Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already-proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines. Change discussions often start on other pages and then move or get mentioned here for more visibility and broader participation.

• If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals). For drafting with a more focused group, you can also start on the talk page for a WikiProject, Manual of Style, or other relevant project page.
• If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
• If you want to ask what the policy is on something, try the Help desk or the Teahouse.
• This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.
• If you want to propose a new or amended speedy deletion criterion, use Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.

« Archives, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197

Date redirects to portals?

16 August 2006 points to the current events portal as a result of this discussion. However, date redirects will continue to come up at RfD, some some wider community discussion and input is helpful on whether or not the current events portal is an appropriate target for mainspace redirects. See also: this ongoing discussion for some context.

Related questions to consider: are portals "part of the encyclopedia"? Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 00:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• The second question is easy: Yes, portals are part of the encyclopaedia. As to the first question, portals are reader-facing content and so I see no reason why they wouldn't be appropriate targets for mainspace redirects, given that uncontroversially target mainspace redirects to reader-facing templates and categories when they are the best target. Whether the port is the best target for a given date will depend on the specific date but in general the portal should always be an option to consider. Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with this. The portal is definitely not always the best option and it has its limitations, but, as I wrote at WP:RDATE it should be considered and assessed along with mainspace articles. Cremastra (u — c) 01:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging: Utopes, who I've discussed this with.

Notified: WT:RFD, WT:PORT, WT:CURRENTEVENTS, WT:WPRED. Cremastra (u — c) 01:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If a namespace doesn't have the same standards as mainspace, then the reader shouldn't be redirected there while possibly not realizing they are now outside of mainspace. Yes, there is more content at Portal:Current events/August 2006 than at 2006#August, but the reader is now facing a decades-old page with no quality control, where links to Breitbart are misleadingly labeled as (AP). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Portal does have the same standards as mainspace. That a portal is not up to those standards is no different to an article being in bad shape - fix it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

So I can use the speedy A-criteria for portal pages? Fram (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No, because they are not articles. Two things can be held to the same standard without being the same thing. Criterion P1 previously allowed that (indirectly) but it was repealed in 2023 due to lack of use. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Then they aren't held to the same standards... More in general, no, they obviously aren't held to the same standards, e.g. a portal page doesn't have to be a notable topic but may be purely decorative or (as is the case with the date pages) be a list of mainly non-notable things, failing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LISTN. That some standards are the same (BLP, copyvio, ...) can also be said for e.g. user talk pages, and we don't redirect to these pages either. Fram (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't redirect to user talk pages because they aren't reader-facing, so that's irrelevant. We don't hold reader-facing templates and categories to article content policies (because they aren't articles) but we do redirect to them. Don't conflate quality standards with inclusion policies, they are not the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I wasn´t aware that the standards we were talking about were solely quality standards, whatever these may be, and not content standards, sourcing standards, ... I´m sadly not amazed that you consider these irrelevant when deciding what to present to our readers. Fram (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

In theory, I think portals should be held to the same CSD criteria as articles. But of course the A criteria actually only apply to articles. Cremastra (u — c) 22:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• There's a lot of random junk in portalspace, but yes, it is part of the encyclopedia. Just like categories and templates, portals are reader-facing content. C F A 💬
• I didn't really have super strong opinions on portals until seeing this one link to Breitbart, twice, in a misleading way. This is not okay. I agree with Fram that clearly Portals are not being held up to the same standards as regular articles and it might be a bad idea to redirect readers to them. Toadspike [Talk] 23:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• I saw this on CENT, and I am confused by the question. Portal:Current events/2006 August 16 is very different from something like Portal:Belgium, and it doesn't make sense to pretend they are the same to establish policy. And what does "part of the encyclopedia" even mean? "Interpreting a confusing phrase" is a terrible way to decide redirect targets.
  For the specific question of "Should dates redirect to the Current Events portal rather than to a page like August 2006 ... I don't know. I don't see a compelling reason why they can't, nor a compelling reason why they should. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Hey, that's a nice Portal! Thank you for restoring my faith in portals. Clicking on "Random Portal" took me to Portal:Trees, which is also pretty nice. My opinion is now that yes, portals can be good, but it seems to me that we currently have no Ps and Gs to apply to their content or measure their quality, no consensus about how to direct readers to them, and a very checkered and controversial history of deletion. I really dunno what to do about them. Toadspike [Talk] 16:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Of course that's a nice portal, look who created it :-D Fram (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• No, we should not redirect dates to the current events portal subpages. It's a cross-namespace redirect that takes readers from somewhere they expect to be (an encyclopedia article on the topic "16 August 2006") to somewhere they don't expect to be (a navigational aid(?) that highlights some things that happened that day). I'm not 100% sure what the current events portal subpages are for, but they're not meant to stand in as pseudo-articles in places we lack real articles. Ajpolino (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Cross-namespace redirects in and of themselves are not a problem. They only cause issues when they take someone expecting reader-facing content to "backroom" content (e.g. project space). Both article and portals are reader-facing content, so this is not an issue. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Is there another case where we link a reader from an article to a non-article without clearly denoting it? E.g. I have no problem with the {{Portal}} template folks often use in the See also section. Ajpolino (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  There are lots of redirects to templates and categories. Many navigation templates link to other navigation templates. Thryduulf (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Any examples of these lots of mainspace pages which are redirects to templates? 08:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Fram (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  List of elections in Texas, List of Kentucky county seats, Cite web. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. Okay, Citeweb is a bad example, not something readers look for but something editors look for. The other 2 are among the 6 existing reader facing redirects to templates (from Category:Redirects to template namespace, the only ones which are from mainspace and not editor-related like the cite templates). Not quite the "lots" you seemed to be suggesting throughout this discussion, but extremely rare outliers which should probably all be RfD'ed. Fram (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Now only 2 remaining, converted the other 4 in articles or other redirects. Fram (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, the current events portals are valid redirect targets for dates and preferred in this case of the best article redirect for a specific date being the month section of an article on an entire year. I agree with Fram that portals are not held to the same standards as articles, but I disagree with Ajpolino's stance that a cross-namespace redirect is so disruptive that they are prohibited in all cases, given that WP:Portal says "portals are meant primarily for readers." ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 23:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Commenting strictly on the "are portals part of the encyclopedia" question, yes it is. Unfortunately there was one extremely loud, disruptive voice who kept making portals less useful and suffocating any discussions that would make it more beneficial to readers. Plenty of willing portal contributors, including myself, left this space and readers are still reaping the seeds of what that disruptive user planted even after they have been ArbCom banned over a year ago. So it may given some people an illusion that portals aren't doing much towards the encyclopedic goal, because the current status is handicapped by its history. I'm reserving my views on the redirect part of the discussion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Not, portals are not held to the standards of articles, and if something for whatever reason shouldn't be or can't be an enwiki article, this shouldn't be circumvented by having it in portalspace. Either these date pages are acceptable, and then they should be in mainspace. Or they are not what we want as articles, and then we shouldn't present them to our readers anyway. Fram (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  These current events pages differ from articles in many respects, but the referencing standards are similar. Whether they happen to be prefixed by "Portal:" or not is not reflective of their quality. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, because the purpose of Portal:Current events/2022 August 21 is to provide encyclopaedic information on 21 August 2022 and this purpose has been by-and-large successful. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• The current events portal example listed seems encyclopedic enough, in that apart from some formatting differences it might as well be a list article, but I've seen other portals that have editor-facing content that is more dubiously appropriate for mainspace. Consider, for example, Portal:Schools § Wikiprojects (capitalization [sic]) and Portal:Schools § Things you can do, and the similar modules at many other portals. Sdkb ^talk 18:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes per J947, especially given that the current event portals function like an encyclopedic list for the given date. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, speaking as a recognized portalista, portals have not yet been excised from the pedia. In this case, User:J947 makes the essential point. I'm not convinced that even incomplete, out-of-date portals are any less encyclopedic than the 2 million or so Wikipedia articles nobody bothered to edit last year. BusterD (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Issues with antiquated guideline for WP:NBAND that essentially cause run of the mill non-notable items to be kept

Specifically, WP:NBAND #5 and #6, which read:

5.) Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

6.) Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g., musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)

These appear to have been put together by a very small number of editors over a decade ago and hasn't seen much change since then and I feel it's much more lenient than just about anything else. This SNG defines a "label" that has been around for over "a few years" that has a roster of performers as "important". So, any group of people who have released two albums through ANY verifiable label that has exited for more than a few year can end up being kept and this isn't exactly in line with GNG. I believe a discussion needs to be held in order to bring it to GNG expectations of now.

Graywalls (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Especially given how broadly the various criteria have been "interpreted" in deletion discussions, the best way to go about it is just to deprecate the whole thing. Rely on the GNG for band notability, and if that results in a heap of articles on ephemeral outfits, garage bands and local acts vanishing, huzzah. Ravenswing 09:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The SNG isn't workable in the age of digital distribution. It's very easy to create "an independent label with a history of more than a few years". If someone wants to suggest a way to reform the SNG, I am open to solutions. But deprecation is a simple alternative if we can't. The GNG is always a good standard because it guarantees we have quality sources to write an article. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I was active in AfD discussions when NBAND was pretty new, and it was useful for dealing with a flood of articles about garage bands and such, but I think our standards in general have tightened up since then, and I agree it is time to review it. There is the possibility, however, that revising NBAND may require as much discussion as revising NSPORT did. Donald Albury 17:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable. I guess we need some concrete re-write suggestions to base an rfc on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you're assuming that NBAND is meant to be a substitute for the Wikipedia:General notability guideline. That's true for some WP:Subject-specific notability guidelines but not for all of them.

I guess the underlying question is: Is there actual harm in having a permastub about a band that proves to be borderline in GNG terms? Consider this:

"Alice and Bob are a musical duo in the science fiction genre. They released their first album, Foo, in 2019 and their second, Bar, in 2020. Both albums were released by Record Label. They are primarily known for singing during a minor event."

I'm asking this because I think that the nature of sources has changed, particularly for pop culture, since NBAND and the GNG were written. We now have subjects that get "attention from the world at large", but which aren't the Right™ kind of sources and, while these Wrong™ sources definitely provide "attention", some of that attention might not provide biographical information (which means we're looking at a short article).

For example, instead of getting attention in the arts section of a daily newspaper, they're getting attention from Anthony Fantano on YouTube. He's an important music critic,[1] but I suspect that our knee-jerk reaction is "Pffft, just some YouTuber, totally unreliable". Consequently, we might rate a band that we theoretically intend to include ("attention from the world at large") as not meeting the GNG (because the whole field relies on the Wrong™ style of sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep in mind that like most other notability guidelines, it is a presumed assumption that a topic is notable if it meets these criteria. If you do an exhaustive Before and demonstrate there is no significant coverage beyond the sourcing to satisfy there criteria, the article should still be deleted. None of the SNGs are geared towards preventing this type of challenge. — Masem (t) 19:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If we had to yield to presumptive notability about some random band because it released two albums with Backyard Trampoline Recordings established few years ago and had to do exhaustive search to disprove notability, we're getting setup for a situation where removal is 10x more challenging than article creation. So.. I see a great value in scrapping NBAND 5, and 6. Graywalls (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:SNGs. As Masem said, they're supposed to be a rough idea of gauging notability before exhaustively searching for sources. But pretty much all of them have ended up being used as means to keep articles about trivial or run-of-the-mill subjects. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Graywalls listed two criteria but the main discussion seems to be about the 1st (#5). I agree with Graywalls on that. With the evolution of the industry, the label criteria is no longer a useful indicator as it once was and IMO #5 should be removed or modified. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, both those criteria should be scrapped. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed that as well. I think #6 has some value still, while #5 is like saying an author who has published two or more books by a major publishing house is presumed notable. Way too low a bar without requiring some level of reception of those albums/books. (WP:NAUTHOR doesn't have that 2-book criteria, of course, just seems like parallel benchmarks.) Schazjmd (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, in this case, I suspect that an artist that "has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" will in 99% of cases have enough coverage to clear the GNG bar. I'd like to see an example of one that doesn't. Black Kite (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The definition of important as said in #5 is "history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable". This would mean that a garage band is notable, because they've released two CD-R albums on Rotten Peach Recordings which has been around for 3 1/2 years, has a roster of performers and some of whom have a Wikipedia page on them. Often time "notable" is determined by the presence of a stand alone Wikipedia page. When you look at the page, many band member pages are hopelessly non-notable, but removal takes an AfD. So a simple deletion can become a time consuming multi-step AfD. Graywalls (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's a current AfD I am participating in where NBAND#5 was invoked to justify a keep. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sons_of_Azrael_(3rd_nomination) Graywalls (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Not opining on that band's notability, but Metal Blade is a famous independent label that has existed for 42 years, has released material by very high-profile bands, and is distributed by Sony - it's not some one-person imprint operating out of their garage. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I concur regarding that particular example.

Metal Blade is a big label, and not surprisingly notability was quickly demonstrated in the deletion discussion through citing reliable source coverage. And that's how #5 should work - artist is on a significant label, which suggests coverage exists. And then coverage is found.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It's complicated - on the one hand, music publications are increasingly prioritizing their coverage toward Taylor Swift-level celebrities, so I am almost certain there are artists on major labels that might be examples -- major as in the Big 3. This is especially so for genres like country that publications don't cover as much - there are some big names on the roster of Warner Music Nashville and also some not-so-big names.

The elephant in the room here is that entertainment journalism is in crisis mode right now, publications are operating on skeleton crews, and the range of coverage has narrowed dramatically. I encourage everyone taking part in this discussion to read the article I linked, there are a lot of assumptions being made about the way things work that aren't true. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• One suggestion I would add is to make these two criteria apply only to bands before a specific year, that year being where physical releases still dominated over digital sales. I don't know the exact year but I am thinking it's like around 2000 to 2010. There may still be older groups during the time of physical releases that don't yet have articles that would fall into one of these criteria. Masem (t) 20:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• As someone who's had WP:DSMUSIC watchlisted for most of their editing history, and who tends towards deletion at that, I actually don't see much of a problem with these criterions. It certainly seems true that the majority of musicians who are signed to a label or a member of multiple bands with two other musicians who meet WP:GNG themselves meet GNG. I do think it is sometimes justified to accept less-than-GNG sourcing in articles where a SNG is met (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John LeCompt for this as it applies to c6 specifically) and more importantly, NMUSIC contains language that allows deleting articles even where it is technically met (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rouzbeh Rafie for an extended argument about that. Mach61 23:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• I've understood these criterion to be supplementing GNG, that is, that if a band or individual artist meets one or more of these criterion, they *likely* are notable. However, in the past when I was a younger and less experienced editor, I think I did understand these as being additions or alternatives to GNG. So I think that should be clarified. This has come up on the deletion discussion for Jayson Sherlock. He is a member or former member of several very notable bands, and for that reason I presumed that he would easily have independent coverage about him specifically. However, to my surprise, there's only one interview of him in a reliable source that would provide notability (there's some interviews on personal blogs or minor sites that wouldn't be RS except for him making statements about himself). But at least one editor has used the above criterion to argue that the article should be kept.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Just as an aside, interviews do not contribute to GNG unless they include secondary independent SIGCOV (such as a substantial background introduction by the interviewer). JoelleJay (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed. That's important to note. I was presuming such, and also why I wouldn't rely on a singular interview as the sole source for establish GNG.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That's how I see most SNGs (and the outliers ought to follow their lead). At the very least, we can clarify that NBAND is meant as an indicator for the GNG, and not a substitute. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• As someone who thought the old NSPORTS was wildly overinclusive and needed cleanup... these NBAND guidelines don't seem that bad? If two plainly notable musicians were discovered to have done some obscure team-up in the 1970s, that does indeed seem to be a notable topic and useful to have linked somewhere, even if there isn't tons of info on this collaboration. It's worth mentioning because minor subtopics are often merged to the overarching topic (e.g. songs to the album), but there may not be a clear merge location for this if both parties were equal contributors, and a short separate article is an acceptable compromise. Similarly, the complaint about #5 seems to be about just how "indie" the hypothetical label is, but this seems like a solvable problem. If a band fails GNG, that implies that either their two albums really were from a very obscure indie outfit and thus also fail NBAND, or else that we have some sort of non-English sources issue where we may consider keeping on WP:CSB grounds (i.e. that sources probably do exist to pass GNG, but they're difficult to find, and we can trust they exist because this was a major and notable label releasing the band's work). About the only suggestion I can offer is that the comment in 6 about avoiding circular notability could probably be phrased in the sense of GNG, i.e. that the two notable musicians need to both meet GNG and then this will create a new, safe NBAND notability for their collaboration. SnowFire (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  The reverse situation, such as is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayson Sherlock, is one where you have someone who was/is in multiple notable bands, but doesn't have independent coverage about them as an individual person. -- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed with deprecation; "Rely on the GNG for band notability" is the correct answer. And is the correct answer for many other things about which we have SNGs that attempt to be alternatives to GNG. Perhaps the only justifiable one is WP:NACADEMIC, because special considerations apply in that sphere (academics and other journal-publishing researchers are generally unknown the public and the public-facing media coverage like newspapers but may have major impacts in particular fields and on the world; what determines their influence level is primilar the frequency of citation of their work by other academics). No such special considerations apply with regard to bands or most other categories. We have some SNGs that are helpful because they are written to comply with GNG, to explain predictively what is most likely or unlikely to pass a GNG test at ANI, rather than trying to be an end-run around GNG. If we actually needed an SNG for bands and musicians, then the current SNG for them could be replaced by something like that. However, we don't actually need an SNG for bands and musicians.

  PS: The ideas in the current NBAND SNG are daft. Lots of musical acts have multiple albums (i.e. tracks released at the same time under a grouping title) and lots of indie labels (which may just be some dude in his bedroom) exist with multiple acts, some of them nominally notable [because of NBAND's issues, making this a vicious cycle!], but that doesn't actually make every band on that notional label (nor the label itself) enclopedia-worthy. Some of these are farcically obscure acts [not a denigration – I'm probably buying their stuff]. This is not 1977; you do not need a vinyl pressing plant to be a music label. You just need to figure out how to fill in a web form at Bandcamp and Spotify, and have enough of a clue about how the present music industry works (often just within a narrow subculture) that you can convince some acts (probably your friends in the same scene) that you can help them if they agree to be on your roster. PPS: A side issue is that "albums" isn't a good metric anyway, since several genres are not album-driven at all, and the entire notion of albums is being increasingly questioned in the era of on-demand music.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see #5 and #6 completely eliminated. What does it take to make that happen? What's the next step? Graywalls (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If you believe this would amount to a major change to the guideline, then you should probably be making a formal WP:PROPOSAL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, would clarifying that SNG don't override GNG requirements be a major change?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. And if you want to try that, you should find and read the many previous discussions about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NPLACE, which presumes populated legally recognized places are notable. So, all it takes is prove the legal recognition and presence of people and it's assumed to be notable, unless refuted.

A legally recognized city is presumed, but not guaranteed notable. If it doesn't meet GNG, then the presumed notability can be refuted. It does essentially "override" GNG though a short cut, but is subject to removal by presenting failure to meet GNG.

Such presumption is not present for most things. For example, simply quoting a local paper about a gas station opening up and operating demonstrates existence of that gas station, but there's no presumed notability for businesses.

NBAND 5 and 6 qualifies bands and albums into Wikipedia far easier than they should and they stand as a burden to article deletion due to presumed notability under tenuously defined importance, such as having released two albums through an important indie label Four Legged Octopus, which is "important" because the MailBox Etc based label has been around for five years and has a roster. Graywalls (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Not speaking to this issue directly, but the trend in subject specific guidelines, IMHO, has been to reduce the influence of SNGs relative to GNG, not override. When we started these projects 20 years ago, almost every article was low hanging fruit, almost bound to be found notable eventually. As an example, Military History Wikiproject adopted and modified WP:SOLDIER, a set of specific and non-subjective criteria which if met gave an indication of presumption of reliable sources being found somewhere eventually. This was intended to screen out a lot of "dead veteran I know" articles, not become the floor for inclusion. When it finally came up for discussion it was made clear SOLDIER was just a project thing and wasn't itself an approved SNG. It was quickly decommissioned, but SOLDIER criteria was for many years a frequently mentioned keep argument at AfD. As another example, WP:SPORTSPERSON is another project related shorthand (but consensus-approved SNG), which made it more difficult to create and keep articles about athletes without at least one source with significant coverage, which still seems a low bar indeed. IMHO the original intent of such SNGs was to screen article candidates, but as the pedia grew, we started using SNGs to keep them. Adjusting SNGs to meet the modern usage era seems the practical and accepted path. The medical SNGs are still used as exclusionary, and for the best reasons. BusterD (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  IMHO the original intent of such SNGs was to screen article candidates, but as the pedia grew, we started using SNGs to keep them. As someone who joined 10 years in, this seems to have been the trend.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, in my opinion SNGs should be exclusionary criteria, necessary but not sufficient for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Adminitrator recall: reworkshop open

You are invited to refine and workshop proposals to modify the recall process at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop. After the reworkshop is closed, the resulting proposals will be voted on at an RfC. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Blind 1RR/3RR

Blind enforcement of 1RR/3RR does not serve the project. The question should not be whether one violated the rule, but whether they violated the rule in a way that does not benefit the article. If there is no objection to the violation, we can reasonably assume that they are benefiting the article, or at least causing no harm. The decision should be left in the hands of other editors. Could this be used as a weapon? Would there be editors who claim harm where none exists? Certainly, but that's preferable to what we have now.

The problem, no doubt familiar to editors reading this, is that there are often not enough "good" editors around to protect an article from "bad" editors (malicious or merely inexperienced) while staying within 1RR/3RR. There is no restriction on the number of BOLD edits by a given editor, or on the number of editors performing BOLD edits. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

1RR in contentious areas should be fully maintained, with no exceptions. Otherwise, edit wars will quickly develop. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If someone is repeatedly reverting reverts, then there is objection to the violation by definition. That's what edit warring is. If someone is making the same BOLD edit that needs to be reverted multiple times, then they are also edit warring. There are already exceptions with these rules for patent nonsense or obvious vandalism. If there's routine disruption, then it only makes the problem worse to revert over and over instead of taking it to WP:RFPP. If you feel the need to make more than one or two reverts in a content dispute, then it's time to either consider other options or step away from the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not about edit warring or re-reverts; the problem exists without a single re-revert. Editor A does ten BOLD edits, five of which are detrimental to the article because they are too inexperienced (this stuff takes years to master, so that's far from uncommon). Editors B, C, D, and E contribute an additional twenty detrimental edits (along with any number of good ones, that number being irrelevant for our purposes here). Meanwhile, competent editors F, G, and H are limited to a total of nine reverts, leaving 21 detrimental edits in the article. I say F, G, and H should be allowed to revert until someone claims they are doing harm. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Where are you seeing thirty detrimental edits to an article in every day? Why isn't this article protected? Why aren't editors F, G, and H starting a discussion? Why are they reverting Editor A's edits individually instead of rolling them back? Why is it so urgent that these edits need to be reverted right this moment? Even on the off chance that they encounter such an article that exists, F, G, and H would not need to engage in tag-team reverting (which is still edit warring) if they knew what they were doing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to reduce the numbers as you please; the problem exists regardless. The article is protected, even with ECP, and there is no shortage of registered editors who have 30 days and 500 edits and still have years to go before they are editing with any reasonable level of competence. Some never reach that point. Why aren't editors F, G, and H starting a discussion? Seriously? Why are they reverting Editor A's edits individually instead of rolling them back? Because (1) they may not have the rollback right, and the rollback right should not be required to function as an editor, (2) they would be rolling back five good edits, and (3) it's impossible if Editor A's edits are interleaved with those of any other editor(s). Why is it so urgent that these edits need to be reverted right this moment? Because (particularly in large and very active articles) the bad edits can easily be missed if not caught immediately. Then they stay in the article for some unknown amount of time until noticed by a competent editor and corrected with a BOLD edit. Could be months or even years. Is that good for the article? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

they may not have the rollback right: Not the main point of this thread, but Wikipedia:Twinkle has its verison of rollback, available for any registered user.—Bagumba (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you give an example or two where this has caused a problem? And I note that you have answered the two most important questions inadequately: if an article is subject to edit-warring it should be fully protected, and you dismissed "Why aren't editors F, G, and H starting a discussion?" with "Seriously?". Yes, of course it's a serious question. Starting a discussion is the best way of defusing an edit war. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

"Seriously?", while counter to the WP:DR policy, might be an honest response. I often get page protection or block requests, where my first response is often "where's the discussion?" —Bagumba (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless Mandruss is extremely lazy, for which I have no evidence, I don't see how that response can be honest. It only takes a few seconds to start a discussion, no longer than it took to start this one, and the person who starts it wins some extra points. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

extremely lazy, for which I have no evidence Thank you! I have my share of faults and shortcomings, but I don't think extreme laziness is one of them. So there should be new discussions for each of the bad edits (separately for the sake of efficiency and organization), and the bad edits should remain in the article until enough editors have the time, interest, and attention span to form consensuses against them while attending to other important matters. This, at an ATP where we're struggling to keep the ToC at a manageable size even without such discussions. I don't know what articles you're editing, but I want to work there. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you seriously just point to Donald Trump as your example and then say you don't know what articles aren't like that Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I gather the Donald Trump article is a rare anomaly where bad content is something we have to live with because the current rules are incapable of preventing it. After all, it's just one article. I would oppose that reasoning. I'd say article quality is at least as important there as anywhere else. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

So there should be new discussions for each of the bad edits ...: Yes, or what is an alternative? Your suggestion to favor "good" edits over "bad" is problematic when everyone says their's are the "good" ones. Polarizing topics can be difficult for patrolling admins to WP:AGF determine "good" v. "bad" edits if they are not subject matter experts.—Bagumba (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Remember that consecutive edits by a single editor are treated as a single revert for WP:3RR purposes. So, in your case, editor H can go back and revert the various bad edits and, even if they mechanically break it out into multiple edits, they still have done one revert... Until someone goes back and re-reverts. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If "do not repeat edits without consensus" were the rule (rather than "do not revert"), it would take care of this problem. Levivich (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Who said anything about repeated edits? Am I missing something? I'm tired at the moment, so that's a possibility. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean, who said? I said something about repeated edits :-) If the rule were "do not repeat edits without consensus" 1x or 3x in 24 hours, instead of "do not revert" 1x or 3x in 24 hours (which leads to the whole "what exactly counts as a revert?" issue), the problem you are describing would not happen. The 'bad' editor can make 10 bad edits, and the 'good' editor can revert all 10 edits without violating do-not-repeat-3RR, and the 'bad' editor would be able to repeat 3 of those 10 edits without crossing do-not-repeat-3RR, and the 'good' editor can revert all 3 of those without crossing do-not-repeat-3RR, et voila: equilibrium. The problem is we focus on "revert" instead of "repeat." To tamp down on edit warring, we should prohibit people from repeating their edits, not from "reverting" (whatever that means, exactly) edits. Levivich (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Well I'll have to come back after a sleep and try to comprehend that. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Blind enforcement of 1RR/3RR does not serve the project: Are you referring to page protection or blocks? On contentious topics or any subject? —Bagumba (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC at WP:RSN#RFC: Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?

There is a RFC discussion on the consideration of grey literature relating to BLP coverage at the Reliability Noticeboard that watchers of this page may be interested in. Raladic (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a Verifiability policy issue, not an evaluation of specific sources. Why are we holding the discussion on a noticeboard? Why not here or at WT:V? BusterD (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

As it was already gaining in size, moved to centralized Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grey Literature page as is common for larger discussions. Raladic (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Wiki-policy about Bibliography List in an article about a famous person.

User: Walter Tau and user: Yngvadottir can not agree whether a list of publications about a singer is appropriate in the article about this singer Orville Peck. I placed this list “Bibliography: publications about Orville Peck” after section “Filmography”. She keeps deleting it without citing a specific wiki-policy. Thriley explained the deletion with “This is excessive” again without citing a specific wiki-policy. Can someone explain to us what wiki-policy regulates Bibliographic Lists in an article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) 16:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Walter Tau: Policies and guidelines define what is allowed in articles, They do not mandate the addition of anything. Whether or not content is due in an article is an editorial decision reflecting the consensus of the interested community. FWIW, I agree that a Bibliography section that large is excessive. Take it to the talk page and gain consensus there for how large a bibliography, if any, to include in the article. (I am ignoring the edit warring that has been going on, but be aware that any future edit warring can lead to sanctions on your editing.) - Donald Albury 16:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

MOS:FURTHER and WP:Further reading might be relevant here. The Wikiproject WP:BIB may also be of interest. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Citing a paper in a journal versus citing the journal itself

I wanted to publicize this discussion about the proper interpretation of the WP:NJOURNALS essay. In essence, the issue is whether a journal that publishes frequently cited papers counts as "frequently cited" or if the journal itself has to be frequently cited. Though the essay is just an essay, it is often used in AfD discussions and assumptions about its meaning have been the basis of closing decisions, so there is a material issue here. Botterweg (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This probably isn't something that needs to be advertised here. WT:N would have been a better place. In any event, it appears your question has basically been answered by others. I'm not sure what more there is to add. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still learning my way around these behind-the-scenes pages. What I'm looking for is just a clear consensus one way or the other. So nothing fancy, just "I (dis)agree with so-and-so"-type comments. Botterweg (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Protect sockpuppet tags?

Should sockpuppet user pages with tags be protected to extended confirmed only or admin only. This is to prevent removal or modification as the edit filter only prevents users less than 4 days old and have made less than 10 edits. 125.63.140.154 (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Non-admins tagging can go to WP:RFPP as usual. 1.129.104.29 (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

What determines "global consensus"?

This ArbCom resolution established that "Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus."

I would like to ask what is the standard for defining that there is global consensus. If the top 100 articles in a certain category all are written in a certain way, is this considered sufficient for global consensus?

If a 100 articles are not enough, what is the threshold? Is it proportional to the number articles in that category?

Should then this warrant that all articles in that category be written in that way (unless very clearly harmful to the specific article)?

Milo8505 _(talk) 10:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONLEVEL was already a policy, independent of that resolution. It was just being cited as a principle used in deciding that case. —Bagumba (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe that "global consensus" refers to policies and guidelines in particular, and to generally accepted practices across the whole of the English Wikipedia. A consensus that applies to just 100 articles out of the almost 7 million article in the English Wikipedia is a local consensus. Donald Albury 16:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Milo8505, you asked this question in a way that can't be answered. Consensus does not depend on categories, and Wikipedia does not deal in abstract quantities but in concrete articles. Is this about whether to have an infobox on Gustav Mahler? If so then please say so, to provide some context to your question. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger Yes, it is about that topic. I believe that there is sufficient global consensus about the inclusion of infoboxes on biographies. I am well aware that the official policy is "no policy defined", but I see a clear trend, by looking at the most read articles, that all biographies - of musicians and non musicians alike - have an infobox, except a select few classical music composers.

I do not currently have the whole information regarding exactly how many of all biographies have an infobox, and that is why I was asking what is usually considered consensus.

However, given that I'm very aware that a hundred articles out of seven million is not precisely consensus, I will attempt, when I have the time, to go through every single biography to determine an exact percentage.

Milo8505 _(talk) 18:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want to spend your time doing that then I can't stop you, but I warn you that you will be wasting your time. That is not how consensus is measured. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Obviously I will not count by hand, I have some idea of how to use an automated tool to do that.

But then, how is consensus measured?

I'm under the impression that there is a group of very determined and very vocal editors that fiercely oppose infoboxes on classical composers' articles (which leads to most of them having discussions about infoboxes, citing each other as examples of articles without infobox), separate from the majority of biographies, which have an infobox.

I see no better way of proving (or maybe disproving) my point than this, because my earlier points of infoboxes being a great thing for Gustav Mahler's article, and the fact that numerous non-classical musicians have infoboxes, and lengthy ones at that, seem to have fallen on deaf ears.

Milo8505 _(talk) 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

And I would like to state, for the record, that I'm not doing this out of spite, or out of a personal interest (I'm actually losing my time by arguing about this), but because I truly, wholeheartedly believe that an infobox on each and every biography, and in general, on every article where there could be one (this excludes abstract topics such as existencialism) would make Wikipedia a truly better place.

Milo8505 _(talk) 20:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I would have to search the archives, but we actually held an RFC (one of the ways in which we determine GLOBAL consensus) that was focused on whether to mandate infoboxes on articles about composers… which determined that there were valid reasons not to require them (I suppose you could say that global consensus was to defer to local consensus on this specific issue). Remember WP:Other Stuff Exists is not an accepted argument here at WP. And that “standard practice” often has exceptions. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but that is not my sole argument. I have provided other arguments in favor, which you can read at the aforementioned talk page which basically boil down to:

_{in my opinion,}

1. Infoboxes make standardized information more easily accessible, and
2. They do not harm the rest of the article, as they do not displace the lead paragraph.

However, in the linked talk page, I see that opponents of infoboxes rely somewhat on the loosely established precedent/consensus that composers shouldn't have infoboxes.

That is why I wanted to bring forth a new argument, using the, as I see it, very established consensus for infoboxes in biographies, and what I want to know here is whether this consensus can be proven to exist (or what is it required for this consensus to exist). Milo8505 _(talk) 07:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This whole thing about "global" and "local" consensus seems to confuse everyone, and consequently folks make up whatever seems plausible to them. Let me give you a potted history and the usual claims, and perhaps that will help you understand the principle.

'Way back in the day, infoboxes didn't exist. AIUI the first widely used infobox template was {{taxobox}} in 2004, and the general concept appeared soon after. However, through the end of 2007, Template:Infobox didn't look like what we're used to. Originally, an 'infobox template' was literally a wikitext table that you could copy and fill in however you wanted.

While infoboxes were being developed, the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers decided that infoboxes were a bad idea specifically for articles about classical composers, so after a series of disputes and discussions, in April 2007 they wrote a note that said, basically, "BTW, the sitewide rules don't apply to the articles we WP:OWN."

The conflict between this group and the rest of the community eventually resulted in the 2010 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC. The result of this years-long dispute is memorialized in the example given in what is now the Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus section of the policy: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."

Or, to be rather more pointy-headed about it: WikiProject Composers doesn't get to decide that "their" articles are exempt from MOS:INFOBOXUSE.

What was then a statement about the "Purpose of consensus" or, before then, one of several "Exceptions" to forming a consensus on a talk page has since been renamed ==Levels of consensus==. Also, ArbCom (and consequently part of the community) has started talking about "global" consensus. I think that has confused people about the point.

"Levels" of consensus could mean the strength of the consensus ("This is just a weak consensus, so..."). It could mean something about the process used ("My CENT-listed RFC trumps your Village pump post"). It could mean whether the consensus applies to the whole site ("We formed a consensus at Talk:Article about the first sentence of Article, so now I need to make 500 other articles match this one"). And it could tell us something about how likely it is that the decision matches the overall view of the community.

It's supposed to be that last one. We don't want a handful of people getting together on some page and saying "Let's reject this rule. This article needs to be censored. Copyvio restrictions are inconvenient. Bold-face text helps people see the important points. And we know this POV is correct, so it should dominate." We want quite the opposite: "The community says that this is usually the best thing, so let's do this."

AFAICT, the overall view of The Community™ is that we think that there should not be any Official™ Rule saying that any subset of articles should have an infobox. We're probably doing this mostly for social reasons, rather than article reasons. For example, every single article about a US President, or atomic elements, or any number of other subjects, has an infobox – but we refuse to write any rule saying they should, or even that they usually should, even though we know the popularity is ever-increasing. For example, at the moment, Georgina Sutton is the only biography linked on the Main Page that doesn't have an infobox.

I suspect that the closest we will come to such a rule during the next few years is a note about how popular they are. It should be possible to see how many articles (overall, or in particular subsets) already use infoboxes, and to add that information to MOS:INFOBOXUSE. For now, we could add a statement that "most" articles have an infobox.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your detailed response.

From what you have said, given that WikiProject composers have to follow MOS:INFOBOXUSE, there should be a discussion on each and every composer's talk page to determine whether an infobox is warranted.

I see this as a bit of a, difficult and fruitless endeavor, as the arguments presented, for either case, are always the same, and they all usually result in stalemates (like the one about Mahler).

What I propose is to change the policy, to, at least, recommend infoboxes on certain categories, given that, as you said, they are very popular. Or at the very least, as you suggest, acknowledge the fact that they are very popular.

When I have time to gather more data on the use of infoboxes, I will propose a new RfC to try to commit this change to the policy.

I am very well aware that my chances of success are slim, but, I'll do what I can do.

Milo8505 _(talk) 08:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, if "they all usually result in stalemates", then that represents a change, because the last complaint I saw about this subject said that the RFCs on whether to add an infobox almost always resulted in an infobox being added. Perhaps it varies by subject, however.

Acknowledging that they're popular shouldn't require a proposal for a change. It should only require getting some decent numbers. Check the archives of WP:RAQ; they probably can't query it directly, but if there's been a request, you'll see what could be done. It might also be possible to create a hidden category for "All articles with infoboxes", automagically transcluded, to get a count on the number of infoboxes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

First of all, thank you again very much for your continued interest.

The discussions around infoboxes (not RfCs, discussions on talk pages) as far as I have seen usually go something like:

- I propose adding an infobox

+ We have talked a lot about that and there are good reasons^tm for which it should not be added

- But I also have good reasons^tm for which it should be added.

(no comments for 4 years, then it begins again).

I thought a bit about counting links, and I realized maybe getting this data is easier than I thought, see:

For counting the number of transclusions to a given page, this tool is very useful, and says that there are around 3.2 million infoboxes in total, and 460 thousand infoboxes about people. (on the (Article) namespace).

Looking in the Talk namespace, there are around two million links to Template:Wikiproject Biography.

This seems to suggest that only around a quarter of all biographies have an infobox? Maybe I was wrong all along in my observation that infoboxes are very popular.

I am however not too sure that the two million links to Template:Wikiproject Biography on the Talk namespace actually corresponds to two million unique biographies.

Maybe another way of getting this data would be better, I'll have to look at it on some other occasion that I have more time.

Milo8505 _(talk) 11:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

How do I contest a deleted article?

An article was deleted, but it seems that it was incorrectly deleted. It was based on a composer and notability was questioned in an earlier version of the article. However, I was able to re-write a new version of the previously deleted article with the song the person composed that is clearly notable. The song has its own article here on Wikipedia. The article was about William Lawrence Hansen. Starlighsky (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This is type of question for the help desk or teahouse.... that said see Wikipedia:Deletion review Moxy🍁 01:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Starlighsky, the note at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Wood (William Lawrence Hansen) suggests working on it for a while and sending it through Wikipedia:Articles for creation.

If you'd like a copy of it, ask an admin to put a WP:REFUND copy into your personal sandbox first (i.e., User:Starlighsky/sandbox). Once you think you've got it in good shape, I'd suggest first asking at a relevant WikiProject to see if you can get an extra set of eyes on it.

Also, have you checked Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library for paywalled sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try that and the library as well. Starlighsky (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

One thing you should know… writing a notable song does not automatically mean the song writer/composer will be considered notable. It certainly helps, but what you really need to find are a few sources that discuss this composer in some depth. Hope you find them. Blueboar (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Starlighsky (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Updating NBAND: Policy proposal

Per this discussion, I am formally proposing an update to WP:BAND, which can be viewed here. The proposal can be voted on here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Should WP:CRYSTAL be clarified?

The article 2028 United States presidential election was proposed for deletion several times (last one). Editors repeatedly cited WP:CRYSTAL, which reads

If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the [[{{#expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} + 4 + ({{CURRENTYEAR}} * -1)mod4 }} United States presidential election|{{#expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} + 4 + ({{CURRENTYEAR}} * -1)mod4 }} U.S. presidential election]] and [[{{#expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} + (2*4) - ({{CURRENTYEAR}}mod4)}} Summer Olympics]]. By comparison, the [[{{#expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} + (5*4) + ({{CURRENTYEAR}} * -1)mod4 }} United States presidential election|{{#expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} + (5*4) + ({{CURRENTYEAR}} * -1)mod4 }} U.S. presidential election]] and [[{{#expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} + (6*4) - ({{CURRENTYEAR}}mod4)}} Summer Olympics]] are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research.

According to this, the 2028 election and 2032 Olympics automatically became valid articles on January 1, 2024, although it is not really clear why that exact date matters. Should this be clarified, and if so, how? ypn^2 19:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The relevant question IMO is why do we need an article on the 2028 or 2032 presidential elections? Any "significant coverage" is just speculation at this point. Until candidates declare, I don't see how articles on either is useful to readers. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic coverage of predictions and speculation about and preparations for the 2028 presidential election that appear in reliable sources is possible and (in at least some cases) due. Similarly things like whether (and if so what) changes to electoral collage allocations will happen, etc should also be easily found by someone searching. Whether that should be on its own article yet or as part of a broader article will depend entirely on the volume of encyclopaedic material there is. Similarly for the Olympics. As soon as we have coverage about the next and next+1 US presidential elections and Olympic games there should be blue links from the titles those articles will reside at when they have articles (e.g. 2036 Summer Olympics was kept at AfD (although moved to Bids for the 2036 Summer Olympics) in November 2022 due to there being significant sourcing about the preparations). I don't think the dates in WP:CRYSTAL should be taken as "there must be an article" but as loose guidelines along the lines of "significantly before this time sufficient information to justify a standalone article is unlikely; it is unlikely there will not be sufficient information for a standalone article significantly after this time." i.e. those dates are the approximate midpoint in the range when sufficient information for a standlone article existing changes from very unlikely to very likely. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Request for comment on the relationship between WP:CRITERIA and WP:TITLEFORMAT

Please see subject RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

We need to fix the admin recall process

Right now only "recall" votes count, and those opposing recall don't count for anything, nor do any points made in the discussion. So 25 quick group-think / mob thumbs-down votes and even be best admmin can get booted. And the best (= the most active) are the ones most likely to get booted. An admin that does near zero will get zero votes to recall. And with a single regular RFA currently the only way back in (which we've seen, very few want to go through) "booted" is "booted". The fix would be to have a discussion period pror to voting, with both "recall" and "don't recall" choices. And then say that the recall has occurred (thus requiring rfa) if over 50% or 60% of those voting said "recall".

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@North8000 Please see Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop, where editors are already discussing potential changes. Sam Walton (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked for something like that but I guess I didn't look hard enough. I hope others look harder than me. :-) North8000 (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how recall works. An admin is only desysopped after the RRFA, not after the 25 signatures, unless they choose to resign on their own. You're asking to hold a vote on whether or not a vote should be held. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that and that is integrated into my comment above. Unless they go through and succeed at an RFA they are gone. North8000 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I've never heard of a petition that lets people sign because they don't support it. And I'll add that between the two recall petitions that were enacted to this point, both were preceded by many, many attempts to get the admin to correct course over the years despite egregious misconduct. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not talking about any particular cases. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

So, the premise of your argument is pure conjecture? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

???? It was from an analysis of it's current structure. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

But you've just refused to engage in a discussion with how the structure has actually worked in practice; hence, conjecture. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The process at the moment does have a certain level of redundancy, with the recall and reconfirmation RFA being separate things. The reconfirmation RFA is even a standard RFA, as it has different criteria for success.

I'm not sure if anything should be done yet, as it's still very early in its adoption. However if the situation occurs that a petition is successful but the reconfirmation RFA SNOWs, it could indicate that adjustments needs to be made so that community time isn't wasted. That speculative at the moment though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The recall petition threshold is not the recall discussion - it is just a check to prevent the most frivolous recall discussions from being held. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

+1 Goldsztajn (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The optics of this look alltogether terrible from my observation. I don't edit much, but I like reading a lot. Every criticism of the recall process i've seen so far just looks like old established admins thinking they might be next and having anxiety about that.

The problem of something like this is that the optics are terrible. If anyone who doesn't know you reads that, the conclusion they will draw will likely not be "this recall process is terrible" and more likely go along the lines of "wow this is a lot of admins who don't have the community's trust anymore and want to dodge accountability".

By being so vocally against any form of community led accountability, you're strenghtening the case for easy recalls and low thresholds, not weakening it.

Specifically regarding Fastily, I'll make no comment on whether or not he deserves to still be an admin or not, I don't know him well enough for that and haven't reviewed enough of his contributions, but the arguments of "ANI agreed that no sanctions were appropriate" sound a lot like "our police department has investigated itself and found nothing was wrong". You have to see how this comes across, it's eroding trust in Admins on the whole project right now. Magisch ^{talk to me} 09:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, if RFA is so toxic that nobody wants to do it, that needs to be reformed. But the recent amount of vitriol towards a process that only kickstarts having to prove that you retain community trust has me convinced that there should be automatic mandatory RRFAs for every admin every 2 years or so.

If, as of today, you don't believe the community would entrust you with admin tools, why do you think you should still have them? The criteria for losing them should not be "has clearly abused them", it should be "wouldn't be trusted with them if asked today". Magisch ^{talk to me} 09:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

As an admin actively working to improve the recall process, my goal is to make it as fair as possible to all parties. That means it should not be possible to subject an admin to the process frivolously while equally making it possible to recall administrators who have lost the trust of the community, and it needs to be as non-toxic as possible, because even administrators who are actively abusing their tools are people and nobody deserves 1-2 months of abuse. It's also incorrect to describe ANI as a police department investigating itself - everybody engaging in good faith is welcome to comment there, regardless of whether they are an admin or not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Thryduulf It's the Administrator's Noticeboard, naturally the vast majority of participants will be either admins or people who are involved in the same work.

I don't think asking an admin to confirm they still retain the trust of the community (the whole basis of giving out admin tools to begin with) is ever really frivolous. The current process allows that at most once a year. If an admin had to stand for RFA every year, that might be a bit too much long term, but really, if any admin thinks they would not pass RRFA today, why should they retain their tools.

Also, the sheer optics of it being mostly (from what i've seen) established admins calling this process toxic are terrible. Anyone who doesn't know anything about this process will see this as some kind of thin blue line mentality in the admin corps - and might conclude that it is time to desysop the majority of old admins to dissolve the clique.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a bunch of recall petitions for the most vocal critics of this process. Magisch ^{talk to me} 11:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I took the stats from the first RRfA to test this theory:

1st RRfA votes

	Support	Oppose	Total
Administrators	48	29	77
Non-admins	71	116	187
Total	119	145	264

Administrators made up 29% of the voters. If being an admin doesn't influence anyone's vote, then we can expect admins to make up roughly 29% of the supporters and 29% of the opposers. But this didn't happen. In the final results, administrators made up 40% of the supporters and 20% of the opposers. We can also look at the individual odds of supporting/opposing depending on user rights. It ended at 45% support, so you'd expect admins to have a 45% chance of supporting and a 55% chance of opposing. But this also didn't happen. If you choose any admin at random, they had a 62% chance of supporting and a 38% chance of opposing (ignoring neutrals). Non-admins were the opposite: they had a 38% chance of supporting and a 62% chance of opposing.

So our next question should be why it was so much more likely for an admin to support the RRfA relative to a non-admin. The obvious answer is of course as you said: admins have a perverse incentive to support here, especially if they're not-so-great admins who know they probably don't have the trust of the community anymore. Also suggested during the RRfA is the comradery that comes from working alongside a fellow admin for so long. I'd be interested in seeing how account age affects likelihood of supporting, but that's not something that can be counted up in a few minutes like admin status. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe it may be centered on the idea that we all make mistakes, and many of us like to think we'd be given a chance to grow and learn from said mistake, instead of being forced through the RfA process again. But I recognize I may be being overly optimistic on that, and that others may not have the same thoughts on the matter that I do. Many admins I've spoken to would simply choose to give up their tools as opposed to go through an RfA again, something I've also considered despite my relatively smooth RfA. I'm also not sure Graham is the best representation of that. I voted support, recognizing that Graham87 has made mistakes, but also recognizing the significant contributions they've made and their pledge to do better. Bluntly, I did so expecting the vote to fail, and wanting to show some moral support and appreciation for their work. There's certainly a psychological aspect involved in it, but I don't think that, generally speaking, those of us who voted support or have issues with the current process are doing so out of self preservation.

There's a lot of numbers that could be analyzed, such as the history of those admins who vote at RfA (whether they often vote support or don't vote at all), but it's hard to draw meaningful conclusions from this small of a dataset. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

On paper, I get that. The thing is, I don't know whether you saw Levivich's comment or bradv's comment, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a less appropriate time to test the "chance to grow" theory than the absolutely deplorable behavior that we saw from Graham for many years with far too many chances to improve. If it were down to me, this should have been a block in 2023 rather than a desysop in 2024. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an admin and I started this thread. I'm all for having an admin recall process by the community in place. I'm also also for a process for course correction by the community in areas where and admin has drifted off course but where the problem is fixable. Administrative Action Review has the potential to become this but that has been stymied by various things. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I think, fundamentally, the problem is that admins have a direct and concrete conflict of interest in this discussion. Of course an admin would be naturally opposed to more mechanisms that might make them lose their permissions, especially since desysops are very rare at the moment.

I also don't really agree that the current recall process is all that toxic. You could get rid of the discussion section, as the recall is only a petition, not a consensus discussion, but that's about it. Magisch ^{talk to me} 18:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course an admin would be naturally opposed to more mechanisms that might make them lose their permissions – I wholeheartedly disagree with this assertion. There's a number of us that fully support a recall process, including quite a few people who have historically been open to recalls. This is an over simplification of the motives of a large group of experienced editors, many of which have legitimate and reasonable concerns about the process in its current form. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Substantially all criticism i've seen so far of the process have boiled down to "RFA is abusive and it's unreasonable to make people go through that again". And yet, instead of attempting to change that, the only suggestions seem to be to support older admin's rights to have their permissions continue being grandfathered in. Magisch ^{talk to me} 19:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry that that's all you've taken away from the vast amounts of criticism given by people. Perhaps consider focusing on whether the process, in its current state, makes sense instead of focusing on older admins. I'm a relatively new admin and I don't support the current iteration of the process. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's eminently sensible to have adminship not be a lifetime appointment, both by the fact that norms change even when people dont, and that I see people in every RFA expressing reluctance over granting lifetime tools. I also think that assuming RFA isn't a big deal regular reconfirmations make sense. IFF RFA is a big deal, then the focus should be on fixing that.

It seems to me that existing admins being immune to having to suffer RFA again has created a lack of pressure to actually make it into a functional, nontoxic process.

Take my opinion for what it's worth though. I'm not an admin nor do I foresee myself ever having aspirations to become one. Magisch ^{talk to me} 19:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Attempting to improve RFA is a very hard problem that people have been working on since before you joined Wikipedia, and are still working on it. I would also say that it is unreasonable to make people go through that again is a mischaracterisation of the views expressed, which are it is unreasonable to make people go through that again unnecessarily, which is significantly different. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I just found out about this discussion, and it looks to me like the same or similar things are being discussed in way too many different places. Anyway, I'm someone who has stated repeatedly and strongly in multiple places that I think the recall process is a disaster, and is beyond repair. And, contra some statements above, here are some other facts about me. I'm not an admin. I opposed Graham's re-RfA. And I played a central role in WP:CDARFC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I would be against it for a different reason: if we allow both supports and opposes, then the recall petition becomes a mini-RfA with the same amount of pressure as the RRfA itself (especially since, given the identical threshold, the recall's result would be indicative of the RRfA's subsequent result). Since anyone can start the recall petition, it functionally means that anyone can force an admin to re-RfA, which is clearly worse.
On the other hand, having a set number of supports needed provides for a "thresholding" of who can open a RRfA, while not necessarily being as stressful. If anything, I would say the recall should become more petition-like (and thus less stressful for the recalled admin), rather than more RfA-like. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The ones most likely to be booted are bad admins who are abusive toward the editor community and who negatively represent themselves as admins. Both of the recalls thus far were just exact examples of that and worked perfectly as designed and needed. The process worked exactly as desired and removed bad admins who deserved to be desysopped. Though I do think the discussion section of the petitions should be more regulated. Discussion should be about the admin's actions and conduct and nothing else. Any extraneous commentary should be removed. Silverseren^C 00:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

When I first started editing Wikipedia almost 20 years ago, I was struck by what, to me at least, appeared to be widespread incivility. Among a number of things which have changed for the better IMHO is an all round expectation that everyone's standards of behaviour should rise (and they have). The admin role breeds a certain "culture" (for lack of a better term) akin to a conservationist, the role is to "protect" Wikipedia from "harm" and I can certainly see why being an admin could be a deeply frustrating experience. However, what has happened, I think, in the attrition of the admin corps, and the turnover in the non-admin corps, is that the generalised culture of "regular" non-admin editors has moved further forward towards less acceptance of a culture prevalent 10-15 years ago. I think also the rise in editors from non-English speaking backgrounds and from the Global South has caused complexities for those with limited experience outside the anglosphere. The statistics above on the vote for G87's RRFA show an interesting split between admins and non-admins, and within admins. Non-admins were almost overwhelmingly (close to 2/3) of the view that G87 had been given an almost exceptionaly long period to improve, had not, and no longer held their trust. 5/8s of admins, appeared (and comments here also seem to confirm this) split between solidarity for one of their own and displeasure with the recall process. 3/8s admins were in alignment with the majority of non-admins. FWIW, I'm not trying to point to some grand schism; A 38/62 admin split on these numbers is not that profound - if just 9 admins had changed their vote from support to oppose it would have been a 50/50 split. To reiterate, I'm not suggesting that there is a great gap between admins and non-admins, but there does appear to be some gap when it comes to generalised views around the expected behaviour of admins. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the divide is not between admins and non-admins but between newer and longer-serving editors (who are more likely to be admins)? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and in effect I was sort of saying the same thing in terms of the attrition of the admin corps and turnover in non-admin corps. FWIW, I do think there are some generalised feelings about admins among non-admins; for example, admins are less likely to face sanction than non-admins. How true that actually is I'm not sure and the point would be that a group of people already tested in commnuity trust (ie RFA) are less likely to breach that trust. However, comments in the G87 RRFA and the strength of the vote suggest there are (wrongly or rightly) widely felt perceptions of disparity. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm currently compiling the data to get some statistics about voters in Graham's re-RFA. I'm a bit less than halfway through so it might be a couple of days before I can present any results. However among the first 113 support voters the maximum account age (on the day the re-RFA started) was 7919 days (21 years), the minimum was 212 days and the average was 4785 days (13 years). I have no data yet for neutral or oppose voters so cannot say how that compares. Thryduulf (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a handy list of all voters for RFA? It should be simple enough to use a WP:QUARRY to find out all details about the voters if someone finds an easy enough scrape of who each user is Soni (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Soni: [2]. Levivich (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's the Quarry query editcount/registration date for Supports, Neutrals, Opposes.

I think about 6 editors were missed by the tool you linked, but it should not change overall patterns much so we can just use this as is. Soni (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

At a quick glance, it seemed like editors with more edits were more likely to support while editors with fewer edits (with one exception) were more likely to oppose. - Enos733 (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Given a single admin action may involve multiple edits, it's not so surprising the supporters' list possibly reflects a group with higher edit counts. Personally, I'd be more inclined to draw conclusions from length of registration rather than edit count. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

my very, very rapid count - supports 35/117 (30%) less than 10 years old, opposes 67/141 (48%) less than 10 years old. In absolute numbers, 10+ year accounts were 82 supports, 74 opposes - actually quite even. What was crucial was younger accounts. It does confirm my sense of gaps between "older" and "younger" generations in regard to perceptions of tolerable admin behaviour. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

the REGIME test

• That any news outlet or source that refers to a government as a "regime" be considered not reliable for facts about that regime, except for attributed statements.
• That a list be kept and updated, similar to WP:RS/Perennial sources

Skullers (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Why do we want to only use sources that haven't noticed that a regime is a regime? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This would, for example, rule out using a significant proportion of reliable sources covering contemporary North Korea, Afghanistan, Cuba and Iran as well as countless historical governments (e.g. Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Franco's Spain, Gaddafi's Libya, etc). This is clearly hasn't been fully thought through. Thryduulf (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, it might have been thought through if the idea is to exclude sources critical of said regimes, eg Activist takes own life in protest at Iranian regime (BBC). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

That would be a gratuitous failure of NPOV. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

In heated agreement. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Bad idea. A biased source does not mean unreliable. See WP:BIASED. However, it is indeed good indicator that a in-text attribution may be needed. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this does get at something which is a problem in Wikipedia. It just doesn't quite hit the mark. And that is that there is a core assumption in Wikipedia's handling of news media sources that they are largely independent and that a deviation from editorial independence represents a deviation from best practices. However this often leads to Wikipedia simply assuming the biases of the New York Times and other major media outlets. But there has been an accumulation of multitudinous issues - one of the most recent being accounts of Jeff Bezos influencing the Washington Post to withhold an endorsement of Kamala Harris - that demonstrate that the idea of editorial independence is frankly quaint.

This, of course, then creates problems with adjudicating those sources that have previously been demonstrated to be non-independent (see for example WP:XINHUA) as the rationale on Wikipedia for treating Xinhua differently from, let's say, the BBC or Al Jazeera for that matter largely depends upon the assumption of independence of those outlets that are not aligned with enemy states of the US/UK hegemony.

My personal opinion is that the use of news sources on an encyclopedia should be far more limited than it presently is as, in my case, it's not that I trust Xinhua (I don't) but that I don't trust any media outlet to produce material appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. I don't think a "regime" test is going to improve the quality of pages that over-rely on news media. But I would suggest that it's another indication that Wikipedia needs to be far more critical of what news sources we depend on and in what contexts. Simonm223 (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

No, editorial independence is not the reason for a source being considered reliable or not. Many sources are biased, or influenced by specific governments/interest groups, and are still considered reliable for topics other than the groups influencing them (in which case, by definition, they would not be an independent source). A history of disinformation (actually making up stuff, not just reporting it in a biased way) pushes the source towards being considered unreliable.

WP:XINHUA, which you link, demonstrates this clearly, stating There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. In the same way, we shouldn't rely on the Washington Post for topics related to Jeff Bezos. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The example I gave wasn't one of a story about Jeff Bezos or a topic related to Jeff Bezos unless one contends (which, I will grant there's a case to be made) that anything to do with a US election is ultimately about the interests of the Billionaire class. But, you see, that's my point. Pretty much any media outlet will distort truth, spread disinformation or, at the most basic, bury stories that aren't to the interests of their handlers. And I do want to stress that the stories that are not covered is a key method through which media occludes truth. The only real question is whether the handler is a politbureau or a rich guy. I don't think one of those is better than the other. Simonm223 (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact that a news media is influenced to not publish a story makes it biased, but not unreliable. Having a point of view when reporting (or choosing not to report) stories is what every media does, and is different from outright making up disinformation. And that is the difference between bias and unreliability. It's not about who the handler is, rich guys can also own unreliable news sources. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean we certainly agree about that rich guy. I just think Wikipedia is too fast to treat news sources as reliable out of convenience rather than any real confidence in the quality of information. Simonm223 (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Simonm223. I just can't understand why an encyclopedia should be largely based on news sources rather than peer-reviewed academic articles or books. For a start most of them are primary sources, by any definition other than Wikipedia's. This is dumbing-down at its worst. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, yes. Simonm223 (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, out article on Donald Trump and Joe Biden for example would do better citing academic sources than news outlets. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

See the definition (specifically 2(c) and 2(d)). Regime is a synonym for "administration" or "government" (when used to describe, as example, the Biden administration or the Tory government). It makes zero sense whatsoever to block sources who use a synonym for administration just because one person feels it has negative connotations. Wikipedia is not the place to practice redefining words or limiting their use based on their worst definitions or connotations. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Prescriptivism is dead. See examples. There is zero percent usage in modern times that isn't derogatory; literally no one says unironically "our regime", "the regimes of our allies", or "regimes we'd like to do business with". Skullers (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree in as much as "government" would always be a better term in any use case I can think of.

However, your polemics here have been consistently superficial and unhelpful. It seems almost self-parody to aphorize "prescriptivism is dead" amid seeking to categorically deprecate sources based on the sole criterion of whether they use a particular word, citing what you feel is the only correct definition of said word in practice. Remsense ‥ 论 09:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The attraction of the word "regime" to headline writers is often that it is simply shorter than "government" or "administration", rather than anything to do with its connotations. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)