Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 123

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197

WP:Common name and fictional characters solely or mostly known by their first names

I started a WP:RfC that is stunted, presumably due to the bickering and WP:Too long; didn't read nature of it. It concerns fictional characters that are primarily known by their first names (or rather solely known by their first names to the general public). In cases such as these, is it best to go with the official full names or with the sole name and a disambiguation to assist it (if the disambiguation is needed), such as in the case of Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)? In the case of Faith, she is primarily known simply by that first name, and it was only years later that her last name was revealed and used for subsequent material. It's a similar matter for The Walking Dead characters at the center of of the WP:RfC I started; see Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion. And in some cases, their last names are only revealed in the comics or in the television series, meaning that the last names may be known in one medium but not in the another, and that the only way that readers would know the last name is if they Googled it or heard it on television via an interview. So we are commonly left with this and this type of wording that is commonly altered or removed. And since general readers do not know the full names, they won't be typing the full names into the Wikipedia search bar. So if The Walking Dead character articles are to have their full names in the titles of their articles, what does that mean for character articles like Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)? WP:CRITERIA states, "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."

I ask that you consider commenting in the Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion to help resolve this. Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding lyrics to songpages?

Hello,

Why don't we add lyrics to song pages? It seems like something we could do. Firstly is there any policy preventing this? Considering the amount of sites that do it (genius, azlyrics, metrolyrics...) it could add information users are looking for when they lookup a song. I think lyricwikia has had some success doing this. If there's no policy preventing this, I'd like to discuss adding lyrics to song articles.

Jakesyl (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Jakesyl, Unless the song was published prior to 1923, the lyrics are most probably under copyright. We have a policy against posting copyrighted content except in very limited ways. Quoting a few liens to discuss them is proper, quoting the entire lyric usually is not. Many sites violate copyright in such matters. DES (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
As per DES's comments, it would be a copyright violation for the vast majority for modern songs, some much older songs do have the lyrics on their article though. -Euphoria42 (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Did a little research. It does appear this could be a violation of copyright. Is there any policy on not posting lyrics for public domain songs? Also does any policy prevent editors from linking to these sites? Jakesyl (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:ELNEVER might be the answer to your question about links. -- GB fan 01:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

So, linking to genius.com would be okay because it is fair use for “for purposes of commentary and criticism."? Jakesyl (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, I haven't heard about that project before! What about using genius.com as a source? Jakesyl (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Best as I can tell, Genius does not have a license to publish song lyrics (they are claiming fair use). This would be a problem. Instead, we'd likely encourage the use of a site like MetroLyrics which does have proper lyrics republishing rights. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

More talk page rules

Talk pages should be allowed to be used only for communicating about wikipedia, not to day "hi" or "I am Bob" or anything unrelated to wikipedia. It should also be considered a violation to delete warnings from your talk page for that can make it harder for administrators or other users to track prior abuse. CLCStudent (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

CLCStudent, some latitude is allowed as we are humans, not robots. For newbies, "Hi, I'm Bob" is a plausible first edit and we definitely don't want to WP:BITE them for that. For veteran editors, there's likely some minor chit-chat going on on their talk page or in the archives. As for warnings, they're not badges of shame. Any competent admin will check talk page history and most recent change patrollers will do the same. --NeilN talk to me 21:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I oppose for all the reasons given above. There’s no need for scarlet letters, and while completely off-topic conversation is (and should be) unacceptable, people should still be allowed to interact as people to a reasonable extent. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Editors should be working on articles, eliminating vandalism, resolving disputes and other activities that helping Wikipedia run smoothly. Policing content on user talk pages, as long as it isn't libelous or defamatory, is at the very bottom of the list of important things to spend ones time on. Plus, it will just cause resentment and animosity among editors which is not good for editor morale. Finally, I think more rules like this proposal create an atmosphere of bureaucracy and control which discourages new editors from contributing to the project. Liz Read! Talk! 13:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
It would not only discourage new editors, it would discourage old editors (of both years and years spent working on this encyclopedia) and women as well. I'm all three of those. I am retired and I consider my work here a form of community service work that replaced the paid community service work I used to do, and my talk page is my "office". I'm a woman and I like to chat. It makes my work here less stressful as sometimes happens when disagreements over article content comes up. And it makes my work here more fun. Sometimes we've discussed birds we've seen...and butterflies...and such. Who should care if it is something that we find joyful? People who don't like it don't need to read it. The day that someone starts policing my talk page and Wikipedia gives them support is the day I'll find other ways to spend my retirement community service time. Gandydancer (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
A reasonable amount of off-topic interaction, on user talk pages where no one else needs to read it, can encourage collegial collaboration, can help put a metaphorical (or indeed literal) face on a contributor, and in short can benefit the project. What harm does it do in any case? Would such a rule prevent me from posting my picture on my user page? Would it prevent general advise or discussion I ahve from time to time exchanged with those I have met here? Indeed would it prohibit announcements of meetups where no actual Wikipedia work would be done? And who is to enforce such a policy and on what basis? I strongly oppose such a proposal. DES (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:SNOW? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Expand BLP policy around coverage of mass shootings?

The Umpqua Community College shooting is the latest mass shooting. Increasingly, these shooters are referring to previous shootings (this one mentioned how Vester Flanagan achieved notability virtually forever for spilling blood). Vester Flanagan, in turn, praised Seung-Hui Cho and others. Flanagan chose his pistol based on the make used by the Charleston church shooting shooter (we helpfully provide make, model, caliber). These details are newsy during the shooting and immediately after but quickly fade into cruft. Most people don't need to know exact details such as date of birth (age is sufficient). Even their name is not particularly relevant to their act (and why many articles aren't biographies because of BLP1E). News fades with time and eventually we are the top google hit with biographical information that rivals famous politicians, actors, sports figures, etc. Is this causing harm by anthropomorphizing a shooter from a newspaper flash of notability into a 3-dimensional character that these shooters identify with? At what level should we shut down details? ODMP.org chronicles the line-of-duty death of police officers and manages to cover them all without mentioning the name of their killer. Is it time for a policy/guideline that limits crufty details that these mentally ill shooters are latching on to but rarely provide necessary information past the first few days? --DHeyward (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we're giving too much credit to the perp where it's due. As a starting point, an equal, weighted focus on perps and victims in articles sounds like the most recommendable scenario to me, since info on the victims' personal lives is almost never covered while some info on the perp is needed for informative reasons. Versus001 (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I am very partial to a consistent policy in which photographs of recent killers are not used.
I don't think the material should be removed completely. In the aftermath of the Columbine High School massacre a lot of conservatives created moral panics over children who listen to music and play video games. Note that all across Australia and the UK there are thousands of kids who have grievances, are single, have mental health issues, listen to punk rock and indulge idle fantasies of killing people - but there are no school shootings.
The popular "conveyor belt" model of radicalisation says that people take part in political/religious activities, then become more "extreme", then become violent. This is deeply dubious, and is strongly disputed by academics who argue that radicalization is a range of processes that often involve people with a violent desire to oppose Western governments looking for political ideologies to attach their "cause" to.
In Australia a 15 year old boy shot a police worker. An article on radicalisation notes "more and more young people being radicalised are attached to the violence first, rather than religion. Anne Azza Aly "Ten years ago older men were attached to ideology and immersed in the religious aspects first. Now more and more young people don't appear to have an intense ideology they have only a superficial attachment. They are driven by anger and violence."
The Umpqua killer, killer, Chris Harper-Mercer, shared pro-IRA propaganda while not being a Catholic - this is important, because it means that he is attached to violence, not ideology with the IRA.
When a Muslim carries out a mass shooting in a Western country, many commentators say that this was the result of a "conveyor belt" that pushed them towards "extremism" by preaching in a mosque - and arguet hat new mosques should be banned. Other academics note that people who have grievances in society - such as rejection by their peers in school - are more likely to attach their violent impulses to a political agenda that justifies violence (eg IRA, jihadism) - and those academics argue that banning mosques or restricting Muslims will create increased social greivances with more Muslim school students isolated/rejected by their peer group. Academic coverage of the motives of killers serves a legitimate purpose in exploring that issue, and one "side" of that debate should not be censored based on a misapplication of a vague "don't discuss the motives of killers in a way that could be misconstrued as glorification" rule.
Killers often have long and self-contradictory manifestos that could be cherry picked by people with political agendas to advance unrelated political causes. Often a killer's manifesto will give away obvious mental health issues, and some distorted understanding of a political agenda into a justification to mask their violent impulses. Political activists often cherrypick quotes from a manifesto in order to advance a pre-existing political agenda - eg, one of the Columbine shooters wore a shirt with a band called "evolution" on it, and creationists argued that teaching evolution should be banned from schools (others said punk rock should be banned) - Anders Breivik said in his manifesto that he was a cultural Christian - and left wing secularists said it was "proof" that Christians are violent, others said that playing "World of Warcraft" 7 hours a day made him commit violence - feminists ignored that three Asian roommates were killed in 2014 Isla Vista killings and argued that "pick up" advice should be banned on the internet because Elliot Rodger hated women.
Chris Harper-Mercer included the word "satan" in his manifesto - something that Christian right groups are sure to make extensive note of. The fact that he was "conservative, republican" on a genuine dating profile should be included so that people don't go on moral panics against music, games, the teaching of evolution in schools, or liberal political activism.
There is a wider, legitimate purpose, in coverage of what "radicalization" means and how a youth can be "radicalized".
There was a WMF survey of controversial content related to the WP:CENSOR rule - this is a justification for including contentious content:

Wikimedia Projects serve the Information Needs of Individuals, Not Groups "it is important to note as essential the principle that Wikimedia projects exist to serve individuals, as individuals, in their full autonomy, and consequently, the projects, as a general rule, do not and should not consider as legitimate censorious demands by institutions, of any kind, political, commercial or voluntary claiming to represent those individuals, or making demands, which, in the community’s opinion, represent only their own interests"

Contentious content that serves legitimate information needs, should, in my opinion, be kept, in that it will inform legitimate questions about how modern, decentralized internet can inspire attacks or promote violent ideologies. -- Callinus (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Note, there's a paper here that makes the case that media publicity of one school shooting increases the likelihood of another. -- Callinus (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Some common sense is needed, that is all. Wikipedia is not censored and it is necessary to name the gunman and give some details about his background in order to have a proper understanding of the case. Over at the talk page of the Umpqua shooting, I mentioned this BBC News article which takes a look at the issues involved.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I question the informational need of detailed, personal information. Note that gun suicides are never covered by journalists even though half of all gun deaths are suicides. There doesn't seem to be an outcry from individuals that details regarding suicides are not publicly released. Do we need to enshrine a birthday of a murderer when an age provides all the necessary information? Which amount of information is necessary for individuals: A)"a legally purchased semi-automatic pistol" or B) "a legally purchased Glock semiautomatic pistol" or C) "a legally purchased .40 caliber Glock semiautomatic istol" or D) "a legally purchased Gen 4, model 22, .40 caliber Glock semi-automatic pistol"? We went with "D." Vester Flanagan used that level of detail to purchase the same pistol as was used in the Charleston church shooting. I don't think we lose much information by not creating conditions of fame. I don't think these people are copycats, rather they are mentally ill and are looking for ways to be relevant and give meaning to their lives. News organizations don't publish suicides precisely because they don't want to create the scene of open grief that may appeal to those suffering from depression and suddenly see a way to have others made aware of their level of pain. In that sense (and in BLPs) WP is indeed censored. --DHeyward (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a lot of gun experts (I'm not one of them) and they do tend to be precise about what gun was used, rather than simply saying "a gun". This level of detail can irk some people, but it is relevant in some cases. After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, there was a debate about whether Nancy Lanza's extensive collection of weapons was too heavy duty for a civilian to own. Also, Adam Lanza was not the registered owner of the guns but had somehow managed to get his hands on them. It is necessary for the Wikipedia article to mention this rather being coy and saying that Adam Lanza shot the victims at the school with "a gun" which is not very informative.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
As an encyclopedia it's Wikipedia's duty to present information, not to muck around in politics or policy. If some people feel that publicizing bad things and bad people who do bad things only encourages them, that's too bad. That's the nature of knowledge. If we started going down that road about everything bad in the world that we felt shouldn't be given a podium by talking about it, we would descend into censorship. The personality and motivation of the perpetrator, including things like publicity-seeking or delusions of grandeur, are often relevant to the crime. We cover it not for its own sake for morbid curiosity or to be precise, but because sources deem it worth covering. Detailed information about the victims is less often relevant, but can be. The "wall of victims" approach that newspapers sometimes take isn't always encyclopedic, though, and that would fall into NOT#MEMORIAL. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agree with this piece of wisdom right here. If anything, this means Wikipedia isn't the root of the problem, it's the ethics of modern-day journalism. Versus001 (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
But we don't. There were as many people killed with guns in Chicago this week as was killed in the Oregon shooting. There are as many solo suicides with guns (many of them teenagers) that we don't cover at all. And the reason is the same reason why BLP protects privacy: it does harm when we don't ignore it. The news is smart enough to know that show a suicide teenagers grieving family and friends can create the impression on other teenagers that suicide is an effective means of communicating their depression. "Hey, that family finally understands how much pain their child was in! I want my family to understand." The media knows suicides are clustered even when the group is small and publicity is only word of mouth. We know not to share this broadly because the disservice and harm far exceeds any benefit of being public. For these mass shooting, the event is notable but each of them in turn are referring to more and more details of previous shootings and incorporating them. We aren't a snuff film and we should limit details the same way we limit details in BLP's. --DHeyward (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Time to drop the suicide comparison. Suicides aren't covered because they don't sell newspapers or TV advertising. Similarly, movies about killing others outnumber movies about killing oneself by probably 50 to 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
It's honestly not the same thing, though. We're talking about a mass murder committed by one individual in an area where such an act is completely unexpected. You're comparing it to a string of mostly unrelated shootings in cities where the crime rate is high and shootings are extremely likely to happen (and therefore, probably expected). Now, we could create an article listing each and every shooting that's happened in Chicago and all the necessary details to boot. But guess how long that article would be? And what about the details provided for every individual shooting? It sounds like a pain to make. Probably why the media doesn't provide a consistently updated list, or why no one has bothered to make one at all. Versus001 (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
No, the press doesn't ignore suicides because commercial reasons any more than they redact the name of sexual assault victims or minors. They have a standard and policy not to cover them. I would hope we would refrain from naming those victims as well. I'm not arguing to eliminate the event, just the details that are not particularly relevant except to the next admiring nutball that creates a tribute to the other ones. Third one in a row where very detailed information was gleaned and used. These events shouldn't be their venue to 15 minutes of fame enshrined in the encyclopedia. --DHeyward (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with omissions on relevance grounds, in fact I support that. I do have a problem with omissions for purposes like avoiding copycats, especially when you're on this page advocating a policy change. As to current event articles, we're here to reflect society and inform people, not effect social change. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Really wish I knew what that press standard and policy was. Also, WP:DUE comes into play. Versus001 (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see how this relates to BLP. In some cases it's possible the victims' families may want some privacy, which they'd be more entitled to than the killer's. Like it or not, society has an interest in naming killers. I am not a fan of withholding information which is out there, but we can present it in ways which are a better. I'm reminded of a very pertinent comment about infoboxes here, about an article revision here. Form your own opinions. In the infobox in this article about this mass shooting, we list the precise types of weapons before the number of victims. I think this would appeal to the weapons-fetishists. I'd support removing it from the infobox entirely and restricting the weapons to the article text. These details can be important - in the Hungerford Massacre for example the details are still relevant. However they should not be the headline. They should not be listed like "stats for a character in a video game". -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see a need to change BLP policy, or indeed any policy, here. We do not and should not censor otherwise encyclopedic information for fear of inducing "copycat" crimes. It may be that if we didn't include the exact model of gun used, a future killer wouldn't select the exact same type of weapon. But that doesn't say that such a future killer wouldn't select some type of weapon, and go ahead with a crime. Whether to place such details in an infobox is a judgement call. Personally i think that infoboxen are currently overdone, and only the most obvious and basic facts should be included in them, but obviously others disagree. DES (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

On a more procedural point. In many cases the people involved (including the murderers) are no longer alive, so I do not see how this could ever be covered by changes in WP:BLP which is about biographies of living persons. So if we want to do something about reporting of such atrocities, in my view BLP is not the place. Arnoutf (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

As discussed at WP:BLP, it may also apply to recently-deceased individuals. DonIago (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Recently deceased people are covered by BLP. Alo, breaking news stories are considered primary sources. Finally, our BLP policy should help keep live people from becoming dead people, not the other way around. --DHeyward (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
While the extension of BLP to recently dead makes sense, adapting the core of BLP to cover issues that mainly involve recently dead would go too far in my opinion. Probably another policy may be better suited. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Finally, our BLP policy should help keep live people from becoming dead people, not the other way around. - I believe BLP is about live and recently deceased people that we write about, not world population in general. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability

Are mass murders notable due to the victims of mass murder or due to the mass murder himself? I don't think Wikipedia should be promoting mass murder by only mentioning shooters and not their victims. 174.16.197.18 (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We are mentioning the victims, only by their names as organized in a list and a couple of sentences if necessary. Otherwise, I concur. Versus001 (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
On a side-note, there is an identical discussion going on above this one (started from the same mass murder article, nonetheless), so I will remove the section name and merge the discussions. Versus001 (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

(section name edited out because its topic is identical to the discussion above)

I would like Wikipedia policy to clarify whether mass shootings are notable enough to warrant an article due to the shooter or due to the victims or due to general amount of news coverage recieves and not due to any specific quality of the event. I would also like policy regarding the amount of information regarding victims and the shooter should be included. Isn't it common sense to establish a rule of equality that if a piece of information, such as a birthdate or political leanings, are included about a shooter that the same information should also be included for each of the victims, especially if these are being widely reported on in the media? 174.16.197.18 (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

This is being discussed in the section above.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Such crimes are notable due to the presumably shocking and comparatively unusual nature of the event, but (on Wikipedia) particularly due to the amount of coverage in reliable sources. That, after all is the primary reason why anything is notable here. As to a parallelism between coverage of killers and victims, it may seem superficially logical, but generally it isn't. The killer is central to the event, without the killer and the killer's particular motives, it wouldn't have happened. But when, as is often the case, the killer selects victims more or less at random, or at random from a particular group then the details about those victims are not central to the event. Details about the group the killer targeted, if any, may be. Some information about the victims is relevant, but not to the degree and level of detail that is usually given about the killer. Of course in cases where the crime is target-specific, this all changes. Also, victims (who did not choose to be involved) and their families have more of a right to privacy than the killer does. DES (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to point me to the policy where this is is explicitly laid out? Or is this more of an unwritten policy? 174.16.197.18 (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:DUE and WP:UNCENSORED. Versus001 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think either of those really does it. I would also like to find the policy that talks about a relevance filter, and this has been bugging me for some time. It's an important element of editing, it's used routinely (albeit not routinely enough), how can it not be written down somewhere? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, but these two were the ones to be brought up as examples for the Wikipedia policy for detailing mass shooters, so I thought they would do the trick. Versus001 (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that WP:IINFO where it says "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" is relevant, albeit not precisely what Mandruss is looking for. DES (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, WP:NNC where it says: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." looks well er relevant here. DES (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
One point: all breaking news stories are considered primary sources. There are virtually 0 reliable, secondary sources available for days and sometimes weeks after the event yet we still write articles and point to these primary sources. --03:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I've long been in favor of a one-month delay on creation of these articles (shootings, plane crashes, etc), per NOTNEWS. Editors who get off on playing newsroom editor could go work at Wikinews. But good luck getting any significant traction for that idea; it would make too much sense, and inertia is too strong a force. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please unprotect Wikipedia:Reference desk/humanities page !

Resolved
 – Request copied to appropriate board by requester. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I can’t reply to messages. 2A02:8420:508D:CC00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is the place for this sort of request. Tevildo (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Comicbookmovie.com: User-generated source for exclusive interviews?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Comicbookmovie.com: User-generated source for exclusive interviews?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC - should we allow primary sources sent in to OTRS

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
WP:SNOW close. There is consensus that primary souces cannot be submitted through OTRS for verification - OTRS agents instead need to cite a reliable source when making changes to personal information, or remove it completely if incorrect/unsourced. Thanks all for participating. Mdann52 (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey all,

I'm starting this discussion as this issue does affect this site. Recently, there has been some internal discussion within OTRS about what to do when subjects send in copies of primary sources (such as scans of passports or driving licences), and whether these can be used to source information such as dates of birth on articles. The main areas of dispute is whether such documents fall under WP:SOURCE as unpublished, or whether it makes sense to WP:IAR and add them. Of course, any such uses can be verified at WP:OTRSN. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


Should we allow subjects to submit documents via OTRS (eg. passports) to verify/change content in articles?

Support

Oppose

  • Scans of passports and driver's licenses cannot be used as reliable sources as they are easily doctored and fail WP:BLPPRIMARY, regardless of whether they are presented on or off Wikipedia. OTRS agents have never had the remit to override community policies while carrying out their work, The majority of tickets regarding concerns about incorrect information in articles or other disputes direct the editor back to community discussion and consensus (with the obvious exception of blatant BLP violations and vandalism). I believe that the role of the OTRS agents handling quality queue/BLP tickets is to review and evaluate the concerns and then provide advice based on our policies, not to be a super editor with the ability to overide consensus and core policies. If there is consensus that we should be able to use scanned documents sent via OTRS in BLPs, then I urge that at the very least the scans should have to come from a verified email address of the subject or their representative, not generic email accounts.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • By themselves no, only valid as corroborating evidence where information sourced elsewhere may be disputed. All info on wikipedia has to be verifiable by READERS of wikipedia, and a scan of a passport is not verifiable by readers as we cant host a copy of primary documents for obvious identity theft reasons. Which means no one except whoever has OTRS access would be able to confirm it. If however there are multiple dissenting sources, a primary source provided through OTRS which corroborates info should be okay. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This violates WP:V and WP:PRIMARY. Wikipedia must strive to get it right, but as a secondary source, we cannot be the clearinghouse for primary sources as well. Traditional publications must be the means for publishing and correcting information. We can correct or omit incorrect sources and information, but we can't become a primary source for information ourselves. Subjects of articles generally have access to blogs, twitter accounts, etc., which can be used to post information, which can then be cited by Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose in all cases. WP:OR requires published sources. If reliable secondary sources (or self-published info for uncontroversial common details) can't agree on a fact, Wikipedia shouldn't use unpublished information as some kind of "backup" solution. The correct approach in such cases is to either include all viewpoints from secondary sources in due weight, or none if the issue is too complex or questionable BLP information. GermanJoe (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I doubt any relevant individual is qualified to verify the authenticity of a document issued by a government or similar institution. Scans and copies even more so. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Quite aside from the fact that this would mean including information that by definition is unverifiable in reliable sources, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging anyone to upload any remotely sensitive document to the WMF's servers, which are not the most secure in the world. Over the years, there have been some industrial-grade whackos who've managed to get OTRS accounts. ‑ iridescent 17:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose both as per the reliability issues listed above and the security issues mentioned below. Moreover it is unneeded. If the subject of a BLP article wants his or her DOB to be public, s/he need merely include it on a bio page of a personal website, and could confirm that the site is his or hers via OTRS if needed. Such a posting would be an acceptable source for a DOB as per WP:SELFPUB and WP:DOB unless the date is controversial, as it rarely is, and would have some weight even then. DES (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mdann52, can you give an example of when this would be needed? Sources must be published, but published primary sources, including self-published sources if written by the BLP subject, are fine. If the birthdate of a BLP is wrong, and for some reason editors won't accept that person's word, all she has to do is self-publish it (e.g. on a blog, Facebook, Twitter). Per WP:BLPSPS, an SPS is an acceptable source for a BLP if published by the subject, if nothing contentious hangs on it, and so long as it doesn't contain material about third parties. Sarah (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Having already experienced this here Talk:Randy Quaid#Birth Name of Randy Quaid (and I still think WikiP got "punked" in this situation) avoiding WP:V should be avoided. As others have pointed out this has WP:PRIMARY problems as well. MarnetteD|Talk 18:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agreeing with the above. A scan is not a reliable let alone published source WP:RS. Therefor unacceptable. Arnoutf (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This proposal is contrary to WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA, which is one of the WP:FIVE pillars. An encyclopedia is a summary of what is already published. An encyclopedia is not a place to share information which is not published. If the information is not published in a WP:RS then best to leave it out of Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per all concerns regarding reliability, security, and fraud. Czoal (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Verifiability, not truth. If the information can only be accessed by/through OTRS, then readers can't reasonably access the information, and it does not meet our verifiability requirements. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We may know with 100% certainty that the DoB on the passport is correct, but the standard is verifiability and not truth. This means that the information may be challenged, and then must be supported by a verifiable source. Specifically, per Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source: "Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is made available to the public in some form. Footnote 6 reads "This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see." OTRS archives are not verifiable per this, so even if the passport is a reliable source (which it may well not be in the age of Photoshop), its non-verifiability means that it cannot be used as a source once challenged. -- Avi (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose In addition to the well-made points above, I am constrained to note that responding volunteers have no special training or competence in assessing whether the credentials supplied are in any way genuine. I easily can envision changes to a BLP supported by such a document proving to be damaging to a subject and embarrassing the enWP. Given this and the many other problems, I do not see the advantage in doing this. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for the same reasons already mentioned by others: scans can be faked, WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - as an OTRS agent, I already feel somewhat uncomfortable with the cabal-like nature that some queues are predisposed towards. Allowing secret sources available to a select few is moving in the exactly wrong direction, both for Wikipedia policy and for OTRS. Storkk (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This violates WP:V and WP:PRIMARY. OTRS agents must keep with the Wikipedia's policies too. Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra talk 18:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC).

Comment

  • While all of the above content-policy-based points are true, the most important reason that we should not under any circumstances advocate the submission of these documents is the personal security of the article subject. Passports, drivers licenses and similar documents are absolutely not suitable for submission to Wikipedia. They contain vast amounts of personal information, and in certain countries there are legislated penalties for use of the documents outside of their primary purpose, or alternately legislated penalties for requesting or even permitting the use of such documents outside of their primary purpose. We also have no means to ensure the security of any such information, which places the project and the article subject at risk. This is a major security issue. Risker (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
    • This has unfortunately happened at least a few times where subjects have voluntarily sent scans of documents to say something is wrong on the respective articles. If something is unsourced here, all they have to do is ask to have it removed, but most people don't realize that. —SpacemanSpiff 18:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to echo Risker's point. On several occasions, someone has sent in a scan of a drivers license, thinking they have to prove who they are for some reason. We cannot guarantee the security of our system. If they send it in of their own volition, that's on them, but if we ever encourage it, we might open ourselves up to problems. If we do anything, we ought to add to our OTRS training material that we should never ever ask for such documents.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to echo Risker's point as well, using these documents on this site could invite forging and other misuse. These documents may or may not be transferable to any other peron or entity anyways and people might just print these documents off the computer if they were to be put on here. Sam.gov (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think a major snowstorm is approaching. Czoal (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mdann52: How about an alternative idea: Those wishing to provide such material can self-publish the information, then use the OTRS process in combination with some other means, such as a notary public or similar "strong legal document," to verify that 1) it was really them that published it and 2) the published document does in fact match the underlying legal document. Note - I'm not advocating discussion this at the PUMP now. In any case, the end result would be no stronger than self-published material from a source that is considered "reliable when talking about itself," which is a concept we already have at Wikipedia. It should NOT be considered "super-authentic" (notary public affidavits can be forged and Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of verifying a supposed notary's credentials - at least not until notaries start publishing government-signed public keys AND they start signing their documents with those keys). I am advocating taking this - along with the other arguments in the discussion above - back to the OTRS team for internal discussion before any future idea is brought back here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Czoal. For the record, this discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with the original question, which originates in OTRS ticket #2015100510009382.
The relevant question is whether Wikipedia contributors need to show courtesy to subjects of Biographies of Living People (BLPs), when
a.) there is no reason to assume that biographical data given or documented (albeit off-wiki) by the subject itself, such as place or date of birth, are incorrect, and
b.) there is no publicly available, verifiable information that says otherwise, and
c.) the inclusion of incorrect, poorly sourced or unsourced information may be detrimental to the person in question.
Quite obviously, the Wikipedia community at large first and foremost has an obligation to present verifiable information, but within that parameter the "Assume good faith" doctrine mustn't be forgotten, as has been the case here.
There may also be a legal aspect to this: In this case, the Wikimedia Foundation has been informed that information publicized about a BLP subject is incorrect and may be inadvantegeous to that person's professional and/or private life. A refusal to make amendments or changes to incorrect data that may be hurtful or damaging to that person is imprudent at best, possibly negligent in a legal sense. (I would be interested to hear the legal department's take on this.)
I feel that is a relevant question that begs to be discussed, not the one up for debate here, which, again, is highly irrelevant. Asav | Talk 20:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Just for the sake of clarity, Asav, when somebody writes OTRS, they are not informing the Wikimedia Foundation. They are communicating with volunteers. This is the reason behind the disclaimer on the bottom of every OTRS email. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and OTRS is obliged to hand the matter to legal in certain cases. The fact that OTRS volunteers are just that does not relieve them from any obligation to show prudence in BLP matters. Any user who contacts OTRS will assume that the foundation is involved one way or another and the matter will he handled responsibly. "Insiders" may know the nooks and crannies of this system, but the common user cannot be expected to do so, bottom disclaimer on our e-mails notwithstanding. We've both been handling these matters for so long, I think we should agree on matters that concern common courtesy and common sense as well as editorial prudence. Asav | Talk 20:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
We should remove information we know to be incorrect, regardless of whether or not it is properly sourced (see, for example, Talk:Meek Mill), and if we need to make that more explicit, I would support a wording or policy change in that direction. But this change goes much further, to allow the original publication by Wikipedia of unpublished information. Gamaliel (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This is my thought as well - I can see an argument for removing info which is found to be inaccurate, but not for allowing people send us "proof" of information that is either not covered in available RS, or which contradicts what available RS say, and have that inserted into a BLP. That seems like a slippery slope that we really should not start down. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • davidwr your proposal would still not provide a reliable source, since the information is now self published and not independently published by a third party source WP:USERG, and in any case not available from a source outside Wikipedia. By uploading materials to Wikipedia and using it as source the verifiability would become circular WP:CIRC. Also considering all the discussion about privacy above, we may run afoul of privacy laws by using such information without it being explicitly allowed by the owner of the information; and of course the ethical issues of privacy issues mentioned above. This would be a potential time-bomb that may lead to serious fines (talking millions if not billions of Euros as the EU is currently fairly strict in enforcing its privacy ruling on internet) and thus put the whole project at risk (as Risker mentions in the first post here). We should not even want to touch this stuff with a ten foot pole. Arnoutf (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mdann52: In light of Asav's comments of 20:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC), I recommend withdrawal of this proposal, going back to OTRS do determine exactly what it is they want or need that they don't have now - if anything, then - if necessary - come back here with a proposal that 1) has the clear support of the OTRS team and 2) has a decent chance of getting community support. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • davidwr, I don't believe OTRS is planning to form clear support outside of the project impacted by a decision. That's not how it works. :) I took part in the email thread that prompted this RFC, and I think it accurately reflects the issue. Specifically, can a scan of a document mailed to OTRS be used to source personal information, such as a birth date, about the subject of an article? This is not a policy User:Mdann52 is proposing - it's a debated question he's seeking resolution for. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It does not reflect the issue at all. The issue is whether the Wikimedia community has a moral (or possibly legal) obligation to try and set right a problem caused by unsourced misinformation posted on one of its sites, as such misinformation is known to rapidly propagate further. To assume that faulty BLP information spread through Wikimedia has no impact at all on personal matters is naïve at best and negligent at worst. That's the case at hand.
This RfC is about a completely different issue and a waste of time. It's not even worth voting on, since the outcome is given. Asav | Talk 01:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The core issue here is whether the documentation submitted by the BLP subject - a private document - to OTRS can be used to verify content on our projects, Asav. That's the core. It has nothing to do with removing faulty or unsourced information, but replacing it with material presented privately. Of course, article subjects with websites have a pretty simple way to publish their birthdates if they want the content included. It's not a "this or nothing" situation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have already corrected incorrect information of this kind. We are not here to spread misinformation; that would make our encyclopaedia worthless to our users. When a BLP article is found to contain incorrect information, even when reliably sourced, it must be corrected per WP:FALSE. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    • What do you mean when you say you have already corrected incorrect information of this kind, Hawkeye7? :) That you've corrected information sourced to such unpublished documents? Or that you've used unpublished documents to support BLP information? It's a little unclear. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
      I was approached by an athlete who was frustrated that her article had her date of birth incorrect, causing her great embarrassment. Many competitions are based on age, which is why athletes' ages are published in the first place. A typographic error had been made by an otherwise reliable source, which had then been picked up and spread about by other sites, including Wikipedia. The error was corrected, with the source in the article shifted to a site that had it correct. WP:FIVE: All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [Aside: the email template currently in use on Commons which OTRS volunteers encourage people to use when sending in statements of permission and which I've been working on polishing up currently says, "if you are releasing a work that is not available online, you may be asked to privately provide evidence of your identity to the OTRS volunteer who processes your statement". I should probably start a different RfC to reconsider THAT, but Gawd, these things sometimes seem to explode so.] KDS4444Talk 00:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Word to watch RfC: consistent use of "stampede" in crowd disasters

I started an RfC in the W2W talk page because we have overwhelmingly applied "stampede" to events in non-Western, non-white countries (70-83%, depending on method), but we use other words ("disaster" or "tragedy" for instance) for the great majority (87-90%) of identical events in predominantly white, Western countries. There are reasons for this disparity (mainly the usage in RS). The English definition of the word "stampede" is also at issue. The question is whether we should continue to rely exclusively on RS usage to determine our own usage if the result is racially biased and/or incorrect. This important and emotional issue arose on the talk page of the 2015 Mina stampede, when a close minority (6-8) prevailed in a RM discussion to change the name. The closer was correct - addressing this "on a one-on-one article basis" is problematic. The usage problem is system-wide. Dcs002 (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

What to do about unsourced/lightly sourced information contradicted by primary sources / users connected to the subject of the article?

So there's a problem I've been struggling with for a while: on an article, there's some information that I know to be false, which appears in one secondary source. That information is contradicted by the primary sources on the topic, but due to WP:V (and the expanded essay on the subject at WP:NOTTRUTH), it can't be corrected (secondary sources trump primary sources, including published ones, I think). Additionally, I have a COI on the subject (because I'm involved with it, I personally know what the truth is, in addition to the primary sources backing me up). This is causing problems because people keep on citing Wikipedia on the subject, causing misinformation to gradually spread (and me to have to repeatedly correct it wherever I see it; quite problematic given that errors in Wikipedia are meant to be corrected when you spot them!). Ideally I'd like to just blank the section, or place a disclaimer explaining that the source is incorrect, but I'm pretty sure policy disallows that at the moment.

I was looking through the {{request edit}} list and noticed a very similar situation. Another user is trying to get some misinformation in an article corrected. The user in question has provided some primary sources as evidence for the correction, but also has a COI. According to the instructions at Template:RE/I, I (as an uninvolved editor) should deny the edit on the basis of lack of proper verification, but this seems to be ridiculous in this case (especially as it's unlikely to make the article worse).

As far as I can tell, it would be useful to have a policy to be able to deal with this situation (although it might potentially cause trouble on more contentious articles; the articles I'm currently thinking about are both pretty much conflict-free). WP:SELFSOURCE is a decent start, but I'm not sure if it's sufficient to allow removal of "more reliable" sources that happen to be incorrect. Likewise, I'd like consensus that published WP:SELFSOURCE information can be added (via {{request edit}}) even with a conflict of interest, if the information is otherwise uncontentious, NPOV, not misrepresented, and in context (i.e. all the normal requirements for making a COI edit other than the secondary source requirement). My current reading of policy is that neither of these are possible, but both situations seem sufficiently absurd that they're worth changing (and I don't particularly think it's advisable to ignore the rules on COI-related issues). --ais523 22:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources do not necessarily trump primary sources. It depends on the nature of the information and the nature of the sources. So it should be discussed on the article's talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. In the case in question, the articles have relatively low-traffic talk pages (due to being rather uncontentious). I wonder if WP:BOLD would apply in that case. (At the moment, I'm leaning towards approving the other user's edit request, and using {{request edit}} for mine with a link to this section.) --ais523 23:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:IRS is not a suicide pact. It is never acceptable to include unverifiable content, but verifiable content can be removed if there is consensus that it is inaccurate or undue. Take a look over WP:Inaccuracy as well. Rhoark (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with new non-notable person pages

Having spent some time in the "articles for deletion" (afD) section lately, I've noticed the extent to which the editors involved are deluged by the creation of new non-notable person pages. As the WP:PEOPLE guideline is one of the few notability guidelines I find well-conceived, concrete, and evenly-applied, I think it deserves a better process to go with it. The present process deprives non-person topics of the attention and discussion they deserve in the AfD arena.

Probably the most obvious way to fix this is to require that articles regarding persons go through the "articles for creation process" (AfC). Certainly, notable topics in other areas of knowledge are "born" more quickly than notable human beings, and most people simply are not notable in an encyclopedia sense. Already, new or anonymous users may not create new articles (despite the lengthy and condescending questionnaire they're put through before being told they can't). So it would not seem like a stretch to not accept notable people without a discussion over creation first. The real issue with a policy idea like this is if it will represent something of a "slippery slope", where a practice such as this might spread to other topical areas and make Wikipedia more closed than it already is. But I doubt any other topic on Wikipedia, save news and politics (which seem to be in good hands just now) will represent a problem of this magnitude.

I would love to hear from others who have had similar (or different) experiences and anyone who might care to crunch the numbers and quantify the precise size of the person-submission problem.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because you can't see why someone is notable, doesn't mean they are not. Case in point: When Deanna M. Mulligan was created, it was quickly posted on her talk page "what makes this page needed?" The user couldn't see at first why she was notable. The article was built up from there and the problem went away. It isn't always obvious why someone's notable until the article is done. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl That's a very good point. But I think the development you describe could happen in an AfC discussion, draft article, or userspace and develop until it's been agreed upon. Though as I mention in a discussion on this page, I've seen some really nasty behavior with pages from AfC, where after an extensive discussion agreeing to add something, it's deleted without a thought by "patrollers". That could probably be addressed by having pages with positive AfC outcomes be immune from deletion for a time. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
You're right: I have seen plenty of AfD's lead to improvement, but I don't think that's really the forum for improving articles. The nasty behavior you've seen is driving people away. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Resurrect some MOS consistency policies

The Manual of Style page Wikipedia:Consistency has been declared inactive. However there should be some policy to deal with inconsistent definitions such as the following: (my paraphrase followed by the actual text.)

In the opiate article: Opioids includes opiates.
In the opioid article: Opioids excludes opiates.

The actual text... (emphasis mine)

In the opiate article: The term opiate should be differentiated from the broader term opioid, which includes all drugs with opium-like effects, including opiates, semi-synthetic opioids derived from morphine (such as heroin, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxycodone, and oxymorphone), and synthetic opioids which are not derived from morphine (such as fentanyl, buprenorphine, andmethadone).

In the opioid article: An "opioid" is any synthetic narcotic not derived from opium.

The only talk page response to my post seeking a consistent definition was: "Actually Wikipedia doesn't need to settle on a consistent definition.... [I]f authoritative sources use both definitions, we should give both of them and explain the range of usage: that's the function of a neutral encyclopedia."

I can agree with the second part with qualifications. There should some MOS policy directing that a consistent primary definition be used across related articles and the secondary definition(s) be mentioned second such as, "X is sometimes defined as" or, "some authorities define X as" or else be placed as a footnote.

What I fear will happen—in this case—is that each article will make their existing definition primary and provide the other's as their secondary definition. This may serve the views of the editors but still confound the audience. To illustrate this in a more bizarre fashion, the editors at opioid may say: "opioids excludes opiates; however the Wikipedia opiate article uses the alternative definition that opioids includes opiates" and vice-versa at the opiate article. Further, imagine the mess if certain parts of the opiate article would be transcluded in opioid or the reverse.

I know of no encyclopedia that would allow opposing definitions in related articles. There must be consistent primary definitions. Some MOS policy should exist that editors may use to justify such consistency. I don't want to fix this and end up in an editing war or be seen as a trouble maker without such a policy to back me up. Box73 (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to concur that the Encyclopedia is improved if articles do not directly contradict each other; and note a previous suggestion by Gamaliel that In general, secondary articles should echo the characterization and consensus of the main article, though I am not sure which of the two is primary here. I also note that Opioid is not even internally consistent on this point (see contradiction tag at end of the lead). - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I just deleted the word "synthetic" from the opioid definition. The very next sentence refers to natural opioids. That might help a wee bit. Dcs002 (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ryk72 for your feedback and noting the internal inconsistency in the Opioid article. Where do I find the comment by Gamalie? My sense is that articles or parts thereof (sometimes) tend to become "owned" by certain editors and the bigger subject matter suffers. Yet by the lack of response on those talk pages these editors/"owners" must be sleeping.
Thanks Dcs002 for the fix. You are right. I think they included synthetic to distinguish substances like oxycodone that are synthesized from opiates, but synthetic (synthesized from) is different than derived. Further the way it was written actually alludes that oxycodone would be an opiate. Lastly, various endorphins are considered opioids but aren't synthetic.
I'm surveying pharmacology/medical texts, PubMed and some credible web sites seeking the best primary definition and how the secondary definition might be treated. All things being equal, I am leaning toward opiates being a subclass of opioids. IMO there should be one term to cover all; for example, should we talk about "opioid abuse" or "opioid and opiate abuse".
Elsewhere, I am struggling with the term "substituted amphetamines" (SA) replacing the common term "amphetamines", justified by reducing ambiguity with "amphetamine". The term isn't widely used, when used it commonly refers to ecstasy etc., except among toxicologists and a few Wikipedia editors to whom it includes amphetamine. SA is (too) esoteric and worse it creates confusion when readers move from Wikipedia to outside material—a reverse ambiguity. If you Google the term "substituted amphetamines" it is over-represented by Wikipedia/Wiktionary and web pages copying greater Wikipedia. In this sense Wikipedia isn't conveying but is promoting.
Regarding opioid/opiate, ie, conflicting encyclopedia definitions, should, and how would, such an MOS policy be considered or created?
Lastly, please comment on the following and tell me if a policy exists supporting it: "[T]here's no reason for a template to exist solely to transclude a table to 2 articles". It would seem unreasonable to do so for one article but otherwise I am not aware of any minimum. Box73 (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Curbing hasty deletionism

Again, spending some time in the "articles for deletion" section has left me feeling that the process by which articles are initially nominated could use further examination. While I don't wish to spark an inclusionist/deletionist flame war, it has been my observation that many editors engaging in "patrolling" mark pages for deletion within a timeframe that is implausible and inconsistent with any stated guideline. Perhaps I'm slow, but it takes several minutes to glance at the page, peruse the sources, click through the Google/Scholar/News links on the AfD page, and so on. Yet many pages I've found marked for deletion have been "patrolled" and tagged for deletion with 2-5 word explanations in well under 3 minutes (some under 2!).

To make matters worse, only the really conscientious editors return to answer user questions or rebuttals. Often, the user is left with no answer to what the 5 word, mostly acronym-ridden response they've got means and then suppose (often correctly) that new pages in Wikipedia are deleted as a matter of course and left for other editors to sort out. I'm sure that in years past, a hundred things have been tried and discarded; I'm not conversant with any of the history here. But I do feel there ought to be a discussion of how to show a little discernment and restraint with new articles -- particularly given the issues Wikipedia has keeping editors. Blowing a user's page out of the water with a bunch of WP:x links practically as soon as they've been typed is antithetical to Wikipedia's overall goals.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed... there is too much Speedy Deletion going on and the worst is the reason that the article does not indicate notability. Sometimes the user hasn't had the chance to finish editing the article before a speedy deletion tag is put on. Also, the speedy deletion tags are VERY intimidating to new users. I think that's often why they are used: some editors are trying to intimidate newbies, IMO. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl I'm assuming you mean speedy deletion in the sense of quick thoughtless deletion by editors, not the actual "speedy deletion" process which is, at least in my brief experience, somewhat rare. I think the admins are suitably wary of speedy deletion processes. I would be very curious to see a list of time between creation and deletion of new pages in the last month or year. Perhaps I'm just in the developing topic areas of Wikipedia, but it seems to me as if that time is minimal (2-3 minutes many times) -- certainly not enough time to perform WP:BEFORE. If only deleting articles was as byzantine and bureaucratic as adding an image.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
If we are here to "build" and encyclopedia, then tearing it down certainly doesn't seem to be the way to go about that. I honestly cannot understand why people prefer to mark delete rather than try to improve the file. If they don't know enough to know how to improve it, they should not be allowed to nominate files for deletion, IMO. The difference between weight of a source and length of a source is misunderstood my many. It seems to me that there are many who want to wield power without accepting any responsibility for content. SusunW (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you give an example of something that's been deleted which you don't feel should have been? While there are some trigger-happy admins, they're a vanishing breed, and in my experience most things which are deleted are deleted for good reason. ‑ iridescent 18:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Please note that WP:NOT is there for a reason. It is a policy that has been refined through the years and it is helpful in keeping article creation focused on building an encyclopedia. Remember that WP:UNDELETE exists for any deleted articles that deserve a second look. MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, yes, I want to be clear: I agree with WP:NOT and following GNG. However, I'm saying that articles are "prodded" very quickly--too quickly to give the article creator time to finish their work. While some cases are very obvious, others are not and we seem to not be giving the benefit of the doubt often enough. In addition, we are driving away potential contributors by discouraging them through speedy proposed deletions. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Not that many people make it to WP:REFUND after a prod or over hasty speedy delete, but it does happen now and then. Do you think we need an edit filter to stop nominations for speedy delete too soon? Or should we just warn and block the nominators if they don't change their ways? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Re Do you think we need an edit filter to stop nominations for speedy delete too soon?, absolutely not. If the entire contents of a page is "fuck fuch=k fuck lol", there is no legitimate reason for the page not to be tagged immediately, and if the page is a libellous attack page Wikipedia would be grossly irresponsible not to provide a mechanism for deleting it the moment it was spotted. ‑ iridescent 22:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Well certainly for attacks, vandalism and perhaps copyvios, speedy nomination is sensible. But I am thinking of A1, A3 and A7 where the problem could well be in the process of being sorted by the creator by further editing. A filter could quite easily detect these kind of nominations. Another idea would be to encourage patrollers to work from the end of the list. Since a lot of things are slipping by unpatrolled. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@Iridescent: I think here and there, we've conflated "deletion" with "nominated for deletion." In my initial statements, I'm referring to the nomination process. From my very limited experience on AfD, the admins would appear to be a fair-minded and considerate lot (one even noted the implausible time between creation and nomination). But as the current AfD lists show, no one can keep up with the deluge of nominations that comes in (see my notable persons idea above).
So if I might read your question to ask "which articles have been nominated for deletion that you disagree with," I would have to reply: nearly every non-person article I've ever seen in AfD. Now, that's not to say some of them shouldn't be deleted eventually, after confirming that someone followed WP:BEFORE, or (gasp!) after engaging the creating editor. But the process of page creation by some innocent soul, an immediate (w/in 1-3mins) deluge of tags and a nomination from "patrollers," no responses to inquiries by the creator, followed by a series of bracketed acronym discussions in AfD, is gravely irrational. Worse, it makes Wikipedia and its editors appear essentially arbitrary and capricious, as we bandy about terms like "notability," as if it were some universal, in topics as diverse as web forum software, rare birds, musical groups, TV shows, and condominiums.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
It is a pet hate of mine to see an article slapped with A1, A3, or A7 mere minutes after creation, when the creator is a newbie. Such taggings usually become self-fulfilling, because who'd stick around when their initial good faith efforts to contribute are vandalised by drive-by tagging? Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC).
@Lankiveil: You know, I never thought of it that way. The tagging and drive-by deletionism that happens 1-3 minutes after creation really could be considered vandalism, especially since it's generally done by people who explicitly know better. The real trouble is that the patrolling of new pages has turned into delete every single new page and let the chips fall where they may.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

some sentences to be fixed: WP:PCPP

Hi, guys. I just noticed that at WP:Protection policy#Pending changes protection(oldid=683730676 as of 2015-10-02), there are some awkward sentences that doesn't sound like English. Allow me to quote:

When a page under pending changes protection level 1 is edited by autoconfirmed user, the edit is visible to Wikipedia readers, however when editing a page under pending changes protection level 2 or there a pending changes, the edit will not directly visible, until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the pending changes reviewer right.

I'd love to fix it, but unfortunately I'm not an admin or someone who knows these policies a lot, therefore dare not. I'll appreciate it if we see it amended.

Besides this particular issue, I think the whole guideline (section of PCPP) is vague.
First of all, I can't figure out what is level 1 and level 2---at the least, which colour of lock do they refer to, white or orange? In the "further information" of WP:Pending changes(oldid=684410885 as of 2015-10-06), we only see a definition of level 1 PC protection, and level 2 is "no consensus" (I just found the obscure footnote!); by Ctrl+F there're only a handful of the word "level" appearing.
Secondly, the guideline is not clear overall, about who edits at what protection and what happens; and who can review. It's written in such a tedious way, and I guess I'm not the only one that's lost. Maybe that table at WP:PC (main article) is sufficient, but that doesn't help improving the quick guideline intro at WP:PP.
I hope someone could resolve this. :) -- SzMithrandir (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Primary source guidelines on census pages

Official WP policy on primary sources is "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Yet pages on the U.S. Census do just this since the document speaks for itself largely. However, comparing the 1930 United States Census with the Polish census of 1931 we see two censuses using a similar methodology of not counting ethnicity in the population treated in very different ways. One is exclusively based on the primary source, and in the other we are having issues of claims of improper usage of the primary source and the need for a secondary source to report it. See related discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Polish_census_of_1931 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931 I am therefore requesting some clarification on the policy which I believe should be amended to note that when the census or a similar document from a national government is the subject of a WP page, that the official census questions and reports should be used to accurately report what was originally published, and then a related section should contain criticisms and controversies, etc. I just don't want the original report to be censored in any way by critics unhappy with government recognition of linguistic, religious, or ethic groups recognized, (or implied), in the census itself.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Some topics are just as well covered by primary sources as secondary sources, or maybe even better if the secondary sources are out of date. For example, some of the more obscure symbols in Lists of United States state symbols may be best supported with references from official state laws or proclamations rather than relying on possibly-outdated, restricted-access, or hard-to-obtain newspaper articles or other secondary sources. When it comes to bare facts drawn directly from Census reports, I don't see anything wrong with using primary sources. If policy is getting in the way of writing a good encyclopedia, try to change policy. If it's a one-off thing and you are 100% sure you are doing the right thing and that no reasonable editor will disagree, WP:Ignore all rules, which itself is policy, is there for you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Just a note: When a government collects information for a census, the forms where each person's information is collected is a primary source. When the government issues a report summarizing all that data, the report is a secondary source. Please see the definitions at WP:PSTS for more info. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  04:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Why would a census be treated differently from any other other scientific study? Survey-based research is common in the social sciences. For example, if I wish to study attitudes towards ethnic groups by university students and publish the results of my study, my published paper is a primary source. A peer-reviewed additional party reviewing my study would be a secondary source. The surveys that people fill out in a census (or in a sociological or psychological study) are the raw data. Per policy: " a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment." So, the paper itself (equivalent to the government report) is the primary source. The surveys that people hand out are the raw data for that study. Secondary sources are academic works that review and discuss the census. Also: "Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents." When a government released census results, that government's report is a primary source. When another party examines that data and the government's original report - we have a secondary source. Here is how a secondary source is defined: " It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[5] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[6]". So the research paper in the field (such as a census) is a primary source, the review article or book discussing this census is the secondary source. More: [1]: "In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source." So the Polish government's census publication - the first publication of the census results - is the primary source. Academic works analyzing, discussing, reviewing the government's report are secondary sources. Faustian (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Why ask why? It is. The practice here on WP is to cite directly from the census, likely because people want to know what the census reported. You want to censor these results because you don't want to admit that another ethnic group known as Ruthenians was in the region and prefer to believe various conspiracy theories about the census and its enumeration which have not been substantiated by a notable demographer or statistician. The fact remains, if Faustian is right, then the rest of WP's censuses are wrong. The page on the Polish census of 1931 has much more commentary and discussion from academic sources than does the 1930 United States Census. Maybe you should see if anyone agrees with your policy ideas on that page?Doctor Franklin (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The idea that a separate ethnic group known as "Ruthenians" different from Ukrainians was about 20% of the population in regions such as Tarnopol is a bizarre fringe belief that you are trying to push, against consensus, by engaging in OR using the Census. Thus, your repeated claims that the census in a secondary source and, due to lack of consensus, your forum shopping in various places such as this one.Faustian (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing some sanity to the contention that a published national survey is a primary source, rather than merely the survey forms. As you will see from the debate from another editor on the OR board, reason disappears when people have emotional attachments regarding ethnic issues. This policy should be clarified by a rule/definition specifying that the published census is not a primary source, and accurate translations are not OR. It will avoid many problems as WP expands to such subjects.Doctor Franklin (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
According to the fine print, " Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires..." WP:OR The policy needs to be changed to reflect existing practice, per common sense.Doctor Franklin (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a minimum age for editors?

I can't remember where to find it if there is, but I found an acct that self identifies as a 14 year old. Legacypac (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No. But see WP:Child protection for advice to give them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The advice for young editors page is at WP:YOUNG. The child protection page linked above is actually about how to handle suspected stalkers and pedophiles, not a good idea to show the young editor that. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Why not... I would think our young editors should know how to report problems when they encounter them. Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Child protection is linked in the second para of YOUNG. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

File:T.S. Eliot, 1923.JPG (Turned thumbnail into link. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC))

In 2003 the UK National Portrait Gallery acquired a collection of albums of photos, mostly taken by Lady Ottoline Morrell. The photos were subsequently published on the NPGs UK-based website.

If a work was published outside the US after 1 March 1989 in a country that is signatory to the Berne Convention (the UK is), then the US copyright term is 70 years after the death of the author.[2] Lady Ottoline died in 1938. Are the photos taken by Lady Ottoline now in the public domain in the US?

One of Lady Ottoline's photos is this one, of T.S. Eliot and a friend. (The friend has been cropped out in this version.) I've searched the internet, including Google Books and all of Ebook Library's holdings for Eliot's and his companion's names and can find no proof of publication of this image prior to the NPG's post-2003 publication. An editor has said I need to prove the image wasn't published before 1989 or it will be deleted from Wikipedia and the nine articles presently using it. I'm not sure how to prove that.

Your thoughts are welcome at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 October 15#File:T.S. Eliot, 1923.JPG. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Are software changelogs acceptable?

WP:NOTCHANGELOG tells us to avoid describing software updates using primary sources, yet we have longstanding article sections and entire articles devoted to doing just that, listing new features and other changes (or just copying the official description), often without any citations. Examples include the tables at iOS version history, Adobe Photoshop version history, Palm OS#Version history and technical background, and until a few months ago every article listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox One system software—even MediaWiki version history.

Does NOTCHANGELOG need to be updated to reflect practice? Or are these listings unacceptable? If ignoring this rule improves the encyclopedia in all these cases (in every case?), why have the rule at all?

(In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll say I’ve been attempting and advocating to “clean up” the console OS articles to comply with this policy which I am now questioning. I’ve also started a WP:Help desk discussion that may be rendered obsolete.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with WP:NOTCHANGELOG as it stands now. The reason why we ask for secondary sourcing is not because the primary source is unreliable, but because not every little bugfix is notable. If an article in a notable magazine mentions that Frobozz3D finally got the shader that everyone's been waiting for, then maybe it's worth including— in prose, of course, not in an unstructured list. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I think some of those lists are rather structured, actually. But for the record, I agree completely, and I don’t think we should use lists for this at all. Ideally to me, every mention of any new feature, fix, update, etc. would be given in context with why it matters; we say Frobozz3D got that shader everyone’s been waiting for, and we cite a source that says everyone’s been waiting for it, or else we don’t mention the shader at all. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Exactly; you said it better than I. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Lists and tables are often the best format for the kind of changelogs allowed by "Not exhaustive logs of software updates", i.e. those using reliable third-party sources. When the amount of text from the source that can be used to describe one release is a short sentence, a table can be easily scanned to find out the dates and numbers of each release, while writing the same in prose would fall prey to the "wall of text" effect; so structure in such cases is a very good thing. Prose is best when each release gets at least a paragraph with analysis and commentary from one or several sources, describing its relevance and impact.
In any case, that does not need to be an either-or proposition; when there's enough coverage by third party sources to get a comprehensive (which is not the same as "exhaustive", and which should be the target of every changelog we write), we can have both the table as a "timeline-like" summary of the software history, and a prose section for the details. Diego (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Documenting the changes of a major software program as noted by secondary sources does fall into the scope of an encyclopedia, but we have to avoid the indiscriminate nature of what full-on changelogs can be. Of the three articles given above, the Adobe and Palm OS seem to be reasonable distillations of the more critical features added/bugs removed in the individual version, as covered by secondary sources. The iOS one on the other hand lacks that distillation, simply reiterating the changelog likely published by Apple (and republished on third-party sites) without discrimination, which is why we have WP:NOT#CHANGELOG on WP:NOT. I don't see a need to change policy given a few outlyiers like the iOS one. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Diego Moya and Masem: Changes are listed without sources in these articles, though… and when sources are cited, they’re not suitable (both the Palm and Photoshop version histories, for instance, cite the company’s own official descriptions or deadlinked press releases sparingly and almost exclusively, which NOTCHANGELOG says not to do at all). Also, is it enough for us to say simply that a change exists, without context or any indication of weight? And Masem, I think you missed the links to MediaWiki version history and all the console OS articles (though recent revisions of some of the console articles are much better about this). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is good, and that means we don't exhaustively list changes in software in the style of a changelog. That has nothing to do with what types of sources are used to support statements in an article. So my !vote would be to kill the proscription of source types in favor of stating the real guideline: We discuss changes that are relevant to the topic, we don't list every one. That means we'll probably want to be including analysis that isn't going to be in the changelog to be cited, but we could still validly cite the changelog for e.g. a sentence about what the change actually was or the specific date or version in which it was made. Anomie⚔ 20:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I could support that. It wouldn’t be my preferred outcome, but it would be better than the inconsistency we currently have between policy and practice, which was my target in starting this discussion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
There's no reason not to use primary sources alongside secondary or third-party sources to develop summarized software revision lists - things like actual release dates, internal numbering, etc. are all good pieces of data that primary must provide. It's just that secondary sources should be required to provide the distillation of the change log and decide what are important parts than to let editors guess of just the primary. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Proposal: How about discouraging lists of changes within update tables? Version numbers, release dates, codenames, etc. are tabular data, thus tables work well for them; changes between versions should be discussed in prose (preferably in some depth, if merited), because if there’s no reason to describe them separately from the table in prose, describing them in the table gives them undue weight. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I would point to Slackware as a good example of using changelogs as sources without it being an indiscriminate collection of information. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    Slackware#Releases is also a good example of what I proposed immediately above; it lists the version information, but no changelogs. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    While that example is certainly in line, I think that saying that one can't include a brief summary of major changes (at major or minor version numbers but no deeper) can't be included as well. We're talking a one or two sentence description, nothing like lists of notes that are included with changelogs - the more prose-like, the better. Optionally following a table like this, one can highlight the major changes in prose sections, using what secondary sources have pointed out. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    And indeed, Slackware does exactly that, in the history section. Only the really important changes are listed, and the descriptions are as brief as possible -- and Slackware has a lot of history to choose from. The key here is allowing usages like Slackware while forbidding usages like the ever-popular "document every tiny change in loving detail" that we have all seen on various pages. So my question is this: do our current policy pages make this clear, or can the wording be improved? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    By my read, WP:NOTCHANGELOG explicitly forbids (as much as consensus-based policy can) the sort of (collapsed) tables at iOS version history, and explicitly encourages the approach taken by Slackware. I don’t see how it could be worded more strongly. Maybe we could stick some examples (good and bad) in there? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The policy does not forbid sourcing from changelogs, rather that articles should not contain exhaustive lists of changes. A change can be described and sourced to a change log if there is consensus to do so. (That consensus will of course be much more likely to form when there is secondary sourcing.) Rhoark (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    @Rhoark: As presently worded, it does exactly that: “Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources …” (emphasis mine). Maybe something else was intended and the wording got mangled? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    I see that as an overly-prescriptive explanatory comment. Similarly to the trouble[3] caused by the appearance of the world "reliable" at WP:OR. The question is a matter of reliable sourcing, not in WP:NOT's wheelhouse. Rhoark (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    @Rhoark: Interesting. Would you say then that WP:NOTCHANGELOG does not reflect consensus, even contradicts it? Makes me wonder how it came to be so, if that’s the case. I agree that it seems prescriptive, but I also agree with the prescription, as compliance with it makes better-written articles more likely. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the consensus so far is: tables of changelogs are fine, and sourcing them to primary sources is fine, so long as the changes are briefly summarized for each entry; and prose discussing important changes in depth, with independent reliable sources, is to be encouraged. If this is so, then WP:NOTCHANGELOG should be rewritten. Any objections? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The intent of WP:NOTCHANGELOG is not to prevent us from mentioning product changes, nor to prevent us from citing changelogs when appropriate ... the intent is to prevent Wikipedia itself from becoming a change log. In other words... we should limit ourselves to only mentioning significant changes... and to omit mentioning minor changes.
The language currently used makes much more sense when you keep this in mind. The only way to know if a given change actually is significant enough to mention (or not) is to see if the change is mentioned by someone outside of the software company itself. My take... we need independent secondary sources to establish that a given change is significant enough to mention... but once that is done, it is perfectly appropriate to use a primary source (such as a change log) to flesh out the details of the change. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to propose a change to clarify the policy’s wording. Should I do so here, or in a new section (a new RFC?), or on the policy’s Talk? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

On the use of "deadnaming" in discussions

Related to the MOS:IDENTITY revision in progress, I've seen editors strongly criticize other editors for "deadnaming". See this User_talk:Checkingfax#Warning discussion for an example. The very use of the word seems to be a presumptuous accusation of bad faith. Clarification on how to deal with style guideline violations along with our policies of BLP and AGF should be made. Choor monster (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Choor - could you explain what "deadnaming" is. I have never seen the term used before, and I am not quite sure what it refers to. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Deadnaming is referring to a trans person by the name they were assigned at birth after they have changed their name. This term is used whether the action was deliberate or not, as the birth-assigned name is "dead" to that person, and potential harm is caused by the action regardless of intent. Funcrunch (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar, here is an op-ed piece on piece on deadnaming I came across today (you have to disclose an email address to read it). Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} { Talk } 21:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree that the mere use of the word amounts to an accusation of bad faith. It's certainly debatable whether and how the concept applies to our work in building an encyclopedia, but let's not shut down that discussion by outlawing vocabulary. If an editor is clearly making accusations of bad faith or otherwise behaving problematically, we can respond to them as always: shrug off what you can, try to engage constructively where possible, report when necessary.--Trystan (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I have only seen it used as a pejorative. It certainly sounds like a pejorative in my uninvolved experience, and I presume many others would take it the same way.
I'm not calling for any outlawing. I just think it should be handled like "troll" or "sock" or other accusations. Very carefully, and never in a shoot-first-ask-questions-later manner, per AGF. In the linked-to discussion I gave above, the use of "deadnaming" seems to have poisoned the discussion immediately, and it is this that I am objecting to. Choor monster (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
As you say, you have "uninvolved experience." I am a trans person and I have direct experience with this. Saying that "deadnaming" is a "pejorative" in the way that "troll" is implies that there is some value judgment on the person taking the action, rather than on the action itself. The point is that regardless of the intent, deadnaming a trans person can cause them significant harm. Funcrunch (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
You have missed my point entirely. I am not discussing the issue of editors using birth names—that's the discussion going higher up on this page. I am discussing the question of editors being criticized in a manner that can and will easily be taken as an accusation of bad faith harm-causing. You are speaking as someone familiar with the word and its nuances. I am speaking as someone not familiar. I expect the majority of uses here on WP will be by someone familiar against someone unfamiliar. Choor monster (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Some words/phrases (Troll, Kike, Fag) are of such a nature that any reasonable person would know that they are offensive. Others (Oriental, Dwarf, calling a trangendered person by their former name, calling a member of the Nation of Islam by their former name) are offensive, but there are a lot of people who don't yet know that the words/phrases are offensive. In such cases, we should AGF and gently let them know that another words/phrase is preferred rather than firing up the flamethrower first thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your general observation (Guy). The question here is whether using the term "deadnaming" to describe an instance of [the phenomenon that "deadnaming" describes] is a "flamethrower" or just a term for the phenomenon. I can see how someone unfamiliar with the term might think it was pejorative, but then, I also see people object to "misgender" and "misname": "grr! who are you to tell me that you think gendering/naming someone a certain way is incorrect (mis-)?!" Banning the terminology that is used to describe a thing handicaps efforts to discuss and respond to that thing, and I'm concerned that attempts to deprecate "deadname" will turn into attempts to deprecate "misgender" and "misname". Moreover, in the same way that some people may be unfamiliar with the term "deadnaming" and/or may object to the terms "misgender" and "misname", other people may be unfamiliar with the notion that they are anything other than descriptive terms, so an assumption that users of those terms are imputing bad faith would itself be an assumption of bad faith. -sche (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Which is why we ought to have some guidelines on this.
Meanwhile, I have not called for "banning". I think it should be treated like other hot-word accusations. For example, "trolling" should never be the first choice of accusation, and most experienced editors handle this language restraint well. Choor monster (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The term "deadnaming" is fundamentally different from the term "trolling". It's generally impossible to be certain whether another user is being disingenuous or sincere, so whether or not it's correct to describe something as "trolling" is generally subjective. In contrast, it's possible and straightforward to objectively determine whether someone has referred to a trans person by a former name, an action which may be referred to as "deadnaming", "misnaming", or "misgendering". If someone uses a word like "deadnaming" and then also assumes bad faith, the second of those things is a problem, and existing guidelines already cover it. Perhaps "deadnaming" should be avoided as much as any word people are unlikely to be familiar with (the point of communicating is to communicate), but I'm unconvinced that we need a guideline on it. Do we have a guideline on using the word "trolling"? -sche (talk) 05:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You are correct that there is a fundamental difference, but I don't think it matters. The point is we have essays (not policy/guideline) that strongly discourage calling trolls trolls, vandals vandals, and so on, and these get cited rather regularly. For very good reason. I believe that on Talk pages, name usage in violation of MOS:IDENTITY should usually be referred to as I just did earlier in this sentence. Slightly wordy, slightly clumsy, but toneless and impersonal in a way that pins the focus on the edit. Using the various neologisms is giving someone room to take it personally, to play the etymology card and say what the terms "really" mean, to trumpet their political incorrectness, or similar on-line behavior that we all know and hate.
To clarify, I have no objection to people regularly using these neologisms on the dramah boards, say to report on an outbreak of deadnaming somewhere. Choor monster (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Parallel discussion on transgender authors in citations

There is a discussion I started here on the question of how we should refer to transgendered authors in citations. Citations are different, they serve a reference purpose. I see no particular reason why they should have the same policy as MOS:IDENTITY, nor a reason to apply different criteria based on which article the citation is made in. I think it would be a good idea to have some agreement on this before whatever conclusion is reached regarding MOS:IDENTITY gets applied willy-nilly to citations. Choor monster (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, MOS:IDENTITY does not apply to citations. A citation should always use the name that appears on the cited source itself. This is so readers can find the source should they wish to review it. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
As indicated at the link, there are more questions, related to the fact that often enough, multiple works are cited under different names of the same author. Or a book is reprinted using the changed name. How helpful do we want to be? Choor monster (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
If it's permitted by the arbitration committee, you could use |first1=|last1=|first2=|last2=| or |author1=|author2=| tags in the same citation to include their live name and their dead name. I assume this is only an issue for periodicals that are republished using a new live name? Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 21:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
What's ArbCom have to do with this? Author 1 and Author 2 is really bad, it gives the impression there are two authors, say husband and wife. Choor monster (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Anotherr issue is tracking down further works by a given author. A work by "John Doe", includes references to forthcoming work, which turns out is published by "Jane Doe", but not that you would know from a fully accurate citation or from the John Doe work. MathSciNet provides great "authority control", so if you are looking things up in mathematics, it really doesn't matter, multiple names are automatically linked. But JSTOR apparently does not link names, so if you look things up there and don't know about the name change, you miss out on finding what you're looking for. Choor monster (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Which version of the book do you have open in your lap while you are citing? Take the name from that version. --Jayron32 00:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
And what good is that when the version that is easily available to some of our readers is the other version, and they can't figure out what's going on? And if someone modifies the citation to include both versions, is this or is this not appropriate? Choor monster (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The name used in the publication should be retained, even if the author's name has changed. This is important because the "dead" name may well be entrenched in citations and in the text of other works. There is a precedence in the use of the maiden name of a woman who changes her name on marriage. For books, if there is a new edition that uses the living name, then that edition should be used if possible.
The middle name is often given as an initial and the first initial is sometimes used in place of a first name. In the case of an author known to be transgender, perhaps it would be suitable to use the "dead" initial when that is the name used in the paper. For example, if Alice B. Smith's dead name is Bob B. Smith, you could use "Smith, B. B." even if other citations use the whole first name. Another advantage is that initials don't suggest a gender, and in some cases the initial might remain the same.
We should also consider whether it is appropriate to state both names. Should a citation under the dead name mention the author's name? Should a citation under the living name mention the dead name? On one hand, mentioning both names ensures that the author as a person receives recognition for all their work. On the other, it draws attention to the fact that the person is transgender.
The guideline should not make editors work on a case-by-case basis, and it should not generate frequent objections. Even if the intentions are good, adding a barrier for citing transgender authors may cause editors to avoid citing them. Roches (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The point of any guideline here is to preempt edit wars. It will not force any editor to give an ultra-complete citation and it will not create any barrier to anyone just entering the obvious data. But it could allow, possibly encourage, wikignomes to add alternative names if the original editor did not, just like they currently add ISBN or JSTOR links at times. Or consensus would be to discourage or disallow such editing. That's why there ought to be a discussion. Reasonable arguments can be made for various views, and if there is no clear guideline, there will be edit wars.
The point of including both names when a book has been republished under a new name is to enable our readers to have a slightly easier time finding the sources. Some databases do a good job of linking multiple names, some do a poor job or none whatsoever. If someone entered "Bob B Smith" in a cite with no indication that the book also exists in an edition authored by "Alice B Smith", some people are not going to be able to find the book.
Considering that these names are buried in a citation, the impact on transgendered authors will be no worse than already exists in academic citations. Choor monster (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I am sympathetic... but we don't want our readers to be pointed to later editions of the source... we want to point them to the specific edition being cited (per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). This is because later editions may not be identical to the one being cited. So... if you got some bit of information from an edition with "Bob Smith" listed as the author... it is important that you cite that... not a later edition with "Alice Smith" listed as the author. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
This is off-track. Of course you always cite so that it's clear which edition you are citing. Meanwhile, do we or do we not also make it clear for readers trying to find a copy for their own reasons what the possibilities are? Choor monster (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Nope...that's not the purpose of citations. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand... helping "readers trying to find a copy for their own reasons what the possibilities are" is one purpose of a bibliography section or a "further reading" list. In those, we should give the most up-to-date (ie most recent) edition (which, presumably, would be one that uses the new name). Blueboar (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The "purpose" of citations? Sheesh, what a deliberately backwards attitude you have. We require citations for WP:V, yes, but you know, readers are allowed to try and track down sources for themselves, and trying to say, no we should not make any attempt to help readers on this point since it's not "required" that we help readers that far, I'm sorry, my mind just shuts down trying to figure out what you think WP if for. It also seems to be a pointless splitting of hairs. The same issues apply whereever we refer to authors and their works. And citations using Template:sfn can easily be based on material listed in a non-references section.
So what happens when page references are given in a first edition using sfn, and those page numbers are not the same as in a second edition? Or the only URL is a Google books to a first edition? Choor monster (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Pagination differences are exactly one of the reasons our citation information must align to a specific edition ... the page numbers in one edition may not match an earlier or later edition. A reader, hoping to verify information in a Wikipedia article, needs to be told the specific edition we saw, in order to find the correct pages.
A more relevant issue is the situation where one edition contains a statement that is omitted from a later edition... If we use this statement to support something in an article, our citation needs to point the reader to the specific edition we saw... if we point them to the later edition (by citing a later name) the reader will not find the statement. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Meanwhile, after all this extremely obvious and agreed on issues have been mentioned, I'm left with some pretty basic questions. Are we or are we not going to have a policy/guideline regarding someone mentioning a different edition that was not consulted? Are we or are we not going to have a policy/guideline regarding duplicate citations that essentially agree, except for the author's name? Or are we going to be saddled in the near-future with editors relying on a revised MOS:IDENTITY and applying it to citations? Choor monster (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Undent. Responding to all: No, in toto. Those above clearly believe WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is sufficient (and I happen to agree). --Izno (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom potentially establishing policy

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3/Proposed_decision#General_Prohibition, ArbCom is considering passing a "remedy" that establishes that anyone with less than 500 edits/30 days tenure will be prohibited from editing articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Given that remedies from ArbCom are normally addressed against a particular editor, having a remedy against a class of editor has sparked controversy as to whether ArbCom is acting outside of their remit and is establishing policy. I am not forum shopping here, but do feel the wider community needs to be aware of what is occurring. Discussion welcome at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Proposed decision. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Since Arbcom is not establishing a Wikipedia-wide policy, but establishing a remedy to deal with widespread conflict at the articles in question, this is not "establishing policy". Whether ArbCom should or should not establish the remedy is a separate question entirely, and not one I am addressing, but this is not "establishing policy". This is "trying to stop disruption", which is well within ArbCom's remit. Policy would be changing the way all of Wikipedia works. This is enacting restrictions on the locus of a dispute. It may, or may not, be a wise or correct restriction to enact, I'm not commenting on that one way or the other, but it is certainly not doing anything different from what it has always done, since time immemorial. --Jayron32 14:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I wasn't attempting to spark a discussion here. The point here was to raise the issue to a greater level of awareness. There are differing opinions on whether this is establishing policy or not. Given there is such a controversy, and given that the community in general was not aware that ArbCom might be acting outside its remit, the community needed to be made aware. This is the appropriate board to do so. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:FAIR and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

So I just read this article about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and, while an opinion piece, it does raise a point of concern that I feel should be monitored with regards to fair-use.

From the article: "Article QQ.G.17 - Copyright Balance This article states: 'Each Party shall endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system.' This article is referring to exceptions in normal copyright law and provides examples, but it does not mandate all countries to create or follow such a rule system.

Basically, it means things like parodies, educational content, news content, reviews and more, don't have to be protected under fair use, and can be tried for copyright infringement."[1] RegistryKey(RegEdit) 15:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

While there are concerns that TPP contains SOPA-like provisions, keep in mind that any impact on WP will first be a result of any new copyright laws that the US congress passes to meet TPP that would have to impact fair use allowances, and then if there is a major shift, if the WMF responds to that. There's nothing legally in place that would affect en.wiki right now. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The treaty has a binding requirement that countries implement certain restrictions, but a non-binding suggestion to make exceptions for fair use. That's how a problem could come about, though it would take a chain of hypothetical events. Nevertheless, Wikipedians and citizens of anywhere should be aware this treaty is not in their best interests. Rhoark (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
"Fair use," as it is practiced in the United States, at least partially came out of federal court rulings that interpreted our Constitution to say that the Constitution require it to some degree in some circumstances. No treaty nor any law passed pursuant to any treaty can violate the Constitution. If - and I think I'm right here - that our Constitution requires that Copyright laws respect at least some types of fair use and at least to some degree, any laws that tightened up "fair use" would only be enforceable up to the point that they bumped up against our Constitution. It would be no more valid that if we made a treaty that required us to pass laws re-instituting slavery. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you're wrong here. The US Constitution has no provisions regarding Fair Use. It is based on US copyright law, which can be overridden by legislation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
According to this external article, fair use is based on free speech. Usually, a fair use issue is decided solely on the Copyright Act of 1976. Occasionally, the First Amendment is the basis for a fair use decision. SMP0328. (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
in any situation, we as editors on en.wiki should not worry about changing our approach to how we use fair use and policies based on that unless we are told by the Foundation that we need to alter our view. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • per Masem, legal issues are Foundation issues, and we needn't worry nor waste bytes debating about them. If something in the law changes how we are required to do our work here, the Foundation's legal team will let us know; after all it's the Foundation that is "on the hook" for violations as a whole (or individual users). en.wikipedia specifically has no special role to play in the decision making process here. Either it affects every WMF website in all languages (which would require the Foundation and their legal team to enforce) or it affects none of us, which means we still don't have to worry about it. --Jayron32 18:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It is no "waste of bytes" for the wretch'd peasants sometimes to look up and question their Lords. Certainly mere compliance with TPP has impacts on Wikipedia - for example, we can expect that many public domain resources we have linked in our articles will become 'violations' and/or be taken down when their hosting countries are forced to hand much of their public domain over to the private speculators that will own it. Wnt (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sgotto, Robert. "Trans-Pacific Partnership means more DRM, ROMs become illegal, less modder & YouTuber fair use". GameSkinny. Retrieved 20 October 2015.

Wikipedia:Non discrimination policy

I hesitate to do anything with legal-issues policies, so I figured I'd best ask here. Is there a reason to retain it at this title? Proper grammar demands a hyphen, "Wikipedia:Non-discrimination policy". Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

IFYPFY [4]. -sche (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Oops, yes, that was a silly mistake. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it needs a hyphen. -sche (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Concur. Hyphenate that thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Marked the hyphenated version as a G6 CSD so the non-hyphenated version can be moved into it. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 21:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 Done. --Jayron32 22:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

TAFI & main page discussion

Please head over to this discussion and place your views. :D--Coin945 (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about user page

Can someone take a look at User:Dang_yoga aand look whether the content is appropriate?

Thanks Trex2001 (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's being taken care of. Next time, check the page's edit history and the user's talk page. this page may also be relevant if a similar situation crops up in the future. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (awards)

I have noticed that various experienced editors over the time have felt that the subject guideline "Wikipedia:Notability (awards)" should be revived. A discussion has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(awards)#Revival_of_this_guideline in that effect and you are invited to give your opinion there. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should allow Fair Use for editor collaboration

Presently Wikipedia's Fair Use only applies to articles. So, for example, when an editor wants to share a Google book "preview" for an important discussion like the identity of Henry Lincoln Johnson, we are at Google's mercy. Maybe I as an editor get to see what he was talking about, maybe I get Restricted Page and have no opinion now or ever.

Now I understand this seems natural to Americans. After all, Google is run by Rich People with Good Lawyers. Sainted blue ichor, not mudblood, flows through their veins; Krishna himself declared them of a better caste than ours. They can share a document when they want, and we must simply give prayers of thanks if they do.

But today the spirit of Pazuzu is in the air and I'm thinking we should have an intifida anyway. What if we say that editors can post Fair Use material (such as a cut-and-paste of the Google's Fair Use Preview) for active collaborations to a page in their userspace. It must be "NOINDEXED". They must have a notice at top that it is for collaborators in a specific issue, and must post a link to it in a relevant discussion immediately. But I say we go ahead and let them do it and see if the sky falls and the Earth opens and we are all consumed to ashes for our blasphemy. Wnt (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There are other ways to do that that would fall within fair use allowances within the US but would not require us to rewrite NFC and the Foundation's requirements on non-free material. (Eg for example, using imgur or another image hosting site). The problem for us is that in past cases of non-frees used outside of mainspace, they tend to stay there forever unless someone happens to notice the NFCC#9 violation, and that's not acceptable to the Foundation. External links to share information that is otherwise geotagged works just the same and avoids massive policy shifts. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, what if we ask people to tag those pages with a particular template that auto-dates itself like an article maintenance tag, and auto-deletes after a fixed period? Wnt (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist and your opinion

Hello policy people. Please watchlist Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll and drop by to give your views. Thank you kindly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: What does Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) cover?

There is a request for comments at [ Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? ].

At issue is whether the lead paragraph OF WP:MEDRS should remain...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

...or whether it should be changed to...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical and health information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

This has the potential to change the sourcing policy from WP:RS to WP:MEDRS on a large number of Wikipedia pages, so please help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

RFC announce: Should WP:NOTHERE formally included into the blocking policy

Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#RfC about WP:NOTHERE. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a need to specify that WP:GNG should be the basic requirement for notability?

Look at this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti (Rihanna album)

The article quite clearly meets WP:GNG but the deletion nominator decided that since the article may fail one of the WP:NALBUMS criteria, the article should be deleted. Note that he also suggested article incubation but consensus did not favor that option.

Is there a need to clarify the appropriate action in situations like this, where an article meets the significant coverage requirement of GNG but may not meet a subject-specific notability guideline? sst✈ 14:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No. The nom even linked to the section on notability for music in that as long as there is significant pre-release coverage, that's fine; the nominator of that appeared to ignore or did not see that language of that section. That said, sometimes the subject-specific guidelines may want to have stricter cases than the GNG would allow for their field, which here would make sense, preventing undue creation of albums that are known to be coming (meeting the GNG) but otherwise have limited detailed coverage until they near or get released. Nothing seems broken here. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... WP:N states this:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

  1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
  2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

(emphasis mine)

So basically it has to meet either GNG or the subject-specific criteria, not necessarily both. Is there a need to stress this? sst✈ 15:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's already present at WP:N, and I believe nearly all the SNG guidelines refer back to the GNG as the default. It's stressed enough. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The idea that a SNG can be stricter than GNG is nonsensical, precisely because GNG is the default. A SNG cannot be used to exclude a subject that passes GNG. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
GNG only establishes a presumption of notability, not an absolute declaration. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Except we do allow for that. WP:NCORP weighs much more on the nature of the geography of the coverage that the GNG does not readily consider, considering organizations that are only notable by local papers to not be notable for WP. While one can argue that only policies and guidelines could be read that that's just the appropriate application of the GNG with other guidelines, NCORP makes it explicit as to avoid otherwise topics of only localized notability that the GNG would otherwise apparently allow. The only thing an SNG cannot do is weaken the GNG. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
GNG is rubbery and was historically overridden by local consensus at AfD discussion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
A related task that would actually be useful: Most of the SNGs need to be checked and updated to include two things:
  1. the basic requirement that at least one independent source discuss the subject, no matter what criteria the subject meets. (For example, no more bios that cannot cite anything other than the employer's website and the subject's own writings, even if the person "obviously" meets every single item in PROF and ATHLETE combined.)
  2. a section similar to WP:FAILN, to help people figure out subject-specific ways of including information "somewhere in Wikipedia", without "having an entire article about ____". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • On point one, keep in mind WP:V - if no third-party source writes about a topic, we should not have an article about it. A dependent source (like a team's website) is clearly not third-party. So that's already in policy. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    True, but the last time I looked (which was a while ago), WP:PROF didn't mention this fact, and there were editors claiming that no university (and no university's fundraising department) would ever write anything except the most neutral facts about a prof, and so the prof's employer's website is sufficient proof of notability, no matter what WP:V says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    That's a fair point that probably needs to be stressed on the SNGs that apply to persons or companies or groups that otherwise would normally have the propensity to engage in self-promotion (not that all do, but we have to be aware this happens with some), referencing the need that third-party sources are required for any article regardless of which notability criteria they claim. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Erm...isn't that what WP:BASIC is for? pbp 23:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Read a little further down the page, to the part that says academics don't have to meet BASIC because it's just not reasonable to expect the world at large to pay any attention to important people. (Also, the page needs attention from someone who knows that WP:Secondary does not mean independent.) The people who care about this subject area re-wrote the guidelines many years ago to exempt academics from inconvenient rules like "if no third-party source writes about a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article about it". I rate the likelihood of changing this advice to conform to the general policy as being very low. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Phishing

Is there a place to deal with phishing sites on Wikipedia as well? I recently struck out references to a site that had been hijacked to include a phishing page. WP:PHISHING was of no help, as it described a wiki-phishing incident. WP:SPAM approximated this topic, but didn't really cover phishing sites linked from Wikipedia.

Phishing, which is basically just a rogue version of spam, could be a serious problem to readers, so I just wanted to know where I can get referred to deal with phishing sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicgenius (talk • contribs) 17:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

WT:SBL is probably the best place, as the blacklist deals with several varieties of undesirable links. To simply remove it all use Special:LinkSearch. If it was spammed or requires further investigation, there is also WT:WPSPAM. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: Thanks for the referrals. I will post there if I have more problems with phishing sites. epic genius (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The existing guidelines at WP:ELNO and WP:ELNEVER are relevant. Note that if a page is a relevant target for a link, that a different page on the same site has a phishing page may not be a good reason to remove the link. I would say that normally such removals should be mentioned, if not discussed, on the talk page of the article involved. DES (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:External links#Hijacked and re-registered sites is the most specific section. Blacklisting isn't usually necessary; usually, it can just be removed if it's a dead external link and converted to a non-clickable link or replaced with a different source if it's a WP:DEADREF. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I had removed the URL in the reference in all of the linked cases. All the pages on that domain lead back to the homepage, which is a confirmed phishing page. However, in one particular article—the article with the malicious link as its official website—all of the sources were to that malicious website, and these were bare URLs. For the time being, I tagged it as unsourced since obviously all the references now led to the malicious website. The article in question is Historic Districts Council. epic genius (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Security review RfC

Yesterday, two administrator accounts were compromised. Having discussed the matter with a member of the WMF Security team, I've put some options together on Wikipedia:Security review RfC. Please can interested parties go there and have a look? WormTT(talk) 10:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2015 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are open

Nominations for the 2015 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 8 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 17 November (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. Mike V • Talk 00:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Titles of articles about ethnic groups of the United States

Closing per a WP:ANRFC request.
There is a clear consensus that articles about US ethnic groups should use plural in their titles. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

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

{{rfc|policy|prop|rfcid=67A353C}}

WP:PLURAL and WP:NCET have been used in Talk:Korean Americans, Talk:African American, Talk:Tamil American, Talk:Japanese Americans, and other related discussions about ethnic groups of the United States. Inconsistency remains the problem here. I was advised to do a central discussion. I tried that in Proposals page, but only a couple editors participated. Some argue that "(something) American(s)" should be singularized or pluralized.

In articles about ethnic groups of Americans, which form should be used for the article title?

  1. xyz American
  2. xyz Americans

Credit goes to Mandruss for this version underlined. --George Ho (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of RfC statement. Place "vote" in section: RfC survey: Titles for U.S. ethnic groups.
I have done move requests on certain titles of ethnic groups articles, but I've seen conflict that should have resolved more quickly than it had not. I still am in favor of pluralizing "(something) Americans", but the matter is either article content, such as of Tamil American, African American and Korean Americans, or guidelines and policies related to titling and ethnic groups. Thoughts and/or proposals? Regarding titles named after ethnic groups of Americans, go for "[XYZ] American" or "[XYZ] Americans"? George Ho (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a proposal yet, User:Filpro. --George Ho (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Nonetheless, I do want to see if anyone doesn't support it and for what reasons.Filpro (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
...Actually, Filpro, I didn't properly read your first response, so now it can be a proposed if you want to interpret it that way. I'll allow votes, so you can add back yours. At first I didn't intend it as proposal, but this might be another proposal attempt. --George Ho (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:Consistency is marked inactive. I believe you want WP:NC. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • George, how does this get us anywhere? You haven't made any actual proposal, just rambled a bit. Replace it with something like, for ethnicity articles of Americans, should the format be "[XYZ] American" or "[XYZ] Americans"? As it stands, this discussion is destined to go nowhere and end with no community decision being made. Jenks24 (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Did I do it right? George Ho (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@George Ho: See User:Mandruss/sandbox. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Drcrazy102: There is no proposal, only a question. It is stated above, underscored, and followed by two possible answers. As seen below, it's possible to !vote with something else as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, Ok, that is confusing then with the extra text below it. Would you mind if I used the {{cot}}/{{cob}} templates to hide the visual text and put in a line to place "votes" in the survey area to clarify? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Drcrazy102: It wouldn't bother me, and I know of no rule that would preclude you doing that. If someone disagrees that it's an improvement, they can revert you. However, the survey section is very common and so I don't think it needs explanation. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Mandruss ... and ...  Done. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. Much clearer now. Jenks24 (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC survey: Titles for U.S. ethnic groups

RfC discussion: Titles for U.S. ethnic groups

My reaction to the "Editorial choice" !vote is that it pretty much presumes that a small group of that class is representative of the entire class when it comes to this preference. That seems fairly error-prone and not a good use of editorial choice. The class did not elect these people to represent them at Wikipedia. It also means we could well be doing a move every few years as the mix changes. Finally, how do we go about verifying that the editors involved in the editorial choice are in fact members of the class? If they are not members, why should their preference have any weight per this argument? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:Mandruss. My reaction to your reaction is that it pretty much presumes that a small group of that class (the writters) is representative of the entire class when it comes to this preference. That seems fairly error-prone and not a good use of user's choice. The class did not elect these people to represent them at the MOS board. It also means we could well be doing a move every few years as the mix changes. Finally, how do we go about verifying that the people involved in the style choice are in fact members of the writtting class? If they are not members, why should their preference have any weight per this argument? Pldx1 (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Pldx1: Sorry, could you rephrase? I don't see what you're saying. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone checked to see what the various style guides (AP, etc.) say about this issue? Seems likely they would have some guidelines.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Why would they? We're talking about a highly-Wikipedia-specific issue, which is "what do we title our articles here at Wikipedia" and not "what should we call people groups". In normal text, normal English grammar would apply, no one is disputing any of that. This is a specific-to-Wikipedia issue dependent on our own conventions for titling articles. --Jayron32 03:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:non-U.S. copyrights

This guideline has been interpreted as a standard to label files free in English Wikipedia, even when ineligible in Wikimedia Commons. However, I tagged flag of Australian Aboriginal as possibly unfree because it is copyrighted in Australia. Also, some examples may be inaccurate. I thought Mein Kampf may still be copyrighted, even when Hitler's citizenship in Austria and Germany ended right before the book's publication. Also, it the guideline doesn't explain whether to treat files as free or unfree in English Wikipedia. There must be changes to this guideline. --George Ho (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

There's already the article, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Secondly, I was wrong about Mein Kampf; it is not protected by the US law, including URAA, since the Office of Alien Property Custodian seized it during WWII. I just changed licensing tag to reflect it. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 20:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

BASC reform motion

An arbitration motion proposing a major overhaul of the current BASC system has been proposed. Comments are welcome at that location. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Community comments (BASC Reform)

Motion to disband BASC proposed

A second arbitration motion has been proposed which would disband the BASC. Comments from the community are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Community comments (BASC disbanded)

Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC

An RfC has been opened to discuss if non-administrators appointed to the arbitration committee should be granted the administrator right. All editors are encouraged to provide their input. Mike V • Talk 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Templates used in MW pages

When a template is used in a MediaWiki page, we always protect it. Is it more common to give such a template full protection or template protection? I thought we always used full protection, but Template:Did you mean/box is template-protected; I'm left wondering whether this is common or an aberration. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

My sense is that it's a matter of individual admin judgment. Sometimes I think a template is used to allow non-admins (template editors, generally) to edit a MediaWiki: page that isn't highly critical especially when edits to it are very technical in nature.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
My answer is largely the same as the one above but maybe a bit more wordy :) The template protection is more recent because the template editor user right is still relatively recent. Because of this, there may be some templates created that get full protection simply because someone may have forgotten or be unaware that the template protection even exists. I think the template protection ought to be viewed as the default protection when protection is needed, for the obvious reason that if an edit is needed, the entire concept of template editor is that these are non-admin's who have demonstrated the technical ability and the common sense to be allowed to edit templates. As above, I might modify this in the case of a template that's used in millions of articles, not because I think the template editor is technically unable to know what to do, but simply because in the case of editing a template with such a high profile, it may make sense to make sure to think through the ramifications of the edit, which may go beyond technical issues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for misleading you, Sphilbrick — thanks to both of you for answering the apparent question of "are these ordinary highrisk templates that should be open to template editors", but I failed to explain my point, and only Jo-Jo Eumerus picked up on it. I was attempting to ask whether we intended to enable non-admins to edit MWspace pages, which effectively what happens when a template editor modifies {{Did you mean/box}}. I don't have a principial objection to the concept (and if we conclude that this isn't currently permitted, I would start a discussion asking that it be permitted); I'm just wondering whether we previously discussed the idea of non-admins editing MWspace pages, and if so, what aspects of the issue were discussed. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS section to request admin closure of tags added to front page articles

There was a merge tag on the top ITN article November 2015 Paris attacks before it was closed, with most editors opposed.

I propose that WP:ERRORS include a section for notifications of editors and admins watching the page to be notified of issues on pages linked from the front page to get rapid closure of issues affecting high traffic articles. -- Callinus (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure already exists. Why do we need additional notifications? --Jayron32 17:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that the ANRFC is heavily overused, getting lots of requests that don't need an admin to close them, and when you try to remove no-action-needed entries, you're liable to get reverted by someone who insists that action is indeed needed. An urgent request will be buried among the trivial requests. Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Most of the ANRFC questions are closed by non-admins, and the results in contentious cases are... let's say "variable". If you post to ANRFC, I recommend explicitly saying that it's a difficult topic and should only be closed by an an experienced admin who is familiar with the subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom

I have watched over the years as ArbCom has assembled more responsibilities, yet the number of editors interested to serve has decreased and the community satisfaction with ArbCom has declined, in my view. You may agree with my assessment or not.

My proposal is that ArbCom should be strictly limited to resolve issues related to the behavior of administrators and functionaries only. If there's an issue with an editor, the community must work it out. We don't need to delegate our power of self-government to a small body of people who may, or often may not, do what we would want. The reason we need ArbCom is that when administrators or functionaries start behaving badly, somebody has to judge. Because there's no body to oversee ArbCom, other than the once a year election (soon! vote!) their power should be constrained as narrowly as possible.

For the moment can we discuss this. If it looks like there's any hope of a consensus, we could move on to an RFC. Jehochman Talk 00:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't support this proposal, but I thank Jehochman for opening a debate about reform. It has been clear for several years that the committee isn't working, and every year brings new problems. I think we should create a dedicated page to discuss an RfC. Pinging Risker. I made some reform suggestions recently on the gender-gap mailing list:
  • People would be elected to the committee for two years, and not allowed to stand again for another five.
  • Arbs would not be given access to CU or oversight. The functionaries can do any necessary CU and oversight work. Functionaries would be elected by the community, not chosen by ArbCom.
  • Arbs must excuse themselves if asked, unless the request for recusal is clearly silly.
  • The mailing list should be used only in exceptional cases involving privacy or harassment; otherwise all Arb discussion takes place in public.
  • Abolish the workshops. They're used to continue the dispute or harassment.
  • Cases must be resolved within a much shorter time frame, or closed as unresolved.
  • For one year, as an experiment, we should maintain a list of experienced editors willing to do jury duty. Anyone brought before the committee can request a jury "trial". Jurors would be chosen randomly from the list. Any juror involved with a party should say no, and the next on the list would be picked. The parties would have the right to object to a certain number.
  • The Foundation should be asked to pay for an expert in dispute resolution to offer regular classes on Skype for any Wikipedian who wants to sign up.
SarahSV (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not really in favour of limiting the Arbcom's power, more interested in improving the quality of candidates. Also, I would like to see more clearly defined rues over what is admissible and what is not admissible as evidence - suddenly producing diffs long after they have grown cold and heat and context of the moment has been forgotten is wrong. Also this grabbing in defendants from the sidelines mid-case is ridiculous. I'ts my belief a lot of the Arbs are too young, but then what older sensible person would want the job? Giano (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Yourself (also Giano, Sitush, Eric Corbett, SlimVirgin), should be running for Arbcom. The only way changes will come about there, is from within. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • comment - I agree that something needs to be done. Based on my own recent (and current) experiences, I sense a serious lack of something - perhaps it's lack of initiative or desire, or neither - can't put my finger on it. It may also involve time constraints imposed on arbs by RL. I really don't want to be critical without knowing more about the inner workings of the process. It certainly can't be an easy task to sift through all the diffs in evidence in order to get a realistic grasp of the issues, especially if it involves a topic in which you have absolutely no interest or knowledge. I've seen a lot of misinterpretation and rash judgements based on wrong impressions throughout WP, not just in DR venues. I agree that the workshop needs to go because it only adds to the confusion (and creates redundancy). What appears to happen once the involved parties have submitted evidence and completed their mock-ups (FoF and PD), the drafting arbs review them and prepare an official PD for the other arbs to weigh-in on. At that point the entire presentation is dependent on the interpretation of one or two arbs. As with any board or committee, you have the few who do and the many who don't which produces huge procedural holes and task overload on the few who do. It could easily result in the worst kind of decision-making, which any losing party will attest to in a heartbeat. 😆 I think all the arbs should review all the evidence...carefully...so they will be making informed decisions based on their own perspectives. They should be able to ask questions during this phase as well. Anyway, those are just my initial thoughts and I would welcome an opportunity to be involved in helping to make it better. Atsme📞📧 23:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The evidence in most cases is hard to read, so I can hardly blame the Arbs for not reading it carefully. This stems from a few years ago when word limits were introduced. It's much harder to write succinctly, so things are not explained properly, which means the Arbs are examining diffs without context. And people run out of words, so important evidence is excluded. Also, Arbs used to go out and look for evidence themselves (I'm thinking particularly of Fred Bauder), which no longer happens, so gaps in the evidence are reflected in the decisions. SarahSV (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Minor issue, but important for procedure and parity - I would like to see much better use of templates which are standardised for each and every party, and not deviated from. Evidence was presented in the workshop about several editors, but these editors have not yet been named in the PD. Several of you will probably be aware of my concern that my (current) proposed FOF is markedly different from other parties. I propose that we should have a template at the proposed FOF stage for EVERY (sorry for shouting!) party named at the previous stage/s. The arbs then openly vote on the evidence presented and indicate this in the template. At the moment, we are seeing gaps in the PD which means that either it is still in draft form, or the drafters have unilaterally decided not to include some parties (unless this has been decided elsewhere by ArbCom, but surely then votes of opposition presented in a template would be better than simply presenting nothing!).DrChrissy (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Another reform suggestion is that we start electing groups of Arbs, rather than individuals. Someone said above that Giano, Eric Corbett, Sitush and I should stand, and as interesting as that sounds, I can tell you that we would be a good committee, because we'd be able and willing to slice through the BS.
    But if you have a couple of members not able or willing, then you get deadlocked, and perhaps this is what's happening inside the committee – personalities who find it hard to work together; one or two members sending long emails to the mailing list; someone trying to be in charge, etc. Electing groups of editors who know they can work together might solve that. SarahSV (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If AN/I were more efficient and did not wish "instant justice" so much (bans decided in 2 hours, anyone?), then I would suggest that AN/I decisions, for good or ill, should be binding on the AC and that they ought not by simple majority be able to overrule the AN/I decisions (I would suggest that such discussions of extended blocks or bans should then be extended to a full week at AN/I as a minimum - obviating the "small group" problems there seen in the past.) If we simply removed review of AN/I consensus from the ambit of the AC, we would cut a lot of the nonsense out.
Secondly, the AC should get rid of faux-legalese and unwieldy boilerplate from decisions.
Thirdly, the AC should function in favour of equity over all other concerns.
Fourth, any possible implication of partiality in any decision should be sufficient to have any arbitrator recuse - just like in real life.
Fifth, the committee should be restricted to only the "evidence" presented by those not on the committee (no - a recused arb should not "present evidence" as there is an implication that such an arbitrator may wield influence over any decision).
Lastly, the AC should be told their ambit does not include "making Wikipedia perfect" nor engaging in "kill them all" sanctions, nor, indeed, to think that they have an obligation to "do something, even if it is wrong." It is better to no nothing here than to do the wrong thing. Collect (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Collect, I recommend that you also put your hat into the Arbcom election ring. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The community has ample time to handle these situations before Arbcom becomes involved. I wouldn't be for changing that much honestly. There's room for a little change but they should continue to stand as the court of last resort. Note also that our pool of arbitrators comes from our pool of admins, generally. Fixing our issues with the election of Admins stands at least to help expand our pool of potential arbitrators.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - terrible idea. Too many times we have seen incompetent decisions by admins based on ANI. Arbcom is needed in cases where the "community" has failed to resolve the cases, such as the long-term issues like Caflap08 and Hijiri88, or issues that are so bitter they require special sanctions ie Gamergate. Arbcom should take a look at all the history in the cases brought to them and see if admins have so far behaved appropriately or in fact contributed to the problem. What we need is more accountability for admins who suck not less. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Neelix situation would be show us the real flaws. People are angry that after giving up the bit, ARBCOM chose not to continue the case but at least ARBCOM got to discuss it. If you barred that entirely, one could get out of ARBCOM entirely and avoid banning just by giving up the bit and besides, there are numerous problems that ARBCOM deals with that had or have nothing to do with administrative actions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)

I would like to ask about the Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP). Here we read that 'Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.'

But while I see that resolution is fulfilled in the images, however I don't see that it is being accomplished either with excerpts from text or quotes. I do not know very much about policy, so, could someone explain to me why in those texts under an EDP with non-free content is not being identified in a machine-readable format? Thank you very much. Trasamundo (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Any direct quotes we use are expected to be directly sourced. In addition, as we have text integrated more closely with normal prose it's much more difficult to track it that way. So arguably the citation is the requirement for including non-free text. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Therefore is it sufficient to put a Template:Cite book for example to the quote?. Isn't it? --Trasamundo (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
It's required and therefore sufficient. That said, keep in mind WP:QUOTATION and things like length, etc. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Also note the requirement for immediate in-text attribution of the quote's author per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Attribution, in addition to a footnote. The only exception are cases, where the speaking person is blatantly obvious within context. GermanJoe (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

There are, by the way, more than 50,000 files with no machine-readable license and most of them are non-free. There are additional ones with a machine-readable license but no machine-readable author, source, or description. It is obvious that we don't take our EDP seriously with regards to this. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I expect that all of those non-free images are identified as being non-free in a machine-readable format, namely by being present in Category:All non-free media (and category membership is easy for a machine to read). I don't see any requirement that the author, source, description, or specific non-free license be machine-readable. Anomie⚔ 21:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
No, we have never required a template to show the license or the rationale, which we have previously determined in the post-2009 years that as long as it is known to the servers as non-free via being in this cat, that it meets the machine-readable aspect. While it would take far too much work to put rationales into templates, I would definitely think that we might want to consider normalizing all non-frees (and frees stories on en.wiki) to use a license template; while it is 50,000 such images, it's 1) not a task that requires priority so there's no need to rush it - one can do a few articles at a time and 2) it should be relatively easy to id what the right license is and add it in there. However, we'd have to decide as a community if we want to force this on the licenses. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

use of same text in many related articles

I have run across one piece of boilerplate which is found used in a substantial number of articles. Ought this be turned into a template or something? ( Murals were produced from 1934 to 1943 in the United States through the Section of Painting and Sculpture, later called the Section of Fine Arts, of the Treasury Department. is found in over thirty articles) Collect (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

That would make it harder to copyedit the text to fit each article, harder to translate to other languages, and easier to screw up all 30+ articles at the same time. Is there any advantage to this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Policy on contacting article subjects for information

From time to time, I find it useful to contact the subject of an article to ask if they can provide an image or identify sources for unsourced claims in their articles. I generally explain when initiating such contact how our COI principles work to head off any thoughts about editing their own articles, and I have usually found that if I get any response at all, the response is productive. However, I can see the potential for objections to contacting subjects. I was wondering if we have any policy or guidance on this subject (or if we should). Cheers! bd2412 T 15:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to know this as well. I've considered making contact with the subjects of articles before, but always held off as I was unsure what the policies were.  DiscantX 03:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Even when an editor is contacting a subject of an article solely to help improve the article, there is no conflict of interest with Wikipedia (the common interest here is to create an encyclopedia) – the practice above helps verify articles, which contributes towards Wikipedia's purpose. Esquivalience t 03:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    Esquivalience But are you aware of anywhere that such a policy has been written? If it doesn't exist, it could be useful for editors to refer to. We could even give guidance on how to go about it. In the long run it should result in more comprehensive content here.  DiscantX 13:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    Why should something that obvious be written in a policy? Policy should only be written in cases where there may be some dissent. I can't see any difference between asking the subject an reading her autobiography, for example. Do you want a policy, that explicitly allows readers of an autobiography to write in an article about the subject of this autobiography as well? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    I believe you will find that the definition of COI has changed in the last year or two. The old idea was that if your interest was a good encyclopedia article, and our interest was a good encyclopedia article, then there was no "conflict" in the interests. This no longer appears to be the guideline. Instead, it takes the same approach as most legal systems: if you are closely connected to the subject, then you have a COI, even if all you wanted to do was revert vandalism or correct your birthdate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
See WP:ERP and WP:COPYREQ. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as an editor who has communicated directly with BLP article subjects on several occasions, and in one case with the recently widowed spouse of an article subject, I must advise caution in such situations even though I have found such communication to be helpful in several instances. Communicating directly with subjects is not something new editors, or editors who do not have a firm grasp of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:GNG, should attempt. Our fundamental policies regarding neutrality and verification and our guidelines regarding reliable sources should be explained to the subject at the outset of any direct conversation or correspondence with them. It is important that they understand that we cannot simply accept their say-so on pertinent subjects about their lives, but that we must source our articles with high-quality reliable sources per WP:BLP. Subjects can be very helpful in directing editors to reliable sources that may be found offline, or that might otherwise require special search parameters to find online. Subjects may correct spelling and birth date errors and provide reliable sources for such corrections, and sometimes provide useful information as to how we fill gaps in our coverage. That said, it is important to always remember that we are not newspaper reporters and we should not be "interviewing" subjects as a primary source for our article content; as Wikipedia editors we are supposed to use reliable published sources for our article content. If a subject can point us in the direction of additional reliable sources, that is usually a win-win for the subject and the encyclopedia.

That said, the danger of direct communication is that subjects rarely understand our policies and guidelines, and sometimes they have their own agenda. All subjects want "their" articles to be as positive as possible; no surprise there, but some will attempt to influence content in ways that more resemble an autobiography, a resume, a Facebook page, or family reminiscences. None of those are appropriate for an encyclopedia article. And some subjects, just like some editors, are kind of odd and overly sensitive about certain topics. I recently communicated with an Olympic medalist (and current college coach) who insisted that her article not use her full name, e.g., Sarah Elisabeth Smith (not her real name), but should only use her obvious nickname, e.g., Betsy Smith, and that the multiple reliable sources regarding her full name were completely wrong, including International Olympic Committee records, NCAA records, and graduation records from two major universities. Okay, so she doesn't like her full name, many of us don't -- so what? The subject went so far as to deny her full name was her real name. And that's not even much of a real issue, but it does provide a cautionary tale. When there is real conflict over article content, or when there is content to which the subject objects, it is far, far better to take such issues to the BLP notice board where such matters may be discussed by other experienced editors with a strong command of the relevant policies and guidelines.

Should there be a policy on direct communication with BLP subjects? Maybe. Maybe not. But someone ought to write an advice essay regarding the advantages and potential dangers inherent in doing so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Well thought out, Dirtlawyer1 - and I nominate you to write the essay. After all, what you've written above is pretty good start, and I personally can't see a flaw in your methodology, cautions, or positive aspects. Onel5969 TT me 15:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I do think that any guidance would be useful, and I agree that Dirtlawyer1's comments above make for a good start. bd2412 T 00:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Contacting the subjects of BLPs can have surprisingly positive results, including the release of their copyrighted images and photos. Nevertheless, I would not recommend it being done by younger, new, or non-native speaker users. Our primary objective next to providing content is to maintain the profile of Wikipedia as a serious piece of work. I've been appalled on many occasions by the quality of otherwise good faith communications made by New Page Patrolers to new editors. Teen-talk, 'Hey Bro!' and other cultural minority forms of English don't cut it with older academic readers or ancient stuffed-shirt Brits like me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
If I am missing what I consider crucial information on a topic or BLP, I DO contact whoever I need to contact to get information, not about them, their book, their company or their opinions. My questions have always been, "Do you know of any sources that have been written about the topic?" and at that point let them know there is no guarantee that there will be an article on the topic, I am a volunteer and this is an encyclopedia. I even go so far to tell them that their opinion does not really matter, but if it appears in print somewhere, please let me know. At this time, I am working as a visiting scholar with the University of Pittsburgh and the whole point of having access to their online content IS to locate secondary sources. Now I have to readily admit, there is nothing I enjoy more than to hear about all the undocumented information there is to a topic-but again, I tell them that there is no way to include such information. If I did not contact my supervisor at the University who lets me know where the sources are, I would be very hampered in my editing. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Original research and NPOV

Dirtlawyer1's argument is well thought out, but I'd like to expand my concern a bit further, especially regarding "it is important to always remember that we are not newspaper reporters and we should not be 'interviewing' subjects as a primary source for our article content." One of the primary reasons I've been reluctant to contact people is that it feels like original research. Sänger ♫ suggests that there should be no dissent in this case, but I think there could be, though it may not come from me. A plausible argument against contacting subjects is that it contradicts not only WP:OR, but also WP:NPOV. Contacting subjects of articles is bound to cause instances where the subjects try to insert themselves into the article. It's not a matter of if, but when. Considering the long standing controversies against paid editing and against editors editing pages about themselves, I think it would be prudent to ask if we want to purposefully invite people to do essentially this. There's a suggestion over at idea lab asking if we should allow original research, and the outcome seems to be a resounding no, so I think we need to differentiate between how someone asking the subject of an article for clarification, sources, or pictures is different from doing original research. To be clear, I'm in support of contacting subjects of articles, but I think the guidelines need to be clear and in line with existing policy.  DiscantX 12:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I just wonder, what kind of bugaboo (I hope it's the right translation of Popanz) is being discussed here. It's, as always, nothing that could be lumped together and treated with a plain and simple solution, it depends on a) the subject and its ability to stay neutral and b) the editor and her ability to discern between OR, POV and sources and c) the relationship between those two. I'd ask an acquaintance about some facts in his article, and of course would ask, how this could be validated, if necessary. Of course I could not just write something because of his nice brown eyes, but that's a no-brainer. Why is this asked? Are some people eager to contact unknown persons for some input about their articles? Let it be. Or is it about asking people you know about some facts in their articles? Go on, but keep npov. OR and NPOV are enough, the rest is just common sense. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with DiscantX's concern regarding original research problems per WP:OR, and I should have explicitly mentioned that policy in my cautionary comments above. Even in those circumstances where direct contact with a BLP subject may be appropriate and productive, original research is an additional concern and potential pitfall for the novice in an encyclopedia for which professional editorial oversight is absent and many articles have not received critical review by experienced and knowledgeable editors. I might also note that the same issues apply to contacting representatives of organizations for additional information as well, and the inevitable attempt by the subject to influence/slant the article content in a non-neutral manner may be more subtle, more sophisticated, and more systematic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I can give an example of a time when I used this method. I contacted a U.S. federal judge whose article stated that they were the first openly gay judge on their court, cited only to a list in a magazine that could not be seen in an online format. The judge was gracious enough to confirm the claim, saving further efforts to hunt down the source in print. bd2412 T 13:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Some suggestions for the volunteer who initiates this essay

Agree this is a subject worth addressing. I'll chime in with those who have had success requesting photos from subjects. Examples:

While I have often included some caveats, I haven't gone into the detail that dirtlawyer1 suggests. That leads me to two suggestions on this issue.

First, I think any such essay might be well served by distinguishing between requests for photos and request for other material which might be related to improving the text. I don't recall any situation where I have asked for a photo in which the supplier of the photo has then gone on to decide to directly edit the article. I hope it is the case that simply asking for a photo is unlikely to trigger that reaction, so the long list of caveats suggested are not necessary in a photo request. In contrast, I can imagine that reaching out to a subject and asking about the content of an article might be more apt to trigger the possibility that the subject decides to edit the article, and the longer list of caveats might be appropriate. I don't know that I'm right on this but, as someone who very often requests photos, I would not be happy with a guideline that suggests I should be providing a long laundry list of policies in a simple request for photo.

Second, I think there is value in suggesting that direct contact of subjects is something best left to experienced editors, I don't know that we can prohibit anything, but if the essay goes into some detail about what one ought to do when contacting a subject, it might well dissuade some newbies from attempting it early on. While I think that asking for photos is less complicated than requesting feedback about the textual material, I'd love to see some good advice given to editors in this situation. As an OTRS agent, I all too often have to deal with a situation where a newbie editor writes to a subject and asks for a photo to be used in a Wikipedia article, and the subject responds positively with a nice photo and a note that says it's fine to use it in a Wikipedia article. Experienced editors see the flaw in this and it is left to OTRS agents to clean it up. It would be much better if editors realize they needed to have permissions on file in almost all cases and use the standard forms.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You may also want to discuss matters such as working with the subject who decides to register an account, including matters such as OTRS authentication of the new editor's identity and COI matters such as making requests at the talk page versus actually editing the article. See Talk:Mansoor Ijaz for an exceptionally detailed example of the situation; somehow I encountered User:Mansoor Ijaz, who registered apparently because he decided that the article about him needed improvement. Because he was willing to authenticate, to provide access to tons of relevant sources, to provide photos, and to suggest major edits at talk instead of making them himself, we went from edit-warring over contents to a much-better-written GA. I'd never heard of him, so I wouldn't have known where to look for anything whatsoever to improve the article, but he was able to provide URLs for lots of online resources (if I'd doubted him, I would have been hesitant to use print sources that he supplied, but that wasn't an issue) from which everything could be written, and while he wrote most of the content, FreeRangeFrog and I vetted it and checked everything before it was added, so we could be confident that content was reflecting the sources accurately. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Showing all sides of the Argument

I thought that when someone made a article they showed all sides of the conflicting beliefs of a object. Take Lucy... The Lucy article. The Fossilized Bones. A lot of people do not believe it. As for me, as I scroll through it, I did not believe a single word that said it was true, so just please show all sides of the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Faggion (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

We reflect what the sources say, not our own opinions. Since there's not a single reliable source that considers Lucy (Australopithecus) a hoax (although there are some sources that question whether the remains are female), we're not going to fabricate them just to please you. If you can find a genuine source for legitimate scientists questioning the remains' authenticity, feel free to include it, provided you don't give such an obviously fringe view undue weight. ‑ iridescent 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia does not report "all sides of an argument". I can make the argument that Lucy was made last Tuesday by my brother Jimmy in his basement, and he planted all the evidence. The argument exists because I just made it. However, I cannot now force Wikipedia to put my argument into the article under the guise of "representing all sides". Instead, what Wikipedia does is reproduce what reliable sources say on a topic. If reliable sources do not give any time to my argument, even to refute it, that means it isn't even worth mentioning. --Jayron32 15:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Last Tuesday? I say Jimmy made it a year ago last Tuesday! Why is my opinion not reflected? Who are you to say I'm not notable? Blah blah blah. See WP:ENC. DreamGuy (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The policy page on WP:NPOV is instructive here: "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view." Therefore Wikipedia will not show all arguments, but it will present the relatively prominent ones. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, we would have deleted WP:WEIGHT years ago for misrepresenting Wikipefia policy Ifthat was true.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Amendments to GA Criteria

Currently, the GA criteria do not take into account compatibility, for mobile app users. Mobile users get a lot out of the relevant wikidata item, that appears in small text below the search. This is greatly beneficial, as it allows the mobile user to select the right article quickly. To check whether this exists and even to create the data tag is very quick and easy. So my proposal is to add a point (7) to the criteria. This would read:

  • 7 Compatible: The article has a relevant wikidata tag.

For more information on wikidata, it can be found here. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments or Amendments

The linked page says nothing about how wikidata helps mobile users. Please add more explanation here.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia app search.png
A search from the app. Note the smaller font text under some listed items. That small text is from Wikidata.

TheMagikCow, is there a similar requirement for FAs? If not, then perhaps you should try starting there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  • All Wikipedia articles have a Wikidata item and as such it would be absurd to judge them against the existence of such an item. Wikidata is a Wikimedia project separate from its sister project Wikipedia, and by that virtue the quality of a relevant Wikidata item (ie. how many and accurate properties it has) can't be the criteria for assessing the quality of a Wikipedia article either (similarly, we don't judge an article against the quality of images on Commons either, but by what images are chosen to be displayed on Wikipedia). It also baffles me as to why is this issue pertinent to Good articles but not to Featured article criteria (FAC). It's worth to note that some accessibility criteria are already part of the FAC, as alt image texts are part of the image use policy Manual of Style that Featured articles must comply with. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 13:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: Would you support this in the FAC? TheMagikCow (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@TheMagikCow: no, as I think it's questionable to include criteria concerning other Wikimedia projects to FAC criteria which should be about the content here on Wikipedia. I'm not convinced that mobile view is an accessibility feature that should have any special privileges either. Articles that are MOS compliant are likely to be displayed as they should on all devices, and as noted above, MOS compliance is already a part of the FAC criteria. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It makes zero sense to determine the quality of an article here based on work done on another project. One could argue that articles here should have good quality Simple English version as well but it would be bizarre. That should be a drive that the people are Wikidata are focused on not something that's required here. If there's an interest in a cross-space drive to get FA and GA articles here to have an item there, I'd be for it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose - making an article appropriate for viewing on mobile devices is good criteria in concept, BUT that seems clearly more of a factor of the software and ap outside of any particular article rather than any formatting of specific content for a particular article. I dont use a mobile so I dnot know what doesnt translate well - maybe some tablizations or nondefault image sizing? but certainly, Wikidata doesnt help address that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per above, this is a Wikidata issue (and to a lesser extent a software issue). If an article contains nonstandard markup that causes mobile view to break then it should probably fail, but that's somewhat different. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm all in favour of making things accessible to readers using mobile devices, but Wikidata is another project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose If editors are nominating for a GA-status, then the source text's coding should already be set-up properly per MOS to make such things accessible to mobile users (much like Ivanvenctor's comment above says). I also agree with the above sentiments of "it isn't a WikiData article, it is a Wikipedia article, judge it by Wikipedia standards". Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because GA status focuses on how well-written and researched an article is. Esquivalience t 01:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Activity requirements of administrators RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators/RFC on inactivity 2015. Thanks. Mz7 (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

RFA2015 Phase II RfC

Hello. Anyone who reads this message is invited to voice their opinions on the Phase II RfC for the RFA2015 reform project. The purpose of this RfC is to find implementable solutions for the problems identified in Phase I of the project. A message is being left here because some of the proposals may have an effect on current policy, or may result in the creation of new policies. Thank you. Biblioworm 20:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Don Nichols and Donald Nichols (spy)

Hello, all. Calling for a bit of help here. Question at hand is, is Donald Nichols (spy) the same man as Don Nichols, the racing team manager?

Little is known about the military Nichols after his 1962 retirement except that he died in Alabama in 1992. The racing Nichols bio basically begins at this point. A link at the racing article [5] claims they are the same, but is an unreliable source. A photo comparison between this article's photos and a photo in Apollo's Warriors is inconclusive to my eyes. Also, the military Nichols had the reputation of being sloppy in dress; pictures of the racing Nichols show him to be somewhat dapper, with a thinner face.

I am posting this in hopes that someone will prove/disprove the connection between these two.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently not: [6] says Here is a picture of Nichols visiting our garage at the Monterey Historics last August. (apexspeed forum member "cgscgs," February 21st, 2011, 10:24 AM). The Wiki article says the spy died in 1994 but there is no in-line citation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect that asks: "Should our default practice be to delete article histories and contributions when a small article is converted into a redirect to a larger article?" Cunard (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Images of skulls on talk pages about recent fatal events

{{WikiProject Death}} features two different images of human skulls, one a photograph. Is it acceptable for such images to be posted on the talk pages of articles on recent massacres such as the Paris shootings, fatal aircraft cashes or other violent deaths? Please discuss, at Template talk:WikiProject Death#Images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

For anyone else wondering about this, the banner for the death wikiproject was removed from Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks on 16:09, 25 November 2015; the banner can be seen in the revision just prior to that removal: permalink. Other examples can be found in the list of "Outstanding articles" at WP:DEATH. I might comment at Template talk:WikiProject Death#Images later, but first I'm wondering if there are any other examples of tasteless usage of the skull image. Certainly a skull should not be displayed on the talk page of an article covering a recent massacre. Johnuniq (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be in pretty poor taste, albeit unintentionally. Maybe replace the skull when it is recent sensitve events and then show the skull for older events. W oWiTmOvEs 00:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed unintentional poor taste, probably for all recent deaths (cf WP:BLP). Perhaps create an alternative template Wikiproject Death Sensitive, - or similar. Where a funeral wreath is shown instead of the skull photo. Perhaps even build in a sensitive parameter into the existing template that swaps the skull for another picture if ticked (if this is possible at all in the programming language). Arnoutf (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It's technically possible to use different images, based on a parameter. They already do that for suicide-related articles (showing a detail from a famous painting about a suicide).
I'm not sure that funeral wreaths are cross-cultural. I don't remember ever seeing a funeral wreath; it's something that I've only read about in books. It might be weird to put a symbol of death from Victorian England on an article about an Asian disaster, for example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Effects of blocking

(I am not sure if this is the right place. I started a discussion here, but didn't get much response, so I am reposting it here.)

Has anyone actually studied the effects of blocking on editors? One can imagine measuring recidivism, whether the block made an area less/more productive, use of sockpuppetry for block evasion, difference between blocks of experienced users and newbie users etc. There are many dimensions which can be studied. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you speaking of short-term or long-term blocks / topic bans? I'd be interested to see the differences between those two. I think a long-term ban with no warnings or short-term blocks to begin with is really a problem. Short-term blocks can stop an editor's manic state and let them cool for a few days, and then potentially come back with a new attitude. Long-term blocks can alienate editors if they're done without any attempts to warn or reform the editor beforehand. Anyway, i know you're asking for systematic studies and those are just my thoughs and anecdotal experience. SageRad (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll speak my thoughts on blocking in regard to my own experience. A one-day or two-day block can be useful. Talking to an editor about how they can improve their editing, or what they're doing wrong that is bad for the project or for other editors can be really useful. Long-term blocks without doing that beforehand can be really harmful. It can also be used to weed out a topic area based on agenda and desired bias. I just noticed that you are strangely enough an editor on ArbCom who actually made a suggestion that i should perhaps be site-banned. That is really strange to me. Even the topic ban feels so wrong to me there. I think the effect of a ban has a lot to do with whether it was justified to begin with, and then depends on whether the reasons are explained to the editor in question in a way that they can hear (i.e. not by people who have been bullying the editor or otherwise being abusive to them, and in clear neutral language that doesn't lead with insults and aspersion). In other words, the effect of justice has a lot to do with (1) whether it's actually just to begin with, and (2) whether it's administered with care and evenhandedness. SageRad (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@SageRad: I have no idea if you misread, but I am not NativeForeigner and I have never asked for anyone to be sitebanned in my life. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, Kingsindian, i did misread... very strangely, i find that i've actually conflated your two usernames for some time in my own thinking, some sort of strange association between the two phrases. I thank you for pinging me and correcting this. Sorry for the confusion. I leave my other observations because i do strongly feel them to be true, on the principles and by my own experience. SageRad (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

DYKs

Per Template talk:Did you know#How to move a nomination subpage to a new name, the move tab should be disabled for DYK subpages. Either an adminbot should move protect all such pages or they be added to the title blacklist using the "moveonly" option. Even better, the DYK subpages should be protected so that not even administrators can move them. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of terms 'gunman" "shooter" "terrorist"

There is a lot of cultural valuation going into the choice between using the terms "gunman" or "shooter" compared with "terrorist". There is no essential difference between the Paris bombings named by wikipedia as "terrorist attacks" and the California event occurring today called a "mass shooting" choosing different terms creates two separate definitions for events which are actually the same.

I propose that wikipedia makes this association clear by offering readers a choice "gunman/terrorist" in cases of mass shootings of people by someone from their own community or nation. Or other contributors may have a better suggestion.

Wikipedia has the opportunity to be more objective than conventional media, and I urge wikipedia to make the most of that, by setting a precendent which the media will quite likely follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefillyjonk (talk • contribs) 01:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not set precedent. It's one of our founding principles. Wikipedia follows reliable sources. We report what mainstream, reliable sources report. --Jayron32 01:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Not all shooters are terrorists and not all terrorists are shooters. We must wait until information on the shooters' motives is reported in RS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
"Terrorist" in many countries, including the US, has a legal meaning that allows authorities to take different actions than if they were just suspects, and only certain agencies have the ability to classify people or groups as such. The word can be a BLP violation if statement is being made by people that are not in any legal authority to make that distinction. The actions can be described as act of terrorism by non-govt sources, no question, but we should be very careful to call someone a "terrorist" just because the actions are labelled as such. If the person is not yet convicted, "suspect" should be used regardless of what RSes say. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Terrorism is a highly POV term and should be avoided unless applied equally. It specifies motivation, and lot of people toss therm out without knowing or caring about the real motivation. It should be applied by some common sense, not by politicians or others with an agenda. In the US and elsewhere, "terrorism" is a term applied against Moslems of all stripes regardless of motivation and avoided when it's a Christian making the same choices. We should use the term based upon what it means, not how people use it, like other words here. DreamGuy (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Inactive editors

Can I get some more comments at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#WP:STALEDRAFT_specifics? WP:STALEDRAFT states that articles can be moved, listed for deletion, blanked, whatever if the "original author ... appears to have stopped editing." There's no specific on what length of inactivity is required so I started a discussion to add specifics. I'm suggesting one year of editor inactivity which is separate from the page inactivity but drafts from five, six years ago do get opposed for some reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

One year seems reasonable, but I would prefer six months. After six months of an editor not editing, that editor should be considered to be "inactive." Also, what does "appears" mean? It suggests this standard is subjective (i.e., in the eye of the beholder). SMP0328. (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I got chewed out in an MFD once because the editor has just posted on their page that they started a new account and didn't do the redirect talk page thing (as if I'm supposed to figure that out) so that's subjectively inactive but not objectively. Either way, I just wanted to put a notice here and discuss it there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
FYI the criteria at WP:G13 is six months. MarnetteD|Talk 02:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals

No consensus. There was roughly equal support for all the options, and due to voting overlap and the various caveats attached to votes, the consensus here is very mixed. My advice would be to rerun this in the future, with a clearer layout and less options. Mdann52 (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

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

This proposal revisits MOS:IDENTITY as recommended in this recent proposal. How should transgender individuals be referred to in articles about themselves?

  1. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, name, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise.
  2. For any person whose gender might be questioned, use the pronouns, possessive adjectives, name, and gendered nouns that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification when discussing events that took place after the individual's gender transition. Use the pronouns, adjectives, name, and gendered nouns that correspond to the individual's previous gender presentation when discussing events that took place before the individual's gender transition.
  3. [Removed per neutrality. Functionally equivalent to option 2. However, the options remain numbered as if this option had been kept.]
  4. Whatever the rule for a biographical article about a transgender individual, move that guidance from WP:MOS to WP:MOSBIO (this option is not exclusive with any other option above)
  5. For any person whose gender might be questioned, use the pronouns, possessive adjectives, name, and gendered nouns that reflect the predominant usage of reliable English-language sources. Give more weight to sources published after the transgender individual has gone through a transition or has "come out." If the sources do not show a clear preference, use the forms preferred by the individual, if there are reliable sources indicating this preference. For historical events, look to reliable sources that describe those events, again favoring post-transition sources, but include both names where failing to do so is likely to cause confusion.

This does not apply to articles that merely mention transgender individuals in passing; that is covered here. 18:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: Adding a third option and pinging those who've already participated (only the one who presented the proposal in this case).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Because your option was functionally identical to option 2 but contained non-neutral language, I have removed it. Your beliefs about why Wikipedia should support option 2 belong in the discussion section and in your own comments. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussed below and on my talk page. I'm alright with it being dropped as an option. The intention was to make pointing out the sex of a subject for clarity in an appropriate manner reasonable per the guideline.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Poll

  • Option 1 (keep current rule) (but add the word "name") Many trans men and trans women say that they remember having feelings of being the gender to which they later publicly transitioned even when they were small children. It seems to me that a trans man always was male in a way and that a trans woman always was female. If it becomes clear that this is not the case as more trans men and trans women tell their stories, we can always change the rule then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 4 (move guidance to WP:MOSBIO) – WP:MOSBIO is much better equipped to explain how to deal with this in the lede, and in subsequent uses in the body of the article. Once that is accomplished WP:MOS#Identity should for transgender indivuals be confined to whatever results from WP:VPP#Clarifying MOS:IDENTITY in articles in which transgender individuals are mentioned in passing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - Per MOS:IDENTITY, In such cases [of gender identity], give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Unprecedented authority/leeway is given to subjects to control the gender identity and language used in this encyclopedia to describe them (as it is currently popular within modern language and the mainstream media). Everything else plays by a different set of rules and isn't determined by how the subject may feel. Sex and gender, and their corresponding language were once synonymous, but that is no longer the case. The sex of a subject is a fact that is quite useful/helpful when researching or reading about them, and it should be clarified.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 (keep current rule). This is the most respectful way to refer to trans people at any stage of their life. If specifics in the article require clarification about a person's birth-assigned sex, that can be provided without changing their currently-preferred pronouns. Option 3 as currently worded (males produce sperm, females produce ova) is biased and erasing of intersex people. Funcrunch (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 5 I see no good reason why this case should be a drastic exception. Wikipedia is not the place to form social norms, rather it is the place to report them. If most sources follow a person's expressed preferences, so should we. If most post-transition reliable sources use the gender identity that a person had (or was publicly thought to have) when the events occurred which made the person notable, then so should we. In short, follow the sources wherever they lead, and if they have a clear consensus, that is all that matters. Where sources are divided, then and only then look to the preferences of the person involved. DES (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 5, with Option 2 as a second choice, and Option 4- as option 3 has been removed (I thought the language was reasonable, perhaps it could have used some adjustment [done a bit hastily]), Option 5 is a bit better overall, so I won't pursue restoration of option 3. My rationale above also fits with this option, so I won't reiterate it here.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    Not that you aren't within your rights to support more than one option, but did I make a mistake, Godsy? Was there some way other in which it was different from option 2? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The intention was to make pointing out the sex of a subject for clarity in an appropriate manner reasonable per the guideline.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Expanding my preference above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (use the gender/name at time of event) and Option 4 (move to WP:MOSBIO). We should continue with that longstanding practice of typically calling people by the names (and, by extension, genders) that the public knew them as at the time of the events in question (example: Muhammad Ali, formerly Cassius Clay). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 and 4 Let's keep up with the times. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (use the gender/name at time of event) - Option 4 would also make sense in this case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1, mostly. Overall, it provides a better guide, although there are cases where explaining context more in-depth are going to be necessary, and practice in the style of option 2 covers those better. In particular, I disfavor option 5 as appearing possibly unnecessarily difficult to maintain. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 02:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I didn't want to strike my comment since I still substantially agree, but it's no longer strictly accurate. Many of the responses below put forward compelling arguments in favor of option 2, so I've moved myself firmly there. My secondary comment about option 5 remains. I continue to have absolutely no opinion with regard to option 4. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 21:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 5 and 4 per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and to remain consistent with WP:UCRN. To quote the latter: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 02:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    I also want to add that even if we decide to keep the current wording, that it should be tweaked to read "that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification as indicated in reliable sources". With Caitlyn Jenner, for example, there was a rush by certain members of the LGBTQ community who assume that all transgender people have the same preferences as them to change all the "he"s in the article to "she"s as soon as she revealed that she was transgender. However, at the time, Jenner had expressed a preference for male pronouns to be used until the name change was announced. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 03:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 But might need some tweaks to handle non-binary people. While we don't necessarily use the official name in cases where the common name is different we are talking about people here and we tend to afford BLP a higher degree of respect. "Misgendering" a trans individual can be seen as an denial of who they are and likewise for for any of our trans* editors and readers. While I have this page on my watchlist and saw it that way, I was also pointed to this discussion by a post to my talk page. PaleAqua (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oprion 5'
  • Option 1. This is the only respectful way to handle individuals who transition. As PaleAqua says, misgendering - or "deadnaming" - an individual can be incredibly harmful. I don't care if the majority of sources say X or Y or Z, we refer to individuals by their self-expressed gender identity, and the fact that major newspapers didn't get the memo isn't a reason for us to tear it up. We rely on reliable sources to AVOID being shitty to living people; let's not use them as an excuse to be shitty. Ironholds (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Options 2 and 4 - My take is to favor historical accuracy tempered with sensitivity for subject's expressed preferences following the subject's public gender transition. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the subject's preferences should govern pre-transition events to the extent the subject was not notable pre-transition. As for persons who are notable for pre-transition events, such as Caitlyn Jenner (f.k.a. Bruce Jenner), we cannot re-write the history of the Olympic Games or major gender-based sports records, nor should we attempt to airbrush history. That's Orwellian and contrary to simple historical accuracy. As for placement of the revised TRANS guideline, this guideline should never have been placed within the Manual of Style, and should be firmly anchored within the biography article guidelines of WP:BIO, where we can expect the focus to be on WP:BLP and related policies and guidelines with an emphasis on high-quality reliable sources, not tabloid grist and pro- or anti-activist agendas. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Going by the sources is usually fine, but the best source for personal details like gender identity, sexual orientation, and religious affiliation is the subject. If a reliable source said that the pope is a Protestant, I would like to think that we'd have the good sense to disregard it. Likewise, if a reliable source misgenders a person, we should ignore it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Describing the pre-transition life events with post-transition name and adjectives would be misleading, in that it would imply the spouse of the earlier time was in a homosexual relationship, or that a unisex sports team or sporting competition was coed, or that a military unit was coed. It could make someone who served in the military in a male role "The first woman to win a Congressional Medal of Honor". It would have a man giving birth and a woman being a sperm donor. In many cases it will be possible to avoid gendered pronouns in the pre-transition phase, by simply using the person's last name instead of "he" or "his" or she" or "her," as in Alexander James Adams, where "he" and "his" are only used in the later male identity . For Caitlyn Jenner we might say "Jenner fathered children" rather than "She fathered children." We might alternatively say "Caitlyn Jenner (then Bruce Jenner) won an Olympic medal and fathered a child." The Christine Jorgenson article says "she" was drafted in 1945 and fought in World War Two, leading to the impression that US women were drafted into combat forces in 1945, replacing earlier versions of that article which used "he" for the WW2 experience. Edison (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Options 2 and 4—per Dirtlaywer1. I have complete respect for the issues and complexities, but at the same time, we can't change past history either. I understand that there are more emotional issues at stake, but this is very similar to any other name change. A biography of a woman should properly refer to her by her maiden name pre-marriage and her married name post-nuptials when dealing with past history in context. Edison's examples are also very illustrative of my position. Imzadi 1979 → 03:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Options 4 and not 5 - I'm sufficiently torn between 1 and 2 to yield to others. But I've read 5 three times, still don't follow it, and suspect many other well-intentioned editors won't either. And I agree, WP:MOSBIO is the natural home. Barte (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The basic intent of 5 is simply "follow the sources" all else is merely intended clarification. It was written on the spot when I saw this RfC didn't include any such option, and it didn't have the Pre-RFC polishing that others did. No doubt the wording could be improved. DES (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 5. - So much for "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy." Carrite (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1; we should respect people's self-identification. One caveat, though: Not all individuals who transition define as having been one gender their entire life -- there are some people who legitimately see their transition as a decision to change gender (and therefore see their pre-transition selves as having been a different gender, rather than being misgendered.) In situations where that's unambiguously the case, respecting their self-identification means using different pronouns pre- and post-transition. I'm fine with the 'default' being to use the most recent pronoun throughout absent some clear otherwise from the article's subject, though. --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1; though we could add some language indicating that the article should be clear, without undue emphasis, on the name and gender presentation in use at any given time. Looking at Brandon Teena as an example, it uses Teena (the post-transition surname) and "he" to refer to the subject throughout, while being clear on the name and gender presentation. Trying to adjust the subject's name and pronoun throughout the article to match the presentation at the time period being described would be extremely confusing; it would be "Brandon/she" for most of one paragraph, then switch to "Brandon/he" for a sentence and a few subsequent paragraphs, then "Teena/he" for the remainder of the article.--Trystan (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2. I understand that this is a delicate issue, and I certainly respect a person's right to identify as whatever gender he or she wishes. However, I agree with the above comments that we can't simply rewrite history in order to be more sensitive to someone's feelings. Caitlyn Jenner was not the first woman to win an olympic medal in a men's event. Bruce Jenner won that medal as a man, and trying to imply in an article that it didn't happen that way is a blatant misrepresentation of fact. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2 seems like the most straighforward and less likely to confuse readers. It presents a middle ground that makes sense to me, and avoids the absolutist approach of option 1. Option 5 is worded confusingly IMO, and that would make editors' jobs harder with little benefit. --Waldir talk 09:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 5 Following reliable sources is always a good idea. (In general, if you find yourself opposing reliable sources, you've probably taken a wrong turn somewhere.) I don't see any reason to limit it to articles about the subject, either; the wording of option 5 would work excellently for coverage of transgender people in any article. Sideways713 (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1. The fact that sources (and society) are often dismissive of a person's identity or a person shares aspects of their identity judiciously - doesn't mean it isn't real or didn't exist. I don't think it has anything to do with historical accuracy - for example, Jenner competed in men's sports, but it doesn't mean she identified as a man. This can be stated rather simply without erasing the fact that her identity as a girl/woman actually existed from childhood. If a person had any other characteristic that was only publicly discussed later - we wouldn't make believe it didn't exist at the time because of "historical accuracy". This isn't just a matter of "feelings", it's a matter of de facto recognition that our traditional model of gender is being challenged by the lived experiences of actual people who cannot be sorted into these (quickly eroding) ideas of "man" and "woman". TMagen (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1. I don't really see any need to change things drastically. Disregarding the fact that most transgender people still subconsciously identify as their gender even if they haven't come out, using changes in pronouns would most likely confuse the reader. The reader might think we were talking about different people, and the first name change would just be bizarre. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 14:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 5. This is how we deal will every other dispute about which names to use in an article, and adopting it will bring the instructions at MOS:IDENTITY into line with our other policy and guideline pages (rather than carving out an exception to those policies and guidelines, as is done now). Note that in most cases, adopting this will result in Wikipedia using the "new" names and pronouns (since modern sources tend to be sensitive to such things, and will use the "new" name and pronouns once a change has been announced). Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - The first option seems to be an attempt to re-write history, which appears to be contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. I understand what #5 is attempting to do, but as other editors have said, it is pretty confusing, #2, while less explicit, will basically accomplish the same thing, except in very particular sets of circumstances, which can be handled on those article's talk pages. But would not be adverst to #5 if more folks feel it is more specific and not confusing. Onel5969 TT me 15:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The basic intent of 5 is simply "follow the sources" all else is merely intended clarification. It was written on the spot when I saw this RfC didn't include any such option, and it didn't have the Pre-RFC polishing that others did. No doubt the wording could be improved. DES (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2 for historical accuracy. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Follow reliable sources: as with religion and sexuality, the most reliable source for gender is the person. Current understanding, from brain studies etc, is that in most cases a trans man was never a woman; it is as inaccurate to write an article as if she had been one as to write an article as if "John was attracted to women until he came out as gay at 24" or "diseases were caused by miasma until circa the 1880s, when germs began to cause them". Second, referring to trans people by names or pronouns that disregard their identities causes harm (refs here), which is especially problematic with BLPs. Third, switching names is confusing, esp. if the surname changes as with e.g. Fallon Fox. Imagine a writer who transitioned in 2002 from Jane Doe to John Fox: "Jane Doe wrote the film after a fight with her sister.[ref: fight was in 2000] John Fox said later he considered it 'one of [his] best films in the genre'.[ref: said that in 2003] ... Doe won one Emmy in 2001 for her work on That Film, and Fox won a second Emmy in 2003 for his work on Another Film." Fourth: credit things to the people who did them, using the most up-to-date names for them; fixating on attributing things to whatever strings of letters sources at the time used, instead of to the flesh-and-blood people, is odd. (But I agree with Trystan: if we need to, we can be clear, without undue emphasis, on the name and gender presentation used at a given time.) -sche (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm wary of option 4; centralizing biography style guidance in one place is desirable, but splitting trans style guidance into two places seems undesirable; we'd also have to be careful how we worded the identity-related guidance that remained in the MOS: currently, the MOS says "do X, except in trans cases do Y" (an appropriate exception — as Darkfrog notes, the world treats trans name changes differently from other name changes, so it's appropriate for us to); if we moved "do Y" to a subpage, we'd have to leave careful wording behind lest the MOS' claim that it trumps its subpages be used to say "well, 'do Y' doesn't count anymore". -sche (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 5. We should follow the sources, per WP:V. Tevildo (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 5 per WP:No original research. Use in Wikipedia should reflect the sources. Too often people in Wikipedia make assumptions about individual's preferences. It is best to leave the research to reliable sources rather than making new rules to permit crowdsourced original research, as in option 1. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    Who said anything about "crowdsourced original research"? Option 1 is the latest expressed desire around identity - in other words, the most recent statement from the subject. Your approach would say that someone tweeting their preferences, if used to justify a change, would constitute users "making assumptions", which is not the case. Ironholds (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 (keep current rule) A person's own statement trumps all other sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 (keep current rule) Just as we accept people's self-identification when it comes to religion or sexual orientation, so we should do so when it comes to gender identity. Furthermore, any other practice would conflict with the "high degree of sensitivity" required by BLP. The claims about "rewriting history" are unconvincing and poorly reasoned. Saying that Caitlyn Jenner was a man when she won her Olympic medal is not a neutral or uncontroversial claim - it is one that relies on a contestable conception of gender, one that privileges biology and outward presentation over the person's feelings of being female (or male). On other conceptions of gender, Jenner may have always been female. (I am using Jenner as an example - I obviously cannot speak for whether she regards herself as having been female back then. But many trans people certainly do take that view.) Neljack (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I agree with Dirtlawyer1 and Edison. When writing historically, it will likely be most clear to the reader if the article uses the person's publicly presented gender identification at the time; using a gender identification from later (sometimes much later) in the person's life smacks of historical revisionism and may inadvertently make or imply false statements about other people involved in that phase of the person's life. While the person may have privately identified in a manner different from their public presentation for some time before the change in public presentation, we normally cover public events rather than the individual's private life and thus should generally follow the public presentation. For portions of the article covering both time periods I'd say to use the latest public gender identification. I don't have issue with avoidance of gendered language entirely where that is possible without unusually awkward language, as long as it is clear on the name and presentation in use at the time. Anomie⚔ 01:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (very strongly support).  I believe very strongly that in referring to such people we should use the pronouns, names, etc. which correspond to the time of the event being discussed.  I believe Edison  makes the best arguments against some of the other options, including the possibility of Wikipedia articles appearing to:
falsely imply that a heterosexual had been in a homosexual relationship
falsely imply that a unisex sports team or military unit was coed
incorrectly suggest that a man had given birth or a woman had been a sperm donor,    and
incorrectly suggest that women are or have ever been drafted into the US military.
I'm all for respecting the expressed wishes and feelings of people; but not at the cost of rewriting history.
I'm also against any option that calls for imitating the style used predominantly in reliable sources.  What will happen is some editor with an agenda will shop around until he finally comes up with two or three sources that use his preferred style.  Then another editor will locate four or five sources using a different style and "trump" the first editor.  Etc. etc. and the next thing you know we're having disputes, edit wars, and unnecessary RfC's.  Such an option would also undoubtedly result in some articles using one style and other articles using a different style, resulting in a total lack of uniformity and consistency within Wikipedia.  Option 2  would prevent all that, and it would do so without rewriting history.
Richard27182 (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2 It appears to me that Option 2 is both the most respectful to the person (and good for WP:BLP reasons) and to history. As an example, it makes no sense to say that Caitlyn Jenner won the 1976 gold medal, because she was known as Bruce at the time, is (as far as I know) still listed as Bruce Jenner in the official IOC records, and as Caitlyn would have been ineligible to have joined the male field anyway. Therefore, it seems that using the pronoun that they were referred to before the transition is in no way wrong but historically and technically accurate, and using the pronoun that they now identify as after the transition is accurate. Vyselink (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2 & 4 I would say that Wikipedia being a tertiary source, one that bases itself off of reliable secondary sources, should only reflect what we know. Not what people want. Wikipedia is not a place to change history in favor of how people feel. We don't remove sourced libelous information about people (no matter how much they want it changed), why would we change their historical public identity? Jcmcc (Talk) 20:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep current rule. We shouldn't try to fix what isn't broken, and this is something that could lead to a raging mess of BLP violations very quickly if watered down. Options 2 and 4 basically take our BLP policy out and shoot it as applied to transgender people. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • May possibly vary on an individual basis, but largely Option 2 and Option 5. This issue has come about because of Caitlyn, fka Bruce, Jenner. It is ridiculous and disorienting to say that "she" won such-and-such an award in Men's _______ (especially when his clearly male form and face is plastered all over the media and cereal boxes). It just doesn't make sense. I think it may possibly be acceptable to refer to, say, Wendy Carlos as "she" throughout his/her article (he didn't compete professionally in men's sports), but even then, Carlos's successful public career was almost entirely as Walter, so even then I'd go with "he" prior to transition. We should always go with what the person publicly identified themselves as at the time. If they don't change their public identity until late in life, that's not Wikipedia's problem. Softlavender (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 There is no such thing as neutral ground here. This is basically the ideology of gender essentialism against the ideology of gender constructivism. I say go with the option that values an individual's choice over a doctor's assumption. To do otherwise would constitute cissexism. - MellowMurmur (talk | contributions) 13:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The American Society of Copy Editors discussed this at their 2015 convention in April.[7] There was no consensus there. Whether or not "they" and "their" should be used as singular forms is currently an open question. There's a good chance this will be settled at ASCE 2016, and then it will make it into the AP Stylebook. Then we'll have a reliable source to follow. Obsessing over this now may be premature. John Nagle (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The singular they might one day end up as common usage for people who expressly wish to be referred to by neither male nor female pronouns, but that's not the case for most trans men and trans women. Also, while we can always run an RfC on the singular they again next year (or any year we please) I think it'd take at least a few years for the language to make the jump to singular-they-as-standard-for-genderqueer, and there's no harm in finding a rule that works for Wikipedia with the English language that we have right now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 (keep current rule) per Ironholds's well-stated reasoning above. Also because anything else would be a violation of BLP policy, as it's slanderous to refer to a transgender person by their pre-transition name or pronouns, except in wording such as "Bobby Darling (born Pankaj Sharma)". As for option 4, is there some reason the text couldn't be on both pages? That seems the best way to ensure editors don't overlook this specific policy when seeking guidance. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 05:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per Dirtlawyer, Binksternet, et al. This option is the actual truth as told on a chronological scale and that is what we should be doing. We should not be taking anything that people who are the subject of an article say directly as fact...that is why we have our reliable sources policy. People would love to rewrite history and fudge their birth date to make themselves look younger or go back and rewrite their own articles to make themselves look better. My point being that we don't allow this for anything else so why make an exception here. Wiki's job is to tell the story as it happened...not skew the articles to placate revisionism.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I would support some combination of Option 2 and Option 5. Sex and gender is linguistically messy, and getting messier. Deferring to the subject's self-identification is not going to be realistic in every case, so making it a general policy is unhelpful. Reliable sources are going to be on the front lines of this, figuring out how to present gender identification in a way that is clear to the general population while respecting the needs of the subject. In the absence of my favored combination, Option 5. DPRoberts534 (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 as all other options show bias and disrespect against transgender individuals. Beyond that, people supporting option 2 by merely saying it reflects truth or some actual history are making circular arguments. It assumes gender assigned at birth is objectively real until the subject transitions gender. The term 'transitions gender' isn't even defined in option 2, but the term seems to assume there is one point in time where a person goes from one gender to another. Is this point when the person first realizes their identity themselves? Or is it when they out themselves to friends and family or does only outting oneself to the broader world count? Or is someone's gender transitioned at some other point entirely? I don't know what is meant to be implied by 'gender transition' but enough people and sources will see transitioning as a process and not just one fixed point in time. Option 2, in any interpretation, will be making some non-universal assumptions about what constitutes a gender transition. Option 2 also ignores that many people feel coerced to stay closeted for at least some period of time; just because someone is forced to hide or not believe some truth about themselves is not the same as that truth not existing. For example we generally don't assume a subject who comes out later in life as gay was a straight person up until the very point they come out. Option 5 seems odd since the most reliable source on how a subject perceives their own gender is going to be themselves. Rab V (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 5. (I might favorably consider one more extreme) I do not advocate 'bias or disrespect', but transgender people's right to change their public gender identity does not extend into my head or my notes or past writings or Wikipedia. They are their new gender but they were the old gender, so far as the world was concerned. They may always have been the other gender inside, but a "boy" is what we see, what's written on paper, what competes in a boy's track meet. We should not revise "Manning listed his name as Bradley and sex as male on the recruitment form" into "Manning listed her name as Chelsea and sex as female on the recruitment form." There is no real contradiction in saying that Chelsea is a woman but as a young boy she identified as gay, etc. I also think that the convention of retroactive changes is going to fail when we start seeing people who change sex more frequently. There is a popular sort of cult in the 2040s where people are one sex from summer to winter solstice, the other on the return, and when either biological sex can be in either phase it's already confusing enough without rewriting the entire article! Wnt (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
comment: what Chelsea Manning wrote on her recruitment form is an entirely different question to her gender, however. If a Catholic in England prior to Catholic emancipation had claimed Protestantism in order to, e.g., become an MP, I hope that no one would suggest that we should refer to them in the article as being Protestant. Likewise, whether or not Manning said that she was male when she joined the army, and whether or not she was male when she joined the army are two entirely separate questions.
As for saying "as a young boy she identified as gay", the major problem with that is that the gender of the pronoun doesn't match the gender of the noun. We should in this case either write "as a child she identified as a gay man", "as a child she was identified as a gay man", or "as a child he identified as gay; she later identified as a woman" (yes, the wording of that last is clunky...) depending on which of these proposals we adopt...
(And saying that we shouldn't adopt a policy because of the hypothetical problems we may or may not have thirty-plus years along the line when people change their sex biannually is really tenuous if you ask me, especially since the proposal has nothing to do with sex organs (which is presumably what you mean) and everything to do with gender identity, which is currently believed to be broadly stable in the same way that sexuality is...) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No single rule Preference should be given to the best neutral reliable sources used for a claim about the person - if the reliable sources use a specific pronoun/gender then Wikipedia should generally follow the lead of the best sources. Where we are using multiple sources which use conflicting gender/pronoun choices, we should try to reflect the self-identification of the living person involved as best as the sources indicate. In no case should Wikipedia seek to be the arbiter of gender - we should, as always, reflect the best available neutral reliable sources. Collect (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@Collect - How is this different from Option 5? Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Option 5 is a litany of internally self-contradictory possibilities. I suggest we use best available neutral reliable sources - and Wikipedia should not in any instance attempt to be the arbiter. Collect (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1: as pointed out before, anything else might push us into the realms of cissexism and the attitude that trans people somehow weren't trans before coming out. It would be quite easy to use wording such as "Caitlyn Jenner (then Bruce Jenner, prior to coming out as trans) won the 1922 race" that clarified the situation without misgendering people. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Something along the lines of Option 2. The only way to be simultaneously fair to both history and the person's right to identity is to use the identity that the person used at the time of the event in question. But we need to keep in mind: it is the identity that person used that we have to consider, not the "way they look", if we can source it. (Used identity means the one they either say they are, or filled on forms, etc. If a person "looked like a male" but it is known that person wanted to be called "she" at the time and wrote down "woman" at the time then we should use "she" as the pronoun, not "he", provided we can source it) If we cannot source it, then pronounless writing should be preferred, even if it is difficult, and if that is not possible, then as an absolute last ditch use singular "they". mike4ty4 (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Avoid pronouns for historical material, then I support most of #5 + aspects of #2; and separately support #4. Re: Option 5 – This is the WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOT#ADVOCACY and WP:NOR approach. However, the "again favoring post-transition sources" that comes after "For historical events, look to reliable sources that describe those events", should be deleted, as it makes no sense. For historical events, do not falsify history. Regardless, of these political matters, just rewrite to avoid using pronouns for pre-transition events. It is not difficult and makes 90% of this incessant conflict just go away.
    Re: Option 2 – I could support it without "pronouns" and with the addition of #5's include both names where failing to do so is likely to cause confusion. Basically, I'm arguing for a merger of #2 and #5.
    Re: #4 (moving this to MOSBIO) – This should happen no matter what, but not totally; this is frequent and important enough a point that at least a summarized version of its key points should be retained in MOS-proper.
    Vehemently oppose option 1 – It is just language-change WP:ADVOCACY, will confuse readers, and will basically irritate every reader and editor who is not TG nor a language-change activist. It's a stick that needs to be dropped, then burnt with fire so it cannot be picked up again to beat this dead horse (or browbeat us all any further). Not all women prefer -woman occupational titles; probably a majority of them prefer neutral ones (chair/chairperson, etc.). I've also worked with a woman, Esther Dyson, who emphatically preferred to be called chairman (then of EFF's board of directors). This points out the inherent problem in #1: it's a bunch of well-meaning but misguided "ally" PoV pushing that proceeds from false generalizations. Even the ideas that all TG people have felt misgendered since childhood, that all of them have made a complete transition or want to, or that all of them feel their previous gender is a "deadname" are are offended somehow by references to their past that do not match their current self-usage, are all false and absurd. It's like supposing that a lesbian married woman with a wife, and who changed her name upon marriage, but was one married to a man several decades ago, is going to flip out if anyone ever mentioned her maiden name, first married name (to the husband), or that she was ever in a heterosexual relationship. It's frankly pretty insulting to an entire class of people, presuming that they're mentally and emotionally unstable and need activists to protect them from their own histories and from language.
     — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 5, per WP:Neutrality, WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:V and numerous other of our most central and critical policies reflecting longstanding community consensus. I appreciate the sentiment that inspired this rule and I think it's great that we're in a position to consider nuances like this when it was not so long ago that mainstream perspectives on transgender identities ran the gambit between denial and insult. But as a matter of editorial consistency, this rule should have been immediately recognized as unworkable for being too far in conflict with the practical necesities of encyclopedic tone and with our responsibilities as editors who are meant to be reproducing the perspectives of outside sources, not interjecting our own social consciousness on to the content. As a social, moral, political, and empirical individual, I without question embrace the notion that it is a matter of basic respect to acknowledge a person's selected gender identity where it is an important and clearly affirmative choice on their part, and I hope that the trend towards normalizing this manner of usage (in both everyday parlance and in the sources which may be of use to us here) continues to gather momentum. But as a Wikipedian, I am obligated by the most basic tenants of this community's objectives to set aside my personal perspectives and to instead faithfully represent common understanding of a topic, as represented in reliable sources withotu allowing my bias to influence it, no matter how socially beneficial or accurate I believe my take on the matter may be.
There's also a matter of equity in our approach to neutral treatment of individuals via BLP to consider here. Let's make no mistake here, what we have done in adopting this policy is to effectively announce "the gender identity of person A is more important than the ethnic identity of person B, or the religious identity of person C, or the national identity of person D, or the political identity of person D, ect. ad nauseum", because for all of those other classes of person, we utilize the standard of sourcing, not their assertions. And as well we should; that neutrality and propensity for removing ourselves from the equations of interpretation of a given topic is a critical need and strength of this project that is principally responsible for what we've been able to create here. By breaking with it, even for manifestly well-intentioned and respectful purposes, we have created a situation that unworkable within the greater framework under which we operate and a risky precedent that challenges the integrity of a principle we should all be very proud of. I don't like to use the phrase "slippery slope" much, because I think it is often abused by alarmists, but I think it is clearly appropriate in this instance. It pains me to say this, it really does, but on Wikipedia I must sometimes set aside my personal ideology and I don't think we can continue to indulge this experiment and support Wikipedia's core ideals and needs at the same time. Snow let's rap 03:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 5 In general, following the sources is the best option. Usually the sources are the most informative thing we have. Ignoring them for some Wikipedia rule will hurt when social norms end up changed again. Besides, we don't set these kinds of rules, the public does, and they follow the media more than us specifically. Swordman97 talk to me 03:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 5. The basic principle of wikipedia content writing is that we follow the sources, rather than conduct original research on our own, or express of own evaluation . That should apply here also. We have no basic to make a judgement about what hame o a person should be called or what gender should be ascribed to them. Our responsibility it only to record and follow the predominant responsible sources in English. If the responsible sources are behind the times, or ignorant of what many of us may think are proper treatment of the matter, that still does not give us the right to deviate from them: it would be a classic expression of original research. Even if there are great wrongs perpetrated by society in this matter (and that was in the opinion of many of us the situation earlier, but is much less so now), even so trying to right them would part of WP:NOT -- it's advocacy , not encyclopedic writing. DGG ( talk ) 08:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Options 1 and 4. The status quo in Option 1 is already serving Wikipedia well, and the other options will run into confusion as to when exactly the gender transition occurred (e.g. mentally versus physically). smileguy91talk - contribs 15:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion (trans individuals in articles about themselves)

Pursuant to discussion on WT:MOS, I have notified the two WikiProjects which are directly concerned with this topic: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies (diff) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style (diff). -sche (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, -sche!
Please note that Godsy's option 3, which I have removed for neutrality reasons, looked like this:
option 3, removed)
For any person whose gender might be questioned, use the pronouns, possessive adjectives, name, and gendered nouns that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification when discussing events that took place after the individual's gender transition. Use the pronouns, adjectives, name, and gendered nouns that correspond to the individual's previous gender presentation when discussing events that took place before the individual's gender transition. This is a factual encyclopedia, it is not censored or politically correct; in order for that to remain true, and avoid revising history, a sex and gender distinction should be made. The birth sex of the subject of an article should be made clear, especially if it is known and relevant. Otherwise, the use of the pronouns, possessive adjectives, name, and gendered nouns that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification interchangeably, for those of both physical sex (scientifically: male, sperm producing beings and female, ova producing beings), can be confusing and misrepresentative of the subject to readers.
As you can see, it's just option 2 + ideology. In my experience, adding anything but instructions and straightforward, practical explanations to the MoS (and even those sparingly) causes trouble. As for option 4, the idea of whether MOS:IDENTITY should either be copied to or moved to MOSBIO is a separate issue and best treated on its own. The closing of the previous RfC said we should revisit what the rule should be, not where to put it. I think option 4 should come out too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Just as a friendly reminder to whoever closes this discussion: there are really two separate issues here, whether there is consensus to keep the status quo, and which alternative to use if we don't keep the status quo. Make sure to weigh those two issues separately, so we don't end up with options 2, 4, and 5 splitting the !vote and making it appear there is no consensus for change if there really is. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. There should be Option 6 which is that a gender-changed person would be described in a historical manner when the time frame is historically appropriate. Thus, a person such as Wendy Carlos would be discussed as Walter Carlos, a male, when the time frame is the 1968 album Switched-On Bach, which was released before Carlos underwent a gender change. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    @Binksternet: How would such an option be different from option 2? —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 07:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    Ah! I misread number 2 at first. You're right. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    I'm still having trouble with Option 2. It's very confusing, and only allows for one gender-change. Can we simplify it? "Use the gender and pronoun that matches the subject's gender identification at the time of the events described." This would align with Wikipedia's manual on name changes: write the name used at the time. So, for example, Cassius Clay was born in 1942 (later Muhammad Ali). John Cougar Mellencamp recorded "Authority ong" (previously and later John Mellencamp). Bruce Jenner won Olympic gold medals (later Kaitlyn). If we treat gender change differently than name changes, then perhaps we're not mature enough to write about gender identity. Canute (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Question - what I don't really understand is why is this being framed as a "style" issue in the first place? Which name to use in a given context is not a question of "style"... it's a question of fact. We have lots of policies and guidelines that deal with presenting factual information... WP:V (and WP:RS)... WP:NPOV (and WP:UNDUE)... WP:NOR (and WP:PSTS). ALL of them center on the idea that we should base what Wikipedia says on what the sources say. That is a fundamental concept for Wikipedia - We follow the sources. When sources disagree, we neutrally explain the disagreement. If doing so leads to a lack of uniformity and consistency in our articles... well... the real world is a messy, non-uniform and inconsistent place - our job isn't to attempt to make the real world less messy... our job is to help readers understand the mess. Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Primarily because that's where MOS:IDENTITY is located, probably because other identity issues have to do with small distinctions about spelling etc. (such as "Arab" vs "Arabic"). This discussion is about what the MOS:IDENTITY subsection on gender identity should say. Where those words should be located is a separate issue. If you want to start an RfC or other thread about moving this part of MOS:IDENTITY somewhere else, I'll gladly chime in, but I think it would be best to wait until these two threads are done. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Blueboar:The name in use at any given time is a question of fact, but how to refer to someone once those facts are established is a question of style. For example, the article on Michelle Obama uses her married surname throughout without the least bit of confusion or anachronism as to what her name was at the time being discussed. We could also refer to her by her birth surname until her marriage, but there is no reason to read much meaning into which style happens to dominate in her biographies specifically.
For the gender of trans people, we should definitely have some sort of consistent approach. Tallying sources to try to figure out when the Brandon Teena article should switch from "she" to "he" would be difficult, and add no value to the reader. Looking at sources can verify that both Jane Smith and Jane Jones are trans women who publicly transitioned, and what their name and gender presentation was at any one time in their lives. But counting pronoun usage in those sources to conclude that Smith was always a trans woman, even before coming out, while Jones switched genders, isn't meaningful.--Trystan (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The reason why we refer to Michelle Obama by her married name through out most of her bio article (we do mention her maiden name) is that this is what sources do... not because we made a "style" choice to do so. Few (if any) sources refer to her as Michelle Robinson... except in passing. This is unlike what happens with say Muhammed Ali... where a significant majority of sources still refer to him as "Cassius Clay" when talking historically. So... we use "Clay" when talking about that period of his life. Different articles, different contexts, different source usage... so different end results.
As for the pronoun issue... I would agree that pronouns are a style issue. However, what pronoun to use is a distinct and separate question from what NAME to use... since a woman can be named "Bruce", and a man can be named "Caitlyn". Pronouns are gender specific... Names are not... Names are subject specific. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
For our purposes (encyclopedia-writing), most English-language names are gender-specific. While it's possible for a man to be named Vivian, etc., that's going to rare enough to treat as a special case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree... I don't mean this as a personal attack, but it strikes me that the idea that names are gender specific is incredibly biased and non-neutral. It denies the self-assertion that Jenner was always a woman... even when she called herself "Bruce". Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Names are generally given based on the physical sex of a person at birth, so they're inherently bias and describe that, more than stating anything about the gender of a subject. It is traditionally this way because it was assumed they'd align, and their wasn't a distinction, which there now modernly is. The only way to fix that would be to disassociate all names with sex and gender, or to identify individuals by a different means until the age of majority. "The reason why we refer to Michelle Obama by her married name through out most of her bio article" is because she wasn't as notable before being the first lady or likely described in sources as often. This isn't the case with Jenner, as they were well known by their previous name and various sources commonly used it. I assume this is the case for Muhammed Ali as well, though I'm not as familiar with that case.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, now we're getting a little out there. "Gender" has about five different correct definitions and "state of being male or female, sex" is the most common one. It's also short for "gender role" and "gender identity," but when talking about the distinction between sex and gender, in the most common sense of the word, the two terms align so that there isn't one.
And let's not get too worked up about sex assignment either. It's called "assignment" but it's better described as drawing a conclusion. Jenner's parents weren't diabolically conspiring to disguise her as a boy; they took a gander at her body and came to the perfectly reasonable belief that she was one. In something like 99% of the population, the conclusion drawn about a baby's gender and gender role and gender identity at birth turns out to be correct. A system of giving children gender-neutral names until majority would be overkill.
As for names and bias, given your track record, Blueboar I find it very easy to not take that personally. Let me ask you this: If names weren't gendered in the sense we mean here, then why would so many trans men and trans women feel the need to change them as part of their transition? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
When I referred to "sex" above, I meant the scientific definition, which is: organisms that produce sperm carrying the XY chromosomes ("male") vs. organisms that produces non-mobile ova (egg cells) carrying the XX chromosomes ("female"). The link I provided to the sex article also describes it in this way. Even gender reassignment surgery cannot change this.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know. That word is interchangeable with "gender" in most contexts. "What gender is that fruit fly?"/"It's male." Etc. The only real difference is that "gender" doesn't get a storm of giggles or stupid jokes.
However, if you're going to refer to gender in humans you must of course consider that it is generated not only by chromosomes. Biology, even the biology underlying gender in humans, is much bigger than that. It involves genes, gene expression, cell receptors, blood chemistry, brain chemistry, primary sexual characteristics, secondary sexual characteristics, brain structure and brain function, many of which are affected by epigenetic factors and environmental conditions. It is rare but perfectly natural for a body have some male traits and some female traits. We may one day find that Jenner and Wachowski really are biologically female in some ways. That's why I don't personally find it appropriate to use "biologically male" to refer to Jenner because we have one clue that suggests that it may not be so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. "... really are biologically female in some ways. ... I don't personally find it appropriate to use "biologically male" to refer to Jenner." If those discoveries are made, then it would be incorrect, but why speculate until such a time? "Biologically male" is an accurate description based on current knowledge. Simply calling a spade a spade, rather than going to great lengths and jumping through hoops not to do so, seems reasonable to me. It also avoids historical revisionism.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
It's an WP:UNDUE descriptor, though, if the article already deals with a person's gender transition adequately (which articles about transgendered people should, where the gender transition is part of their biography in an important way), it isn't necessary to hammer the point home repeatedly that they used to be a different gender; unless one is trying to highlight the point that their former gender is "more valid" or normative when compared to their current, preferred gender. The problem with using qualifiers and additions to an article like "biological male" or "genetic male" or whatever, even if such facts were verifiable and true, is not their verifiability or truthfulness, it's the way the phrasing clearly indicates a non-neutral stance, which is that the gender being so highlighted by phrases like "biologically male" is somehow a person's "real gender", and that the person's self-expressed identity isn't earnest or valid. --Jayron32 01:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems reasonable to me, and I'd be alright with it, but I'm not advocating that (unless reliable sources commonly do it for the subject). If the pronouns, possessive adjectives, name, and gendered nouns match their preferred gender, not their biological sex (based on the sex and gender distinction), I'm okay with it as long as factual accuracy (i.e. their biological sex is made clear in the article in the manner you suggested above "deals with a person's gender transition adequately") is maintained in a clear way for readers. I think it should also be made clear if the individual has undergone gender reassignment surgery, assuming its known and relevant (which should generally be the case). Both the aforementioned details are useful when researching a subject.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Why speculate? Probably the same reason you are. Oh I'm all for calling a spade a spade when you can actually tell. If you only looked at part of the handle, then it might be a spade but it might be a sledgehammer. And if its owner has been using it as a sledgehammer with some success...
It's great to care about factual accuracy, but then you must use actual facts and not just guesses. If you were to say "Jenner had male genitalia," then I'd say "Yes she did" because we know that "male" was put on her birth certificate and visible male genitalia are the usual reason why. But if you said "Jenner had male chromosomes" I'd ask "Was a karyotype done?" If you said "Jenner had male brain anatomy" I'd ask "Was an fMRI done?" The first of these things is a reasonable assumption but the other two are speculation, and all of them are important parts of a person's biology. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Re "style issue": "is this person trans?", like "is this person Muslim?", is a content question to be answered by sources (and in both cases, the most reliable source is the person, and Wikipedia requires self-identification). Once sources document that "A" and "B" denote the same person (whether trans or not), though, the question of whether to call them "A" or "B" is a style question. Even with Muhammed Ali, Wikipedia treats the question of whether to say "Clay" or "Ali" as a style rather than a content question, as can be seen from the fact that the article doesn't say "Clay did X in 1955 (ref: bio which uses Clay). Ali did Y in 1956 (ref: bio which calls him Ali throughout). Clay did Z in 1957 (ref: bio which uses Clay)." Instead, it changes sources that use "Ali" into "Clay" to obtain a consistent style. The decision to consistently use "Clay" rather than "Ali" in his early life was made because the fact that most sources use "Clay" was judged to outweigh factors that pushed in the direction of only using his current name; the crafting of MOS:IDENTITY indicates that for trans people, it has been felt that the factors pushing in the direction of "use the current name" (which are outlined above) outweigh the factors pushing for "use the previous name" or "normalize (Ali-style) on whichever name most sources use", etc. Perhaps this discussion will show that that feeling has changed, perhaps not. Note: a thing that is "just a question of style" is sometimes dismissed as unimportant with the implication that any answer is "fine"; it should be clear that isn't the case here; commenters above clearly feel this question is important and that not all answers to it are "fine".
Re names: as Darkfrog says, most names are gender-specific; in some countries such as Germany the law even requires names given at birth to indicate and match a baby's binary sex. Re "denies the self-assertion that Jenner was always a woman... even when she called herself 'Bruce'": Jenner also called herself a man at various times, e.g. when filling out forms, presumably including the ones that were necessary to get a driver's licence and the ones that were needed to enter the men's Olympics. Telling society that you are the person they think you are is a basic (not intrinsic, but common) part of being closeted and concealing who you really are because who you really are would be subjected to discrimination. -sche (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
-sche, do you have a source for that law in Germany you mention? I find that curious especially as that country now allows parents of intersex children to leave the sex marker blank on their birth certificates (though I've heard that move was controversial in the intersex community). Regardless, agreed that in many (if not most) countries, names do strongly signify gender, though what is considered a "boy" vs a "girl" name is changing all the time. Funcrunch (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Our article on the subject (German name#Forenames) has sources. "The name must indicate the gender of the child." However, checking de.WP, it seems the situation may have changed recently. I'll look into it (and update the en.WP article if it's out-of-date) later. Btw, expanding on what Darkfrog asked — if names weren't gendered, why would so many trans people change names as part of transitioning? — I note that while German law in general does not like to allow name changes, it makes an exception specifically so that, as de.WP says, "transsexuelle Menschen [können] nach dem Transsexuellengesetz ihren Vornamen ändern lassen, so dass er der geschlechtlichen Identität (Gender) entspricht" = "transsexual people can, per the Transsexuality Law, change their first name so that it matches the sexual identity (gender)". (Oh, I notice we have an article on that law which mentions that German name#Forenames is indeed out of date.) -sche (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There's two practical things we should probably discuss:

  1. When quoting text - which may predate the "coming out", what's best practice? E.g. if we want to quote a highly notable review of a musician's work, but they have since come out as transgender, what do we do about the use of their old name in the text?
  2. When should the old name be mentioned? I'd say it would usually be worth mentioning where the person had a significant career and/or notability under the old name - for example, Dee Palmer - but shouldn't be given undue prominence. At the same time, we don't want to confuse readers who may well be unaware of the coming out. This needs a delicate hand, of course, and the exact implementation may well hit a lot of practical considerations in some cases (e.g. where a large part or even all their career was pre-transition, how many times should one emphasise that photos are pre-transition? Should one rewrite all the quotes with brackets replacing the name, or is that too much alteration of the historic record? Should one simply note, at the first use of the old name in a quote that the article predates the person's transition? And, of course, there's also how to deal with the attacks - people like Chelsea Manning have it bad enough, but the attacks on their transgender status are probably not that notable - but if we have to write an article on early transgender pioneers, the controversies - however wrongheaded - could be very relevant.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Quotes should not be altered, IMO. At most, if the reader might otherwise be confused, the other name could be inserted in brackets, as with other editorial additions to quotes (and as per MOS:QUOTE). But it would usually be better to mention the alternate name or names in prose outside of and prior to the quote. Then the reader will understand who the quote refers to. As to your second point, i think it first depends what name the article is using as primary. If pretty much all the reliable sources, particularly including those published after a person has "come out" or transitioned (or otherwise changed name) use the old name, then so should our article, mentioning the new name but not giving it undue prominence. In short there is no one-size-fits-all solution to these issues. DES (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Option 5 in practice

The more I think about it, the more that I come to believe that option 5 would be a de facto option 1 in most cases.

For example, while there are more sources overall that refer to Caitlyn Jenner (formerly Bruce Jenner) as "he," almost all the sources published after Jenner's transition use "she," so refer to Jenner using female pronouns throughout her article.

Are we all interpreting option 5 the same way? Are there any of you who see it as a de facto option 2? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think option 5 would result in the same outcome as option 2 in most cases... but not necessarily in all cases. The real difference is in how the outcomes are derived (option 2 giving weight to what the subject says, and option 5 giving weight to what independent sources say). And no.. I can't come up with an existing example of a situation where the two options will give different outcomes... however I can imagine a future situation where they might give different outcomes. Blueboar (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@Blueboar: Option 2 is the one in which we disregard what the subject says and use pronouns that match whatever gender they were publicly believed to be at the time. Did you mean option 1? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Um... that's not how I read option 2 at all... As I understand the options, both 1 and 2 are based on the what the individual has stated (option 1 being based on what the individual has most recently stated, and option 2 being based on what the individual stated at various different times) ... Option 5, on the other hand, focuses on what sources state (with more weight given to more recent sources). The key difference between 5 and all the others is in what we look at when we make the determination.... should the determination be based on what the individual says... or on what sources say? In 5, we insert reliable sources between us and the individual. Blueboar (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Because many of trans individuals say, "I always felt like I was really female/male; I just didn't say so/have it all figured out," or to summarize "My previous statements about my gender were inaccurate; ignore them."
The key difference that I see between option 2 and option 5 would be that option 5 would usually end up with us using the person's latest expressed gender even to refer to periods before their transition, a de facto option 1. Do you see option 5 as leading to using one set of pronouns before transition and another set after? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
If we go with Option 5, I think we would USUALLY end up using the person's latest expressed gender even to refer to periods before their transition (since this is what modern sources tend to do)... but not ALWAYS (if the sources use different genders when talking about different eras of the person's live, so would we). Again... in option 5, it depends on what the sources indicate we should do. As I see it, the main difference between option 5 and the other options is that 5 is not focused on the outcome... but in how we arrive at the outcome. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar is correct that option 5 focuses on how we determine the outcome, rather than a one-side-fits-all solution. It is also aimed at congruence with WP:COMMONNAME and many other Wikipedia policies where we follow sources to determine what we say. In practice, in many cases it might have the same effect as option 1, but where sources refer to past achievements with previous names and/or gender identities, then it would work more like 2, or where sources are split it might work more like the "both if relevant" option. In the case of Jenner, for example the many sources which discuss the Olympic and other Athletic achievements made while Jenner publicly identified as male will in many case use the name "Bruce" and male pronouns, which might lead to a "use both" outcome in at least part of our coverage of Jenner, but that would depend on a process of weighing the actual sources. Articles about individuals who transitioned or "came out" in earlier years might wind up with different outcomes, as perhaps for Billie Jean King. But the idea is that Wikipedia doesn't create facts or social change, it follows the reliable sources wherever they lead. If nearly all modern reliable sources adopt something like option 1 themselves, so would most Wikipedia articles. DES (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This looks like it has a lot of moving parts. It might be simpler if we said "only use sources published after the transition" or if we spelled out "Follow the practice of sources published after the subject made public his or her of gender transition, even when discussing the subject's life before gender transition. (Example: Sources published after 2014 refer to Caitlyn Jenner as 'Caitlyn' and 'she' when discussing the 1976 Olympics, then do so as well OR Sources published after 2014 still refer to Caitlyn Jenner as 'Bruce' and 'he' when discussing the 1976 Olympics, so Wikipedia should as well, but sources published after [YEAR] refer to [NAME] as [NEW PRONOUN], so Wikipedia should as well.)" It would be even better to find an actual case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
so what about this example? Semitransgenic talk. 14:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Since "s/he" and "h/er" etc. are not real words, Wikipedia should not use them. This is more of an overall language issue. Wikipedia's MoS should follow the English language as it actually is, not as anyone wishes it were. Right now, American English language does not have a gender-neutral, singular, third-person pronoun ("one" has fallen out of use). If that changes, we should of course update the MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
"they"? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The singular they has a long history of discussion on Wikipedia. My personal take is that it's too informal for an encyclopedia, but there are plenty of people who think otherwise. I personally have zero problem using "they" for general examples so long as the noun is plural, but I would not use it for one specific person. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2015 (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.

Sockpuppetry blocks

Sock advocating making our sock catching techniques less effective put away --NeilN talk to me 17:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I released a statement in my Wikipedia online newspaper yesterday regarding sockpuppetry blocks. You can read it for youself if you wish by clicking here. However, I'm going to request discussion on a summary of it.

Basically, I don't think that the policy is completely fair because it requires all suspected socks to be blocked indefinitely. However, what if it's a friend or family member? These people are going to have similar behaviors, both online and offline, and so I feel that there needs to be a major change to the policy that clearly addressess a method for distinguishing between socks and related people.

Also, I feel that the CheckUser tool could be an invasion of privacy, because you have unknown people able to see what IP address you are using, without your consent. To me, that's like saying "give me your full name, phone number, and birthday, or else". You don't know this person, and they're demanding personal information without consent or explanation.

I encourage you to read my entire statement. However, my basic proposal is to modify the sockpuppetry policy to allow related people to edit without being called a sock, and to address the privacy concern above. Ponyeo Gazabell (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Privacy is obviously very important, but it is also important that users don't attempt to deceive the community through multiple accounts. The CheckUser tool is governed by the global Wikimedia privacy policy, which all users agree to when they use Wikipedia. It is not "unknown people" being able to see your IPs—it is an exclusive team of trusted users whose real-life identities are known to the Wikimedia Foundation as part of the access to nonpublic information policy. All CheckUser actions are logged, so if there is any complaint of unjustified use, it can be investigated by bodies such as the Audit Subcommittee or the ombudsman commission. Realize that rarely, very rarely, (almost never) will an IP address be publicly connected to a registered account on-wiki. Requests for this at WP:SPI are frequently declined.
The reason sockpuppets are blocked indefinitely is because they are masquerading to be multiple people when they are just one person—an indefinite block is a preventative means through which we can technically restrict them to one account (the "master" account). It's true that there are some situations where you might share an IP address with a friend, family member, or roommate. Ultimately, it's difficult for us to technically differentiate these users, so we have to look at behavioral evidence. Users in this position are advised by the socking policy to either publicly declare their connection or be vigilant that they do not commit what's called "meat puppetry", where friends are recruited to create illusions of support that are equally as disruptive as standard sock puppetry. If you don't want to publicly declare but you want to play it safe, I would declare it privately to the Arbitration Committee so it's on the record somewhere. Mz7 (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that there are many cases where we catch meatpuppets who we block as sockpuppets, thereby giving them both a reason for being angry at us (an unjustified block) and a method to get back at us (sockpuppetry). Unfortunately, we have no real way to test this idea. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
So you just registered on Nov. 26 and have less than 100 edits. I don't see where you were accused of being a sock. Care to share the background on this?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that you alter your signature. Your username is registered as Poño Gázabelé, but your signature is very close to that of Ponyo's signature of "Jezebel's Ponyo". Ponyo is an admin who does a lot of work dealing with socks and changing your signature will help to avoid confusion. MarnetteD|Talk 23:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
It's a  Confirmed sock of I Love Bridges who is trying to be clever with their user name. This can probably be hatted.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Limiting the scope of UNDO button

WP:SNOW
This is going nowhere. --Jayron32 14:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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

As per H:REV and WP:RV the use of partial reversion is allowed without restrictions. I'd like to ban, or at least strictly restrict, its use, allowing the retainment from the prior edit only of typos and/or very small edits. Reversion should not be allowed when it retain a considerable amount (in quantity or quality) of the reverted page new text. This practice infringes heavily on the right of an editor to be acknowledged as a valid contributor, and, as such, drives away editors. Carlotm (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Opposed. Wikipedia calls us "editors" for a reason. One of our primary tasks is to edit other people's contributions... and that often means removing or rewriting large bits of text. There is no such thing as a "right" to be "acknowledged as a valid contributor". Our focus is on the contribution, not the contributor. If someone adds garbage to an article, that contribution will be edited out (ie removed). If an editor adds quality information, with solid sources to support it, that contribution will be kept. Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Obvious oppose I cannot think of a single way this would improve article content. In fact, it would actively prevent article improvement. Your article contributions are recorded in the article's history. --NeilN talk to me 14:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar and NeilN, it seems that I misled you. Of course anybody can change the prior text in any amount, but it should be done through a new revision, not reverting and in the same time keeping big chunk of text of the reverted revision. In this specific situation the article contribution is not properly recorded in the article's history, because the reverted editor's work, for the part that is kept, is absolutely not acknowledged. I would say even more, the editor that, say, reverts about 50% of the prior text and keeps the other 50%, is, so to speak, stealing that 50% from the other editor, telling him in the same time "oh, your work is bad, it must be undone." Such an act has a kind of maliciousness in it. That's what I want to ban. Carlotm (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
And you are missing my point... again, contributing to Wikipedia should be about the contribution, not the contributor. If someone is contributing to Wikipedia in order to gain some sort of "acknowledgement", then he or she is editing for the wrong reasons. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Editors edit other users' earlier contributions, that's how it works. I think what you want to do is place restrictions to prevent an editor from reverting a contribution and then restoring parts of it, as though that misattributes credit for the text. It doesn't - the text is attributed to Wikipedia, which you have unconditionally released your contributions to. The text of your contribution is noted in the article history, and then any user can do anything they want with it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Ivanvector, in a case of partial reversion, the reverted editor's contribution is noted in the article history only as a negative contribution, and that is unjust given that there was also a positive contribution, which gets unnoticed. Carlotm (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that what you want a restriction on is the practice of using rollback or the Twinkle revert button to undo a contribution which the reverting editor intends to edit and/or partially reuse. For example I contribute five sentences to an article, then a second editor rollbacks my edit, and then in a separate edit they restore three of those sentences verbatim, or restore them with only minor edits. That would be a violation of WP:ROLLBACK which is strictly for clear vandalism, but I'm less sure on the guidelines for Twinkle. It would be preferable for the second editor to simply edit the first editor's contribution; we don't currently have any requirement to do things this way but you might want to consult the essay Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. I think you're right, though, that doing this is WP:BITEy, and editors who make a habit of it should probably be mentored. But introducing unnecessary restrictions is a bad thing, IMO. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2) Oppose – I don't agree with the principle that a partial revert is equivalent to stealing a part of another contributor's work. The distinction between a "partial revert" and a "new revision" is purely semantic. Really, a "partial revert" is a new revision made to an article, which just so happens to partially undo another contributor's work. There are many reasons for this, but in no case is my understanding that the reverter has stolen the original contributor's work, but rather edited it. A "partial revert" definitely acknowledges that an editor is a valid contributor, because the reverting editor made a conscious decision to allow a part of the contribution to remain. This is recorded very clearly in the edit history through diffs. A revert, partial or otherwise, is not (in most cases) a statement against the contributor, but against the content, and as a collaborative project, this is very important. One of our five pillars says that any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. Mz7 (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Mz7, I totally agree that "any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed." Just use the right tool: edit it, do not use a partial reversion. Carlotm (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oppose - If an edit, for example, adds three paragraphs and I remove all except the initial sentence of the initial para with a subsequent edit, explaining in an edit summary that I am removing undue detail for that topic, that is exercise of my editorial judgement essentially contending that the editorial judgement of the earlier editor was flawed. My editorial judgement may be flawed, but that's something which should be worked out on the article's talk page. I'm not sure how carefully the technical points related to rollback vs. ordinary editing are being considered here, but there may be a problem sorting things out later if a discussion ensues and rollback is involved. Also consider that the two edits I exampled might be separated timewise by ten seconds or by ten months. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Wtmitchell, If an edit, for example, adds two paragraphs and I remove one and keep the other without or with little modifications, explaining in an edit summary that I reverted because of, say, "arbitrary changes not compliant with WP:MANUAL OF STYLE)", wouln'd this be an incorrect and grossly misleading statement of what had happened? The real facts would be acknowledged only by checking for the diffs between the two revisions, not in the page's history main page, and that is wrong.
Ivanvector, why what is not allowed in using rollback, is allowed in using the Undo button. Current rules are quite contradictory where they allow for partial reversions and in the same time allow reversions only if a revision is detrimental to the page. When a revision si undone and in the same time maintained in some significant parts, (there is even no need of making a subsequent edit: the Undo operation allow to edit right away, keeping part of the text by copying it from the diffs section, and thus robbing the original editor of their work) it is quite clear that the blamed revision had indeed something good in it. Thus, that revision should not have been reverted in the first place, but simply edited. What I am proposing is not a restriction, rather a clarification that will be beneficial to Wikipedia, encouraging more editorial work, not less, and limit perceived or real censorship. To improve a collaborative authoring environment we need to come rid of partial reversion or, alternately, we need to police more accurately the current abusive use of reversions. However an improved set of rules is way much better. Carlotm (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think a big part of the problem is that, whenever the "undo" option is used for editing, the edit summary will automatically include "(Undid revision 314159265 by So-and-so........" (ie, editor So-and-so was reverted). And even if the reverting editor takes the necessary steps to preserve some of what the reverted editor contributed, the edit summary still makes it look like his whole contribution was tossed out. I don't understand why an editor doing a partial revert would use "undo" to begin with; by far (in my opinion) the easiest way to do a partial revert is to do a regular edit and just remove the undesired material. And when the edit is done that way, the "(Undid revision 314159265 by So-and-so........" message doesn't automatically appear. The easiest method of doing that type of edit is also the method that appears to take the least amount of credit away from the previous editor. Theoretically this should not be a problem to begin with. (Or am I missing something?)
Richard27182 (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182, when I suggested to ban the partial reversion I intended to ban the use of the Undo button to retain parts of the reverted text, thus removing the due credit from the reverted editor. A partial revert made by editing the preceding revision is no cause for discussion. Quite often we all are doing exactly that by editing. So, my proposal would be to allow, by pressing the Undo button, only full reversions, i.e. to remove the possibility of editing the text in the context of the Undo operation. Carlotm (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I use partial undos when it's the easiest way to restore the changed text to the previous state, especially when copying and pasting introduces artifacts that are hard to get rid of. So, a partial undo is often the most efficient way to change things back to the previous desirable text, while giving me a chance to retain the helpful parts of the undone edit, which other methods don't do as effectively, Twinkle especially. I always make clear that I'm retaining helpful parts of the previous, mostly undone edit in my edit summary. However, I know that it counts as a revert in user page statistics and will alert the user of the reversion in an admittedly irritating manner. But I've often been reverted undeservedly or for efficiency's sake. It's something I've learned to live with, although I don't like it. Being reverted isn't stealing. If the text you supplied still stands, that's your insertion, not mine. I can't steal that. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
OMG Dhtwiki, you are stealing away due credit, replacing it with a negative one, you knowingly act against a collaborative environment, only because it's easier?! I would like to improve things not to accept passively an usage that can be perceived as bullish and arrogant. Please, revise your habit, and accept the validity of my proposition. Carlotm (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that you confuse stealing credit with the possibly negative reinforcement of having your edits undone, for whatever reason. And you have a limited view of how credit is earned. If you edit you can help Wikipedia, even if your edits are wrong. The last time I used a partial undo was to revert someone whose edit pointed out the possibly confusing nature of the text for those who aren't native English speakers. The editor I reverted didn't have any text worth saving (so my use of undo wouldn't fall under your proposed ban) but that person can be credited with pointing out a flaw in the text that was possibly made more clear because of their contribution. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Changed the title for clarity reasons. Carlotm (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose per the proposer's responses to the two opposes just above this one. Partial reversions aren't a method of acting against a collaborative environment (aside from edit-warring situations, when any reversion is), and they're not a method of taking away due credit from anyone. The proposal would be impossible to enforce, because it suggests prohibiting an ordinary editing method; it would be a perfect "gotcha" policy, because someone familiar with it could use it as a club to smack down an ordinary editor who had used this ordinary editing procedure without knowing the bizarre policy. This proposal sounds like a typical suggestion from someone whose actions have been rightly reverted ("User:Example did this to me. Ban that kind of action!"), but even if that's not the case, the proposal has no validity available to accept. Nyttend (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Nyttend, there would be nothing to enforce; by clicking the modified Undo button, the full reversion will take place and if the reverter want to make changes, or keep parts of the reverted text, he will be able to do so by subsequently clicking the edit button. That's it. Why are you bringing up about bizarre policy and all the other really bizarre comments of yours? Carlotm (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Isn't that precisely how UNDO works currently? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hm, I guess it isn't. I'm thinking of rollback. Why do we have undo *and* rollback? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Rollback is faster than Undo. This can make a major difference in how many people see a vandalized revision on highly trafficked pages before it gets reverted.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
If you want to "ban, or at least strictly restrict, its use", it sounds like you're suggesting that we prohibit something, not suggesting that we modify the functionality of the button. If you want us to do that, you'll have to give up on your idea of "allowing the retainment from the prior edit only of typos and/or very small edits", because the software won't know how to permit that. Meanwhile, we make no technical restrictions on any other functionality available to all registered users: if the final result is acceptable, policy doesn't care what technical tools you use to accomplish the result, and if it's not, you're in trouble regardless of the method. I consider this proposal bizarre because it's attempting to prohibit people from doing two acceptable things in one edit; there's no reason to mandate (either by a software change or a policy change) that two different positive changes to the same page be accomplished through two separate edits. Purplebackpack89 summarises it well. Ivanvector, aside from the mere matter of rollback being faster to click, it's able to revert multiple edits at once (this edit undid fourteen edits with one click), and you can use it on a list of edits from Special:Contributions or from your watchlist to make instant reverts on a pile of articles, rather than loading each page separately. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Would needlessly reduce flexibility of editing. pbp 19:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to Oppose this as well, though I'll resist boldfacing it just yet. At this point the premise for the proposal seems faulty, as, as other editors have explained, there's no legitimate concern that I'm aware of regarding an editor being "acknowledged as a valid contributor". Short of seeing an actual example of this occurring I'd like a stronger rationale to be provided. DonIago (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
To reduce flexibility of editing seems to me a small price to pay for not allowing an unethical practice. Anyway, when it comes to restore some parts and to keep some others in place, you can facilitate even more your job simply by not using the Undo button and starting right away a normal edit operation. Carlotm (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Carlotm, I think we are having difficulty understanding just exactly what it is you are upset about. It seems you are not actually upset about people doing partial reverts... you are upset about them using a specific tool (the undo button) to do them. I don't understand why using the tool upsets you. The way I see it, the end result is exactly the same whether you use undo tool or not (the material that is deemed problematic is removed, and the material that is deemed good remains). Obviously you see some sort of distinction that I don't see... so can you explain what the distinction is? Blueboar (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar, you are right: this post is getting lengthy and cumbersome; I'll try a brief.
  • My questioning has nothing to do with limiting our editorial power in modifying preceding revisions, quite the contrary; its ultimate goal is to establish a plainer field where everybody is welcomed in a real collaborative effort, thus improving participation.
  • All is about the use of Undo button for partial reversions, whereas it should be limited to complete reversions only and cases of partial reversions resolved through the normal Edit button.
Example. Editor 1 makes some changes, substantially modifying two sentences A and B. Editor 2 evaluates sentence A to be an improvement and wants to keep it, and sentence B of an unwarranted nature and wants to eliminate it. Currently he can follow one of two paths:
1 - Click Undo; from its diffs section copy sentence A improved edition originating from editor 1 and paste in the reverted text. Result in summary history page: editor 1 is a bad guy, editor 2 is a good guy and he gets credit also for sentence A which was not of his making.
2 - Click Edit: delete sentence B. Done. Both editors get due credit for their respective, positive efforts.
With the new Undo button, restricted to full reversions only, and with help from rewritten Wiki rules about reversions, editor 2 should be able to understand that the right course of action is the use of Edit button. Nevertheless he can still click the Undo button, complete a full reversion and then click Edit button, recover sentence A from the original revision of editor 1, and paste it in his revision. Now decency should compel editor 2 to acknowledge in his Edit Summary where sentence A came from, giving editor 1 at least some credit. But the awkwardness of the entire process is in full evidence, and I am sure few would use it for a partial reversion. Carlotm (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
So you are upset about the language that appears in the edit summary... not the actual content of the article in question. Yes? Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
[inserted 09:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)]
Hi Carlotm.  I agree with basically everything you wrote above (05:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)). I agree that the approaches to implementig a partial revert that you labeled #1and #2 would have basically the same effect on the article itself, but that approach #1 would reflect less favorably on the partially reverted editor, and that doing it by approach #2 would be the more desirable.  What I can't understand is, given the fact that approach #1 is more time consuming and cumbersome, why would anyone choose that approach to begin with?! Why would people do somethign the hard way when there is a much easier (and also fairer) way to do it (a simple edit with some deletion)?!  Are there editors who are deliberately doing it the hard way specifically in order to take "credit" away from the original editor and have it apply to themselves?  If that is the case, and if it is happening on a wide scale, then I would say perhaps we do have an issue to be dealt with.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - this button allows for simple reverting of vandalism deep in the history of a page; and removing it will probably not do much good - it will just slow down the "unethical practice" (as worded by Carlotm). It may also make users more inclined to do full reverts to older versions in stead of simply undoing the problematic edit; and using the undo button encourages users to leave an edit summary which explicitly states that the user is undoing an other user's edit. Any comparison with the rollback feature is wrong - it's more like clicking the edit button on an old revision and saving (that is, a full revert that even a newcomer can do), in that it takes a few clicks to do it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The only credit an editor gets on Wikipedia is an entry in the edit history. Anything else beyond that, which is what this proposal is based on, is just childish whining. "Stealing credit"? Really? Do you wa t a gold star sticker while we're at it? I mean, I can see that not just using the default edit summary may be a smart idea to make the reversion look less like an outright rejection. But sometimes, especially if there's complex markup involved (like infoboxes or charts), undo is just needed. Being worried about someone "stealing" your credit, which doesn't exist in the first place, is not a mature way to edit. Sorry. oknazevad (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: when are community radio stations notable?

Comments requested on whether there is a consensus on the notability of community radio stations, and whether there needs to be any changes to existing notability policies, here JMWt (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Spam in talk pages

What's the official policy on spam in talk pages? Do I just delete it? (This may be the wrong place to ask this, but I couldn't find anywhere more appropriate.) Wocky (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Spam should be removed even in talk pages.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Yep, just delete it. In fact you can delete anything you want from your talk page, other than certain notices. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I took this as a question about article talk pages. If the article had a talk page before spam was added, just revert to the pre-spam version; if it didn't, just tag it ({{db-g11}}) for speedy deletion. If the talk page has been edited usefully since the spam was added, just excise it with a normal edit, cutting the spam content with your delete key. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, it was an article talk page. The spam's been there for a while.Wocky (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Ahh yes, ignore my advice then, I assumed you meant your user talk page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Password security RfC at meta

There is currently an RfC at meta to increase password length to 8 characters and prevent common passwords being used for accounts which can edit the MediaWiki: namespace and who are covered by the nonpublic information policy (CheckUsers and Oversighters) - meta:Requests for comment/Password policy for users with certain advanced permissions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Tagging draft articles

Policy question. Should WikiProject tags be removed from an draft if it's been rejected by AFC? I've having an argument with MPJ-DK who keeps removing tags from Draft talk:TASW Cruiserweight Championship and others because the submission has been declined. To me, declined isn't the end of the article and it seems odd. The project won't be notified if the draft gets taken to MFD or moved to articlespace or whatever (or it has to be retagged). I started tagging these once it was considered a bug that people didn't automatically inform when the articles didn't have a project tag so it seems there's complaints if you do and complaints if you don't. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

They don't need to be tagged, but if a project tags them, then they shouldn't be untagged. The talk page can disappear when the draft is deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
three ofbthe four untagged will never be article as they were 1) an article that already exsts, 2) a cruft list of video game characters and an article on a team that existed for 10 days. None would survive and AFD. Why tag that.stuff? Fourth one is an AFD nom that was rejcted 3 months ago notability and nothing was done. Why tag old junk? If it had potential i could see it be tagged. MPJ-US  05:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, fine, but if someone makes it into an article, then it'll be re-tagged later. Seems like you're wasting a lot of more time removing the tags (including from the video games project as well) than me tagging them when they start. If you don't think they should be there, just list them for deletion. How does removing the tag and letting them sit around forever help? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Userboxes migration

How did the userboxes migration change anything? Users can still add userboxes relating to personal views and beliefs (that do not make Wikipedia unsafe). In other words, what I am asking is how does being in the user namespace rather than the main namespace make any difference? 76.176.28.235 (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Well they used to be in the template space not main namespace but I don't see much of a difference. There's some userboxes that show up at MFD under WP:POLEMIC for what it's worth. I think User:UBX is being used to host a number of those pages so there's a consistent place for them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANIME discussion on studios and films

There's an important discussion at WT:ANIME regarding the use of studios in the infoboxes of anime films. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#RfC:_Anime_films_and_production_companies. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: SVG as appropriate format for non-free files?

Neutral

Does SVG file format qualify as "fair use" and meet the non-free content criteria? Why or why not? If not, how will this affect all non-free files in SVG format? --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-neutral

WP:IUP says not to use "px" as "px" will force a fixed size on all users who prefer to view images at any size. With SVG, an image becomes big at 400px, prompting other users to use the "px". Even with good faith, this violates the policy and a user's freewill to choose any size that he or she wants. File:2015 Climate Conference.svg is used as an infobox image for 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference. The image was very big at SVG format, so someone else shrank the image to 240px, forcing readers preferring 220px to view it bigger than 220px. I tried FFD, but David Levy found the forum inappropriate. The SVG format has been discussed in the past elsewhere, but there has been not a consensus to disqualify it as fair use. I am trying my best to let anybody pick any size, but "px" is still used. The same goes for File:Icarly logo.svg, which replaced File:Icarly-logo-2.png. I eliminated the px from iCarly, resulting in a bigger size. Even reducing the size of the SVG file is proven ineffective as PNG is still used to provide whatever size a user prefers, including 400px. --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  • The only acceptable use of a non-free SVG file is for logos and other similar identifications, iff the SVG is something publicly available by the entity the logo represents (either as the SVG directly or a format like PDF that the SVG can be pulled from). Any other use of SVG (particularly user-made ones) violates NFCC#3 as well as potentially NFCC#4 (not previously published). We discourage users from trying to recreate copyrighted logos as SVG to avoid the complexities of copyright law as applied to both the graphic image and the underlying SVG (XML) code. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Sigh, why does it seem like this comes up over and over and over? Pixel size doesn't make any sense for vector images, the relevant thing is level of detail: eliminate detail that is not necessary to render at an appropriately-limited size. No other stupid limitations. Anomie⚔ 00:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean, Anomie? What are "Details", and how do they matter? Pixels are all I can think about, and nothing more. George Ho (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I looked for past discussion, and I found this one near the top of my search. And to my surprise, George Ho, I see you commented there. So why exactly are you bringing this up again? Anomie⚔ 00:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Shall I answer? I won't do that without you answering my question. George Ho (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to re-read the points in the old discussion. I'm not feeling like dealing with feigned ignorance tonight. Anomie⚔ 00:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, so why not just use |upright = [x] where [x] = a proportional value of the screen size? Seriously, they made a work around for this type of problem ages ago. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Template:Infobox event already does that, Drcrazy102. 100% (upright=1) = 400px at preference. Or "thumb" or "frameless" already does the job. We must consider also the layout of the article content. --George Ho (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Almost forgot, if I reduce the scale to .5 (50%), the image will become too small for those preferring default or smaller size. If I increase to 1.35, the image will become too big for those preferring the maximum size. George Ho (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Aside from the NFCC#4 issue I do think that NFCC#3 is really a limit to how much material we use. It's fairly clear here that mere pixelsize is not a good measure (also as has been noted, using a modified SVG file creates other issues with NFCC#4, NFCC#8 since you may be misrepresenting the logo - which is what nonfree SVGs frequently are - and NFCC#1/FREER because of complicated copyright status), so coming up with another standard seems like the right call, for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Right. An SVG file is not just a logo but a logo combined with some computer code, and the computer code may be separately copyrighted, requiring a licence from the author of the computer code per WP:FREER. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Anomie is right in assessing that the level of detail (number of elements defined in the SVG file) is more relevant than rendered pixel size. WP:NFCC#3b talks about numerous standards for measuring minimal use ("Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate") and we should not assume that pixel size is the one that corresponds best with SVGs.
I also disagree with admin David Levy's interpretation that FFD is not forum for non-free SVG files because "the concern expressed ... applies to every non-free SVG file". The concern expressed in my opinion was compliance with WP:NFCC#3b, and given the complicated nature of this in SVG files (as demonstrated) it's definitely something that should be discussed in FFD rather than dismissing it as something self-evident. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 07:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that FfD is never the appropriate forum in which to discuss non-free SVG files. George's rationale was that use of the SVG format was the problem. ("I believe that the format is too superior to make the use 'fair'. Shall we use the PNG format instead?")
Regarding Anomie's comment, I agree as well (assuming that non-free SVGs remain in use at Wikipedia). I've edited File:2015 Climate Conference.svg to reduce the level of detail. —David Levy 17:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
You also need to consider the rationales given by other participants in the discussion. I was specifically discussing the detail of the vector elements. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
My apologies if the closure came across as a dismissal of that concern. It's quite valid, of course, but it doesn't necessitate an FfD listing; users can simply perform detail reductions as needed and transclude the {{orphaned non-free revisions}} tag. George has done so with raster images, in fact. He simply misunderstood the SVG format's nature and didn't realize that something equivalent was possible, leading him to believe that the only solution was to use a PNG file instead. (Had the extent of his confusion been apparent at the time of the closure, I'd have noted this therein.) —David Levy 18:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
What "something equivalent", David? If not PNG, what else then? --George Ho (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to the act of modifying an SVG to reduce its level of detail. —David Levy 10:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Even an "inferior" SVG file might not qualify as fair use and/or meet NFCC. You can still trasclude an image at any size unless you force the size. George Ho (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Your comprehension of this subject remains inadequate, despite multiple explanations and follow-ups thereto. This seems unlikely to change. —David Levy 01:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that George Ho misunderstands the file size requirement. The rule, per WP:NFCC#3b, is that a file shouldn't be too big, and what constitutes 'too big' depends on the file. An image contains a level of detail, which can be reduced. If the file is a bitmap file, then the level of detail will typically be reduced if you remove some pixels. If the file is an SVG file, then the default pixel count is just a number on a line in the source code, and changing this number doesn't remove or add any information. An SVG file contains geometrical elements such as lines, circles and rectangles, and if you remove or replace some geometrical elements, then the size will sometimes change. A rectangle can either be coded as a rectangle or as four lines, and switching from one variant to the other will not change the size of the file, but modifications to the vector elements sometimes changes the file size. Unfortunately, it is currently not trivial to determine if an SVG file fails WP:NFCC#3b or not as most discussions about size requirements have been about bitmap images.
If a non-free file is in violation of WP:NFCC#3b, then the file needs to be deleted or replaced by a different file which is smaller. The smaller can either be in the same file format or in a different file format, i.e. we could reduce PNG→SVG or SVG→PNG if the user reducing the file finds it more convenient to change the file format while reducing the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind details. If the detail is high-quality, I don't mind as long as the format is PNG. Actually, a low-detailed SVG is not as good as high-quality PNG extracted from high-quality SVG. But if pixels is not a significant thing, how can you explain infobox's various transclusion of a file? --George Ho (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
You're failing to distinguish between the pixel size of the image rendered within an infobox and that of the file from which MediaWiki derives it. In the SVG format's case, the latter does not exist. —David Levy 10:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
From what does MediaWiki derive? Also, shrinking the image doesn't make the file format a fair use, does it? George Ho (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Given the apparent impossibility to write a response to one of your questions that you don't misunderstand fundamentally, I lack the patience to continue trying. —David Levy 01:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • question I don't work with images, so this may be a stupid question, but What is there special about this articular file format that makes it more likely to be a violation than other file formats? I would have thought copyright problems are about the nature of the image itself, not the format in which it is captured. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
    • One problem with SVG is that at its nature it is a human readable XML file, effectively programming code. And case law is not strong on where the line is drawn on creativity in code, and creativity in what the code produces. The latter clearly has the potential for copyright protection, but since one generally uses a mechanistic process to take SVG and render it, the question is begged if the SVG itself is different from the image, or a novel work on its own. There is no good answer to this question but it does raise the potential of having two different copyrights involved (the image, and the person that "coded" the image) and that makes it even more a naunse for non-free if these are two different copyright holders. It is assumed that an SVG submitted and self-created by an editor under CC-BY has none of those issues. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
    • @DGG: The most important difference between svg and the other file formats uploadable at Wikipedia is that the former is losslessly scalable to any size.Take a png or jpeg uploaded to Wikipedia at a typical resolution of 150x150 pixels and try to print it on a mug or T-shirt or 100-foot-wide banner and you get a pixellated mess. Do the same with a svg and there's no loss of quality. This image from SVG shows the issue nicely, especially if you render it at, say, 3000 pixels wide. —Cryptic 02:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you;re saying that it would make it facilitate making a copy that would not be fair use. But our responsibility is only to accurately give the copyright status. Any non-PD file here or in Commons, whether fair use or CC:3 SA, can be used in violation of copyright by not making attribution. The proper use of our material is the responsibility of the reuser. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • According to WP:IUP#Format, "The SVG is dynamically rendered as a PNG at a given size when inserted into an article." How would removing some details make the use still "fair"? Is the image still the same or different at 400px-PNG with reduced detail? I don't want to hear whether it's still the same at 220px or 200px. --George Ho (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    • A file with pixels does not necessarily contain less copyrighted material than a file with pixels. Bitmap files usually contain more information if the pixel count is higher, but there are exceptions. It all depends on what the files contain. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment

This donation banner is getting a little obnoxious. I don't remember it being so bad in previous years. It's enormous; its colouration is extremely aesthetically jarring; it fills up most of the screen every time I try and go to a Wikipedia page (regularly), and then after its closed it sneaks another red banner out at the top sometimes. It might be more effective than before; but a little discretion when asking for money might be a little more distinguished....

142.25.33.103 (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
If you create an account, you will never see the banner again. You don't even need any money. Just create an account, and you can then set the preferences to make the banner never show up. It will take you 2 minutes. --Jayron32 16:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I do have an account; haven't logged in for a long time. I wasn't griping for my benefit in particular, but was concerned more for the professional image of the encyclopedia when viewed by others. I just think it's starting to go a little too far. But I guess it works....
142.25.33.103 (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree that the current banner is over-kill (for those of us who don't want to be permanently logged in, we still have to deal with the banner in order to do so... the banner is so huge that I have to scroll down the page just to find the "log in" button.) Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@#$%&!! I just logged out to check, and I was appalled to see my entire screen blotted out by a donation "banner". The WMF rotates random banners for testing, and that one was absurd. At 1920x1080 screen resolution and 100% browser zoom the only other thing visible was the article title at the bottom edge. At lower resolution or higher zoom it fills the screen completely. Alsee (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

AfDs on newsworthy events

Of course, notability of horrific events can be shaky, especially when news may be primary proof of notability. However, AfD on 2015 Colorado Springs shootings will fail as did other AfDs. I don't know why people tend to nominate events that became notable when press has emphasized them. Can we limit number of these deletion nominations to reduce failures? --George Ho (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, with the frequency that such shootings are occurring, it's becoming increasingly difficult to say that each one is notable. Risker (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The news sources continue to give extensive coverage of each of them. That what notable means, the way we use it. Using Risker's formulation, I could equally say. that the way that such shootings are occurring, they are each of them becoming increasingly notable. They may not be unusual, but unusual is not the same aa notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
It is all too common for people to confuse "unusual" with "notable". In fact, things that are unusual may receive a lot of attention because they seldom happen, but things that often happen can also receive a lot of attention, and they too are notable. If mass shootings became so horrifically common that they no longer received much attention, then they might not need articles, but as long as they are getting extensive coverage, they certainly should have articles. Everyking (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
If only more people would read the guidance in WP:EVENT, especially Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Don't rush to delete articles. Fences&Windows 23:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. People that are interested in current events that have unclear notability should be writing these articles at Wikinews, and if it turns out to be an encyclopedically notable event (more than just a few days of coverage) then it can be transcluded into en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This is about writing encyclopedia articles, not newspaper articles. Nobody is saying Wikipedia should be a newspaper. Everyking (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
People rush to create articles on any type of event like a shooting or a disaster (manmade or natural). Some are definitely of encyclopedic value, but many are not, but the rush to create this is treating WP as a newspaper. Wikinews is set up for those that want to write on current events; once they prove notable, they can be moved over. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Normally it's just people trying to improve the encyclopedia by writing about notable, encyclopedic subjects. Seldom do I see current event articles that are genuinely non-notable. Everyking (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I see plenty, random crimes, random traffic accidents, random storms, random bombings/attacks in larger conflicts, etc. I'd guess that for every notable event, there's two non-notable event articles, based on what I've seen. Wikinews was set up for people that wanted to write about current events to work at, not Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree and think if we were really trying to treat Wikpedia as a newspaper we would get more articles about local sports teams and other local events such a traffic accidents etc. I also find that a large number of the aricles up for deletion on thee grounds usually do not last for the full seven days meaning that the majority does not appear to share this view.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTNEWS spends most of its text explaining the sort of content and style of Wikipedia articles, not the subjects of the articles themselves. That is, Wikipedia articles should have the content, tone, and style of an encyclopedia article. --Jayron32 17:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not see random crimes , etc. I do see an attempt to include all bombings/attacks in larger conflicts and a great many murders. Whether this is appropriate content of not depends upon your view of the encycopedia. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
This is an example (please do not put it up for deletion) of what I'd call a random crime 2012 Seattle cafe shooting spree. Yes, people were killed, it was covered in national news, but that's it. It's a news story, with very little long tail or impact on the rest of the world, in contrast to 2013 Los Angeles International Airport shooting (also in which there was a death) which caused new legislation/regulations to be developed in following it. The latter has encyclopedic value because it impacted the world at large, the former does not, and should have been started at Wikinews first. Similarly 2013 Mahabubnagar bus accident should have been made at Wikinews first as this is not an encyclopedic topic without any larger impact on the world at large. People race to create these nowadays before a full understanding of the situation is at hand. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. We are turning into a news website, and not a very good one at that. We're stretching the bounds of notability much too far, and especially so in situations where articles are little more than quotefarms. - Sitush (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't really frequent AfD, but my own viewpoint is similar: the bounds of notability have been stretched too far. There are other points peculiar to specific areas. I work often in WP:ARBPIA, and one major problem I see is that every terrorist incident is given its own article, divorced from context, almost wholly sourced to newspapers, or in passing mentions in books. They are basically WP:POVFORKs intended to demonstrate "X are terrorists". Some level of forking is healthy, I think, because it can emphasize some particular aspect of the topic. However, a lot of forking is essentially a way to get around stuff which should not be kept. Discussion in this area is polarized, so often leads to "no consensus", which defaults to "keep". This makes creating articles a favourite tactic of POV pushers. A separate but similar problem is that a lot of WP:BLPs in this area are basically attack articles. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
That "no consensus" at AfD defaults to "keep" has long been a bugbear of mine but generally is a wider issue. You do, however, raise a very good point in terms of gaming the system in this specific context. - Sitush (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • To prove my point: The New York Times reports that there have been a minimum of 354 mass shootings so far this year in the United States.[8] We do not have articles on all of them; in fact, we have articles on relatively few of them. They're no longer automatically notable, and haven't been for some time. Just because something's been reported in (multiple) news media doesn't make it notable; we don't report on big traffic pile-ups routinely either, despite many people dying in them and their being reported in multiple MSM sources. Mass shootings are, in fact, daily occurrences not just in the United States but in many other countries; it is only our systemic bias that results in a number of American shootings being reported in Wikipedia, instead of the ones in Mexico, Venezuela, or most of Africa. Risker (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    The solution to systemic bias is to create new articles on topics that deserve them rather than to delete otherwise quality articles. If reliable source material exists on an event in Mexico, it would be a Good Thing for Wikipedia to create such an article. We don't make Wikipedia better by arbitrarily deleting a worthwhile article on an event in the U.S. merely because "We've got enough American articles, thanks". --Jayron32 20:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    The question is begged if these are "quality" articles. They can be well sourced because of MSM coverage, but one must keep in mind that most news reporting of this nature is primary sourcing, failing WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:N and WP:NEVENT. Some shootings do create significant debate - there's no question the encyclopedic-ness of the Sandy Hook shooting as it related to gun control discussion and the like. Most don't - they happen, there's a short tail and burst of news, and then events quiet down, with the long-tail impact only affecting the local area. Wikinews should be used by such interested editors to populate these events, and there's no reason on WP that we can't maintain lists of these notable shootings with links to Wikinews (the most recent case from yesterday proves there's an interest in how many shootings in the US occurred in the year, so a page to document that makes plenty of sense). But we definitely should not be having articles on every single one. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
This point about the short tail and long tail is very important. People use the short tail to claim WP:DIVERSE, ignoring the fact that the long tail is only local. A related point is that WP:LASTING is rarely applied, and when used, is done inconsistently. There is an inherent tension between being up-to-date on recent events and applying WP:LASTING. Consider the following two AfDs, one delete/redirect, and one "no consensus" (both by the same closer, who, incidentally, I consider a fair and very good closer). Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
How "long" does the "long tail" need to be? The problem with WP:LASTING is that while it is a very good criteria for determining whether an event is notable... it does not always work the other way around... it is a very poor criteria for determining whether an event is non-notable. There are lots of events that are considered notable and yet don't pass WP:LASTING.
As an example... consider the University of Florida Taser incident of 2007. There is no question that this was a notable (or at least note-worthy) news event back when it occurred. It engendered all sorts of discussions about free speech and the appropriate (vs inappropriate) use of tasers. But... the event was not "the catalyst for anything of lasting significance". Today the event is all but forgotten. It had no lasting impact on society. No laws were passed due to the event. Nothing changed because of the event. Even the pop-culture fad for quoting "Don't tase me, Bro!" has faded. In other words, I don't think passes WP:LASTING). Yet, I would hesitate to say that the event was completely non-notable. I think it is worth a stand-alone article. (That article may need to be rewritten... but I think an article should exist). Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The taser incident has a reasonably long enough tail that it's clearly an encyclopedic topic; note that there were issues raised on the campus's security, and free speech aspects. Stuff has change, even if it really is only the fact "don't tase me bro" is a meme the only linger effect of that. The long tail doesn't need to be a permanent impact, but it needs to be more than just affecting the people directly involved with the incident and close friends and family, and others local to it, and more than just the first few days of news coverage. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
There are lots of events that are considered notable and yet don't pass WP:LASTING. Leaving aside the fact that perhaps this article did pass WP:LASTING, there is no contradiction between this statement and mine. WP:LASTING is only one of the criteria for notability, it is neither necessary nor sufficient. And you haven't really given an argument about why you think the article is notable, other than your opinion. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but as they say: "show your work". Secondly "how long does a long tail need to be" cannot be answered. Such questions are inherently subjective and dependent on context. Again, one needs to "show their work". My point is that this is rarely, if ever done. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I think what Blueboar was getting at is that if one took LASTING to the letter, then if news sources die out about an event after much time as past, such as the assassination of JFK (for an example), then one could argue that that event is no longer notable, which of course is silly to think of for this or any example; by nature, coverage of an event will diminish over time. But as you do state, LASTING is but one piece. More importantly, to me, is taking in how that tail is relative to the timeframe's news cycle (in the 21st century, this would be 1 to 2 days, but if we talk about the early 20th century that could easily be a week or more); if the story reported today dies out in a day or two, its notability is begged by LASTING, but if that dies down after a week, it's probably notable. This is why we need to encourage more people to use Wikinews. Stories that fail LASTING here would have zero difficulty existing at Wikinews from the start, and if it does turn out the story lasts longer than a few days (an example for myself was the mess over the shooting of Cecil the lion which I thought was more a run-of-the-mill human interest story), then we can transcribe into en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I am confused by the reference to the JFK assassination. Of course WP:LASTING does not state that the coverage has to be in newspapers. There have been books written about the JFK assassination, studying it in depth, and of course there are a thousand conspiracy theories, and then there are books studying the conspiracy theories. It would definitely pass WP:LASTING however you read it. Regarding the latter point, I am pretty cynical that the people that I'm talking about (no names) will be satisfied by Wikinews. They want their article on Wikipedia, because whenever anyone Googles the term, it would come up. And I know their motives for doing this. I don't think Wikinews has that sort of search engine ranking (correct me if I'm wrong). Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
What I am saying is that if one took an extremely narrow view of LASTING, then the fact that today, right this moment, there are no sources that were published today discussing the JFK assassination means that LASTING is failed and we should delete it. Which of course is not going to happen for reasons you state. Now taking that same logic to the Taser example, again there are no sources right this instant, published today, that are discussing it, and the same logic applies if one was being narrow on what LASTING meant. My point is that a news story disappearing off the radar, alone, is not sufficient for determining if LASTING applies. It's how long that tail was relative to the time of the event, not whether there's continued coverage indefinitely. Further, just because there may be sources published today talking about an event does not necessarily meant the long tail of a story is sufficient to meet LASTING; I give examples of local crimes that end up in the death of innocent victims, where local news will often cover the family's grief year after years as part of a human interest angle. If the story came and went in the news, and this type of coverage is the only long tail, that's not meeting LASTING. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

[unindent] The problem is that most people have no clue what primary sources are, and they throw a fit when their votes are ignored by an admin who follows the note-a-vote standards and ignores AFD votes that rely on primary sources, such as news reports about an incident, in determining whether a topic is notable. I tried enforcing WP:PRIMARY one time when closing an AFD (either it was a recent incident that had just happened, or it was a person who hadn't been getting any coverage except for news reports that were published at the time of an incident in which the person was involved), but a pile of Randies filed a deletion review because it was a "new and idiosyncratic idea" (or something synonymous) to consider news reports from the time of an event to be primary sources. Policy is clear that we should ignore AFD votes that have no basis in reality and that primary sources don't count toward notability, and in the context of history (the context in which event and biographical articles exist), news reports and other documents from the time of an event are unambiguously primary sources, so policy already says that we should ignore these votes, but if you don't know that and you reject it when it's explained to you, you're going to throw a fit if current policy is followed. It's past time to add a clarification to policy, something saying basically "Because news reports from the time of an event are primary sources for that event, they cannot count toward notability; notability depends on the existence of secondary sources, those that examine primary sources and were published after the context in which the primary sources were produced. Articles about events, individuals, and other subjects may only be retained if secondary sources are furnished to support the article, unless consensus specifically holds that an individual article should be considered exceptional". For three prominent situations (the Colorado Springs murders, to the San Bernardino shootings, and to the Paris attacks), news reports are still appearing: unless someone can provide convincing WP:IAR arguments, we have no business having articles on any of them at this moment. Nyttend (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If you think the article on the Paris attacks deserves deletion, an article which has been praised by mainstream journalists, then you are very far out of step with the consensus on event articles. News articles are not usually considered to be primary sources, and wikilawyering as such when closing deserved to be overturned. Fences&Windows 02:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Out of step, yes, because most of the people who vote on these things don't know what they're talking about. The concept of a news article about a just-happened event is a perfect example of what's given in the first sentence of WP:FRINGE, an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. History universally employs the term to refer to documents created at the time of an event and documents representing the memories and perspectives of people who experienced those events; see [9], the history section of [10], and [11]. There is scholarly consensus that documents created at the time of an event are primary sources, so don't push an alternate POV. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I definitely agree that news articles are primary sources for the most part. However, there is no requirement that an article only rely on secondary sources. I already mentioned above that there is an inherent tension between covering up-to-date events and lasting encyclopedic significance. That is not going away anytime soon. That said, there is no doubt at all that the Paris attacks will have lasting significance (arguably they already have). There is no automatic way to determine such things for general events; it is inherently subjective. However, subjective does not mean arbitrary: one must argue one's case. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem with GNG is not that editors do not understand what a primary source is, but that GNG fails to consider them. You can write a perfectly good article with primary sources (provided you know how to handle them, though that isn't much of an argument as many editors don't know how to handle secondary sources either). To complain about the proverbial "Randy from Boise" misunderstanding GNG is sheer nonsense, because GNG was created by ... the proverbial "Randy from Boise"! It has the problems it does because it was self invented by a bunch of nonentities on the internet who did not really know how to write an encyclopedia. Its purported definition of "notability" is pure unadulterated unreliable 'original research' that is probably wrong. James500 (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I started the discussion as hopes to limit the number of failing AfD nominations. With all the discussion, apparently we can't limit number of deletion nominations. In fact, interpretation of news articles vary, but they are considered primary sources usually. In other words, there's nothing we can do? Right, James, Nyttend, Kingsindian, and Masem? Are we gonna sit by and let failing AfD nominations on newsworthy events increase? George Ho (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing to do. We don't preemptively protect new pages so we can't really know which new page on which news event should be protected against being listed for deletion. Once it's listed, speedy keeps are relatively common (although sometimes it's not that easy right away) and once that's done, we can shut off the AFD listing and move on. For pretty much every new article, there's at least one person out there who thinks it should be deleted for the most part and we won't change the whole project to stop them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
What needs to be done is to uphold WP:NOT#NEWS better at AFD and have better clarity on how most things that happen in the news are not encyclopedic and fail GNG/NEVENT (starting on the fact that the bulk of newspaper reports on breaking events are primary and thus not sufficient for notability), and encourage editors that want to write on current events to use Wikinews, which gives us the possibility of moving a story that may not immediately seem notable into Wikipedia mainspace when it turns out to be notable. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Are journalistic skills required for Wikinews? George Ho (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there are many things we can do. The most extreme option would be to completely remove all parts of NOTNEWS that prevent particular topics from having their own articles. I personally am not at all convinced that NOTNEWS is an enlightened policy. It seems broad and vague. We don't need to go that far though to make improvements. We could carve out specific exemptions to NOTNEWS. I don't support increased enforcement of NOTNEWS. James500 (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Allow stewards and global admins to help with countervandalism

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
User withdrew RFC. --Izno (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn - I think it is clear which direction the discussion is going. I withdraw the proposal. -- Taketa (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Topic: Allow stewards and global admins to help with countervandalism

Dear all,

At the talk page of WP:RFA Biblioworm asked for ideas on how to lighten the load on admins. This as a follow up of the Phase I RfC for the RFA2015 reform project, which showed community consensus that we should somehow try to lighten the load on admins. I made a suggestion and a bureaucrat indicated that it was an interesting idea, but it needed to be developed and put forward at a different venue. As such, I would like to ask you for feedback on my proposal below.

I suggest we allow stewards and global admins to help with blocking straight forward vandalism (ip, logged in vandal) and let them delete obvious spam pages. The users are trusted and experienced with this type of work. Letting stewards delete obvious pages is already policy on meta and works fine for the local admins. Among the global-admins are the most active and experienced vandal fighters in the world. Such a change would represent a significant increase in vandal fighting admins and take away a huge load. Moreover it would give en.wiki experience to the global users, who might afterwards become more active here or even apply for adminship here and help the English Wikipedia even more. It is a win-win situation.

I would greatly appricate your input. What do you think. Do we want this. If yes, how can we make this proposal more specific. What checks do we need. Issues to consider. Would the policy on meta be applicable? How to proceed. Thank you very much.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of clarification, this is a proposal to change Wikipedia:Global rights policy#Stewards, yes? meta:Stewards policy refers to that page.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Good point. Yes the proposal would result in changing that section and also Wikipedia:Global rights policy#Global sysops. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
And removing enwiki from meta:Special:WikiSets/7 if the bit about global sysops passes, I guess.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes. If we make the suggested changes to the global rights policy, this would be part of the technical implementation. Taketa (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Support - While I certainly wouldn't want them entering most of our admin areas of work (this should be done by someone who is familiar with the way things work on English Wikipedia), I think that Stewards and Global sysops should be able to recognize obvious vandalism and spam; and our warning system is simple enough to understand what's going on. This would reduce the work load on our admins, leaving them more available to handle tasks where a higher level of understanding our community is required (banned users, XFDs, edit wars etc.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – setting such a narrow limit for stewards and global sysops w.r.t. enwiki counter vandalism work should be fairly harmless. sst✈(discuss) 14:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's my loaded response:
Oppose/Moot (Please see my comment below on why this is actually "moot". Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)) allowing global admins access to the basic admin tools on the English Wikipedia (removing this Wikipedia from meta:Special:WikiSets/7) for a couple of reasons. I say this due to lack of usefulness and "lack of local consensus". I fail to see how a group of only 18 editors would be able to help with the load in the least, given their very small number. Also, access to the administrative tools should be provided to an editor via consensus by the local Wikimedia project: this proposal contradicts that precedence, and it's not one that we should start. Lastly, the discussions for global admin "RFAs" do not seem to be advertised globally, so how is this local Wikimedia project supposed to be able to know about the nomination so they can support or oppose the candidacy? And;
Support allowing stewards access to the admin tools since their appointment process is more rigorous than our local Arbitration committee elections, so thus the worldwide trust is the equivalent of being on ArbCom, so might as well. Also, steward nominations are advertised globally, so all participants on all Wikimedia projects, including this one, are given ample notification about steward elections. (In other words, the members of the English Wikipedia cannot adequately say "I did not know about it" when there are notifications about the elections placed at several locations, including the watchlist.)
– Steel1943 (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear Steel1943, the global sysops are a small group indeed. However as described on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Easing the load on admins, only 3 admins did half of the last 500 deletions on enwiki. If you add 18 highly active people, and let them deal with vandalism, imagine the amount they can do. For example MoiraMoira on her own did over 1000 admin actions in the last month. You point out that stewards are to have consensus and global sysops not. However global sysops are elected by the global community as well. Everyone on enwiki can vote during their election. They work as admin on hundreds of projects. Ofcourse I fully understand the notification explanation, there is a sliding scale, and I accept your views. Do you really need everyone involved, everytime someone is appointed I wonder. We trust the old admins we never voted on. We trust subgroups to make guidelines. We have the oportunity to get involved if we wish. Is this not enough? The people who currently rename account on enwiki, global renamers, which used to be trusted only to bureaucrats (on 1 project where they do it on 800) are appointed the same way. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Taketa: Actually, your proposal to specifically give "global admins" admin privileges of this Wikipedia is may actually be (text in italics added – Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)) moot anyways. I'll explain below. Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) As it turns out, giving global admins administrative privileges on the English Wikipedia is may actually be (text in italics added – Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)) moot. Per Meta:Global sysops#Scope:

    By default, global sysops may use this global user group's permissions on wikis that meet one or both of the following criteria:

    * fewer than ten administrators exist; or
    * fewer than three administrators have made a logged action within the past two months.

    ...The English Wikipedia has more that 1000 administrators, and a lot more that three perform administrative actions on a daily basis. With that being said, this proposal in regards to global admins is truly "moot" since it contradicts global policy. – Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
    Um, that policy continues with "Projects may opt-in or opt-out at their own discretion if they obtain local consensus." The prior section just enumerates the default stance ("By default...").Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The way I read it, the purpose of global admins is to help manage a new Wikimedia project until the project establishes its own guidelines and procedures for appointing administrators. I agree with this specifically being the purpose of that group (thus why I read it and established a "moot" stance, but it is also why I oppose letting the group have local admin rights to this project, and would for any project that has surpassed the default criteria.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
    Global policy says that "by default" it is implemented on those wikis, and all wikis can "opt-in or opt-out". We can ask them to help if we want to. That is the question, do we want to. The English Wikipedia has 600 active administrators. Consensus is that we should do something to lighten the load for these admins. Adding 18 active people does something. It is more then we had new admins in the past half year. Ofcourse, you are free to your opinion and I will leave it at this. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Allowing this Wikimedia project to be removed from the global admin opt-out list is like saying that the list of administrators local to this project are not able to handle the load of administrative work local to this project, and need outside help. That sends a negative message to our assumptions of our own administrators' capacities. Issues with the abilities of local administrators to do their locally-appointed tasks should be taken by either desysopping the ones we got (usually via WP:ANI) or nominating and appointing aspiring new local admins (via WP:RFA.) Allowing "outside help" to participate here has the potential to deter possible future local administrators from running due to the lack of being able to show proof for their worth due to a lack of a need for such tasks. Thus, this is my opinion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The global admins and stewards have better work to do than bail out the lazy admins here at en-wp. That a handful of admins here have been managing the vandal problem is proof that RfA isn't selecting users that actually intend to wield a mop. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose These people have not been chosen to do the proposed job, and would not have volunteered on the basis of doing counter vandalism work on en.wikipedia. If you want to nominate any for an admin here, you can see if they are willing and if people here want them for that job. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good governance tends to require segregation of duties rather than omnipotence. Andrew D. (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The solution to "lighten the load on admins" is more admins. If stewards or global admins want to do that, they can head over to RFA. Prodego talk 01:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose With respect the the global stewards, who I am sure perform their responsibilities admirably, the solution to insufficient admins working on vandalism at en.Wiki is expand the admin corps; if insufficient editors pass RfA, then the solution may be to unbundle and distribute the tools required to address vandalism. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I think the situation is as Od Mishehu describes above. We trust people from outside enwiki with highly advanced rights, like removing our bureaucrats. We surely trust some of them to fight vandalism. However we do not trust them to do other admin chores. Because those don't just require trust, but also advanced knowledge of our community and specific community guidelines. Moreover, we want only people we ourselves appointed to have rights. Unbundling vandal fighting would be a solution. Making it possible to vote someone to do only that. However, it is not something likely to happen. In theory anyone could apply for such a right. And people will not feel comfortable to appoint such a right to just anyone. However, if you could unbundle and make it possible for stewards and global sysops to apply for such rights, or former stewards, and former Wikipedia admins, in a vote, here on Wikipedia, I would support that. And it might work out well. Former admins who had issue with AFD are still trusted with vandal fighting and could return. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The purpose of the global admin is to provide a service on small Wikipedias where the admin numbers are so low as to be heading for disaster. Enwiki hasn't reached that point yet. As to the global name changing that's already in, there are problems with that on occasions when outside people don't understand our naming policy. It's quicker, but people with unsuitable names have been renamed to equally unsuitable names. Removing a bureaucrat is rather a different matter than dealing with vandalism, just as closing an RfA is different from closing an AfD. Any global admin or steward who wants to do admin work here can apply in the usual way. Peridon (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn - I think it is clear which direction the discussion is going. I withdraw the proposal. -- Taketa (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2015 (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.

Are names a style issue or a content issue (or both)?

As a follow on from the (now closed) RFC regarding MOS:IDENTITY (above)... I think part of the reason why we did not reach a completely clear consensus is that there is a fundamental (underlying) question that has not yet been asked: Is the MOS the right venue to deal with the issue?
Should the question of what NAME to use when referring to someone in an article really fall within the scope of our MOS guidance? I suspect that many editors would say "no"... considering the question of what NAME to use when referring to people to be a question of fact (a content issue resolved by examining sources and not a style issue to be resolved by our own internal style guidance). I also suspect that many other editors will disagree with that contention, and say "yes"... that it should be something that is governed by MOS guidance. Whichever view one holds... That is a fairly fundamental difference of opinion. I think we need to reach a consensus (if we can) on this fundamental question before we can properly resolve the issues presented at the RFC. So... I ask the question: Should the issue of what NAMES to use really be subject to MOS guidance in the first place? Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not a simple issue with a simple solution. There are two different, but intertwined issues here:
1) What name should we list an article under
2) How should we refer to a person in an article about them
The first issue is more specialized: it is subject to basic conventions we've established here at Wikipedia regarding naming an article, like WP:UCN, but also issues regarding having respect for living people (WP:BLP) that require us to temper our strict adherence to a simple algorithm with care and prudence.
The second issue is absolutely an MOS issue, though (like much of the MOS) is reflective of general conventions displayed through good writing; an issue which isn't subject merely to Wikipedia but to good English usage at large, though some issues are Wikipedia-centric, there are also the standard considerations one has for producing good quality text. In the same piece of writing (anywhere in the world, not just at Wikipedia) it would not be uncommon to refer to a person by a) their official full name b) their common full name c) their common first name or nick name d) their surname at various places in a piece of writing. The MOS should absolutely set conventions for doing so in a consistent manner. It is a style issue.
Part of the issue we have (and this is maybe where some of the overreach of WP:AGF can come in) is that some people try to use naming issues to make political statements unrelated to quality writing. Insisting that a person be called something, or refusing to call them something, can often be done for reasons unconnected to what is best in telling a quality story, and more about controlling and shaping the narrative to present one's own political point of view on any number of matters. Sometimes, I think, we focus too much on the AGF-friendly solution by refusing to confront greater issues. --Jayron32 16:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
WHY do you consider it an MOS issue? Determining what name someone used at a given period of time is no different than (say) determining what the population of a country was at a given period of time. Sources may disagree, but we look to sources to make that determination. Surely you would not say that determining population numbers are an MOS issue (would you)? So why would names be different? Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is why it is an MOS issue. There's a man whose official name is James Earl Carter, Junior. He served as President of the United States from 1977-1980. When we write about this man, how we refer to him in our text is entirely a style issue. Do we call him his full name every time? Do we call him Jimmy Carter? Do we call him Jimmy? Do we call him James? Do we call him Carter? Do we call him Mr. Carter? Do we call him President Carter? What pronoun do we use? What titles do we use? Do we use some combination of these, depending on context? Style is all about word choice. That's the point of a "manual of style": to prescribe and proscribe certain linguistic conventions and word choices so as to provide some consistency of style, and reduce inconsequential discussions over these matters. We decide when and where to use certain words, punctuation, grammatical constructions, etc. ahead of time and publish those guidelines in the Manual of Style. Since this is all about word choice, it is certainly an MOS issue. --Jayron32 13:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
1977-1981, actually.  :) Neutron (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. Consider the following: A major city in Russia has undergone various name changes over the years... from St. Petersburg to Petrograd to Leningrad and back to St. Petersburg. I want to refer to this city in an article... What name should I use? As I see it, the answer is a factual determination, governed by historical context... it's not question of style. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Different issue. Jimmy Carter is simultaneously (as in right now) known by different names, factually. Whether I call him "Jimmy Carter" "James Earl Carter, Jr." "Jimmy" or "Carter" is not a factual issue because those are all factually correct names right now, and at all points in his life. Choosing which one to use, in which context, is a style issue. Choosing which name of a city which had different names at different times is a different issue. This is more like choosing which name to use when referring to a place like New York City. Do we use "New York City", "New York", "New York, New York", "New York, NY" etc. and in which contexts. All are factually correct, so choosing which ones to use are style issues. --Jayron32 14:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the city example works; there is still a difference between questions of fact and questions of style. The facts are that the city was called Санкт-Петербу́рг/Sankt-Peterburg/St. Petersburg, then Петрогра́д/Petrograd, then Ленингра́д/Leningrad, then back to St. Petersburg. How we refer to it is a question of style, of which "use only the anglicized form of the common name in use at the time" is only one option. Other plausible styles would be to also give the modern name and/or Russian name on first mention within an article.--Trystan (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree that using the city example shows why it is a MOS issue, particularly in light of naming of transgendered individuals RFC; what name to use is going to depend on context. If that context is historic, then using the name that that city was known by at the time is appropriate; if the context has no real fixed time, then the most convenient way to refer to the city should be used. Understand the context to then make further determination on the right name makes it a style issue. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I am still not sure that I understand this viewpoint, so let me present another example of a name change: There is a building in New York City that used to be named the "Pan Am Building". It is now named the "Met Life Building". I think we would agree that choosing which name to use in an article when referring to this building depends on historical context. But would you say that choice is a style issue? If so, why? What does style have to do with it?Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Is the transgender naming issue still bothering you? Would it be possible to come out and stop dancing around the issue and state, in unequivocal and unambiguous terms, what you want changed about the way we do things? Trying to get people to agree with you by obfuscating what you're going after isn't helpful. Just tell us what you want, if enough agree, we'll fix it. If people don't agree, it'll stay the way it is. How about that instead of all of this "here's an analogy I'll set up to force everyone to agree with me so I can spring that "GOTCHA" moment when I bring out what I don't like about the whole transgender naming issue, and make everyone look foolish for lacking consistency!", you just tell us what is really wrong. --Jayron32 16:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
"Is the transgender naming issue still bothering you?"... not really... I am concerned about a more fundamental question: What information should (and should not) fall within the scope of an MOS? Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it can and cannot, depending on to what end. Naming issues, like what to call a person when there are a range of choices (surnames, nicknames, titles, etc.) are absolutely an MOS issue, it is a style, not factual, issue. There are other naming issues, such as those brought out in the transgender naming discussion above, which may not be; though it may be worthwhile to mention such issues in the style guide because people may come looking for them here as well. That is, while there is some crossover between the issues of identity and dignity granted to living persons, which is a policy issue outside of the scope of a style guide, there are also crossover issues that should be addressed here. I see no reason not to include at least an overview or cursory treatment, with links to the policy pages, in the MOS. --Jayron32 20:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I need to ask this another way... can someone give me some examples of the kind of information that is not considered within the scope of an MOS? (they do not necessarily have to be related to the issue of "names", but it would help me if they were). Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I've been watching this conversation with interest and have not replied, but the more I think about it, I think naming conventions are always a manner of style. The factual parts of a name really have nothing to do with the conventions of how someone is called. This becomes extremely apparent when looking at women's names. At certain times in history it was completely unacceptable to refer to women in terms of anything other than a father or a husband. Patronymics, surname changes, and custom have obscured many historical records. There was the period wherein it was considered overly familiar to refer to a woman by anything other than Mrs/Miss (Frau/Fraulein, Señora/Señorita, etc.) X, as using their first name was seen as overly familiar. Then there was a period wherein first names were used and surnames often excluded, resulting in women being given back their identity, but simultaneously being treated differently than men. Currently, the convention tends to refer to all professionals by a surname (unless of course the notability is derived under a singular name). Thus Coretta Scott King would be referred to as Scott prior to marriage and King thereafter. Her husband, in the article about King would be Martin (he is not being spoken of as a professional in her article but a spouse, i.e. personal relationship) or MLK. In any case, it all is style. Her factual content of her name is what it is in an given period but how it is presented is a matter of custom or style. Don't know if any of that helps you. SusunW (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW - So WP:Naming conventions (people) is essentially an MOS governing names of people, even though it is not prefaced with the letters "MOS"? Interesting idea. Would you say that WP:COMMONNAME is an MOS?
@ all... This still does not answer my question as to the limits of "style" ... is there any article content that doesn't fall within the scope of "style"? Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I would say no. Content could be described as the presentation of facts. The facts are the facts, and the presentation is the style.--Trystan (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
No. Let's stick with my Presidents of the U.S. naming issues. Look at something like Gerald Ford. There is a person who had two completely different legal names at different phases of his life; for the first 3 years of his life he was "Leslie Lynch King, Jr." From ages 3-21, he was legally "Leslie Lynch King, Jr.", but informally took the name of his adoptive father, and became "Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr." After age 21, he formally changed his legal name to match the name he use, becoming legally "Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr.". Noting these facts during the course of the article is not a style issue. The article correctly and accurately notes the dates and particulars of his official name history. The style issue comes in when we decide what referents, and when, to use to refer to this person at various points throughout the article: that is, the use of various conventional forms of his name (including, but not limited to, any of the following options: The full name, partial conventional names (omit middle, use first only, use last only, whether to use postnominal "Jr.", etc.), nicknames, pronouns, and titles (like Mr. or President) would be style issues. Because it deals with how we present information in the narrative of the person's life, not with the basic facts. Whether we call him Gerry, Gerald, Ford, President Ford, etc. None of those is wrong, but decisions of which to use depend on style conventions we select to set a certain tone in the article. --Jayron32 15:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar Never is such an all encompassing thing. Life is way more grey than most humans acknowledge, but in general, I doubt that there are many instances in which content is not effected by style. And yes, Jayron32 you get exactly my point. Though your example is how it effects a man, that exact thing happens to well over half of the articles on women. If one cannot search all the variant of their names, important facts about history will more than likely be omitted, thus the content needs to accurately reflect what they were called, but the tone we are aiming for, encyclopedic, definitely is a style dictate. SusunW (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, part of the problem here, is that the issue was a non-issue until the transgender naming issue made it an issue. People change names all the time, and we've had non-controversial means of dealing with it. Starting with Chelsea Manning and continuing with Caitlyn Jenner, there have been several high-profile issues where a person has transitioned between two genders and changed their names as well. When people change names because of adoption, or marriage, or as stage names, or for any of a number of other reasons, Wikipedia has dealt with these uncontroversially. We've always consistently used a person's most recent, common, or preferred name when referring to them at all phases of their lives; the parts of Bill Clinton's biography when his last name was Blythe still call him Clinton, even though he didn't use that name during those times. Sofia Loren is called by the surname "Loren" even for the times of her life before she adopted that stage name. Martin Sheen's biography consistently uses the name Martin Sheen at all phases of his life and career despite it not being his official name for any part of his life, and not even existing as a stage name for himself prior to starting his professional acting career in his early 20s. In almost every case, nearly universally, we don't change how we refer to people in their past: we use their current name for their entire lives. Yet, calling the person who won the Men's Decathlon in 1976 "Caitlyn Jenner" makes people uncomfortable, in ways that calling the child then known only as "Ramón Estévez" by the name "Martin Sheen" doesn't bother anyone. --Jayron32 16:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
"We've always consistently used a person's most recent, common, or preferred name when referring to them at all phases of their lives" ... In that statement I completely disagree. The article title is the name they were notable under, but as I said above when Coretta Scott was unmarried, the portion of her biography dealing with her life as that entity should reflect that entity as that is the name sourcing will be found under. She was not King until she married and reflecting that would be confusing. Likewise, in the case of numerous notable women Evonne Goolagong, Elizabeth Taylor, and many others, referring to them by any name other than the one in which they gained notability would create confusion. Goolagong's career was made before she married Cawley. I would venture most people would not even recognize that surname. Taylor changed husbands so often that it would be totally confusing to refer to her as anything other than Taylor. I think common sense has to dictate naming patterns, as does likelihood of finding sourcing, etc. SusunW (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Really? We don't refer to Elizabeth Taylor as "Elizabeth Taylor" consistently throughout the article and at all phases of her life, even when she was known by a different name? I can find no uses of another name in her article. Can you please show me how we change what we call her at different phases of her life? Elizabeth Taylor was her preferred name to be used in public, and we consistently use that name. --Jayron32 17:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I specifically said "Taylor changed husbands so often that it would be totally confusing to refer to her as anything other than Taylor." But look at Goolagong's article. She is called almost exclusively Goolagong as that is how she is recognized. Her most recent surname is Cawley, according to your statement, she would be called that, which is not the case. SusunW (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Re: "the issue was a non-issue until the transgender naming issue made it an issue" I have to disagree... I think the issue of whether (and how) names fell under the scope of "style" guidance has been under the surface in lots of other disputes. For example, the long debate over "Deadmau5" vs "Deadmaus" centered on the question of whether to follow style guidance (MOS:TRADEMARK) or COMMONNAME. (note: MOS:TM has since been amended, but there was a more direct conflict back then). My puzzlement over the scope of MOS guidance (what should and should not be covered in a style guide) when it comes to names has been building for a while... the Transgender RFC was merely the spark that caused me to ask about it. Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
We've always consistently used a person's most recent, common, or preferred name when referring to them at all phases of their lives
I just checked the first example that came to mind: Muhammad Ali (like Jenner, an internationally prominent Olympic gold medalist) and found that the article doesn't reflect the above claim.
In almost every case, nearly universally, we don't change how we refer to people in their past: we use their current name for their entire lives.
Surely, your previous description ("most recent, common, or preferred name") is more accurate. The second article that I thought to check was Cat Stevens, wherein we refer to the musician by two different names (depending on the time period), neither of which is his preferred/current/most recent one (which is relegated to the infobox and prose pertaining to the name issue itself).
Perhaps these are rare exceptions. I'm inclined to wonder whether the name changes' occurrence after the individuals achieved fame is a factor. —David Levy 17:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
David Levy therein lies the rub. For the majority of women, it makes no difference whether notability occurred before or after marriage and a name change. They will have multiple names if they choose to take another surname and most do. The reason I entered the debate in the first place was to stress how very common name change actually is. We cannot ignore that it happens or use a single "rule" to apply to all circumstances. SusunW (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. In articles about both females and males, context is key. Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali as part of a well known religious conversion, which is meaningfully different from an instance in which someone adopts a pseudonym simply because it's considered more appealing or marketable.
Incidentally, I just checked the third example to come to mind: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. As in the aforementioned articles, Jayron's "all phases of their lives" statement does not apply. —David Levy 18:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Which brings us back to Blueboar's original query, and seems to point that names do always seem to be effected by style. Context has little to do with the factual content. SusunW (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that context has little to do with the factual content in some articles, but a lot do with factual content in other articles. In other words, we are inconsistent. Perhaps that is what causes so many disputes over MOS guidance when it comes to names. An attempt create consistency for something that is, by its nature, inconsistent.
The entire point of MOS guidance is to promote consistency in the project ... but names don't really lend themselves to consistency. Names are unique to specific people. People change their names... people use unique spellings and stylings in their names (example Deadmou5)... people can have more than one name at the same time (Samuel Clemens / Mark Twain for example). This inconsistency causes problems when we try to write MOS guidance. No matter what "rule" we come up with for our guidance there will be subjects who don't fit the rule.
Which gets me back to my question as to scope. Given that names are tied to unique individuals, and unique individuals have unique circumstances (context), circumstances that can affect which name we use to refer to that individual (and when we use it)... do we perhaps create more problems than we resolve by simply attempting to write MOS guidance about names? Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Replacement of 'St.' and 'St' by 'Saint' in titles

Most agree that this should be left to reliable sources and WP:COMMONNAME is enough to justify a move when needed. Closing per WP:SNOW. Esquivalience t 21:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Following a series of requested moves, by others and me, I would like to suggest the implementation of a policy to replace the use of disputed abbreviations ('St.', 'St' or 'St-'?) by clear informative full names (incidentally also corresponding to how the names are pronounced orally). For your information, here is a list of such articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=St&namespace=0&hideredirects=1
Peco Wikau (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC).

Oppose Who's going to decide if an abbreviation is disputed or not? On most pages, there is a clear common name in use, and that's the one each individual page uses. A blanket policy would not serve these pages well. Rockypedia (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I dispute the idea that these abbreviations are universally disputed, particularly in place names where there is clear common usage, like St. Helens, Oregon. It would be ludicrously inaccurate to rename that to "Saint Helens" because nobody uses that form. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reasons already cited. No one refers to St. Louis, Missouri as Saint Louis. SusunW (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. I've never seen the "St." in Mount St. Helens expanded when the name is written. --Carnildo (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose There are a number of cities I'm aware of with "St." in the name that are never referred to as "Saint". It would be bizarre to see them written that way.  DiscantX 02:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose because telling editors to use a different spelling for US place names than the spelling used by the USGS is just asking for trouble. Chris the speller yack 02:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Per above. Alex2006 (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - The use of "Saint" vs "St." is governed by WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Essentially, our usage is determined by what sources use - if the sources normally refer to the city using the abreviation "St.", then that is what we should use (as it will be more recognizable)... and if they use "Saint" then we should use that instead. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Conditional support Thanks for your input. The idea wasn't to consequently change this per general principle, but exclusively where properly fit - meaning excluding notable places like mentioned above, which I also do oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. The idea was thus to distinguish on a case by case method. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
How does that differ from the status quo? Why would it require a new policy? —David Levy 19:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
To implement it where suitable, rather than to consistently abbreviate all over the place. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, how does that differ from the status quo? And even if the abbreviated form were used in every instance, why would requesting moves "where suitable" require a new policy? —David Levy 20:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
In order to not applicate the same logic behind the naming of an article like, say, the city of St. Louis and a Catholic church building. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
What's preventing us from doing that now? On what do you base the premise that we aren't doing it now? —David Levy 20:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I am also opposed to the use of 'St.' as the full word ends in t (Similar to 'Dr' not 'Dr.'). 'St-' is used in French but not normally found in English. 'Saint' is not a common form in English based placenames, but other languages differ and this should be respected (if only in redirects, which cost very little). As to Saints themselves, IMO 'St' will do. Any Saint that wants a full spelling has only to notify us via OTRS. Peridon (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
You've touched upon an English variety-related matter. The rule that you cited is absent from North American English, wherein the full stop's inclusion is standard. Until relatively recently, the same was true of British English. For example, see the original texts of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, featuring the main character Dr. Watson – beginning with the first chapter, titled Mr. Sherlock Holmes. Even now, the practice has yet to fade from British usage entirely, despite its proscription by various authorities. —David Levy 19:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose The suburb of St Kilda (and therefore its footy team) is always written thus. The spelling is official, and it is not named after any saint. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose These tiresome gnomes need to be stopped very hard, before they waste more of other editors time. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_123&oldid=1091624879"