Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 124

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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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

Deaths in month, Deaths in year: (enforced non)compliance with Wikipedia citation standards

If this is not the correct place for this discussion, please suggest where it should be.

Articles on "Deaths in (year)" and "Deaths in (month) (year)" have substantial noncompliance with WP:CITEHOW, which says

Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include:
  • URL of the webpage – that is the URL of the webpage where the referenced content can be found, not, e.g., the main page of a website when the content is on a subpage of that website (see Wikipedia:Shallow references)
  • name of the author(s)
  • title of the article within quotation marks
  • title or domain name of the website
  • publisher, if known
  • date of publication
  • page number(s) (if applicable)
  • the date you retrieved (or accessed) the webpage (required if the publication date is unknown)

Recommendations for news citations are similar. This section of Wikipedia:Citing sources does not offer any category, group, or type of article where these typical components of citations should not be used.

The current article, Deaths in 2015, which has entries for deaths only for the current month of December 2015, instructs editors in the top comment section:

References should be in<ref>[url & title]</ref> format, as full citations make the page too slow to load, and too big to edit.

If this instruction, or any similar instruction elsewhere in Wikipedia, is allowed to remain, I believe that WP:CITEHOW should specifically note any and all such exceptions.

I believe this instruction should be removed (pursuant to a proper decision-making process in the appropriate forum). I believe that the author name, publication name, and publication date, among other items, are useful for a number of purposes, including tracking URL changes, finding archive URLs, and assessing the reliability of sources. I believe that "full citations make the page too slow to load, and too big to edit" is utterly without merit. For example, I recently edited Deaths in March 2012 to include full reference info for most incomplete references, and this increased the article size by 5,463 bytes, to 153,940 bytes. It is ludicrous to argue that a 153,940-byte article is too big to edit, but a 148,477-byte article is not to big to edit. Of course, the article already had a significant number of full references, but still.

For the past, there are articles by year starting with Deaths in 1995 and ending with Deaths in 2003. After that, there are articles by month starting with Deaths in January 2004. Only the current article includes the instruction for providing stripped references. On the 7th day of each month, the article for the preceding month is launched by extracting that month's info from the current article. (At year-end, it's slightly different but similar.) Thus, each "Deaths in (month) (year)" article is initially loaded up with only stripped references, and most editors follow the existing pattern of stripped references. Over time, some editors insert non-stripped reference information that should have been there all along, and would be much easier to create if the comment were removed and editors followed the instructions of WP:CITEHOW in the first place.

(For Deaths in October 2011 and older, instead of using footnote references, most or all of the references are inline external links. These should be converted to normal footnote references. Before mid-2005, most entries don't have even inline external links. These articles should be brought into compliance over time with a full reference for every entry, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.) —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a bit of background: the current state of affairs is a compromise arrived at following a 2012 RfC about the use of inline external links vs. full references. I do think the time is ripe for another discussion on the subject. Personally, I agree with the OP; no-one should be enforcing the use of incomplete references in any area of the 'Pedia, and the size argument is pretty silly. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar: I have already worked on Deaths in March 2012, Deaths in February 2012, ‎Deaths in September 2012, and Deaths in December 2011, but the full project of repairing all such articles is quite large, and this is all beside the point. The main point is that the unlawful compromise needs to be replaced, the instruction in the current article needs to be removed, and editors should be expected to follow WP:CITEHOW. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Please note that the concept of an "unlawful compromise" does NOT exist at Wikipedia, because two of the most important bedrock rules governing Wikipedia are WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IAR. That doesn't mean that the we shouldn't decide to change the process and make the links proper references, but the reason we should do that has nothing to do with the process that came up with the current system. The process that put in the current system for the "Deaths in..." articles was perfectly valid, and the same process will be used to change it to something else. --Jayron32 16:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Jayron32: It is a violation of WP:CITEHOW for no valid reason. There was never a WP:CONSENSUS that acknowledged and justified this violation of WP:CITEHOW; there were few participants in the discussion, which was rather minimal for such a blatant violation that would automatically infect 12 more articles each year. WP:IAR is a one-sentence guideline that simply states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That doesn't apply here; the requirements of WP:CITEHOW don't prevent anyone from improving or maintaining the Deaths in current month article. I stand by my early remark: it was an unlawful compromise. —Anomalocaris (talk)
Best to avoid words like "law" and "rule" around here. "Poor editing judgment" would work better imo. I would have started an RfC at WP:VPM or WP:RSN rather than looking for a policy change/enforcement here. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Anomalocaris: Rather than removing the current instructions, I would opt for the additional instructions being included along with them, perhaps as optional: for example, being included on all references on articles where this seemed more appropriate, and not being included on articles where the page length is already a cause for concern, but only if there is substantial evidence that the page is taking too long to load. I'm not an expert on this, though. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 00:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Rubbish computer: Do you understand that only one article at any one time has the instruction in question? That article right now is Deaths in 2015, and if nothing is done, soon that comment will be stripped from Deaths in 2015 and that comment will appear in Deaths in 2016. With this fact in mind, I can't make any sense of your suggestion. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Anomamlocaris: I didn't read the above text through properly: sorry about that. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 12:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

All high schools and colleges are automatically notable but not primary/middle schools.

After noticing User:JamesBWatson tag a primary school for deletion under WP:A7, I started to wonder why high schools and colleges, even if they are not important because of a sport (for example college football) and keep them while we delete most primary & middle schools (all per WikiProject School guidelines). Also, this topic has been raised before quite a bit. I either suggest all of the school articles to be under the same keep criteria or that they get kept only if they pass the normal A7 notability guidelines. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion is for the status quo, so your proposal seems redundant. The point being made by Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) is that they with rare exceptions, have been kept when nominated at AfD, but explicitly must be able to meet notability standards, such as those at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) specifically. So WP:A7 is and continues to be an approprate test for any school article. But as said, when put to the test, the community has generally decided that articles overcome the A7 criteria. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a documented aspect at WP:OUTCOMES, in that school articles for reasons are nearly always kept even if GNG-type notability cannot be readily shown. Yet in trying to formulate something like notability for schools, we then get the issue that there are schools out there that are for-profit, or unaccreditated, or the like, and makes defining any notability for them difficult. I would be in completely agreement that there should be no special treatment for any grade school (or equivalent) and that GNG or NORG must be met. I suspect most can be kept, but we need to actually practice what we preach when it comes to organizations which schools absolutely qualify under. --MASEM (t) 00:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Dat GuyWiki, this perennial discussion rears it head when school notability is questioned by new and/or inexperienced users who are not aware of our Guidelines for School Articles, the function of our topic projects in general, and our rather complex notability guidelines. The Category:Redirects from school articles with over 2,200 entries is ample evidence of the long-standing tacit consensus , based on policy (WP:BLAR, WP:ATD-R), to redirect non notable mainstream primary and middle schools to their school district article (USA) or locality (rest of the world), rather than outright deletion. Strengthened by a consensus to exclude genuine education establishments from WP:A7, this has become the accepted norm ignored at AfD only by nominators and voters who are not familiar with it. This is one reason, for example , why New Page Patrolers should be encouraged to read WP:NPP and ought to be subject to a user right. Pinging DGG on this as one of our most experienced editors on the topic of notability for educational establishments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
This compromise is one of the relatively few rational things we've done in the area of determining suitability for WP articles; the alternative will be hundreds of thousands of individual afd debates, which will achieve a result based mainly on the amount of attention paid here to the high school or elementary school. The result will be no matter, but the amount of work will be much greater. We ned similar compromises in other fields also, and then we'd have time to pay attention to the real problems. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
DGG has produced the first rational justification for the present situation that I have ever seen. I had previously seen attempts at justification that just aren't valid, such as "all high schools are big institutions with thousands of pupils, so they are bound to have received lots of attention somewhere", which is based on the perspective of editors in a limited range of countries, particularly the USA, where high schools are typically enormous (in many countries most high schools are far smaller), and which even in the USA ignores the existence of small private schools, some of them certainly un-notable. DGG's argument makes sense, though: there is far too much of an attitude that deleting/keeping has to be based on some sacred rules, and far too much time wasted on arguing about exactly how those rules should be applied in particular cases, rather than just applying fairly simple principles and then getting on with more useful work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBWatson (talk • contribs) 12:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, the current position is based on something Jimbo said originally. Andrew D. (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

    ...if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world.
    Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website.
    Then I think people should relax and accomodate me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do.

    — Jimmy Wales in Partial solution to rampant deletionism
Which was in 2003 and we've drastically changed back then. In 2003 we had articles for each Pokemon but since have been much smarter and more selective about which Pokemon to include. We've developed the notability guidelines since then. We've put more emphasis on secondary sourcing (as opposed to a school's website). Things have significantly changed on en.wiki since that point. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Educational institutions should continue to be exempt from CSD A7. High schools and colleges should continue to be presumed to merit an article. We should, however, go further than that and impose additional restrictions on the use of CSD A7. The impression that I get is that A7 is so vague that it is applied almost indiscriminately. James500 (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
A7 isn't that vague. It clearly states it's for people and organisations (and specifically excludes 'educational institutions'), organised events, named animals and web content. I can see vagueness to a degree in 'educational institutions'. Schools for kids and universities obviously fit that, but what about a driving school? Or a training centre for sewing machine operators? People get taught - is that 'education', and is it an 'institution'? One problem IMO is the Page Curation wording of 'db-significance'. That's far too general. If it said 'db-A7' like Twinkle does, it might be easier to get it through to some patrollers that it is NOT for books, shovels, wines or handbags. (Yes, I do still heartily dislike Page Curation...) Peridon (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It is the words "significant or important" that are very vague (though we do have some editors who are so illiterate that they don't know what an event or organisation is, as attested to, for example, by their persistent attempts to apply ORG to buildings). "Significant or important" could mean almost anything as significance and importance are relative concepts. Moreover, admins are not necessarily equipped to assess the significance/importance of some topics. Thus it would be good to create more exceptions. James500 (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair use status of Timed Text

Hello all, a discussion regarding the fair use status of text within the Timed Text namespace is being held at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Fair-use_status_of_Timed_Text, if you are interested please join the discussion there. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 04:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

French capitalization rules

See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Meanwhile at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#French capitalization rules – seems like some rules might benefit from being harmonized across WikiProjects and more general standards. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying MOS:IDENTITY in articles in which transgender individuals are mentioned in passing

The overall consensus here seems to be in favour of using context to decide on what action to take, once second choice votes are taken into account. Throughout, there seems confusion over what to do when, and this seems like the most inclusive close taking accounts of all the opinions raised. Mdann52 (talk) 17:58, 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 discusses a clarification to MOS:IDENTITY as recommended in this recent proposal. Which names and pronouns should be used for transgender individuals in articles of which they are not the principal subjects and that discuss events that took place before they publicly announced their transition? In the following examples, the first article is about the men's Olympics and the second article is about a film.

  • PREVIOUS ONLY: Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Refer to transgender individuals using the name and pronouns that they were using at the time of the event in question.
    Example: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. Larry Wachowski wrote the script for his film in 1994.
  • CURRENT ONLY: Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Refer to transgender individuals using the name and pronouns that correspond with their most recent publicly announced self-identification.
    Example: Caitlyn Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; she won a gold medal. Lana Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994.
  • ALWAYS BOTH: Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Refer to transgender individuals by both names, concisely; use either name first, as needed.
    Example: Bruce Jenner (later Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. Lana Wachowski (credited as Larry Wachowski) wrote the script for her film in 1994. (Use the pronouns which correspond to the name which is used first.)
  • BOTH IF RELEVANT: Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Refer to a transgender individual by both names, concisely, if the previous name is relevant in the context of the article where the reference is made; otherwise, use only the current name.
    Example: Bruce Jenner (later Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. (Readers may wonder why a woman participated in a men-only event, and including Jenner's previous name resolves this.) Lana Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994. (Readers will not wonder why a woman wrote a script.) (Use the pronouns which correspond to the name which is used first.)
  • ONLY THE MORE RELEVANT: Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Use the name and gender identity most relevant to the context of the passage in which the reference is made. When it is unclear which one is more suitable, default to the identity that would be used in the main biography.
    Example: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. Lana Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994.
  • OTHER (1) = DEPENDS ON CONTEXT: Use the name and gender identity that fits best in the context of the article where the reference is made (principle of least surprise for the reader). When it is unclear which one suits better, default to the identity as defined for the main biography. Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over name and/or gender identity changes, unless these are relevant to the article where the name of the person is inserted.
    Examples: see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Ninth draft (proposal 2)
  • OTHER (2) = PREVIOUS STRICTLY APPLIED, BOTH WHERE USEFUL: For historical events, refer to transgender individuals using the name and pronouns that they were using at the time of the event in question. However, when the scope of a word, even within a sentence, is not clearly limited to the past, use the present name and pronouns. Consistency is not particularly important. Both may be used at editors' discretion if it makes the article better to do so.
    Example: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. His world record was broken in 1980, but her innovation of carrying a spectator's American flag on a victory lap continues to this day. Larry Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994. (The innovation is still her innovation; the film is still her film, hence it is her film, her innovation. Had her world record survived until 2015, then it would be her world record!)
  • OTHER (3): (please explain)

This does not apply to biographical articles about transgender individuals; that is covered here. 18:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Support ALWAYS PREVIOUS ONLY

No consensus to implement, leaning towards oppose. The oppose votes linking practical issues to this option are higher weighting to me. Mdann52 (talk) 17:58, 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.

  1. Support This would be consistent with the way any normal name change is treated. A newly married woman can choose whatever naming convention she wishes to use. We accept that from the point in time that she makes such a declaration. We don't go back and rewrite her name into childhood. Transgender people should not have a special exception to go back and rewrite history, particularly when it goes against the core wikipedia policy WP:V. If public records at the time present a particular name, that is the name embedded in history for that event. If our married woman gets divorced and wants to erase her ex-husband's name, there are means to cross reference to the appropriate person but the historical name on the documents remains. Wikipedia provides that cross reference in directing the proper name to the current article which can clearly discuss the reason for the change, whatever it is. Trackinfo (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    Except this is not consistent with the way any other name change is treated. We don't always keep the "previous" name... instead, we look and see how the majority of sources (written after the name change took place) handle the name change, and follow source usage. So... if the sources decide to "re-write" history, and use the "new" name in historical contexts, then we follow along and do so ourselves. If not, we don't either. Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    Take this as an example: List of Wimbledon ladies' singles champions#Open era where names evolve over time. Look at Evonne Goolagong in 1971 and 1972, Evonne Goolagong Cawley in 1976 and beyond. Chris Evert in 1978, Chris Evert-Lloyd in 1979. Those were their names of choice at the time they entered the tournament. Trackinfo (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    Both of these examples are cases where the person didn't drop any of their old name, they just added a new name. We definitely need, IMO, to allow us to explicitly link the old name to the new name when the person is better known by the new name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per Trackinfo. I could write out an opinion myself, but I'd pointlessly reiterate a lot of what they've already stated.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support - Though I could certainly see adding a footnote stating current status on first mention in an article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support. When we are discussing an event, a person named Bruce competed. Nobody named "Caitlyn" competed in the event. Caitlyn won a Women of the Year award. Not "Bruce". Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support - Julius Caesar did not die in Rome, Italy, he died in Rome, Roman Empire. Historical events must not be rewritten with modern names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby Martnen (talk • contribs) 22:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    Then we would be writing about the death of GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR. Being clear on the name in use at the time to avoid anachronism is good, but so is including another name the reader might know of the subject by.--Trystan (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    That is a different thing. "Julius Caesar" is the English Translation of "GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR". We don't have an article called "History of Deutschland. Bruce Jenner is a completely different case, as someone English-speaking who changed their name. Another analogy is the Warsaw Pact. Warsaw is called "Warszawa" in Polish. If Poland decided to rename Warsaw "Miasto Walesa", we wouldn't rename the Warsaw Pact article "Miasto Walesa Pact", but the fact that Warsaw is called "Warszawa" in Polish wouldn't influence that decision. Bobby Martnen (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. Strong support - Historical events must not succumb to emotional pity and the emotional weakness of human beings. Let's not ruin Wikipedia with our own emotions, let's make it a viable source, not a biased source. We can't lean towards transgenders, but we can't lean towards transphobes either.--AlHadeed (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose ALWAYS PREVIOUS ONLY

  1. Unacceptable Could almost live with it except that sometimes the context makes unavoidable to mention both, e.g. the lede of List of charges in United States v. Manning. For a tennis player comparison see the second paragraph of the lede of 2005 French Open, containing both Justine Henin-Hardenne and Justine Henin. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    An excellent example. Henin is referred to without the hyphenated name in the portion referring to the longer term (including after she divorced Hardenne). A historical time reference. Trackinfo (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. strong oppose as completely contrary to BLP and multiple recent previous discussions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    With the constant insertion of female pronouns and names we have Transgender women marrying women and fathering children. Those have to be clear, repeat WP:BLP violations for all those other affected people due to wikipedia mis-reporting the identity of who they married or who their "father" was. The current identity is not the person who represented at that time.Trackinfo (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    We have transgender women marrying and having children with other women? It's almost like gender identity and biology are two entirely different things. We do not have a duty to falsely represent the subjects of our articles because representing those subjects accurately might require a bluelink. That is, in fact, the precise opposite of our expectations for how content treats human beings. Ironholds (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Totally unacceptable essentially per TRPoD. The idea that this is "just how we handle people" simply falls apart when you look at how content does, practically, handle name-changes - around noble titles, particularly - where we tend to consistently use either the title'd name or the non-title'd name and not switch halfway through. Ironholds (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Comment Per the "treat transgender individuals like everyone else" argument, both Wikipedia editors and the wider world treat transgender name changes like a special case, and there's nothing wrong with the MOS reflecting that reality. If that ever changes, we can update the MoS then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Strong oppose per TRPoD. To "treat transgender individuals like everyone else" means to call them by their preferred names and pronouns. Nobody I'm aware of goes around calling Michelle Obama "Michael" or referring to her as "he". (And if somebody has done that, kindly don't link me.) Besides, many transgender people are better-known by their post-transition names; with regard to Laverne Cox, for example, it would make no sense to refer to her by whatever her name at birth had been. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 05:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose: Offends too many people, is insensitive, and leads to never-ending conflict.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:52, 12 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.

Support ALWAYS CURRENT ONLY

  1. Support I see this option as the best for getting in line with the GLAAD Media Reference Guide. It is also the best option for dealing with the issue of deadnaming. - MellowMurmur (talk | contributions) 12:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@MellowMurmur: Letting an advocacy organization influence how certain groups are described is highly inappropriate and against core policies.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Godsy: Can you be more specific? I do not see advocacy organizations mentioned in the article you linked. - MellowMurmur (talk | contributions) 11:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@MellowMurmur: WP:NPOV for example. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view. GLAAD's own website states "Shaping the media narrative. Changing the culture." WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS: We can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion. WP:ADVOCACY: Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 14:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Aspiring to a NPOV involves representing disparate views, not excluding them. MOS:IDENTITY explicitly says that, when usage in reliable sources is mixed, use the terms that a group uses for itself. How could we do that without considering the recommendations of organizations like GLAAD on LGBT-related issues?--Trystan (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Trystan: Hopefully that wording will change with the two concurrent RfCs about MOS:IDENTITY (i.e. this one and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 123#Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals). This issue shouldn't be treated differently from anything else, or made to be a drastic exception. However, you're correct, the current wording paints us in a corner regarding your last sentence.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 15:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
To briefly clarify: "I see this option as the best for getting in line with the GLAAD Media Reference Guide." I'm objecting to getting "in line" (or in other words conforming) to an advocacy groups guidelines, as opposed to following reliable sources, as we do for everything else.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not a native english speaker and feeling a bit under fire here. Allow me to elaborate that I choose to mention the GLAAD Media Reference Guide here because it comes from people who have been spending a lot of time and energy on something very similar to what Wikipedians seem to be trying to do here. Namely figuring out best practices for writing about transgender individuals. What Trystan wrote sums up the intention of my contribution. The WP links you are offering seem to be dealing with how to write articles more than setting guidelines for what to say or not say at the village pump. - MellowMurmur (talk | contributions) 17:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The links I offered (because you requested that I be more specific) do indeed deal with how to write articles, as does your suggestion. I've offered above how I feel we should alternatively handle it. We simply disagree, there is no need "feel... under fire", because we hold different opinions. Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Godsy: I believe these two proposals are only intended to deal with the gender identity subsection of MOS:IDENTITY. The text I am referring to, "if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses", is in the general part of the guideline, and applies to all groups. (It used to be followed by an example of choosing between Jew and Jewish person.)--Trystan (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Trystan: In those cases, that may be a reasonable place to turn, as long as preceding text of the guideline (i.e. "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources") has been followed. I was confused by your characterization of the guideline above "when usage in reliable sources is mixed" which isn't the same as what it actually states.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Support ALWAYS BOTH

  1. Support This seems like it would work reasonably well. It's not at all rare for an actor to have "John Smith (credited as John A. Smith)" after their names. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    Poor example. We only do that when a name is credited differently from the commonly accepted stage name. When Marion Morrison started his career, he was credited as Duke Morrison. Once established, nobody every questioned him being credited as John Wayne. Trackinfo (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    I mean that if we cite one of Wayne's earliest movies, we'd say "John Wayne (credited as Duke Morrison)." You know, I think the ALWAYS BOTH option should be a plan B. We should go with BOTH IF RELEVANT and then only switch to ALWAYS BOTH if there are too many fights over when it's relevant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I would support this for any case were someone has become widely known by more than one name, in the interests of clear writing. It is much clearer to let readers know they may know of Lew Alcindor as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or that Leningrad is the same city as modern day St. Petersburg. While I don't think it is an egregious anachronism to say that Cary Grant was born in Bristol or that Michelle Obama attended Princeton, we should write in a way that both clarifies the name in use at the time and informs the reader they may know of the individual by another name.--Trystan (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Not just for transgendered people but for any proper name changes, where entity A is now know as entity B but at the time of point of coverage they were known as A. This option helps the reader in two ways: if they need to search for more sources beyond WP they will know what term to search for as at the time of the point of coverage, and when we are linking to the article on this entity, this will prepare the reader to recognize that they will be landing on a page with a different name but it is the same entity they clicked on. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    To be clear, I would think this only is when the sources or event is before the name change. For events/coverage well after the name change, the current name is sufficient by itself. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. acceptable (second choice) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Weak support; acceptable as an alternative, but I feel that under some circumstances (especially if they're more famous under their new name or their change is well-publicized) it isn't necessary to include the old name. --Aquillion (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support (second choice). Sometimes the former name isn't relevant (this is true in both trans and non-trans cases, e.g. Princeton University lists "Michelle Obama" as a graduate, it doesn't use her previous name because it isn't notable/ relevant), so my first choice is "both if relevant (otherwise, only current)". Listing both names strikes a balance, a compromise, between listing only one name or only the other: it provides the benefits of the current name (crediting accomplishments to people under their most up-to-date names rather than fixating on old strings of letters; being recognizable to people who know only the new name; acknowledging the name change and thus avoiding misgendering the person and rejecting their identity; etc), and the benefits of the old name (reproducing whatever sources at the time said about a given event; being recognizable to anyone who knows only the old name). And as Masem notes, it avoids easter-egg links as would result if we used only former names in text (since in almost all cases the articles themselves are at current names). -sche (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support as a compromise Not my first choice, but acceptable. This option avoids confusion, and doesn't assume that a reader knows facts which in fact some readers may not know. DES (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support in all cases of name change (not just transgendered people) except where the change is merely adding a new part to the old name (e.g Evonne Goolagong/Evonne Goolagong Cawley) and/or removal of previously added parts (Justine Henin-Hardenne/Justine Henin). This shouldn't apply, however, in a list of then-unnotable people who come from a specific place or graduated from a specific educational institution, etc., such as the Michelle Obama example above. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  9. this is acceptable, though not my first choice. I don't like the MOS pushing us to add clutter to articles, and there are plenty of places where including both may not be the most reasonable option. However, there are many scenarios where this would work fine and not contribute to misunderstandings + it's better than many of the other options. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  10. Support (as my first choice).  For articles where the person is not the primary subject of the article, I believe both names should be used.  This would give the reader the maximum amount of information, and without attempting to rewrite history.  (My second choice would be "PREVIOUS ONLY.")
    Richard27182 (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  11. Support (as first choice), but avoid pronouns: The examples given for this option are severely faulty in using "he". Rewrite to avoid the necessity to insert a pronoun that may be insensitive to subject, and which will cause never-ending strife from language-change activists. Usually one can either merge two short sentences in a way that obviates a need for a pronoun, switch to a neutral pronoun with a non-human referent ("this record", not "his record"), or repeat the surname (if it has not changed). Generally, and certainly in both of these examples, the names before and after the public change are both relevant, if for no other reason than to prevent any reader confusion or ignorance about who is being written about. And crediting persona B with the works of persona A is philosophically problematic, confusing to readers, and violates the norms of crediting.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Support BOTH IF RELEVANT

  1. Support This seems to be the best option to me. EDIT: We should use this rule on a provisional basis. If there are too many fights over what's relevant and what's not, then we auto-switch to ALWAYS BOTH. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. support under the proviso, ALWAYS includes the current with previous if relevant/necessary-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support, with caveat I would put the current name first, as in "Caitlyn Jenner (then Bruce Jenner)", and use the person's currently-preferred pronouns. Funcrunch (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    Support, with different caveat - it will rarely be relevant, so care should be taken to avoid presuming relevancy where there was none as seen by reliable sources at the time. For example, in an article about the 1976 Olympic Games, there is no obvious relevance to referring to the decathlon winner as any name other than Bruce Jenner or as any gender other than male. Had the events happened 30 years later, there might have been some relevance since, by then, the international sporting community was actively dealing with the issue of transgender athletes who were born male and wanted to compete as female. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    You do understand that this option means "always use the current name and only use both if the previous name is relevant," right? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, somehow I missed that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    That actually is what should be done. The current name should be the default, with clarification using the previous name only if there is a public reason for it (like, everyone pretty much knows what Jenner's name was when she won her gold, anyway, and the media and olympic records reflect it, etc.). TMagen (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    There are transgender people that have done notable things prior to their transition and abandoned that life and name. Connecting them by this policy would be problematic. "John Smith invents widget, quietly leaves that life and transitions to Jane Doe. Wikipedia updates the widget article to reflect inventors new name/transition even though inventor left that life and name behind." Wikipedia should not be in the business of blindly connecting pre and post transition identities. Suicides have been attributed to such carelessness. --DHeyward (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    That is an edge case I worry about. However, every option on this RFC is problematic with regard to that edge case: if the pre- and post-transition names aren't connected in visible text, there'll still be an (easter-eggy) wikilink (if the person is notable enough to have their own article). The question, for me at least, is thus: what's better as the general rule? And I think the answer is: acknowledging the current name visibly. The top of the MOS notes that there may be occasional exceptions to any of its rules. And on the talk page of an article of a widget company where someone was notable enough to be mentioned, but not notable enough to have their own article, you could make a compelling argument that the current name should be handled as one of those exceptions and excluded as WP:UNDUE. -sche (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    @-sche: Context matters which is why I chose it. My concern is that there are dogmatic crusaders that care less about the individuals wishes than they do about their agenda. There will be persons that care less about what the individual wants and choose their own dogmatic view. Some of those will argue for pre-transition name only. Others will argue post-transition name always. The truth is that individual choices matter far more than ideology. If Caitlyn Jenner wants her children to call her "dad," we are in no position to oppose this. If she is aware of the infobox picture and chooses not to update it based on her business and personal goals, we shouldn't listen to ideologues that are furious when she is not. If she wants all present day references to use "Caitlyn" we shouldn't say "Bruce" where "Caitlyn" is preferred. We must be sensitive to context over ideologues because there is no universal response that is always correct. --DHeyward (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support (first choice), preferably with Funcrunch's caveat. (1) This attributes things to people who did them using the most up-to-date names, rather than fixating on what strings of letters period sources used. Editors seem to find this intuitive in non-trans cases, e.g. Princeton University says "Michelle Obama" graduated from there in 1985 even though her surname wasn't "Obama" until 1992. (2) It avoids unnecessarily misgendering people, which jars many readers/ editors and is incorrect because scientific understanding from brain studies etc. is that e.g. a trans man was never a woman and one cannot accurately say "she did X" or "he was a woman until he came out at 23" any more than "John was attracted to women until he came out as gay at 24" or "diseases were caused by miasma until about the 1880s, when germs began to cause them". (3) Where a previous name is relevant/notable, this allows for it, so as to inform people who expect the previous name either based on their knowledge or the context (as in the Olpymic example, where the inclusion of the previous name clarifies why Jenner was participating in the men's competition), while also having the current name for the reasons above and because (especially younger) readers who know only a new name (especially of someone who transitioned further in the past than Jenner) will not recognize the old name and may not think to click a wikilink, if the person is even notable enough that one is possible (such links are easter eggs, anyway). Reasons 1 and 2 are why I prefer this to "always both". -sche (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support This places things into historical context but respects the person's current status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support per Funcrunch, although in the given example and related situations, I would retain "(credited as Larry Wachowski)" since the name a credit appears under is generally going to be relevant. —烏Γ (kaw), 02:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support, although I would say that in the second case, the former name (but not the former gender) is relevant because readers might be surprised to see that Lana wrote the movie when the credits say Larry. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 02:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support Seems the best option, though I agree with Funcrunch's caveat. 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) 02:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support. They're all problematic in some way, but this seems like the least problematic. Some kind of note is probably required to explain non-intuitive situations, such as sportspeople. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  10. Support, although with several caveats. I would always give their current name precedence, so it would be eg. "Caitlyn Jenner (then Bruce Jenner)" or something similar rather than the reverse. On the other hand, I would want to define "relevant" somewhat broadly -- generally, if people are likely to be reading this section of an article or parsing a list looking for a specific name, then we should have the name there somewhere to avoid confusion. The main questions to me are "are there likely to be significant numbers of people who will read this looking for a specific name, and only know that name, even if it's out of date?" And, more generally, "are there significant numbers of people likely to be confused by this, whether because they're only familiar with the old name or whatever?" If so, we should generally have both names. --Aquillion (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  11. Weak support, without pronouns - I would suggest the name in use at the time is usually relevant - including how a writing credit for Lana Wachowski would have appeared in the work. I suppose there are a few cases where it wouldn't be, along the lines of "Lana Wachowski attended Oxbridge", where you don't really need to know the name in use at the time. I would remove the pronouns from the examples; it is trivially easy to avoid them when mentioning someone in passing. While it is an historical fact that Jenner was named Bruce at the time, the issue of whether she was always a trans woman or only became one when she transitioned will be highly contested.--Trystan (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  12. Weak Support I believe this option and "only the more relevant" are the most reasonable, but I'm more inclined to support the latter, since this one produces potentially unnecessary clutter, and redirect links would make the disambiguation clear in the latter. --Waldir talk 09:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  13. Support. The current name should be the default, and the previous name should be used for clarification, context, or any other reason that is important to understanding the content (for example, if all the sources are from the time, and refer to the person by the previous name). TMagen (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  14. Support, provided "current only" is the preferred option & 'relevance' is a higher standard than 'this is the name sources used at the time'. Protonk (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  15. Support, in that I think my cavaets on the previous option (the USE BOTH ALWAYS) amount to this at the basic level, or at least my opinion sits somewhere between these at a high level. I do stress that relevancy should be based on sources at the time if we are talking a date event, as to make sure the reader has a good awareness of search terms to do their own research as well, and common sense does come into play (ala the Michelle Obama example). --MASEM (t) 18:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  16. Support As others have pointed out, it will not always be necessary to use both names. When it is, the current name should be put first. I would write it thus: "Caitlyn Jenner (then known as Bruce Jenner). I include the "known as" because it's not that she was a different person then; she was just known by a different name. Neljack (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  17. Support parenthetical dual-naming as an appropriate style when readers' might otherwise be confused or draw false inference. Vannie227 (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  18. Support with the specification (as Funcrunch and others suggested above) that the current name should come first, and the previous name be given as a parenthetical. Wording such as "Caitlyn Jenner (competing as Bruce Jenner) won that gold medal", to clarify why the previous name is mentioned at all, seems a good idea. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 05:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  19. Support (as second choice), but avoid pronouns: The examples given for this option are severely faulty in using "he". Rewrite to avoid the necessity to insert a pronoun that may be insensitive to subject, and which will cause never-ending strife from language-change activists. Usually one can either merge two short sentences in a way that obviates a need for a pronoun, switch to a neutral pronoun with a non-human referent ("this record", not "his record"), or repeat the surname (if it has not changed). Generally, and certainly in both of these examples, the names before and after the public change are both relevant, if for no other reason than to prevent any reader confusion or ignorance about who is being written about. And crediting persona B with the works of persona A is philosophically problematic, confusing to readers, and violates the norms of crediting. I allow that in some cases (e.g. long lists of credits) it may not be necessary to include the second name, but in running prose we should usually do so. If you like, think of my position as being a clarified stand between the option I'm !voting on here, and the oen above this: "USUALLY BOTH".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  20. Support Seems like the option that would offend the least people. Also reduces discrepancies when referring to sources. Swordman97 talk to me 03:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  21. Support: This generally seems to be the most sensible approach. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Support ONLY THE MORE RELEVANT

  1. This option seems more in line with WP:Trans?, already in use. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support as long as the name is wiki-linked, this seems to be the most useful for readers, since it avoids cluttering the text while providing proper disambiguation to the current gender (either by using a redirect or a piped link). --Waldir talk 09:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC) moving my support to "DEPENDS ON CONTEXT" --Waldir talk 18:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Support OTHER (1) = DEPENDS ON CONTEXT

  1. Support, for reasons explained at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. I support using the most relevant names depending on the context. This is how we deal with choosing historical vs modern names in other articles... I see no reason why we should handle name changes that are due to gender identity any differently. Sometimes (mostly in list articles) we only mention one name (because only one name is relevant in that context)... but at other times (mostly in more sentence based articles) we give multiple names (because both names may be relevant in that context). In other words... this simply isn't an issue that can be resolved by one-size-fits-all ALWAYS THIS or ONLY THAT "rules" - It's a SOMETIMES THIS BUT SOMETIMES THAT issue, that can only be resolved by giving editors flexibility to reach a consensus. Which names to use (whether the "former" name, the "new" name, or both) should be determined on a case by case basis. I Oppose framing this as a one-size-fits-all "rule" with ALWAYS and ONLY "rules", because different solutions will be appropriate in different contexts. Context and source usage drive which names are used, not our own biases. Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    Tx! I knew this proposal wasn't too difficult to grasp. Tx again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support a variant: Use #1:PREVIOUS ONLY unless context dictates otherwise "Refer to transgender individuals using the name and pronouns that they were using at the time of the event in question" unless context demands using both names or conceivably, in rare cases, the other name. In an article about the 1976 Olympics, the winner of the decathlon is Bruce Jenner, and the pronoun-gender is male. In an article or about famous transgender people, it could go either "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn) won the decathlon" or "Caitlyn (then Bruce) Jenner won the male decathlon" with a pronoun gender of male or female respectively. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support essentially for the same reasons as Blueboar plus the additional caveat that always- and only-types of rules sometimes result in absurdities. An article about the 1976 Olympics needn't go beyond mentioning the name (then) of the winner of a particular event. This is the name that will be in contemporary sources, and this is the name that someone familiar with the subject would expect to see. An article about transgender athletes would be an appropriate place to mention both names. An article about some recent event (post-change) where the same individual made an appearance or was presented an award needn't mention any but the current name of the individual who attended and, if relevant, the individual's gender (one place it is usually relevant is when an appropriate pronoun is used, at which point the gender is implied rather than stated). It might be a good idea to have a default option when it isn't completely clear from the context which option to use. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support as a matter of historical accuracy balanced with common sense. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support for historical accuracy. The historical achievement was made using a certain name, and that name should always be connected with the achievement. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support as sources are likely to identify contextual relevance. There are no hard and fast rules and the individual will have different levels of difference to dead names. We should not presume hat someone wishes to be linked to the accomplishments of their dead name so context matters. If a person was previously a male athlete record holder and transitions, we should not presume that they wish to be known as a male athlete record holder. PC police are not the BLP police. --DHeyward (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support Just as usage in reliable sources (which we should follow without good reasons not to) will vary from case to case, so our usage should vary. In sports articles (excepting special ones like LGBT Olympians) it's enough to call Jenner simply "Bruce Jenner"; Jenner being transgender or her later name Caitlyn are not in any way relevant (indeed, repeatedly noting them would give them undue weight) and only serve to confuse things. (When she publicly announced her new name Caitlyn and identity as a woman, there were very unfortunate attempts by at least one editor to credit Jenner with records in women's athletics, sources not required.) In other articles it may be appropriate to use Bruce, Bruce (later Caitlyn), Caitlyn (then Bruce) or simply Caitlyn, depending on how relevant each name is. Sideways713 (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support Similar to option 5 above, we should generally follow the reliable sources. If there is any plausible confusion, we should give both names, putting the one favored by reliable sources in the context involved first. I mostly agree with Sideways713 above. DES (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  10. Support. Context is always more important than maintaining a single dogma. It would be ludicrous to say that Caitlyn Jenner won a medal in an article about the event in which the medal was won. Caitlyn Jenner didn't; Bruce Jenner did. This is making no comment on Jenner's gender identity at the time. It is simply stating a fact. The same with Lana Wachowski. Lana Wachowski did not make films before 2012; Larry Wachowski did. Again, that is making no comment on Wachowski's gender identity at the time. It is simply stating a fact. We do not practise revisionism on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  11. Support This does not happen enough to justify making hard rules. Check context and build precedents for more time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  12. Support There are obviously times when a new name is not relevant, such as in an article about a television series that ended 30 years ago. What has happened to anyone since then has little relevance to the series so there is no need to include the new name. What is important in such a case is what happened at the time. On the other hand, there may be cases where inluding both the old name and new name may be necessary. What to do in any case should be determined based on context. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  13. Context matters. In the case of the historical record of Olympic results, "Bruce Jenner" is relevant and making note of the decades later change to her current identity/name as Caitlyn is not. I view this in similar vein to athletes who compete under one name and later got married. The record is rarely changed retroactively. But this is only one example, and it is foolish to tie ourselves down to an all or none situation. There will undoubtedly be cases where such individuals are mentioned in passing, but for which the use of both names, a later name or a footnote will be important. But as a general rule, articles or lists that document the historical record should be left as-is. Anachronisms are unencyclopedic. Resolute 16:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  14. Support From a historian's standpoint, all names are relevant to building the profile of a person; however, that being said, privacy issues must be taken into consideration, especially on BLP. We don't re-write history nor push POV. Name changes happen often with women in certain cultures and knowing all of the links becomes essential for building their timeline. On the other hand, there are times when people have chosen to disassociate with a prior life and those choices must be respected. There is no rule for all contingencies. Common sense, when the notability in life occurred, whether a prior identity is relevant or disclosure might cause harm must all be weighed. If one doesn't have the ability to analyze, mayhaps they need to leave that article for someone else to write, rather than creating a hard and fast rule. SusunW (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  15. Support – bottom line, we need to go on what the sources at the time state. To take an example I just stumbled across, the credit for the CHiPs episode is for "Bruce Jenner", not "Caitlin Jenner", so in a situation like that, the credited name must be used. Etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  16. Support per the Principle of least astonishment, as long as the final recommendation is phrased as clearly as in the option description above, and not hinging too much in the "depends on context" part. --Waldir talk 18:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  17. Support (second choice) per above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  18. Support (second choice) I advocate for inflexibility above because this option calls for people being reasonable. In most cases, wikipedia editors can reach a consensus and reason outweighs WP:POV. And yes I have had some crazy arguments that haven't always gotten there, but the majority of the time, reason works. As the editor who wrote probably the majority of the content about Bruce Jenner over the last 5 years, starting from my own track career competing with Bruce. I have been dealing with this evolving situation around this article and its web of wikilnks for more than six months. The crew of POV pushing advocates have so driven opinion regarding this case, including the rewrite of the MOS we are dealing with here, that reason has gone out the window. Their opinion is that Bruce never existed and their desire is to wipe out the history of this person that is familiar to millions of people. If they succeed, it will lend more credence to the internet mantra, you can't trust wikipedia, more often repeated in full sarcastic tone "You can trust wikipedia." Give them an inch and they will take a mile. This less restrictive alternative will give them that inch. Trackinfo (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  19. Support also judicious phrasing will generally obviate most problems. Having said that it will often be contextually necessary to mention the later name. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC).

Neutral on OTHER (1) = DEPENDS ON CONTEXT

  1. This would be preferable to "always the former" or "always the current", which are basically PoV-pushing WP:ADVOCACY of two opposing types. However it's basically a wishywashy pseudo-option that in actual practice will resolve to "usually both", the compromise between "always both" and "both when relevant", since both usually will be relevant. That is to say, everything on WP depends on context, so having an explicitly "depends on context" option here is like saying "I will breathe, but only if I'm alive". It's tautological hedging for no reason.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Support OTHER (2)

  1. Just to be cussed I put up what makes the most sense to me, but only by a hair, I must admit. There is no especially appealing way to handle this bug in our language, but I think we should dissect even individual sentences to choose one or the other. Wnt (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose OTHER (2)

  1. Strongest opposed to this option. Any result like "His world record was broken in 1980, but her innovation of ...", or "Larry Wachowski wrote the script for her film" is unacceptable. Any reader not already intimately familiar with the subject (and remember that is about mentions in passing at other articles) will have no idea what this means. Each construction appears to refer to some other, unnamed, female person, and will be taken for an editing error, implying that something was accidentally deleted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion (trans individuals in other articles)

Please give a better description to the option described as "Other 1". Georgia guy (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to do so yourself; add it as "OTHER (2)" – I might like it and change my !vote. Francis Schonken (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

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) 21:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue of using appropriate historical names impacts a lot of projects... so please alert more than just those two. For example, as can be seen from our using the choice of Bruce vs Caitlyn Jenner as an example, I think you should have alerted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports (I have corrected the omission). We should give this as wide an audience as possible, so if anyone thinks a project should be notified, please do so. Blueboar (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Excellent idea, BB. I also plan to hit up the bio noticeboard, and if anyone wants to get started on notifying the participants in the previous discussion, that'd be great. Just do it on their personal talk pages so we don't get any double-alerts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I have just notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, since it affects that project as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The more comments I see on this the more I come to believe that BOTH IF RELEVANT would be the best choice, but ALWAYS BOTH is less likely to cause fights. I think we should adopt BOTH IF RELEVANT on a six-month provisional basis and then auto-switch to ALWAYS BOTH if there are too many fights or too much trouble. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  1. Question, suppose the person does not want to have explained about his or her transgender, has this been discussed before? Lotje (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Oooh, I don't know. But MOS:IDENTITY has included the words "unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise" for a long time. I don't see that it would be a big problem to add those words to this part of the rule too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored... if reliable sources discuss someone's transgender, so can we. While we try to respect the desires of the subject of an article, we are not limited by them. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar has it exactly, though I'd add that it's fine to use the person's preferences where they do not contradict this. On transgender issues, the fact that it is polite to refer to someone by his or her preferred gender pronoun ordinarily wouldn't hold much weight, but because the jury is so far from being in on things like reliable sources, the biological realities underlying transgenderism, and whether this is a correction or a change, then it serves as a pretty good tiebreaker. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi Darkfrog24.  I agree with you when you write that "ALWAYS BOTH is less likely [than BOTH IF RELEVANT] to cause fights."  But I'm not so sure about your proposed solution of "adopt[ing] BOTH IF RELEVANT on a six-month provisional basis and then auto-switch to ALWAYS BOTH if there are too many fights or too much trouble."  After six months, who or what criterion would be making that decision?
Richard27182 (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

We look around and observe whether anyone's been fighting over it. I guess we could also ask the participants here to keep their eyes open. The good thing about hosting MOS:IDENTITY at the MoS is that a lot of the time, people post notices of disputes at WT:MOS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of the "Oppose ALWAYS PREVIOUS ONLY" category.  All the other categories are "support" categories; why does "ALWAYS PREVIOUS ONLY" have its own "oppose" category?
Richard27182 (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Initially, no option had an 'oppose' section. However, enough people posted explicit objections / comments on the problems of that option that someone thought it would improve the readability of the thread to put those objections in a subsection. -sche (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


I know I'm not the first person to bring this up, but it's important and I think it deserves more attention than it's getting.  One of the problems with using the current identity only is potential conflicts with WP:BLP.  Suppose a female trans (while still biologically male and still publicly identifying as a man) had married a woman (let's say the fictitious Mary Smith).  If we must always use the current name only, then we would have to write "[trans current name] married Mary Smith."  Mary Smith may feel this implies that she is a lesbian, and if so, may feel insulted, maybe even libeled.  Our only real option would be to make no mention of the marriage at all!  How would the proponents of CURRENT ONLY propose to handle this kind of situation?
Richard27182 (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a current-only supporter, but I do feel we should make a presumption in favour of current pronouns, so issue does come up. I'd say: "Prior to coming out as a trans woman, she married Mary Smith."--Trystan (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
A LOT depends on which article we are talking about... and who the subject of the sentence is. Is the "she" referring to the trans-gender person, or to the non-transgender spouse? In an article about the non-transgender spouse (Let's call her "Susan"), it is both inaccurate, and potentially harmful to say "In 1993, she married Mary Smith". Saying that implies that Susan is lesbian. I think we should say "In 1993, she married Joe Smith".
Now... if Mary is notable in her own right (and also has an article)... I think it appropriate to link the name "Joe Smith" to the Mary Smith article (where the transition from "Joe" to "Mary" should be explained). If Joe/Mary isn't notable (and thus does not have an article to link to)... then we have another question to ask... is the issue of Mary's current trans-gender identity relevant to Susan's life. It may not be... and if not, then there is no reason to mention it in the article on Susan. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I think Trystan has it right. While generally it is not necessary to go into detail that a person is trans, briefly referring to it to prevent confusion is fine. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Trystan: @Darkfrog24:
I think Trystan's  "Prior to coming out [emphasis added] as a trans woman, she married Mary Smith."  is a major improvement over my (deliberately constructed) worst case. However it still has a problem. It fails to rule out the possibility that, even though the person Mary married had not yet publicly come out as a trans woman, Mary may still have been totally aware of the situation. If she was not aware of the situation at the time, she might still find the statement offensive and libelous.
Richard27182 (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I can see why someone might find the information "You married someone who later came out as a trans woman (so it is possible to construe that you were in a same-sex marriage depending on one's definition of the term)" offensive, but if it's true then it's not libelous. If these are living people, then we'd have to be careful (only say it when relevant, don't say "they were in a same-sex marriage" because that's interpretation and not fact, etc.), but it would fall under WP:NOTCENSORED. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
[inserted  05:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)]  Ping:@Darkfrog24:
This is a complicated subject and I probably wasn't clear enough in my posting.  What I meant was that if Wikipedia stated that "Prior to coming out [publicly] as a trans woman, she married Mary Smith," some readers might assume that Mary Smith likely knew the true gender identification of her own spouse even though the world as a whole did not.  But if Mary did not know of the "trans" gender identification of her spouse at the time of the marriage, then for those readers the article would be misrepresenting something about Mary. And she might see it as defamatory or libelous.  (I'm not sure if I just clarified my point or further obfuscated it.)
Richard27182 (talk) 05:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
We shouldn't imply she knew, but it is not our job to rule it out either. Not being a tabloid that delves without cause into the most private details of the relationship between spouses, there are very few situations in which we either would or could comment at all about what Mary knew and when. If we are presenting verifiable facts in a clear and fair way, it isn't defamation.--Trystan (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think telepathy is RS. I would say that the words as you've given them, Richard, don't imply whether Mary knew one way or the other. I also think you're overestimating how scandalous it is to be married to someone who later comes out as trans. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
[inserted - 11:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)] Ping: @Darkfrog24:  @Trystan:
The point I'm trying to make (not very well, I'm afraid) is that there are scenarios where it would be problematic if we have the MOS prohibit any mention of a trans's past name, or gender identification, or previously applicable pronouns.  For example we know that WP:BLP sets extremely strict standards for writing about  "any [emphasis added] living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."  Considering the previously discussed case of the fictional "Mary Smith," if Mary belongs to a very conservative religion that condemns transsexualism, and if the Wikipedia article could be seen by some as even suggesting the possibility that Mary had knowingly been married to a trans, I believe that that, in and of itself, would trigger WP:BLP issues.  I agree with Trystan that  "[T]here are very few situations in which we either would or could comment at all about what Mary knew and when."  But I believe that this is one of those very few situations where we do have to be extremely careful about what we write and avoid any possibility of giving the wrong impression, because of the sensitive nature of the issue involved.  For this reason (as well as other reasons), I feel that having the MOS require that all references to trans's must use only their current identification is not just impractical, but totally infeasible.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
No, you've managed to get that across. Given the response rate so far, I don't think you need to worry about ALWAYS CURRENT ONLY. It looks like some version of "use both" is going up there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth... here is my prediction: This round will end with the compromise of "ALWAYS BOTH" - which will resolve the debate at most articles. However, it will NOT resolve the debate at all articles. The debate will continue at articles where it simply does not make sense to use both (where simple common sense would be to use just one or the other) and where we discover that using both is problematic (such as where using both will create a potential BLP issue)... and in a year or two we will have to re-re-visit the discussion with a narrower focus on these few problematic situations. At which point, we will eventually end up with some form of "IT DEPENDS - USUALLY WE SHOULD USE BOTH - BUT NOT ALWAYS". Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Darkfrog24 and Blueboar
I more or less agree with both of you; both concerning a likely outcome of this VPP/RfC, and also the fact that there will be times when "USE BOTH" would actually be inappropriate.  But please keep in mind that the Manual of Style begins with the words:  "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions."  I really believe that that should cover most if not all of the exceptions that might occur if we end up with "ALWAYS BOTH."
Richard27182 (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
You can tell people "It's just a guideline" from noon to night but in my experience they still treat everything in it as a hard and fast rule. That's why we have to be so careful about what goes into it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Ping:@Darkfrog24:
Understood.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
We actually did raise the issue of contacting transgender organizations (or at least transgender Wikipedians) when working out the wording of these two threads, but it was determined that the possible votestacking effect would outweigh the benefits of the insight that they could provide. At least one transgender Wikipedian has volunteered an opinion here anyway. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Was this not a formal RfC? Who/How/When is it going to be closed? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a regular RfC, but thirty days have passed and the tag has timed out. Formal closure has been requested. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:15, 24 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.

Clerking RfC

Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC concerning clerking at RfA: Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC. Please do not comment in this section, but rather make all comments in the appropriate place on the RfC. Thank you. Biblioworm 22:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and OpenCritic

I started a discussion about review aggregation websites such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. I would appreciate some feedback from some more people. Thanks. SharkD  Talk  23:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Review long-term-protected pages at least every 5 years

Long-term protection is generally a bad thing unless there is a good technical, legal, or privacy reason. The WP:Protection policy even says that administrators may review and unprotect pages if the protection is no longer needed. The reality is that this usually doesn't happen unless someone asks, leaving long-term-protected pages in "protection purgatory" far longer than needed.

To keep things simple I'm going to make this proposal apply to article-space and keep the time-frame longer than I personally would prefer (I would prefer 1 year but that would get too much opposition):

Proposal: Pages in the main encyclopedia ("article space") which are protected indefinitely or for longer than 5 years must have their protection status confirmed (re-protected, with an up-to-date justification) or reviewed at least every 5 years. This includes all forms of protection (e.g. create, move, semi, full, pending-changes, etc.).

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of "Review long-term-protected pages at least every 5 years"

👏 BethNaught (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Iridescent: Earlier today, I went through the complete list of non-redirect articles with indefinite full edit protection and asked the protecting admins of some of them to downgrade the protection. A good chunk of these (maybe half) are "pseudo-soft-redirects" to Wictionary using the {{wi}} template. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Iridescent says everything I'm thinking very well so I won't repeat it. BethNaught (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment there is actually nothing stopping you from doing this now, and proposing unprotection at WP:RFPP for anything you think should be unprotected. I'd suggest putting the information on a page in user space and linked at RFPP. Prodego talk 19:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that if a protected page is preventing productive activity then someone will draw attention to it. No need to pre-emptively make work. HighInBC 20:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Adding) I didn't see that you also want to extend this process to create-protected pages. In which case, to the 6000-ish I list above, add the 45,000 pages which are currently salted. If you want to compile a list of those you feel are unreasonable and submit it to WP:UNPROTECT, feel free, but don't demand other people do your work for you; there's no need to insist admins unprotect-and-reprotect Jews did wtc, Go eat shit fuckers or All wiki admin are bastards‏‎ just because you object to the concept of indef protection. ‑ Iridescent 20:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
    Yeah, I should've checked that list before I made this proposal. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply to everyone who has commented already it's obvious I didn't think this out well and will need to revisit it. I still think that long-term protection of pages that have articles or which could plausibly have articles someday need to have their protection-levels re-assessed from time to time. This is especially true for fully-protected existing articles, which is why I went through the complete list of non-redirect articles with indefinite full edit protection earlier today and asked some admins to downgrade the protection on some of those pages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment to anyone reading this: Some of the reports that list or count protected pages are woefully out of date. You can get a list of protected pages and protected titles by going to Special:ProtectedPages and Special:ProtectedTitles. You can get an estimated count by fiddling with the "limit=" parameter in the URL: This shows fully protected page titles 5000 at a time, there are between 30,000 and 35,000 such pages right now. This shows there are less than 5000 indefinitely-fully-edit-protected pages in "article space," including redirects (warning - that last link takes awhile to load). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the real issue is very simple: A newcomer who can't edit to first page they want to is less likely to end up joining our community, and I believe we need to increase the number of new members. The pages these newcomers want to edit is probably highly correlated with the pages we have protected. I think we need a very simple policy: Any existing non-redirect article which is not a serious BLP issue or obvious vandalism magnet should be protected for no more than 5 years, although placing it up as indef and subsequently it being reduced may cause the vandals to move on; if issues come up again, we can always re-protect. ArbCom and OFFICE, of course, override normal community policy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • They can go to the talk page and the notices say that, IIRC. - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, but the need to do that reduces their likelyhood of actually doing this edit, and eventually becoming Wikipedians. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Really? Has someone done a study? - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
        • I doubt there's any way to actually do such a study (these users who give up before actually editing can't be found), but common sense indicates that this is a very likely possibility. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
          • I would have thought it at least equally likely that a new contributor would be discouraged from participation if their first edits were reverted ... and on the type of article that is subject to long-term protection the chances are high that the type of edit they want to make is the type that caused the protection to be put in place. At least a decent explanation could be given on the talk page. (I'm speaking largely from my experience of caste-related articles here, where practically every edit request to such articles relates to the same ridiculous POV-pushing etc). - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
            • So the question is:Is a page which was protected five years ago still more likely to attract edits which would be reverted, than a never-protected page is? I think that the answer is probably no, with the exception of BLPs and likely vandalism magnets. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
              • This seems like a lot of "probablys" etc. Perhaps add caste-related articles to your watchlist: neither BLP nor vandalism are the main issues there. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Iridescent for the clear analysis. Not bureaucracy means we don't have detailed and universal rules, particularly when other people must implement them. Regarding the concern about all the great new editors we are losing because they can't click-and-edit on every page, bear in mind that we also need to be concerned about keeping the good editors who would like to develop more content but who are often distracted by dealing with repetitive disruption. Sitush has outlined the fact that such nonsense is a frequent occurrence in the many caste articles. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

CSD G5

I don't really understand what the purpose of this is. I understand that Wikipedia is trying to discourage block evasion, but that doesn't mean that you have to delete every single page that was created by a sock, as long as it is truthful and accurate. Sometimes, block evaders will try to improve Wikipedia as a way of covering themselves up, and even once discovered, I don't understand what the opposition to leaving their contributions in place is. Please comment on this. 73.47.71.127 (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm personally of the opinion that we shouldn't delete articles created by socks without further reason. Permitting them to remain does somewhat encourage socking, and that is regrettable, but if the articles are actually good, their value most likely outweighs the harm of the minor encouragement to sock. But not all socks are created equal. Some people who sock produce undeniably good content work, and are blocked/banned for conduct reasons, and we should probably exercise discretion and not delete their contributions. (G5 permits deletion, but doesn't mandate it) But for every one of those, there are several socks who produce bad content, that may not be obviously bad at first glance. Subtle hoaxes, POV Manipulation, Copyright Violations, Source abuse, amongst other problems, may not be obvious at first glance, and it is often justified to delete the article of a sock as a precautionary measure. If we end up deleting some articles that don't have problems as collateral damage, it is regrettable, but at times necessary. Monty845 17:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that maybe someone should open an RFC as to whether or not G5 should be repealed. I agree that allowing articles to stand does encourage socking. On the other hand, however, just deleting articles because they were created by a sock, to me, it's like saying "Oh, just because you're a block evader means that your contributions are bad and don't belong here", which is really not true. It is true that the editor who is evading a block doesn't belong here, but articles created by the editor before they are caught should be allowed to stand, as long as there aren't other problems with it. The invovled Wiki editor (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Except this can lead to gaming the system: a blocked user can create a sock, make a "good" contribution or three, then turn to whatever ways they had behaved before to their sock, with their "good" contributions retained. Then they can rinse and repeat through an endless number of socks. A wiley sock may be able to play this game for years. That said, I do think that if a sock/block evader is discovered and this CSD is applied, any other user in standing should be able to review the content, and perhaps through a simple revert/restore procedure, assert that the content is good with their name attached to it instead of the sock/block-evader. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Licensing requires that we attribute the content to the sock that created it, though a good faith editor could certainly assume responsibility for making sure it meets all policies/guidelines. Monty845 19:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but I'm thinking that we can link to a diff in the "responsible" editor reversion to what the sock had added, we are both following proper attribution and placing the "responsibility" of the content in someone else's hands. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
This is another case where content is not attributed to the originator; see also here. It seems that nobody cares much about it. Carlotm (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I think I understand where you're coming from Carlotm, but I think it is right to focus on the contribution rather than the contributor, like Blueboar said in that discussion. We give our work freely to be used without credit or attribution. If some commercial website uses WP content that you originally wrote, you will not be credited there either, where money is being made from your work. If you, like many editors here, consider your edit counts to be a mark of success, I think that is misguided. We need to edit here because we want to be part of the greatest collection of human knowledge ever assembled, not because anyone else will acknowledge us for what we have done. You know what you have done. Isn't that enough? This is no competition. I have some 2,400 edits in 6 years. I'd lose that contest. I agree with Masem. If you don't want to let go of taking credit for your work, which is totally understandable, there are other places to publish it. Dcs002 (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • G5 only says that a page can be deleted, not that it should be deleted. If a page is notable and valuable I'm of the opinion that we're shooting ourselves in the foot to delete it outright. Sam Walton (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • G5 is an extension of WP:BMB, and is justified by the reasoning there. If we ban someone we have taken a decision that the negative aspects of their participation outweigh the positives. If we tolerate someone making contributions then we have to deal with the negative aspects of their participation as well and the result is a net negative to the encyclopedia. Banned editors do sometimes make positive contributions to demonstrate that they can't be banned or to make it awkward for us to get rid of them. The only way to prevent this is to remove all their contributions. Because of this anyone is allowed to remove any edits made by banned editors for any reason or no reason at all. G5 is just an application of this to edits which happen to create articles. Hut 8.5 17:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Sometimes we are dealing with socks whose puppetmasters created very defective articles, for instance full of copyvio, misuse of sources, etc. The master was blocked for those reasons. We could, I guess, go through several hundred articles hoping to find some that didn't have the problems that caused the original account to be blocked. That of course would be time that could be used to write new articles, find sources and improve old ones, etc. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Both Hut 8.5 and Samwalton9 have it right. Per WP:BMB, "the measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." Per WP:BE, "this does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." As an extension of these two policies, G5 as it currently stands is based on editorial judgement, not blind process. Mz7 (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Dcs002, I am unable to follow a discussion in which I am manipulated by who put in my mouth things which never were there, nor have been envisaged. If you lack cartridges for your discourse, just stop it. And don't push me out of WP. I am able to pass over the threshold by myself, if and when I decide to do so. Carlotm (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope I haven't done that, and I'm sorry if I have. It was not my intention. I looked over the RfC you linked, and my post above was mostly concerning that attitude of expecting credit for our work. (It was a bit off topic concerning G5 and sockpuppets - the subject of this thread.) People make money off of what we do here in WP, and we will never be credited. Our names will be lost and forgotten in 30 years, or maybe next year, but what we have done will be seen as the 21st century's Library of Alexandria! I think that's pretty cool. :) Dcs002 (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Public relations policy

Someone wrote in to WP:OTRS ticket:2016010510012955 to raise awareness of the existence of Gale Cengage's product advertisements. Their current ad campaign shows a picture of Martin Luther King, Jr. and says, "Biographies much more reliable than Wikipedia". I cannot find this ad online. They market their database to libraries.

I thought that I would share this just to raise awareness that many libraries pay a lot of money to subscribe to proprietary databases, and libraries pay for access to these databases on the premise that they give better information to Wikipedia. This is an industry sector in which libraries invest USD 100s of millions of dollars annually to these proprietary reference works. At its peak not so long ago, Britannica alone had revenue of 200 million a year. Wikipedia has no such content development budget.

A lot of people write to OTRS and ask questions about disparaging comments said about Wikipedia in the mass media. Right now, neither the Wikimedia Foundation nor the Wikimedia community regularly responds to these sorts of things. I am not sure what response there could be, so I am only sharing the issue here that there is public demand for responses to criticism of Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the ad in question. — Earwig talk 01:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members". A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Average quality fair-use vs poor quality free file

If you have a free file of the poorest quality possible and you can find a non-free fair-use replacement of much better quality, is it wise to upload the latter and nominate the former for deletion?--The Traditionalist (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Steel1943: The file in question is this. My proposed replacement is this. What is your opinion? I believe that he, indeed, cannot be identified in the least in our file.--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
There are also this file with this replacement and this file with this replacement.--The Traditionalist (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@The Traditionalist: It wouldn't be the best to nominate the former for deletion since some Wikipedias get their media from Commons only. --Allan Aguilar (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@Allan Aguilar: But it is better for an article to be left without an image instead of having images of so low a quality.--The Traditionalist (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Google Books "snippet view" as reliable source

I vaguely recall previous discussions somewhere on the use of Google Books "snippet view" as a source. AFAICR, the concern was that snippets were often so small that there may insufficient context to reliably interpret the extract.

I looked for any mention of this in WP:V, WP:RS and some linked essays and guidelines. However, I found nothing.

Does anyone know whether there is any current policy or guideline on this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Google Books is not so much a source as a container. I use Google Books to read sources (buying the books themselves is not logistically feasible to me) and to make a convenience link to them - if I am fairly sure that the bits I have read are sufficient on their own and don't have caveats and the like elsewhere.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I was unclear, Jo-Jo Eumerus.
I am not asking about the use of page previews on Google Books. My question relates to books where page previews are unavaialable, and Gbooks offers only snippets like these. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I see four very short extracts from the book. Neither extract is very useful as I see so little of the text. Since Google reports that no e-book is available, I would still have to find the book in a shop or at a library in order to find out more about the context. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Keeping in mind that sometimes Google Books snippets deliver different snippets based on geolocation, I would not call them reliable on their own, but they certainly can be used to affirm that the book itself as a source and the specific page or the like, and there is no requirement to include Google Books snippet as a url for that. But caution against making sure that you are seeing enough context to make the right assessment. That is, Google Books is accurately showing you what the book lists, the equivalent if someone photocopied a few pages of a book for you to look at. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
In these case, Google isn't photocopying a few pages. It is photocopying a small part of those pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd recommend using such parts only when the snippet includes all context.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
If you have enough context from that snippet, then it should be okay to use , since you can site book and page number. But that's if you have enough context. Do note that Google has full scans of these books, and it will do OCR to allow them to be searchable, and if you are creative it is possible to see more on the context. So as long as we assume Google is accurate (there's no reason to doubt this), this is fine to build out a cite book reference. It's not a copyright violation since Google has negotiated with most publishers to allow this type of searching and use. I just would not include the url for the snippet in such cases. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Personally I don't think the Google Books snippets provide enough of the page to be useful as sources ("reliable" is perhaps not quite the right term). It would be easy to take something out of context by accident; perhaps the book is quoting someone else, but the small snippet doesn't let you see that. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
As with many things here, the answer is "it depends." A snippet out of a encyclopedia or other subject short-form book may well be adequate; a snippet out of a long-form text may well not be depending on the nature of the text in the snippet and the amount of context available. In either case, it's important not to discard a source only because it's linked to a Google books snippet. However, I'd like to know the context of the question here. If BHG is attempting to establish a general principal, then "it depends" is probably as close as we can get. If it's in a source that some editor has added and all we have to go on is the citation and the link, AGF requires that we trust them (just as if they had only listed the paper book and not linked an online source at all) until someone can look at the paper source and in good faith claim that it doesn't support the Wikipedia text, since the editor who added the source may have very well seen it in the actual paper book and only linked the Google book as an online source for the bit in the snippet. On the other hand, if the situation is that there is a dispute in which the editor who has linked Google Books admits here that he or she has only seen the snippet view, then what's in the snippet and what it's being used for and context all matter, but even then it shouldn't be rejected out of hand due to the sole fact that it's a snippet. If there's an active dispute, dispute resolution or Reliable Sources Noticeboard should be considered. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
With some good google skills, quite a lot can be harvested from snippet view books. I can sometimes read through multiple pages in a book, by constantly doing new searches. It's a bit time-consuming, but very well possible. I think the key is what type of facts one seeks to extract, I usually do some spot checks to get a feel of other snippets (mainly, seeing if the fact is within quotation marks or not). --Soman (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
This has been discussed at WP:RSN in the past. My own experience is that far too often the snippets are taken out of context and when I get a hard copy I find that we have completely misrepresented what the source says. There was a particular classic in a convoluted discussion involving Qwyrxian and someone else maybe three or four years ago - some article about Kshatriyas in South India where numerous snippets were used out of context. I'll try to remember what it was (the article ended up being either deleted or redirected because, despite initial appearances and numerous sources, it was pretty much completely wrong). - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @BrownHairedGirl: I view the book as the source, rather than Google Books (snippet view or otherwise), which is merely a place online where (some of) the book's contents may be seen. As to whether the view provided by Google gives one enough context to evaluate whether the content one sees is sufficiently verifiable, I would have to defer to the general guidelines. There is no requirement that any source be available online (event snippets online) or in a language accessible to the vast majority of the community. Sometimes, we are just not personally able to verify or not a statement, but we rely on the community's collective ability. For example, something published in a scientific journal not online, or another journal behind a paywall, or something in the Finnish language, would be impossible to verify for the vast majority of contributors in the English-language WP - but they don't fail as reliable sources for any of those reasons. (Snippet view is effectively, not available online if more context is required to know whether the book says what is purported). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Sure, Carlossuarez46 -- the book is the source. The medium through which it is read is irrelevant, and many of us use sources which are not freely available. (I make v extensive use of F.W.S. Craig's Parliamentary Election Results, having bought at great expense rare copies of the whole set. V few other editors have that.)
      But suppose someone cited a printed book, but confirmed that they hadn't seen a full copy or a complete chapter, just a few posit-it-note-sized scraps cut out of pages, with the page numbers on the back. That's the dead-tree equivalent of Gbooks snippets -- would we really regard that as genuinely consulting the book? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
They are ok for very discrete factoids, where there is little possibility the missing next line will significantly alter the "fact", like say the dimensions of a painting. Btw, you can often tease more out of them by googling with the last line of the snippet as your search term, probably giving you another line or two, then repeat the process.... Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Johnbod. I think that consulting just that portion of the text that sources the statement is sufficiently consulting the book. We often consult a dictionary for a definition, without having to assert we started at "A", or a newspaper obituary for dates of birth & death, without having to read the whole newspaper cover to cover. If several pages are needed to be consulted to provide sufficient sourcing for something, I think it be required that all those be consulted, but not necessarily the remainder of the book. Is there requirement to read the entire book, if it were on-hand in paper form? Certainly not. I see no reason to modify that due to the electronic means of access. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I think Carlossuarez46 is making a poor comparison, which misrepresents the situation. The issue is not whether a person consults the whole book; it is whether the fragment they have in front of them is sufficiently big to be clear about its context.
If I consult a book on a point, I will not usually read the whole volume, or anything near it. I will scan the book to find the section I want, or use chapter headings or an index to find the section I want. But having found that section, I am then free to assess how much of the context is relevant to form a valid understanding of the content.
Without Google snippets, that context is unavailable, which makes it impossible to asses the info. Consider this hypothetical example from a Gbooks search for "Ivan Abkhazia", in which I have used strikeout to denote parts not available in the snippet:
Humperdinck, in the 1897 memoir "Travels in the Kingdoms", reports that in 1643 the King of Ruritiania appointed Ivan Abkhazia as his emissary to the court of the Tsar of Russia. Abkhazia's mission was to offer hostages and tributes to end the long-running dispute over the fate of Russian merchants, and to negotiate safe passage for Ruritanian merchants through the Straits of Semolina. Unfortunately, this account is historically impossible. The Annals of Rutania record that the alleged emissary was only 6 years old 1643, and that the first King of Ruritania was Kardashian I, who took his throne in 1705. In 1643, the territories of what later became Ruritania were part of the Russian province of Foo. No other account supports Humperdinck's claim."
If this passage was consulted in a printed book, then the full context would be visible. Same if it was consulted as a photocopy of a few pages. But viewed as a tiny Google Snippet, the snippet would probably omit the facts which negate the information.
That is of course an extreme example. But there are plenty of less extreme situations in which a fact which is apparently asserted in one sentence may be qualified or negated by the sentences which precede or follow it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
But, from another angle: If another editor post information using an off-line source as reference, can you 100% verify that the editor has fully understood and/or read through the enough of the source to represent the material correctly? Snippet view isn't the ideal solutions, but still give better option for verification than sources that are solely offline. And as snippet/previews change over time, sources that are snippet view now may be available for better scrunity in the near future.
Snippet view sources aren't diametrically different from other sources. It is usually possible to get an understanding of the text by searching around the snippet. And I would not rely on a single snippet as reference for an article (unless, for example, a complete bio summary is presented in the snippet), but if several snippets points in the same direction then an article can be constructed without going astray from the general demand for WP:V. --Soman (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • There is always the potential to misuse, misunderstand, or misconstrue a source, whether by selectively quoting or otherwise. A source purportedly quoting another source (even to contradict it) as shown above is an example. But that is potentially true in anything short of the entire work. Many works have separate chapters or sections giving various aspects of the whole, without repeatedly reminding the reader of what chapter they're in. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I discovered this past week that sometimes what appears as a Google snippet can be viewed if one signs in to an Amazon account. I did not know that was possible, but finding only a snippet and needing more than I could see, I googled again and found an Amazon link. Clicking on the "look inside" icon resulted in a message that I could see more if I signed in to my account. I was able to see the pages I needed in full in Amazon. Unfortunately one cannot link to Amazon in WP for sourcing. SusunW (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Soman, sure -- any source can be misused.
    But the point about snippets is that on top of that general possibily of misuse (whether through error or or bad intent), every snippet places severe barriers to using it accurately. Even when a diligent conscientious editor like yourself makes multiple checks around a snippet, you cannot say with certainty that you have seen enough of the page to give the full context of that page, never mind make a wider assessment of the reliability of the book. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    While fairly unusual, there are instances where a snippet view does provide enough context to use as a source without undue concern about loss of context. The last time I used a snippet was to source a wedding date for the biography of a 19th century politician. Three lines of text were more than enough to confirm the identity of the bride and groom and provide the date (I already had several sources for the year) which was missing from all the other sources I had located about the politician and his wife. --Allen3 talk 00:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
If a user has the reference, you can ask them to quote the context so that you can verify the point in question, and you can check their understanding. If you have whole pages, you can generally see the full paragraph or even full chapter, which is normally enough. The problem with Google snippet view is half the time that you can't even see the full sentence, and you can almost never see a full paragraph. There is no context at all. Basic things like the "not" at the beginning can radically change the meaning and nobody knows about it.
If you can genuinely see all of the context and can know that purely from the snippet then that may be one thing. But that's going to be rare. The vast majority of the time you'll at least be unsure that you're not missing something - a qualification, a negation - that may completely change the meaning of the claim. So as a rule, I would say that if the only access to a source is through Google snippet view you cannot reasonably say you have enough access to the source to use it. Kahastok talk 22:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
If I add to Coppo di Marcovaldo page a reference to [Fuglestvedt, Ingrid (2009); Phenomenology and the pioneer settlement on the Western Scandinavian Peninsula, Lindome: Bricoleur Press, ISBN 978-91-85411-07-8, p. 134.], in few seconds numerous editors' hands will reach my throat. Maybe not so if I add a reference to [Davis, R.H.C. (1988); A History of Medieval Europe, Longman, ISBN 0582-494001, p. 388]. Rest assured though that also the second book has nothing to do with Coppo di Marcovaldo, meaning: weather it's about Google snippet or an offline source, it's the editor seriousness that matters, and there are no rules nor other means to guarantee it in advance. Carlotm (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Carlotm, that comes across as deflection. Editor serious always counts; that truism applies to all aspects of editing. Similarly, a dodgy source is a dodgy source however accessed or used.
The issue here is whether (or when) snippet view can be considered as sufficient access to be considered a proper use of the source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, the logical end of my platitudinous reasoning is in the last sentence where I tried to draw attention to the futility and counterproductivity of a new set of rules or codes of conduct. Carlotm (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Carlotm, many en.wp guidelines do not try to create hard-and-fast rules to set bright lines. The guideline which probably most relevant here is WP:RS, which uses the word "caution" in 4 different places. It advises "extreme caution" when relying on primary sources.
Why not have a similar warning wrt snippets? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, my considerations were of a general kind and related to the already widely swollen status of guidelines and rules. WP:RS, for instance, which should be an helping tool on identifying reliable sources, pushes the reader to See also another forty pages on relevantly related issues. In this grotesque exaggeration what is needed is a scissor, nothing else. The matter on hand is really disentanglable by pure common sense and, as I mentioned, by editors' seriousness, without any other written emphasis. Carlotm (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of data from Wikidata

A proposal has recently been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling proposing the use of new functionality getting data from Wikidata. It uses {{Cycling race/listofstages}}; the module can be seen at Module:Cycling race. It can currently be seen in action at 2016 Tour de Yorkshire and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling § New program Cycling race to list stages. This is behaviour that I have never seen before on the English Wikipedia and I am not sure whether it is permitted or whether there are guidelines about how information from Wikidata should be used. All the uses I have seen before are in templates like {{commons category}} or {{ProCyclingStats}} where it is doing a simple property lookup for information that doesn't need a source.

Is it permitted to use data in this way? Is there an approved style for referencing Wikidata? Wikipedia:Wikidata and its talk page do not seem helpful on the matter.

Many thanks for your help.

Relentlessly (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no general policy for this matter. There were a couple of discussions, with users opposing an indiscriminate use of Wikidata, with the main objection being that the Wikidata sourcing at this point is less reliable than the English Wikipedia sourcing. If you have objections about using Wikidata in this particular template, it is probably best to start the discussion at the talk page of the template, possibly advertizing it as an RFC.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I am the author of this program. I use it on ten Wikipedias. This template can only works with datas from Wikidata, they are sourced by ProCyclingStats (that can be reused on articles thanks to {{ProCyclingStats}}) that is the best database about cycling. If other sources are used, they are mentionned by the addition of references. This table have more sources than a classic table on a Wikipedia article, you can verify. For the rest, Wikidata tables are new and there is no rules about this (and it is a problem). Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The problems are around verifiability, ease-of-use, transparency and (yes) aesthetics. I don't believe these conversations have happened yet, but I'm posting here in case they have and I've missed it! It's an issue wider than one template. Relentlessly (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a need for a guideline/policy on documenting ongoing controversies in light of modern-day media approaches?

Over the last several months I have been on a voluntary topic ban from the Gamergate area, but during that, I have witnessed several similar issues that had been happening there in other topic areas that cover ongoing controversies, both in terms of how the topic is being treated in the media, and how that lends itself to conflict in editing Wikipedia in these areas, where there has yet to a well-established conclusion of what the "right" answer is.

Many of these issues stem from what is happening in mainstream media today, which is a two-fold problem:

  1. The first is the concept of “opinionated reporting”. This are news stories presented by a media organization that do not carry the typical “op-ed” or “opinion” by-line and presented in a factual-sounding manner, but are written in a way to include opinion and stances of the author, potentially eliminating coverage of opposing voices. Networks like Fox News and MSNBC are two examples from a 2013 Pew Research Center study, but also includes places like CNN. [1]. This is a problem for Wikipedia is that because there is no clear line between opinion and fact from these sources from a strict reading, what we normally take as a reliable source is not always reporting facts. Note that just because a source uses opinionated reporting does not invalid it as a reliable source, as most of these sources when reporting on non-controversial subjects will retain their objective stance. It does mean that we should not automatically accept every statement made by that reliable source as a fact when they are reporting on a controversial subject.
  2. The second is the nature of generally lesser reliable sources (and sometimes even strong reliable sources) building up on easily-available social media and other user-generated content to substitute for actual research or fact-finding. This is because these works are trying to push out more news is shorter deadlines to stay competitive and have less time to actually report on a story. A very recent example is from [2] where Salon reports on a BLP based only on Twitter activity, and later learns it was a hoax account posing as that person, and where they made no effort to contact the specific person to start with. This is important to Wikipedia because of Wikipedia’s visibility in searches, it generally is pulled as the first such source to be used by these outlets.

This does not include the situation where the media itself might be an agent in the controversy which further compounds matters.

What happens with these two effects is that you create a feedback loop that, because of strict adherence to "verifyability not truth", any narrative bias in mainstream media (whether they are doing it intentionally or not) ends up as fact in Wikipedia which then other sources pull from and continue the cycle. Now we can't stop this loop completely, but we should be under NPOV trying to pull Wikipedia's involvement in the loop. And then when there are attempts to do distance Wikipedia out of this loop and say to a more neutral, cautionary, or conservative retelling, we get a combination of existing editors using "verifyability not truth" and policies like FRINGE as hammers to keep the media's take, and new editors and IPs trying to swing the article far away from the media's take.

As I noted, while this is evident for the GamerGate situation, it has happened in a large number of other venues. These include but not limited to: the current 2016 US presidential campaign (particularly the media’s stance to some candidates like Trump), the killing of Cecil the Lion, the Black Lives Matter movement and the various reactions to the police shootings in Baltimore, Ferguson, and Chicago, the U of Missouri and related student protests, the Ahmed Mohamed clock incident, the accusations against Bill Cosby, many of the shootings which are not terrorist related but the media aims to call them as such, several cases that have passed ArbCom including genetically modified foods and e-cigarettes, and so on. Notice that these are, for the most part, all ongoing or unresolved controversies which do not have the advantage of enough years since their occurrence to judge them from a more neutral, hands-off approach.

A common saying is that WP should document the controversies and not participate in them, but when we have media acting in a biased manner (intentionally or not), it makes it difficult to work against the sources. That said, we do have a number of existing policies that lead towards us as a tertiary source in judging the nature of media sources better in ongoing policies; in other words, what I believe we need is not 100% brand new, not-yet-in-practice guidance, but more of gathering all the existing practices into a single guideline or policy with clarifications to provide appropriate advice. Some examples of what I think this needs to include are:

  • Reiterating WP:BLP as applies to individuals, but also with implications that we should be careful around WP:LABEL as applied to anonymous/unknown people and larger groups, and recognizing that much of the time the media that make up the RSes are not in a position of authority to make certain claims as they have (eg such as calling out "terrorists" or "hate groups" which have specific legal definitions).
  • Emphasizing WP:YESPOV which allows us to avoid repeating opinions as facts, and instead as attributed claims, which can help to de-bias any article, and that this importantly keeps us on the neutral ground instead of adopting the tone and timbre of the media on a subject. This particularly holds true if within the controversy the media has been identified as influencing events or is an agent of the controversy and not just reporting on it.
  • Recognizing WP:FRINGE is meant to limit coverage of minority viewpoints to well-established thought and theories, and not to eliminate minority viewpoints that contrast with a majority viewpoint in an ongoing controversy
  • Recognizing that WP:UNDUE is still important and that we cannot create a false equal balance to make one side look better than presented by the media (we're not here to right great wrongs), but recognizing that there are times to make sure to document both sides of a controversies may require moving a small amount off the balance recommended by UNDUE.
  • Recognizing that opinions from established people/groups involved in a controversy that may be from very weak RSes are still valid opinions to be included as opinions if necessary to document both sides of the controversy or to provide counterpoints. Further, recognizing that sometimes these minority opinions will be immoral, repulsive or offensive, but as long as they do not violate BLP, should not be excluded for that reason alone as we are not a censored work.
  • Being aware of what is happening in the topic beyond what the RSes themselves say, even if we cannot include any of that information immediately ("verifyability, not truth" still holds), only so that we are aware of the landscape and know how to treat the sources reporting on it.
  • Recognizing that while WP:COI does not apply to editors deeply invested about the topic itself, that it has been well established that deeply involved editors, if unable to cooperate or work with other editors, should back off from such articles (advice that Jimmy Wales has given)
  • Establishing proper means to deal with SPA/IPs that include the use of the 500 editors/30 days editing restriction practice as to limit outside influence.
  • That in ongoing controversies, sometimes WP:TNT might be a better solution than trying to recover from a imbalanced article.

What I ask here is to first if we should have such a policy (my preferred result) or a guideline (the more likely result) that is meant to provide this guidance. If there is consensus for that, the next step is to craft it which would be a separate discussion later. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I am extremely wary of anything that starts from the premise of "I don't like how Reliable Sources are covering the subject". Alsee (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that caution should be given if this was the situation claimed to be happening to only one topic, because it could be looking to swing the topic. But I'm seeing this across the board with numerous cases of the modern media failing to be objectively unbiased, and it is known to exist. Since we are supposed to be unbiased, this works against our purpose and we need to be more careful on the use of media in a ongoing controversy. The key is to recognize that reliable sources are not perfectly infallible sources to start. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Press criticism of Mobile editing

Linked articles in the mainstream press have indicated poor results for Mobile editing at Wikipedia. Here is one of the links from The Guardian last summer [3]. Here is the link to The New York Times article last summer on Mobile problems: [4].

Wikipedia editing by Mobile has used vast human resources to develop a good editing system with limited success. It might be better and offer more options if a two-part Mobile editing environment could be considered. For example, in the first part of the two-stage action center described here, Mobile editors would recognize that their edit environment is lacking in comparison to full-keyboard editing, and Mobile editors would simply have a way to "mark" or identify a short problem section in an article, with a short description of what needs to be done on a desktop full keyboard computer to fix it. The second part is then to relay the identified "problem" passage of a Wikipedia article to an Action center (really a type of Mobile village pump) in order for Wikipedia editors who are at a full keyboard computer to then do the fix, or send it back to the Mobile editor as either "fixed" or requiring further information. There are so many criticisms in the newspapers at this point about the poor Mobile editing experience that it might be nice to consider Mobile Wikipedia editing as a two-phase operation, rather than continuing huge human resource investments into improving Mobile editing capacity which is not really catching on as many might have once hoped for. Would it work? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

We had a tool for this enabled on this WP called WP:AFT. Its trial is considered to have gone badly by a number of editors and it was subsequently disabled. --Izno (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I imagine AFT feedback and article Talk page discussion are always there as desktop tools. The expedited Mobile edits I suggest above would need to be something more. Leaving a Talk page comment to suggest an article fix can often be overlooked. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Is "like" a preposition?

MOS:CT and WP:NCCAPS encourages lowercasing prepositions with no more than four letters, such as into, but, as, and of. Shall we call "like" a preposition per guidelines? Why or why not? --George Ho (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It can be used in lots of different ways, it depends on the context, see wikt:like. I think for uses in the names of a work I would probably mostly capitalize it. Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
"Days Like This (song)" is an example of its use in one article's title (as a song title) where it is capitalized, yet used as a preposition in the way Wiktionary says. I learned in school back in the stone age that it was a conjunction with an implied verb afterward ("Is", or "like this day is" in this case), though such a conjunction should also be lowercase. The Van Morrison album has all letters in caps - DAYS LIKE THIS. We're a mixed bag. Dcs002 (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
"like" can also introduce an Adverbial phrase, which (as all adverbs) modifies the verb by answering "how?". For example, "He respected his topic ban like a hunk of rock - in silence". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Or an Adjective phrase, for example "Editors like me adhere to the restrictions of their topic bans" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I can just see it on Facebook, something like 'Like a like like Bro?" You might be amused by Teen slang: What's, like, so wrong with like? :) Dmcq (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Like, Luke's duck, like, licks like lakes. Luke licks, like, lakes Luke's Duck like licks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the way we use these UNOCHA maps directly violate the Creative Commons license?

First of all I want to be clear that this is just a genuine question (since I don't know the details how Wikipedia deals with copyright), not I'm trying to blame Wikipedia or anything. Since English is not my first language, if my wording sounds like the latter, please forgive me.

Let's take File:Belgium - Location Map (2013) - BEL - UNOCHA.svg as an example. In "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0" it said "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". And on that page it clearly said

Using the map without modifications: ensure that the sources and the disclaimer are below the map. Credit as follows: "Credit: OCHA".

For use with alteration: remove the OCHA logo and disclaimer following any modification to the map, but keep the data sources as mentioned below the map. Credit the modified map as follows: "Based on OCHA map". You are responsible for the content of your map.

But on page Belgium you can see the source and disclaimer is NOT below the map (compare the source here: besides the author/credit, there is a disclamer sentense get removed as well).

Here raises a more general question I had in my head for years: is the way Wikipedia use free images on their articles appropriate? I mean, it never credits the author until you click and see the details of the file. If people are only reading the article itself, or maybe they have to (e.g. print version), they will never know the author(s). Does it even count as "BY" of CC? Even we count it (file page) as attribution, the way we credit this UNOCHA map in particular is still problematic since it's not the way they asked. --fireattack (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You should look at the full license rather than the summary. Among other clauses: "The credit required by [the license] may be implemented in any reasonable manner", which has generally been accepted as including the placement of credits on the image description pages. The summary text saying: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor", really only means that the attribution must contain the names, titles, and URLs provided by the author. The license doesn't actually grant the original author control over where the attribution appears, provided that the attribution is presented in a "reasonable manner" and is at least as "prominent" as attribution offered on other similar content. Dragons flight (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Its complicated by the fact that someone created an image template that seems to contradict the CC license, with the indication that we should provide the credit, and not just "reasonable" attribution. As long as it has a CC license, we should treat it like any other image here on EN. If the image isn't really CC licensed because of the credit requirement is something commons would need to consider. Monty845 19:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. --fireattack (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
A small note on the English, since you mention it's not your first language - leading your question with "isn't" carries a more accusatory tone, implying that whatever you're asking is true. If you're not sure, you should stick to "is", so "Is the way we use these UNOCHA maps directly violate the Creative Commons license?". (Also, the grammar on that is wrong, it should really start with "Does the way..." or replace "directly violate" with "in direct violation of" or something.) Cheers, ansh666 08:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

WMF inserts non-free content in articles via automatically generated "See also" section

The WMF is deploying a new MediaWiki extension that automatically adds a second "See also" section to the bottom of articles. These links come with a decorative thumbnail, sometimes based on non-free images (which is apparently totally okay according to WMF Legal). Voice your dissatisfaction here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Reading/Web/Projects/Related_pages. —Ruud 14:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Delicious canvassing (re "Voice your dissatisfaction here").
On desktop this is a beta feature and you can turn it off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures. On mobile, well, it's mobile. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I've obviously opted-out of the beta. But once this goes live, anonymous readers won't have that option. An extension that violates our core content policies shoudn't be opt-out in any case.
The problem seems to be that the "success" of this feature is going to be measured by click-through rate, and online advertisers have long since discovered that big, distracting images (whether free or not) increase the click-though rate. How click-through rate is correlated to user satisfaction is unclear to me (see Clickbait). —Ruud 14:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I have made a suggestion there that would allow the editors of an article to determine what image to use for the Related feature, so that a per-wiki evaluation can be made; assuming this feature is added, then here at en.wiki we would require editors to try to offer a free replacement image for articles where no free image exists, which would alleviate the issue here. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm less concerned about the legality, but it seems like an obnoxious feature to me, substituting automatic content for curated content. It's often way off the mark, always distracting. Like a lot of weather pages, it may sucker you into clicking, but it will be a net worse overall experience. Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the feature is going to be compared directly to existing functionality, when its various differences from existing functionality (your basic "see also" section) confound the comparison. For example, its placement at the bottom and inclusion of preview images might each be measures that would improve existing "see also" sections, without the downsides of automatically-generated content. Without controls on the tests, data-based support for the feature is fallacious. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

A minor amendment to GEOFEAT

I've been looking at WP:GEOFEAT and I have ben thinking that we should make it clear on man-made structures of what constitutes notability. I have always thought that buildings or structures that have been recognised by governments as being of historical interest should be inherently notable. Hence why I propose adding to the buildings section of GEOFEAT the following after the current wording:

Buildings that have been recognised at a national level of government or been included on any national heritage list shall be considered notable.

This my first policy proposal so I understand if people would like to reword it to make it better. however this is what I think would be good to be included so it gives some clarity to the current vague criteria currently on GEOFEAT. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this more or less what the first part of GEOFEAT says?
  • Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable.
I'll also note that there used to be "inherent notability" language in that section, but it was removed in 2014 on the grounds that there is no such thing as inherent notability. Also, you should probably drop a note on the talk page of WP:NGEO to notify watchers there of this discussion. ansh666 08:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is not working

Discussion has been moved to User:Biscuittin/Reform of Wikipedia until proposals can be agreed upon and put forward. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 16 January 2016 (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.

Consensus is not working and we need a better way of making decisions. See Talk:ExxonMobil and Talk:Paleolithic diet for examples. Each side erects a wall of text which is impossible to follow for a newcomer to the debate. There are also frequent attempts to silence opposition by bullying and imposing bans for spurious reasons. Wikipedia does not have an effective anti-bullying policy and, as in real life, it is often the victim, rather than the bully, who is punished. Administrators should take this seriously and stop giving in to the people who shout loudest. Biscuittin (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

In the other universe... Ping to NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus is quite recent and there very definitely is no consensus for changing that process. Dmcq (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Whenever I place a friendly message on the talk page of another editor, User:NewsAndEventsGuy accuses me of canvassing. I regard this as bullying. What I am trying to do here is to improve Wikipedia and I don't think I should be threatened for doing this. Biscuittin (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
And if User:NewsAndEventsGuy knows who I've been talking to, that presumably means he is stalking me. Biscuittin (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll be glad to reply to the stalking bit at an appropriate venue, which this isn't. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
This is about Wikipedia policy, not about me. Please stick to debating policy. Biscuittin (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, let's debate the prohibition against WP:FORUMSHOPPING.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Isn't it fun being Wikihounded?/s I've had so many editors do that to me that at this point I consider it normal. This is why I refuse to create an article. My deletionists followers would dump on it faster than a Ferrari on rocket fuel. Best part is when they run around opposing everything one does... and then go on to harass other editors that one happens to come in contact with as well. But (and here's the most brilliant part) if one actually tries asking for help they get the boomerrang since Wikipedia is amazingly good at victimizing the victim!
Consensus is mostly about locale consensus. If one "happens" to find out what is going on, then one can voice their opinion. In reality, the core cabal let each other know what is going on (off Wikipedia) to keep all the power on their favor. Did you notice just how frightened the cabal became over the last ArbCom elections? This thread is quite impressive with just how much they think their bull doesn't stink while simultaneously putting down everyone else as inferior to them! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 20:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
While there may be problems with consensus, democracy would be unworkable. Either we decide everything by local vote, which would unrealistically favour the point of view of the editors who happen to be around at the specific moment in time (which would probably include the "cabal") and turn Wikipedia even more into an oligarchy then we currently have. If we want a true democracy we explicitly invite each individual registered Wikipedian (10s of thousands) to cast their vote on each and every contested edit. That would make the encyclopedia utterly unworkable as everyone would receive thousands of invitations to vote each day.
While consensus is far from perfect, in my view it is the lesser of the evils - so without a realistic superior option we should stay with this. Arnoutf (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
As MurderByDeletionism says " if one actually tries asking for help they get the boomerrang since Wikipedia is amazingly good at victimizing the victim!" If we had a tough clampdown on bullies, it would go a long way towards fixing the problem. Biscuittin (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not appreciate you calling me a bully and I doubt the many others you call bullies on various boards like this appreciate it either. Could you try doing things on a factual basis and per Wikipedia policies and guidelines rather than treating other editors as friends or enemies please. Wikipedia is not a social forum and I would appreciate it if you just viewed it as a collaborative endeavour and treated the subjects dispassionately rather than as a place to gather friends so you can overcome your enemies and get your point of view into articles. Personally I discourage talk to me here as I do not wish to be part of any clique, it is a natural for people to form groups and hate outsiders and accept without much question what insiders do and that does not encourage a neutral point of view. I have enough friends in the real world and you should try and get your friends in forums for the purpose or in the real world too. Or if you must work that way how about trying being friendly with someone you disagree with? Dmcq (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
If you improved your own behaviour I would not have reason to call you a bully. This is another example of "blame the victim". Biscuittin (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Quote from Wikipedia:WikiBullying: "If you feel that you are being bullied or another user has threatened you with bodily harm, it is important that you report them immediately to the Incidents page on the Administrator's Noticeboard so the matter can be properly dealt with". This is what I did but I was let down because administrators blamed the victim as well. Biscuittin (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I repeat, this is not just about me. I got involved with Talk:ExxonMobil because I felt that User:HughD was being bullied and I got involved with Talk:Paleolithic diet because I felt that User:SageRad was being bullied. I would like to invite them to participate in this discussion but I know that, if I invite them, I shall be accused of canvassing. Perhaps somebody else could notify them for me. Biscuittin (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I also think that User talk:S00107123 has been bullied. This is a new editor who has been accused of disruptive editing and vandalism when all he tried to do was to improve some articles. What happened to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers? I think an apology to him would be in order. Biscuittin (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I also think that User:SEWilco is another victim of the "blame the victim" culture. As usual, the arbitration page is so complex that I can't understand it but I think SEWilco made a complaint against another editor and, as a result, SEWilco had sanctions imposed on him. Biscuittin (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
This is not the place to address complaints about bullying or any other behavior. If there was ever a sincere proposal for policy change, it died on the vine with Dmcq's first comment. If one feels they have a valid behavior complaint, they should take it to ANI. If they feel the system is so broken that they can't get a fair shake at ANI, too bad. It's far from perfect, but it's the best we have and there is no significant support for changing it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I already have taken it to ANI and I was bullied for doing that. Why does Wikipedia have an anti-bullying policy if it not going to enforce it? If Wikipedia was a workplace it would be breaking the law by this neglect. Also Wikipedia could be accused of failing to prevent cyber-bullying. Biscuittin (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@Biscuittin: If I had a complaint about non-enforcement of policy, I would probably start at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Perhaps someone has a better suggestion, but I'm fairly certain this is not the place. Nothing being discussed in this thread falls under this instruction at the top of this page: The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines. I know that many people resent it when someone asks people to read and follow the instructions at the tops of these pages, but I feel this division of purpose was created for good reason and we should make an attempt to observe it. If someone wants to accuse me of being overly anal or a control freak, that's their right and I'm sorry they feel that way. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm not accusing you of anything and thank you for the advice. I will think about it but, last time I moved to another board, I was accused of "forum shopping" and this might happen again. Biscuittin (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@Biscuittin: If someone cites FORUMSHOP because you went to the wrong place first, please ping me. If you got an answer you didn't like at a "right place", and you then went to another place with the same complaint, that would be FORUMSHOP. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Mandruss and MBD. Suddenly, my critics have melted away, as if somebody has called them off. I think that, as MBD said earlier, something is going on "off Wikipedia". Biscuittin (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I have now posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Bullying_on_Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Lot's of things here on Wikipedia aren't working fine. Consensus is just one of them!
Mob Mentality and the failure of Groupness! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 17:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
That's right. Call be a Lunatic charlatan and threaten me with a block. This is exactly what I mean by bullying. As an administrator, you should know better. Biscuittin (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
This is utterly off topic and violation of WP:AGF.
Indeed consensus has its problems, but it does work from time to time as well where after intense debate a common ground was found with which everyone involved agreed (unanimous consensus). Again, I would ask what the legitimate and workable alternative would be; otherwise this discussion seems irrelevant. A true democracy sounds nice, but would be unworkable (we would have to invite every single Wikipedian to vote in each dispute; basically a referendum on each topic), some kind of a representative democracy would shift even more power to the most active Wikipedians (and probably the cabal). Who has a better idea? Arnoutf (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Even worse is the possibility of being swamped with socks. Right now discussions are closed on strength of argument and WP:JDLI is discounted. By moving to a vote system socks will not have to defend their position and just add "support/oppose per "any editor". heck they dont even need the per editor, just support/oppose. This type of system will being more problems than it fixes. AlbinoFerret 18:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

People have been insisting that consensus does not work since I came here in 2006, so far the project has not collapsed. HighInBC 18:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

  • User:Biscuittin, the WMF refuses to police article content or have any paid editors from the WMF help improve article content and resolve disputes. If you want change on Wikipedia it starts with the board members from the WMF. They thinks everything on Wikipedia is working great. They claim they share the values of the Wikipedia. How many long-term board members would be reelected if editors voted if they should stay or go? QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Good point, QuackGuru. I think we are making some progress. I am fed up with people who believe that Wikipedia is perfect and cannot be improved. I'm trying to improve it, not wreck it. It is the stick-in-the-muds who will wreck it if we don't stop them. Biscuittin (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello QuackGuru, MurderByDeletionism and anybody else who is interested. Are we agreed that Wikipedia is broken and needs fixing and that the first step is to make it more democratic? I'm not trying to impose any particular model on Wikipedia, I just want to develop a better Wikipedia in collaboration with other people of goodwill. I am being quite open about this because openness is essential for democracy. Some of our critics plot behind the scenes "off Wikipedia" but there is no need for us to do that. Please let me have your thoughts. Biscuittin (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
As one of the people who supposedly plots and schemes and cackles "BwaaaaaaHaHa!" in smokey poolhall backrooms off wiki, I'd like to ask you to please read our policies that require you to WP:Assume good faith, refrain from personal attacks, and beware of WP:Casting aspersions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I have not named you as somebody who plots and schemes. Are you admitting to plotting and scheming? Biscuittin (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
<ec> I belong to the subset "your critics", and trying to dodge NPA/AGF violations on basis you had not named me specifically is classic WP:WIKILAWYER stuff. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
What I said was "Some of our critics plot behind the scenes". If you do not plot behind the scenes then this sentence does not apply to you, so it is not a personal attack. Biscuittin (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Biscuittin, the consensus is that consensus is the best we can do. That, if "Wikipedia is broken", any alternative would be brokener. You have been asked to suggest a better alternative (specifics, please, not vague generalities), and you have not done so. At this point you're wasting your time, our time, and server space. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
My message is a positive one. I want to improve Wikipedia and I am happy to co-operate with other users who have the same aim. The reason I have not "suggested a better alternative" is that I want the better alternative to be democratically decided, and not imposed by me. Biscuittin (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
No one is asking you to impose anything, only to suggest something concrete. If you can't think of a better alternative, it would be reasonable to consider the strong likelihood that the reason you can't is that no better alternative exists. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not that I can't. It is that it would be undemocratic, and democracy is what I am trying to promote. I suspect that most contributors to the English Wikipedia live in democratic countries so I am surprised that there is so much resistance to democracy. Biscuittin (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Mandruss ☎, the solution is quite simple: for start, make WP really democratic. How? You need to pick up, year after year, the more divisive issues, about content as well as format, make an annual questionnaire and give a couple months time for eligible editors to vote. Results will be automatically transformed in new policies which will be above the current plethora of policies, guidelines and tutorials. Who get eligibility tag? Active editors with a certain seniority (6 months, one year, two years?) and a certain number of edits (500, 1000, 2000 ?).
Current consensus policy is not working at all and let WP move like a prawn facing danger. What's happening here; the grotesque discussions about infoboxes; the hijack of editorial power by local cliques, project cliques, "owners"; the continuous, and often covert, bullying; the abuse of reverting/undoing, at times an implicit bullying tactic; the minimization of images and any medium other than written word; are all epitaphs on the Wikipedian tombstone to come, if remedies are not taken. Carlotm (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Biscuittin: It's hardly undemocratic to put forth a concrete proposal. In the U.S. Congress, for example, the U.S. being a representative democracy, that's called a bill. If the democracy you're trying to promote is a simple vote system, I can promise you that will never fly at Wikipedia, for reasons given above and others. Anyway, this page is for discussion of proposed changes to policy, and you are unwilling to propose any, so you are in the wrong venue (again). If you want to indulge in blue-sky philosophical discussion about Wikipedia, a better place would be WP:VPM, although I can't guarantee a warm reception there. If I were in your place, I think I'd back away and think about things for awhile, and possibly visit VPM after a month or two. I know I'm done here, can't speak for others.
Carlotm, at least you are more specific, but you're also in the wrong place IMO. You should be at WP:VPI or WP:VPR, depending on how specific you can make your proposal. But simple bitching at Village Pump is guaranteed to get you exactly nowhere. Take care all. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution, Carlotm. To Mandruss, I predict that, if I move to another forum, I shall be accused of "forum shopping". Whatever page I use, somebody will claim it is the wrong one. You want me to give you an instant policy. What is the hurry? Policies take time to develop and a "knee-jerk reaction" is unlikely to be a good policy. I am not bitching, I am trying to improve Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I just had a good idea. Let's start as we mean to go on and vote on which page should be used for this discussion. Here are the options:

Please vote VP (pol), VPI, VPM, or Other. Any ballot which says "we should not discuss this at all" will be treated as a spoiled ballot. Biscuittin (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The poll closes at midnight on Thursday, 14 January 2016. Biscuittin (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not valid without an option of "shut up, already". The core issue here is that you confuse "consensus is not delivering the result I want" with "consensus is not working". You can keep wittering on about it for as long as you like, but don't expect anybody else to play along. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Drop it until you have an actual proposal. Create a working page in your user space and invite people to brainstorm there if you want but I doubt you will come up with anything that will achieve the required consensus for change. Voting on things, even if it were a good idea which it is not, would require the end of IP editing and anonymous registration to avoid vote stuffing so it is a non-starter. JbhTalk 13:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
There are at least 3 other people supporting me here, and I have had several favourable pings from other people. This is pretty good going when not many people are yet aware of this page. Biscuittin (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, "the lurkers support me by email". Haven't seen that one in a while. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Neah, the truly inconvertible evidence which proves the thread's title is that once in awhile someone disagrees with me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Awesome! Somebody actually read that! Thanks, made my day. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Biscuittin, the creator of Wikipedia knows there are severer problems on Wikipedia. In 2015, Wikipedia's co-founder Larry Sanger was interviewed by Zach Schwartz in Vice which he said, among other things, that "I think Wikipedia never solved the problem of how to organize itself in a way that didn't lead to mob rule" and that since he left the project, "People that I would say are trolls sort of took over. The inmates started running the asylum."[5]
WP:VP (pol) (this one) is where I would start. We need to know more about what each board member thinks about how things are working on Wikipedia and have a vote for each one. If any board member thinks things are working fine on Wikipedia then any editor could present them diffs that things are not working. I would like to know how many years each person has been a board member. If someone has been a board member for a long time then there could be a problem with that board member when nothing has improved on Wikipedia. We don't need ineffective board members or board members who deny there is no problems. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks MBD and QuackGuru. I'm not going to say much until the poll closes. I vote to keep the discussion here at WP:VP (pol). Biscuittin (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The options were for 'I just had a good idea. Let's start as we mean to go on and vote on which page should be used for this discussion'. This discussion has no actual policy proposal in it so it shouldn't be here, see the box at the top of this page. I have chosen the Other option. Sorry my note was rather short as they said to just give a location for Other and they want democracy rather than consensus. I know that is against the guidelines but I'm going by WP:IAR here in going along with them. When there is some proposal on consensus or bullying or whatever this discussion is all about then it can be proposed here and point there for the reasoning that led to it. Dmcq (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
No comment until the poll closes at midnight tonight. Biscuittin (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Closing time is midnight GMT On Thursday 14 January 2016. Biscuittin (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC) [6]
What poll are you talking about? I see nothing that is easily recognizable as such anywhere in this thread. Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Search for the word ballot and you should find it. Biscuittin (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
How useful to talk about a poll and use the word ballot instead. In any case - I only see three more or less random wikilinks embedded somewhere in this thread, without any arguments, poll like structure around it, or even explanation why this would be polled and what the pros and cons of each option are, and without any sign that anyone has even seen that list of wikilinks as an invitation to do something. So what are you trying to achieve here and why? Arnoutf (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It appears that its a poll of where to hold a RFC or other type of discussion. Any place on the pump would do, since its about consensus, which is policy based, pol would probably be best. But unless there is a concrete proposal to replace consensus, it has a slim and none chance of ever succeeding. No one is going to agree to remove consensus without a replacement, and it better be a good one because most editors in this discussion are very sceptical of replacing a known system with something else. Let alone with nothing. AlbinoFerret 19:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The user has been told "wrong venue" here. According to them, they have experienced being bounced around, always "wrong venue", while apparently being accused of FORUMSHOP (rightly or wrongly, I don't know). They wish to reach a consensus on the appropriate place to have this discussion, thus the poll. I have to agree that at least VPP and VPR have some overlap of purpose, which tends to confuse, and I also note that the instructions at the tops of the pages are only sporadically enforced. Any attempt at maintaning organization is too often viewed as something less constructive, from preoccupation with rules to bad faith interference. The user is not entirely without a point. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The WMF is broken. There can be a discussion about what can be done about the board members. QuackGuru (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hijacking the section was not a good idea QG.[7] AlbinoFerret 20:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Consensus is not working because of the WMF. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Consensus is WP policy, not WMF WP:CONS AlbinoFerret 21:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Consensus is not working because of who?[8] QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The section is questioning if consensus, the policy WP:CON, is working for WP in deciding discussions like RFC's. But as yet there is no recommendation on what to replace it with. IMHO and apparently some commenter’s in this is consensus is working fine and those who think its broken usually have just had some decision go against them. The WMF is not involved in community policy like consensus. That again imho would be to low of involvement for them. AlbinoFerret 22:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
"The WMF is not involved in community policy like consensus." That is one of the problems. The WMF is involved in nothing. According to Wales "The Wikimedia Foundation has virtually no influence on what is written in Wikipedia." QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The WMF does not get involved in the lower level policies of specific projects. If you want them to perhaps discussing it with them would be better than posting off topic on a policy thread. AlbinoFerret 00:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The WMF does not get involved in the higher level policies of specific projects either. The WMF does not get involved on what is written in Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The meaning of "Consensus doesn't work" depends on what consensus is. I got penalized for reporting probation violations (following consensus) to ArbComm, charged with undefined violations, did not get rule-required information, and penalized by consensus despite at least one participant that stated that they did not know the issues. Yet that's consenus. Yay. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget to vote, please. I'm not telling anybody which way to vote, I'm just inviting them to vote. Biscuittin (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The poll is now closed and I will count the votes. I invite others to count them too so that they can check my results. Biscuittin (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are the results:

There is therefore a majority of one for keeping the discussion here. If any voters feel that their votes have been misinterpreted or overlooked, please say so. Biscuittin (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

So now layout what is to replace consensus. AlbinoFerret 00:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
If you're going to have a discussion here it might be a good idea to start up again with a better outline of what the discussion is supposed to be about. Is it about bullying, is it about changing or removing the consensus policy on Wikipedia, or is it about changing the WMF in some way? Dmcq (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Be patient. I am waiting till midnight GMT tonight, Friday 15 January 2016, to see whether anybody wishes to contest the result of the election. Biscuittin (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not yet 7am in California. [14] I think the Americans should have a chance to respond. Biscuittin (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind having the discussion here (although I found the poll hopelessly vague). I agree with Dmcq that we would need to have a clear outline of what the (single) topic of discussion is, and that the thread is kept on topic. I would also like to add, that merely complaining about problems with the current system is not going to lead to improvements, so we should find an alternative that is both practically workable and better than anything we dislike about the current situation. Arnoutf (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
If people want to go on arguing (which I don't) they can do it here. If they seriously want to co-operate with me in making Wikipedia better, they can do it here: User:Biscuittin/Reform of Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
So, instead of following the poll you set up and now detailing the improvements/alternative to consensus you are directing people to your user space? Either detail them here, or perhaps we need admin involvement. AlbinoFerret 16:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not stopping anybody from continuing to discuss it here. I just thought it would be better to separate the discussion about reform from the discussion about whether or not reform is necessary. Biscuittin (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Without any actual proposals this entire section looks like trolling. AlbinoFerret 18:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I wish you people would make up your minds what you want. I am asking people of goodwill to co-operate with me at User:Biscuittin/Reform of Wikipedia to develop some policies. When those policies are sufficiently developed, I will bring them back here for people to examine. Biscuittin (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Policy is not at the core of the issue. It is the board members that are at the root of the problem. What can help along with or replace consensus is to have paid editors from the WMF to police article content. If any board member from the WMF is against the WMF having influence on Wikipedia content and policy I would vote them out. Ineffective board members have no place at the WMF. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Biscuittin/Reform of Wikipedia draft: I made this change. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, its hijacking the thread. AlbinoFerret 19:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding "The WMF must hire people to edit Wikipedia to police article content and resolve disputes", this is not going to happen under any circumstances, so don't bother discussing it. The moment the WMF become involved in article content they lose Section 230 immunity, and the board are not going to put themselves in a position where they become liable for anything libellous posted by anyone anywhere on Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 19:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it still can happen. See the update. "This can be done with a separate and new non-profit organization to avoid losing Section 230 immunity." QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your proposal, QuackGuru. I have added it for discussion at User talk:Biscuittin/Reform of Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not that reform isn't needed. It's that it isn't realistically possible under the system we have. It would require nothing short of a revolutionary movement, and one would have to be Gandhi himself to start such a movement, keep it alive, and keep it growing until it reached the necessary critical mass, while constantly being harassed, attacked, and commanded to drop the stick. And that's assuming that one actually has sound, well-informed, workable ideas for reform.
In our system, one's opinions count for nothing if they prefer to remain silent—if they are not good at putting their thoughts into writing or are averse to contentious and acrimonious arguments. Thus, Wikipedia is controlled by the articulately aggressive ten percent, with predictable results, and they are unlikely to experience a mass religious conversion and allow any changes that might cost them that control.
No offense, Biscuittin, but you're not a Gandhi. At this point you're a Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. When one persists at complaining loudly about unfixable problems, they are simply being disruptive. You will give up in frustration sooner or later, and I'd suggest sooner. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Mandruss, but I'm not taking it yet. I don't accept that the problems are unfixable and I've been a trade unionist all my working life so I am used to arguing with the management. It would be interesting if Wikipedia sacked me for trade union activity. Biscuittin (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Unions have some leverage. You don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I am thinking of starting a Union of Editors on Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If this discussion has been moved to a user page, are their objections to closing this one? This looks like a rambling forum discussion and not a proposal on policy changes, revisions or amendments. It might be wise to start a new thread on any specific proposals that are being advocated. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I've no objection to closing it. It is being used mainly to attack me. Biscuittin (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Close it as No consensus for giggles. HighInBC 00:35, 16 January 2016 (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.

Admins closing discussions involving editors with whom they don't want to have discussion

In the past week, four discussions in which I've been involved have been closed by two admins who have previously told me to not post on their talk page.  (This [two] is also the total number of admins who have told me to not post on their talk page.)  DRV requires a discussion with the XfD closer before taking the case to DRV, and this is a vital step in the DRV process.  Since admins know who they've talk-page banned(?), should they find other discussions to close?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If this was 4 discussions and one admin MAYBE there would be something that should be discussed here...but 4 separate admins. I am sorry but there is obviously something wrong going on here, there is little to no chance of 4 separate admins making improper discussion regarding discussions involving the same editor. Unscintillating should at least provide diffs regarding the above claim else close thing as unsubstantiated. Mrfrobinson (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, four discussions, two admins.  Nor did I say that the closures were or were not "improper".  And how would you define an "improper" closure?  It seems to be argumentative, and I think we should assume that the admin didn't think it improper at the time of the closure.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
How big were the discussions? How much did you contribute to them? If you were, like, half the discussion, and the entire conversation was focused on your personal opinion to the extent where it felt like half a referendum on you personally, I could see it as maybe violating the spirit of WP:INVOLVED. On the other hand, if you just have one comment among hundreds (and excluding or including your comments would make no significant difference in the discussion), then it hardly seems to matter. --Aquillion (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Those are good points.  Were I to link to specifics, it loses the context of a policy discussion, yet if the people considering the issue don't have specific examples, that is also a problem.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
In general if a process strongly encourages one to contact an editor on their talk page about some matter then one should do so even if banned by that editor from their talk page. However any actual discussion is still subject to them being okay with that happening. If the admin tries to ban you point to the process. Dmcq (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Have you thought about asking another (non-involved) admin to act as a "go between"... to notify the closer of your intended DVR on your behalf. This other admin could even agree to host any preliminary discussions on his/her talk page... and invite both you and the closer to discuss any issues there. This would satisfy the instruction to contact the closer... and yet also respect his/her desire that you stay away from his/her talk page. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Good suggestion Blueboar. I don't think the third (hosting) party even has to be an admin - any user could offer their talk page for this purpose although they might want to be aware they might be "responsible" if the discussions breach any PaGs.DrChrissy (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Being banned by someone from their talk page isn't actually an enforceable thing as such. Even full interaction bans allow you to post on someone's page if it's required (e.g. a notification about a deletion discussion or noticeboard discussion). ansh666 05:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Does it really make sense that Methusalah is the world's oldest living person?

The issue is already being addressed in the linked discussion, with adequate exposure via the RfC process. Please observe the usage instructions at the top of this page, as well as WP:FORUMSHOP. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:14, 20 January 2016 (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.

Isn't the discussion at [15] completely nutty? Is this really how Wikipedia works, the bible as a source for the age of the world's oldest man? You people sound like idiots. 107.72.97.115 (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Which people? I have never contributed to that discussion. Also see WP:NPA for more information. --Jayron32 01:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
He's a Gerontology Research Group proponent. It's the longevity issues again. I'm certain he's the one who was removing the birth date from Zhou Youguang because he turned 110 and the GRG hadn't verified his birth date. The logic being that since he's not verified, he shouldn't be in the oldest living people tables and thus we must treat that information as not true until the GRG has confirmed his birth date. Please ignore the length but join the discussion at Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people#RfC:_How_should_we_word_the_lede.3F, this area is rife with completely frustrating arguments. It's a parade of horribles that if we "only" follow reliable sources and not just blindly copy the GRG's table, then the only logical thing is to put Methuselah. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2016 (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.

XfD: Delayed raising of a second reason to delete or keep

I am having a dispute with someone over whether it is okay for the same person to openly mark two separate reasons with Keep or with Delete for keeping or deleting a particular X on Wikipedia. The issue arose because in between posting the first and second reason, an admin relisted the XfD. I am wondering the proper procedure.

Order of events:

  1. User A (as user A) adds reason 1 for keeping to a XfD and marks reason 1 Keep or Delete
  2. Admin relists the XfD, including the notice only to post below that notice.
  3. User A (as user A) adds reason 2 for keeping, unrelated or barely related to reason 1, to the XfD and marks reason 2 Keep or Delete, the same recommendation they made in step 1. User A also explicitly mentions that they are the same user A that had previously recommended Keep or Delete, so there is no sockpuppet or meatpuppet issue. (And even a non-logged-in user with a dynamic IP address could disclose that it was they who made the step 1 recommendation, so logged in vs. not logged in is not an issue here.)
  4. User B objects to user A marking the second reason keep.
  5. User A asterisks the second Keep and notes that the fact that it reads Keep is under dispute.

Question: For future reference, what would be the proper action for step 3?

3A: User A acted properly. No changes needed.

3B: User A would have properly marked the reason with Comment, then stated that user A was submitting it as an additional reason for keeping.

3C: User A would have properly:

3C1: Copied the comment from step 1 to below the notice to accompany the comment made in step 3
3C2: Struck out the original comment made in step 1, and
3C3: Marked the new two-reason comment Keep

Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

3A looks clearly wrong, as users should only have one vote. Options 3B or 3C sound OK, or the user could have embellished their reasoning under their original vote. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Thisisnotatest What you need to do now to stop the argument is strike out your second "Keep" !vote and add Comment instead. I don't know why you've brought this here instead of the Teahouse as suggested, or even the Help desk. Doug Weller talk 11:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I brought it here because there was a claim by User B that I had violated policy, but the stated policy is silent on the correct action, and therefore it was possible that a policy discussion needed to take place. This is the place for discussion of policy. As for the teahouse, I perceived User B to be engaging in bullying behavior in general on the matter, so had no reason to follow their advice. Thisisnotatest (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • If, as numerous Wikipedian's have stated that it isn't a vote, then it really shouldn't matter, and this is just the making of mountains from molehills. Or, have I been correct all this time, and it really is a vote after all?! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 21:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. It's not a vote, this is elevating form over substance, and what the accuser there is doing really looks like an attempt by an experienced editor at intimidating a relative newcomer to me and coming very close to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I did in fact take User B's comments to me at the page as an attempt to bully me into changing my recommendation (typed "vote" at first, so I can see why some people think it's a vote) but wanted to keep that separate from Doing the Right Thing, which is why I brought the discussion here. Thisisnotatest (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Well here's the thing: AfD is not a vote, and there is no policy anywhere that says that you cannot "vote twice". But certain users get really upset if you do, because to someone quickly glancing at the thread, it looks like two different users have expressed support for a position, which can give the appearance of consensus where none exists. But closers aren't supposed to do that, because AfD is not a vote. The expensive answer is you should endeavour to never have more than one bolded keep or delete (or merge, rename, split, redirect, move, punt, fire into the sun) in any particular thread, if only because it will cause unnecessary drama.
When a thread is "relisted", it's intended to be a continuation of the same discussion, so generally if you've voted above then you wouldn't vote again, but you're definitely not the first to be confused about that. Personally what I would have done in your case is mark your second comment with comment and then simply present your additional evidence. In Human3015's case, I would have simply marked your "duplicate vote" with the {{duplicate vote}} template, and moved on. This is all really a minor thing to get so worked up over. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, but if it's not a vote, then why is it a duplicate vote template? Wouldn't it be an nth-recommendation template? (Although user B believes it to be a vote, so they would likely use the {{duplicate vote}} template, {{duplicate vote}} template has no usage notes as to where it would be appropriate. Thisisnotatest (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
It's bad form to appear to "vote" twice, but it's bad form for anyone to get all worked up about it too. Very often, someone who has commented before has something else to say in the same debate: either a contra- argument needs to be considered and/or addressed, or the lightbulb just went off on something else that one thinks bears consideration of the community. Repetition of a bold recommendation does, and ought do, nothing to make one's point more or less worthy. Prefacing one's comments, by "another reason to (delete/keep/etc) is blah blah blah..." gives those looking to be offended less reason to be offended. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
How about something like:
  • Comment I want to add that another reason to Keep is...
Because it's important that it be taken as a new light-bulb-went-off recommendation for keeping, not as a neutral comment. Thisisnotatest (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Actually, I've gone with Amending Previous Keep as the clearest way to add a new reason without making it look as if I'm trying to slip under the radar that I'm recommending twice. It'll do until there's something more specific in place. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • A thing I've seen people (mostly those unfamiliar with typical AfD behavior) do is to have a list of reasons on separate lines, all bulleted with Keep (or delete or whatever) in front; or sometimes they say Keep with a single bullet every time they respond to someone else's comments. That's pretty much what the guidelines are attempting to avoid, as it gets really confusing really fast when you see so many bolded comments - on quick glance it can create the false sense that there are many people supporting that position instead of possibly even just one. While it's not as bad in cases like this one, the potential for confusion still stands. So basically, while AfD is indeed not a vote, it's easier and more clear to stick to the one bolded suggestion and label everything else as a comment or something like what you did. Also, the suggestion to add it as an indented "reply" to your previous statement is good as well, since that keeps your arguments together - it's what I usually do. ansh666 08:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Either 3B, or the user should place the comment directly under the original vote (and any discussion it generated), based on the user's own preference. Under 3A, it looks like 2 separate votes, although the user is only entitled to one vote. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This has been blown out of all proportion. I'd normally mark a further comment as 'Comment' (comments aren't neutral, they're part of the discussion) or I'd indent it directly under my original 'keep' !vote. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Profile avatar placeholder large.png

I though that consensus existed against the use of placeholders in articles. Still, this file is used in two articles.--The Traditionalist (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick look and it's now showing no pages using it. I presume the two articles got edited to remove it. I also note that, if we *did* want to use placeholders in articles, we ought to be able to make one ourselves, rather than borrow one from Chromium. I'm not saying it's a copyright violation; the license info seems ok, but someone who wants to wander by and check it out is free to do so and disagree with me. It could probably also be deleted, as it seems unlikely to be used in the future, but I'm ok with keeping it for now if no one wants to run it through an XfD nomination. Wabbott9 Tell me about it.... 19:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia

These ideas are not going to work yet. QuackGuru (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2016 (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.

Does Wikipedia need reform? Please see Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia for ideas.

Background

Most of the time I edit an article there is conflict. For example, both anti-fringe editors and advocates take sides like a football WP:GAME and admins continue to ignore OR and other problems. The only way for change is for the rules to be consistently enforced, but that seems impossible under the current Wikipedia model.

The Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia essay has ideas for proposals for the future of a new Wikipedia system. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia need change?

  • Yes, as proposer. There should be better policies and guidelines to help enforce the rules. Me thinks Wikipedia does need reform. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Mu There's no meaningful way to oppose or support such a vague question. Unless we have a specific policy change proposal to vote upon, I don't know what I am supporting or opposing. --Jayron32 21:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • If this is change, no. Is the goal to make it an essay? Policy? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Meh. If you mean "should Wikipedia always consider what it does badly and what it does well, and adapt as appropriate?", yes, of course. If you mean "should Wikipedia take the linked essay seriously?", definitely not. Larry Sanger's projects crash-and-burn for a reason, and one shouldn't take his ideas very seriously; this proposal (permalink) in particular is so harebrained, even Citizendium shied away from it. ‑ Iridescent 21:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This RfC does not propose anything so there is nothing meaningful to support or oppose. "Does Wikipedia need reform?" is not a meaningful question - sure people should be nicer, it should be easier to handle undisclosed paid editing, RfA needs reform (and there are meaningful RfC's about it), New Page Patrolling should be handled better, etc etc. The question is how and this proposal says nothing of how nor even makes good arguments about what or why. JbhTalk 21:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No, because the question seems to really be "do you support the general ideas here, as written?", and I can't pledge support for something where the missing details could end up being something I'd oppose. Does Wikipedia need to keep evolving? Sure, of course it does, I don't think we need any polls to establish that, and I'd be surprised if there was a consensus of opposition to general ongoing evolution and improvement. Murph9000 (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Does Wikipedia need to change, sure. Is anything in Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia developed enough to propose at this time, no. It is someone's user space work page that you hijacked into what you are calling an essay that does not spell anything out in enough detail to even consider. -- GB fan 22:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Not, at least, nearly to the extent or in the way proposed in that essay. For additional details, see the comments I made here on the last RFC for something sort of like this. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Nothing drastic. We need to accept that there will always be rough edges and irregularities and reliability issues in a project like this. We are not Encyclopaedia Britannica, and I hope we never become like Britannica. We are amateurs. Some attitudes might require minor adjustments, but generally what we have here is incredibly remarkable! Dcs002 (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. Of course, Wikipedia needs change. New editors need to be greeted with actual rules about the site. Bureaucratic bloat needs to be cut. Consensus needs to be replaced. The hostility needs go. But the fact that there are editors answering "no" to this simple question means that attempting to make any changes on Wikipedia are met with close-mindedness! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 01:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. Individual admins and the ArbCom wield far too much power and too often act without involving the community or even bothering to consider its wishes. Everyking (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, but Wikipedia can always use reform, but not the reforms being suggested on the linked essay. Blueboar (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No - The only change that needs to happen is WMF need to stop deploying stupid gadgets to the project that no likes nor wants .... Apart from that this place is absolutely fine! ...... Well until someone drags me to ANI then my opinions tend to change. . –Davey2010Talk 04:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Evolution is needed, not revolution - Wikipedia has apparently stagnated both technologically (platform, UI, etc.) and socially (policies, enforcement, conduct, etc.) for the past 5+ years. Wikipedia certainly needs some change, but it doesn't need a French revolution or we all end up going the way of the dinosaurs.
    This is too broad a question to be meaningfully answered beyond an emoticon and a fancy Facebook filter IMHO. So, to provide some feedback; Go create smaller questions that can be more accurately answered, or just start a Twitter# (#WikiReform, #ChangeWiki, etc.) and watch the pandemonium and amount of times it gets re-linked/-posted/-used by people. If it gets large enough, take it to a carefully thought out, well-planned, concise and clearly formatted RfC that is mass-posted through user talkpage and a fancy pop-up banner at the top of the screen.
    See my comment in the section below for how I feel about this essay and it's proposed changes being used as the basis for an RfC discussion. Sincerely, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No, not with anything on that useless page. Now stop it. Alsee (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No per preceding. Both sentences. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No to the suggestions in the linked essay. Of course Wikipedia is always in need of improvement, including to its governance structure. But that doesn't seem to be what we are talking about here. —Kusma (t·c) 13:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No- "deletionism is a vampire sucking the life out of Wikipedia". Good grief. What a lot of idiotic garbage. No way. Reyk YO! 13:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Silly question skewed to give a desirable answer Of course Wikipedia needs to change, just like anything else that is to survive. But the real point of this questions is to promote an essay. I think any change we undergo should be based on consensus and not an essay denies consensus. HighInBC 16:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Can I bill the OP for my time that was wasted on reading this drivel? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment.  I do find some items in Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia interesting and appealing (such as the problem of ...... claiming consensus is what matters and ignoring whether the change was inaccurate .......). But ultimately I would tend to more or less agree with Jayron32 that if we're going to !vote then we need something specific that we're !voting on. The RfC, as it's presented, is just too vague.
    Richard27182 (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. Excessive deletion is the encyclopedic equivalent of cancer, and we have failed to prevent it to such an extent, and with such dire consequences (the editor retention emergency), that I really think it would be entirely appropriate for the WMF to step in and perform corrective surgery on certain policies and guidelines by executive fiat. The present consensus mechanism seems to be incapable of controlling this because of a 'vocal minority' who are simply more determined and persistent than normal editors. James500 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Cancel is the uncontrolled growth of material that should not be there. If anything a failure to delete stuff that needs to be deleted would result in a cancer like situation. HighInBC 16:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a flesh eating virus, that destroys material that should be there, would be a better analogy for deletionism. Just imagine some disease that causes wasting away. I don't think that the example you could give could be compared to cancer as, leaving aside things like attack pages, hoaxes, copyvios, BLP problems, etc, it is generally harmless (if also useless). That would be more like an benign growth. James500 (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Should the Wikimedia Foundation create a new independently run organization to oversee article content?

This is clearly not going to happen, no use in continuing this particular proposal. Sam Walton (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2016 (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.

So you either must think there's a problem with something or you're told to leave because you're a WP:NOTHERE problem? Ignoring the obvious groupthink, this is going to be a cabal with a kangaroo court combined? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No because no one has actually said what or how the content should be "improved" and what "rules" are there to enforce. Given the fact that you must see certain problems, none of which have actually been disclosed, I don't see how knowing the members but not knowing what was the criteria for them to have had the "right" opinions will be feasible. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No (edit conflict) This is just a bad idea. 1) The chance of the WMF doing this is insignificant 2) Such a change would require changes that would destroy Wikipedia as Wikipedia including ways to freeze portions of content and enforce those changes and would violate the ideal 'all editors are equal' 3) Who would these 'experts' be? What would they be expert in? What rules would they enforce? - The same ones we have? We already do that. etc... etc... etc.
    Not even the first order implications of this have been thought out much less the knock-on implications for the concept of Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can edit (regardless of the pros/cons of anyone editing). JbhTalk 22:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, I think it's stated that there are to be subject-matter experts. I have no idea what subjects or what OR these experts must see but we're essentially saying that non-experts who see some alleged bias should then decide on a group of experts who are picked specifically because they agree with the view who will enforce that viewpoint or else they'd be kicked out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I can see getting some SME's to review articles for some fixed form of Wikipedia like an SME verified Wikipedia 1.0 but I can not see how it could work in the production environment. I can also see how getting some professional mediators or 'community managers' to take over from ARBCOM might be a reasonable idea but the risk to the WMF's safe haven for content liability would make paying for them a neat trick. JbhTalk 22:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No. NO NO NO NEVER! Who here would stand by and allow the most widespread information democracy be controlled by a few elites? NEVER!!! We are imperfect. Learn to live with it. Embrace it. Take that away and you kill the whole project and its credibility as a place for free exchange of ideas. It would be only those ideas approved by the junta. NO! Dcs002 (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is not going to happen. This is not worth wasting the slightest time discussing, since it's not an exaggeration to say that the WMF would sooner close Wikipedia (or at least, lock it from further editing) rather than allow such a body to exist. Having a body exercising editorial oversight would change the WMF from being a content provider to a content producer under the Florida law under which we operate, and render the board members liable for lawsuits potentially in the millions. This is not going to happen. ‑ Iridescent 23:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Who is going to decide who these so called experts are? There are other online encyclopedias on the web if anyone does not want to be part of a project that anyone can edit. MarnetteD|Talk 23:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No Apparently, the proposer has entirely missed the main point of Wikipedia. If the change proposed were enacted, we would no longer have the one key element that makes Wikipedia actually work which is to allow unrestricted access to good-faith contributions without oversight, except by other good-faith users. --Jayron32 00:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No. That's a terrible idea, antithetical to the way Wikipedia works. Everyking (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No -- There is a reason the community created WP:COI, there is a reason Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", there is a reason Jimbo and, to an extent, the WMF are not "Super-admins"/paid-admins/[whatever fancy name you wanna call 'em] ... it's because Wikipedia works as - or mostly as - a community site, with community input and community control. For the love of Wiki, we're already in enough of an uproar over losing a Wiki-editor from the WMF's Board, let alone employing admins to patrol and control Wiki! Because that is what this would evolve into, whether it takes a day, a week or a decade, that will be the end result ... the death of the volunteer editor and the death of Wiki's Spirit. We need to actually train admins and should probably create/train "specialised" admins, e.g. SPI Admins, AfC admins, RfC admins, etc. that actually know the policies, guides and nuances that nearly no editors, bar the vastly experienced, know or care for. We need more emphasis on dispute resolution than we do on "buying us some admins to fix our problems" as presented by this ... mockery. Laudable ideas in spirit, horrible practices in reality. I, and it seems many others, will refuse to allow a PAID Cabal to come into existence on Wikipedia. --- Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Crazy, you said it all, quite eloquently, and I actually like your idea about training specialist admins. I like it a lot. Train them for specific roles, and restrict the role of general admins. I think that would be fabulously helpful for admins and other editors alike. Admins are thoroughly criticized in fora like this, and such a specialist scheme would protect the admins very nicely. Great idea! Dcs002 (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2016 (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.

Should Wikipedia have a formal structure with which to determine a subject-matter expert, and grant them privileges based on expertise?

  • Yes, as proposer. Experts know what they are doing. Larry Sanger can return to Wikipedia and experts may eventually flock to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia#Poor administration. QuackGuru (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment What privileges? How would expertise be verified? Please make complete proposals that can be meaningfully voted on. To your incomplete question, I say no. Complete it and maybe my one opinion might change. Broad, undefined powers are not a good idea. Dcs002 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also see the raging success of Citizendium and how Wikipedia emerged from Nupedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No. We're doing just fine with a unidentified vague cabal of non-experts. The last thing we need is a distinguished blue ribbon cabal panel of experts, none of whom would have any expertise in writing an encyclopedia which is the one and only one expertise that we need here. Tell me you're bringing in Bryan A. Garner himself and I'll move this to neutral though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • *Face-palm* - We have tried similar concepts before, the only currently working models that I can think of from the top of my puny mind is GLAM's Wikipedians in residence scheme and the "Template-editor" privileges (can't remember the link but if anyone knows it, link it for me please), with the latter being the closest related concept to what is being discussed. Incidentally, the template-editor privileges was created to restrict Admins with little to no technical knowledge blundering around in widespread, common and important templates since they were usually breaking the template's coding or creating malformations during copy-paste moves of edit-requests, i.e. to ultimately improve the encyclopedia we call "Wiki".
So, while it is a worthwhile idea, it needs to be done slowly, and with widespread understanding and support. Alternatively, we can have a kick-start program were we have such "users"/"experts" add a fancy little signature tag that ultimately says "Don't bully/harass/uncivil me or I'll flee" to avoid common users, such as ... most of us here on Wiki, including myself and presumably yourself Quackguru, being mean or otherwise dismissive of the "expert" in discussions and edit summaries. The official credential checking could probably be run through the OTRS or the Bureaucrats to have credentials proven and an 'official' account created or "privileges" added to an existing account, though if they want to edit privately that is their own prerogative.
I reckon we should start with some of the big names, like the Religion Hunter, Dawkins, the Universe-solver, Hawking and other such folk from other fields to read over and provide feedback and further information on their subject areas. (I come from an agnostic science background -level 5.5 on Dawkin's scale- so #SystematicBias) Maybe keep the experts away from their own Bios though, or I foresee a short trip to the Dramaboard or the "Stay off your own BLP article" Noticeboard both followed with a swift kick in the a** buttocks.
So, if ... if we can gain support for such a model, and implement it, and have people show up to use it, we might be able to have such a structure. But you gotta think up a model first! Don't just say "hey, should we have some form of Xyz?" 'cos everyone's gonna bring their a**(*)holes opinions with them (point-in-case above) and we end up having 500 thousand models proposed and a median vote count of 10 votes each - which I think we can all agree is useless. So, do you have a preferred model, or should we start with my impromptu, rant-style model, run with it, further shape it and allow it to grow with community input? Cheers all, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are structures on other sites to give more kudos or some such thing to some editors. The problem here is that there is no particular problem on the non-controversial subjects but a whole host of people who would be willing to spend months trying to get themselves extra privileges with their pet POV subject. A study of systems for doing this might be worthwhile but I would like to see a particular proposal rather than just something general like this. It is too easy for people to agree something is wrong. We need something more constructive. Dmcq (talk)
  • No - One can easily be an expert on the subject and not know (or care) squat about Wikipedia policies and principles. How about a formal structure with which to determine a good Wikipedian, and grant them privileges based on knowledge of policy, willingness to follow it, and ability to work well with others? I think that would be more beneficial to the project. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No If you want Citizendium go to Citizendium. Wikipedia is an idealistic movement about crowd sourced free knowledge, changing that changes the essence of Wikipedia. As I said above, the best place to use expert review is in the creation of a static version of Wikipedia like an SME verified version of the Wikipedia 1.0 project. Also, continually using Larry Sanger as an appeal to authority really does not help your case, his encyclopedia projects have not been terribly successful. JbhTalk 14:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This suggestion rests on two assumptions: a) that there is a defined method of determining who is or isn't an "expert" across the scope of the thousands of different subjects that a 5+ million article encyclopedia encompasses and b) there is a large group of experts who want to devote their spare time to working on Wikipedia articles. I don't think either of these assumptions is well-founded. Liz Read! Talk! 14:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment That a person has expertise in a particular subject area (which would be difficult to determine anyway) would not guarantee that the person would be on Wikipedia in order to be helpful. Omnedon (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Not only is this the principal reason Citizendium failed, it's also antithetical to the entire ethos of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No, obviously. If anyone does think this is a good idea, Wikipedia is not the place for you. ‑ Iridescent 18:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't not support it because it is not a great idea, there is a valuable place in the world for expert encyclopedia's and indeed some specialized internet ones that provide free information on the internet, I just don't think it is possible here, for many reasons, beginning with Liz's.Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on Reform of Wikipedia

Because of course the best way to stop the imaginary cabal is to make a real one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Ricky81682, the goal is for the WMF board members to create an expert open cabal. No secrets. I would like the essay to become a guideline for experts for a new organization to oversee Wikipedia articles. The first step would be a new organization independent of the WMF to actively enforce the rules. QuackGuru (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Our admin corp is fairly open in terms of its members. And it's been called a cabal for over a decade. I'm not sure the point of this here. They would be experts on what? Dispute resolution? Sourcing guidelines? All that stuff is made-up rules for us for the most part. Are these subject matter experts? Experts on math, science, politics, countries, everything? I highly doubt you are going to be able to make a set of experts on every topic here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The experts will focus on article content on many topics. There are problems with OR and admins don't enforce OR. QuackGuru (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't enforce or disagree with what you consider OR? Is it possible that people could be legitimate disagreements or is the only result (and we have no idea how many topics and subjects we are talking about here) that 100% like-minded individuals who must agree 100% on each and every alleged problem are there to resolve these issues? I presume said group will also have admin powers or there's not much on a technical issue they can do or will they just give orders that said people are banned and hope that the admins (who do not enforce said OR) will enforce it anyways? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I never seen an admin enforce OR. I spotted OR and editors ignore the OR and revert the tags. Admins think this is a normal content dispute. I think experts can help remove OR and other problems when admins continue to ignore the problems. QuackGuru (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
OR is a content dispute. Frankly, everything that's about writing on a page is a content dispute. Is there some reason it's not? Is OR a specific category of writing that it's not a dispute about content? Isn't a dispute about what should be written on the page? Are these people just going to be tagging OR? They aren't actively doing anything about it, just saying "this is OR" and then what? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
After OR was removed then it was restored even after verification was provided on the talk page that confirms it was OR. I have seen for too many years editors add OR and fight to keep OR. When obvious OR can't be removed there is a serious problem. OR is the tip of the iceberg. QuackGuru (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
You're going ot have provide an example. I don't know what "verification" is there to prove something is OR without more specifics. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Previous text sourced: See "A large number of chiropractors want to separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence."
Current text failed V. See "Some chiropractors want to separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence.[3]
The source stated "See "Today, a substantial number of chiropractors are anxious to sever all remaining ties to the vitalism of innate intelligence."[16]
I removed the OR before. The part "A large number" was replaced with the word "some". The part "some" failed V. This time I tagged the source. That didn't work.
On another page I tagged the OR and made specific comments in my edit summary what was the OR.[17][18] The tags were removed. It is common for editors to replaced sourced text with OR and delete sourced text claiming the source does not support the claim. Admins are not trained to deal with these situations. Under the new model admins will be retrained and experts can quickly resolve the disputes. QuackGuru (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
What article is you talking about? The JAMA article discusses American chiropractors on its face so an article on the topic generally or within different scope would be WP:SYNTH to use "some" without further evidence but I wouldn't immediately say that's the same as "ignoring OR." Is that the type of problem that an expert, I'd guess a chiropractor, would be here to evaluate and examine? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Ricky81682, the chiropractic page. There are other problems too. Are you stating "A large number" is better wording? If so how can I restore the text without experts or retraining admin to police article content? The article would not need a specific expert in this case. It would need an expert from a peer-review journal since admins on Wikipedia don't enforce the rules. There are a ton of writers from journals that stay clear of Wikipedia. I think they can help create a more accurate encyclopedia. A lot of disputes can quickly be resolved with super admins trained to enforce V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest the article you linked should NOT be used as your source for this statement. You have linked to a review article, technically this is a secondary citation. If you go to the two sources you would find that they are commentary articles which are based on opinion not necessarily fact. Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
To be more on point, I think the point here is that it's not so cut and dry. An article on chiropractors in general shouldn't say "a large number" based on a study of US chiropractors. It may actually be a small number of chiropractors worldwide, we don't know but at the very least a large number of US ones is accurately a small number worldwide but both are WP:SYNTH issues. Revise it perhaps to "According to a study in JAMA, a large number of US chiropractors" but there's still Mrfrobinson's concerns as well. Again, the problem is that we wouldn't be requiring a chiropractor subject-matter expert (they would be an expert on the field, not on the subject of what the field's practitioners think) but a subject-matter expert when it comes to best practices within the field or a statistician or someone who is an expert at something in that line. A single attorney would not be an expert on what attorneys think, that's more psychology/sociology/many other fields. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed_reviews&from_uid=9818801 It is not a study. The source is a review. See WP:MEDRS The specific text is not about the US. We do not need to review what sources a review cited. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This source is not a systematic review you absolutely need to look at the sources otherwise it is irresponsible. What you have done is used a secondary citation, this is a major problem. Please do some research on this first before making these claims.Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
QuackGuru already made his claim of OR on the relevant talk page. He failed to persuade there. As usual with QuackGuru, when multiple people disagree with him, it is *obviously* because they are wrong, hence it is being rehashed here. QuackGuru is representing opinion as fact, and interpreting rejection of that opinion as a massive and systematic failure of Wikipedia. Which is rather silly. But also perfectly normal for QuackGuru. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
So we need "open cabals of subject experts"? But we've had them for years! They're usually called WP:WikiProjects. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I bet the cabal told you to say that, Ricky, it's exactly the sort of thing a cabal agent would say! :p Murph9000 (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • There might be the start of some potentially good proposals in there, but it's too vague to pledge support for it, and too many different issues lumped in together. I'm also dubious about the assertion that an arms length, but fully owned and controlled, company would somehow legitimately do an end run around the law. Judges can be a bit mean when it comes to things like that, especially when the intent to avoid legal responsibility is clearly documented with a revision history on a very public website. The other major issue with creating a new tier of super-admins that will be more likely to do the right thing is an old one: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Murph9000 (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's put the Mediawiki staff where they are really needed, which isn't here, but the compromised Wikipedias in Kazakh and (I think) Croatian. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You say this is to create higher quality articles yet the linked essay doesn't even address it. This essay was just recently moved off this very noticeboard. Section one ("ideas") doesn't address anything except a bunch of complaints regarding various issues. Section two ("favorite quotes") well I will let that speak for itself. Section three ("who should we approach") provides nothing again. Section four ("Union of Editors") speaks about creating a union to challenge the power of the secret cabals...this is a conspiracy theory fit for late night radio. Not to mention that the user who housed this previously created a ban list for people who disagreed with it. I propose we CLOSE this RFC and wait for you to come back with something with substance, polished and reasonable. The key to creating high quality articles is abiding by high quality standards, if we implemented the ideas from this today we would essentially have a geocities webhost. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Mu is the only real answer I can give to it all. They were going to go and produce some proposal but this seems just a long winded call to go there and discuss - and that rather too soon after the previous discussion here. Dmcq (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Please stop applying that label to everything and everyone that disagrees with you. Honestly it is exhausting. The point of this essay (copied directly from the essay itself) is "Reform of Wikipedia is an essay for ideas to create higher-quality balanced and neutral article content. A more accurate encyclopedia is a more useful encyclopedia.". Please keep your comments to this topic and stop accusing and labeling people, it is a personal attack. Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Courtesy pinging User:Ottawahitech - when mentioning other users please link their usernames so that they are notified of the mention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • A few nice ideas. However, the page cobbles together too many disparate changes that should instead be discussed one by one. IMO, many of the things proposed by the reform page would be nearly impossible to implement; some would even cost the WMF substantial amounts of money. The page also seems to be unduly harsh toward administrators or deletionists. It's my experience that admins rarely get in the way of creating high-quality articles. Deletionism isn't necessarily stopping creation of high quality articles as the problem is we have literally millions of articles that are created and then abandoned without the time an effort to make them high-quality. By the way, there's a reform I'd support: reform of GA and FA, which IMO is overly bureaucratic and often hinges on the whims of a small handful of editors, often the same small handful of editors for all FAs and GAs. pbp 16:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no cabal, how about we keep it that way? Seriously though that essay belongs in userspace, it is opinion and in no way represents the larger community. HighInBC 16:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's co-founder Larry Sanger prefers experts participate on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I am pretty sure somebody already went out and made an "expert" version of the Wikipedia project. I can't remember the name very well because it has fallen into obscurity. HighInBC 16:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Everybody wants experts participating in Wikipedia. However, a lot of Wikipedia's success is based on rejecting the idea that you need be an expert in order to write an encyclopaedia article. —Kusma (t·c) 19:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Without expert review the OR and other problems continue in mainspace. QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Please provide actual examples of this OR problem. You need more evidence of this than what you have provided. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I gave two solid examples yet there is still no administrative action. This confirms there is a serious problem. QuackGuru (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
No, you gave two examples which you believe to be OR problems and conclude that there is a serious problem based on this. Mrfrobinson (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) But we're not talking about experts in writing an encyclopedia. Would a chiropractor, to use your example, be the best person to describe what a chiropractor does? Wouldn't a historian, a linguist, a lexicographer, or generally someone with the expertise about how to describe what is done be better? To be more general, is the best way to write the article on French people to get a random group of French people? Is there going to be an expert on French people if one could find one? I'm going to use the analogy of what judges at say the Supreme Court do: they are not experts at the subject matter other than the subject matter of analyzing law and I'd at least consider a proposal that encourages Wikipedia allow ARBCOM or the community or whatever to do what is done in law at times and that is defer to/hire/retain experts in some limited times for their limited expertise. That if detailed and well-written is something that could possibly be useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    • A chiropractor does not have experience in writing peer-reviewed articles. We are talking about experts who have a background in writing an encyclopedia. I am convinced we need experts such as Ernst E.[19] Ernst is familiar with chiropractic. See "Experts can be elected by the Wikipedia community. Experts with a background in writing peer-reviewed articles are suitable candidates." See Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia#Poor administration. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Is Citizendum more like what you want? Wikipedia is not the only encyclopaedia around, it would be very helpful if you tried out an alternative and then perhaps you would be able to make suggestions which look like they might do something useful and go somewhere. Even experience with a specialized interned encyclopaedia would be useful I believe. Dmcq (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have moved that reform essay back to the user space where it belongs. It contains severe issues that are not compatible with Wikipedia space, which may be due to the idiosyncratic POV of its principal editors, one of who appears to be a climate denial advocate and another is under two separate topic bans. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • You need an MfD to userfy an essay. Since it is advocating changes, the 'essay' in question looks like a proposal (albeit with elements of a wikiproject page embedded), and they can't be userfied at all. They can only be marked as failed. I suggest you revert yourself. James500 (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I originally created this essay not Biscuittin. Please do not move it to a user that did not create the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the lesson here is that (as I tried to tell the framers of this "reform" effort before they threw me out of their little private club) Wikipedia could probably benefit from some changes, but they need to be realistic.

  • Proposing things that require the WMF to do things that we all know they will not ever do is not the way to go about it.
  • Engaging in ridiculous hyperbole and rejecting all input from those whose opinions are not in absolute lockstep with yours is not the way to go about it.
  • Spamming for the same half-baked terrible essay in every possible forum is certainly not the way to go about it.

Look at the results here. All of these ideas have been quickly, firmly rejected by the broader community. Not a secret cabal, just members of the community who saw these proposals and wondered what it was about. This is a "complete do-over" situation. Close this mess up and come back whan you have ideas that are actually feasible and not completely antithetical to what Wikipedia is and how it works. (and stop acting like what Larry Sanger thinks gives your ideas huge weight. If he wants to be part of this conversation he knows where Wikipedia is, stop acting like you can speak for him. (By the way, I just checked out Citizendium, by their own account they have 16,000 articles of which about 1,100 are considered "developed" and just 160 articles that they consider "citeable". That's after seven years of work, not a very impressive result.)) Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I wonder - and this is a genuine suggestion to take back to the drawing board - if some subjects just don't have experts. This may not be apparent to someone who mainly edits medical-type articles. I can think of three articles which really highlight this: Citizendium:Zimbabwe, Citizendium:Donald Trump, Citizendium:Pokémon. I often deal with school articles, usually because they're vandal magnets, and I often see the pupils or staff claim they're the experts on the subject. You have to wonder, who really would be an expert? -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Listed for Deletion

The page Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia has been listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia. JbhTalk 21:15, 28 January 2016 (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:RS, peer reviewed vs not?

I have a question about relative weight when dealing with reliable sources. Should we assume a peer reviewed source is automatically more reliable than a non-peer reviewed source when both seem to be high quality? The WP:RS guidelines establishes a kind of hierarchy of source quality. It puts peer reviewed material at the top. Certainly for areas like science, engineering, and medicine this makes a lot of sense. However, it might be harder to establish that in areas like history that are more subjective in nature. A while back I found this discussion related to the intended meaning of the WP:RS guidelines [20]. The discussion focused around this passage from the RS guide:

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications.

Specifically the question was should the later part of the sentence be emphasized to make it clear that non-academic sources should be given weight similar to academic in many subject areas if there is justification. The actual subject of the discussion was over a change to the RS guidelines, not, as far as I can tell, a question of if peer review automatically trumps all else. That said, I was hoping to get the views of other editors to see if they agreed with my read on the archived discussion as well as if they agreed with my understanding that RS does not mean peer reviewed automatically trumps non-peer reviewed. Thanks Springee (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

An all too familiar problem is that of the fake expert, as depicted in the cartoon here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. However, consider a case like a Dr. Stephen Ambrose book published by a non academic press vs an alternative opinion offered by another historian in a peer reviewed book. Both are reputable sources on the subject. Should we say that Abrose's views go away simply because he decided not to publish via a peer reviewed publisher. Note that someone like Ambrose might have picked the non-academic press because he can earn more on the book vs needing to get peer review to have the book be notable. Springee (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Possibly the case of established experts as described at WP:SPS should be highlighted more. That gives a criterion for distinguishing between people who call themselves experts and people who are acknowledged as experts on a subject. Dmcq (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. That does seem relevant. However, would we consider a book by Ambrose, say Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors, published by Open Road Media self published? It's not a peer reviewed publisher though that doesn't mean Ambrose didn't have reviewers (nor does it mean he did). Anyway, would we say Ambrose is a noted historian and thus we accept his work as if it were peer reviewed or do we discount it if it disagrees with a peer reviewed source. Note: I'm asking this question in the abstract and Ambrose is just a historian I'm using as a convenient example given that he is well known and generally well respected and has published peer reviewed work though much of his current work comes from more main stream publishing houses. Springee (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Context matters; some remarks cited to books should be given inline attribution and others can be said in wikivoice. It depends on case by case basis. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I do agree but if for example we are talking about Ambrose vs another source on basically the same subject (say the historical actions of Custard as described in the book I mentioned above). This is not a case of Ambrose talking about say the physics of the Manhattan project but instead Ambrose speaking about an area in which he is well versed, American history.
What we'd be saying here is that we'd have to give both versions weight in the article. A peer reviewed source would normally get more weight but acknowledged experts should get weight in an article and I'd have thought quite often more weight if they specifically deal with a topic and it is only in passing in the peer reviewed work. As always there is a question of judgment when there is a disagreement and that's what discussions on the talk page and RfC's and noticeboards are mostly about. Dmcq (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I would agree with that. I was using the above as an example but from your reply I think we can say that you agree that peer review does not automatically mean the information trumps non-peer reviewed. The qualifier being the need to show that the non-peer reviewed source is actually of high quality with respect to the claims being made. This aligns with my reading of WP:RS, the passage I quoted above and what I view as the consensus of those involved in the quoted discussion. Springee (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it is too hard to make a general statement. There are far more non-peer reviewed sources that are reliable however when a peer reviewed source is available it should be given more weight. A great example of this is the surge in referencing modern news articles, I have come across many that are reporting on a peer-reviewed study. The peer-reviewed study should be used as the source and not the news article. On the same subject the number of news articles being referenced is far too high. IMO news reports are not always reliable and are given far too much weight. With regards to social sciences, history etc may not have as may peer-reviewed articles available thus alternative sources (text books, books etc) are probably more reliable and appropriate. Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Many primary papers in journals are accompanied by university press releases touting their faculty's findings. Low-to-zero budget pseudojournalism feeds (Eurekalert, etc.) pick these up, then with little or no fact checking, "Hey presto!" the press releases become "secondary" sources repeating (sometimes verbatim) the university press release. We can't afford to trust these as if they were independent informed analysis when they generally are neither. Worse, this mirroring complicates the problem of identifying genuine secondary sources. As a rule of thumb, if it is published within a week of the primary paper, I'd assume it to be buzz rather than real analysis unless it is coming from an established expert at an unrelated institution.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
LSD, thanks for replying to the ping. I'm not really thinking about cases where we have a report talking about the results of a paper. Of course in that case we should use the paper if possible. The example I'm using here is a book by Dr Stephen Ambrose. Ambrose is a well respected historian, author, scholar etc. A number of his books were published via mainstream publishers vs academic publishers. Would we automatically discount his views if they conflict with a book out of say "University Press of ____"? I think WP:RS says we shouldn't so long as we can make the argument that Ambrose is an expert or RS on the topic at hand. Springee (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Mrfrobinson that we can't make a blanket statement. For example, I think most would agree that an essay from the acknowledged foremost expert about a topic in his field of expertise should be given more weight than an article written by unknowns in a third-rate journal. We should exercise some common sense and editorial judgement, like NewsAndEventsGuy pointed out, this article is a great resource on how to evaluate statements from scientists and experts. LK (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Mrfrobinson, when a peer reviewed source is available, it should be given more weight. A peer reviewed source passes inspection by multiple experts in the related field, while something that's privately published or self published doesn't pass the same scrutiny of experts. This is why WP policy states that peer reviewed sources are usually the most reliable. Of course, as LK points out, some publications appear to be peer reviewed but actually aren't or maybe they aren't scholarly journals at all. WP:RS also recognizes this exception to peer reviewed sources. Giving peer reviewed publications more weight/priority is an objective measure to determining reliability. Otherwise, anyone could just argue author "X" is an expert, and the next thing you know, quotes from Ken Ham are being pushed into evolution articles and are given equal weight as the vast amount of peer reviewed scholarly sources addressing the issue. If their views don't merit scholarly publication, then chances are they aren't worth mentioning on specific subjects that do pass peer review, especially when they attempt to contradict the view points held by multiple peer reviewed sources. LSD also brings up a good point as well. Even though you may not be thinking about news articles quoting primary research papers, attempting to redefine how sources get treated affects a variety of issues across the encyclopedia, allowing editors to use the guise of "expert" to refute scholarly material. I know you said your example focused on Dr. Stephen Ambrose, but questions about a specific source should be brought up at the reliable sources noticeboards, this noticeboard is focused on general policy. That being said, from Dr. Ambrose's wikipage: "Beginning late in his life and continuing after his death, however, evidence and reports have continued to surface documenting longtime patterns of plagiarism and inaccuracies in many of his published writings and other work." This is why WP places more importance and reliability on peer reviewed sources, over "experts".Scoobydunk (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
That is the way it is supposed to work, in an ideal world, Scooby. In reality, some journals have higher standards than others and sometimes you can pay to publish. So although I agree with your rule of thumb, its still best to use excellent secondary sources reporting on the research, and to always look at every reference on a case by case basis, because there are always examples that defy the rule of thumb. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I think there are sometimes examples that may defy the rule of thumb. Also, I addressed your concern about lesser journals in my original comment and WP:RS does at well. Clearly, if the claimed peer-reviewed journal is one of those, then it's reliability is questionable. But when the source in question is Cambridge University Press or University Press of Chicago, then that's not really a concern. This is a slightly separate issue when looking at studies which are primary sources. I'd agree that reliable secondary sources would be better used, but WP:RS also clearly addresses that, and I don't think that's what's being discussed here. I think we're focusing more on 2 secondary sources, 1 being peer reviewed and one being privately published or self published. I'm glad you agree with my rule of thumb and I hope I cleared up any concerns. Of course, on specific issues, that's where the RSN is of great use!Scoobydunk (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Scoobydunk, Mrfrobinson didn't say it should be given more weight. He avoided making that blanket statement. We have had this discussion in the past and you made it clear that you felt even an otherwise reliable non-peer reviewed source should be dismissed if it didn't agree with a peer reviewed source. How would you address a case such as a peer reviewed source that disagrees with say a claim made by Ambrose? I've authored a number of peer reviewed articles (no books) as well as reviewed others. I can say it's not perfect by any stretch but it's better than nothing. While you are correct that a specific case (Ambrose was used as an example because he is a well known historian) should go to a RSN, this is actually a question about a WP policy and thus this is the correct place. I wanted to verify that my reading of the policy is correct. My reading is the policy does not automatically mean peer reviewed sources should trump and even exclude other sources just because they are peer reviewed. The consensus here seems to lean in the direction that if the non-peer reviewed source is highly reliable then it should be given weight. What people here seems to be, correctly, stating is that we need to be cautious when crediting the views of experts if those views aren't coming through peer reviewed sources. If a US Supreme Court judge offered a non-reviewed opinion that something was legal I think we could give that opinion a lot of credit even if it wasn't peer reviewed. Springee (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Directly quoting MrFrobinson: "There are far more non-peer reviewed sources that are reliable however when a peer reviewed source is available it should be given more weight." You can hit "ctrl-f" and then copy and paste what's quoted, and you'll see it verbatim in Mrfrobinson's comment. So, he did say that. I see that people seem to agree that reputable peer reviewed publishers should be given more weight. What I'm interested in, is how should we treat a non-academic source that contradicts multiple separate peer reviewed sources. Like, is it okay to include Ken Ham's point of view on evolution articles to refute what scholarship says on the issue? I think the answer is an obvious "No" and that multiple WP policies clearly supports this to prevent insignificant minority viewpoints from being pushed into articles.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
And you can also find where he says no blanket statements. How does the text of the actual policy support your view? I know you are trying to dismiss Ambrose as an example but let's suppose we use a historian who hasn't had some issue, say Robert Massie. Are you again going to say policy says we must dismiss his work if it disagrees with admittedly quality peer reviewed work? That doesn't seem to be supported by either RS or the conversation I linked to at the beginning of this question. Springee (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I know I'm opening a whole can of worms here, and I'm not suggesting a change in policy in either wording or practice, but there are a whole lot of peer-reviewed academic journals out there that print low quality stuff. To pick on one, the Pakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation Research is, as far as I can tell, a real peer-reviewed academic journal out of the perfectly decent University of Punjab. However, I would consider a blog post by a tenured Statistics professor at a top 10 University as more reliable than a paper published there. I think we need to be a bit discerning about peer-reviewed journals, it's not a binary 'real peer-review is RS, fake or no peer-review is not RS'. We need to exercise some judgement. LK (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Trying to move the topic a bit back from examples of clearly unreliable or unknown journals and getting back to what the actual policy says. My reading of the policy and the archived conversation I found is that there is no blanket view that a high quality RS should be dismissed if it doesn't agree with a quality peer reviewed source. It seems this is more relevant as the topics become softer in terms of hard science. Thus historical views of General Washington might have more room for non-peer reviewed sources by reputable historians while the topic of climate change science studies would have far less room for non-peer reviewed opinions. Springee (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
That would be about right I think. In some subjects peer review seems to mean that the paper was well written according to the reviewers and has lots of references rather than that the conclusions pass any sort of check. Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Peer review does analyze conclusions. It doesn't mean that the reviewers agree with those conclusions, but that those conclusions can be drawn from the sources and the data the author provided. They don't just glance at the bibliography and then check off on the work.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
To address Springee's concern, there are policies that dismiss these works in the example I outlined above. According to WP:NPOV: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." So, when an article covering a topic of science, history, or medicine has numerous peer reviewed works discussing a specific aspect of the topic, then there is no reason to include a viewpoint that isn't covered/given any weight by the same degree of scholarship. Furthermore, WP:RS states "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Peer reviewed sources meet that criteria with the exception of fraudulent journals. Most private publishing houses don't meet that criteria. WP:RS makes no exception for "experts" save for the self-published section, which also states that if their views are really worth inclusion, then another third party source would have already covered the view. These types statements are consistently communicated throughout multiple policy pages and are there to prevent insignificant minority viewpoints from being included when there are multiple examples of scholarly sources covering the issue. Scoobydunk (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
You actually aren't addressing my concerns. You are creating a strawman for me. While I appreciate the help I don't think anyone here is claiming that we should treat fringe theories with the same weight as peer reviewed material. In this case I'm trying to verify the intent of the policy with regards to what might be considered expert views published via non-academic channels. I've been doing more searching on the subject and it is clear that others have had my same concerns over the years. These archives contain two more conversations specifically concerned with the subject [21], [22]. So if we had a case where say 4 peer reviewed books made similar claims and 4 acknowledged experts in the field disagreed with the common claim but their disagreements were published in non-peer reviewed channels (mainstream publisher, op-ed etc) how would you handle the situation? Springee (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
have you got such a case? Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are for covering the general cases that come up reasonably often, not every case under the sun. They normally follow from accepted practice on actual examples rather than the other way around. That's also one of the reasons why WP:IAR exists. Dmcq (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm asking this as a general understanding of the policy. I fear that if we use a specific case then we discuss that case instead of the general policy. Springee (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@Springee (2 comments above); You speculated about 4 experts saying Y in peer reviewed books versus 4 'perts saying NO in common media. When I saw that, my brain froze. Peer reviewed books? Sure sometimes a book gets a prepublication review, but that isn't quite the same process, as I understand it, as passing peer review in a journal that has established editorial standards and reputation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@Springee (2 comments above) Part 2, Also, you seem to be asking whether this source is RS and that source is not. I'd say in the battle between the Y 'perts in peer reviewed anything and the N 'perts in common media, all of those sources are RS for that 'perts views on the matter. But you seem to be asking if Y can be stated in wikivoice (to the defeated tears of No) just because Y appeared in something that was peer reviewed. In essence, a statement of scientific fact (which always has at least some uncertainty), otherwise known as Scientific consensus. On topics where such a consensus exists there should be ample sources of all sorts and types and media that discuss that consensus. So I kinda agree with DMCQ that the abstract navel gazing is a bit too amorphous to really nail down specifics. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
When I say peer reviewed books I mean books that come out of a [University press] or other academic press. I have not had any of my personal work published via a university press. I'm not sure what level of peer review they get vs a journal paper (I do have experience here as a reviewer and author). I think where things can get murky is say when we have one historian (Ambrose as an example) who's work we well enough known to interest a for-profit publisher vs some other author who's work is of similar quality but is not as well known and thus publishing via a university press. If the resume's of the authors are similar and both would be seen as experts on the material do we promote/demote the one who's work went out via the commercial vs university press? This is especially true if the motivation for publishing via a commercial publisher wasn't easier QC but instead was simply better royalties. Alternatively, consider if a few authors publish historical works via university presses (say the theory that Russia had intended to attack Germany first). If a few other historians state in interviews that they think the theory is wrong do we leave those views out of the WP page because those historians haven't made those statements in peer reviewed articles or university press books? I understand I'm inventing cases but again, I think the answer is things should be case by case and there is not a blanket policy that says a university press book is automatically considered more authoritative than a commercial press book. (note: Edit conflict with the second of the two edits above) Springee (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The notion of "authoritative" is a question of WP:WEIGHT, rather than one of reliability, as WP uses that term. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I can see that. Using my Ambrose vs other example, if both have similar resumes would we automatically give more weight to the other (university press published) book vs Ambrose or do we say they are basically equal in weight? Again, this gets back to the heart of the RS question regarding the quote and archive discussions I started with. BTW, incase my tone is hard to decipher here, I'm asking your view, not trying to tell you what view to have. I appreciate your input. Springee (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
No prob, I like the communication. "Weight" is an element of the Neutrality policy so when you bring it back to RS, I'm confused. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The peer reviewed source automatically has more weight unless you can prove that the peer reviewed publisher doesn't have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The WP:RS policy clearly defines the exceptions that would disqualify a journal or scholarly publication from being a reliable source, and mentions things to check for when a source claims to be peer reviewed. Barring those exceptions, they are the "most reliable sources" and should be used, especially when the articles "rely on scholarly material".Scoobydunk (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
You have already said this but it is not consistent with the wording of the policy. Thus if a source, say a book by a well known historian is published through a commercial vs university publisher that doesn't mean we automatically consider it a source of less weight than one published though a university press. Often we would but we don't automatically as you claim. As noted by a number of editors the issue is that some people have tried to use the claim that a source isn't from a university press as a way to exclude otherwise reliable information. Springee (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:RS is a guideline rather than a policy. It doesn't talk about weight but the ordering there is a pretty good indication of the initial weight one can associate with sources. For instance its section about self published work by experts is under questionable whereas scholarship is right at the top. However if someone like Donald Knuth says something on his webpage about computer algorithms that's going to be counted as a reliable source and have quite high weight. Discussion can often be required when there is an inversion of the normal order like that. Dmcq (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that is a good way to put it. At first glance we would assume a peer reviewed source is more reliable. However, that doesn't have to remain that way after review. I would also note that we should consider why a book is published by a university press. It is often because the material simply wouldn't be commercially viable through a traditional for profit publisher. Thus a historian might start publishing via a university press but move to the commercial publishers if his/her work becomes successful enough. This would be the case with someone like Ambrose. If we have two works by the same author, both cited widely, would we assume the one published via a university press is automatically more reliable than the one published via a for profit publisher? This is yet another reason we should not dogmatically assume that a university published book automatically should have more weight, or even worse, should be used to exclude the views of book published through commercial channels. Certainly we should expect that stuff that comes out of say Oxford University Press, is of generally high quality. That doesn't mean that works of equal quality won't come out of Penguin Press or that should just claim "peer reviewed vs other" as reason for discounting one vs the other. That is certainly inline with my reading of the policy. Springee (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia gives Bible stories more weight than peer reviewed sources. Keith McClary (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I directly quoted policy, so what I said is consistent with policy. You gave no counter argument based on policy, merely just the assertion that what I said was not consistent. What isn't consistent is your position because there is nothing outlined in WP:RS that claims non-scholarly material is as reliable and/or should be given equal weight to scholarly material. Again, one of the only explicitly stated hierarchies in WP:RS is that peer reviewed sources are the "most reliable". The following lines merely state that other non-scholarly sources can be reliable too, but no where does the policy claim that non-scholarly is equivalent to scholarly peer reviewed material in any way, shape, or form.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason to be so argumentative. You didn't quote policy, you quoted a part of the guideline. I quoted a key paragraph from that same guideline that gives the higher level view of the topic. It says peer reviewed is generally the most reliable. It never says always the most nor does it say other sources should be excluded if they disagree with peer reviewed sources. It is clear that previous editors have been concerned about exclusion of sources by editors who want to treat peer review as a golden seal that trumps all else. The guideline doesn't support that in both the obvious case of a less than high quality peer reviewed source but also in the case of a high quality, non-peer reviewed source.
Earlier you made some claims about the peer review process.[[23]] I'm not sure if you have ever peer reviewed papers or books. Anyway, what you stated was that the peer review process means the reviews don't have to agree with the conclusion, just that the evidence provided supports the conclusion. Well in that case it seems very likely that a book review process would result in a book where the logic and effort are sound but there is plenty of room for disagreement. In other words, the peer review process is giving us a lower bound for reliability, not an upper bound. You also have ignored the motivations for books vs papers in the peer reviewed space. The choice to go with a commercial publisher vs a university publisher isn't clear cut. It would be interesting to see if the editors who crafted this policy were thinking as much about books by academics vs journal papers. Regardless, thank you for stating your opinion several times over. The guideline certainly says that at first blush we should give a peer reviewed source more weight/consider it more reliable but it doesn't say non-peer reviewed sources can't be considered highly reliable. Springee (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Like the Bible if a consensus of believers decrees it to be reliable. This whole discussion has no relevance to how Wikipedia actually works. Keith McClary (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I did quote policy as the parts I've quoted appear on WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY which are policy pages. Again, nothing in the policies or guidelines state that non-academic sources are as reliable as peer reviewed, scholarly sources. Also, I didn't address your "motivations behind publishing" because Wikipedia doesn't make such considerations with the exception of maybe WP:QS. Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I missed where you quoted a WP policy that said a non-academic source can never be considered as reliable as an academic one on any subject. I did find information that said that in general academic and peer reviewed sources are considered the most reliable. "usually the most reliable" is the phrasing from WP:Verify. That is basically the same thing as what is said at WP:RS, ie peer reviewed is generally the most reliable but nothing that says it will always be nor that non-peer reviewed sources can never been considered as reliable. NPOV doesn't mention the word "peer" (as you told us, ctrl-F allows Windows users to search) and the word "academic" is only used to caution against false balancing fringe theories against peer reviewed work. That is something we have already agreed on here. Again, your opinion is clear even if it isn't supported by your references. Springee (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
My position is directly supported by multiple policies that I've referenced and thoroughly explained. Your attempt to treat non academic sources as equally reliable and deserving of weight as scholarly and peer-reviewed sources is what lacks any backing in WP policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Repeating your opinion doesn't make your argument stronger. I have stated my case. You have not shown that the policies support what you claim. They support the general case but they do not support the absolute case you are attempting to claim. Springee (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The argument is not that in general non peer reviewed sources carry equal weight to peer reviewed ones. It is that in special circumstances a non-peer reviewed source may have greater weight than a peer reviewed one. If available usually peer-reviewed sources are the best. That a source is not peer reviewed source is a good argument that a source has less weight than a peer reviewed source but if someone brings along reasoned arguments otherwise on the talk page they should be considered. For instance it might be a minor matter in the peer reviewed article that they just got wrong. It would not even be an WP:IAR matter.
A more problematic case would be like one I had a while ago where what was said in a textbook was wrong and I removed it and a person insisted that it be in because it was in the textbook and nothing said otherwise. The reason nothing said otherwise was because other authors didn't think to have to deny a falsity. The textbook had just got something it really wasn't about wrong and I had to ask some other editors to check that it really was wrong to get it removed. That is WP:IAR. Peer reviewed sources normally have greater weight but not always. Dmcq (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm joining this discussion late, but I have a few things to say on this topic, some of which have been touched on already. The most important point I have is that we need to remember why there is a peer review process. Peer review is employed on the cutting edge, where we are uncertain of new knowledge. It is used because the facts are new and don't necessarily make a slam-dunk case. It is used when our knowledge is the least certain, and we need to do everything we can to insure the reliability of that information. It is used when we have little more to go on than the author's word that the data presented is factual. Peer review fails miserably time and again. Anyone remember cold fusion? Or the MMR vaccine causing autism? Those papers passed peer review and were published in two of the world's most reputable journals. Peer review in science is a sign of new information that has not been fully established in its respective field. It is applied to primary sources that are just as fallible as any other primary sources. Primary sources sometimes lie, as in the two previous cases, and they make mistakes, which happens much more often. Peer review is a means of doing the best we can with uncertainty.

Books that are published by the University of X Press are subject to editorial review, but usually not peer review. Some university presses publish a wide variety of books, from cutting edge science to consumer how-to guides. Some books present original research that has been peer reviewed, and in that way they are like journals. I have reviewed textbooks before, and they are not subject to peer review. They go through editorial review, and then the quality publishers send them out to instructors for review of their content and presentation (where I participated). This is different from peer review, where there is an expectation of academic skepticism. In this type of review, there is no assumption that the information presented is incorrect unless supported by quality evidence. Standard college textbooks do not use inline citations like we do. (Advanced ones do, especially those presenting content that is very new in narrow fields.) They are beyond the need to support or defend their factual content. They generally present safe and well accepted content in the field, but this is not always the case. There is a huge difference among publishers. I will not assign any textbook published by Thomson or its imprints, for example. The last time I used one of their textbooks I began every lecture by asking my students what errors they found in their reading assignment. Their content is consistently a mess. (The publishers I have considered more reliable have been bought up by Pearson, such as AWL/Benjamin Cummings.)

Peer review is generally applied to primary sources. Two types of review articles (reviews and invited reviews) are secondary sources, and I have not authored either type, so I am not familiar with any peer review of such articles. My assumption is that invited reviews are not peer reviewed, but I don't know. If a review article in a journal passes peer review, I would imagine that is the gold standard.

Remember, peer review is only applied because the reliability of the information has not yet been established. In itself, it does not impart reliability. It is just another level of culling out mistakes. Dcs002 (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Dcs002, thanks for the comments. I generally have not dealt with university press books. They just aren't common in my field. Journal papers and to a much lesser extent esoteric math text books are the norm. I am curious if there is a way to establish that a university press book has gone through a real peer review process. I can certainly see treating a journal paper, especially a highly cited journal paper as generally more reliable than a book published by a large, reputable, commercial publisher. However as an example, two authors who both seem respected in the field and are both discussing say the politics leading into WW1 (this is an invented example). One book is published by Random House, the other by University of X. Is there any reason, based on the publisher, to favor one vs the other? My reading of your post suggests no. Springee (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Springee, regarding your example, and provided they are equally well sourced, or unsourced, they both represent the opinions of their respective authors. Since the authors are, in your example, both similarly respected in their field, then they both represent primary sources for their differing opinions, and they should be treated as such. IMO, the publisher is not a factor in a case such as this, with everything else being equal. (The fact that they are already equal indicates that the publishers have both done their jobs well.) The reputations of the authors and the quality of their evidence and reasoning (as covered in other RS) mean far more than the publishers in an example like this. I don't know this to be true, but I wonder if it is easier for a faculty member to publish a book through their home institution's press as opposed to a major reputable publisher. If that is the case, it would argue against giving more weight to University of X Press. That's an open question I have for anyone here who has published through that route.
I need to clarify something. You said, "I can certainly see treating a journal paper, especially a highly cited journal paper as generally more reliable than a book published by a large, reputable, commercial publisher." If the paper is a peer-reviewed review paper, then yes, I agree. If it is a peer-reviewed paper reporting original research, I disagree completely, for reasons I gave in my previous post. Such papers should be treated with the customary skepticism with which we treat other primary sources. These papers do not report well established and widely accepted consensus in their field, as is typically the case with "a book published by a large, reputable, commercial publisher." Even widely cited papers can be suspect because we don't immediately know why they have been widely cited. The paper by Andrew Wakefield that originally reported the relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism was widely cited at first because it was influential, and later it was even more widely cited for its notoriety as a fabrication that had adverse health effects worldwide, especially on children. That paper was published in what is (or was) arguably the most reputable medical journal, the Lancet. There are many examples. This might be the most egregious in biomedical sciences, but it clearly illustrates the uncertainty of primary sources. Many rresults in the biosciences are reported but nor replicated. Accepted statistical methods always leave uncertainty, and there is never more uncertainty than in the first report of new data, regardless of peer review. There is no way for peer review to check for the randomness of an observation. Peer review is far from being any kind of insurance against statistical anomalies and observer bias, which are far more common sources of error than falsification of data.
Original research papers offer the first introduction of new evidence to the broader scientific community. Peer review does NOT does not offer that. Peer reviews assess the paper's evaluation of the evidence (and methods and thoroughness, etc.) and assess whether the conclusions are reasonable, not correct. A single research paper is almost meaningless when describing a new phenomenon. It is a starting point for discussion and further research to verify or falsify the conclusions presented, and not in itself a conclusion or a consensus in the field. Dcs002 (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Forbes/Huff Post Contributor Articles - Should we amend policy to explicitly disallow this content?

For those who are not aware both Forbes.com and HuffPost allow unreviewed contributor content that is paid based on ad revenue. This basically amounts to a blog posting under their banners. There is no journalistic oversight nor do they have to disclose their sources or even fact check. Action is only taken on a complaint basis. Therefore I propose that we no longer allow these types of sources to be used as they do not meet the requirements to be verifiable or reliable as we cannot guarantee their journalistic integrity. I wasn't sure is this was a good place to post this however I figured it would be a great place to start. Mrfrobinson (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The NYT and almost every other "reliable source" now allows advertising content to be easily confused with actual journalism, and most papers run press releases on a regular basis. Nor do modern newspapers do "fact checking" as a regular process at all. They are all "competing with the Internet" at a time when their traditional revenue source - paid advertisements in hard copies - has substantially evaporated. And all of them stress "clickbait" headlines so that the difference between current newspapers is not whether they are good, bur whether which is worse than the next. Journalistic integrity? That, alas, is gone with the wind, evanescent for a short period, and now so rare as to beggar belief. "Journalists" regularly cherry-pick quotes to promote controversy, and not to convey matters of fact. Instead of humour, derision is the norm. Irredentism is seen across the globe, frequently with insane amounts of violence. And the concept of "neutral reportage of facts" is one of the main victims. Collect (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I just brought this concept up here (but now archived) [24], in that in the age of opinionated journalism and clickbait-style reporting that is meant to compete with blogs and citizen reporters, "verifyability , not truth" can lead us as WP editors into closet-minding thinking that works against our NPOV policy. We need to be taking middle ground a lot more when it comes to these types of sources, citing them as claims rather than facts and taking them with grains of salt, particulary on on-going developing topics. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion about this very issue at the reliable source noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is the Huffington Post (original content) a reliable source? (2016). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
And in general, if there's an issue with whether a given source is any good, the relevant talkboard and that noticeboard are the best places (in that order) to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. I don't think we want to issue any blanket source bans unless the content is always pretty useless. This isn't Facebook we're talking about. Plus, sometimes a source may be fairly reliable for one topic but not so reliable for others. Wabbott9 Tell me about it.... 19:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The problem is see is there is no oversight over contributed stories on these sites. They amount to personal blogs rebranded under a known banner. Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with all of this so far, but we have a middle ground between RS and banned sources. I think it's a mistake to have as many banned sources as we have. A notable person might write a notable opinion in one of these sources, and we should be able to cite that person's opinion as just that - their opinion, and give the source. That is not a RS, nor does it add to the requirement of in-depth coverage in RS for establishing notability, but as something other than a RS, it's still a source, and we shouldn't have to go through the headache of requesting an exception to the blacklist to use a source in that context. We could simply maintain a list of unreliable sources and use our present system to tag these sources as unreliable when used, thereby assuring readers have a context and giving the admins a break from all the requests for exceptions.
I lament the fall of journalism, like the rest of you do, but information can still be found in non-journalistic sources. If I can use the liner notes of a CD (written by the artist) or the instruction book for a game (written by the game's publisher) as sources (both with have a monetary motivation for their writing), why not these pseudo-journalistic sources? Why are the pseudo-journalistic sources blacklisted when the financially-motivated liner notes and instruction books are not? I say we use them but keep them in context. Dcs002 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

About Chinese Wikipedia

Chinese mainland people couldn't use Chinese Wikipedia for abut 8 months. I also like Chinese Wikipedia but I can't use it...I had been blocked. Can someone unblock it?

I'm trying using English Wikipedia, but I'm Chinese and I can't speak English well. (Maybe there are some mistakes in what I'm saying.) Also, I'm new in English Wikipedia and I can't see the notices in English easily. (Maybe I broke some rules.) Sth in other pages says we can use "代理"(may be it means "agent" in English), but I don't know how to use.

Please try to let Chinese mainland people use Chinese Wikipedia. Thanks!--来自中国的SolidBlocktalk 05:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a screenshot:

--来自中国的SolidBlocktalk 05:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor as well as meta:No open proxies#Exceptions.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images

A proposal for an addition to the Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images has been made at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Motion_to_modify_WP:NFC. Your !vote and comments are welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Images linking to articles

Our page Wikipedia:Images linking to articles explains how to make an image link to something other than the image description page, and mentions "Care should be taken that this is done in compliance with the licensing terms of the file in question, particularly if they require proper attribution." I have a question about this. Is it a correct assumption that linking an image to an article in which it appears and from where the image description page is then linked will satisfy the attribution requirements of all our free licenses? (For example, or ). I am asking this question because there are several WMF coding projects (especially for mobile) currently in beta that pick an image from an article, found by mw:Extension:PageImages, and then link it to that article without providing image credit directly. An example is for example Special:Gather/id/15307/People. As I understand it, we have traditionally required direct visible credit next to an image unless it is linked directly to its image description page. I could not find a page that explicitly allows or prohibits my or the Gather example, though (this type of linking is common elsewhere on the Web, for example on Facebook). While I personally believe we should be role models for the internet and provide proper image credit and attribution above and beyond what is legally required (just like we do not rely on Fair use defences except in special circumstances), I think we should at least be consistent in what we allow. So I think we should do one of the following:

  1. Forbid linking images to articles and restrict mw:Extension:PageImages and similar tools only to use PD images (or only those whose license explicitly allows such a use)
  2. Explicitly allow use of images as in the examples above, in all namespaces.

In any case, I think we should settle this policy question one way or the other before various WMF-written extensions that are currently in beta become widely used, and make it clear what our policy regarding images as links to articles actually is. —Kusma (t·c) 19:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Even providing image credits only when clicking on the image, as we currently do in all our articles, may already be somewhat sketchy license-wise and more so for fair-use images (the common practise outside of Wikipedia is to give credit in the image caption). Using images for navigational purposes would put the image credit at least two clicks away, with a search in between. Creative Commons licenses are extremely vague about attribution requirements, only stating that they should be reasonable for the medium and context [25]. Two clicks certainly seem less reasonable than one... —Ruud 16:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I note that the 4.0 versions of the CC license add "it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information" as an example of a reasonable method of providing the attribution. Anomie⚔ 19:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, so our standard method on Wikipedia is probably acceptable, but the method used by tools such as Special:Gather might even not be OK from a legal point of view? —Kusma (t·c) 20:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Attributing Creative Commons Materials notes that for images and photographs one should "provide the relevant attribution next to the photograph, or close by (eg on the edge or bottom of the page) if that is too obtrusive." And as Anomie points out, CC 4.0 states that a hyperlink to an attribution page may also be sufficient. So Special:Gather pages should probably include either 1) a small link or icon to the image description page on each image, 2) attribution near each image, or 3) a list with image credits at the bottom of each list. If not legally required, then it would at least be good etiquette. —Ruud 03:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, not all of our free images are CC 4.0, and some may have differing requirements, so even if CC 4.0 requires less, Special:Gather pages should conform to what Ruud said. —Kusma (t·c) 09:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Image size discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

recreating a deleted article

When an article is deleted by consensus of the community, using the usual process, the decision should stick. An identical or nearly identical article on the same subject should not be allowed to be put up a few days later as a way of getting around the deletion. In this case I am talking about the article on John Michael Greer, which is basically a puff piece on someone clearly not notable. Soon after its deletion the article simply went up again. The same can be said for many other articles which are nominated for deletion, such as the old article on Edward Forchion, which was deleted at least twice. The purpose of deletion is to discourage people from using Wikipedia for self promotion, or boosting their own ego. some policy should be wired into the system, such as deleting an article for a year. Catherinejarvis (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Catherinejarvis: I see no signs of abuse there. It was deleted in 2013 after an AfD, but an administrator restored it in 2015, if you look at the logs for the page. You could AfD it again, if you feel strongly about it in its current state (past history doesn't count, only the content of it today). Given it was restored by an admin around 12 months ago, I don't believe CSD G4 could easily apply (which would be the way to address a non-admin re-create of a page). If the concerns from the previous AfD are still clearly there, you could cite them and the previous AfD in a new AfD. Murph9000 (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
More importantly, deletion is not a death pact among Wikipedia editors to never have an article exist ever again. For any number of reasons, an article may be deleted at a certain point in time. If the world has changed in the intervening time, then the reasons why an article was originally deleted may be invalid; an admin can make that decision without having to start a new poll. If, however, you think the new article needs to be deleted again, you're allowed to start a new AFD. --Jayron32 18:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jayron32 and Catherinejarvis: Yes, i agree with you, Jayron. Now I look at it again, I realise I didn't respond to the, frankly outrageous, policy proposal. I strongly oppose the entirety of that side of your message, Catherine. The purpose of deletion is most certainly not as you stated, it is to remove a page which does not currently meet WP standards for one of a large number of reasons. An overly promotional article could easily end up being deleted on a person or company which has clear WP:NOTABILITY, due to collective disinterest in improving it at the time. That should in no way be an impediment to someone (with no WP:COI, etc) coming along and creating an article which meets the required standards. Let me give you an example of precisely why that proposal is massively flawed. There's lots of buzz in the industry about the new "Pineapple uPhone", so an article appears. Unfortunately for the uPhone, a month later the article has failed to establish notability and gets deleted via AfD (and the AfD closure notes that it both lacked notability and was too promotional). Two days later, Pineapple launch the thing and it saturates media worldwide, with an abundance of reliable sources and notability appearing in an instant. Your policy would harm Wikipedia by preventing it covering the uPhone for the next 363 days. Murph9000 (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • User and draftspace are filled with hundreds (maybe even thousands) of content already deleted. Generally, it could go through DRV if you'd like to require that but I don't think anyone wants DRV to become a clog when most of them are simple requests for restoration (and AFC refunds have teh advantage of G13 again). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Catherinejarvis, in my experience with AfD discussions, most of them seem to be about notability. A LOT of articles get deleted for not having notability established by RS at the time of the AfD, and many are indeed about notable topics. They simply lacked sourcing and TLC. (IMO, they should have been tagged, not deleted.) They did not lack notability, just the sourcing. They are repairable. I created an article about a rock opera (Pink World) that had been deleted 5 years earlier (making the album 30 years old at the time I resurrected the article). I sourced it and built it up (along with the artist's page), and it's a pretty decent, stable article now, and has been for a year and a half. All the sources to establish notability (over time) were easily obtainable with simple Google searches. It just seems that no one tried. I think we need to keep the option open for this reason, as well as those mentioned above. Some articles get deleted when they are repairable. Let's not close the door on fixing our mistakes. Dcs002 (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Hmmm . . . based on my experience with AfD's, a whole lot of them seems to be about some vendetta against some editor. But, I do agree with you, if only editors would spend time repairing articles (and overcoming their petty grudges), AfD's wouldn't be quite the time sink they have become. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 19:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Your sources are largely from 2014. Don't forgot that it's entirely possible that these results actually didn't exist five years ago (Google didn't crawl as much and a lot of stuff wasn't published online). Still, valid point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
That's true Ricky, but it brings up another point. A lot of the sources needed for that article have been in print media since 1984. We have become addicted to online sources. (Myself included.) If we can't find it online, we tend to think it doesn't exist rather than thinking it's just not available online. Yes, it's more difficult to go to the library than Google, but I think our dependence on immediate, convenient, free, online verifiability is a real problem. There were plenty of print sources in 2009 for that article. (I cited several issues of Billboard, one issue of Faces, and the liner notes from the CD itself, all available in print since 1985 at the latest, and all of which show the access date of 2014 because that's when I wrote the article and accessed the scanned print versions online.) Our default assumption is that if no one has searched them out, then there is no notability. We don't tag and ask for help with print sources, we go right to AfD, whether we're familiar enough to understand the subject's notability or not. The subject of that Pink World article was notable in 2009. Notability is permanent, but no one got out of their chair to figure it out. Dcs002 (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, Google books hadn't scanned as many old stuff as they now. Even their snippet view is quite helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Ooh Ricky81682, there's another hot-button issue for me. Snippets and abstracts can be a minefield. We can't really tell what context is missing. They are useful, but I think we also rely on them too much, and I think many editors get their information from abstracts without labeling the citation as a abstract, suggesting the content came from the actual article. I think that should also apply to snippet views. Yes, they are quite helpful, but they should be labeled as such when used as sources to indicate the reliability issue related to their incompleteness and lack of context. Dcs002 (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
People can do that with the full context. There's enough instances of "here's a string of words that use the words I want" as a citation for me to be used to that. The problem is we don't know whether the person who is adding the citation itself was using the snippet or the full version itself and the person who is most likely to be misusing a snippet is the person least likely to report that. George Akerlof would have plenty to say about that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion on deletion of stale drafts.

In response to a few recent DRV's, I've started a discussion to hash out a uniform policy on deletion of stale drafts. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Policy_discussion:_When_is_it_appropriate_to_delete_stale_drafts.3F to participate in the discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC for multiple letter capitalisations at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

There is a RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Please can people go and comment. Thanks, Tom29739 (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC).

Page view statistics not working

One of the most popular features for me on Wikipedia is the tab called "page view statistics" in which one can, quickly and easily, view the number of page views for an article during its history. This feature disappeared about 2 weeks ago and I see some discussion of a new system. Hey, keep it simple for those of us who are computer illiterates, keep it accessible -- but keep it! It's important. And we like it. The way it is. Or was. Smallchief (talk 23:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This has already been talked about in many other places. But I guess here is also good. The feature was maintained by Henrik who (seemingly) left Wikipedia. As part of the m:2015 Community Wishlist Survey the WMF is going to take over page view statistics. They already have a demo set up, it is working, and up-to-date. It can also be used to compare different article views with each other. See https://analytics.wmflabs.org/demo/pageview-api/ for the demo. --Majora (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I looked at the demo. It's very slow and cumbersome -- and only accessible with research and effort. Smallchief (talk 00:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, WP:VPT may be a better place for this discussion. This is a technical, rather than policy, issue. --Jayron32 23:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
What I know about policy and technical subjects can be put in a thimble, but I liked the page view feature where it could easily be found and required a single click. I'll check out WP:VPT. Thanks. Smallchief (talk 00:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

The existing policy is: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

It seems that you have a Conflict of Interest system that does not work. In any organisation with integrity, a Conflict of Interest has a mechanism to be investigated and resolved. I am discovering that Wikipedia has no practical way of doing this. I am being told (perhaps incorrectly) that provided you do not disclose your Conflict of Interest within Wikipedia, then you can do what you want. If you establish yourself with other users and understand the rules, then you are effectively above suspicion. So a person could be using a range of social media, perhaps even promoting themselves as Wikipedia PR specialists, and there is nothing that can be done to stop them (or their team) to full-time edit content, promote clients or their organisations. I have seen some indication that the people who are running the Conflict of Interest page, may be full-time PR professionals. Your Conflict of Interest system should not be defeatable by allying with other conflicted editors other means.

Here are the recommendations:

  1. There should be a clear reporting procedure for Conflict of Interest
  2. The people with authority and training to discuss Conflict of Interest cases should be identifiable by editors.
  3. Conflict of Interest policy must align with best practices, and cannot be watered down by PR companies.
  4. Evidence for a conflict of Interest from outside wikipedia should be allowable, provided it is not public. Surely there is a way of blocking a page from all users except for the parties involved.
  5. Conflict of Interest and other serious violations claims are not, in themselves, personal attacks. It should be expected that the suspicion of a Conflict of Interest is going to be connected with reasonable complaints about editing.
  6. Conflict of Interest applies to the past and the present. An editor under contract to do work, their edits exist and they are not free because the contractual relationship ended. So the sanction must be to remove the edits generated by the contract and not allow them to be restored. Otherwise, they will return after a few months.
  7. Conflict of Interest must extend to clearly to political attacks and commercial attacks.
  8. There should be different severity levels for Conflict of Interest. A president of a small community group should not face the same level of scrutiny as the PR team of a presidential Super-Pac.
  9. The sanctions for Conflict of Interest must be to ban users from editing all pages. The person cannot go ahead with other contracts.
  10. The benefit of declaring a Conflict of Interest must be obvious advantageous and provide protection.

Travelmite (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC) (changed by Travelmite in this dif, fixed by Jytdog in this dif))

The first problem is to identify conflict of interest edits. This is not easy, unless the cases are very blatant. This is the more tricky since we allow anonymous editors on Wikipedia and allow (and even encourage) editors to use pseudonyms we cannot take action before the behaviour gives prove of conflict of interest.
Persistent Conflict of Interest editing can be, and are considered as disruptive editing and can (and has led) to blocking the involved editor (and evidence from outside Wikipedia is often used to make the case); and the included material is usually removed, regardless whether stuff was written under contract, under personal interest or otherwise. Wikipedia just does not allow sentences to be removed permanently and changing that would touch the fabric of the encyclopedia.
These procedures are not perfect, but the statements above give little practical advice how to get to better procedures.
E.g. how can we find authorities and training? Whose best practices (and where do we find those)?
Your other suggesitons tend to be followed already (e.g. while a declared CoI may lead to removal of material, blocking editors entirely is rare - because the editor was open; while this happens frequently for hidden CoI's.).
So before we continue this. Could you provide a practical way in which a community that prides itself with the slogan that everyone can edit; and which is based on anonymous volunteers; to make your suggestions work, without changing these core values? Arnoutf (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The first problem is to identify conflict of interest edits. Actually this is really easy because no one is free of COI. So every editor here has a COI. Not one individual editor here is bias free including myself. Which is why I find all this stone throwing pointless bullying a complete waste of time.
Or . . . more accurately, it has become a Wikipedia sanctioned witch hunt! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 20:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
      • So far I've seen just about every editor who gets stuck with that COI tag on them banned. It really is a death sentence here on Wikipedia.
So . . . can someone show me a COI editor that hasn't been harassed or bullied? One will do, however, more would be preferred, especially if they can speak for themselves. Or . . . do they in fact not exist??? Because, if so, then this is a huge, problem. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 06:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
People being paid to ruin Wikipedia articles for the financial gain of other entities have more resources to continue to do so against the purely volunteer editors who do so solely for the benefit of having a quality, neutrally written source for the world to use. That is, as long as people are being paid to push a particular, and decidedly non-neutral, point of view in support of the entities paying them will always win against people who are just here for the love of it, unless we have specific policies in place empowering the unpaid volunteers to refuse to admit the paid liars to the club merely for being paid liars. Unless we do so, the paid liars have the resources to simply overtake Wikipedia by brute force, so long as we take the false notion that anything anyone cares to write is equally valuable, without regard for principles such as adherence to neutrality and verifiability. --Jayron32 07:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • People being paid to ruin Wikipedia Wait? What? First off, I do not believe any COI editor comes to Wikipedia hoping to ruin it. That would also effectively ruin their source of income. Second, I believe most paid Wikipedia editors are only doing it to put food on the table. I have a huge luxury here, I can walk away from all this and still maintain a roof over my head. I would never call the level of harassment I see inflicted upon COI editors as winning. In fact, what I do ascertain from your description is a power hungry, narcissistic, sense of entitlement. My point is that any editor, paid or not, are of equal value to Wikipedia as long as they both ascribe to the terms of neutrality and verifiability. But Wikipedia seems determined to put some proverbial star on certain editors.
fyi - The issue most of Wikipedia appears to ignore is the COI with Google and Jimbo. They're ballin' due to Wikipedia! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 00:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "I have seen some indication that the people who are running the Conflict of Interest page, may be full-time PR professionals." That's quite an accusation. Please provide evidence or take it back as soon as your current block is expired. Fail to do so and I will block you again. For the information of the other editors here, the above post seems to be fall-out from this post to the COIN noticeboard, where this user accused another editor of having a COI without ever providing any evidence. --Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps, slow down? The COIN board is by its nature a place with those with COI (and others) are going to post, it seems that is the context of the 'running the board' comment. But what that comment does not take into account is basically no one runs anything around here, and that seems to be the realization of the other comments, ie., we only have limited ability to deal with COI, as we have limited ability to deal with most things, and our only fall back is the good faith of those involved. I have noticed, over and over again, that this situation of uncertainty is often quite stressful to new users, and even experienced users. If there is any solace to be had, here, philosophically, I might recommend reading one of the first things I read on Wikipedia, negative capability. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
No accusation was intended. As requested, the wording has been removed with my full-agreement. I should have made clear that I only intended to mean it was theoretical possibility. I apologise and can explain. In my opinion, this serious risk comes first from several news articles -- well resourced PR firms were identified being paid to edit Wikipedia articles. There are weaknesses with the COI pages. I agree, most crucial to this view was the severe reaction to my complaint, despite following (or trying to follow) the guidelines. This includes (and I mention it to help understand the connection to this policy proposal):
  1. being told I must publish "evidence" before I had finished collecting it or assessing it
  2. having unknown ordinary editors contact me, explaining some points, but also issuing what I felt were inexplicable directions
  3. being directed to steer away from COI to just NPOV
  4. no answers to questions about process or how to protect the other user's privacy
  5. being directed to policies that were, at best, obscurely connected to the matter at hand
  6. being rushed, and at the same time being told to prepare carefully
  7. having the thread summarily closed
Again, may I make clear that various possibilities crossed my mind. Reasonable risks, some of which are relevant to designing systems.
I hope the admin understands that not presenting the "evidence" immediately was the right decision. I am wary of public publication, even if I am only linking Wikipedia pages. Every person deserves fairness and protection from overreaction. Without making an accusation, voluntarily COI disclosures are better than punitive action. What happens after evidence is presented? That is so unclear. At the moment, it's just unconnected words on system. Let's be aware there is a real world out there too - jobs and reputations. We should be seeking positive outcomes. Travelmite (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not going to engage with you here Travelmite except to say two things. First, you say that your now-struck statement was not an accusation; that is not credible - the statement was a direct claim of corruption and plainly stated, and was clearly directed at me. Second - You don't understand how we think about COI in Wikipedia, you don't understand WP:HARASSMENT, and you don't understand how the community navigates the tension between the value, very deeply held by the community, on privacy, and the not-as-deeply-held value of protecting the integrity of WP. Yet you are full of judgments and accusations. As you have been advised by others many times, I suggest you stop making accusations and trying to change things, and instead try to learn. I would be willing to re-engage with you on your Talk page, whenever you like. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I wrote a full apology on my talk page, regarding the struck out section. I hope that it's accepted. Irrespective of my faults, I absolutely assure you that nothing you have done was suspicious of anything resembling corruption. Whatever our disagreements or misunderstandings, it seems to me you are genuinely interested in doing the right thing in a less than workable system, which maybe you were warning me to stay away from. If you see my point 3, it says "PR companies" plural. I do make a number of criticisms of the whole COI system, it occurred to me that maybe (some level of possible) a PR company had an idea to somehow make their activities easier by making COI complaints harder. I want to make clear that this is only a theoretical possibility. Travelmite (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You wrote an empty apology on your Talk page, denying what you have actually done. But I don't care about that - I don't need an apology from you. What is most important is that you get properly oriented to how Wikipedia works. You do not understand Wikipedia nor its COI management approach well enough to criticize it. There are so many things wrong with what you have done, including trying to create drama here at the Village Pump, and the things you are still writing are incorrect or are based on incorrect assumptions. Like I said, I would be happy to try to teach you, on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Please try to discuss the content. I am not intending you to see these as personal criticisms, but system criticisms. This is what I experienced as a first-time trying to report something. Why couldn't it happen to the next person too? Have a look at what is have written in the recommendations? Travelmite (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I see no way to police conflicts of interest, and in some cases it may not be a good idea, since sometimes only those directly involved in a topic are motivated to update Wikipedia. As someone who hangs out at AfC, the main COI problem that I see is that it pays off. If it didn't, then we wouldn't have a problem. In particular, the use of WP to gain SEO for companies and certain individuals makes COI inevitable and the results highly rewarding. I think we need to tighten up some of our policies regarding CORP and BLP so that it's less easy to exploit WP for gain. LaMona (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The obvious cases are policed now, and these obvious cases come up because the users just naively think it's a reasonable thing to put their company or organisation online here. Part of the solution above is to make it less of a big deal to have a COI. Then editors can declare their COI, and be mostly treated the same as everyone else. They would be doing the right thing voluntarily. If that happened then, any tricker editors trying to beat the system would be easier to spot. Travelmite (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I find it highly amusing that Wikipedia has determined that being paid must mean that those editors are "bought and paid" for. Yet, at the same time, Wikipedia will only use RS that someone was paid to write. Wikipedia refuses to use individual blogs, blogs that were written by unpaid editors. Wikipedia admires and strives to be just like Britannica Encyclopedia, an encyclopedia written by paid editors. That's some ironic set-up right there!
But here's the best part, all of Wikipedia got played by Jimbo, and now it's Google's turn. Well, done! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 19:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Sources with a reputation for reliability and editorial control, as opposed to randos who claim to know The Truth. You can have one or the other. Not both. --Jayron32 23:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • All of the sources that Wikipedia believes are reliable are created by individuals who are paid. Wikipedia won't use a single source that was written by an unpaid editor. That's what's called an oxymoron. Also, Wikipedia has nothing to do with "The Truth," only about verifiability! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 06:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia doesn't delve into the employment status of the people who write reliable sources. Wikipedia does not want people to edit whereby they have a financial motivation to violate Wikipedia policies in order to use Wikipedia's popularity to promote untrue or inaccurate, but flattering, writing about the people or organizations paying them. I'm not sure why you refuse to acknowledge that people have motivations other than "to build Wikipedia", and that we don't want those people using the established popularity of Wikipedia has a means of promoting themselves through writing that is in direct contravention of the very principles that made Wikipedia itself popular as a source of information, like NPOV. That's the issue. --Jayron32 11:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia instead delves into the employment status of their own editors. See how this isn't any better?!
Editors are motivated by all kinds of things, having a financial motivation does not mean that an editor will violate Wikipedia's policies. Or, are you implying that all financial motivations are suspect? That editors should mistrust everything, ever done, that anyone got any financial reimbursement? Because then Wikipedia should distrust the sources it uses.
Also, why isn't Wikipedia more suspect about Google? They have the biggest financial motivation here. Or, is it because Google is the only reason Wikipedia remains a top web site? I've got to wonder, "Would Wikipedia be as popular as it is now without the of Google?" --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 00:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
There is not going to be one solution that fits everything. It seems you're both making interesting philosophical points that are not in major disagreement. Thanks for your points of view, but if you could be a bit specific and maybe have a comment or two on what was recommended. Travelmite (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

AfD culture

I have been participating in AfD for a few months now. The culture of deletion is becoming rather aggressive. Is anyone else experiencing this? Is there any way that we can look at policies to help slow down the process?

My suggestions would include:

  1. requiring AfD nominators to do WP:BEFORE. I've found quite a few articles nominated with so-called "no room for improvement found" as the reason for AfD and I and a few other users are able to find reliable sources within hours (or minutes on Google nonetheless!)
  2. give articles breathing space. Several new articles have been up for AfD. This is especially problematic when we have a new user who doesn't know about putting up a template to indicate the article is still under construction.
  3. create additional criteria surrounding topics that are more difficult to research, such as areas where there is a language barrier or where history has ignored the achievements of various groups based on race, culture, religion/lack of religion, gender or non-conformity.

I know this has been discussed in the past, but I think it needs to be discussed again. I just witnessed a new user give up over an AfD. (See Malissa A. O'Dubhtaigh: which I'm not saying necessarily meets GNG, but it wasn't given time and the user was handled brusquely.) Wikipedia is about amassing all human knowledge, as I see it, and all voices should be welcome and feel welcome. The aggressive culture of deletion is frustrating even to most hardened editors.

Any suggestions out there? Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There has been this culture in some quarters for a long time, for example look at the very early history and discussion of Oscar Werner Tiegs. Also have a look at WP:ODNT.
Perhaps no one is allowed nominate an article for deletion unless they have actually created somewhere in their history at least a few new articles themselves, which did not get deleted . . ? 152.91.10.22 (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl I would be loathe to work on this article because the lawsuit involved, which stretched out ten+ years, appears to be the only source. There was a name change during the process and since there are no sources to guide us, how can we be sensitive to the preferred name of the party. Further, in reading the suit, the party has felt her medical privacy was not protected. While I encourage diversity and would wish that Wikipedia did as well, this particular article seems like an invasion of privacy. SusunW (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
But that being said, the culture of deletion on here is ver frustrating. If one must check boxes and give rationale to even post a picture, it baffles me that anyone and everyone can nominate an article for deletion without the skill to weigh notability or do any sort of research beforehand. I cannot understand why improvement rather than deletion is not the key. SusunW (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
While you can see my postings on deletionism above, I'm not even sure it's a culture. What I've seen is the positive practice of a few people "patrolling" for vandalism and other negative stuff turn into "I'll delete every new page and let the admins/other editors sort it out." Given the effort involved in getting something into Wikipedia these days, such intellectually dishonest activity discourages nearly anyone making a new article. With some of the articles I commented on in AfD, the creator would ask simple questions about the rationale for the deletion and get absolutely nothing, except the odd "per nom." Once the drive-by deletion happens, the editor in question almost never returns. My favorite had to be an article that was discussed in AfC for ages. Someone took responsibility, wrote the page, and had it marked for deletion essentially as soon as it was submitted. This is how Wikipedia actively drives away contributors.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: I would like to echo the above suggestions and well as emphasize Wikipedia:CSD: unless the article created meets said criteria, don't nominate it for speedy deletion; if it is up for deletion, calmly let creators know tips and give them time to improve the article and send words of encouragement, maybe an encouraging emoticon along with the words. Sam.gov (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Sam.gov:, I like that idea. I really think we need to nurture editors more often. I was on Wiki for a long time before I felt confident enough to edit, let along create my own articles. It is intimidating. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, It can get intimidating during the time before editors become more confident. Sam.gov (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The culture of "bigger and more is better" has been proven troubling to reputations again and and again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree entirely with TRPOD. Wikipedia is not and has never been "about amassing all human knowledge"; it has a very specific remit to only cover material which is demonstrably covered in multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, and admins deleting material which doesn't fit that remit are acting entirely correctly. As this is an absolute core policy of Wikipedia, there is no realistic prospect of any discussion ever changing it as long as Wikipedia remains in its current form. ‑ iridescent 21:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no absolute requirement for multiple sources even today. GNG does not say that: "generally", where it appears in GNG, means "most", not "all". Also, it is the sum total of coverage in all sources which must be non trivial. James500 (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying bigger is better. You're right, all human knowledge is impossible, I was being hyperbolic in my attempt to describe why I think it's important to have diversity in Wiki. Thanks for calling that out--I should write more concisely sometimes. However, what I am worried about, and why I brought up the topic is that I think that there really is a deletionist culture. I've observed a pattern over time, and so have a few others on WikiPedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red. For example, I have run into plenty of AfD pages where the nominators often say they've done WP:BEFORE, when they clearly haven't. Sometimes, the nominator will even say they have additional information, but because it's "not in the article," the article should be deleted. I understand that editors want others to follow through and add information when they say they will, but just because someone else didn't add that info, why can't you add it? I only tag articles when I don't have time to add the info myself. If I see an article with a tag, I fix it. It doesn't take long. Why aren't we doing that more often? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The obvious answer; because you have 3458 active editors (with "active" defined loosely as 100 edits in the last month), of whom 580 are admins, dealing with 5 million articles, and it's not reasonable to expect us to do everyone else's work for them when they can't be bothered to do it themselves. If you haven't already, it's a salutary exercise to look at the new pages backlog; those highlighted in yellow are the ones that nobody has looked at. "If you see an article with a problem, fix it" is a laudable aim, but completely impractical unless Wikipedia can drastically grow its editor base or throttle the article creation rate; the former has resisted every effort to address it, and every attempt to address the latter has been vetoed by the WMF. ‑ iridescent 22:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
That is nonsense. No meaningful attempt whatsoever has been made to increase the number of editors, active or otherwise. Quite the opposite has happened. The editor retention problem is caused by excessive deletion. The only way to increase the number of editors, active or otherwise, is to reduce deletions by performing corrective surgery on the (unsatisfactory) deletion processes and (vague and questionable) deletion criteria. James500 (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@James500: No meaningful attempt whatsoever has been made to increase the number of editors See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention -- this wikiproject appears to be dead?
The only way to increase the number of editors, active or otherwise, is to reduce deletions I would not go as far as to say that reducing deletions is the ONLY way to increase the number of editors, but I agree it is a very important step. Here is a small example I just bumped into:
The article I started about Jenny Doan has been sitting as a lonely stub since I started it in February 2014. Then in April 2015 a new editor, User:Drbillnye added some info to it, but when I checked the editor’s history I saw he had only one edit. A check of the editor's talk page revealed that he tried to add more in the form of an article, but the article was deleted by user:NawlinWiki and remains as a red link on Jenny Doan. I assume User:Drbillnye will become one of the many missed opportunities we have had to add new editors? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
@James500:@Ottawahitech: I think it's a stretch to say that the number of editors has gone down primarily or only because of article deletion. I also think it's a mistake to allow poorly-sourced articles to be left on this page in perpetua. As for the claim that we lost Drbillnye because his article was deleted, 1) the article was deleted because it was promotional/an advertisement, likely because it was sourced solely from the quilt company and maybe even copy-pasted from the quilt company's website, and 2) how do we know that he would've contributed on anything non-quilt company related anyway? pbp 16:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: We don't know if the editor would have contributed anything to other topics, but if they only added some info to any of the articles in Category:Quilting that would be awsome. Just my $.02 & thanks for pinging me. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
Off-topic @Ottawahitech: Unless there has been a recent change in the code that runs Wikipedia, pings can't be corrected by merely fixing typos. You have to add a new ~~~~ at the same time you fix the typo, then if you want, go back and remove the signature (or remove the "original" signature if you prefer). And no, merely replacing your existing signature with a new one won't work. Since your ping didn't work, I'm going to mention Purplebackpack89 here so that he will get the notification and look up the screen and see your message. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@James500:@Ottawahitech:I'm a great example, I had never tried to contribute to a wikipedia article before, took me about an hour to try and figure out the interface and tribal lore that goes around proper formatting and the like, then the articles I was trying to link to, if I recall correctly, were articles from the WSJ, NBC Nightly News, MSNBC and I was probably using the a history of the company that I'd written and used elsewhere (either on the site or on other articles) - if that was taboo, I didn't know. I had one article get deleted because it was promotion (the one about the quilt company I believe) and then my edits to Mom's page were nixed for some other reason, my takeaway was that the wiki editor circle were a bunch of pretentious pricks who would rather hack me down and the time and effort that went into my attempts to help build a good article rather than help teach me how to drive value and I didn't bother to come back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbillnye (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 November 2015‎ @James500:@Ottawahitech: I think this is for you, it was unsigned so the pings never went out. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe this is exactly the typical experience of most new editors. And it's happening multiple X's a day on Wikipedia. Frankly, I'd say Wikipedia would have a better chance of trying to get out a red wine stain by using yellow mustard, then it does of keeping new editors. Especially those editors who write! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 20:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I totally get what you are saying Megalibrarygirl. I don’t see anyone asking the admins to do everything. I do agree that there is a “get rid of articles” culture on here and have pointed out on more Another example than one occasion to those who say “I would vote to keep if someone would edit the article” that good prose is not a requirement. Then there is the ever popular “editor doesn’t appear to be active” (isn’t that own?, who cares if the creator is active?), and “I see no better improvement” (because if the article is complete and notability is not debatable why would anyone need to improve it?) Seems like a lot of whining and little action on the part of some. Usually I just fix what I see that is problematic. I have rarely asked an admin for anything. What I see is a small group of people, who don't appear to be admins, who nominate every file they can for deletion. I also see a trend of an unwillingness to make Wikipedia an inclusive or welcoming platform, which will result in poor retention. Nothing is written in simple, straightforward or friendly language. (Admittedly, after a year, I still don't know what 1/2 the acronyms that are bandied about mean, and I don't think I want to). Group A and Group B are forever opposing each other as well as any ideas for improving the overall performance. I try to avoid all the drama and save what articles I can. When it gets too stressful, I walk away or just go silent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusunW (talk • contribs) 00:29, 10 October 2015
Absolutely! I started this discussion because I believe we can change things. The place to create change is through discussion. I have spent time in the backlogs working to source tagged articles. With the amount of female bios at a measly 15%, I try to source as many as I can in order to at least satisfy GNG. I understand the frustration with many created biographies, but many are actually notable...just because the nominator knows nothing about the topic, doesn't mean no notability. Case in point: looking at new articles, hardly any are women, and the ones who are, are often sports figures or models. Interestingly, a female sports figure with 1 reference often gets an AfD pass, but not other women. Something's off with that. I want to see things change. Let's see what we are able to do. For example, how can we get hard data to support what I and others are observing? I might think there is a problem, but I'd prefer numbers to "it seems." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I was active last year for a few months in AfD discussions, and it bothered me deeply that most of them were about notable subjects, but nobody involved in the AfD discussions looked for RS to establish that. That is grounds for a stub tag. That is grounds for doing the work yourself before nominating. I found myself working long hours every day to save articles from deletion, regardless of the topic (I don't care about role-playing games or "onomastics", but I worked to save those articles anyway), and in the end there was only one I couldn't save. This onus has to be placed on the person nominating the article for deletion. So many of them talk about "your" article instead of seeing all articles as "our" articles. Megalibrarygirl, I agree with you completely on requiring WP:BEFORE in order to nominate an article for deletion. iridescent, "it's not reasonable to expect us to do everyone else's work for them when they can't be bothered to do it themselves." This is not "everyone else's work." This is our work. Right there is the problem. We are a community with a common purpose, not factions of "us" who do the work and "them" who don't. And we can never say why someone stopped working on an article (or "can't be bothered"). I think we would have more people participating if this was not such an adversarial environment. We don't have enough admins and people working clean-up, but we certainly do not have enough people doing the work to save good articles from the excessive AfDs for notable subjects that just need a quick Google search.
We are not supposed to "own" articles as editors, but I think we all know that people do. They will revert everything that did not originate with them. Try editing an article for a popular progressive rock album. Or worse, try starting a new article on any music album. It's often an exercise in futility to contribute and make meaningful changes. I got worn down. In AfD discussions I felt beaten down. Nobody tries to help articles before nomination, and discussions are full of competing acronyms, as if they were etched in stone, and everybody (myself included) is convinced they are right. But again, I rescued several articles from deletion, all but one. Had I not taken the time to provide the RS for notability, no one else would, and they would be gone. Then when someone decides to start a new article and sees that a previous version was deleted already, how likely are they to continue? A stub tag (or other tag) is enough to tell readers the article might be a little iffy. If editors have time to patrol and nominate AfDs, they could instead use that time to improve things. More editors might stick with it without all that unnecessary struggle. WP is always a work in progress, and that means a certain percentage of our articles are always going to be stubs under development. "It's been a stub for years," I heard. "What have you done to change that?" is my question. The answer is always the same: nominate it for deletion. Sorry about the tirade. If things were more cooperative, WP would be a lot more rewarding, and a lot more diverse. Right now we have a selection bias - editors who are willing to put up with the struggles are the ones contributing. Dcs002 (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
👍 Like Dcs002 I think you about covered the problem. It is exhausting. Mostly I work on women because as a member of several Wikiprojects on women, those are the alerts I see. But I recently saved a multiple award winning French male architect, and a couple of movies which I have never even seen or heard of because they came into my viewing range. I don't go to the Afd page, it is too overwhelming to think of all the files that have been nominated. Maybe there are indeed a lot that aren't notable, but in my experience most that I have worked on just needed sourcing and a little TLC. SusunW (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with Dcs002 and SusunW. I want to see the culture change. The same people are nominating articles for deletion without doing WP:BEFORE. Also, I love the way that you emphasize that it's not about us vs. them... it's about all of us creating a better resource. I think that deletion is especially problematic because others took time to create something and other editors are trashing the creations. Please note, I'm not saying that EVERY article needs to be kept! But let's exercise more care. Let's see what we can do to create a better environment for newbies and let's work on the AfD area. It shouldn't be exhausting or frustrating. How can we do that? Who do we need to get on board with looking at this? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

While I would agree that there are many self-proclaimed deletionists active in Wikipedia and some good material gets discarded, not all all deletion-related discussions are groundless. Just a look at recent nominations reveals some obvious problems. An article about a video game which is entirely unsourced and contains very little information. A film-related trope pointed by Roger Ebert that may be notable but has otherwise received very little coverage. An article about a local police department in Alaska with not much material to cover. Articles about music performers and bands with no particular level of success (two album releases at best). A minor organization which was briefly in the news in 2007 but has not had any coverage since. A Star Wars-related podcast that got some positive comments a few years ago, with no evidence of lasting influence.

Unsourced articles might have potential for growth, but some are only of interest to their creators and others are potential hoaxes. For example, Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia lists examples of hoax articles that went unnoticed for years. An article on "Jack Robichaux", supposedly a 19th-century serial rapist, existed for 10 years before someone questioned his existence. "Pikes on Cliffs" was an article on a 16th century house with both historical significance and a related legend. It took 9 years before some people realized this article was fabricated. More embarrassing for Wikipedia is that some hoaxes are pointed out by newspapers critical of our accuracy.

Meanwhile, images that get deleted often are tagged for copyright issues. This includes book covers, album covers, screenshots, etch. All to avoid potential legal troubles for Wikipedia. That something is available does not make it free for use. This can get very frustrating when searching for some image that can be found everywhere except Wikipedia.

While habitual deletionists may get annoying, indiscriminately accepting any contribution may be the wrong idea. Dimadick (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely no one on this thread has advocated for "indiscriminately accepting any contribution". I believe that each person has agreed that GNG with RS should remain the norm. The issue is the "rush to delete". If it harms no one (i.e. is not a biography of a living person) there is time to review the article and fix any problematic areas. There is certainly time to communicate with the creator and try to mentor them through the process, as well. If one does not have the skill to search for sources to improve an article, then they also do not have the skill to evaluate whether it is notable and should not be allowed to propose it for deletion. (And we can tit for tat all day about deletions - I fixed Pakistan's trade secretary today who was prodded. Clearly notable, government bio, took about 10 minutes to add sources, at most). SusunW (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Dimadick, I agree with your entire post. I also saw many articles that were blatant advertising for investors and bios for clearly non-notable people (including one by a kid that broke my heart to !vote down, along with everyone else - I hope he eventually understood). While I was participating in AfD discussions, I don't recall seeing a discussion for any recorded work that I would not consider notable under WP:ALBUM, though there was the occasional local band with their own page, and I think they were usually written by fans. I could be wrong with my memory, but I recall about half of the articles on the AfD list being clearly articles that should be deleted, and half being either blatantly notable with inadequate sourcing or questionably notable. My belief is that it hurts us to delete articles because notability is questionable, so I guess I'm an inclusionist.
But the biggest problem, IMO, is the attitude of absolutism in AfD discussions. There is no discussion. Too often there is an acronym cited and an entrenched opinion. When I have fixed articles, or even tried to fix them, I have perceived an attitude of resentment and on many occasions warnings that "we" were just going to delete the article anyway because somehow they knew, without looking for sources or viewing my changes, that there was no way an article or subject could be "made" notable (made, as opposed to being notable). Sorry, another tirade. I guess my experience was more frustrating than I remembered, and maybe I've been carrying some emotional baggage for a while. Dcs002 (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
@Dcs002: I think you're spot on. It's a big encyclopedia, and there are a couple of great folks in AfD, but I would say that that there is this notion among many AfD editors that things like notability are these platonic sorts of things -- abstract ideals which a topic either does or does not embody. Also, if an article creator dares stand up for their work (few do), that's a paddling deleting. So, while we must assume good faith, people should try to acknowledge non-extremist views about notability and such.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the wake-up call. I need to say that not everyone in AfD discussions was as obstinate as I described. (They were just the ones that made it such a miserable experience.) There were many thoughtful editors as well, and the closers were always very thoughtful and considerate. Dcs002 (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI, the same culture exists throughout the XfD spectrum. Sometimes it seems that certain editors are more interesting in amassing stats for how many of X they successfully nominate for deletion. I have participated in a few of those discussions, and sometimes agreed that deletion was needed, but only after doing my own research on the nominee. I don't see how anyone can possibly research all of the nominees for deletion, and vote on every one of them, within the span of just a few minutes, but that's what some people seem to manage. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  04:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, several of us here agree that we have a problem. What is the next step after we're done preaching to the choir? What action can we take? What remedies are available? And more importantly, who wants to stick their neck out and take charge of that action? Dcs002 (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest starting with Megalibrarygirl's initial proposal to require more work be done before a nomination can go through, echoing SusunW's points about adding files. There is also something to be said for enacting and enforcing a temporary freeze (perhaps a week) on nomination of new articles except where they need to be speedied. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 07:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I just saw this. The entire aggressive attitude of deletionists has been baffling to me for years. They do not seem to be motivated by logic, even when the debate points are overwhelming them. I understand there is a lot of junk out there that needs to be cleaned up, but once the substance of an article is established, a reasonable person would back off. You can see the wave of reasonable people switch their "votes" (I know they aren't really votes, but they are). These deletionists do not back off. They fight to their last breath trying to get legitimate content deleted. I have publicly suspected there is some accrual of brownie points for the most scalps. Worse yet, sometimes they find a corrupt administrator to back them up and they win, forever dooming a valid subject to the perceived WP:SALT, even if not specifically administered. What shocks me the most is how uninformed these people are. They dabble in subjects they do not understand, dismiss sources that are the top of their field, and do not do the required research WP:BEFORE posting their attack. Frustrated as I am about the cases I've seen lost, I have a pretty good record of successful defense when I get involved. I see some names over and over, pushing repeatedly against . . . facts. There should be a penalty for bringing too many unsuccessful (the only way to categorize unfounded) attacks on articles. Once they reach a quota, they should be prohibited from making another proposal for a period of time. If they continue to lose, add to that length of time. You'd think they would learn, but some just won't get it. At some point, ban the serious, serial abusers from ever making another proposal for deletion. Trackinfo (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Given that a large cadre of editors on Wikipedia could be categorized as deletionists, I think any steps taken would have to be modest and incremental. If we can get away from the culture of deleting most every new page straightaway for others to deal with, that would be a serious start. Some of my thoughts are: 1) require Prod'ing first, and only allow a second user to AfD, not the initial prodder 2) Make filing an AfD at least as hard as uploading an image. Lots of questions about "have you really done WP:BEFORE? and have you tried improving this page." 3) Prevent articles that have had a favorable AfC outcome from getting immediately AfD'd 4) Require each nomination to, if at all possible, bring up specific actionable items that could make the page suitable. I'm sure there are lots of better ideas out there, but beginning to talk concretely is a good start.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Etamni: you said certain editors are more interested in amassing stats for how many of X they successfully nominate for deletion.
I also made the same observation, noting that it only takes seconds for nominators to initiate a deletion discussion which requires at least three complicated edits:
  • Creating a new page for the deletion discussion
  • Notifying the creator of the page of the deletion discussion
  • Putting a banner on the page nominated for deletion
optional:
Ottawahitech,
You missed transcluding the AFD page into the list, but it actually doesn't require any complicated edits at all. Instead, it requires three quick and simple steps:
  1. Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and turn on Twinkle (this only has to be done the first time).
  2. Go back to the page and choose "XFD" from the new WP:TW menu.
  3. Fill in the form and click the 'Submit query' button.
Twinkle will do all the other steps for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks user:whatamIdoing — this is really useful. I wonder though, why it is not mandatory to notify page creators that the page they created has been nominated for deletion if it is that easy and takes only seconds? why do some nominators, and in particular wiki-admins, resist notifying page creators? (See for example user:Good Olfactory here and User:TexasAndroid here) Ottawahitech (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
There is little point in notifying an inactive editor, and little need to notify a highly active one. Also, the question of whether the subject is suitable for its own article isn't really a question that requires the participation of the first name in the editing history (which, in the case of pages that began as redirects, isn't necessarily the person who wrote the article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Ottawahitech, because notifying the first editor is an unnecessary hand-holding duplication of work. If a user is truly interested in whether or not their creations are nominated for deletion, all they have to do is use their watchlist, because it already is mandatory to tag the nominated content with a template. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Good Olfactory: Believe it or not, there is a (speculation) large number of editors who do not use their watchlist. I am one of them. I figure if I did watch, I would never have the time to add content. Instead I would be be chasing discussions. I suppose this is because the items that get the most action on my watchlist are talk pages which I find suck up way too much energy. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
I strongly contest that claim: watchlists are nearly universally used, and its clear to that when a new banner announcement appears on the watchlist or a change in the mediawiki happens and editors race it put in complaints of various degree to that change. Further, the watchlist while not required greatly increases the efficiency of any established editor; not using the watchlist would be like not using a TV guide to find when a program comes on but instead flipping through all available channels at random times to do so. (And speaking as one with getting drawn into talk pages, the solution is to not watchlist all those talk pages, or otherwise commit to using the watchlist more effectively). --MASEM (t) 15:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Masem: most users put pages they create on their watchlist. Furthermore, since many AfDs are done by Twinkle, many people get a talk-page notification anyway. Also, @Ottawahitech: there's a function on your watchlist that allows you to limit what you view to article-space, and, as Masem noted, you need not watch talk pages. pbp 16:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If it's true that users are not using their watchlist (I acknowledge that some may choose not to), then I have absolutely no sympathy for the complaint that they aren't finding out about content they created being nominated. If it's something you care about, use the tools and processes that are provided to find out about them and don't rely on other editors to somehow flag your attention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a couple issues with this:
1) If someone is sufficiently active, they will have a large number of items on their watchlist and it will become easy to miss things. (Although I admit this wouldn't likely apply to newcomers.)
2) Do newcomers even know there is such a thing as a watchlist or how to use it?
3) If someone hasn't specifically checked "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" in the Advanced preferences, there's an unfortunate chance that even if the article creator does check their watchlist for changes to that article that the AfD nomination won't show up because there's been a more recent change to the page. If the latest change is somebody fixing a typo they might reasonably not look at the article.
4) The watchlist defaults to the last 7 days. If somebody creates the article on Friday, and it's nominated for deletion on Saturday, and they don't come back to Wikipedia until Sunday a week later - Wikipedia is not compulsory (WP:CHOICE) - then they won't see the notification because it will have scrolled off the Watchlist.
5) Actually, that's my biggest objection to leaving the onus on the article creator to discover that the article they created is subject to an RfD by requiring them to visit Wikipedia to view their watchlist. It violates the policy that Wikipedia is not compulsory. By doing something positive to ping them, it keeps Wikipedia voluntary for them.
Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Given that the Watchlist link sits at the top of the page, the argument "how many people know it is there" is not really a factor. I do agree that if there is an AFD nom, and then someone edits regularly, the AFD nom will not show up on the page, and that can be a problem, but also at the end of the day, for that and the rest of these WP:OWN applies: when you hit submit on any edit page, you no longer own that content (though you attributed for it). The community can decide if it is appropriate or not without the submitting editor's consent. Granted, there are a raft of problems that generally plague AFD overall, but a lot of the arguments here just boil down to what has already been covered at WP:ATA. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I have also noticed a tendency among many editors to nominate articles for deletion (or even tag them for speedy deletion) when that was clearly inappropriate. This means that either other editors must spend time they could have used to create or edit articles contesting the nomination, or the nominator gets their way and the article is deleted. I would strongly support an additional dialog being required in order to nominate articles (or other kinds of pages) for deletion. A grace period of perhaps 12 to 48 hours before a newly-created article could be nominated for deletion might also be good, in which case articles with serious problems such as copyvio could still be dealt with ASAP via speedy deletion. I haven't yet decided how I feel about the proposal below. (Incidentally, for those wondering about the motivations of over-enthusiastic deletion nominators, I have seen it suggested that they might view AfD as akin to a video game where their goal is to rack up as many "kills" — that is, deletions — as possible. I don't know how accurate that idea might be, but it seems it might be plausible for at least some nominators.) —GrammarFascist contribstalk 07:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

  • @GrammarFascist: I agree. Also, many wp:XfDs attract very little attention, leaving the page creator, if they are still around, to be the only editor to cast a Keep vote. Sometimes the nominator very conveniently forgets to inform the page creator. It’s rare but I have seen wp:Admins deleting pages that had no "votes" (other than the nominator's implied vote). Ottawahitech (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
    There are not votes at XfD! They are comments, sometimes the rationale speaks for itself and the admin deletes the article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with some of the confrontational language in this discussion (not from the OP) and the simplistic labelling of fellow editors as "inclusionist" or "deletionist". That's an unfortunate trend in most of the recent AfD-related debates, and such an approach isn't really helpful to solve eventual flaws in a collaborative manner (I am certainly not claiming, that everything is perfectly OK with AfD processes and notability guidelines). WP:AGF includes editors with differing opinions too - just saying. Aside from that general observation: the suggested grace period of n days for new articles sounds like a good suggestion to move forward (and should be relatively easy to implement), assuming we would exclude clear issues like blatant promotion, serious BLP concerns and large unfixable copyvios from that handling. The proposal below should be declined. Such (relatively few) instances of persistent nominations, that are not based on policy, should be handled case by case: either by talking with the nominator of such problematic cases (instead of talking about them), or by improving unclear notability guidelines. GermanJoe (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I don’t believe the use of such terms is confrontational. I am an wp:inclusionist and I feel slighted onWikipedia because of it. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
  • Maybe we are being too harsh on creators of new articles. But I don't think it's right to force BEFORE down people's throat. It doesn't seem wholly fair to me that editors have to try and fix really bad articles; many of which are clearly unfixable. Until relatively recently, I was a deletionist. I nominated dozens of articles for deletion...most of which hadn't been created by new editors, but rather editors who created a whole lotta of articles in big bunches. pbp 17:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89/C: Is there something wrong with creating a whole lotta of articles in big bunches? From my inclusionist vantage point I see tons of editors who add very little to wikipedia:mainspace, but effortlessly rack up an impressive edit-count which gets them the desirable mop/Admin status through the wp:Request for Adminship process.Ottawahitech (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
@Ottawahitech:: Oftentimes, articles created in big bunches are poorly sourced or poorly written. Also, TBH, I see people AfDing a lot of articles in hopes of gaining adminship to be a relatively minor issue: not only are the people who do that relatively few in number, but most of the people who nominate a lot of articles for deletion have rubbed enough people the wrong way to preclude them ever having a mop. Oh, FYI, my name's Purplebackpack89, not Purplebackpack89/C. User:Purplebackpack89/C is a redirect to my contributions because there wasn't enough room in my sig to include Special:Contributions/Purplebackpack89. pbp 18:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: you said: articles created in big bunches are poorly sourced or poorly written but isn’t this how wikipedia became the great resource that it is today? When I looked at the page history of articles that were started in the early 2000s they invariably provided little detail and had no references but given time they now form the backbone of wikipedia which draws the world’s attention. No? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Setting aside the issue that Wikipedia 10-15 years ago doesn't have the rules it does today, do you believe that Wikipedia's initial article mass came primarily from editors creating new articles very quickly, like maybe 10-15-20 in a period of a few hours? Or do you believe that the creation of thousands and thousands of stubs was the result of a myriad of editors each creating a few articles, often over long periods of time? I cannot condone "drive-by creation" where people create many articles in a short amount of time; I really have to say it takes a minimum of an hour to write an article of any kind of quality (of course, that time includes finding and reading the references put in the article). Remember that in between the editors creating all those articles and today, Wikipedia was thought of as the scourge of the internet, not because the articles were short, but because they were unsourced and inaccurate. Even today, I still think it would be beneficial if the project was forbidden from creating new entries for a time, and forced instead to improve quality of articles. pbp 16:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: I Have to research to see how many editors there were in the early years, but if I remember correctly it was a fairly small number compared with the number of articles they produced, meaning they each created a large number of articles, on average.
As far as [creating] 10-15-20 [articles] in a period of a few hours? I have heard that more recently many articles were actually started by a BOT, not a human. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: Here is the official statistics table I found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention:
Interesting to note that the average daily number of new articles has declined from a high of 2,132 in Jul 2007 to a low of 734 in Sep 2015, while the number of editors roughly doubled. BTW there are now 848 articles nominated for deletion through AfD outstanding discussions, many if not most, of which have been re-listed for lack of participation. I bet once other XfD deletions are counted we could be talking about thousands of nominations for deletion. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
Did you consider that there is a ceiling of articles? Yes there are always new notable subjects however a vast majority of subjects have articles about them already. The key is ensuring quality over quantity now. Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
That is not even close to being true. The vast majority of notable topics have no article. We can't even match the coverage of old 'premier' general encyclopedias like the 1911 Britannica or the 1885 Dictionary of National Biography, let alone the vast number of works with a narrower focus. James500 (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Mr. Robinson, @James500:. Most of the articles that should be created have. And whereas we may not have as in-depth coverage as Britannica 1911 or Biography 1885, I think, if you looked, you'd find that nearly all the entries in those tomes have entries here. pbp 15:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I did check. We are missing a huge chunk of the 1885 DNB. See the missing articles wikiproject. James500 (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
We are? Because when I thumbed through Epitome 1, I got maybe 450 bluelinks and less than a dozen redlinks, most of which were for articles that appear at slightly different names. Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia topics also notes that every single 1911 encyclopedia topic has an article. pbp 17:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Tracking, you will find to your horror that there are more than six thousand articles missing from the 1885 to 1912 DNB. The situation for later supplements, and for the ODNB is likely to be much worse. The epitome is misleading because some volumes are far more complete than others, due to 'drives' to finish certain volumes in a few cases. James500 (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: you said I see people AfDing a lot of articles in hopes of gaining adminship to be a relatively minor issue, but I would like to convince you that you are mistaken. Here is some data to substantiate what I am saying:
Of the most recent candidates in wp:Requests for adminship five out of the seven had kept at least one log of articles they had nominated/proposed for deletion. To illustrate the type of logs:
Ottawahitech (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
@Ottawahitech: You're looking at it in the wrong manner. The reason I see it as a relatively minor issue is because most AfD nominations and votes come from people who aren't seeking adminship. However, I will say this: it makes perfectly good sense to expect a person to know a little about deletion before giving them the power to delete articles. pbp 13:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: You said most AfD nominations and votes come from people who aren't seeking adminship, so I wonder how you know this to be a fact? BTW the reason I started speculating that many/most deletion notices are generated by wannabe wp:Admins was because of notices I have received on my own talk page over the years. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

I oppose all attempts to make WP:BEFORE mandatory. Experience has shown that it is primarily used as a weapon to attack deletion nominators. It is commonplace for keepmongers to claim a nominator hasn't looked for sources, when it is in fact just a disagreement over the suitability of what trivial and marginal sources there are. Most of BEFORE's checkbox style hurdles are not relevant to the majority of AfDs anyway. Really, all that is expected of nominators is that they produce a coherent argument for why an article should be deleted. Reyk YO! 12:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Reyk: you said Most of BEFORE's checkbox style hurdles are not relevant to the majority of AfDs anyway so I wonder if you would elaborate:

Some version of BEFORE should have been made a (behavioural) guideline long ago, for the sake of clarification at least, but many of the steps it requires are compulsory under other policies and guidelines anyway. I think I should point out that some deletionists are in the habit of falsely accusing those !voting "keep" of not looking for sources, when it is in fact just a disagreement over the suitability of what non-trivial non-marginal sources there are. I cannot actually recall any instance of a 'keepmonger' doing the same though, although some deletionists may be in the habit of deliberately pretending to be blind, claiming that no sources whatsoever exist, when they obviously do, and demanding direct links (urls) to sources that come up immediately with obvious search terms in GBooks, GNews, GScholar, JSTOR, Highbeam, etc, or are even cited in the article, that they must be able to see (unless they really are blind), in order to waste time and be obstructive. James500 (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree James500 and Ottawahitech that WP:Before is very important. I have personally been involved in several AfD's where once a good search was done, turned up that the article was indeed very notable. Anyone who can't be bothered to do WP:Before is doing Wikipedia wrong since we're supposed to be building an encyclopedia with verifiable information. If you can't verify that the article is non-notable, how can you even nominate it for deletion in good faith? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikihounding (WP:HOUND) of inclusionist editors is a fact. There are deletionists who will identify an editor whom they consider inclusionist and then follow that editor around the project, typically in small groups, though they have a talent for getting opportunists to help them now and again, systematically opposing and obstructing everything that they do. The wikihounding does not stop at XfD, as the deletionists will rack their brains to come up with other complaints, frequently absurd, which serve as a proxy for inclusionism, and as an excuse to keep following. The wikihounding is typically accompanied by other misdeeds, such as personal attacks and other off topic comments, canvassing and meatpuppetry. They target one editor at a time in an effort to isolate that editor from other inclusionists. They certainly intend to make editing impossible for that editor, and they probably hope to make editing so unpleasant that he will simply retire. Only a person with superhuman eternal patience could continue editing in the face of this kind of campaign. I know for a fact this happens. It is a fact. James500 (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@James500:, re: your Wikihounding claims: 1) There are often editors who have made dozens of poorly-sourced articles, in which case it makes sense to take a close look and their contributions, and to admonish them for creating poorly-sourced stuff, and 2) To say that inclusionists have never done anything wrong is not entirely accurate. There are inclusionists who flood AfDs with "keep" votes. There are inclusionists who try to have deletionists blocked. pbp 15:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
That isn't the sort of scenario that I am talking about. I'm talking about people being hounded, for example, for expressing perfectly reasonable policy based opinions that the deletionists simply did not want to hear. And some deletions should be blocked. James500 (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
And there are people who do that to deletionists... pbp 17:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
In practice, that never happens. Deletionists who view Wikipedia as a computer game are far more likely to misbehave. Because they are WP:NOTHERE. James500 (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't want you! How Deletionists are making sure Wikipedia Isn’t awesome. When articles such as this are being written... Wikipedia we have a problem!!! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 17:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  • The only part about that essay that is really part of the situation is noting that en.wiki's definition of "notability" is not 100% consistent with the standard English definition, but there's been perennial attempts to find a better name without any success. We have come to be short to say "So and so's not notable" without actually saying "So and so's not notable, as defined by WP:N", which can be confusing to new users (though here, this writer was not a new user by their admission, so I've got a hard time understanding how they never had to encounter WP:N before). That's something to work to improve for all involved. But past that, they are mistaken about the purpose of WP, as we're not here to document important people, we're not a who's who, but a tertiary source that summarizes other sources; we're here to document what reliable sources say about people (in the case of BLP), and if no reliable source covers that person, regardless of their importance in their field, then we can't either. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing on en.wiki is consistent, WP:IAR! What I see here is three gigantic problems
  1. Wikipedia is actively making writers mad. Writers write... so I foresee more bloggers writing about their experiences on Wikipedia... oops!
  2. Eventually, the only writers willing to stay in this atmosphere are paid editors.
  3. It's an excellent way to run off new editors fast. So Wikipedia needs to decide, "How few editors does it need to survive?" Or, "Is all that donation money eventually going to go to paid editors after most of the volunteer editors are gone?" Because that's what expect will happen along with paid ads. It's only a matter of time. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 21:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleting articles may cost us editors. Keeping bad articles certainly costs us readers. For every blogpost like the one you've cited (and I admit that one does trouble me a little; mostly because I think 2-3 unimpeachably reliable, independent sources should be sufficient), I could easily find ten from the era when there were no rules and Wikipedia was a haven for misinformation. And article deletion is hardly the only thing that has sent editors away, @MurderByDeadcopy: Many editors just leave because real life gets in the way. pbp 21:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@MurderByDeadcopy: Thank you so much for providing the link to Wikipedia Doesn’t Want You, as well as alerting me and others to this thread a few days ago. If anyone is interested here are the links to both AfD discussions mentioned in the article:
Ottawahitech (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me

Nobody has given anything except their impression of the sense of "culture of AfD", so it is hard to comment. Firstly, "no consensus" at AfD results in keep, unlike WP:ONUS inside an article, which results in removal of content, which is already a bias against the "deletionists" (totally misleading label). Secondly, it is by no means clear that having a separate article is the best way to work towards the goal of "sum of all knowledge". Knowledge must also be presented in context. Articles can often be merged (or even better, not created in the first place, because they are needless or POV forks) to give context and relate it to other articles. Thirdly, many BLPs are barely disguised attack articles. See this for an example. They are better off deleted than existing. Fourthly, if something is deleted "too soon" it can always be created later. Fifthly, there is no evidence that deleting articles is a major cause of editor attrition. I would bet that many more edits of newbies are reverted than articles deleted, because article creation is a rather high barrier to surmount. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, @Kingsindian:. I agree with them. pbp 21:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Since we're discussing concerns about AfD, I'll toss in a few concerns I have. Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify a couple things in advance: I fall into the inclusionist camp (although I would consider myself an anti-deletionist), and I edit mainly professional wrestling articles. If you feel the need to dismiss my concerns because the latter makes you view me as a teenage fanboy, I can't stop you, but I can tell you that I'm neither a teenager, nor do I watch professional wrestling. Anyhow my main concerns are (1) People nominating articles for deletion because of a perceived lack of importance rather than notability, (2) Closing administrators (or non-administrators) giving a verdict based on votes from the beginning of the discussion, without taking any notice that the current version of the article has received substantial attention and bears little resemblance to the article at the beginning of the discussion. The closing rationale is often a single word—"Delete" with no indication that the administrator has done more than count votes, many of which are no longer relevant. Concerns voiced to that effect are then met with a dismissive "Take it to a deletion review", (3) The lack of sources in some articles isn't because of a lack of effort on the part of editors but rather that they have joined a project with thousands of articles and can only work on a limited number at a time; when someone comes along and starts an AfD, it creates a deadline that forces people to drop what they're doing and come like a trained monkey, and (4) Banned users are allowed to initiate deletion discussions; yeah, sure, banned users aren't allowed to edit at all in theory, but I have pointed out obvious sockpuppets of banned users that have initiated discussions and the response has always been "Yeah, well, they really shouldn't be editing, but let's see how the discussion plays out anyway". To allow banned users to have any say on what is discussed or edited within any time frame is an obvious failure on the part of Wikipedia administrators. When a banned user is found to have created an AfD, the discussion should be closed immediately. We are not here to do the bidding of people who have violated the community's trust to the extent that a ban has been given. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
👍 Like Ottawahitech (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
I like most of this. Not the first, because there are other reasons to delete in addition to lack of notability. Articles that maybe perceivedas unimportant usually do fall under one or another of the provision of NOT. And for that matter, so do many that clearly meet the GNG. A gooddeal depends on just how you interpret the reliability of the sources and the requirement for significant coverage. But for point 2, yes, it is necessary to close looking at the actual discussion and article, and closes that do not are frequently overturned if brought to Deletion Review. As for 3, Yes, the lack of sources on older articles is about 3/4 those that could be sourced easily enough if someone went to the trouble, and 1/4 those that could not. Our standards were much lower in the beginning about both sourcing and notability. Especially in the beginning, and still continuing, article writers wanted to start new articles, not necessarily finish the job. As for 4, yes, this is a misinterpretation of Banned means Banned, but there is of course nothing to prevent any editor seeing this to then renom the article themselves. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Based on that paragraph, it appears articles get nominated solely on perception. And I agree. There is way too much I don't like it going on at AfD, therefore it must be deleted! (There's also some, I don't know anything about it too!) As for article writers wanting to start new articles but not finish them, well, that is the whole point of Wikipedia. Wikipedia was created for everyone to work on the same article, not one person. The original point of Wikipedia was quantity, not quality. Nupedia was created for quality, however, quality takes time along with consulting experts and those are two things that Wikipedia vehemently abhors! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 17:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a problem of noms that seem to be "I don't like it" (A major arbcom case of this nature involved the editor TTN; off the top of my head the arbcom case was "Characters and episodes 2" which is good bg reading on this), and when there is a clear pattern of an editor nominating a lot of articles without care, it creates fait accompli that we discourage, and this is behavior we should aim to stop. But as outlined in this discussion, that's only something that can be judged by reviewing patterns, not by hard numbers. Also, while Wikipedia may have been formed based on quantity, we clearly are more focused on quality now, as the rate of new article generation (ignoring any subsequent deletions) has slowed down, despite estimates that millions of potential topics of academic interest could still be made. We know AFD is harsh which is why editors are encouraged to sandbox articles or use AFC to get articles that won't be quick AFD targets from the start, getting the quality there before its put into mainspace. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
There's an interesting statistic rough guess, derived from counts I make from time to time from log samples, and confirmed by several people at the foundation: for the last 8 years at least, about half the articles submitted end up being kept in WP, and half end up deleted by one process or another.[citation needed]Ottawahitech (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Statistics like this are worthless! One doesn't even know the time frame for said statistics. Or what is being included by the term articles submitted. Is AfC included? Speedy deletes? Etcetera, etcetera... --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 17:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@MurderByDeadcopy: It's very difficult to have a rational conversation with you when you refuse to believe any of the statistics other editors bring up. @DGG: When did it become 50-50? Last I heard it was 70-30 delete. pbp 18:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
My count is made from looking at the rate of submissions to New Page feed per hour at various times of day, and comparing it with 1) the overall growth of articles. and 2) the rate of deletions in the log. I really shouldn't call it a statistic--it's a rough estimate. Trying to verify it, I realize the matter is more complicated, because of AfC; a new count would have to specify whether we ignore Draft space, or include pages started there and submitted, or include all pages started there. I think the 30% might be the proportion speedy-deleted--my estimate included only articles not deleted by prod and AfD as well. urplebackpack89, doyou know of any other count? DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Per WP:SNOW - 60 days is long enough. Community clearly opposes this proposal. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:51, 15 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.

To solve the issue with disingenuous *fD nominations, done without proper research. After an editor has had made ten unsuccessful *fD nominations they are blocked from making any new *fD nominations for a week. After an additional five unsuccessful *fD nominations, they are blocked from making *fD nominations for two weeks. After an additional five unsuccessful *fD nominations, they are blocked from making *fD nominations for a month. After an additional five unsuccessful *fD nominations, they are blocked from making *fD nominations for 2 months. After an additional five unsuccessful *fD nominations, they are blocked from making *fD nominations for 6 months. After an additional five unsuccessful *fD nominations, they are blocked from making *fD nominations for a year. After an additional five unsuccessful *fD nominations (that would be 40 unsuccessful AfD nominations, an obvious, disruptive pattern, over almost a 2 year period of time), they are permanently blocked from making *fD nominations.. Trackinfo (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: That's an intriguing proposal that I happen to think is a good idea, but I think it may be a stretch since it's an after-the-fact sort of thing and since it may be seen as new policy. From my short stint in AfD, it seems to me it may be wiser to address the problem before it happens and more editors are railroaded out of Wikipedia. Only a handful of folks in AfD even make a pretense of following WP:BEFORE, marking pages within moments of their creation. They should have to go through a multi-step questionnaire of the type used for image uploads or new-user page creation to ensure they're complying with the policy that already exists. Few people could argue with enforcing existing policy. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
What I am proposing is a system to enforce policy. With a penalty awaiting, it might make some people think twice about an un-researched nomination. It might also make them learn better Google search technique. I am constantly confounded by low quality editors who make strong statements in an AfD argument * this is all I could find. When I add a dozen sources, that not only demonstrates the error (malicious or otherwise) in their statement, but should also advertise their incompetence in doing research. On many articles we are starting equally with our feet flat on the ground, they don't know the subject they are attacking, I don't know much about the subject I am defending. It shouldn't be about heroism to rescue the article. If they actually cared about the content on wikipedia, it shouldn't be an adversarial process. It should be plainly that anyone can see the subject meets wikipedia standards and deserves to be here. Trackinfo (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I hate to even mention this, but those who object to wholesale deletion might want to consider checking RfA nominations for deletion history, and voting accordingly. I'm fine with the deletion of material that violates WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP (assuming the problems cannot be fixed with a scalpel -- or chainsaw), and also material that is overly spammy or otherwise clearly meets the speedy deletion criteria, but most other issues with articles can be fixed by editing the article, rather than by deletion. RfA is already a confused mess, but denying the mop to those who prefer deletion over correction of issues might make a difference. Someday. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Trackinfo: This seems to penalize a) people who nominate a lot of pages for deletion, and b) people who just get unlucky. Also, it makes it seem like the only reason deletion nominations fail is because BEFORE isn't followed (and IMO, that's OK; BEFORE is onerous and need not be mandatory). As such, I'm going to have to oppose this. pbp 17:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It certainly is aimed at people who make frivolous nominations. That IS a problem. There is a crowd who do it for sport, which apparently prompted this discussion long before I got involved. I hate to suggest a remedy, but if there is legitimate cause for a failed AfD not to be counted against the nom, perhaps the closing admin can make such a notation to the record at that time. As with any penalty, it needs to be applied with reason. Elsewhere I do criticize other editors for their ineptitude in performing a Google search. Perhaps I have to high an expectation of intelligence from wikipedia editors. But WP:BEFORE at least demands that they lift a finger. I've had the statement on my page for a long time. I am upset with those who attack articles they do not understand. So spend a moment reading before you attack. If you completely miss the first time, perhaps a more refined search is necessary. And hey, if you find sourcing that the posting editor didn't mention, add in a proper source. Help the wikipedia project. Do something good with your time. There are a lot of other people inconvenienced by a single person initiating the AfD or *fD process. Do so with purpose. Uninformed, incompetence is not a good purpose. Trackinfo (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
No comment on this proposal, but I strongly agree with this particular statement. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 08:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
"But if there is legitimate cause for a failed AfD not to be counted against the nom, perhaps the closing admin can make such a notation to the record at that time." I hope you realize how insanely bureaucratic you're making everything. I also think your most recent statement is far too harsh on nominators of AfDs. I think it's wrong to tell people they have to spend their time sourcing articles, and this proposal comes too close to doing so. pbp 13:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore @Trackinfo:, I still say that you're ignoring the myriad of reasons an AfD can be closed as keep. It can be closed as keep because of a disagreement of what's a source and what isn't. pbp 13:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
So in your statement, you are saying you do not believe in WP:BEFORE. You expect that you (or any other nominator) has all the knowledge they need in their own brain and do not need to use any assistance to determine if an article is legitimately valid or not. That's not the way wikipedia works. We depend on WP:V. That certainly should expect that someone who posts an article should do so with sources, but we all realize that is not the case. Particularly novice editors don't know how to add sources. It doesn't mean their content is not valid. it means they have not adapted to the format of wikipedia contributions. So when you see an article on a subject you don't recognize, what would you do? I know everything, so nominate it for an AfD, right? WP:BEFORE says you should lift a finger, do a little research, find out if this is legitimate. So after learning that a subject is legitimate, then you go on to nominate it for AfD, right? Preposterous. You now know it is legit. Fix the d#$! article. Sure there are borderline cases of notability, which will generate arguments. Even then, if you are consistently on the losing end of the argument, you need to adjust your criteria before you inconvenience all the other editors who have to do research and comment. The point being, if you are a consistent Loser, then there is a problem with your standards for nomination. You have a decision making problem. You can't recognize good from bad. We have disputes all the time on what content is valid. Ultimately somebody has to step in and make the final decision, that the consensus results are . . . And that person is ultimately the best judge also to answer the question; Was that nomination well-founded, in good faith, a marginal argument? Did hidden new evidence come in to sway the case? Or if not, that the *fD was made without BEFORE research, in bad faith and was a waste of time for all involved. Trackinfo (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
People often post things that aren't in line with policy: gossip, non-reliable sources, random stuff based on speculation, BLP violations. The end result is that we fix the problem and tell the editor they need to do what policy requires, we don't say we should require that someone who see something based off facebook should conduct their own WP:BEFORE examination and see if a reliable source also says the same thing before we remove that content. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@Trackinfo: You're looking at BEFORE in the wrong way. What you're basically saying is that if somebody wrote a poorly-sourced article, I (or any other article patroller) have to spend my time trying to fix it, above and beyond not just nominating it for deletion, even if it's clearly beyond hope. You're being really cavalier with the time of me and other deletionists. You can't, and shouldn't, force people to spend their time a certain way. Furthermore, you assume that anybody who gets up to the thresholds you mention is a "consistent Loser". If you nominate 100200 articles for deletion, and fiveten of them are kept, you have a 95% correct rate...and you still face punishment in your proposal. pbp 13:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC) I fixed your math, PBP. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
First off, who is making 200 nomination at a time? What kind of quality editing are they accomplishing in that rush? If an editor is making that volume of *D's how could they possibly consider the validity of each article? What they are doing is throwing their few seconds of consideration, into a pile that now become a headache for a whole bunch of editors to spend time to consider. Maybe they found a treasure trove of bulk bad articles by the same editor. Is that something that requires individual AfDs or can that be taken to a bulk discussion about the group. And yes, there have been editors who have deliberately overwhelmed the process by doing exactly that. Essentially I don't like an entire category, so they nominate every article in the category. So in general, I think it is inconsiderate to the wikipedia community to submit that many nominations or even to have that many in play. You can't possibly give each nom its due attention. Trackinfo (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Who said anything about "at a time"? The way your proposal is worded, @Trackinfo:, you could be sanctioned for ten failed RfDs ever. Let me ask you a question: Do you have a conception of what percent of AfDs are closed as delete and what percentage are closed as keep? And therefore, how many RfDs a particular editor would, on average, have to amass before he had ten that failed and hit your first sanction? At an absolute minimum, you need to link the number of failed RfDs to either a) a particular time period, or b) a number of total RfDs started, though I'm not even sure your proposal is salvageable even when you do that. You also scoff at starting many distinct RfDs all at once, but there are situations where that is appropriate. pbp 22:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Disruptive AFD nominations can be determined and it's not based on a count. For example, there's a massive number of deletion regarding biographies of the world's oldest people. Are they disruptive? If you look at the current ones, they are coming up keep. If you look at the archives, you'll see that they were all deletes, then redirects and now keeps, but the votes are exploding in volumes from editors who haven't edited here in years (and based off messageboards and the like on the subject). Been a decade of ARBCOM sanctions and the like for that fun. Ultimately, someone who nominated five articles a week ago will look like they're in the right, today they are disruptive. That's not a way to settle things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is the article creator's responsibility to include reliable sources to verify the article's content. It is the article creator's responsibility to ascertain whether the article subject is notable with significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. It is the AfD nominator's responsibility to perform the WP:BEFORE homework to see if there are obvious online references that support the article subject's notability. It is the burden of AfD "keep" !voters to demonstrate the subject satisfies the notability and other suitability guidelines for a stand-alone article. This proposal turns those responsibilities upside down, and reverses the burdens of responsibility. And I am happy to compare my AfD record -- as a participant, nominator, and occasional article rescuer -- with anyone. I am neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist; I am an editor who believes strongly in enforcing the notability and other suitability guidelines as they were written and as they were intended, so that Wikipedia may continue to grow as a serious online reference and encyclopedic resource. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Whatever those who are Opposing here is just laughable. It's a deletionists market on Wikipedia so ten unsuccessful *fD nominations will never happen. What I'd be interested discussing is just how all those pro-deletionists expect to keep writers on Wikipedia since everyone here already knows exactly how to get rid of them! Also, AfD nominators are not doing the before work and no one on Wikipedia has a clue to what is and what isn't notable. What AfD has become is a haven to harass editors. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 20:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @MurderByDeadcopy: I ask the same question I asked of Trackinfo above: are you aware of the ballpark percentage at which AfDs pass? Your comments would suggest it's in the 90s, and it isn't. I also think you've over-estimate the amount of improper and bad-faith AfDs. pbp 20:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I didn't actually put any % amount to the number of AfD's that pass, but you did which frankly suggests that that number could be 89%. My point is the ease with which an article gets deleted. In order to attempt saving an article one must explain their reason in full, then get cross examined multiple times along with being belittled, plus personal attacks, and followed all over Wikipedia while a vote to delete needs no more than a per nom explanation and viewed as heroic. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 21:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
        • @MurderByDeadcopy:@Trackinfo: The % of AfDs that are closed as kept is actually closer to 30%, which puts the delete rate at about 70%. That means, on average, you'd only need to AfD 33 articles before you have 10 deletions that fail. (BTW, since you two are making such broad generalizations, you should be familiar with this stat). Also, not only do you exaggerate the behavior of deletionists, you make it seem like anybody who votes "Keep" is a saint. I've seen legions of bad "keep" rationales at Wikipedia. pbp 22:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Putting up two numbers without more facts is meaningless. Are these numbers based on all AfD's since the beginning of Wikipedia? Because I'm more interested in the past year since I believe AfD has changed greatly over time. I also consider anyone who votes a "Keep" vote a gutsy move on Wikipedia since it's quite apparent that anyone who does so gets to be openly and unrelentingly harassed by all who vote delete. But I don't believe that is something you can possibly understand since you've only voted "Keep" once two years ago in 2013[27] which puts your delete stats at 98.6%! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 23:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
            • I think your tool is off; I count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 times just since 2013. Also, it's not as gutsy as you seem to think...why don't you count in the last week how many AfDs were kept, since you only care about the here and now? Get some real figures instead of just going with your instinct. pbp 05:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
              • Seems like your statistics are suggesting an arbitrary randomness to Keeps. Maybe that would be the case with thoughtless *fDs, which is exactly what we are trying to prevent. Perhaps I can't relate. I've been editing for over 8 years and in that time I have accumulated zero failed *fDs. Of course, I've spent a lot of time on the other side, fighting off bad *fDs, into the thousands. That's a lot of effort, for a lot of bad nominations, each one of them that could have been solved the same way I saved them, by googling the subject of the article, finding sources usually in the first page (some have too much non-reliable social media at the top so I have to go deeper) and posting them. I've lost a few, mainly on notability grounds because even though you can post a lot of sources, it devolves into opinion. The key issue is, a lot of these articles were originally poor posts by the original editor. Many were novice editors, others were inconsiderate bulk editors who just didn't spend the time to back up the content they were posting. Sure the original editor could have done better, but we can't expect that of novices. Certainly I'd like to retrain the bulk unsourced stub posters. But do their failures mean wikipedia content, the subject of the article, needs to suffer? Isn't a valid stub superior to a red link (we know nothing about this subject), non-existent link, or worse yet, a subject with perceived salt from its one time deletion due to a poor original poster? Those are the ramifications of deleted *fDs. We are building a knowledge base. But that concept does not succeed if legitimate content is deleted thoughtlessly. We are supposed to be editors. The meaning suggests there is thought behind what we do. Trackinfo (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
                • The problem, @Trackinfo:, is that you're arguing that novices (and bulk editors) need to do less work at the same time you're saying noms need to fix articles instead of nominating them for deletion. You're unfairly shifting work from one (or two) group to another group. As for "isn't a valid stub superior", that depends. Remember that if it isn't sourced, you don't know if anything in it is true/legitimate. We shouldn't leave unsourced stubs up for eternity on the off chance somebody is going to source them. pbp 15:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not pinning extra work on a "group" of people, that is what an improper *fD does. I'll separate the two categories of problem editors. The novice, yes, they should be given a pass, They don't know better. You as the lone, experienced editor arriving on their poorly written or poorly sourced article have a choice to make. 1) Do nothing, as your predecessors have done. I assume you are too activist to let that go. 2) Directly nominate it for *fD; in one lazy step turning your casual observation of a poor article into a problem for the handful of people who notice it in the *fD listings over a few weeks of the process. Finally some admin needs to sort through the mess of comments and improvements to the article and decide what to do with the article. 3) Or you can do a google (or search engine of your choice) search and find out about this subject. You will then know if it is BS (and if its BS, find a way to speedy it and save everyone the problem). If it is legitimate, then you, with your new knowledge and experience as an editor can fix the article. Now it doesn't need to bother other people and the problem is solved. Your little bit of effort saved everybody else their time and trouble. The only time something needs to go through the process is if it truly is a marginal subject. I would go further to suggest, you ought to know the broader subject surrounding the subject in question, to know how it relates. Is this a necessary definition. Is there more to hang onto this subject? If you don't know what you are talking about, butt out. Go back to step 1. The other problem editor is the bulk editor leaving lots of stubs. I believe in cross-referencing. So someone leaving a string of stubs is still helping the greater good. If they are unsourced, that person needs a good talking to. We do have talk pages for that purpose. But because they created a poor article about a valuable subject does not mean it needs to be deleted. I've found a bunch of editors who create stub articles about names in lists of similarly related prose. Each of that cast of characters has a claim to notability based on their participation in something that puts them on that list. A few seconds of google answers this question. In that process, what do you have in your hands? A source. Copy, paste and now the article is sourced. Better yet, now you know something that is not posted on wikipedia. Write some prose, fill in the blanks. You made a handful of edits, improved wikipedia and saved everybody else down the line, the extra work doing the same steps you should have done. And seriously, the amount of time it takes to do that is probably less than all the proper steps to submit an *fD. WP:BEFORE solves everything. Needlessly submitting something to *fD shows your laziness, ineptitude and/or your feckless attitude towards both wikipedia and your fellow editor. Trackinfo (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Trackinfo: Setting aside the fact you essentially want to completely dismantle the *fD process and fill Wikipedia with loads of unsourced and potentially inaccurate information, you consistently overestimate the amount of time spent by people because an *fD is created, while at the same time consistently underestimating the amount of time it takes to fix articles. Fixing articles take a lot of time, and deletionists should not be required to do it. One of the principles of Wikipedia is that editors get a choice of what they are allowed to edit, but you want to take that choice away from deletionists. pbp 13:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
That is a complete misrepresentation of what I am saying. Where have I EVER encouraged unsourced articles? I am saying exactly the opposite. When you find an unsourced or poorly sourced article, WP:BEFORE says to do the simple step of researching the subject before you blindly cause other people the trouble of dropping it into *fD. I can state from having done so thousands of times myself, its not that hard to do. Yes, you can choose what you choose to edit. What you should not do is choose to make an uninformed nomination for a *fD. So after googling the subject, having learned something about the subject and evaluating its worth, now it is your choice, to do nothing (which doesn't help wikipedia), to be stupid and nominate legitimate content for *fD, or to copy/paste the source into the problem article. If you choose to be stupid, stupid by ignoring facts that are now on your screen, your laziness is causing trouble for all the editors who follow you. By this proposal, yes, I want to penalize editors for deliberately choosing to be stupid. *fD should be used to get rid of the garbage that is too well done to speedy. None of this discussion is about keeping garbage. Unless you are already an expert, most nominators are NOT, you don't know what you are doing until you have done WP:BEFORE. Trackinfo (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
              • First off, these stat's and numbers issue is what you interjected into this conversation, not me. The above paragraphs only proves my point which is that numbers can be thrown around indiscriminately in a hugely meaningless way. But what I do interpret about all these numbers is a clear-cut way to dodge the issues I have with AfD's.
              • Second, my main points are the ease with which AfD's get deleted... and the enormous difficultly it is to save an article once it gets nominated. The environment one faces in just attempting to save an article from deletion. The harassment, personal attacks, hounding, vengeance, and the issue that the more actual facts one finds that an article should be saved, the more the deletionists double-down into some sort of backfire effect. Deletionists win by badgering and threatening editors who attempt saving an article until they are completely exhaustioned knowing that they can (and will) re-nominate the article at a later date. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 22:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
                • Keep in mind what you are stating above are all arguments generally refuted as arguments to avoid at AFD. There are some editors that nominate articles at AFD willy-nilly which might be questionable, but there are also editors that rapidly create articles with no effort to justify why we should have articles on those topics. The process is self-correcting. Also, I strongly caution against calling people nominating articles at AFD as "harassment". Yes, there have been cases of an editor being petty or going after another editor and nominating articles in bad faith, which is edging on harassment no doubt. But editors that are nominating articles at AFD in good faith, that's far from harassment. --MASEM (t) 03:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
                  • Of course, it's not all AfD noms! Nor do I see rapidly created articles - that sounds like a relic from the past (unless it's a bot). What I'm referring to is the generally accepted environment within AfD along with my own personal experience of being hounded and tag teamed until I was run off even attempting to rewrite an article to save it. Odd thing is, I was finding actual facts for that article, but I've since learned that the more evasive and elusive my reasons to "keep" an article are, the better the odds become that that article gets kept (well, until its next nom anyway). --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 04:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
                    • Without having diffs or links to AFDs to know what you are considering hounding and tag teaming (which I have seen before but it is a rarity and usually obvious enough when it happens). More often, it is a newer editor that feels that editors are ruining their work by nominating it for AFD and fight tooth and nail and consider any opposition (read: deletion) as an afront and bitterly complain, when those opposing/!voting "delete" are well within policy to point out such problems. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
                      • Now that I've been tried and condemned (but I'm not surprised) I see zero reason to continue this conversation so, Have a nice day! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 05:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
                      • @Masem: you said More often, it is a newer editor that feels that editors are ruining their work by nominating it for AFD and fight tooth and nail and consider any opposition (read: deletion) as an afront and bitterly complain, when those opposing… are well within policy to point out such problems.
                      • What in your opinion should be done in such a situation when a new editor is fighting tooth and nail to save "their" article which does not conform with wiki-standards? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
                        • Encourage them to use draft or user space to develop the article first, or use WP:AFC to help see if the article proposed is appropriate, instead of jumping in feet first and getting burned when they haven't spent time understanding our processes. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
                          • @Masem: you said Encourage them… but this is easier said than done: here is an example of what happened to new editor User:WhitetTara
                            • The article she(he?) wrote about Filiz Cicek was deleted 3 times through a wp:speedy: twice as “No explanation of significance” and a third time as a ‘’Unambiguous copyright infringement: no evidence of notability’’
                            • Between Feb 1, 2014, 5:28 - Feb 5, 2014 s/he expended enormous effort to try in good faith to figure out what the problem was, but apparently gave up and left wikipedia after her last edit.
                            • Here is what users like me who do not possess wiki-admin-eyesight can see about User:WhitetTara:
                              • Live edits: 32
                              • Deleted edits: 120
                              • Total edits: 152.
                            • all in the span of 3-4 days. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
                              • Looking at the article and user talk page, this is probably a bad example: WhitetTara appeared to have a connection with Filiz Cicek (based on the user's talk page), and had basically created the article with a copyrighted resume, and while the user claimed to have gotten permission from Cicek to use it. The last deleting admin did try to work to help provide information, so it wasn't an unanswered cry for help; the page was userfied, the user informed and then... it was never acted on. I don't see that as being chased off, just more.. frustration? even though everything was teed up to help. Mind you statements like this do not inspire me that WhitetTara's purpose was wholly to build an encyclopedia, and that often happens at AFD that people thinking they are coming to WP to right great wrongs have to justify keeping articles at AFD that fail to meet standards. Again, not a failure of the system, but the nature of editors wanting instant gratification instead of learning the ropes. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: you said I strongly caution against calling people nominating articles at AFD as "harassment"...But editors that are nominating articles at AFD in good faith, that's far from harassment
It may be in good faith and still feel like harassment to the party on the other side. Since you ask for a concrete example let me offer up one of mine. I have been doing work in an area of Wikipedia that, in my opinion, is in a mess, namely Patient Protection and Affordable Care in the United States. When talking about this area, understanding terminology like Platinum/Gold/Silver/Bronze plans is crucial. But in 2014 two of the redirects that I created for these terms were nominated for deletion. The other two also disappeared even though I did not receive a notification(IIRC) for the nomination.
I tried to participate in the deletion discussion in good faith, but felt I was mocked by the participants, or at least this is what it felt like since I could not follow what the other participants were talking about. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
                    • Looking at the AFDs, both the articles you created and the AFDs are all being done in good faith : you felt the terms needed separate articles, other editors disagreed, and when it was clear two of the four were set for deletion, a closing admin hit the other two. Nothing in the discussion looks like anything close to harassment, but simply what was a different between what you thought might have been notable and what community standards are, and that's not always a straight forward thing. I disagree in how the terms were deleted rather than redirected to a section on the PP article as they seem like reasonable search terms, but that's far from anything that any editor should take to be harassment or the like. There is a reason we encourage new editors to make their articles in draft/user space first so that they can learn the ropes of how we expect articles to be constructed, but a lot of editors want instant gratification, jump right in and get into a mess that they might take personally. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
                      • @Masem: So you believe it is not insulting to use these words: Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. A Gold Card or Gold Plan is not worth the plastic it is embossed on. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
                        • It's not insulting to the editor, which is what I would expect if we're talking harassment. It's dismissive of the importance of the gold plan concept, but there is no attack to the editor in question. If that was a prolonged attitude over a long discussion there might be something to act one, but not one comment in one AFD. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
                          • @Masem: So when one accuses you of using Wikipedia as a soapbox or means of promotion — that is not insulting???!!! Ottawahitech (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC){{Bigplease ping me}}
                            • In the context, no it's not. It's commenting on the contribution and not the contributor. It might be a bit harsh but that's far from violating any civility lines. If it was clear it was a new editor with good faith intentions, one might suggest expanding on SOAPBOX, but that's far from required. --MASEM (t) 06:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
                              • I think that the SOAPBOX claim may have been a little harsh; frankly it sounds like that editor is himself standing on a SOAPBOX. But that one contribution is hardly indicative of all comments at AfDs. pbp 13:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
                                • Certainly, WP has a whole can do a bit better at AFD discussions to avoid it being alphabet soup that newcomers may not understand (also taking a soapbox position on a talk page like AFD is not anywhere close to an issue as if it was written into a mainspace article; there's little actionable about it) But then when people cry that those that nominate AFD should engage in BEFORE, I can point that we should have new editors engaging in reading all relevant policies before creating their first article so they can prevent it going to AFD. And that won't happen; WP is geared towards having no such requirements. At the end of the day, all we can do is encourage more courtesy at AFD, but that's difficult if impossible to enforce. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, then rather than a redirect, it sounds like a disambiguation page is the answer. I've created one for Gold plan, and an editor could create one for the other colors as well. (That said, as someone who has had a couple articles deleted rather than improved, I'm loathe to create them until I see whether this one survives. Thisisnotatest (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Masem. The redirects you created are not analogous to the average article that ends up being deleted. Redirects are not articles: they operate on a completely different set of rules. The reason your redirects were deleted wasn't people believed "bronze plan" didn't mean a health care plan; it was because people believed "bronze plan" didn't only mean a health care plan. pbp 15:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm with Masem and pbp on this as well. When a redirect gets nominated in a deletion discussion, it's necessary to give an opinion on the redirect's utility, and it's human nature to take offense when someone suggests deleting your work but that's what happens here sometimes. Those comments are not directed at you, they're commenting on the page. SimonTrew's might have been easy to misinterpret but believe me, his comment was not directed at you: pages can be soapboxes too. Also, sometimes RfD is a silly place, don't take it too seriously. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Your name was mentioned here because you alluded to my edits as promotional. As I told user:Masem (see above) I felt you were mocking me during the deletion discussions here and here. BTW thanks for pinging me. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe this is a problem present in many XfDs where a small group of editors are doing all the nominations, forming the discussion, and closing it as well. It appears there is little effort to locate subject matter experts to opine. Instead these XfD-insiders form a social clique with their own private rules where many nominations do not even state which guideline had been contravened by the page creator. This is certainly true in wp:CfD which unfortunately I am more familiar with than I care to, but appears to also be common in other forums such as wp:RfD. No wonder that the target editors of these XfDs feel outnumbered. Ottawahitech (talk)please ping me
Ottawahitech, I want to take your criticism seriously, because I've observed such behavior at CfD as well. There seem to be many unwritten standards that live only in the minds of active editors there. Now, mind you, in a consensus-driven project, that's not too far off from the way it should be. Write the standards down so they can be discussed and amended as necessary; it stars with patterns that may be interpreseted as "cliquish".
That said, your implication of some sort of conspiracy at RfD is worrying. Yes, we're among the most active editors at RfD, so it's not unreasonable that we communicate amongst ourselves and hold a lot of the institutional memory around there. But we've also all worked to write down the standards of RfD, especially at WP:RFDO. I explicitly started that page to describe how RfDs usually go, not to prescribe how they should go (compare to WP:AFDP).
You are welcome to become an RfD regular too. We'd be happy to have you. You'll get a better grasp on these issues, and you'll have more opportunities to make arguments for change where you think it's needed. But please don't spend your time trawling talk pages like that. You'll do better for the encyclopedia doing almost anything else. (And for what it's worth, I've had occasional off-wiki contact with some of those editors on other issues, but RfD is discussed in venues that are open to everyone. Transparency is very important to me.) --BDD (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@BDD: In regards to But please don't spend your time…You’ll do better for the encyclopedia doing almost anything else — this is exactly what I am trying to do, add content, but the actions of many other editors who are flooding my user-talk-page with notices of nominations for deletion, have given me pause about the effectiveness of my contributions. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
@BDD: to this day I have no clue why four useful (to readers) redirects hit the bit-bucket and since you said we’ve also all worked to write down the standards of RfD, especially at WP:RFDO I went ahead and looked at WP:RFDO to see why my redirects were deleted, but I still don’t get it. Can you please help me out? BTW thanks for pinging me. Ottawahitech (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Ottawahitech, is this really all about one RfD that didn't go your way? If so, I strongly encourage you to simply walk away. I will answer your question, though.
WP:RFDO is not a one-stop shop, and I hope I haven't represented it that way. The "official" word on redirects is at WP:RFD itself, above current listings, in the Guiding principles of RfD and When should we delete a redirect? sections. Please note also that because I was a closer of that discussion and not a participant, I'm not the best person to ask about the rationale behind the delete arguments. But I think the idea was that those redirects could confuse readers looking for something else. There are several "gold plans" mentioned on Wikipedia, and since none of them have standalone articles, it's not clear what would be the most notable of those. There's very little discussion of the plan types at the ACA article—which is probably appropriate—so we're talking about balancing a chance of being slightly helpful versus a chance of obscuring other topics readers could be seeking. I suspect that redirects such as Gold plan (Obamacare) or Gold plan (Affordable Care Act) would not be considered problematic.
I will not be watching this page further; the formatting is topsy-turvy, and the discussion is simply too large. You're welcome to discuss RfD at WT:RFD, and I again encourage you to be a regular participant there. You're also free to contact me on my talk page. I hope this helps. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, it can be good to have a healthy skepticism about one's own contributions. I can think of one editor in particular, not to pile on, who would've saved a lot of us a lot of work. Be bold, yeah, but if a bunch of your contributions are ending up deleted, best to be a bit conservative and responsive to the implicit criticism. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, Ottawahitech, you're astonished that a group of editors who frequent a common area sometimes talk to each other? What the hell? Yeah, sometimes we talk about things. So what? Grow up, and drop the stick. You had your opportunity to provide input as did everyone else; that's how discussions work, and it is none of our fault that you didn't speak up about your concerns with the process at the time, or we would have done a better job of explaining our rationales to you. Don't ping me to this discussion again. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @Purplebackpack89: You said it was [deleted] because people believed "bronze plan" didn't only mean a health care plan So are you saying that it is OK to delete any page that may have an ambiguous title, because if this is what you mean there will be very little left in Wikipedia whose audience is global. No? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
  • @Ottawahitech: Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If there are multiple articles with the same or similar titles or topics that are both relatively well-known, a redirect to just one of them is inappropriate. Instead, there should either be a disambiguation page, or nothing at all. But we're on a tangent ATM. pbp 01:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: I really don't know why you feel mocked by that Rfd given it's probably one the least dramatic and more light hearted Xfd's. If I'm going to use your civility standards, I can argue that you're the one mocking me and my research skills. Personally, I just see it like we're just searching from different parts of the globe. --Lenticel (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ottawahitech: My thoughts on your remarks sort of mirror both BDD's and Ivanvector's; I offer you to become more active in RFD to become more familiar with its process, but at the same time, recommend you drop the stick in trying to form some sort of bad faith accusation based on the fact that some of a noticeboard's regulars discuss subjects amongst each other. If the latter did not happen, given that such editors have the most knowledge of a noticeboard, no improvements to improve the functionality and processes of a noticeboard would probably never happen. In fact, regarding RFD, thanks to RFD regulars brainstorming and discussing amongst each other, WP:RFDCO now exists. Wikipedia is a WP:CONSENSUS-based project, and what your accusations are akin to trying to claim otherwise. (That, and if you are trying to reach all recent RFD participants, you probably should have mentioned Tavix and Rubbish computer; Godsy too, but they are already aware of this discussion.) (Also, I'm a bit surprised I was mentioned as a RFD regular, especially given my recent transition from participation in RFD and becoming quite more active in WP:FFD. I'm waiting until the flood of nominations of redirects from Neelix dies down a bit before I go back to being active on RFD.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Disingenuous [X]fD nominations, done without proper research" ≠ "Unsuccessful [X]fD nominations", the latter being very vague. Assuming "unsuccessful" to mean resulting in keep (more applicable to XfDeletions than XfDisucssions because the nominator generally suggests deletion in the former): some XfDs are close calls that result in keep and users shouldn't be afraid to make nominations of that nature. Also the proposal as written is very punitive in the sense that it would never reset (10 "unsuccessful" [X]fD nominations over 10 years would result in being blocked from making any new *fD nominations for a week by this wording, which I doubt is the intention). I've thought it over and whether it was a pure automated process or one requiring user input, it would be quite unreasonable, which I can elaborate on if needed.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as well. The deletion forums are an important function of the project. Editors shouldn't be afraid to list in them. Editors who make obviously frivolous nominations can already be admonished or blocked for it - for egregious cases, go to WP:ANI. I think making this kind of bright-line rule regarding "failed" deletion discussions is an especially bad thing. Also, deletion discussions don't ever really "fail", that's an unfortunate viewpoint of the process - deletion discussions test community consensus, they don't ever really fail. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I wouldn't want to sanction anyone for doing what they think is right. I have to assume good faith and hope that those who are doing AfD are generally doing it because they think it's best for Wiki, not to get scalp points. That said, I do disagree with a number of AfD's and I spend a lot of time trying to fix the articles I think are worth saving. I don't think anyone should be "forced" to do anything, but it is very important to do WP:BEFORE. Notability does not depend on the sources actually being in the article--only that they exist somewhere, so all the editor has to do is take a look... hopefully also using a database and see if the person is notable. If the article needs sources, tag it if they are too busy to fix the article. I don't see why so many articles are up for AfD when a quick WP:Before shows the person is notable. Another problem is that many people nominating AfD's obviously don't have access to databases and perhaps they are unable to tell if something is notable because the information is behind a paywall. Perhaps an answer to WP:BEFORE is to require that editors have access to databases before they are allowed to nominate for AfD. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to add that Megalibrarygirl is over at AfD often enough to know what's actually happening in that arena. AfD does oftentimes come across as some video game where one tries to rack up the most kills! The three most inappropriate reasons, to me, that AfD's end up there is first, because of don't like whether it's either the subject or the editor. Second, is a lack of knowledge about the subject itself. The third one is not interested in fixing the problems within the article. That last problem is going to continue to grow rapidly. At one time, (from what I can deduce) articles on Wikipedia could be started with a simple paragraph which then other writers would add to that article. However, today, an article must be fully fleshed out, like turning in an essay for a final exam. Why would anyone want to put that kind of effort into an article only to not only not receive credit for such an article, but have others add erroneous information? Certainly, not me. I'd rather create my own website and stick it there. Heck, there's even plenty of free spots to put it. What I see is Wikipedia losing its most valuable resource here - its writers! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 18:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@MurderByDeadcopy: I don't think people expect articles to be complete or face deletion. But I do think they expect them to be sourced or faced deletion. As for the "other people adding erroneous information" argument, a) other people editing "your" article is something you've just gotta live with in a Wiki, and b) the odds of erroneous information being added are much greater if an article stays around. I know you consider people not fixing articles to be a problem, but I'd counter that forcing people to do a particular activity is also a problem. People should always have a choice between fixing or not. pbp 23:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think people expect articles to be complete or face deletion.
A. I disagree. Seeing article drafts like this[28] getting rejected is baffling to me. That isn't some beginning paragraph or two to an article, that article is pretty complete which should be signed and owned by the writer so that they can be acknowledged for their hard work. Putting that kind of work into getting an article on Wikipedia is exactly why writers aren't staying here. As you've stated, you have to accept that anyone can edit "your" article on Wikipedia and I have zero issue with that premise as long as that exertion isn't surpassed by unreasonable expectations - at which point, I believe, the writer should/will take their creations elsewhere to get the full credit.
B. It's odd that you suggest that believe in forcing people to do a particular activity since I've never recommended anyone be "forced" to do anything and was basically agreeing with Megalibrarygirl who also had said the same thing. However, by nominating articles for AfD that shouldn't be there, but instead should be fixed, it is "forcing" people to do a particular activity or allow said article to be deleted for no other reason except that the nominator wasn't willing to do the work themselves. Either tag the article or fix the article or ignore it, but don't send it to AfD which then "forces" somebody else to fix the mess! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 19:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@MurderByDeadcopy: The AfC you cite a) was rejected for being unsourced, not incomplete, b) probably wouldn't have been rejected had a different reviewer reviewed it, and c) wasn't an AfD. Also, nobody is forced to fix an article at AfD. You can just let the article be deleted, after all. pbp 20:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Never said that draft was in AfD nor did I say anyone "had" to fix anything, however, suggesting that an article be allowed to be deleted that shouldn't have been nominated to AfD in the first place doesn't sound accurate either. I have also decided that this conversation is going nowhere, at the moment, so you can have the last word here. Have a nice day! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 20:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose since learning how to participate on XFD noticeboards can sometimes be trial and error, and banning an editor from participating due to such criteria wholesale is akin to assuming that all editors who do so are bad-faith editors trying to cause disruption, and that could not be further from the truth. Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose BEFORE may have had its place when wikipedia was starting out. Wikipedia now has more than 5 million articles. Given that most of of them are shit and many downright harmful, BEFORE has outlived its usefulness and certainly entrenching it in this manner is unhelpful to the project. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, though I'm not sure about the numbers. Editors should not only be prevented from making plainly wrong nominations. They should also be discouraged from making controversial ones (the sort that end in no consensus or a close call), as those are the biggest time sink and nuisance ever devised. They are much worse than the nominations that get snowballed. Editors should be made very afraid to make those kind of borderline nominations. The more afraid they are, the better. I do not like borderline nominations. I don't think it matters whether they are doing it in bad faith or not. I am inclined to think that the ability to make AfD nominations should be earned, so I have little problem with this. James500 (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: Much as the proposed policy is well intentioned, there appear to be several issues with it.
  • It does not deter new editors whose articles are nominated for deletion from leaving, instead deterring all editors involved with XfDs.
  • It fails to take proportion into account: if somebody is 99% accurate and they nominate 1000 articles for deletion, thy would be blocked. A user who created 1000 articles would likely be praised, and so to should users who contribute substantially to other areas, provided they use WP:BEFORE and don't nominate articles immediately after their creation.
  • It is too bureaucratic, with too many blocks, quantitative regulations and different stages. It is either serious misconduct, or it isn't.
  • It leans towards the idea that voting Delete, No, or Oppose to anything on Wikipedia is intrinsically negative, when the decision either way should be what is ultimately best for the encyclopedia.
I can imagine that some AfD nominators are working towards a "high score" that in reality does not correspond to actual improvement of the encyclopedia, but this is a wider problem in Wikipedia: for example, I've heard it being said that some editors are unnecessarily reporting users to AIV and UAA.
It is extremely unfortunate that what is no doubt a large proportion of new editors are leaving Wikipedia, and will continue to leave, as the articles they create are nominated for deletion, but I do not believe that this policy will help.
Are new editors creating their first article offered a link to "My first article" when they start creating it? Hopefully this could help, along with more weight being placed on "My first article" when users are welcomed. Having said that, sources should always be searched for before an article is nominated for deletion, and a reasonable amount of time should be given for new articles to be created: if the creating user writes something like "A start" in their edit summary I add the "Work in progress" tag for them.
Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 03:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to: ;B. Carry out these checks:

  1. Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, proposed deletion or speedy keep.
  2. If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)

;D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability:

  1. The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform.
  2. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate.
  3. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{third-party}}, {{primary sources}} and {{one source}}. For a more complete list see WP:CTT.

This is what we are talking about. You might not like it (obviously some people don't), It doesn't say optional. Frankly I disagree with it too. I've never used the sources specified to search. For every article I have ever discussed, I have always been able to find sources directly from a conventional Google source and possibly by Deep Googling past the first pages of social media garbage. It literally takes seconds to get on the path to become educated in the subject. If the results are a blank page, are you spelling it right? If yes, that is the clear indication of no sources. If its garbage, get rid of it. If you don't know that answer, you have no business wasting everybody else's time. Trackinfo (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Trackinfo's suggestion. It's important to do WP:BEFORE and anyone who can't be bothered to do so shouldn't be nominating for AfD. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I spend a large portion of my time on Wikipedia working with AfD, and making new policies as per Trackinfo would scare quite a few people monitoring the new pages feed away, and often times there is a backlog of new unreviewed articles that will not get reviewed if that occurs. I believe that extreme deletionism needs to be curbed on Wikipedia, but extreme inclusionism is not going to solve the problem either. I respect Trackinfo's efforts to give new articles a chance, but I disagree with their solution. smileguy91talk - contribs 15:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to this elaborate wiki-thread. user:smileguy91. You say you are an experienced wp:AfD worker, an area I try to stay as far away from as I possibly can. Can you please explain why enforcing more strict rules on nominating editors work for deletion will scare away those who monitoring the new pages feed? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
"Experienced" may be an overstatement in this situation, because most of what I handle are articles that need WP:CSD or WP:PROD, although AFD has become of interest to me. As for my explanation, deletion tags are by no means condemnation of the article that they are placed on, nor a sign of imminent deletion since CSD is subject to the review of at least one administrator, XFD/AFD by the community, and PROD by at least one administrator. In my honest opinion, enforcing harsh rules such as those suggested here scares away NPP patrollers because although the punishments suggested are not bans or blocks, they still 1) tie up the user's hands that could have been used to help clear up NPP backlogs, 2) make the editor feel unwanted by the Wikipedia community or otherwise feel that they are making a negative impact, and 3) make the editor feel that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy, which it is not. NPP patrollers do mess up sometimes and place deletion tags on articles that should not be deleted, but everyone's human and make mistakes. People who tag articles for deletion make a net positive impact to the community, and as long as they maintain that net positive, they are beneficial to Wikipedia and thus make sure that content that does not belong on Wikipedia does not remain on Wikipedia. Mathematically, assuming that people who new page patrol maintain the same rate of error, the proposed rebukes listed above would disproportionately punish more frequent and more hardworking NPP patrollers compared to those who check in once in a while. If such a policy were to be implemented by the community to combat radical deletionism, it would have to be based on percentage of deletion requests denied rather than quantity, and the percentage error would have to be high at that, at least 20% IMO. smileguy91talk - contribs 23:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It depends on the articles, and on the percent of ones deleted, not just the number. We already have on occasion removed people making frivolous nominations based on their being disruptive. I should mention that I deliberately nominate articles I think are on the borderline, with the purpose of letting the community better define the standards, and thus improve consistency. What new users need is not more inclusive rules, but the better ability to tell whether an article is likely to be improved. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose re:"The culture of deletion is becoming rather aggressive," the way I see it, the culture of piggybacking Wikipedia for SEO purposes has become rather aggressive. Semitransgenic talk. 18:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose- completely preposterous. Reyk YO! 20:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Careful deletionism/mergism does not harm the project; it makes the encyclopedia easier to navigate, read, and maintain. This proposal punishes new page patrollers and encourages erroneous use of CSD/PROD. Esquivalience t 14:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Where is there an issue with deleting? The issue is uninformed nominations for deletion. If you blindly delete, then you potentially damage wikipedia's content. If you use WP:BEFORE and research what your are questioning, then you are making a nomination based on information. This proposal enforces placing the responsibility on a nominator to know what they are talking about by using a search for information before they talk. Trackinfo (talk) 23:47, 9 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.

close as unfinished (draft)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is generally support here for the proposal, however as pointed out by DGG, it's already part of the deletion policy. There doesn't seem to be anything to do here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I would keep it simple, just allow reviewing administrators to block editors indefinitely for AFD nominations that are absurd. But this doesn't address the real problem: AFD is some how in an incredible hurry (which is pointless) but more importantly it forces the closing administrator to reason in absolutes (within this time). The solution: Encourage/allow administrators to close as "unfinished" which moves the articles to draft space. (As closing them is now easy we can Leave AFD's open indefinitely.)

By having the option to close as draft the admin can chose quickly knowing there wont be any negative implications. If he doubts between delete or draft it is safe to move it to draft or delete it, if he doubts between keep or draft it is safe to move it to draft or keep it. The doubtful cases then sit far away from the current line between keep and delete.

note: I've looked at the pending reviews one time and it was incredibly hard to judge if a topic is worthy of an article or not. You get things like: Professional sports person. No one can be expected to divide those into keep/delete in a remotely consistent way. But even if one could. After one great accomplishment it is nice to have the draft article. Much nicer than having garbage in mainspace or deleting worthy topics. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Before we had draft space, it was somewhat common for discussions to close as "userfy" - pages would be moved into a user's space to continue working on them if they weren't quite ready for mainspace. I called for that result in discussions where consensus was that the topic met inclusion standards but the article quality was poor. Poor quality of course is not a valid deletion rationale but sometimes consensus is imperfect. I don't follow AfD much any more so I don't know if pages often get moved to draft space or not, but it is available as an option. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
And those userified articles don't get touched, sit around in draftspace until someone finds them years and years later. I'm sure it may exist but I have yet to see a single userified article bounce back and become a live article again. It's still an option though and with draftspace, that's another option. There's still DRV which often gets calls to restore article that have been deleted based on new information. For those reasons, I understand why AFD would be more deletionist as nothing is ever really dying. If there is actual a red link that was proposed as an article but listed with nothing, went through AFD and deleted, it can always be restored though a number of mechanism provided that someone with the interest to create it provides the sources. However, as someone who works with a lot of userdrafts and new drafts, the general view is "if you created it and put up some statement, you must have gotten it from somewhere and there's 100% chance it'll be easier for you to recall where you got it from than demand that other people do it for you." That's why drafts that don't get edited for six months and aren't worthy of becoming articles get deleted (although almost a third probably get extended at least once or twice which is basically a year without any actual work on it). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, and--as mentioned-- we already do it, but it might be a good idea to explicitly add the options of moving to draft & moving to userspace. We have always closed many discussions with the option: userify. (and a decent proportion do get improved and return) And we now often do close by moving articles into draft space (and there are a few people who work on improving these, including myself--we need more people to do this, there are very few of us.) DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
After digging a bit I do see a few move to draft votes. wp:afd argues an article may be kept and improved, merged, redirected, incubated (draft), transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, transcluded into another article (or other page), userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy.
Perhaps we could also come up with a guideline for linking to the draft articles from mainspace. We could make purple in stead of red links. I can usually be bothered to drop a link to a usable source on a talk page but writing a whole article that will/must probably be deleted is not very appetizing. Being able to find the page in a place where it appears to be useful would help a lot. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I would have no objection to adding an additional outcome to those presently available, i.e., a new "move to draftspace" version of "userfy". I would object strongly to having open-ended AfDs; if, after a week or three of being listed at AfD, there is no consensus to keep an article, the AfD needs to be closed. Open-ended AfDs would be a bureaucratic nightmare, effectively permitting a flawed article to remain in article space indefinitely. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Moving to draftspace is the new "incubate" option. The incubation pages aren't around anymore. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it takes a long time to work up the article after moving to draft: it will help build good-faith with newer editors. Keeping editors is very important and it's really scary to new editors when their articles are AfD'd after the editor put a lot of time and effort to write them. I think we need to be respectful of others' work and feelings. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment but I have found few editors who start off by creating articles that stay on for more than just watching their own articles. The new editors that I think will actually stay probably started off like me, by doing little things like grammatical errors and fixing small problems. Those who's first (and sometimes only) edit is to post a new article I rarely see stay here to work on other articles. Either way, I've been more inclined with taking A7 articles and moving them to draftspace so that there's at least a chance for the editor to work on it. My biggest goal right now is to get WP:ALERTS to figure out some way to get WikiProject onboard with drafts that are G13 tagged or more importantly, that get moved into Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions where they are sitting for a month prior to G13 eligibility. That's really the best time to save the newest articles, plenty of time and every little edit resets it for a length. Those are the ones that a decade ago would be the one-line stubs (which seems to be falling out of favor and too aggressively sent to AFD for my view). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I have seen WP:BEFORE being misused many times as an excuse to shoot down AfDs of American subject. Mainly due to the point that often is claimed that one reliable source is enough to prove notability in case of American subjects while non-American subjects nee several reliable sources. The Banner talk 16:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE can't be used as an excuse to shoot down an article. It can only be used to show that there is relevant information that leads to notability being established. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl, Alternatives to Deletion and WP:BEFORE are Deletion Policies. They are NOT optional and anybody nominating an article for deletion is required to follow these POLICIES which the nominating editors rarely, in my experience, do. I agree with many Afd's but I see a lot that don't deserve it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE is not used to shoot down articles, it is used to shoot down AfDs by ignoring/dismissing the research done by the nominator. The Banner talk 21:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Nor is it policy, Checkingfax is wrong. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion doesn't even claim to be a guideline. Doug Weller (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it is indeed a restatement of policy. Deletion policy reads at WP-ATD "if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." If the problem is notability , the only way to see if a page can be improved is to look for additional references., which is the essence of WP:BEFORE,
  • Support and It's been done before: On occasion I and others recommended brand-new-in-mainspace articles be moved to WP:Articles for creation back in the day before the Draft: namespace was created. I don't have diffs at hand but if memory serves, more than one AFD closed that way. Formalizing this for brand new pages seems like a good idea. For non-brand-new pages there are other options: Delete the clearly non-notable, soft-delete the "notability unclear" unless someone is promising to fix them in the next few days (in which case, "relist"), and soft-delete or stub the clearly notable topics if the current revision and all past revisions are worse than having no article at all. The reason brand-new pages should be moved to draft instead of deleted and that non-new pages don't "deserve" this privilege is to avoid unnecessarily discouraging editors - especially new editors with little or no article-creation experience. It's far better for editor retention to allow new editors a few weeks or months (WP:CSD#G13 is 6 months) to try and fail to find references that demonstrate that a non-notable topic is notable than to tell them they only have 7 days to find something or the page dies. I recommend that if this proposal to allow AFD discussions to close as "Move to Draft:" passes in any form, it include wording that says any page forcibly moved to Draft: as a result of an AFC close will be be tagged as an WP:Articles for creation draft and that it will be considered "G13-eligible" after the usual time period even if the AFC template is later removed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
we don;t have to pass anything. it's already an explicit part of Deletion policy, at WP:ATD-I (section 2.5 of the policy page). All we have to do is use it more. DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 1 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.

close as failed

Because we should delete what the policies already say we should. This goes on forever, but it's just an anti-deltionist rant, like hundreds before. DreamGuy (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Where anywhere does this say to violate policy? The problem is bad, uninformed nominations. Repeat offenders should be penalized. Or do you support uninformed nominations? Trackinfo (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

fork discussion to WP:BEFORE problem

I didn't start the original discussion in order to have an "anti-deltionist rant. Instead, I wanted to talk about the fact that I don't see editors doing WP:BEFORE. I know this because I have improved numbers of articles that other editors have passed off as "no room for improvement." I don't mind articles being deleted if there is a reason for it, but if an editor can't be bothered to check or see if someone is actually notable then this is an actual problem for 2 reasons:

1) It hurts newbie editors: they feel threatened by the process. We should respect people's work and help them improve their articles by doing a WP:BEFORE and passing along the information to the newbie with some tips. It really doesn't take long to do.

2) It makes the process of keeping an article more difficult. Where it would have been easy to slap the article with a "Needs more sources" and bring it to the attention of a relevant WikiProject, instead the article goes through an intimidating process of discussing the alphabet soup of WP:GNG, TOOSOON, etc...

Now I'm not saying these things can't be learned. I've learned to step up into AfD and I will not let myself be intimidated by the process. However, it was intimidating at first.

So, to sum up, this isn't an anti-deletionist rant as DreamGuy characterizes the discussion... it's instead a plea to find a way to get editors to understand the importance of WP:BEFORE. Also, I think more AfD nominators should have database access, but that's another can of worms altogether... Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - This thread seems to be predicated on the assumption that having an article nominated at AfD is an awful thing. Perhaps I am simply an optimist, and prefer to focus on the up-side of AfD nominations, but to my mind AfD nominations often have a positive result - The mere fact that an article is being considered for deletion means that it will be reviewed... and any problems with the article will be highlighted (and hopefully fixed). The mere threat of deletion often results in needed improvements actually being made to a problematic article. This is a good thing. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The mere threat of deletion involves about a 60% chance of deletion. If the editor of that article is new to Wikipedia, there is a 95% chance in running that editor off Wikipedia. But, then, I'm beginning to discover that what Wikipedia wants is fewer editors so maybe that second part is a desirable outcome! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 19:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay. What I did was rather informal based somewhat like what DGG did above. I would count up the total deletes in an AfD day (so this is only concerning AfD's, not speedy deletes which is much higher) and subtract that from the total. Deletes for every day was always higher between 55-62%, with the rest being no consensus, userfy, merge, and keep. AfD editors who are new, whose articles went to AfD almost always left Wikipedia and never returned... even if the article wasn't deleted. In fact, I specifically began looking into those articles that were saved. I only found two editors of 25 saved articles so that would be about 95%. Of course, these are just approximates. And It was difficult even finding a saved article written by a new editor. Lot's of articles are more often saved based on who initially wrote them or who's backing to keep them than any other reason! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 05:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar. We all know that AfD is not meant to be cleanup, but that is what it is in practice. I know one person who never cleans up their (vastly inadequate) articles unless they are AfD'ed, and often they get deleted afterwards anyway. Also, see before and after for this, which I found by clicking on the big red button on Volunteer Marek's userpage. Btw, I think people should do the latter more often, though I don't follow my own advice. (I don't mean deleting it, I mean clicking it). Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Blueboar: You said The mere fact that an article is being considered for deletion means that it will be reviewed: That may have been true at some point but today the AfD battleground is growing weeds mostly. See for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Business#Article_alerts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canada/Article_alerts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies/Article_alerts#AfD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law/Article_alerts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Technology/Article_alerts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women/Article_alerts
Ottawahitech (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
Not sure what those links are supposed to show, or how they refute what I said. Could you elaborate? Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I was trying to illustrate that listing an article at AfD (or any XfD for that matter) does not mean that it gets a proper review. Consensus nowadays is the agreement of a couple of editors on average.
More specifically, WikiProjects that have alerts, list AfDs of articles that have been tagged with the wproj’s banner.On the right hand side you can see the number of participants in each discussion. So, if you click, say, on the link for the alerts for WikiProject Business you will see that out of the 10 deletion discussions only one has 10 paricipants and one has seven. On the other hand four discussions have zero participants, two have one participant and the rest have three. Many of the discussions are relisted over and over.
Don’t forget that many wikiprojects do not have alerts, and many articles are not tagged, so those articles probably have much lower participation. Am I making any sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
  • @Blueboar: I wish someone would generate some statistics: You believe that AfD nominations often have a positive result while all I see are many XfD discussions with no participants (other than a nominator). BTW I just discovered that in this situation the alerts show one participant (software bug?), instead of zero. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
The two (having no participants at XfD, and ending with a positive result at an article) are not mutually exclusive. The mere fact that an editor nominates a poor article for deletion can spark improvements to the article - without any discussion on the XfD page. The "reply" to the nomination may be made by fixing the article, without discussion on the XfD page. Indeed, because there is a record of the nomination on the article talk page... even a nomination that is "closed (as no-consensus) due to lack of participation" can result in the desired improvement, years after the nomination. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@Blueboar: You said The mere fact that an editor nominates a poor article for deletion can spark improvements to the article but again, in my experience this is hardly ever the case. What’s more, even well attended AfDs can generate a lot of talk, but no improvements to the article. See for example: 2015 Los Angeles Unified School District closure an article actively debated at AfD which received almost 1500 views in the last couple of days, but has been pretty much dead in terms of content building since the AfD started. In my experience this is typical — an AfD, successful or otherwise, usually kills the article. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk)please ping me

, *WP:BEFORE is excellent as advice on best practice, but it does not work if you think of it as a mandatory required rule that must be followed. It is unenforceable. Just try to chastise someone you think isn't following it. All they need to do is claim that they did search for sources before nomination, but didn't find anything they thought was good enough. There is no way to "prove" that they didn't do this. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I would support mandatory BEFORE. And if someone says "I checked for refs to support notability and didn't find any," but lots of good sources show up at Google Books and other obvious online sources, then the nominator has lied or is of questionable competence, and it could hurt him if he seeks to become an adminintrator. I do object to any notion that I have to spend a lot of time finding and adding refs to an article someone didn't bother to reference, when that person instead moved on to create a number of other unreferenced articles, to run up his "articles created" count, such as some editors do via semiautomated techniques from online lists of things or persons. Also, many new articles are "vanispamcruftisements" by a single purpose account about their band, employer, or fixation, and if all they are going to contribute are more vanispamcruftisements, the loss may not be a critical one of he goes off in a huff. Edison (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I like Edison's idea. It's true we can't know for sure if someone tried their best to do WP:BEFORE, but if an editor consistently shows a "bad track record" of checking for sources, we can at least weed out editors who shouldn't be involved in admin or higher. If you're working on an encyclopedia as an admin, you really ought to have database access and/or excellent searching skills. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding AfD nomination quality  I think we can agree that there are AfD nominators who take lightly their responsibility to the community in their preparation.  When one part of the community slacks, someone else either picks up the slack, or the encyclopedia suffers.  WP:BEFORE is only one part of the quality problem of AfD nominations.  This is not a simple problem, as we get editors who don't know how to make quality AfD noms, editors who think it is accepted practice to make drive-by noms, and VIPs who won't be bothered with preparing a community discussion.  We also must work with people biased to obstruct AfD consensus-building; joined by the legacy of thought from the ARS, which used poor-quality AfD nominations to up their "rescue" counts.  Another side of this is, where are the examples of quality AfD noms to present as a standard for comparison?  The first step in solving a problem is identifying a problem.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not really get the problem with topic banning editors who regularly do not do a good BEFORE although I would probably define a bad BEFORE as regularly missing good material available through {{find sources}}. This is because good faith editors 1) may not have access to other databases or 2) may not know about any of the hundreds of free specialty databases. I would probably expand this to editors who regularly nominate in a particular topic area and do not check specialty databases, for that topic, which are pointed out to them and which they can access. What I find disruptive is when a nominator refuses to acknowledge they messed up and withdraw the nomination when it becomes obvious they messed up. JbhTalk 21:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletions: mandatory notification of page creator?

I really don’t know if it is mandatory to notify a page creator that their article has been nominated for wp:AfD, however in my experience many nominators for the CfD/TfD/RfD/MfD/CSD/PROD/BLP-Prod/Deletion Review (did I miss any?) regularly omit notifying the editor who created the page.

Some editors here have expressed their opinion that such notifications should not be mandatory because they believe all editors should be using their wp:watch list. Since there is already discussion about this here I thought I would add this as a new section and see how others feel about it. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

Watching an article you create is automated. You would have to deliberately unwatch an article to not get notification. That is something that appeared a few years ago, so if you have an old article you created, you should go back to watch it. Same applies to Templates. However Categories get deleted in secrecy because there is no notification process to the articles affected by the removal of a category. Most categories are deleted with no opposition or discussion. Since categories are an aid to navigation, there is no telling the amount of damage some thoughtless, unopposed deletions have caused. I've caught a few after they were deleted, but once it is done it is a difficult process to reverse.Trackinfo (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
It is not automatic to show all changes to a page on the watchlist, only the most recent change. If someone adds AfD, then someone else edits the page, even a minor edit like correcting a typo, the default is that only the second edit shows in the watchlist. Additionally, requiring someone to check their watchlist violates Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is voluntary. Thisisnotatest (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Users should not have to rely on watchlists for this. So there should be a talk page advice for the creator, and also for major contributors. For those that are not logged on, notification will likely happen by email. And if they are logged in they will see it at the top of the screen. However I do not think it has to mandatory, just every strongly advised. I would expect any regular AFD CSD or prod nominator to hand out notifications. But for people new at this, I think they can be excused. However if the article gets deleted without these contributors ever knowing, there is a stronger case for allowing WP:REFUNDs or deletion review undeletes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
All of this requires a lot of effort on the part of the nominator. Besides being simply laze, some disingenuous nominators might "forget" to properly notify contributors to an article in order to achieve the result. It seems there is a class of nominator who is more concerned about the won/loss record than actually having a reasonable argument about content. I have proposed in the past that this process be automated by a bot notifying all past editors on the article in question. The idea fell flat. Trackinfo (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: In regard to your comment I do not think it has to be mandatory: I have been documenting all my deleted edits/pages on my user page for sometime now, and I know for sure that I lost quite a few pages that I had not received notification for on my talk-page. My most recent statistics indicate that this is mostly (but not exclusively) attributable to categories (with associated cat-talk-pages) that I created which disappear with no notice on a regular basis. I also know of at least two ADMINs who openly refuse to notify page creators of nominations. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
@Thisisnotatest: in regards to your comment It is not automatic to show all changes to a page on the watchlist, only the most recent change I think this is also a settable preference? Ottawahitech (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
@Ottawahitech: As I have said elsewhere on this page, it is a settable preference, at the cost of making your Watchlist content much longer per day. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
@Trackinfo: in regards to your comment Watching an article you create is automated. You would have to deliberately unwatch an article to not get notification it appears to be a settable preference see:
Preferences -> Watchlist -> 
  • Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist
  • Add pages and files I move to my watchlist
  • Add pages I create and files I upload to my watchlist
…and as I said before, some editors (including me) prefer not to spend their wiki-time watching pages. If I could view only XfD notices on pages on my watchlist I may consider it, but otherwise I find watching pages way too distracting. Ottawahitech (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
@Ottawahitech: I watch almost 8,000 articles. I disappear for days to weeks at a time. During such disappearances, my wikipedia attention is minimal. The single edit posting the *fD is both time sensitive and hard to detect out of all that noise. Once an AfD is posted, some articles get a lot of edits, masking the one edit that revealed that there is now a ticking time bomb on that article. When an article I watch is up for such a nomination, that information is far more important than all the other monitoring am doing. Just as you are questing a ping when a response is written, I want a notification that action is required. Trackinfo (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I support mandatory notification of the page creator and all contributors of significant portions of new text. Watchlists are useless for this. James500 (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support mandatory notification of the article creator of a pending AfD by the AfD nominator at the same time as the subject article is tagged with the AfD notice template. Much of this discussion and virtually all of the ranting about "deletionist" this-and-that is misguided and horribly exaggerated, but I have always believed that it is a matter of basic fairness to notify the creator of an article subject to a pending AfD. I find it quite odd that this is not already mandatory and I have uniformly demanded notification of creators and AfD re-listings when nominators have failed to provide notice. That said, I oppose mandatory notification of "major contributors" because of the burden it places on the nominator to discern what constitutes "major" and because of the arguments that inevitably ensue over same. The notice given the creator and the tagging of the article with the AfD notice template should be sufficient; no one should be trying to hide pending AfDs, but likewise there is also a burden on concerned editors to keep articles of interest on their watch lists. There are several subject categories of AfDs which I check daily, I have watch-listed over 4,000 articles of concern to me. From time to time, I have also notified WikiProjects (in a neutral manner per WP:CANVASS) of particular AfDs within their subject areas of interest. Any responsible editor should be prepared to do these things as well. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Opposed - There is nothing special about being the article creator. Once you upload an article into mainspace, it is no longer "your" article. You have given it to the community to do with as they will. You have no special "rights" in regards to what happens to the article. Which means... you have no "right" to be notified if someone significantly edits it, nor if someone nominates it for deletion. If you care what happens to an article (whether you created it or not), the onus is on you to follow what happens to it. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This isn't about ownership, it is about transparency and not using sneaky tactics. James500 (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for all contributors to the article being nominated This remove the question of ownership. If you took the time to edit the article, you should have an important opinion to be heard on its value to wikipedia, whether you removed content from the article or added to it. Stated above, because this is a lot of work, we should request a BOT automatically make this notification as part of the nomination process (along with creating the discussion article and the header with the link). Trackinfo (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when practical - it is sometimes quite impractical to identify an article creator and especially to identify anyone who would be considered a "major contributor", and indeed disagreement about how "major" should be defined. I fear this requirement becoming a "gotcha" loophole to keep content which should otherwise be deleted. But I do support the idea. Also, this constitutes a major change to how we've always operated, and should be better advertised than this sub-thread. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Being the initial or subsequent editor is just that, they don't own the article. I think it is good form to notify certain contributors - but would in no way want to invalidate these community discussions just because a certain editor wasn't explicitly asked to participate. — xaosflux Talk 16:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Preference is that this would be via bot that would notify all contributors except those marking a contribution as minor, but if not, then needs to be required of the nominator. Minimum would be notifying the page creator. It is not that the creator owns the page, it is that the creator is the best person to know why they believed the topic to be notable. It also brings the creator into the education process, increasing the likelihood that their future page creations improve as a result of the discussion. While deletions of my first two article creations were upheld (and discouraged me for year or two from creating any other new articles), my subsequent creations have survived and one of them is regularly edited. Involving me in the deletion process of those two pages, for which the nominator had notified me, was an important part of my education in how and when to create an article. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Logically it also should not notify back to BOTs as well. Trackinfo (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose- usually notifying the page creator is the courteous thing to do. But there are times when that would be useless, such as when the creator has been permabanned, or has stated that they don't want to be bothered with such notifications. Strongly oppose making it mandatory to notify every page contributor. This, obviously, would be equivalent to canvassing for keep votes. AfDs should ideally be judged by neutral, uninvolved editors. Reyk YO! 12:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a simple courtesy which should normally be done. But there may be exceptions and so this shouldn't be done blindly. For example, if there's a big group of deletions such as in the recent case of Neelix's redirects, we wouldn't want to spam hundreds of templates onto their talk page. So, this should use guideline language and, so far as I know, that's what we have currently. Is there some specific text that the OP has in mind? Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually that's pretty much exactly what happened with Neelix's talk page, since Twinkle doesn't let every notification be turned off. Another user took it upon themselves to archive the automatic notices onto a subpage, until they got in hot water for it for no good reason. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose any additional forced manual actions for AfD nominators. Neutral on any automated solution using bots.--Staberinde (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as simply courtesy. If you have time to manually nom an article for deletion, then also take the time to notify the article creator. If she is no longer active, then there this no harm. If he is banned, then again no harm is done. Many use Twinkle to nominate, so notifying the article creator is effortless. Articles get added to my watchlist all the time when i edit them or add templates, so that here may be thousands of articles on the watchlist, and because of the large number of watchlist listings each day i might not see an afd for some article I created, and thus miss the opportunity to participate in the afd. Edison (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:OWN. Once you hit the submit button, the content is up to the WP community to do what they want with it. Yes, it should be strongly recommended, but it can't be forced. This applies particularly to pages with complex history, for instance say a page was original created, it was made into a redirect for several years, and then recreated in a completely new form. Who is the "creator"? The first editor, or the editor that recreated from the redirect? And finding that in the last case can prove extremely difficult if there's been more than a few hundred edits to the article. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:OWN the content belongs to the community; we should encourage a culture where creating editors divest themselves of ownership and feel free to just let go and trust their peers. W.r.t those holding the view, the discussion of requiring editors to use watchlists does not resonate; editors are not required to particpate at AfD. NB: I would support requiring some evidence of WP:BEFORE - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The page creator is not a special person in regards to an article. There is no reason to even think they are the main contributor. This add needless red tape to handling routine deletion debates and we already have a tool for people to keep track of pages they have an interest in. HighInBC 22:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is red tape contrary to WP:OWN. Nominations done through Twinkle already notify the creator. If you care about an article for another reason, use your watchlist. If stuff gets buried in your watchlist, install User:Anomie/linkclassifier, which will highlight links to pages nominated for deletion in pink. Then it will be difficult to miss deletion nominations on your watchlist. BethNaught (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support mandatory notification of the article creator of a pending AfD, whether by the nom or a bot. Not because the creator owns the article or is any more responsible for the article than the rest of us, but because the creator likely knows the subject better than most of us, and they might have a justification for creating the article that we haven't yet considered, or even plans to expand it that they haven't gotten around to yet. Dcs002 (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per OWN and CANVASS, and yet another structural mandate - we don't need more rules, we need better articles. Why not require notification, but strike any comment by that editor because their input was canvassed? Why not require anyone expressing "keep" on an article to actually improve the article or we strike their comment? Just as bullshitty but would probably contribute more to the encyclopedia than keeping crap because someone has been notified. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Seeing the BOT suggestion getting more traction above, I'll make the proposal formal.

BOT Notification

As a part of the *fD creation process, a BOT shall automatically notify all contributing editors who have added or subtracted 10% or more of the content to the article. Edits marked with an m or b will be excepted from this process. Trackinfo (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Masem:New fine tuning in green is a point I conceded early on. But Masem continues to argue against this point. It is now in the text. I invite Masem to tweak it further if necessary, then you can reverse your "vote." Trackinfo (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as proponent. Automation takes human effort and subjectivity out of the equation. Any editor who has taken the time to make an edit in the item in question has read some of the content and has enough of an interest in it to have made an improvement to it. Trackinfo (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose . That is going to spam editors that may be doing wikignoming aspects or the like on articles (which don't always mark minor changes). I would support a bot that would notify any editors that has contributed to more than 10% of the total edits on a page (eg at most 10 editors per article), since they are likely going to have the most vested interest. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I would accept the 10% figure as a friendly amendment. Trackinfo (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose- this would have the effect of canvassing for keep votes. Reyk YO! 06:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I gnome, and would not like to be canvassed for all of the articles to which I have contributed. More importantly, I would not consider it appropriate that all (or even all significant) contributors be notified; per the WP:CANVASSing issues above. If AfD were less vote-y and more WP:NOTVOTE-y, these concerns might be allayed. NB: I would support requiring some evidence of WP:BEFORE at AfD. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I support some form of automated notification of all major contributors. Notifying major contributors is no more canvassing for keep !votes than putting the AfD on a deletion sorting list and the AfD log (instead of some list that is only related to the subject matter of the article, like a list on the WikiProject page, that is presumably less likely to be frequented by people who do nothing but vote for deletion) is canvassing for delete !votes. Major contributors will not necessarily be in favour of keeping the article. And even if they are, trying to conceal the AfD from them looks like deception and gamesmanship. Anyway, neutrally worded notifications are not canvassing. It might be desirable to notify major article talk page contributors as well. James500 (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Do many people nominate things to AfD without using Twinkle? Twinkle automatically notifies the creator. I remember what a sod of a job it was setting up an AfD in my 12,000 unautomated edit days before getting my mop and subsequently twinkling. Notify every contributor? No way. Major contributors? Define 'major' so that a bot or a Twinkle will know who is and who isn't. A vandal adding a page of drivel might get a notification where the adder of a short paragraph of good info mightn't. By percentage of text added, or by number of edits? Some people save after every five words, or so it looks when a one paragraph article has taken thirty edits. How about text removed? I'm not saying it's impossible - I am saying it's going to make one of the early Christian Church's council meetings look like making a decision between lemonade and orangeade. Peridon (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Removals can be 'major'. Also note that you shouldn't make any difference between users who are likely to vote 'keep' and users who are likely to vote 'delete'. A user who removes text might statistically be more likely to vote 'delete' than a user who adds text. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Not if they've removed half a page of vandalism - you've no idea which way they'll vote, or even if they will. Does adding half a page of junk count as a major contribution? To a bot, I would say that it did (unless the bot could detect that it had been removed as vandalism by a human). Referring to your post below - do many Commons files get multiple editing to any great degree? Notifying uploaders by bot is easy (for a bot person). Deciding the value of contribs isn't. It's not always easy for humans. Peridon (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Those people removing content from the article could likely be delete votes. Including people who delete content should be important to avoid canvasing just one side. The point being, we are notifying people who have shown they are informed and interested parties to the content in question. Trackinfo (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Can't Twinkle just be set up to notify everyone with major contributions? On Commons, it is possible to use c:MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js to nominate all files in a given category for deletion with a few simple clicks, and the script automatically notifies all uploaders (except reversions and uploads by certain bots). Generally, I support notifying all editors with major contributions (i.e. anything which is not marked as 'bot' or 'minor'), but I think that there should be an exception for certain IP edits. A few days ago, I found text which had been contributed by an IP several years ago, and I thought that it was not useful to notify the IP that the content seems to violate copyright as the original user probably has changed IP addresses since that time. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Going to my point above, I have seen articles (primarily dealing with contemporary, popular works) where by the above definition, would include 100s of "major contributors" simply because they did one or two non-minor editors, and the idea of notifying all of them by a bot screams of canvassing. I would think the balance of having the bot figure out the top 5 to 10 (at most) contributors and notifying them would be reasonable that doesn't feel like canvassing but at least proper notification. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose AfD needs disinterested parties as much as invested parties. This proposal would bias deletion debates and damage neutrality. HighInBC 22:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think AfD is a very neutral place. I think a lot of articles that should never have been up at AfD (the kind I'm concerned about) are there because editors don't do WP:BEFORE and assume a topic/person is not notable. (For example, Agnes Jones Adams, Kelly DiPucchio) Having an interested party would be a useful balance. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Qualified Support - If the technology is there and someone is willing to be responsible for creating the bot (I know NOTHING about such things), then I support this, but someone must commit to creating the bot and making the bot available to all users. I think 10% is as good a number as any, and we need to draw the line somewhere, but I'd support another number too, as long as it captures what we consider major contributors, or even recent contributors in general (maybe past 2 years?). (Edit) WP is not mandatory, so we cannot require someone to create the bot. Maybe we should have the bot first and then !vote? Dcs002 (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this should be the standard. We are losing enough editors to this process as it is, there is no reason not to at least make the process more transparent. I think WP:OWN is a silly argument as what we want are people to provide sources and the creator is likely a good person for that. As far as a canvasing problem goes, I just don't see it. AfDs aren't a vote. One extra "keep" !vote, with no solid reasoning, will have no effect. Hobit (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment. The biggest problem with the "canvassing" rule is it only stops the honest. Canvassing occurs constantly. Wikipedia cannot stop so it should not be a policy. (Unfortunately, AfD's are closed by adding up the "keep's" vs the "delete's"!) --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 20:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support not everyone uses Twinkle.
Also, in 2011 not notifying article creators was used as a possible reason to "oppose" someone becoming an admin. See 28bytes. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 20:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No strong position, but presumably this amounts to CANVASSing, which ought to be disclosed by each person who was CANVASSed and a closing administrator may give added weight to consensus based on non-CANVASSed opinions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually the point of using the BOT would be to remove the POV vote stacking of canvassing aspect from the process. This would bring in people who have demonstrated an interest and are presumably informed about the subject in question. The opposing viewpoint would be to only seek the opinions of the random few who venture through the *fD pages, who will have a high likelihood of not being well informed about the subject in question. Wikipedia is about providing accurate information; being the world's source. Should we depend on uninformed people to decide what is valid content? Trackinfo (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment  Since when are our content contributors irresponsible editors who are biased to throw Afd "elections"?  Afd volunteers don't have the same skills as content contributors in access to sources and content comprehension, so are a valuable resource to an AfD discussion.  We need to support our content contributors.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment  Not everyone keeps everything on their watch list.  I've never known why, but they don't.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support or neutral  The first thing to do is to use a bot to replace the current system of manual notification of page creators by nominators.  The fact that the proposal changed after it was first posted means that the proposal is not yet stable.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Just as a note, as the proponent I respond to the initial objection by Masem within 3 hours of his objection to the original proposal. Not getting a response after seven days, I put it into green text to make it an obvious inclusion addressing his objection in the proposal, with a ping. I thought he would want to discuss, but has instead he has just moved on to comment in other sections. That is the only instability issue to the proposal. Trackinfo (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

XfD culture: Is wp:OWN relevant to this discussion?

I am trying hard to understand how the concept of wp:Own is relevant to this discussion. Yes the article belongs to the community, but the community(singular) does not have an interest in ALL articles. When an article is nominated for deletion only a tiny subset of the community shows up to the wp:XfD discussion and only those who participate determine whether the article is kept or deleted. Of those who participate in deletion discussion the majority are XfD-insiders (those who frequent XfD-discussions and are intimate with the all wiki-deletion-details, but not necessarily with the article's topic). A minority of participants are those who are interested in the topic of the nominated article, but not necessarily in the wiki-deletion-rules, one of which is presumably the article creator. So why preclude this type of participant by not notifying them?

(I am pinging all who have mentioned wp:own here:@Megalibrarygirl:/@Dcs002:/@Sam.gov:/@SusunW:/@MurderByDeadcopy:/ @Ricky81682:/@Masem:@Kingsindian:/@James500:/@Trackinfo:/@Xaosflux:/@Thisisnotatest:/@Ryk72: ) Ottawahitech (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me Also @Blueboar: Ottawahitech (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

Ottawahitech I grow weary of discussions that go on and on and on and never resolve anything. My contention is that own has nothing whatsoever to do with deletion. The only reference I made to the subject at all was to express frustration with nominators who state that the original editor is inactive, which IMO is irrelevant. It doesn't matter who the original editor is of a file. Each and every one of us is capable of improving it and whether any editor is active or not has nothing to do with whether an article is or is not notable. SusunW (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SusunW. IMO, we all "own" Wikipedia and that's pretty cool. If someone didn't source something, and you can, source it. If someone made a copyedit error, fix it. Too easy. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Two issues. First, does the person have to knowledgeable about the topic to be able to intelligently participate? My view is that AFD discussions are largely independent of the topic itself and mostly focused on the available of sources. How else should it be decided what should stay and what shouldn't? There are rare disputes (I think computer science techniques is something I've seen) where it's not clear that there are going to be traditional reliable sources no matter the topic and that results in new WP:TECH-related criteria and fights over whether there's actual support and the like. The reason being, the discussion should be on whether the encyclopedia needs the topic, not on whether the topic "should" be an article. You get that kind of argument all the time, be it "Wikipedia is not paper and should include all cartoon characters" to "it's a significant corporation even if no one can really find evidence of it" to "it's a current event" to emotional sympathy to claims of systemic bias (an issue with an English language focus here) to outright just calling everyone racist or sexist or whatever, none of which I find particularly productive in terms of deciding whether an article in its current state should remain in mainspace. Everyone has opinions on what or shouldn't be here, so why should the views of those who support the topic be put above all others? Second, what more can be done to get people with knowledge of the topic involved? There are wikiprojects tagging onto articles (one reason I focused on getting them tagging for AFC and userspace drafts so that if they are immediately moved and listed for deletion, people know) and separate AFD lists created on various topics. Otherwise, I have no idea when creator activity is an issue. Can you point out an example AFD? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Even the text of WP:OWN disclaims that someone can be an expert in the field, as opposed to taking ownership of an article. This concept is lost completely by know-nothings who blindly nominate an article for deletion and their thoughtless "dittohead" supporters. I take serious exception to those who nominate for deletion in a field that is not their expertise or without research into the contents of the article. That is what WP:BEFORE is all about. You can learn about a subject without owning an article. I usually add sources before I get involved--I show my work. Because I do my due diligence before I nominate anything for deletion or before I respond to such a nomination, I expect that of others. I don't see it happening. When someone has enough knowledge in a subject to be posting information to the article, that is simply being informed, that is interest in the subject and an interest in furthering the worlds knowledge about it through wikipedia, not ownership. Trackinfo (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Since I got pinged, I think that notifying some people about xfd's are a fine idea, but I think it is a waste of time to send out notifications based on the criteria (even the amended criteria) above - one where are these metrics going to come from, just article size? If so you want to REQUIRE notification anyone who vandalized by section blanking? This is not sustainable and won't scale. Do you really think we need "Speedy Keep - bad form, editor X from 3000 revisions ago was not notified"? — xaosflux Talk 00:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I will speak for myself. WP:OWN is highly relevant. Individuals do not own articles, but if there is a problem with an article, we treat them as if they do. We can't have it both ways. If it's up to me to fix or maintain an article I create, then it should also be up to me to decide what goes into that article. Neither is true. We say things like "they just create more work for the rest of us" or "it's up to them to fix their article." No it's not! They do not own the article just because they created it. Maybe a kid started an article on something that is wildly popular among kids, but that kid didn't understand how to cite RS. Those of us who are not kids might not realize how popular or widespread the subject is. The article is ours to fix, improve, develop, or at least tag. Tagging takes seconds! That's hardly imposing an undue workload on anybody, and it tells the reader clearly that there are issues of reliability and the article could use their help. No one is misled. Why do we even have Stub and Starter tags? I have never gotten a satisfactory answer to that from someone with deletionist leanings. If we follow our current trend of only keeping articles as notable that cover subjects known to the most ignorant nominator (who will be the one nominating it) and are covered in depth in 3-5 or more RS (which are already properly cited in the article), we will wind up with nothing but pop culture in WP. Worse yet, we will make ourselves irrelevant. ANYONE can do a Google search, and that is what we are reducing WP to - a glorified Google search. If some editors in AFDs can't find numerous RS on the first page of their Google search, that's it. Well guess what - the public can do that same Google search without coming here.

Back to WP:OWN. Once an article is nominated, there are always editors who think it's up to someone else, the creator/"owner", to persuade them to change their default !vote from delete to keep, that nominated articles should be deleted unless proven otherwise, which to the standards of some is impossible. (I will stand up for the admin closers though. They have always been thoughtful in my experience, even when I don't like the outcome. Also, it's been a while since I participated meaningfully in AfD's, and what's happening now might be different from when I was active there.) And FWIW, I have only created two articles in my 6 years (on and off) of editing, and this is why. People who have no idea what they are talking about and no interest in the subject are judging important topics for notability. I have lost the will to fight that fight. I know how immovable some people can be in the face of contrary evidence, especially when they have no familiarity with the subject. I have other things in my life that are more rewarding to spend time with. Dcs002 (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dcs002: I completely agree with your statement Individuals do not own articles, but if there is a problem with an article, we treat them as if they do — See here for a very recent example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of founders of companies of the United States where the commentor is saying: this list should be deleted … unless its creator actually puts some work into making it more focused, informative, and useful. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
  • Totally Irrelevant WP:OWN has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter of this discussion. It is a red herring. It is chaff. It is just muddying the waters. James500 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
It's just a counter-example - an inconsistency between WP policy and our own attitudes toward deletion. If we don't own, we should therefore not be treated like we are responsible as individuals for any given article. Dcs002 (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC) (I just moved this because it was intended as a reply to James500.
As far as I am aware, the creator of an article is personally responsible for it. If an editor creates plainly unacceptable articles with a sufficient degree of persistence, he could, in theory, be given a topic ban. Accordingly he must be notified of any AfD nomination to allow him to defend himself from what might potentially be false accusations of misconduct. James500 (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
These are separate issues, James500. We are each responsible for what we post, but not for the state of any individual article. What you are describing is disruptive editing. If an editor persistently creates unacceptable articles to the extent that they need to be topic banned, that is disruptive editing. If an editor with good intentions creates one or a few articles that don't pass muster in their current form, it is not that user's responsibility to fix the article. They might not understand what's wrong with it, or how policy is relevant to the issue, and therefore cannot fix it. They might be on vacation in Ibiza. But these are likely to be newcomers who need help making better articles, or even editors who have been around a while but have not ventured into article creation until recently. I strongly believe we need to help newcomers more than we do, and to be more tolerant of their attempts to expand the encyclopedia. That is one of the things we risk by assuming the creator "owns" or is solely responsible for improving the articles s/he creates - alienating newcomers and other potentially productive editors (like me). Regardless of intentions, of course we must take action against disruptive editing, but we need to tolerate a certain level of roughness in an encyclopedia that will forever be a work in progress, and we need to reject the idea that "I don't own this new/unsatisfactory article, so it's someone else's responsibility to fix it" as vehemently as we reject the idea that "I own this article, so I control it."
Accusations of misconduct are not part of the AfD process. They have their own process of mandatory notification and defense. "Editor X has started too many bad articles" is not an acceptable reason to delete an article through AfD. AfD closings are determined based on the discussion and consensus concerning the merits of the article, not the conduct of the article creator. Dcs002 (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
In general we should be responsible and held accountable for our actions on wikipedia. That was why I proposed a system to progressively ban editors who make a habit of *fDs without doing WP:BEFORE. That should and effectively already does work for editors who exhibit a pattern to create useless articles or useless edits--essentially that is vandalism. I think the needless *fDs are a form of vandalism but that has not received sufficient support. However, we are not responsible for the subsequent edits of others to an article we have participated in. We can try to be by watching the article and participating, but that is not a requirement. I've created many stub articles as deliberate low hanging fruit. I establish the notability of the subject, place its wikilinks in the chain of events and report what I know about it. Sometimes that is all that has been reported and it remains the stub. Stubs are favorite targets of *fDs, too often in the first few minutes of the article's life before it can develop. But the joy of our public edit policy is that others contribute and some of that has resulted in marvelous blooms of informative articles. I can pat myself on the back for starting the wave, but its is the work of other editors that brought it to fruition. I certainly don't own that. Trackinfo (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Trackinfo, I'm not sure how banning editors who habitually nominate pages for deletion will prevent creation of useless articles or edits, and I wouldn't go so far as to agree that excessive xFD nomination is a form of vandalism (intentional destructiveness) vs disruptive editing (which might be well intentioned), but your attitude about shared responsibility (and shared opportunity) to edit articles is a bulls-eye! As you said, we can pat ourselves on the back for creating articles, and (worse, IMO) we can take credit for bringing articles to GA or FA status, but this is selfishness, and it disregards the community spirit of WP. We all own all articles together, and if one editor has done most of the work to improve an article to GA or FA (usually the case, I think), I consider that a failure of our community process, and it is yet another factor that contributes to an attitude of ownership. We do our work here anonymously and give it away for free, knowing it might be shredded by someone else, and NO ONE is exempt from that. Taking sole credit for GA or FA is not consistent with that spirit of giving and sharing. Our goal should be a community-created encyclopedia with broad, excellent content, not a well polished, narrow collection of articles. Readers know that anyone can edit WP, so they expect to have to verify things from time to time, especially if we use our tags properly. I don't think they expect proper scientific reviews or Britannica-quality presentation, but they do expect well sourced information. We can do that by having more articles, using stub and starter tags, than we can by deleting them all, and we can also do that by focusing on contributing to articles and sourcing our contributions, and letting the consensus on the talk page of that article, based on WP policy and guidelines, determine its layout and writing style, and not one person's attempt at GA and FA glory. Dcs002 (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: To answer this, AfD may involve notifying the creator, who may think he/she "owns" the article because he/she created it. Although nobody owns any one article, editors are encouraged to start new ones because it is one of the best way to expand Wikipedia, adding new knowledge/expertise, all without acting like they own the article. Notifying the article creator of why the article is up for deletion is a great way in my opinion to let the creator know how to improve the article and should participate in that discussion in a professional manner (i.e. without acting like they own the article). An editor acting like he/she "owns" content is how edit wars may occur. Sam.gov (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The only time where informing the creator matters is when it's an article with a lot of unsourced (or no source) information, then the creator who presumably added the content would at least be the first person to contact about finding examples of sources. It's just logical to me that the person who added the content would at least have an idea where they got it from, if they don't fine but they would at the very least be the person most likely to suggest sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Can I get an AMEN! The creator (and major contributors) are a great and logical place to start looking (just like WP itself), but they are not the last place to look, nor is the onus on them for anything. We own WP articles, we control them, the onus is on us always. I know if I add careless content to an article it will surely be deleted, whether I did it intentionally or not. In the end WE decide whether to fix it or flush it, but it is practical to consider carefully what we would flush, and whether is can be fixed. Again, Ricky81682 nailed it, and he did so with far fewer words than I ever could. Dcs002 (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
And that's why a new article sometimes goes to AFD almost immediately with a statement along the lines of asking the creator for some information, especially if the sources isn't complete or entirely accurate or whatever. If they don't, that's fine but then it's up to volunteers around here and unfortunately the bystander effect is human nature. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I want to go back to the idea that "the creator of an article is personally responsible for it". OK... in which case, the creator should be responsible enough to follow what happens to the article he/she created. I would extend this to major post-creation contributors (they are responsible for their contributions)... which means there should be no need to alert the creators (or other major contributors) that the article is being nominated for deletion... since article creators (and other major contributors) will be responsible enough to have it on their watchlists. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

or for the rare case of an editor that refuses to use a watchlist, to visit the page regularly to make sure it is all up to date or uses something like WP:RSS. If they walk away after creation and do not bother to keep an eye on it, it's very hard to argue they must be notified if they are refusing to take steps that show awareness and oversight of the article. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • the creator should be responsible enough to follow what happens to the article he/she create I am trying to reconcile this advice with my own experience at Wikipedia and wondering at what point my "responsibility" ends. For example, back in 2010 I created the article Criticism of Nortel which was nominated for deletion 6 months later. The result of the discussion was a redirect/merge (not clear to me which)
In your opinion am I still "responsible" for:
  • the redirect
  • the contents on the mergee article
  • if I stop editing wikipedia does that make me an irresponsible person
(risking sounding like the old man who tells stories no one is interesting in) Ottawahitech (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
If you still care about the material, then yes, you still have a responsibility to monitor it. If you no longer care, then you can end that responsibility. Wikipedia is an organization of volunteers. In a voluntary organization, responsibility isn't something that is assigned ... it is something that is willingly taken. We can always stop taking responsibility... we can always hand responsibility off to others... but if we stop taking responsibility for material we add, we no longer have a right to complain about what happens to it. Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Blueboar, all of my arguments so far agree with your position here except one, and that is my agreement with Ricky81682's idea that the creator and the major contributors are the logical people to consult if an article needs better sourcing or other fixes. It makes sense to me that they would be more likely to have, or know where to find, whatever content or sources the article needs. They have also demonstrated a willingness to put some effort into the article already, so they might be more likely than most to be willing to fix the article. That is why I think creators and major contributors should be notified. Doing so would at least demonstrate an awareness that it might be possible to fix the article rather than delete it.
You say if we stop taking responsibility for material we add, we no longer have a right to complain about what happens to it. I would take that one step further and say whatever work we contribute to WP belongs to the world once it leaves our computers, and the world will do whatever it wants with it. (We never have "the right to complain" about it.) We all have to accept that before we start contributing. The only question we should be considering in such cases is whether the material makes WP a better encyclopedia. It's hard to trust that XfD discussions will be decided on that criterion (or its derivative policies and guidelines), and I think we all know cases when they were not. That is where I see the problem. I think we should make sure the nom has several built-in opportunities to pause and consider what is really best for the encyclopedia, and whether an article can be improved. Notifying the creator and major contributors are good opportunities. There are many other steps we could be taking, but those notifications are a very good idea, IMO. Dcs002 (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Re: "They have also demonstrated a willingness to put some effort into the article already, so they might be more likely than most to be willing to fix the article"... I disagree with this premise. If the article creator actually had put some effort into the article, he/she would have found sources to established notability, and the article would not have been nominated for deletion in the first place.
There is a balance between inclusionists and deletionists... but we intentionally put the "burden of proof" on inclusionists. WP:BURDEN makes this clear... The onus is on those who add information to supply sources, not on those who wish to remove information to show that sources don't exist... this holds true for supplying sources that establish notability. We don't require that deletionists "prove" that the topic isn't notable... we require that inclusionists "prove" that it is notable (by supplying sources).
This is something that is missing from WP:BEFORE... the burden of the article creator to properly establish notability before they submit the article to mainspace. we need to explain that article creators need do a minimal amount of work before they submit an article. If they do this, their articles are much less likely to be nominated for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The creator is easy to notify and I think generally is. "Major contributors" are more difficult is define and find though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Very true. I think a best effort, or a good faith effort is the most we can expect on that point, especially on articles with thousands of edits, and half are vandalism or edit warring. Unless someone can define who they are and somehow make a sortable list with each page, I think we'll have to extend some trust to noms that they notified the people who they thought were major contributors. Or maybe ask them to list the editors they notified? Dcs002 (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

COMMENT - if an article has a lot of "Major Contributors", I find it unlikely that it will be nominated for deletion in the first place (surely one of those contributors will have provided sources that establish notability)... On the other hand, if there are a lot of contributors - and none of them have been able to properly establish notability, then that says a lot in itself... it shows that the topic probably isn't actually notable (and thus should be deleted). Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Blueboar: good point, if there isn't notability established, it should be deleted; there should be a AfD template placed at the top of the article so that major contributors and the creator is aware. Sam.gov (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
If they have the article on their watch lists (and they should, if they actually give a damn about the article), then there is no reason to notify them... they will already know that the article has been nominated.Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Yep, That's what watch lists are for, and contributors are encouraged to use them often; of course editors can have a lot on their watch list, so if it is something really important, then a notification can be beneficial as well. Sam.gov (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
My point above is the AfD template only shows in the watch list once. All it takes is for someone to correct a typo (or anything else) in a subsequent edit and that notification is gone from your watch list. You actually have to visit the article again to see the template. You have to go to another location, not yet in your watch list because you don't know about it, to participate or monitor the discussion. Maybe I am an extreme case but I currently "watch" 8,000 articles. Important stuff can slip through the cracks. Trackinfo (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you're right about that. I tend to check my watch list often and have quite a few articles on it. Sam.gov (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Lack of participation and vocal minorities

There is a severe lack of participation, relative to their overall numbers, by inclusionists and other non-deletionists on the talk pages of many of those policies and guidelines that relate to deletion. The number of deletionists at these venues is out of proportion to their actual numbers (in no small part because the deletionists are not creating content, and because inclusionists and other non-deletionists rarely become aware of the 'deletion machine' until they are personally on the receiving end of it). I suggest that inclusionists/non-deletionists should be given more encouragement to show up at these venues. We should, for example, actually tell people whose contributions are deleted (for reasons other than things that are non negotiable because, for example, they are beyond our power to change, such as copyright, or because they are manifestly incompatible with the aims of the project, such as vandalism and hoaxes) that consensus can change, and supply them with details of the mechanism (ie RfC and other talk page discussion) for effecting changes to policies and guidelines. I think AfD notification templates should be changed to include this kind of information. It is obvious that most of the victims of deletionism haven't a clue how to complain, because we very often, at best, sneakily do not tell them, and, at worst, talk about policies and guidelines as if they were set in stone. James500 (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  • The {{Afd-notice}} template gives a link to the deletion discussion, and explains that all users are welcome to contribute to it. Editors making XfD nominations should be encouraged to make clear nomination statements expressing specific reasons why an article should be deleted. Perhaps with Twinkle the nomination statement could be copied to the user's talk page along with the afd-notice. There is already a space to add custom text when posting some speedy notices - something like that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
That isn't the sort of notification that I have in mind. The sort of notice I have in mind is something like: "Your article was deleted because it failed WP:ORG. If you don't like WP:ORG, you are entitled to go to the talk page of that guideline (WT:ORG) and ask for changes to that guideline." followed by some description of the RfC process. The AfD notice template is a good example of the problem. It tells editors to go to the AfD and discuss Wikipedia's policies and guidelines there, in a way that gives no clear indication whatsoever that those policies and guidelines can be changed or that the correct forum for seeking such changes is the talk page of the policy or guideline in question. An editor who has an article deleted is very likely to be placed under the impression that he has no recourse if the problem is with the content of a policy or guideline. They will assume the policy or guideline is immutable. This is one reason why editing Wikipedia has become a secret art and mystery. James500 (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh I think that's an exceptionally bad idea, as you framed it. It probably wouldn't be terrible to send users to a page explaining the concept of policies and guidelines and how we develop them, and encouraging them to become more familiar and get more involved in the process, because everyone really can participate here despite there sometimes being a steep learning curve. Those of us who are XfD regulars and are familiar with the shorthand jargon we use could certainly do a better job of explaining things to newcomers in plain language; I try to do that myself when I have my wits about me. But I think suggesting to a new user that if they don't like guidelines that they should just go change them is a very, very bad idea. XfD forums are much friendlier places for newcomers than guideline talk pages, in my experience, especially when someone shows up demanding changes. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that someone would show up demanding changes, I think that there would be a massive snowball pile-on, possibly of hundreds of people, because I think there is overwhelming hostility towards deletionism from the vast majority of people in the world, apart from a very small but very vocal and determined minority who have just about 'commandeered' some policies and guidelines, it is just that most people have no idea how to seek changes. That said, XfD is one of the most toxic environments on the project. For the creator of the page it is much like being put on trial for weeks. Guideline talk pages are nothing compared to that. The problem with guideline talk pages isn't that they are unfriendly, but simply lack of participation from certain groups. James500 (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, I have to challenge the premise of this thread and the assertion that our policy and guideline pages are in any way dominated by "deletionists" who "are not creating content". On the contrary, I suspect that if you actually look into the editorial history of most participants on policy and guideline page discussions (and at XfD discussions), you will find editors who are quite active in creating content (by either starting new articles, or improving existing ones). Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Blueboar: I remember you favorably as a participant in some early categorization policy forming discussions, but have you looked at policy forming lately? I would go even further than user:James500 and say that some policies were formed by only a handful of participants. For example Wikipedia:Defining the guideline ubiquitously used in current wp:CfD so-called discussions and tell us how many were involved in forming this ‘consensus?

@James500: in addition to what Ivanvector said, I'd like to add that it's a bad idea to encourage people to seek to change an encyclopedia-wide consensus because of their grievances about a single article. Consensus isn't achieved by insisting the mountain come to you, but by you climbing the mountain. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 13:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems a baseless slur to claim that people who != vote "delete" at AFD do not "create content." Skip the ad hominem attacks. Edison (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Many people who I see regularly voting delete on bad articles at AfD are strong contributors of good content. Reyk YO! 06:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Who? Because when I've checked all I found was deleting. First, they go to the article to tag it like crazy, then they delete whole paragraphs, finally they send it to AfD. That's not writing. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 16:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
You need to check harder then. Or at least, not just look for stuff that confirms your preconceptions. Consider myself, for instance. Most people would regard me as an evil scary kitten-eating deletionist. But I have two featured articles and three GAs to my credit, and have started around 30 articles. And I am by not unusually productive. Writing an encyclopedia is not just throwing words at a page. There has to be some thought given to accuracy and quality. We are presenting an online encyclopedia and that means taking care to present information that is as accurate as we can make it, that is neutral, that is not buried under a mountain of trivia or diluted across too many articles. This means aggressive removal in some cases. Deletionists understand this but inclusionists for the most part do not. To put it another way, I want an encyclopedia that is both very big and very good, but you only care about big. Reyk YO! 16:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Writing an encyclopedia is not just throwing words at a page. Do you mean like this?[29] Because an article start like this wouldn't last two seconds on Wikipedia. (FYI - It does look rather like words thrown at a page, but in 2008 Wikipedia was more forgiving!) Also, Wikipedia is not about TRUTH, just verifiability. Deletionists only understand how to delete. It's is a whole lot easier than writing! What deletionists don't understand is how to write. They're negative, pessimistic, and close minded. They're only interested in creating an exact replica of Britannica Encyclopædia. (Why? When there's already one does the world need two! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) Deletionist are trying to achieve their goals with fewer and fewer editors because they are driving off writers from Wikipedia (and they themselves are not writers!) There are a number times in AfD that the argument is that it is just poorly written. I've even argued that an article ought to be deleted because other sites can do a better job of writing the article than Wikipedia can, and since Google now defaults to Wikipedia, it should be deleted. Of course, if deletionist were really worried about quality, this argument could be applied to many subjects. This lack of editors means that deletionists believe that in order to safe face on quality, they must delete more and more articles since there are fewer editors are around to keep an eye on articles. If deletionists were truly interested in quality, they would be encouraging to new editors, they would welcome new articles, they would work on fixing articles, but instead they just send them to AfD. Because that is the only way they know how to fix articles!
Happy retirement, Reyk! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 17:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's desperate, having to dig up a ten year old edit to try to make me look inconsistent or hypocritical. Then you follow it up with a long, agitated, inaccurate hate-rant against your perceived enemies, and finish with a mocking comment about how I'm not as active here as I used to be. Very unfortunate debating tactic. I do not have time to waste on this kind of fuckwittery so go rant at someone else. Reyk YO! 18:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
But at least you're not biased. DonIago (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I've said nothing about participants at XfD or !voting at XfD. "Deletionist" is not an ad hominem in the context of discussing overall participation in deletion-related discussions as it is directly relevant. When I look at the participants on the talk pages of policies and guidelines that are related to deletion, it appears to me that editors that I would expect to be normally regarded as deletionists (a term that does not include everyone who regularly !votes for deletion at AfD let alone everyone who so !votes once), and especially those people who do not create any content, or who create little or significantly less (which is what I mean by "not creating content" ie "not creating enough to keep them occupied"), and want to delete significantly more content, are disproportionately over represented. James500 (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
If you want to call people "deletionists" and then tell them it's not meant to be an insult or a criticism, go ahead but don't be surprised if people disagree. You wouldn't be using it if it didn't mean something. Point out a specific AFD and stop calling people any sort of label. And MurderByDeadCopy-type discussions are not atypical from what I have seen which is why this tends to go in circles with little resolution. Are you concerned about editors with little to no activity outside of AFD discussions? Do you think we should put an SPA notice about that akin to editors who only edit in a particular topic area? It's a suggestion but I don't think it'll be particularly popular. I'm regularly questioned by individuals over a "lack" of content creation since I've gotten focused on finding other people's old content in draftspace and seeing if it's ready for mainspace. One individual points out how much content creation they do which consists of going on partisan article and trying to balance it (or add more of the opposite type depending on your view), which largely gets fought and revised and removed for what it is. That's something but not what I'm interested in. I simply don't get the mass "AFD is a terrible place because articles get deleted" comments here: deleted articles regularly get restored and userified if the editor asks to do so. There's a bigger issue with old attack pages and the like that haven't really been deleted. From looking over old stale drafts, you'll find hundreds of old articles that were going to be deleted and yet still remain around here in some hidden little nick and cranny that's been overlooked. The problem is then separating the wheat from the chaff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Please don't put words into my mouth or pretend to be deaf. That has nothing to do with anything that I said. What I said is that the apparent consensus on the talk pages of some of our policies and guidelines is probably a so called 'local consensus' (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) that is not really any consensus at all. Meaning that they are not valid policies or guidelines. James500 (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Can you point out one example? I've found that the policies and guidelines do tend to change to reflect discussions. It's when people bring up unique situations where there's an argument that generally leads to "create a new policy". For example, I've been part of a rampant series of discussions about longevity biographies and while there's been arguments that there's a consensus of something, the discussions show that there isn't one at all anywhere (or at least a settled one). One could argue that the policies don't reflect the consensus while I'd argue that there isn't one and writing one down as if it exists ends all discussions in the wrong place to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a severe lack of participation, period. There is lack of participation on talkpages, lack of participation in most XfDs, lack of participation in guidelines development, lack of participation in RFCs, lack of participation here. How can anyone characterize the result of discussions between a handful of editors , some of whom show up only for one vote then disappear for good, as consensus? Ottawahitech (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

XfD culture: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists

Many participants in XfD discussions who advocate for deletion frequently point to Other stuff exists as an argument that should be avoided in XfD debates. However this results in inconstency and creates a process where older pages survive while newer (possibly more notable) pages are deleted on a regular basis. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

While I agree that this probably exerts some pressure for inconsistency in favor of old articles, it this the place for this discussion? Does this pressure actually result in the outcome you describe? Dcs002 (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
AND then you have all those quoting OSE but never following its advice: it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
Keeping in mind that one AFD that closes "delete" does not create a de facto standard that all similar articles of the same topic should be deleted, it is reasonable to start a discussion at an appropriate page to go "Okay, so this article got deleted, and we have X more that are like it that have the same issues that were addressed in the AFD. What should we do about them?" This might cause a voluntary purge of such articles, an effort to improve the ones that have the best chance to stand out, or the like. It is fait accompli to nominate the entire batch of other articles at once without any discussion based on the single AFD. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Templates and Categories

New discussion on notifications. When a Template goes to TfD, when a Category goes to CfD, these moves should be notified on the articles affected. Templates guide the look of the content of many articles, Categories by definition help uses in cross navigating articles on the same subject. So their removal plays a part in the content of the article. But most TfD and CfD discussions happen in a VERY low traffic area of the back reaches of wikipedia. I don't take the time to search through those lists very often, there is usually no value to that time. But then I am shocked at the craziness of some removals. When I trace them back it was a discussion of at best one other participant. "Lets delete this" "Looks good to me" Poof its gone from hundreds of articles. And the first notification on the articles affected is the removal, after it is essentially a done deal. Trackinfo (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. However, in many cases, a category upmerge would be of very little interest to those interested in the article itself, and a category rename would often be of less interest. Navigation templates are often of interest only to those who use the links, which is almost always a small subset of article readers and editors. As an even more absurd example, a change of the category structure generated by templates such as {{cn}} should be of very little interest to anyone other than editors who use the categories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Templates already appear on the article including a link to the discussion. Do you want more done? Now, categories? I'm all for that. Is there a technical way to make any part of the category page content show up? I don't think there is. One other problem is that the WikiProjects about the subject are only noticed if the template/category is in those projects which I find is quite rare. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there any actual reason why userspace drafts must be deleted?

I see all lengthy bureaucratic arguing when we can do this or do that but no one has every given a single good reason why a userspace draft that isn't an attack page should be deleted. Can someone simply and concisely give me a reason why anyone would ever need to delete someone's userspace draft?

Wikipedia is not for the storage of stuff which is not relevant to its purpose. If editors want to keep stuff which is not relevant they should keep it elsewhere. Dmcq (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • A good-faith draft of an encyclopedia article, no matter how incomplete, is obviously relevant to Wikipedia's purpose. At no point does a draft article become irrelevant, and at no point does it become harmful simply by nature of being stale. We should not make policy to avoid people's psychological dislike of messiness ("I can't stand the thought of all those unfinished drafts sitting in userspace with no one ever editing them!"). We should make policy to avoid harm, or promote good. What actual pragmatic harm is prevented, or good promoted, by deleting stale userspace drafts? In the case of an editor who has clearly been inactive for many years, such a policy would probably end up being neutral in effect (but still not a net positive compared to just leaving the drafts alone). In the case of an active editor it is inevitable that drama, hurt feelings, administrator involvement, visits to WP:ANI, and inevitably active editors becoming in-active editors would occur in a non-zero number of cases, making the policy a net negative. Thparkth (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • There are reasons given at MFD, such as old copies of mainspace, that are too out of date to update; point of view variations that are outside consensus (and abandoned); material not related to an encyclopedia, such as a CV, fantasy sports; hoax like material about non-existent films. I don't think merely being unedited for a long time is a good reason to delete. By deleting we actually clutter up the database more. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
None of those are **good** reasons. That's why o listed stale drafts cat for deletion.
  • It's also an excellent method of subterfuge to bully individual editors! This is a slippery slope since once this becomes acceptable practice, more, and more, will be included as acceptable deletion. Wikipedia has enough bloated bureaucracy. If editors really want to delete things on this site, a good first step would be less rules not more! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 16:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • If it's a good faith draft, I see no reason to delete it so long as there's no corresponding article in mainspace. As said above, we don't even save space by deleting articles, since it's a "soft delete" and they remain there. (I doubt we clutter up the database more, it should just be a single bit flag in a "deleted" column, and a 1 takes no more space than a 0.) If, on the other hand, it's an ad, a POV fork, a CV, etc., and the author shows no sign of addressing those issues (or it's blatantly and irreparably inappropriate), we ought to delete it. And of course, we must delete copyvios and attacks on living people immediately upon detection no matter where they may be placed. And I can see the argument that we should at least consider deleting drafts once their subject is already in mainspace; better to improve the live article at that point. But for genuine working drafts not in mainspace? Leave 'em alone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think anything that is so poor or devoid of content that it is pointless to have around can be deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No, nobody can. Except for the usual reasons why an article might be a candidate for deletion, there are no good reasons to delete a draft just because it's stale. We never know when an idle editor will return, or some other editor will pick up a draft and make a good article out of it. A while back I started to write User:Ivanvector/Drafts are cheap but it needs work. Like Seraphimblade says, there are some reasons why we might delete drafts if they're irredeemable or blatantly violate policies, or if they're redundant to other articles, but those reasons apply equally to articles and are not based on how old the draft is. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, wouldn't it make sense to allow editors to delete their own pages in their own userspace? I have built up a few articles in my user space before moving them to main space, and I hate bugging the busy admins to delete the article from my userspace. They have done it for me fairly quickly, but those who work the CSD requests should be paying attention to more urgent needs. There should be a simpler way for me to do this myself. Dcs002 (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's technically feasible but author deletions aren't that bad. There's a lot of old drafts that are basically blanked and while one could technically delete them as db-author, that would just be pointless and a waste of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think you know, but you can use {{db-self}} to get them deleted fairly quickly. This works for drafts too if you're the sole contributor. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I thought it was a technical issue. Dcs002 isn't the first editor to bring that up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Yup, I was talking about the ability to actually delete it myself. I have tagged my userspace articles with that template, but that still makes it someone else's job to go down the CSD list and do the actual deletion. What I have since done is create userspace pages called "sandbox01" through -04 in addition to my regular sandbox. Then I can just blank them and reuse them with the generic name. Dcs002 (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that's technically feasible. Besides (WP:BEANS here) it would open up a huge can of worms in that you could then literally move any page into your userspace and delete it. Our page move protections would be immense there which I don't think would be a better system. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense Ricky. That would be a nightmare situation with individuals thinking they are right and don't need to wait for consensus, and the sad fact that there really are a number of people with grudges. It would of course be a type of vandalism, but I think there would be a lot of it in that scenario, with difficult reverts. (Doesn't the page history move with the page in that scenario, leaving the redirect page with an empty history and the user-deleted page taking the history with it?) I've found my own solution by creating multiple sandboxes, so this is a non-problem for me now. Dcs002 (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Conrad Hughes Hilton III for an example. The content was considered unworthy of articlespace in 2009 and set for deletion. Should it be kept around in userspace anyways? If so, what's to prevent movement again to mainspace, forcing another deletion discussion or the like. There is certain content that is considered never likely to become an article. Saying it should stay in userspace forever (assuming it does) as a potential draft when it would be deleted if it was mainspace creates a lot more work in terms of keeping watching than simply deleting it would. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Well sure, but the rationale there is not that it's old, it's that it's content that will never be encyclopedia-worthy. I wish that ThaddeusB had linked to the request to undelete, I'd like to see what the rationale was. I would consider this eligible for WP:G4 deletion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so content that will never be encyclopedia-worthy should be deleted but then how much leeway do we give to possible drafts then? Is it really any different to list drafts for deletion at MFD believing it will never be encyclopedia worthy (see the discussions, that's actually the main issue every time, no one is just idiotically going "well it's been a year, delete")? Age has been a criteria for old drafts for a very, very long time at MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aakheperure/Khaled Abol Naga draft is another example of an editor's drafts being deleted just because they got "old". 107.72.98.187 (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

elimination of WP:STALE

Since no one can give any reason why a draft should be deleted, I've proposed the entire elimination of WP:STALEDRAFT at WT:UP. 166.171.121.147 (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Where have you proposed it? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC).
At WT:UP, specifically at WT:User pages#Remove STALEDRAFT where the proposal was quickly rejected. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

How to cite or credit a German Wikipedia article

I have run into a problem regarding the Bing Cave

In writing a short article on the Bing Cave i used ref sources from the cave's official site. These were written in German, which i translated and rewrote in my own wording in English.

I then found that there is a very long German Wikipedia (.de) page on the Binghöhle (Bing Cave) which is, to put it frankly, tediously long. It is of more interest to Germans than to Americans, let us just say. So, i translated only a few portions from a number of different paragraphs on the German Wikipedia page and stitched them together to make three new, concise, snappy American-English paragraphs.

I cited the German Wikipedia page as a reference for what i added.

I did NOT use a standard translation template because i did not actually translate the meters and meters of text on the German page. The article is great for Germans, but i do not have time -- nor do i think the notability factor is there -- for such an extensive article to appear in English.

As soon as i uploaded my additions, the refs were removed by an editor named Gilliam, who said that one cannot cite a Wikipedia page as a reference for another Wikipedia page.

I understand that.

Neither Gilliam nor i, however, know how to properly credit the translation. I reinserted the refs, with Gilliam's cooperative agreement, so that a more senior editor would know how to easily find the three paragraphs in question.

In short: i cannot use a "translated page" template because i did not (nor do i think we should) translate the entire page.

So how do i cite the fact that it is a translation of part of the page?

Please help. It is 3:00 AM here and i do not have time to do much more on the page. I am going to bed now and hope to receive a reply -- or better yet, a fix -- tomorrow.

Thank you.

cat yronwode, not logged in 75.101.104.17 (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This is more-or-less a case of copying within Wikipedia; attribution to the original translation should be given in the page history of the article. However, you still need to provide verifiable information, relying on reliable sources, inline to the text which you are showing is verifiable. Most German pages do not provide inline citations. --Izno (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
As a side note, reliable sources are not required to be in English. If multiple substantially equivalent sources exist in multiple languages, at least one of which is in English, we prefer that you cite the English one, but if there are only sources available in other languages, it is quite OK to cite those non-English sources. In other words, if only German sources exist, then just cite the German sources (so long as they are reliable, per WP:RS. Another user edited source, such as another Wikipedia, of course, wouldn't qualify...) --Jayron32 13:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I have done some miscellaneous tidying; the content seems good but I haven't checked the references. --Izno (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Jayron and Izno. I have left the page as-is except that, to be more clear, i did bring over the German refrence section which is not in our current in-line ref format. I used the German "Literature" material because the only English-language source available to me is the autobiographical memoir written by Ignaz Bing, who discovered the cave and wrote extensively about it. The memoir was only translated into English in 2013, and may be the longest piece of writing about the cave in English. I have cited it, of course, by its English title, "Tales From My Life: Memoirs of a Merchant and Cave Explorer in Germany 1840-1918" ISBN 978-0956337016. Thank you for your help. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_124&oldid=1222648142"