [3] There's so much going on with this article that I'm not sure I actually made much of a difference. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That looks like a great start. I did a little copyediting on the ==History== section, and decided that we didn't need to be using a primary source to pull this all the way back to Darwin. Can someone else have a go at Parental investment? Any little edit will help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm. I hope others will chip in too. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, WhatamIdoing. Sorry that I didn't do much more than second you in the NPOV thread, Clovermoss. I agree with your impression; my instinct looking at that content is not great. But like you, I've hesitated to intervene much directly. I'm more familiar with histories of human sexuality than of human family. It's adjacent enough to make me skeptical of a claim that suggests any kind of biological hardwiring, but without knowing specific sources that overturn other work, I do my best to defer to the sources. I'd be very surprised if there aren't sources that characterize parental interest in children as a more social phenomenon, but I don't know them off the cuff.

I'll see what I can do to chip in when I can. I know eventualism can feel a little unsatisfying, on the grounds that surely the article if inaccurate is disinforming people in the present, but there's too much Wikipedia for anyone to fix everything anytime. Making a little difference is still a difference. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

assuming evolutionary psychology is a sort of rebrand for the sort of thinking: It's not a rebrand per se—but in certain hands, it's not not a rebrand (not in all hands, mind). We do experience the world through the evolutionarily developed physical brain, so it's not unreasonable for there to be some evolutionary influences on psychology. The critical thing is to achieve balance in our on-wiki presentation with the also academically and thoroughly documented reality of the social construction of behaviors, norms, habits, etc. (And this is hardly just a human thing; animals have culture and social construction to, like whales with different dialects or orcas with different hunting styles, behaviors social contexts and not solely evolutionary ones). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that an over-focus on humans may be one of the problems for this article. This probably ought to start at a point like "most fish don't care for their young, but most birds do". Instead, I suspect that both readers and editors are arriving with a mental context like "Is it better to have one child who graduates university with no debt or two children who don't?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

+1. I hadn't thought of that, but you're right. The topic is one that is about parenting generally across animals but very little of the article is explicitly about how this manifests (or doesn't) in species other than humans. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

AfC

If you are not yet bored of me (I am) I would like to ask how I should interpret [4] in the context of [5]. I kinda assumed you would be on board because you mentioned the amount of duplicated work. Someone started an RfC based on my idea which was a bit surprising to me; if I had been involved I would've done it differently. Polygnotus (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Since the first is AFC and the second is NPP, they're not really related, though you are right that there are some similarities.

I don't think that a bot is the right way to go about AFC re-submissions, because a zero-change re-submission is appropriate when the first decline was bad, and those are really easy to game (add or remove double spaces after every sentence; put single line breaks between words; rearrange the parameters in the citation templates...).

But when AFC is seeing repeated zero-change re-submissions or inappropriate zero-change re-submissions, then I think AFD is the right model. I suppose some might think of AFD followed by deletion as somehow "punishing" the author and/or submitter if the article gets deleted, but the author can get a WP:REFUND to their userspace upon request, and the submitter will, over time, discover what the actual standards are and stop risking that on articles they actually want to see in the mainspace. AFC's backlog will start decreasing immediately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

quarry request

Hey, WaId! I was just making a request myself and saw this one from you. Have you written that up yet? I'd be quite interested in reading it. Valereee (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

There isn't much to say, but here it is:

Among our 1,000 very highest volume editors ever, a quarter have since stopped editing (quit, blocked, banned, died, lost password – any reason). Those now-inactive accounts tended to edit for about 12 years before they stopped editing. Having spotchecked less than 10, these editors probably had an average vaguely around 600–1200 edits per month while they were active.

The longer I thought about this, the less convinced I am that this is a representative group. But I'm still concerned that we may not have enough high-volume folks coming into the pipeline to replace them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you for shepherding WP:NSPECIES from draft to guideline. It's a bit surprising that this was a de facto guideline for many years without achieving official status. It needed a push, and you gave that push. Great job. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

I think the next step is to wait a couple of days to see whether anyone posts a request for a WP:Close review at WP:AN, and then there are at least two other major discussions in the pipeline (extinct species [dinosaurs!] and nothospecies) before I will feel like this one is basically finished. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I came here to leave the same barnstar – great work getting this necessary work done WAID, what a slog... – Joe (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Personal wedding website

Err, disagree on what basis? The entire "Comparing and contrasting the price of a wedding planner with the price of a website" is a big SYNTH violation, and it's all written with a very 2000s understanding of the internet:

• "Each wedding website is different"
• "Wedding websites offer a way for couples to showcase their personality"
• "wedding website suppliers now operate in many worldwide locations, many creating specific functionality and tools for their own national identities, customs, and faiths"
• "Personal wedding websites have changed how information about weddings is communicated."
• "If plans change, the website can be updated with the new information."

I mean, this is...fluff. This reads like a mix of NOTESSAY and NOTPROMO and most of all, NOTHOWTO content. Why are we keeping this? Alyo (chat·edits) 00:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is all fluff. For example: "Personal wedding websites have changed how information about weddings is communicated." You know what? They actually did change how information about weddings is communicated. In the 1980s, the information was communicated on fancy paper, was fairly minimal, and if you needed to travel, then making and coordinating travel plans was more complicated (and long-distance calls weren't free). Need a hotel? Write or phone the family to ask for a recommendation, or call your favorite chain and hope they have something nearby. Once you got there, everyone had to figure out every little thing.

When I went to an out-of-town wedding last year, all the information was on the website. Need a flight? Here's the airport's name. Need a hotel? Click these links. Need a ride from the wedding venue to the reception? Here's the information about the meeting points. Want the schedule for the whole weekend? It's all right there, and updated as necessary. Want to know how far it is from your hotel to the event? The map is right there. This is a totally different world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'll pare down my request to just one thing--the "Comparing and contrasting" section reads like synthesis, because there's nothing in the prose that makes it clear that the sources themselves are actually making that comparison. Additionally, the article lists very specific numbers that are now decades out of date. I feel pretty strongly that paragraph starting "According to White Weddings" needs to go entirely, and I'll leave it to you if you want to reframe the rest of the content in that section. I'll just note that even that part is largely out of date, with the websites people use nowadays. E.g., "websites promote expensive wedding products" is no longer as common a monetization practice on the sites people use now.

The first paragraph of the final section isn't really about wedding websites at all, and is also based on a single survey from 13 years ago, fwiw. Alyo (chat·edits) 01:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if an article "reads like" SYNTH; what matters is whether it "is" SYNTH. I'm pretty sure that ~2010, those were pretty common thoughts: Is it better to sort through RSVPs yourself, to hire a wedding planner to figure out who is coming or not, or to set up a website so responses get tallied automatically? Unfortunately, the relevant cited sources are offline (sort of ironic for an article about websites...), so I can't check them specifically, but I would be surprised if this turned out to be SYNTH.

I do agree that the whole article deserves an {{update}} tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Haha, if you want me to be exact in my wording, then sure, I'll say it directly: it's currently SYNTH. We have sourced content (sort of) discussing the costs of a website, and then we have sourced content discussing the costs of a wedding planner. What we don't have is sourced content saying "people pick one over the other" or "here is a direct comparison of the two". The framing of these two things in wikivoice is, as written, a synthesis not stated by sources. Maybe in 2010 these were common thoughts, but that shouldn't be relevant to how the article is written now. Every wedding I've been a part of recently has not treated these two things as substitutes. You get a website, unless you're being particularly elope-ish, and you get a wedding planner, if you want the help and don't mind the cost: they're entirely separate. (I realize I'm speaking of my own OR, but that's all we have to go on here!) Alyo (chat·edits) 02:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are the main sources cited in that section:

• Daws, Laura Beth (2009). Happily Ever After.com: The Construction of Identity on Wedding Websites. University of Kentucky.
• Ingraham, Chrys (2008). White Weddings: romancing Heterosexuality in Popular Culture. Taylor & Francis. p. 90. ISBN 9780203931028.
• Camenson, Blythe (2002). Opportunities in Event Planning Careers. McGraw-Hill Professional. p. 160. ISBN 9780071382281.

How many of them do you have access to? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I have access to none of them, but again, what the sources say isn't the issue--it's SYNTH even assuming that the sources correctly back up each sentence in the article, as they are currently written. Alyo (chat·edits) 08:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Um, what the sources say is 100% the issue. If any source says the whole story – if, for example, one of them says "Some people are ditching the professional wedding planner in favor of a personal wedding website because the main service they wanted was tracking RSVPs, and the website is a much cheaper way to do that", then it's not SYNTH. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)