This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion
In looking at a number of our policy pages and our DR process it seems there is a bit a contradiction. I wonder if someone can help me locate the precise policy or guideline that states that editor talk pages should not be used to discuss edits or content? It appears that, while the DR page, DRN and other pages seem to indicate that discussion may take place in a number of places, why then, would it be improper to suggest that discussion may take place by engaging the editor directly on their talk page?--Mark17:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Anybody can take part in a conversation on someone's user page. However, it makes it less likely that they won't know about it. It is preferable to choose a central location if other people might be interested. It is not required to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, yes...I understand all of that. My question is simply, where is this written as policy or guideline and why would it be improper to suggest exactly what is acceptable?--Mark22:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Standard procedure is not always properly documented, but some clues are at WP:TALK where we see that "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page ... is to ... discuss changes to its associated article or project page", and "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." I guess there should be clearer documentation (and perhaps there is, somewhere), but I would have thought it obvious that an article talk page is the place to discuss a change to an article—if two editors disagree about an article edit, they should not discuss the issue on their talk pages because others could easily miss the comments with the result that wider input is not obtained, and that others do not benefit from seeing the cogent arguments presented in their discussion. Further, it is useful in the future to be able to search the article talk page or its history and archives to see what discussion took place about a particular edit—that is a lot harder if the discussion took place at some editor's talk. I said "article", but the point is just as important in all namespaces. The OP relates to this edit at WP:BRD. After being reverted by two different editors, the discussion should occur at BRD talk, and it is not necessary or desirable to ping the reverting editors with discussions on their talk, unless they fail to engage in the central discussion and their input is particularly wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
It is fine to discuss the matter on a user talk page when you are having a dispute with another editor. There are certainly advantages to discussing it on the article talk page, including the increased likelihood of neutral input, and that the discussion can support changes when questioned by those not privy to the discussion, but it doesn't mean the article talk page is the exclusive place to discuss things. It is true that taking it to the article talk page is more imperative when there are more then just two editors party to the dispute. Monty84502:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that last part is, perhaps, the single issue I have seen raised that actually seems to make real sense. But even then, there is no actual guideline to state this. As a dispute with several editors, it may not be convenient to others who may not see the discussion, but then there is also no policy or guideline against it.
The issue is about a line in the BRD essay in regards to the "discussion" portion of B-R-D. It had been edited to state that discussion must follow a revert on a talk page, including either the article talk page or the editor's talk page. As BRD is commonly used "one on one" it would indeed be between two editors. Others may still join in, and many editors have page watchers so it is likely to still gain the attention of others.--Mark03:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Per BRD, discussion concerning a Revert should be recorded on the talk page of the page where the revert occurred. Anywhere else might not be discovered by interested editors. WP:BRD does not (or should not) state "must". You may discuss elsewhere, such as in person at a Wikimedia conference. However, standard BRD is to discuss, promptly and briefly, on the talk page, and for the discussion to be confined to the subject of the desired and desirable edits. BRD is not dispute resolution. BRD failure often means DR is required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I think there are times when it is best to discuss an edit on the article talk page, and others when it is best to discuss on the editors talk page. For example, I recently saw an edit and I thought the editor had omitted the word "not" in the edit. I am not interested in a consensus view of other editors regarding whether editor X meant to include "not", I'm only interested in whether editor X meant it or if it was a slip. In this case, I raised the issue at the editors talk page. If it was a simple slip by the editor, then the editor can fix the typo, and there's no need to bother other editors about this minor issue.
Interestingly, the editor meant it as stated, and explained the rationale. Now comes the tricky part. If editor X agreed with me that there was potential confusion, and clarified the wording, the discussion can end on the editor's talk page. If the editor thinks the meaning is clear, but I think it is not, then the proper thing to do is to carry on the discussion at the article talk page, so other editors interested in the subject can weigh in.
The converse can apply, although I don't have an immediate example. I'm sure we have all seen examples of discussions on article talk pages that may start as content discussions, but devolve into other issues that are editor specific.
The ideal situation is both cases is to realize when the nature of the discussion changes, and switch venues. The challenge is that the switch may occur at a time of intense discussion, and switching locations may not occur to the parties involved. While I do not see an easy solution, I would not want to compound the problem by adding guidelines implying that any article edit must be discussed on an article talk page, as I think there are many valid counter-examples.--SPhilbrick(Talk)14:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Even if discussions on article talk devolve into editor-specific issues the article talkpage is still the best location for this devolution to happen, as it can be viewed by the maximum number of editors and further action can be taken collectively in terms of offering advice or, in cases of disruption, invoking STICK, DEADHORSE etc. or even going to AN, ANI for further action, if it is warranted. If this devolution happens on user talk, due to the limited number of editors attending the discussion in userspace, it may be more difficult to resolve the problem with an individual editor. In any case, someone should not be be advised to go to a user's talkpage to address article-related issues. Article-related issues belong on the article talkpage, not userspace. Going to a user talkpage to address article issues, which interest the whole community, bypasses the scrutiny of the community and may apply pressure to an individual editor. This is not an optimal approach and may lead to more conflict which could have been avoided if the wider community were involved earlier on. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις15:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Was my example unclear, or is a difference of opinion in what constitutes an article-related issue? I think there are times when it may be appropriate to discuss an issue on an editors talk page. Many editors don't like to be told they made a blunder, and raising this at an editor talk page is less "public" than on an article talk page. If someone commits a major faux pas in an article edit, one you are reasonably sure was a mistake, but not certain enough to simply revert it, why not raise it with them quietly? If it was a mistake, they can do a facepalm, fix it, and remove it form their talk page. Not appropriate if pointed out on an article talk page. It's my belief that some editors make errors then when pointed out forcefully on an article talk page, decide to retrench rather than concede error. In some of these cases, the editor might be more willing to back off if they can do so a little more quietly. I am in total agreement with your admonition against "Going to a user talk page to address article issues, which interest the whole community,...". My small suggestion is that there might be some issues which do not interest the whole community, and I don't think those should be forced onto the article talk page.--SPhilbrick(Talk)15:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
In my reply I was concentrating more on your observation that sometimes discussion on article talk may devolve into discussion about an editor's conduct, which is an interesting scenario of transition from article issues to editor behaviour. But I agree that in cases of error or for other individual editor-related issues, quiet diplomacy, i.e. going to the editor's talkpage, is preferable and more effective. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις16:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, good, then we are largely on the same page. While I did make the "converse" argument, that an article debate devolving in a user debate might deserve movement onto a user page, I feel much less strongly about that, partly because it is unlikely, partly because if not trivial it ought to attract input from other editors, and partly because it is usual for one or the other party to argue it is about content not conduct, and that additional debate is unlikely to help. So I'll drop that aspect of my statement.--SPhilbrick(Talk)17:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes I agree. We are on the same page indeed. :) As far as your example about devolution of a content discussion, I think it was interesting and useful because it addressed the real possibility that editor conduct can sometimes derail a content discussion. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις17:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with SPhilbrick's example: if I think an editor made a simple mistake in an edit, it would be best to put a brief "did you mean that?" on their talk. However, if that leads to a substantive reply ("my edit was correct because...") and I still think there is a problem, the next step should be to raise the matter at the article talk, with only a "I've moved the discussion so others can see the reasoning" on the user's talk. It may not be easy to codify all that in a guideline, but we must be careful that guidelines do not suggest taking an article matter to user talk as if that were a legitimate alternative for general cases. Often newish editors are confused about that, and they want to challenge the revert of their edit by discussing the matter at length on the reverter's talk—that is totally wrong, although new users should receive a gentle response like "I'll respond at the article talk". In the vast majority of cases, WP:BRD is mentioned when an article edit was intended, and is disputed—such matters must be discussed on article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Using Google Maps home page as a reference
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
RfC question: How should advertising documentation of userboxes that add members to categories be displayed so they can be found from the category page?
Latest comment: 11 years ago18 comments11 people in discussion
List of userboxes can get long and I wouldn't want to see the category pages themselves crowded with them. So, I'd think that on the talk page is a good place. I also don't think that a little message that says, "For those who like userboxes, see [[the talk page]]." seems like too much to ask. I would go so far as to say there should be a template that puts a little {{Wikipedia category}} or {{Maintenance category}} style box on the category page. Technical 13 (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Add: I've made the template I suggested: {{Category UBX}} and it looks simply like all of the other category boxes.
Users interested in and enjoying userboxes, can find ones related to Village pump (policy)/Archive 109 on its talk page.
Support Adding the List of Userboxes Directly to the Category Page
Compromise Proposal
Add list of userboxes to category page if there's only a few, but link to list on talk page if there's tons.
Support If there's only, say, 1-5, it's not much clutter. If it is going to clutter up things, then we should move it to the talk page. Adam Cuerden(talk)19:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Support Adding the List of Userboxes to the Category's Talk Page with a Note on the Category Page
Support: I feel the category page itself would be less cluttered by having just a link to the userboxes on the category talk page. — -dainomite20:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Support Adding the List of Userboxes to the Category's Talk Page without a Note on the Category Page
Oppose Advertising Userboxes in Category Space
Oppose Userboxes
Comments
This seems to be lacking any sort of context. What categories are we talking about that have so many user boxes that listing them on the category page is excessive? Or more obtrusive than that oddly-colored (and ugly) box being proposed here? Anomie⚔20:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion seems really strange to me. It's standard practice to list templates that add pages to a category on the category page - it's documentation, not "advertising". Why would this be different for userboxes? Presumably we're talking "Wikipedians in Brazil"-type categories, here. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
And please fix this section so that it isn't *big* and *bold* and stop spamming people on their user talkpages about this non-question. Sheesh - want to be the centre of attention, or something? Begoontalk21:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I took away all of the section headings and made them semi-colon tiered definition style with {{Anchor}}s. This should be more visually appealing to all. As far as "spamming people on their user talkpages" goes, I posted a notice for the two people involved in these edits on my talk page and on various likely interested wikiprojects and AN. I hardly call that spamming. About your claim of it being a non-question, the question is, "Should documentation of these userboxes available be put on the respective category pages in some way?" I hope that is clearer. I decided that the community should decide if this was appropriate because there seemed to be an absence of consensus or documentation of any consensus. This question was spurred by the sillyness of these edit summaries for a single sentence suggesting user look on the talk page. :) Technical 13 (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this discussion is the result of the deletion of a category at CfD. So we are here and at DR with different discussions. I will add that if you look at some user pages, they can contain over 50 user boxes. In cases like that one needs to ask how helpful are they? If every user is categorized by every userbox they use, how helpful is that? Since these are categorized in a separate subset of categories that are not the ones for the encyclopedic content what is the real question? What is the question of advertising? We don't advertise! Categories that are helpful for the development of the encyclopedia are fine. Ones that are transient are problematic. Most editors use what is on their system and it will change the next time they upgrade. So is it import to know that I use Windows on my desktop, Apple on my tablet and Android on my phone and whatever on my TV? How does knowing what OS some editor has helps develop the encyclopedia? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is not the result of the deletion of a category at CfD. This is a separate issue about where documentation for lists of userboxes pertaining to a category should be shown for people to pick from. Has nothing to do with what categories should or shouldn't exist. Thank you for your concern in that matter though. As far as "what relevance does this information, when available, offer to building the encyclopedia?" goes, if a userscript that you are using, let's say User:King of Hearts/closexfd.js suddenly quit working for users of MonoBook, wouldn't you want to be able to be notified when a patch/fix that you could add to your User:Vegaswikian/monobook.js to make it work again? It wouldn't be fair to expect King of Hearts to have to go through and fix every user's MonoBook.js or to have to get the same complaint that his script is broken or for everyone not using MonoBook to have to get a message that doesn't pertain to them. By adding yourself to Category:Wikipedians who use MonoBook (or using {{User:Technical 13/Userboxes/Skin|MonoBook}}), it is very easy to have a bot go through and post a friendly little message telling you how to fix it. Another use case, a developer wants to make a new program, but only does it as a hobby in their spare time. So, they don't have the time it would take to make it compatible with every version of every browser on every OS. It is good to have a ball park figure of how many people are actually still using FireFox 3.x on a WinXP... If there are none in the category, then there is probably no need (or it can at very least be put off until requested) to add compatibility for that. Technical 13 (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no need to "advertise" user boxes on category pages. People will find them. Most people find user boxes by seeing them on the user pages of other editors they work with. If they like a particular box and want to display it on their page, all they have to do is copy it from another user's page. Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you've changed the question in the heading. The somewhat scary thing is that I honestly doubt that you see how ironically amusing it now is, with the strikeout... Well done anyway. I lol'd... (and for an apostrophe pedant to type that I must have been amused) Begoontalk04:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Ditto Salix. Put the userboxes in the existing gallery system, and list them (or point to the gallery system page) on the category page, as we've always done. And for god's sake stop making redundant duplicates, and listing irrelevant variables, as has been done at Category:Wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox - that's ridiculous duplication - we're meant to be a community project, where people work together on joint endeavours, not fork and fragment continually. –Quiddity (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The talkpage and sometimes the edit-notice are the usual place for "instructions" to either admins or those who monitor categories. Those spots have worked fine for a long time. A comment in the middle of the category page that says "for those who like userboxes" is ridiculous, looks offensive, and is contrary to longstanding style. Why someone who doesn't even take the time to recognize that we ALREADY have infoboxes about certain topics didn't take the time to recognize that we ALREADY have a style for where userboxes are advertised is pretty offensive overall. ES&L14:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing no longer marked as a guideline
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Note the change has been reverted, and it doesn't not appear to have been a reasoned attempt to downgrade it from guideline. Monty84502:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Ethno Medicine
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm wondering where the correct place for "ethno" medicines would be. Would it be under the organism that is used, the illness it is believed to treat or under the tribe which believes in this practice? References of this kind should not have to meet the high standards of a medical article; as it is only making an anthropological observation on another cultures beliefs on medicine, not whether or not the medicine works. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd normally put it under the plant/organism. It might be interesting in some cases to additionally list it in the disease article (maybe under sections like ==History== or ==Society and Culture==) and the article about the ethnic group that it originated from (maybe in a section like ==Health==).
Latest comment: 11 years ago48 comments4 people in discussion
At WT:MOS-JA, I have made several attempts to reverse a decision made five years ago regarding the use of the tilde to mark subtitles in Japanese media (1, 2, 3). I had made several attempts to clarify things at WP:MOSTM and WP:AT (archive) but made no headway due to the vast differences in pages and no opinions.
To summarize this previous debate, in Japan song and album titles often include subtitles that are variably marked with the tilde (full width or half width) or the wave dash or sometimes hyphens. The only media considered reliable sources on this would be in Japanese, so there is no true way to determine English usage and all of the Japanese usage is ignored in favor of pushing the house style. The current practice of the manual of style is to eliminate these methods of demarcating subtitles in favor of those found for English language recordings. This means that a song titled "W-B-X ～W-Boiled Extreme～" in Japan is located at the title W-B-X (W-Boiled Extreme) on the English Wikipedia and an album known as "BEST〜first things〜" in Japan is at Best: First Things here. At least in the former case, the shift causes problems internally when there are other versions of the song such as shorter edits or instrumental versions, resulting in "W-B-X (W-Boiled Extreme) (Instrumental)" used in articles. There are also songs that are written in this form without the "title" portion, with something like "~Foobar~" being parsed as just "Foobar" on Wikipedia. As the Japanese manual of style is all that is preventing this, as no other manuals of style propose such a change (I've been invariably told that WP:MOSTM does not govern song titles, but it also states that one should choose forms that have existed in use rather than make up new ones), I believe that this aspect should be eliminated as it causes too many problems (at least one editor in a recent requested move thought that the parentheses meant that the page was being disambiguated and pushed for a shift to marking the subtitle with a colon) and generally does not match practice for Japanese media. This will not just cover songs with titles written in English to start with, but all articles with song titles written as "Foo ~Bar~" or "Foo -Bar-" in Japan.
A somewhat related issue also deals with multiple manuals of style conflicting, being WP:MOSTM and WP:CT. The song universally referred to as "Journey through the Decade" had its article moved to Journey Through the Decade per WP:CT, despite the capitalization of "through" never being used in any media relating to the song. Again, no English media has discussed the song, so all Japanese sources are ignored because the song's title is written in English. If no one refers to the song styled as "Journey Through the Decade", why should the English Wikipedia?—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Just my personal opinions on the matter, but hopefully I'll learn whether I'm in the majority or not with this: In Japanese media titles, the wave dash/tilde is either purely decorative or used in the same manner as a normal dash or parentheses. If a title has no coverage in English-language sources, editors should apply our MOS using their best judgment (which, to me at least, means removing or replacing those characters). Either way, though, it would be great to get a solid consensus on this point. —Frungi (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
There are times where items found within the wave dashes/tildes/what have you are meant as a pronunciation guide. The song "斬～ZAN～" is read simply as "Zan" rather than one of the various other pronunciations of 斬.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Usually the "~" is replaced by "-" as its usually decorative, but thats a minor issue and doesn't stop us from adding it in the kanji whenever there's a nihongo template present. Not a strong subject of WP:TRADEMARK and WP:CT shouldn't be used so strictly when it comes to capitalization. For example: "Live A Live" should have the A in miniscule, however there is mention of it in English sources with capital "A" and the A in the title is relevant enough to be capitalized. Also in other times, the dashes/tildes are just their way of using colons. Example: Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII is originally written as "CRISIS CORE -Final Fantasy VII-" so the safest way could be "W-B-X: W-Boiled Extreme". Also i don't think WP:MOSTM and WP:CT covers specific tracks of an album, I'm sure those can be written exactly the way their presented.Lucia Black (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I have songs in my collection with both ~ and - in them (although one of those cases parentheses would be used normally). How would we deal with songs like that?—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Considering the "dashes/tildes" are just another form of expressing subtitle in japan, they could be replaced entirely with just one colon to replace the tildes if both tildes and dashes are present (i'm assuming the dashes are used more appropriately than the tildes). The name change to add parenthesis was not the best ideas as now it looks more like a disambiguation and not really a great substitute. But this is mainly on how it'll be expressed in prose. Example if it was titled "W-B-X: W-Boiled Extreme" in prose it could be written as "W-B-X: W-Boiled Extreme (written as W-B-X ~W-Boiled Extreme~)" and from then on (in prose) refer to it as "W-B-X: W-Boiled Extreme" the tracklist can still be refer to it as "W-B-X ~W-Boiled Extreme~".Lucia Black (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
they can still be referred to the original intended version in the tracklist, just not in prose and the title. It's not a huge issue.Lucia Black (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
It may be common among practice among western naming but overall not odd to use colons in an album title or even a song. its too subjective at the moment to follow that.Lucia Black (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
So you're proposing that we allow tildes onto naming conventions? I thought this was a discussion regarding how we determine a more western name.Lucia Black (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Just how the discussion was spiraling. Some of the earlier issues you brought up look quite fixable. I think we found a normal solution to it. But if you insist that tildes must be kept, then that is fine. It's not the biggest issue out there and doesn't cause too much harm other than chaging it back to more eastern formats, but thats what redirects are for.Lucia Black (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
It apparently is a big issue because every time I've proposed it for a particular article I've been denied because the manual of style won't change.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
In my attempts to discuss a change, linked above, you can see that there is support for it, and in my clarifications on other manuals of style they show that the change is possible. There's just never a wider ranging discussion to determine what should be done, as I thought would happen here, but it's just becoming a discussion between myself and one other person (at a time).—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Reviewing those discussions, I see you and occasionally Jinnai supporting, and anyone else opposing (some with very good arguments). Consensus, at least in those past discussions, seems to be clearly against this. Do you have reason to believe this has changed? And to anyone else out there: Has this changed? —Frungi (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I have come here for a wider view on whether or not it should be changed per other guidelines and policies rather than the insular community of the Japanese manual of style. I have constantly made requested moves to make a page an exception to the manual of style only for the manual of style to be used as an argument against making an exception to itself. It's unnecessarily circular. Why should "W-B-X ~W-Boiled Extreme~" or "Best ~First Things~" be forbidden as article titles just because 〜 or ～ is used in Japan?—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the real question is, why should we have those as article titles just because 〜 or ～ is used in Japan? It’s decorative punctuation that often serves the same purpose as parentheses (such as in these two cases) or dashes. We generally don’t include decorative punctuation in work titles except sometimes when many English-language sources do, and I’m not seeing a compelling case for an exception or a change here. I also have to wonder why we’re covering such works when there are no English-language sources. —Frungi (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that it serves the same purpose as parentheses because often you will have songs with those characters in the name and then let's say a remix or an instrumental version uses parentheses to distinguish itself. It's simply a form not found in English, even though a similar form is.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
How does an additional parenthetical change the meaning of the first? And more to the point, what do you argue is the meaning of the first, if it's not a parenthetical? —Frungi (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Frungi, reliable sources can be in any language, even if none of them are in English. Why did you think otherwise? postdlf (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Sources of information, yes, but I was under the impression that in questions of COMMONNAME (since Ryulong seems to think this isn't a simple stylistic choice) for this English-language reference work, we considered usage specifically in English-language sources. Am I mistaken? —Frungi (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
If there are no English language sources discussing these particular songs how can we come up with a proper usage?—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
That’s what our MOS is for, as this is clearly a style issue (and I’m not sure how one would think it isn’t). Our MOS says in various places to strip or replace extraneous punctuation. I maintain that tildes that serve the purpose of parentheses, dashes, or simple decoration are extraneous. If the name ends up having multiple parentheticals in a row, we should probably do the same as we would for English titles with the same issue. —Frungi (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Why should the manual of style enforce a style that never exists outside of Wikipedia? And is this just an issue with it being a tilde instead of a dash? Such as if the page were titled "W-B-X -W-Boiled Extreme-" instead of "W-B-X ~W-Boiled Extreme~"?—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
There are often times that there have been sources using both tildes and dashes for the same title and sometimes they use tildes on the cover but sources use dashes. Their quite interchangeable but I understand its not as obvious, as for I had the same issue with L'Arc-en-ciel issue. But I don't believe we should put paranthesis to replace tildes/dashes just because standard english use paranthesis. Usually when its in paranthesis, its used as an optional part of the title. For example "500 Days (of Summer)". It can be known as 500 Days or 500 Days of Summer. But japanese don't leave room to consider it optional. Not only that but many confirmed localized names just change it to colon. But let's not bring up issue of for example Foo (bar) (Instrumental) it can still be written as Foo -Bar- (Instrumental).Lucia Black (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, simple question that’s hopefully more to the point: What is the benefit of having Wikipedia use tildes/wave dashes in titles? Do these characters communicate information that other characters do not? —Frungi (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
THey communicate the actual title instead of forcing readers to have to say that the actual format of the title is a "stylization". One should not have to write "Foo (Bar) (stylized as Foo ~Bar~)" in order to explain the title.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Couldn’t the same be said of any title that falls under (or is claimed to fall under) MOS:TM? As an obvious example, “Kiss (often stylized as KISS)”, or even “What the Bleep Do We Know!? (stylized as What tнē #$*! D̄ө ωΣ (k)πow!? and also as What the #$*! Do We Know!?)”. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but basically, it sounds to me like what you’re proposing is (or should be) bigger than just punctuation choices in foreign song names, but a case against the standardization of stylized names throughout the project. —Frungi (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
"KISS" is a trademark, covered by WP:MOSTM. Song titles and album titles are not trademarks and not covered by MOS:TM so they should be presented as is.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
You seem to have either missed or ignored my points. I wasn’t saying that song titles fall under MOS:TM. I was saying that the same logic could apply to titles that do fall under MOS:TM, or to any other titles whose articles start off with “stylized as…”, and thus your focus here is perhaps too narrow. —Frungi (talk) 05:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Then maybe my argument holds for all "stylized as" article titles that do not fall under the umbra of MOS:TM.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Even those that do. Trademark stylizations that are in common usage “communicate the actual [name] instead of forcing readers to have to say that the actual format of the [name] is a ‘stylization’.” So the way I see it, either your argument is faulty or you need to step it up—this isn’t just about Japanese song titles. —Frungi (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
My main issue is the complete forbidden usage of ~ in article titles for Japanese songs and albums. If my arguments happen to hold for other articles and their titles then that's not really a problem is it?—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
No, just the opposite: if your argument against standardizing stylized titles (by removing/replacing the tilde/wave dash) is valid here, it’s probably valid for most any stylization anywhere, and instead of focusing on this niche, you should try and fix the widespread practice. But the problem I do see is that if you’re right, then why is there so much precedence and guidance for style standardization? Why do we keep doing it everywhere, and why should the practice change in only this one corner of the project? —Frungi (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Because it's easier to change a "niche" as you put it first and then show the rest of the project how well it works and in this niche there are no English language sources to dominate any "standard" stylization.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I’d think it’d be easier to change the rules outright than to justify breaking them in an effort to later change them. Anyway, from what I’ve seen in the previous discussions you’ve linked to and in unrelated discussions elsewhere, consensus stands firmly against you in both this and the wider question. —Frungi (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Making an entire language's media an exception to the present rules seems more useful, and getting wider input rather than just the same people saying the same thing on WT:MOS-JA and apparently here (no one has commented here outside of the two of us and Lucia Black) is more useful in seeing if something should be changed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that there's not anything to do, at least not until and unless consensus changes to prefer stylization and unusual characters in work titles. My take is that at this time there is no consensus either way, leaning toward preferring standard English style (which does not use tildes). —Frungi (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
How can you make this determination when there's never any central discussion on it and every single fucking attempt I make at a central discussion gets derailed into something like what has happened here? I opened this to see if the wider community thought that omitting tildes was suitable, rather than the extremely insular community of the manual of style pages and that's gotten me fucking nowhere as usual.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Why wikipedia is losing editors
Latest comment: 11 years ago76 comments32 people in discussion
Please redirect this to the correct section if this is the wrong section to discuss this. and notify me of the move.
There is a lot of concern about the plunge in the number of editors on wikipedia.
The number one reason for this drop is nasty editors, many who are administrators, who WP:BITE new editors. How is this being addressed? Upload a video on youtube with one click. Try to upload a video or image on wikipedia is a several step process, with numerous steps, and your video or image will most likely be deleted. Start a new article, and within minutes, sometimes seconds, your contribution will be deleted. I think this attitude starts at the very top with Jim Wales and the committee being so worried about a potential lawsuit, they have created a company culture which squelches any fun in editing. There is an elite group of editors, created by Jim Wales, who are quite nasty to new ideas and new contributions. IF you want an example of this, watch the reaction to what I wrote. If you don't understand the complexities of wikipedia policy, rules, etc., and have the time to invest large amounts of time into wikipedia, your contributions will be deleted, ridiculed, or ignored.
The number two reason for this drop in editing is the complexity of wikipedia pages. Like technical articles, there are very knowledgeable editors who make it impossible for laymen to understand what is being written. Many of these editors of technical articles and templates attitude when they get complaints about complexity is, "fuck you, this subject is complex, and simply cannot be understood by laypeople". So like the American law, in the case of both technical articles and technical complexity, you have a small elite which controls the distribution and interpretation. This gives the power to control content for a elite few, with the exclusion of most everyone else.
The coding for wikipedia has become progressively more and more complex. Particularly templates. Most templates are a complex jumble of template, on top of template, on top of template. With numerous parsers. A great example of this is Template:under Construction. I have been editing wikis for almost a decade, with hundreds of thousands of edits, and I don't understand this template. Even if I did, this template is protected, so only administrators can edit it. Again, this complexity gives the power to control content for a elite few, with the exclusion of most everyone else.
No amount of window dressings such as changing the skin appearance and even more technical fixes will fix the destructive company culture of Wikipedia. I think only a change of leadership will change how Wikipedia runs, and bring back editors and that will never happen.
I agree the culture needs to change. I think deletionism is taking a toll. It's much easier to be a deletionist than an inclusionist. And parts of the MOS are over-restrictive to the point that they aren't the guides that they intend to be. Instead, they are enforced policy putting form over function.
A change of leadership isn't necessary as long as leaders are willing to hear complaints and address them logically instead of just letting the consensus stamp out dissent. Wikipedia is aware of its Wikipedia:Systemic bias. The culture can be changed through WP:Essays. But if you change leadership without changing culture, the new leaders eventually give in to the prevailing culture. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
We do need to do something about the nasty editors. Topic bans if they get dragged to the drama boards for the same topic too often. Ban both sides, if needed, and let fresh editors fix the articles. A change of leadership isn't necessary.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
BTW Igottheconch, I don't doubt that wikipedia is losing editors, but are you using any statistics to measure how severe the loss of editors is? Oicumayberight (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
First of all, about "nasty editors". They exist, but I see no reason to think that they are only nasty to new editors... Although I am not sure we mean the same thing with "nasty"... There is nothing "nasty" about deletion or criticism.
Second, Wikipedia's editors must enjoy being criticised. Thus they must not feel offended when their contribution is rejected. Yes, there are many people who do not enjoy being criticised. They should be chased away - gently, but firmly. It will hurt less in the long run. Otherwise some of them become those "nasty editors"...
Third, "Like technical articles, there are very knowledgeable editors who make it impossible for laymen to understand what is being written." - do you have an example of someone actually trying to write in the way that is "impossible for laymen to understand"? Remember, it is hard to write in the way that is easy to understand. Not everyone can do it. If you know how to write something in a way that is easier to understand (and without sacrificing any precision, neutrality, scientific style etc.), then, perhaps, you should actually do so instead of complaining..? Or maybe you can explain how that can be done (in the same talk page, in an essay)? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Nobody enjoys criticism. But if one is open to it, they will take the criticism, as harsh as it may be delivered, with the intent it was meant, heed the advice and move on having learned a little and grown a little.--MarkJust ask!WERTEADR/N21:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I've got a "topic is impossible for laymen to understand" warning just today, sorta, and the article is likely to be reverted any time to its previous jargon-heavy version. Sometimes you can convince the other editor, but sometimes you just have to avoid an edit war against overwhelming forces and let the technical content remain as the sole explanation for the topic; there is an attitude that values precision over readability, and it shows in the results (and we can all be guilty of this at topics for which we are knowledgeable about, so I'm not blaming anyone more than myself). Diego Moya (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree - the subjects of the vast majority of submissions at AFC are biographies, current/recent events and organisations. There are very few new articles about "things" - substances, species, places, etc. coming through the system - even though there are still many gaps in those "categories" e.g. we're still lacking a few million species articles and thousands of villages are not "on our maps" yet either. For some reason most newbies shy away from writing about Jasus frontalis, Cymodocea rotundata or 3-(2'-spiroadamantane)-4-methoxy-4-(3"-phosphoryloxy) phenyl-1,2-dioxetane and instead prefer to write about non-notable garage bands or their cousin who was once mentioned in a school newsletter for scoring a goal in extra time in a 4th XI match against a neighbouring school. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Article creation is pretty hard on Wikipedia nowadays. Consider the near-defunct status of Article Incubator, and the article creation backlog at Articles for Creation. People can no longer just put up an article as a drive-by-creation, since they need an account, but having a newly minted account means they still can't create an article, because it is new. The search page for uncreated pagenames links to AfC as ask for article to be created, which is not intuitively what one would select if they wanted to create an article for themselves. The page one falls on for redlinked pages doesn't even have a link to AfC. So, while the current state of affairs reduces spam and vandalism by new article creation, it also reduces people who come in by whim to create an article on a topic they notice is missing and they think should exist. There's also no collaboratively way for someone to stumble upon Article Incubator or Articles for Creation drafts and improve them, as if they were mainspace articles. While this is purposefully done to keep spam and vandalism out of search results, it also means rejected AfC/AI drafts are never improved upon by other editors who may want to do so. That AI and AfC are two separate processes, also drives a split in the editors who may participate in these two very similar processes, reducing the overall editorship for creation of articles, by dividing their attention and having different populations of potential articles being seen by each. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Bingo. Back in the day, I was able to come on and create - not just edit, but create - articles on, among other things: Speedways. Metro stations. Governors. Provinces. How many provinces, or subprovinces, or counties, or what not, lack Wikipedia articles now? Zero. You can't just go in and work on a president or country you've heard of now, because 99% of those articles are feature-complete. You need to have increasingly obscure information if you want to add on to the Wikipedia, or have increasingly tendentious information that you're going to fight to implement. In other words, we've entered our third phase. We had creation, we had growth, now we have maintenance. This is not something to be feared, it is something to be adapted to, embraced, and fostered. For example, there's still new information out there (not just news, but things like, for example, that Sanskrit chair election that was the FA from a few days ago. That would have never occurred to me as article material), and new ways to present it (like my series on territorial evolution). There will always be more to do, but the mentality that we had in the middle period must necessarily disappear. Unfortunately, this does mean that those who aren't willing to invest a lot of time - either in fighting, or in learning to navigate the pages to add increasingly arcane code and citations - are going to drop away. Refining the editing process (not making it visual, but refining how it's organized) and refining the wikicode would go a long way to helping that, I think. --Golbez (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
@Igottheconch , as someone who has tried to contribute dozens of articles (and categories), I too speculate that deletions and deletionists are a deterrent to many. I do not object to criticism as some here have suggested, but I do have a problem dealing with bot-like editors who leave loads of canned templates on my talk page, informing me in wiki-language that my contributions are sub-par and forcing me to spend the majority of my wiki-time defending my creations, instead of working on adding more articles or improving others.
People in the real world get cash compensation for their work to show that they are being appreciated. What compensation do we offer volunteers here? XOttawahitech (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
@Igottheconch: You know, this might have been an interesting concept if it weren't the exact same argument/thread that gets recycled every few weeks. It takes a very special kind of editor to sit down and create/edit/maintain the content we have, and a very few people are going to have that level of commitment and ability. Also, in the ideal world we'd have an article about everything in the world, but in the real world we have to accept that some things are not yet (or never will be) notable and covered enough to justify coverage in Wikipedia. So same arguments over and over leads to editors who might have been on your side to be burnt out on the question even being asked. I also observe that for such a relatively new editor (Less than 500 live edits) you seem to have a percieved grasp on what Wikipedia needs to do. Hasteur (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Disputed: On numerous occasions, Jimmy Wales has cautioned people to be more wp:Civil, and he welcomes everyone to politely express opinions on his talk-page. Regarding a "potential lawsuit", Jimbo has stated there is relatively little worry and the Foundation can even offer guidance to improved page contents, without risk of liability for the text which individual editors choose to write. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Wikid77. Dear Igottheconch, while I do believe that you are spot-on with some of your diagnosis of the problem, you are mistaken as to the cause and certainly very much mistaken as to my views on these matters. Let me hit a few key points: "I think this attitude starts at the very top with Jim Wales and the committee being so worried about a potential lawsuit" is completely false. I have stated many times and on many occasions that I think most worries about lawsuits are unfounded, and very seldom the core issue. We aspire to not just meet minimum legal standards, but to dramatically exceed them. We very seldom see anything that some close to being a legal issue, and when we do, those matters are best handled by the legal team at the Foundation. Certainly there is no reason whatsoever to think that being nasty to newbies is in any way helpful with legal matters. That's just wrong.
Second, the idea that there are a few elite editors, created by me, who are "quite nasty to new ideas" is wrong as well. It is absolutely true that there are some editors, some admins, who are hyper-uptight about rules in a way that is destructive. I frequently speak out about this. You may want to go and watch my Wikimania speech from last week to see an example - I got a huge round of applause for saying that people should relax about the rules and not beat up newbies for trivialities. This is one of my pet peeves, and I welcome your support in helping to educate those editors who misbehave through wikilawyering that it is unwelcome here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the legal fears referred not to nasty editors, as much as the reason the process to upload images, for example, is so difficult. Are you saying the upload process can be greatly simplified and we shouldn't worry about legal issues there? Equazcion(talk) 09:33, 12 Aug 2013 (UTC)
Another problem is that many of us who do stick around and do care about the project aren't allowed to help out in areas that need help from experienced users. The attitude is they would have a long backlog than to allow us to help. So we end up getting irritated and leave. When you lose an editor who does 20 edits a month its not that big of a deal, when you lose an experienced editor who does 1000 edits a day, or who deals a lot with images, or who deals a lot with CCI, or AFD, or article creation, etc., then that has a significant impact. Now that we have the Visual Editor tool that seems to be mostly made to help the vandals, it isn't making things any better. Kumioko (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
@Kumioko - what do you mean by "aren't allowed to help out"? I'm a 6-year 25k-edits "veteran" editor and I've yet to find a page I'm "not allowed" to edit outside of other peoples' user pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Plenty of pages have WP:OWNership issues. Editing in the robotics project gets you an earful if you're not "in the project". Papal infallibility is guarded by a furiously infallible editor. Piston engine layouts are so fiercely defended by a couple of editors that a new editor Bridge Boy (talk·contribs) was hounded into a perma-ban in no time at all. A glaring example of slavish policy being used to destroy a new editor for the most trivial naivety and unfamiliarity with our parliamentary practice. Wtshymanski, Hengistmate and Eddaido are their own special problems. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, in addition to that you have all the content (and more every day) that is protected so only admins can edit it, I can edit almost any template we have here and even a lot of the modules and mediawiki pages but yet I have to ask someone who generally doesn't even know what their looking at to implement the work. I have to ask someone else to do the work if I want to compare a dataset larger than 25000 articles in AWB and this and what Andy mentions are only the tip of the iceberg. I have wanted to help out CCI with their backlog for years but that work almost requires the admin toolset which I can't get because I have a habit of telling things the way I see it and not necessarily the politically correct way and your not allowed to be an Asshole until after you get the tools. Never before. Kumioko (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Templates! I can make a living selling MediaWiki consultancy skills to commercial outfits, but I'm not allowed to touch a template here on en:WP, I have to ask a teenager to do it for me. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep me too. That's why I rarely do it anymore. I occassionally fiddle with Template:WikiProject United States because it won't get done at all otherwise but there are dozens of changes that need to be done to other templates that I am simply not going to waste my time doing. If I cannot be trusted to implement the change after doing the work, then I don't need to do it. Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Really, a lot of the issues here is coming from the viewpoint of a new editor looking for instant gratification (read: being able to do something without spending any effort to learn the ropes), but WP has been around long enough that we have numerous processes and requirements in place that nearly requires a good reading of basic fundamentals of WP editing. It's still an open wiki, but its more like Usenet of old, where we encourage those that want to participate to lurk and learn before jumping in. We don't want to strip away the ability of IPs and new users from editing immediately, but we have to make sure they are aware they if they do things without consulting these guides, their contributions may be reverted, but this is by no means meant to trivialize their contributions. --MASEM (t) 04:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
@Christian75 all the easy (and fancy) stuff has been written - this is often repeated, but it's not true. There are lots of topics that lack articles and for which a good encyclopedic coverage could be created, but for which new editors lack the experience to either create or expand; and thus their content is reverted, the article does not survive, and there is no chance of further development. The problem is that the maintenance rules are being applied to all articles no matter their current status, so new content is not given a chance to develop (sure, content development guidelines are still in place, but they are not enforced with the required strength).
@Masem being able to do something without spending any effort to learn the ropes Requiring all contributors to learn the bureaucratic process would make sense if Wikipedia was a nearly finished project, but we all know that the project will never be finished; there should exist a way to encourage experiments in a way that doesn't interfere with the current established good-quality material. What we need is a separate space were all the crap that comes from an unregulated process is allowed to stay, so that the small percent of valuable content can be extracted and made to shine. AfC would be that place, but it's too user centric and short-term, and the collaborative wiki process can't work in those limited conditions. The incubator could have been that place too, but it was hurt by being unorganized and hidden from the main space, and therefore not known to the general public. Diego Moya (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
That's why we have sandboxes. But I'm not saying that any editor needs detailed knowledge of every single process WP uses, but to be aware of the broader facets, like understanding the basics of WP:V, NOR, and NPOV. This can be obtained by simply sitting back and watching how pages and take page discussions happen over the course of a few weeks, aka lurk and learn. The problem is that many new editors don't have that patience and want to be able to jump in and make their change right away, and by trying to limit that in a technical or process-oriented manner breaks the openness of the Wiki. We just need to emphasize that lurking and learning is much more valuable than trying to jump in feet first and finding yourself burned because of how we have established our processes. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Sandboxes are for learning how to put content in pages; I'm not referring to that mechanical skill, but the way to learn how to behave so that experienced editors won't instantly oppose and revert new contributions (did you know that policy-compliant edits by IPs are much more likely to be reverted? We're not talking about following rules here). The need to know policy is officially not a requirement, and there should be no need to "understand the basics of WP:V, NOR, and NPOV" in order to create new content; for the wiki process to work well, some degree of experimentation is always needed, but current policy don't allow it; it's no wonder that new editors find the current environment hostile.
New articles on recent areas of knowledge should be exempt from bureaucracy, and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY should be treated in this separate environment as a core behavior policy, with WP:IAR still being a central precept and frequently applied instead of an exception. I understand that stable articles need protection, but not at the cost of everything else.
I don't believe that keeping Wikipedia if a frozen status, according to the policy that was crystallized in the first years, is the ideal way to keep the encyclopedia. The project still needs to evolve, but all evolving mechanism have been excised. That's why I believe having an "experimental" version where things can be broken and new approaches can be tried out, as it's commonly done in software project, is the only way to some day have a "2.0" version of Wikipedia. (Remember your proposal to rework the history of gaming consoles to be structured with a different criterion? What would be the outcome if a new user tried to do exactly that, even while respecting the current Generation articles?) Diego Moya (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, part of the problem is that editors that come in with the attitude of expecting immediate gratification from adding/changing something on WP also generally tend to be the noisiest when their edits are reverted. There are a large number of IP and new editors that aren't interested in learning the established rules and just want to add what they think is right, and raise a fuss when they are pointed to reading policy. When they then go and suggest new ideas, they usually are doing it from a highly defensive position and makes it hard for the idea to be taken rationally.
At the same time there are a number of new and IP editors that have clearly read some parts of policy and make safe and caution edits. They also suggest ideas and while not all ideas are good at least they're aware of how to approach the idea and present it in a reasonable way. So I can't wave away that WP is not open to experimentation nor treats new editor ideas without merit. Just that the proposer's attitude has nearly everything to do with it, and hence why lurking and watching to understand how discussion and consensus happen on WP prior to making major contributions is extremely worthwhile. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
problem is that editors that come in with the attitude of expecting immediate gratification - there are two ways to avoid that problem: changing the arriving new editors, or changing the environment to accommodate editors like those (maybe not for the established content, but certainly for the under-developed areas, of which there are many). Which approach is more actionable? :-) The majority of the current batch of us veterans started in an environment where that kind of instant gratification was still possible, and where the set of rules were not at the current Byzantine levels. It seems hypocritical for the established community to require anything different from what we enjoyed ourselves when we were newbies. What percentage of new editors approach their starting period with that lurking attitude, and are we sure that we only want to incorporate meek editors? What happened to the virtues of being bold, and why it should be punished? Diego Moya (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Being bold (per WP:BRD) is not the same as not lurking. Or more exacting, learning what being Bold is something to learn while lurking, as to learn you don't need consensus for every edit. The difference is, those that learn to lurk before using BRD are less likely to get into revert wars compared with those editors that simply be bold and insist their content be included. Its those types of "rules" that lurking to learn makes a lot of headway to becoming a valued contributor to WP. We can't expect to create the same environment that we had 10 years ago because much of the encyclopedia is fleshed out and it makes little sense to fix what's not broken. There's still plenty of articles to create, but the instant gratification attitude applies not only to contributing but to find information, and "if its not on the web I can't be bothered to find it" is a common problem from these newcomers. I'm not ignoring the fact that veteran editors can be overly bitey at times, but we have attitude problems on both sides, and if we expect only one side to change and let the other side continue their actions, we'll keep losing editors. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
If we make the WP:AfC process standard for all editors, except administrators and article-creator flagged editors, that could improve things, by making sure the AfC process gets attention, and is properly streamlined and built, to process article creation. And integrate WP:Article Incubator into the same process, as a flag to paste on AfC drafts, so that any rejected draft can be incubated. Also WP:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts would also be integrated, by transferring such drafts into AfC, and flagging them for incubation. Then, an option on the searchbox can be used to flip though AfC for draft articles as well as mainspace content. Thus everyone has the same creation interface, content becomes reviewed before reaching mainspace, for basic standards, so better mainspace articles, and people can choose to improve all these lost drafts we have floating around in sandboxes, by centralizing it all into AfC, and letting multiple people contribute to not-ready drafts. And redlink/search for nonexistant articles directly link to AfC for submitting an article for wikipedia and to WP:Requested articles if you just want to request an article. ReqArt should also be more tightly integrated with the various topical wikiprojects, so that each wikiproject can be tagged onto requests, and it will show up on their lists (as well as AfC drafts). The ReqArt system should be made more consistent, so you can fill out a form/preload to describe what you want created, and wikiproject members can ask you about it as well, by backlinking the person to added it. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Under your proposal there are effectively 2 actions. First is to revoke the ability to create articles from all editors except a very small segment of the community that has the Admin Flag or Autopatrolled. This isn't going to fly as there's already a minimum standard called auto-confirmed (10 edits and 5 days) to creating a mainsapce article. You're going to have to argue against the "Adminship is not supposed to be a big deal" problem that revolves around fairly frequently. Second, I agree that it would probably be best to deprecate/mark historical all the parallel versions of getting a page created prior to being autconfirmed (Incubator, Abandoned Drafts). Obviously we keep Requested Articles, but significantly curtail it and have a statue of limitations on how long we'll allow a proposed request stay around before it's summarily removed (probably as an archive to refer to). AfC does have a 6 month stale deadline so that pages that are abandoned are given over to the the CSD:G13 process for removal. Hasteur (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Hasteur on this one. Additionally IMO we need to break some of the tools out of the admin toolset not add more limitations to what editors can do here. Kumioko (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Slowing 2% decline by new tools, new admins, new helpboxes
The monthly editor-activity stats have confirmed a long-term loss of editors; however, for 3 years, the rate has slowed to only ~2% per year. Meanwhile, we are on the verge of great new tools, after the installation of Lua script, and continued support for wp:gadgets at wp:PUMPTECH. In a sense, the VisualEditor has impressed some users (to the extent the bugs have been fixed), while shocking some former editors, and Lua is probably the main improvement for the power users, as their tools and templates are being rewritten much faster. When people insert cite templates, those edit-preview about 13x faster as now Lua-based templates, allowing the whole page to reformat 2x-3x faster than before March 2013. Plus, we have barely begun to explore the power of Lua to detect copy-edit problems instantly as edit-mode templates. As for nasty attitudes, many newly appointed admins seem to be more centrist to offset the wp:BITE actions of prior admins. Also, the wp:Teahouse is continuing to show civility, while steering new people into the "encyclopedia" mindset. More people should visit there, offer answers, and notice the ambiance. However, to overcome the complexity of pages, more work must be done; even Jimbo has advised to set standards to limit the extreme template/page complexity. I wrote essay "wp:Data hoarding" after seeing a city page with 2 climate tables (an extra table for hilltop rainfall), where they could have merely said the hilltop got n% more/less rain than the lower town or such. For truly complex problems, I have proposed wp:helpboxes (like: {{wikitext}} ) to condense complex options into a box-style reference card format, because some templates have over one hundred parameters (many rare), and people forget the major "30" parameters to use in most pages, lost in an ocean of template /doc text (see instead helpbox: {{convert/help}} ). The Help:Math page shows over 150 options for the math-tags plus Template:Math, and helpboxes for them could focus on perhaps the top 40 options for most users to edit math articles and update a formula or equation. Anyway, encourage more mellow people to become admins, as they are part of our "new leadership" in progress. But we need standards to limit template complexity. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
One tiny question only related to the message above, where are these monthly editor-activity stats and is this a drop on the english wikipedia or across all projects? ·addshore·talk to me!23:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
[1] is another option. Under 'secondary', towards the bottom of the page, the number of very active editors (100+ edits per month) has declined by 0.49% during the last year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
@Wikid We need to be careful with statistics on this project because wikipedia is complex and has radical changes. For example the stats you quote for article edits show a 2% per annum fall, but is this enough to compensate for the effect of the edit filters? Since 2009 when the edit filters came in we've "lost" an awful lot of edits. Much of that is vandalism that even cluebot won't mind losing to the edit filters, but when we lost the vandalism we also lost the vandalism reversion. Now some of those vandalfighters will be using the same time for other edits, but my experience and I'm sure that of others is that an hour of improving the pedia involves fewer edits than an hour of vandalfighting. My suspicion is that if we allow for the effect of the edit filters then the underlying level of edits has risen since 2009, but of course edit count is an inherently dodgy statistic. What would be interesting would be to know whether the number of hours spent editing Wikipedia was going up or down, but nobody knows the answer to that one. ϢereSpielChequers10:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Spin-off sites
I think Wikipedia is losing editors in part because it's no longer this new shiny thing for people to play with. Most important topics in popular fields already have at least some coverage, and expanding those or delving into more obscure topics requires research. We have plenty of persistent gnomes, but many, I suspect, were first drawn here by the opportunity to do big things, and then stayed to keep it tidy. I would propose that in order to attract the kind of editors who will actually do research and citation checking, Wikipedia should put up a few advertisements during documentary television shows covering the kinds of topics where we need coverage. Quite frankly, I also suspect that many people enjoy belonging to insular communities, so if we were to spin out Wikia-like specialized wiki sites (like an all-sports version of Wikipedia, or an all-cooking version), new editors would provide a lot of needed content to those, which could then be imported here. bd2412T12:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea of spinoff sites so much I put in the new subsection heading.
It's very clear that our rules do discourage some (likely very many) editors, and not just new editors. We don't really need more articles in Wikipedia, we need more quality articles here and in general, more CC-BY-SA content that we can readily import here if it is good enough. The obvious way to do this is to spin off sites that can have different rules, e.g. we don't really allow organizations to edit, but we could very easily have a site where non-profits (GLAMS, etc.) could write their own articles (maybe even with "ownership" rights) that would be CC-BY-SA and we could import the best parts here. Many experts feel that they are discriminated against here - we could have a spin-off site that requires having a graduate degree (likely meaning the person's real name would have to be known) to satisfy these folks. Class assignments have been considered disruptive here, but we could have a spin-off site dedicated to class assignments. Some folks might think our citation or OR rules are (interpreted) too strict(ly), a more relaxed site for them might bright out some good material, that our editors might later be able to cite or find non-OR sources for. The rules of the spin-off sites don't have to be "better" than our rules, they just have to be aimed at a different group that feels put off by some of our (sometimes rather arbitrary) rules here. Only the CC-BY-SA rule would be non-negotiable.
So what's different about this than the current situation where groups can get the Wikimedia software and make up their own rules on their own sites? I think we could help them set up the software, provide hosting, and get the project going if enough Wikipedians express an interest. Also we could link in the left hand side column to articles in these spin-offs, the same as for different language versions (asumming some minimal ruleset is observed, e.g. BLP). The CC-BY-SA requirement is also different and would be the key to having the spin-offs improve Wikipedia. Smallbones(smalltalk)13:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea as well however I would prefer to see the article still be linked to the main site here so that if an edit is done, it also happens here at EN. Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Then what would be the point? Just continue to edit at EN. At any rate, the spinoff sites already exist. There is a Wikia for most topics you can think of, but their communities tend to be smaller and more insular than here - with some exceptions, of course. On the whole, I do not see how fracturing the community along topic lines actually helps Wikipedia. Resolute14:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Are they CC-BY-SA? Is there one, for example, where museums can write up what they'd like and present it to the public in a format that we could borrow (with some editing) i.e. CC-BY-SA? Is there one where students can write up class projects? Note that this proposal doesn't have to work all the time for all cases, just some of the time, for some cases. The point of course is to produce more CC-BY-SA text that we can examine, edit, and re-use when appropriate. Smallbones(smalltalk)
If we still direct to the same database in the backend but make a more topic centered frontend, like splitting some of the WikiProjects like sports or whatever and allowing them to generate their own following. As long as the edit still updates the core database that displays here, everybody wins. Although there is also a lot of merit to a couple of the topics above like having an Educational Wiki and a Wiki centered around researchers where you must post your real identity. I think a lot of researchers would jump at the chance to post free open source materials. Maybe where Original research is accepted and even encouraged. I do not think either has the ability to stand on their own without some support from something like Wikimedia and a larger community like Wikipedia, but I think there are some good ideas. Kumioko (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Now you are talking about entirely different projects, not insular sub-Wikipedias. Also, how would you deal with a topic that is covered by multiple projects? Which one wins? Resolute23:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
@Resolute, yes, there are Wikias for many topics - and just look at the depth of coverage that some of them have (for example, any popular science fiction franchise). Not only are they expansive, but some are extremely well written and well cited. If we have spin-off projects for particular topics that are licensed the same way as our own materials, then we can at any time copy every word of every article of those projects into our own corpus. bd2412T15:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that Wikias are too isolated. Anything that is removed from Wikipedia because of WP:NOT or WP:N should be automatically moved to a related Wikia and easy to locate from the main project, in order to assist interested readers to find it even if it doesn't qualify for the strict quality criteria defined by policy and should not be located within the encyclopedia. Diego Moya (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree and I even levied a suggestion a couple years ago to add the list of those somewhere. Maybe a link at the bottom of the landing page for other Mediawiki supported wiki's. Kumioko (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Alternative separation of presentation and content
An alternative to separate spinoff sites, similar to what Kumioko mentioned, would be separation of presentation and content on the back end and content filtering on the front-end. This would allow multiple ways to view the same content customized for the preferences of the individual user. A user could show only sourced material. A user could show only material from particular sources. It could even be made more elementary school-friendly by allowing filtering of wikipedia articles for school grade/age grade groups, replacing big words, and adding more visuals. It could also censor types of content for religious groups. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually if someone wanted to setup say a Military history or a California wiki on the Wikia site, there isn't really anything anyone could do. That is, as long as there were enough people to support such an endeavor. Kumioko (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
You are right, but I was not talking about forking the site or a subset of it, but of forking articles within Wikipedia, which is what this requires. That, or a complete overhaul of the back end. Neither is going to be considered seriously. Resolute23:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
IMO if the WMF seriously thinks that VE in its current state is helpful too or wanted by the vast majority of editors, then anything could happen. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if a pig flew by my window. Unfortunately I do pretty much agree though. We cant get consensus to do anything here let alone something of the magnitude required for this endeavor. Kumioko (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
We need a WikiGlossary and WikiAlmanac or something. WikiNews currently deletes anything newly submitted that is old, and Wikipedia deletes anything that is news, regardless of age. Coverage of this area is lacking in Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia deletes dictionary entries and things like dictionary entries (single term glosses), Wiktionary does not accept glossary type entries. (hell, Wiktionary doesn't even have development areas, like a sandbox space, Articles for Creation, Article Incubator, they delete everything nonstandard) And transwiki-ing non-Wikipedia content off Wikipedia should be done on a standard basis, instead of the rare occassion that the majority of editors at an AfD says transwiki. Already, non-Wikimedia projects are popping up at Jimbo Wales' other effort, Wikia, to cover all the stuff deleted on Wikipedia (or even Wiktionary, since that's where the Klingon Wiktionary was transferred to, as it was deleted from Wikimedia) The Wikia Annex was the fiction transwiki site for Wikipedia deleted fiction material at the start. The fact that Wikinews doesn't accept transwikis from Wikipedia, really kills off collaboration, as well.
If we do set up a WikiAlmanac, that would much better cover the various event iteration articles (like the 2012 New York Marathon, or etc), while letting us cover the event in toto (ie. New York Marathon, the sum whole) and handle the concerns of how much each single iteration is "news" versus "encyclopedic". This would only work if we actually use transwiki as a serious option in deletion processes, instead of just a novelty option.
Thank you for all of your comments - what a pleasant surprise - even Jim Wales even commented.
If lawsuits are not an issue as Jim Wales(?) states, one change that could be enacted right now, today, is make uploading images as easy as youtube. Drag - drop - done.
Images are a completely different matter as its not lawsuits but the goal of the Foundation to develop free content. If we were only considered on fair use, yes, we could make image uploading easy, but we have to assure that free (as in free for reuse) images are proven as such, and that we limit the amount of non-free images. Thus the process is very difficult but necessary. The Image Upload Wizard helps to simplify as much of that process but we still need editors to be aware that we don't just upload images without thought here. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the problem is that all of the notably subjects have been covered. There are still a surprising number of notable subjects out there that need to be written. (One example would be top-level ministers of Ethiopia--& probably a lot of countries.) The problem is that to write acceptable articles on these topics one must put in more effort. The rule of thumbs I've found over the years has been that the effort to write an acceptible article on a given subject is equivalent to an college undergraduate-level term paper; by acceptible, I mean an article that is clearly more than a Start, something that has useful information in it, maybe a C or a B level article--a Featured article, or a Good Article, would require even more work. (I've written both college papers & acceptible-level Wikipedia articles, so I know what I'm saying.) Which means that a contributor has to spend a good chunk of time off-Wiki doing research & writing -- & not posting comments at WP:AN/I or here at the Pump. And after spending that much time on an article, it's inevitable that ownership issues come up: when someone has spent a lot of work on an article, that person feels attached it & is not inclined to tolerate questionable changes to it. (For all values of "questionable".) Add to that the inevitable contributions from someone with an axe to grind, & even the most patient contributor will eventually grow jaded from interactions with other contributors, & find they are not as welcoming to newbies as they should be. And this results with two possibly useful contributors leaving sooner than the community would want.
I don't know what the solution to this problem is, but I've seen it happen. And it's why I no longer make a serious effort to improve many articles.--llywrch (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I would imagine that if there were a solution, it would have something to do with better division of labor. Wikiprojects are supposed to do that, but I doubt many are organized enough to divide the labor of what you are talking about. Colleges might try to divide the labor of developing an article among classmates as a class project, but then you have mostly new editors unfamiliar with wikipedia policies with less of a commitment to learn. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
There's more than just the ownership issue. This perspective is undoubtedly colored by the diminution of my free time since I started editing here, but I think, in general, the cognitive load imposed by writing a "decent" article has gone way upward since, say, 2005. Some of the load is an inevitable concomitant of proper research and sourcing; other parts result from the general proliferation of templates, guidelines, and social norms for what an article should contain and how it should appear. So much the better for our article quality, but it seems increasingly difficult to make significant content contributions without sitting down for hours at a stretch. The problem, of course, is that relatively few people are interested in doing this—a great many of the people who know about, or can learn about, the esoterica useful to us in this stage of the project are unlikely to have that time at their disposal. Choess (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I find right here, in Choess' words the one clue I came here to post. All the discussion here is about internal issues of Wikipedia, both about the attitude of editors and about the technical side, which undoubtedly play a big role and which need answers. Surely, what good is it to have a shinny and appealing surface, seemingly welcoming everyone, if they are about to be treated like a nuisance. But even this is not entirely the editors' fault. There should be an "interface" between newcomers and our busy not-always-sensitive editors. Someone offered the idea that this could be done by a number of wizards connected to the VE activity. I do not know how feasible this is in technical terms, but in some way a helpful/educating and interactive buffer-mechanism should be present. BUT, the "diminution of (people's) free time" seems to be left out of the equation. There are some considerable social factors out there, maybe not exactly the same in all parts of the English speaking world, or other places from where we get input, that are forcing people to spend more and more of their time to survive. Also, in many places I know, the education level is falling seriously. And additionally, there are many more factors that distract people from doing anything creative and keep them passive in from the screen. Such factors must be put in the equation somehow, although we cannot control them as we can potentially control our inner factors. Also I think Wikipedia should not start running after all these trends and try to become as shinny as other popular things to "win back" the participation of the people. Some wise improvements are good, but above all we have to be (become and remain) a Reliable Encyclopedia. More to the point: It may be that the fall in participation is only partly because of our mistakes and this should be kept in due weight in our mind while we are trying to correct them. HoverfishTalk00:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment Yes, there are loads of notable subjects out there waiting for articles. But there's a problem. It could be that people are getting discouraged by having their efforts deleted. But the articles deleted are normally advertising, vandalism (including hoaxes which would abound if OR was allowed), copyright violations - or simply non-notable. The people that know about the subjects that haven't got articles haven't signed up yet to create them. Never mind losing editors. (I make exception there for losing the more prickly of the good content creators - we need to keep them.) I mean the ones that create one article about a back street computer repair shop, see it deleted, and then depart. We needn't worry about them. Single purpose accounts, and WP:NOTHERE. We need to attract more editors that do know about the subjects that are notable and missing. They probably look things up here - I did for years before I joined. They need to be caught - somehow, don't ask me how. (I got caught by a not very recent bit of garbage in an article I was reading. I had to do something about it.) Not my job - I take out the garbage. Incidentally, how is the counting of editor loss done? Are accounts that never edit counted as 'lost'? How about the quite frequent ones that only create a user page consisting of a CSD tag asking for its deletion? (Why do they do that?) Peridon (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
We have had a drop in the number of new editors, and whether the editing community is growing or not it certainly isn't growing as fast as our readership. We shouldn't be surprised at that, two of our biggest recruiters have been typos and vandalism, and both are now much rarer on the pedia and less likely to be seen by readers. Now I'm not suggesting that we deliberately put either of those in to recruit more of our readers as editors. But it would be good to develop alternative ways to recruit editors. I'm particularly keen on the idea of encouraging editors to add images and captions as both are easy steps for newbies. The WMF is very good at using ads to persuade readers to give money, I think a similar approach could get readers to add images and captions. ϢereSpielChequers10:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
If this is to be encouraged, then it should be done with care to explain clearly when and where images are acceptable in articles, preferably in a wizard dialogue or in a similar way. I have seen geography articles, especially of places that have tourist attractions become loaded with completely unrepresentative/irrelevant images, and I feel sorry to have to remove them, as it is a disappointment to the uploader. I find it negative to encourage people to do something that is very likely to be deleted/reverted. I don't think we should be running after anyone for participation, but since we are doing exactly this, we should at least make sure that we are VERY clear about what is likely to be accepted as useful and what is likely to be removed. We should be very careful not to waste the time and enthusiasm of the very people whom we encourage to contribute. HoverfishTalk01:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I ran a pilot on this last year. We started with a list of articles that had zero images but where there was a good chance of finding an image on commons. I think that is a good route to follow as we have many thousands of articles which don't have an image. I agree that we have a problem with some articles being excessively imaged, but I see that as the opposite end of the scale from imageless articles and readers who lack confidence to add any images. ϢereSpielChequers05:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Articles with too many images are easy to fix. I am pointing rather at the WAY we encourage input. It should be made clear up front what we need and what not, before frustrations build up between newcomers and maintenance editors. HoverfishTalk20:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
What editors?
There are all sorts of editors. I have come across:
The expert, who knows a lot about the subject and writes it up. Often they are casual with citations. Other experts may disagree, but they are wrong
The hobbyist (I am one), who assembles random articles from available online sources and may completely misunderstand what they read
The debater, who spends most of their time arguing in forums like this
The advocate, who shows why their ethnic group and/or garage band is the best
The average joe, who occasionally changes or adds to articles because they see something they think is wrong. They are often right
The vandal, who mostly adds childish abuse but sometimes is quite subtle
You will know of other categories.
In the early days of Wikipedia it was thought that most people would be well-meaning and their huge collective knowledge would be enough to make a valuable online encyclopedia. "Well-meaning" turned out to be true, but "collective knowledge" less so. It soon became clear that content had to be backed up by citing some plausible authority without violating copyright. Destructive editors started to play. Attempts were made to detect and prevent them. The site has evolved, as sites do. There are more rules than there used to be: it is harder to play. Probably that discourages new editors.
But Wikipedia's success should not be measured by the number of active editors. What matters is coverage and quality. Many articles are "done". No more needs to be added to the biography of that 19th century chemist or the description of that Aleutian island. How fast are new subjects appearing: new singers, soccer players and senators? Are we catching up with the backlog or is it getting longer? What about article degradation, where "done" articles accumulate unsourced and irrelevant content. "This vilage is headed by illustrious Ram Singh of most antique family who found many imprtant works for benefit of all and sundry." Is the quality of existing articles going up or down? Coverage and quality are the real issues. If the encyclopedia keeps improving, the number of editors is irrelevant.
If we are losing the type of editor that make negative contributions, that is good. It does not really matter if the self-appointed doorkeepers are discouraging editors who do not contribute much. I am more concerned about the effect of the visual editor, which discourages addition of verifiable content by making citation much harder. We surely do not want Wikipedia to become the equivalent of 1066 and All That. Is Wikipedia getting better or worse? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't you say that some editors fit into multiple of the aforementioned categories? I could see someone being a "debater" and an "average joe" at the same time. Sometimes, an editor might be an "expert" in one field, but might be more of a "hobbyist" or "average joe" in others. Or they might be a "debater", but veer into vandalism in certain discussions (RFA disruptions, etc). —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that some editors fit more than one category. I was trying to make the point that some editors do not add much value. Attempts to attract more editors, any kind of editor, is wrong when the real goal is to improve coverage and quality, particularly in the areas that matter most to our readers. Weekly views per web-capable phone is much more relevant. If that is declining, we have to think very hard about the reasons and the solution. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Ignoring spammers and vandals, I would divide goodfaith editors in two. Those that are improving the pedia and those who are tagging stuff in the hope that others will improve the pedia. Others may divide the community in other ways. ϢereSpielChequers10:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd say the part that is missing is that editors change over time. The average joe or the like sometimes gets more involved and much more productive. Most people, it turns out, are an expert on something. I also disagree that we've covered most things up to this point. In my field (computers) there is a massive amount of material missing and lots of it that is there is really horrible... Hobit (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding "Speedy Deletions"
I'd walked away from Wikipedia a couple of months ago, but today I saw a news report about a town in Wyoming being renamed and I called up the town's Wiki entry to see if it had been updated. Since I wasn't logged in to my Wikipedia account, I was greeted with an appeal to contribute to the Wikipedia Foundation. So I thought, if Wikipedia wants my 2 cents, I'll give 'em my 2 cents.
I think administrators need to remember that Wikipedia contributors are giving up their free time to research and write articles. If someone has started an article and used one or more valid references and that article is nominated for speedy deletion, if it is deleted rather than moved to general discussion on whether it should be deleted then have the decency to post an explanation on that user's talk page. Despite what the administrator may think, someone spent time on that article that's marked for speedy deletion, especially if it has references. Once the article is marked for speedy deletion and the original contributor posts a rebuttal and a defense for its inclusion in Wikipedia, don't ignore it and just hit the delete key. Address the points in that user's rebuttal. Justify your decision to carry through on the speedy deletion.
I fear Wikipedia is becoming a little enclave of control freaks who have created accounts solely to veto other people's work. Ideally the ability to mark an article for speedy deletion shouldn't be granted to a user until he or she has made x number of positive contributions to Wikipedia entries, *including* a respectable number of new articles themselves.DL77 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
BRD or not BRD?
Latest comment: 11 years ago23 comments8 people in discussion
I'm increasingly (twice today) seeing people citing BRD as justification for resisting edits. Regardless of the specifics, statements like "editor X is clearly in breach of WP:BRD" or edit summaries like "BRD says the page should remain in its original state until the matter is settled" are bogus. BRD is a helpful process if people who understand it choose to follow it. How can we discourage people from misapplying it like this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits16:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
If you have been reverted with reference to BRD, and you then revert back to your version without initiating a discussion then you are violating/ignoring BRD and you are editwarring. BRD doesnt say the article has to remain in the initial state, but reverting back to reinsert a challenged edit is poor form unless a very compelling argument is presented either in an editsummary or on the discussion page is poor form and editwarring.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·17:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I have read and understood, and often used, BRD. However, I don't think you have answered my question; and the circumstances you describe do not apply in many of the cases I have witnessed. How can one "violate" BRD? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits17:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
It is of course correct that BRD is not a policy. But it is a norm that is implicit in many policies and which can be considered to be violated everytime someone reinserts a challenged edit without engaging in discussion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·17:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
"If your edit gets reverted, look at the article's edit history and its talk page for an explanation (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see).
If you have reason to disagree with the explanation given, or you don't see any explanation at all, start a new discussion (section) on the article's talk page to request an explanation for why your edit was reverted, or to present your argument. You may also wish to ask the editor directly on their user talk page. Discussion is a primary method for editors with different ideas to work out solutions."
On Peter Warlock you've in the last 24 hours reverted an edit twice without providing an explanation, or even engaging with other editors on the talk page when they've made reasoned objections. Alfietucker (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm really not interested in spreading that particular discussion here; I asked about generic issues, of which that is only one example; and your summary of it misleading. BRD is not a policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits17:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
It looks to me that you are just edit warring and ignoring BRD and that that is the real problem - I am sure if you stop doing that people will stop claiming that you ignore BRD.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·17:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Andy, it would help if you specified where it was claimed "BRD says the page should remain in its original state until the matter is settled", which is clearly over-stretching what the guideline (if you will) is meant to cover. That said, despite what you say the Peter Warlock incident is pertinent, and I don't think I've misrepresented the situation: but then other editors can look and judge for themselves by a quick view of the edits on that page, plus a look at your posts on the talk page here and here. Alfietucker (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't be helpful; because, as I've already indicted in reply to you above, I'm not interested, and there is nothing to be gained, by boring everyone else (and me) by transferring disputes from elsewhere to here. I'd like to discuss the generic problem, which I have been observing for some time. Including people misrepresenting it as a policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits18:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Without a specific example, it appears that this is an abstract question and is difficult to answer. The OP may not be interested in providing details, but I see no reason why other editors should be interested in answering an abstract question. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Andy makes a good point. The essay is cited so often, many editors either assume it is policy, or act as if it is policy. If all parties to an edit dispute accept it, then it can be used, but if one or more parties explicitly challenge the application of the essay as justification, we need to have an alternative. While discussing alternatives in the abstract is often difficult, and it may be helpful to consider actual situations, we should remember that the goal of the discussion tis to come up with a generic approach, not simply a solution to the specific edit dispute.--SPhilbrick(Talk)19:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Andy is pointing out that an edit reversion using BRD as a justification is not a strong enough reason for the reversion. IMO, if the reverted editor reads the essay, and agrees it is a good process, then the reversion stands, and the two can go to the talk page and discuss. However, suppose the reverted editor disagrees with the process (or at least in this instance) so reinstates the edit. Arguably, this isn't edit warring, it is the correction of a reversion which did not have a valid justification. We cannot insist that BRD is merely an essay, without the force of guideline or policy, yet use it as a justification for edit reversion if the other party disagrees.
There are several ways we could proceed. Just OTTOMYH, we could propose that BRD become a policy, and see what the community thinks. We could propose that it has the force of policy in some situations, but not others, and clearly lay out the distinction. We could propose that BRD has the force of policy if both editors agree, then come up with an alternative for the situation that they do not. We could modify the wording of BRD so that it is acceptable as a policy. I'm sure there are others, but the one thing that isn't acceptable is pretending it is not a policy, but acting as if it is.--SPhilbrick(Talk)20:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Well I guess it would be better if it were a policy (on the basis that it's better for editors to discuss controversial changes and come to a compromise/consensus than for one editor to ride rough-shod over other people's work without the possibility of redress). Alfietucker (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Both of these are examples of why there may be a need to edit the wording if we want it to be a policy. As an unenforceable essay, it is acceptable that some situations might not be adequately covered, but if an enforceable guideline or policy, we need to have our ducks in a row.--SPhilbrick(Talk)15:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that BRD is too broadly treated like policy, often by whoever wrote the original version of the article. When I am in that kind of situation, I go to the talk page, lay out my argument, and sometimes make a compromise edit that takes both opinions into account. There's nothing wrong with BRD as long as the D consists of more than just shouting "You violated BRD!" Andrew32717:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Since BRD is not policy, it can not be invoked to formally sanction an editor who violates it; however, because it is a well-respected practice (and, basically, a good idea), it certainly can be used as a basis to initiate a discussion, and to require a consensus favoring whatever has been proposed as a change from the state of the article before any dispute arose. bd2412T19:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Notability guideline for local elections?
Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Is there a notability guideline for local elections? This question goes back at least to 2007, but I haven't found a satisfactory answer. GNG applies, but I'd be willing to take a crack at drafting a more specific standard if none exists. Andrew32717:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, but it only addresses one aspect of election notability. It says that, if a political candidate is not notable, his or her name should be redirected to "an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought". However it does not provide guidance on when a given election is actually notable enough for its own article. Andrew32718:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
First question I'd ask is whether the office being contested in the election has or merits its own article. If it does, then historic election results can be summarized there (as well as in the individual articles of candidates who also merit articles), and coverage of individual elections should not be so detailed so as to be WP:SPLIT off unless there is something more to it than routine news coverage in local sources. If the office doesn't merit an article, then chances are a particular election shouldn't have one either. I'm assuming by "local" you mean below state or provincial level, so municipal or county? postdlf (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
That's really useful advice. I'm assuming that almost all national and state/provincial elections are notable, but there are thousands of local elections every year, only some of which deserve their own articles. Andrew32719:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
That makes sense, thank you. Is it written anywhere as a standard or an essay? Just curious. !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewman327 (talk • contribs)
That's interesting... I don't think I've seen group election articles like that for American elections, so is that just a practice for Canadian subjects? It might not translate south of the border; Ohio alone, for example, has 932 municipalities, all with their own local government... postdlf (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Compare it with this image, in particular the wallpaper, the painting, the sculpture, etc. Probably the help desk is a better place to ask this kind of question. Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Linking to New York state versus to the article's name New York
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
What is policy on linking to New York the article's name, or linking to a redirect New York state. I'm in a dispute with User:Beyond My Ken as to how to link it in the Gramercy Park article. New York is the official name of the state, it is not called "New York state" or "New York State", the state is New York. More importantly the article is New York. The proper way to disambiguate in a sentence is to call it the US state of New York or the state of New York. We don't say Kansas state in the article about Kansas City, or Texas state in articles about Texas City. Is there official policy on linking to redirects? I thought there was a mention in a guideline or policy that it was better to link to the article name than to a redirect. (In addition I was told by Beyond My Ken that I don't know anything about New York... apparently despite the fact I've created/expanded over 100 articles in the state of New York and ignoring our policy on AGF).Camelbinky (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I haven't looked extensively into your dispute on the Gramercy Park article, but both the city and the state are named "New York", so there is ambiguity in real life as well as in Wikipedia. Our article New York itself mentions that the state is sometimes called "New York State" to distinguish it from "New York City", so your central argument seems directly contrary to fact. As for your examples of "Kansas City" and "Texas City", the actual names of both places do in fact include the word "City" (and it seems unlikely that common usage omits the "City") so that argument doesn't seem to have relevance. As for linking and policies/guidelines, WP:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken says if the text of the article is "New York state" then a wikilink "[[New York state]]" is fine, there is no need for such things as "[[New York|New York state]]". Anomie⚔21:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
For the record, since User:Anomie is using sentences like that my "argument doesn't seem to have relevance"... I'd like to point out Kansas City, Missouri's official name is the City of Kansas (and Jefferson City, Missouri's official name is the City of Jefferson), as anyone who has a business license or other certificate from that city can testify to.97.85.208.225 (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't seem to find any reference to "City of Kansas" on their website. But I do see "City of Kansas City" all over the website and in various ordinances, tax forms, financial reports, and so on. But I don't have a business license or other certificate from the city, so maybe those are different and everything else is using the wrong name. Anomie⚔23:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The answer is that it is of small consequence either way. The phrase "New York State" in describing the state is common enough, as is just the phrase "New York", and in the end, it should not be a point of contention to use either phrasing. There may be a few limited cases where one usage is preferred (for example, to make explicit distinction between NY City and NY State) but except when that is absolutely necessary, it isn't worth it to change one usage to another for any real reason. That is, if someone has written New York State in an article, there's no really good reason to remove the "State" part, and likewise in the opposite direction. It's a pointless change. --Jayron3200:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Security should stop vandalizing
Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
WP:DNFTT (see "a clicking noise occurred inside my computer when I clicked the "edit" of the references section...I suspect you [Wikipedia] attacked my computer somehow."). Wasn't obvious before, but is obvious now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2013 (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.
Your so-called security measures are vandalizing articles and user name spaces. For example, Ballet is one of the most pompous, uninformative articles I’ve read here, yet some bot is calling it “approved.” Another article I read was totally plagiarized, word for word, and filled with fake references, yet your vandal-security and bots have been keeping it that way for years. 75.36.33.18 (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Your edit at Ballet was reverted by another editor, not a bot. Could you provide a link to the article with that your saying is plagiarized so that it can be investigated? Thanks, Monty84516:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The revert to the ballet article was nothing to do with security and certainly not vandalism. You made a change to the definition that would have included many dance genres other than ballet, which is a specific form originating in European culture, so was rightly reverted. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This is better:
A Ballet is a play done in dance to music.<refBusby, Thomas; Arnold, Samuel. BALLET A Dictionary of Music Theoretical and Practical, London, UK: R. Phillipsref>
The dancers dance on their toes. <refBoot and Shoe Recorder: The Great National Shoe Weekly, Volume 79. 1921.
Saying "Ballet is a type of performance dance" says nothing about what it is like, such as standing on their toes, etc., and that it is a play. To me, performance sounds like they are being timed or tested. My point was the article assumes the reader has already knows what a ballet is, but it's not supposed to. If you want to find out if the article is plagiarized, Google Books can help, if you use "look for exact words" under advanced search. 75.36.33.18 (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Another complaint I have is the clicking noise that sometimes happens inside my computer. I have a right to find out how there are two columns of references. When I checked the featured article a little while ago, a clicking noise occurred inside my computer when I clicked the "edit" of the references section, which I have a right to do. My other computer is broken because of such clicking noises when I was looking up how to use the Harvard reference template directions. I suspect you attacked my computer somehow. Maybe I should bill Wikipedia for the repairs. 75.36.33.18 (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
That's absurd. Most likely, the part broken in your computer has no connection to the internet anyway. Even if it did, we'd all be having problems if it was Wikipedia. ~Charmlet-talk-21:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
If the article said "Ballet is a type of performance dance." (note the punctuation) it would, as you say, be inadequate. However the sentence does not terminate there. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2013 (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.
Linking warez in book citation
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
a quick question. I am citing a book. That book is available online on gen.lib.rus.ec. Should I put link to that in the book citation? It would help others when researching the article; on the other hand, some people might consider it morally wrong to link to pages where the book is available for free.
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please allow unregistered editors to create redirects. Failing that, please link to the Article wizard from the HTTP 404 error page that currently links only to Wikipedia:Redirect. WP:R which assumes that the potential contributor has already signed up and learned how to create an article, but doesn't quite know what a redirect is.
Searching for a nonexistant article produces an offer to accept a new article under that name. For unregistered editors, this should be a link to either Special:Login or, failing that, Wikipedia:Article wizard. Currently, it links to said HTTP 404 error message.
Also, for technical reasons, my computer does not automatically log me into wikipedia every 30 days. Thus the login requirement presents an unnecessary hurdle to me adding redirects to Wikipedia, e.g. from Svandís.SvartMan (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Since creating a redirect is the same as creating an article with just some magic words that make the media wiki software see it as a redirect, then as long as article creation is limited to registered accounts, so must be redirects. I tried the above wizard in a non-logged in state and it worked fine, I'm not seeing the 404 error. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
RfC: Should Userbox templates in Template: space be nominated at TfD or MfD
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A quick rundown - the policy currently states "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." However, the meaning of "problems" is not clear. To provide better guidance for future cases such as name changes, I propose clarifying the precise meaning of "problems."
There is no need to change WP:COMMONNAME... what people need to understand is this: When there are multiple names for a subject, none of them significantly more common than the others... then we can not identify a single COMMONNAME. In other words... WP:COMMONNAME does not apply, and we have to look to other criteria to determine the best title for the article. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
In that case, however, there is a need to change WP:TITLE to reflect which criteria apply where there has been a widely publicized name change, and whether one of those criteria is the fact that one of the possible names may be offensive to a community, while the other is not. bd2412T17:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards Blueboar here. If commonname does not apply, then all other pertinent criteria in the existing policies ought to be controlling. Obviously, if there are opposing prominent points of view about a name, then npov is probably a pertinent policy. Perhaps it would be useful in WP:Title to simply list all of the other policies that might be relevant. Also, the idea that Bradley is offensive to a community whereas Chelsea is not may be wrong for two reasons. First, transgender groups encourage use of Bradley when discussing events that occurred before the change. Second, other groups like family values communities or socially conservative communities or national security communities may be offended by not sticking with Bradley until there's a legal name change. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
MOS:IDENTITY RFC: Should the text "When there is no dispute..." be deleted, kept or changed?
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wikipedia has editors? Is this really a free (as in freedom) encyclopedia?
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'm concerned about self proclaimed editors, I always thought you were free to edit and add to articles. However, something that has happened to me in the last month has made me change my mind about donating to Wikipedia and buy a printed encyclopedia instead, check this article discussion and all the changes that have been made in the last month. List of Virtual Console games for Wii (North America) If we can't edit, then lock the pages and let the editors to look at the comments in the talk pages, just stop saying is "free". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.118.122 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The list article linked perhaps should have been protected, based on the edit warring trying to get WP:OR or material cited to unreliable sources added. And it looks like that's all this gripe is about—the "freedom" to ignore quality control. So instead of donating to Wikipedia, you're going to buy a print encyclopedia? Makes perfect sense that those are your two options, particularly for reading about Wii games. postdlf (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The "free as in freedom" part refers to the intellectual property, which is (with a few exceptions, mostly media) licensed under GFDL or CC-BY-SA. So you can copy (almost) all of Wikipedia, put it on your own server, and do what you like with it, subject to the terms of those licenses. It doesn't mean you have unlimited discretion to change what's on the Wikimedia servers. --Trovatore (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines has been marked as a guideline
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Every article is controversial, I think pages like these shouldn't exist because it creates twice the number of articles as is really necessary to inform on the topic and creates confusion through the gerrymandering of information. Imagine if every biography article for a politician had an additional controversy page, do you know how bad the vandalism would become? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 17:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. I think that if the controversies are significant, then these points of view should be documented and supported by reliable sources. --Iantresman (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Porn Websites On Wikipedia
Latest comment: 11 years ago16 comments11 people in discussion
I have several times in the past seen links to hardcore porn sites in the External Links section on various pornstar's Wikipedia pages. Is this allowed on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.126.179 (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
As long as it's relevant to the article, such as an external link to a pornographic actors website which probably has porn on it. These links should probably be clearly marked on Wikipedia as containing adult material though, and should adhere to WP:BLP. Regards, — MoeEpsilon00:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:DISCLAIM is primarily about warning people about what is contained inside Wikipedia articles for whatever reason (spoilers, legal, etc.), but since we do not control the content of external links, it might be a smart idea to mark an external link has possibly containing adult material. Regards, — MoeEpsilon22:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Because "adult content" and similar phrases are so culturally bound they do not make good descriptors for an encyclopedia, rather the description and context from the article should make the nature of the site clear. It might be useful to put something in the Wikipedia:General disclaimer about external links though (we have no control over their content, etc), but that's probably best discussed at that talk page (if it hasn't been already, I've not looked). Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
It would help if 24.193 could provide us with an example, but most such sites, I think, would fall afoul of WP:ELNO points 3, 4, 5 and/or 6. An exception would probably be the actor's "official" website, and if one needs a NSFW warning for that... Resolute00:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Porn actors/actresses often have exclusive contracts with one studio. Their official page may be on that particular studio's website, and would be appropriate. The WordsmithTalk to me00:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, NOTCENSORED is one thing, but when you arrive at a page about a pornographic actor do you really expect the external link to the official website to be "clean". Considering we do not have "NSFW" tags on articles or their content, external links are less likely to be governed. Now if the external link is to an attack or compromised website that is a different case, but outside of those unusual circumstances it is typically fine. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
As long as the website is (a) legal in the United States and (b) relevant to the article, then yes they are allowed. We do not put disclaimers in articles (for example, what is "safe for work" varies between individual workplaces, let alone between cultures), but the combination of the context of the article and the description of the link should be enough for you to judge whether you personally want to access it from your current location. If you think a link description is misleading or even just poorly worded then either fix it yourself or leave a note on the article talk page about your concerns. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure where it's specified (probably at WP:CENSOR) but there is a basic understanding that we don't post up obscene content unless it's important. I would say the standard is higher over whether to include such content (whether such a standard is codified or not, the standard is still there). Our goal is not to offend or shock for the purpose of offending or shocking, so it's important that we exercise editorial judgment over potentially controversial content. Just as we make judgments over what's really notable enough for inclusion, we judge what sort of possibly-offensive content really adds to our coverage. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, although there is a difference between including content and linking to content. For example including examples of a pornographic actors work (assuming it was freely licensed) would require demonstrating a greater benefit to our coverage than linking to their official website that contains those same examples. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The answer to your codified-or-not question is "kind of": WP:F*** is marked as a guideline. The relevant line ther would probably be
Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.
[footnote omitted]. So, for a pornographic actor, vulgar material is usually relevant, but there clearly are limits, which are best decided on a case-by-case basis. (Though it's easy to come up with general rules, like that lengthy porn galleries should be avoided.) I agree with Thryduulf, though, that on the rare occasions that we're able to get professional-quality freely-licensed images of such actors in their preferred state of undress, we should put them to use. I mean, if you're notable for taking your clothes off (and more), then readers are better informed by documentation of you doing it... just like we have pictures of wrestlers wrestling, and runners runnning, and anyone else who makes a living through what they do with their body. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)16:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In the last few months, I have seen an increasing number of policy RFC debates that involve conflicts between MOS guidance and WP:COMMONNAME.... or at least the perception that there is a conflict. The debates often run as follows...
Someone proposes a change to one of the many MOS guidelines.
Opposition comments say "Oppose - Conflicts with WP:COMMONNAME"
Supporter responds with "There is no conflict... WP:COMMONNAME only applies to titles - this proposal is about style issues in the text of the article.
The problem of course is that while WP:COMMONNAMEis a section of our WP:Article titles policy, the concept behind COMMONNAME isn't actually limited to titles. I think there is broad consensus for the idea that when a significant majority of sources all use the same name for something, Wikipedia should (generally) use that name in both the title and the article text (I say "generally" because we do have more flexibility in the text... what names are used may shift depending on context).
All of this got me thinking... what if we promote WP:COMMONNAME to its own separate policy/guideline page to cover both titles and usage in text. I am NOT formally proposing that we do this... but I would like to explore and discuss the idea to see whether I on to something... or totally off my rocker. What would be the benefits... what would be the pitfalls? Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure this is necessary. We already have guidance in the Manual of Style that the name used in an article should mirror the article title. If the name is used elsewhere (on another article), someone usually comes along at some stage to change it to the agreed article title, but it may take a while. When pages are moved to a newly agreed article title there are often thousands of pages that link to that article, and it can take many years for these to be updated. It isn't really possible to do this by bot as, for example, if the article is about a place, the other article may be using the historic name in its correct context. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago56 comments13 people in discussion
This is a particularly poorly-written attempt at a Manual of Style, with the occasional abrupt journey far off-topic - for example, the section on Content suddenly goes into a discussion about article introductions that only works if you presume that the article is not about an adaptation; and there's other bits of strangeness throughout.
The thing is, I can't find any evidence as to this ever having been named a guideline. The first revision on the page declares it to be one, there's nothing on the talk page that indicates any sort of attempts to gain consensus. I also checked the original Wikiproject's page for the period, and, again no discussion
So that's why anime-manga articles are so unlike everything else on Wikipedia... Their own format for TV articles that are not compliant with TV guidelines, their own format for books that are not compliant with novels/book guidelines, etc -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The wording to guideline was changed to guideline back in 2006 by Squilibob.[3] No discussion was ever made about it becoming an official guideline, but Kunzite cleaned up the wording to make it more "official".[4] Then when it was split off from ANIME by Nihonjoe.[5] When Nihonjoe created the page he took the "guideline" and applied the template to it, carrying in the "official" capacity despite no consensus having previously done.[6] Now, with that being said, this "guideline" is very poor and problematic. The MOSAM's local consensus on content was a subject of contention and I brought it to RFC where it was removed.[7] Interpretations of its vague outlines are just as contentious, making most MOSAM too sparse to really be useful and being both contradictory or nonsensical. The MOS for films, television shows, books, companies, are all superior and should be followed over MOSAM. An example of how damaging MOSAM is can be summed up by the out of process merger of Dragon Ball anime (original, Z and unrelated GT) based on "MOSAM" back in 2008. Let's not forget Sailor Moon and other pages like Fullmetal Alchemist are also problematic because of it. In short, MOSAM has a lot of problems and given that it is not legitimate, should be reason enough to remove it from the guideline status. The other established guidelines should be used instead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Fullmetal Alchemist does not have a problem. Asides from that, MoS anime is usually something used to stop the fandom from turning an article into a mess of articles mimicking a fan-site. It does not cause problems. DragonZero (Talk·Contribs) 04:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't actually respond to any of the points I made. Also, looking at Fullmetal Alchemist, it's a rather awkward attempt to force together two series, the manga and the anime, later expanding on that to everything else Full Metal Alchemist, despite the lead pretending it's solely an article on the manga. Particularly bad as the anime intentionally had a different plot. But I fear looking at one article is not particularly helpful; the problem is that the "guideline" is very poorly written, never achieved certification as a guideline, and I don't see how it'd help keep fandom down in the first place. Adam Cuerden(talk)04:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I must first claim that I didn't really care if it is a guideline or not since I worked with the project. The main point I want to make though, is that if it is not disputed since 2007 till now, and with that many members and edits through the page, wouldn't that be a good enough show of its consensus? People don't really need to discuss to show consensus, they only need to show the consensus by not disputing its given status. Of course if it is a page rarely visited and only a handful of people edited, then we may not be able to call that a consensus, but if dozens of editors have been there and still didn't dispute it? I'd say the consensus is at least "If it's not broken, don't fix it." type of consensus. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk05:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
It's an awfully-written MoS, and I can't imagine this passing were it not declared a guideline already. The whole point of getting the wider community to review something is that it keeps one project from going far away from every other part of Wikipedia. I don't think this holds up even to a minimal standard for guidelines.
If it were better written, it might be worth ignoring the point, but I can't help but think such a badly-written, confusing guideline would only serve to actively hinder work in its area. Adam Cuerden(talk)05:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, my previous comment was considered off topic, though I wanted to say that the MoS isn't a hindrance, though it probably is poorly written. Alright then, I think I will join this discussion. "only works if you presume that the article is not about an adaptation" Most of the time, there are only articles on the primary work. There wouldn't be an Attack on Titan (manga) then Attack on Titan (anime). DBZ was a unique situation. Aside from that, the next step is probably thoroughly going through each point until it reaches some standards. DragonZero (Talk·Contribs) 05:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. The MOS may be written bad but the unique case of anime and manga requires a different treatment. The notability of the anime and manga are often inseparable and there's rarely if ever any reliable source discussing reception of one over the other. Discussion of a shared plot on a central article and then more specific information regarding the graphic novels and episodes are on list pages. Video games get their own articles in line with WP:VG. Films get their own articles in line with WP:FILM. But with the original publication or broadcast it's not really necessary to have separate articles on mostly identical topics, only differing in the media in which they were presented. DBZ was a unique case and we should not use that example to tear WP:MOSAM apart.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I just want to comment that I believe the statement "the notability of the anime and manga are often inseparable and there's rarely if ever any reliable source discussing reception of one over the other" is totally false. Notability for anime and manga is almost always determined here based on the existance of reviews in reliable sources, and those reviews almost always are about only one portion of the franchise. It is quite common for both a manga and its anime adaptaion to have separate reviews which are sufficient to show independent notability for both the anime and the manga. It is also common for only one or the other of a manga and its anime adapation to have sources that show notability. In addition, it isn't unusual for an anime and a manga in the same franchise to have different receptions among critics. While I think it is often a good editorial decision to write about an anime and manga in a single article, such as when there isn't enough information for multiple articles or when only one of the anime/manga is notable enough for an article, I don't think anime/manga articles are actually unique or different from anything else. Just like with every other sort of work that gets adapted into other works, there should be multiple articles when multiple versions are notable, there is enough to write about for multiple articles, and it makes good organizational sense to have more than one article, and there should be a single article when only one work is notable, or there just isn't enough to write about for multiple articles, or from an organizational standpoint it makes sense to only have one article. Calathan (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Please address the simple fact of whether or not it was ever an approved guideline. Specifically, did it, or did not go before the community to become a guideline? There appears to be no discussion of it going through a formal process and thus it should not be listed as a guideline. The argument "if its not broken don't fix it" is wrong because it has been highly contested on its assertions, but this is the first challenge to its status rather than its directives as done before. Talk:Dragon_Ball/Archive_1#What_the_hell is a chilling read that shows how MOSAM is wielded like a weapon to enforce the localconsensus under the appearances of being official. AnmaFinotera's actions were deliberately stifling and helped persist this localconsensus about MOSAM dictating content creation and "no cast lists on anime" and so on and so forth. This is especially troubling because two A&M editors here are advocating content limitations (no separate anime and manga pages) even after the RFC found that a "Manual of Style" cannot do this. MOSAM has many problems and the few editors of A&M use this localconsensus in clear violation of other guidelines and policies. MOSAM must be stripped of its "guideline" status first and foremost, discussion about salvaging it can come second. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
You're the only person who has ever raised a stink about the state of the manual of style because it gets in the way of what you think is an improvement to the project. And all of your arguments I've countered in previous discussions. Cast information is on character lists. Anime and manga adaptations of the same work are so inherently intertwined that it's pointless to have separate articles on them and producing a central franchise article and it would be extremely rare (Dragon Ball Z, Neon Genesis Evangelion) to require such a separation of articles.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
ChrisGualtieri is certainly not the only person who has ever complained about the manual of style. I had proposed that it be changed to allow for more separate articles on anime and manga versions of the same series long before Chris was editing here. The actual section of the MOSAM that I was opposed to was removed recently after a RFC, so it seems like the overall consensus was in favor of that change. I don't agree with everything Chris is suggesting (and certainly don't like the tendentious way he goes about arguing for everything he wants), but he definitely wasn't alone in wanting changes to MOSAM. Calathan (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Well he's certainly been most vocal. And how many manga and anime can we say are independently notable from each other? We only ahve the exceptions that consensuses have formed to produce such separate articles, and an RFC doesn't completely negate existing consensuses as if it was a law that was suddenly struck down.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think my stance is "tendentious" just because it is opposite to the asserted local consensus from the project. I do what I feel is best for Wikipedia, both as an expert and scholar in anime and manga topics and from my personal beliefs in meaningful and detailed coverage of a work on its own page. Calathan, that RFC to remove that content restriction was started after my dispute with Ryulong. Even here, at the pump, Ryulong is advocating that MOSAM's removals, which go against N/GNG, are "consensus". My stance has been validated by the community in that RFC; and while I did not start this discussion about MOSAM, WhatamIdoing has raised the actual issue to a better viewpoint. I'd take it further by pointing out that these community guidelines need to meet consensus and this one did not go through the process like WP:MOSTV. As for how this ties into other examples will go off topic, but even now editors like Ryulong persist when the community has rejected MOSAM's superseding of N/GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Chris I see nothing wrong with our current guideline it has been in place for years, following it's layout has led to articles reaching GA and FA status. if you want to improve on it by all means do so but I have not seen a single person here other than the OP suggest how the guideline can be improved. I point to the series Tokyo Mew Mew, a featured topic that has the manga and the anime series combined. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
There is no requirement anywhere that a Wikiproject guideline have to be vetted by the community. That said, a WP guideline that goes 180 to all other established community-reviewed guidelines will likely not gain any traction when issues are brought up at the community level. (For example, a Wikiproject cannot override the minimum requires for notability for stand-alone articles). And if it is the case that a guideline is so backwards from the rest of the community, there may be further discussion about that, but I'm not aware of any case like this (the only thing that even comes close is the Gilbratar-related push recently, but even that is not a project going completely against the rest of the community, just at a strange tangent that was mostly resolved without issue). --MASEM (t) 17:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not a Wikiproject guideline. Do you know how you can tell? The title of a WikiProject advice page contains the name of the WikiProject. This one doesn't. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles belongs to the whole community. A page titled something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Style would be a WikiProject's advice. There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. The most important difference is that if you put it out there for the whole community, then the whole community gets to decide what goes on the page, not the WikiProject's members. If it's a WikiProject page, with the name of the WikiProject in the page, then the members have the primary say (although they can't override the community consensus, any more than a {{user essay}} in your own userspace can override the community consensus.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The fact that a MOS page exists on the same subject as a WikiProject does not mean anything. WP:MEDMOS was adopted by the community after the same full-scale WP:PROPOSAL that any other policy or guideline goes through. Some members of WikiProject Medicine take a particular interest in it, as do several other WikiProjects, but that guideline belongs to the whole community, not to WPMED. For all I know, the snooker MOS page followed the same process and has equally been handed over to the whole community. At the other end of the scale, there are dozens of properly tagged and properly named WikiProject style guides. You just have to decide which one you want to be writing. What you don't get to do is to put the page in the community's MOS and then declare that it's the property of the WikiProject. If WikiProject Anime and manga wants to control this style page, then they need to move it out of the whole community's MOS and back into their own project space. If, on the other hand, the WikiProject really wants to have this be the whole community's guideline, then the members have to resign themselves to allowing the entire community to have equal say in its contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I find it weird that we on our project have had this guideline in place for years and only now as pointed out is someone raising something about it. Every wikiproject has their own ways of doing things, Wikiproject TV has their own set of MOS they go by, I feel this is a project discussion, not a discussion that needs to involve all of Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
As far as I understand MOS:AM and how I've used it in the past, it's basically a guideline on how to format animanga articles so that the articles across the project can more or less follow a similar format. This is evidenced by the fact that most of the content on the page is about the page layout, which gives a guideline on how a series or character article should be structured, which was something decided by consensus ages ago; I know because I was there. The same thing with "Article names and disambiguation"; it was decided by consensus based on other guidelines already in place; notice how the end of the paragraph of that section says See also: WP:NAME: TV | Books | Films. The sections on people and organizations are already covered by other guidelines, so they're a non-issue.
The only piece of the guideline I find that could be disputed would be the content section, which while the subject of some dispute recently, mainly boils down to the first two points (since the other three I doubt would require any further consensus). The second point about articles primarily being about the primary format was decided by consensus back in 2006 or 2007 so that a given article could focus on its origins, and not necessarily what may be more "popular", which is difficult or near impossible to verifiably gauge. I don't see why this would change or be in dispute.
So the first point of the content section about self-contained pages would probably be the only thing worth discussing. It's basically echoing WP:SS, and is mainly there so branch articles are not created that do not satisfy their own notability. It does not necessarily prevent branch articles from being created; indeed, it is standard that list articles for chapters/episodes of manga/anime are created. However, since a given manga/anime/novel's adaptations will often deviate little from the original media, there is usually no reason to create separate articles for each separate media type, especially if there is no information available revolving around that specific media's production, which I believe would be a requirement to split off any adaptation into its own article.
In short, MOS:AM is echoing various discussions and consensus that was established over the years at WP:ANIME. It's not as if one person just came along and said "thou shalt do this, and not that"; the community decided what should be done, and it was written into a guideline. So to say there was no "formal discussion" revolving around MOS:AM is preposterous.--十八05:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Does this guideline contradict a policy? If so, which one? Per WP:policies and guidelines, contradictories between policy and guidelines pages are discouraged. I heard that this MOS guideline is poorly structured and written, so what can be done to fix the guideline? --George Ho (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that WP:SOFIXIT would apply, I do not see the benefits of getting rid of a policy that deals with anime and manga topics as they are different than what other projects deal with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This contradictory part was removed after an RFC.[8] Even with its removal some editors consider it valid. Due to its sparseness their are numerous vague assertions about its meanings and this "no cast lists" mantra. It is actually its sparseness which is probably the biggest issue, there is not enough guidance at all. And its suggestions run counter to actual MOS guidelines of MOSTV, MOSFILM and MOSFICT which also cover anime and manga. If this was put back into a Wikiproject suggested style it could be developed and worked on before returning to the community MOS - given the issues, I believe this is the best course. We are not discussing deleting it or abandoning it entirely, it is just inadequate in its function and did not attain the consensus to ever be a MOS guideline which has a more rigorous standard. I believe some members of A&M do not understand the proposal, and erroneously believe this to be "getting rid of MOSAM". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The removal of that one bit does not allow you to undo every single consensus that stood before it. WP:MOSANIME#Content still says that the main article should be about the original work of fiction. There is simply nothing saying "don't do this ever" anymore.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
And as told by the community, a MOS cannot go against key editing guidelines like N/GNG. This "consensus" of "per MOSAM" resulted in A&M editors like yourself arguing that Dragon Ball Z should not have its own page and used "per MOSAM" to discount a majority of opposition; including during the time of the actual merge. Secondly, what is this about the main article being about the original work? Your interpretation of that "content" section is not even in MOSAM, it reads: "Article introductions should be primarily about the original format..." not the "main article should be about the original work". That is a big difference; you evoke MOSAM but the text does not match your assertion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't at all go against WP:N or WP:GNG (why the hell do you just list the abbreviations anyway). Most editors in the topic area have realized that it's going to be difficult to curate separate articles on a manga and its anime adaptation or vice versa due to their high level of intertwining and the fact that reliable sources regarding real world information such as publication (outside of release dates) and production (outside of production credits) are going to be impossible to come by so it's better to combine the two into a single article and rely on list pages to take up the slack. The previous wording of the guideline was problematic but there's nothing on the page now that prevents anything and aside from Dragon Ball Z the guideline has worked perfectly.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
How about this. WP:MOSAM has the tag replaced with "proposed guideline", which may immediately be followed by an RFC as soon as its proponents think it's ready for a vote? I suspect it needs a full copyedit before consideration. Adam Cuerden(talk)03:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
If it's been in place for 7 years then that means it's no longer "proposed". It may need tweaking but that doesn't mean we completely invalidate it just it rubs a very small number of editors the wrong way.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, what do you want to do then? It can't stay disputed forever, and there's no way it can leave the disputed state any way but to non-guideline as it is written now, because it is terribly written. Adam Cuerden(talk)21:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
My question is who is disputing it? You are the only one who brought the spotlight to the anime/manga project with what goal in mind? is this page hurting Wikipedia in anyway shape or form? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
By the communities standards process, it was never valid because it was never raised for discussion. Either it moves to the Wikiproject level or it loses its "guideline" status at the community level. MOSAM should not be consulted or "enforced" or anything at this time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it has not been "consensus" silence while protesting its effects are not the definition of consensus and this is a community MOS, it has to go through the process. I'll move this to the Wikiproject page where it would otherwise be fine, but there is a pretty big difference between the two which you do not seem to grasp. You advocated this is a "wikiproject" issue when it is not. The RFC before was on CREEP, but A&M editors keep using it to justify removals and bizarre formats. MOSAM is an unusable and ineffective document; it doesn't even act a real guide. As mentioned before; its status can be challenged at any time and it has been in recent months and now - this page hinders content creation and that was a primary use of this MOSAM - I think this is an open and shut case when you get to the basics. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
No, Chris, you are wrong. There has been no "silent protest". Nothing you are demanding the page go through or that it should have gone through is any way required. Plenty of WikiProjects have their own style guides that are part of their pages. For whatever reason the WP:AM's got moved to a page that has "Manual of style" in the title. You just want to get rid of it because you feel it gets in your way when plenty of other editors are perfectly fine with it. It may need work but you are not allowed to say "This was never official now try to make it official" and then filibuster it into something that fits what you want to do rather than what the majority of the editors of these pages think is best.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
WikiProjects are indeed encouraged to write WP:Advice pages. They are not encouraged to try to pass them off as community-wide, community-approved Manual of Style pages. If this is a WikiProject's advice, then giving it an official MOS page title and a community guideline tag was simply a mistake, and that mistake should be corrected ASAP. If this isn't a WikiProject's advice, then the page's contents and status stands or falls by the view of the whole community, and the WikiProject members get no special say in it, just like they get no special say on any of the other whole-community MOS pages, like MEDMOS.
It doesn't matter to me which approach you take. You just need to pick one and live with the consequences. The current option—a page with disputed contents, disputed status, and people asserting simultaneously that the whole community requires FACs to comply with it, but that only certain special people get to decide what the contents will be, is untenable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
It has only been disputed by an insular group of people within the already insular WikiProject. It is not doing anything ChrisGualtieri has been accusing it of doing any more. The only thing he is experiencing is an opposing consensus to his plans for several pages and now he is working to delegitimize the only arguments they have against him.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Also Knowledgekid87's move to it being a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style did not really fit. Maybe it should be moved back to being a subpage of WP:ANIME, but, again, no one has had any problems with it until this year. That should show that the community as a whole had no problem with the way the pages were set up. The community as a whole would rather there be as few pages on these things as possible, as it is often derided as fancruft. I remember at one point there being a whole thread on ANI dedicated to the discovery of a walled garden due to there being a separate article on every individual robot model in the Gundam franchise. The project's guidelines as a whole have done well to limit these crappy crufty articles, and really the only major issues that have arisen due to disputes on the application are centered around Dragon Ball Z, Neon Genesis Evangelion, and Ghost in the Shell. No issues have arisen concerning against anything else as far as I can tell.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
That does work a bit better, but I still do not think the style guide needs to be "officially" vetted simply because of a single editor's campaign to remove it as an obstacle.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
As much as I do not want to see it happen the fact remains that this can not continue be a guideline without community consensus. Now I don't know why this was thrown into the spotlight or what good will come out of altering something that has been in place for years this is where I question good faith bit as I have not seen any specific proposals on what is to be done other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. So this leaves three things we can do, 1. Go on like nothing happened and this discussion never took place. 2. Go with my proposal or the like. or 3. Deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
It had community consensus for 7 years. ChrisGualtieri's sudden opposition to its existence does not negate that.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
That the page has been functioning without complaint for the better part of a decade gives it a better claim to consensus than the majority of the ruleset. The talk about "proper protocol" is at best a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia's guidelines work. --erachimatalk21:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I am rather upset to see such bad faith accusations and personal attacks here, including the constant reference to "a single editor" and "ChrisGualtieri" this and that. I am not the only one in disagreement with MOSAM. Now, kindly, stick to the dispute and refrain from making any more personal attacks on me. Clearly, other editors disagree and have made numerous inputs throughout the years and even recently at the various discussions; Wikipedia's greater policy also disagrees and labeling it as a "crusade" or something similar is a personal attack. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
To add a new voice in this discussion, I see two relevant and independent facts here: 1. MOS:MANGA is quite sloppily written thanks to being assembled by parts over time and never having previously been subject to the sort of disputes that result in honed text. 2. User:ChrisGualtieri has a vendetta against the MOS:MANGA because it is opposed to histhe article fork at Dragon Ball (anime). Hopefully we can all work together to create a better guideline, but I don't see that happening while Chris continues to assault the validity of the page rather than disputing specifics of its content. --erachimatalk14:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow. I just asked for the personal attacks to stop and this is taking it to a whole new level. I didn't start the discussion (Adam did) and I supported it, but WhatamIDoing happens to be knowledgeable about the policies and also disagree with the MOSAM as a community guideline. Despite claiming to have read it, I am singled out as a person with a "vendetta" for some obscure and also incorrect Dragon Ball (anime) fork which I did not even recreate. Retract it, strike it, do whatever, but I am getting tired of these personal attacks and they are violations of Wikipedia's policy. I don't even KNOW who you are, but you seem to be wholly aligned against me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Verifiability of image from Commons
Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion
However, I see no source in the image description - by "source" I mean "where the author took the underlying data for the image". On the image description in Commons, there is just "own work". That is cute, but I would like to verify if what is on the image is accurate.
However, I am not sure where to write the {{source?}} template, or what template to use exactly, and what to do in general.
I don't think commons cares too much about data RS for images. Editors should discuss it before usage in articles though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
So, what you say is I should put "citation needed" (or similar) to the page itself, for example to the thumbnail description? --- Ɍưɳŋınɢ21:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you have actual reason to think it's incorrect based on your own actual research and understanding of the topic, or are you just not trusting the uploader? Have you tried contacting the uploader to ask, or have you raised the question on the talk page of the article that uses it as to what reference might support the map's information? postdlf (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
(1) I am now researching the topic of Romani people and language and I am finding out that it's, in general, poorly sourced on wikipedia and very often, the claims on wikipedia are not what is exactly in the sources. For example, now I am finding out that the groups described here Romani_people#Population_and_subgroups are not really what is in the references (or, at least, I cannot find it). The same is with the picture... I am not really sure if the groups on the image are as the uploader described. Compare it to the image here - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Romani_population_average_estimate.png - which has a perfect source of data.
(2) I believe in Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth; however, I am not sure how to apply this to images on commons in general. But yeah, I have asked the uploader right now; he seemed to be inactive on both commons and wikipedia for about 2-3 years. --- Ɍưɳŋınɢ21:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) Images (regardless of source) should be treated roughly like text (regardless of source). They may or may not need to have their own references in the article in which they are used. Commons doesn't "verify" the information in images in an encyclopedic manner because its scope is different - its purpose isn't encyclopedia building, but the collection/collation/curation of files - though you are always free to add such references to the Commons file description if you want. If an image's encyclopedic merit is questioned, the discussion belongs in the article which is considering including that image, noting that even if an image is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, it may still be appropriate for Commons. – PhilosopherLet us reason together.22:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
An illustration which gives no indication of the source of the information is utterly useless, in my opinion, and should not be included in any WP article. Treat it as you would any other unsourced original research. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
If an image on Commons is both unused and plain wrong, then it is in my opinion outside the scope of Commons. This file is used, so it is at least for the moment in scope. I don't know whether the information on the image is correct or not. If English Wikipedia doesn't consider the image to comply with WP:RS or WP:OR, English Wikipedia can simply choose not to use the image. An image which is useless for English Wikipedia might still be useful for someone else. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
File naming policy and renaming activity
Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
Currently, there is no way to discuss renaming files, and any files that fails the Commons renaming crtieria is being rejected. This seems highly unreasonable to me, since this is English Wikipedia and not Wikimedia Commons. WP:FILEMOVER illustrates the current renaming criteria. But under these criteria, a file named "Red Car.JpEg" would only be renamed to "Red Car 321.jpg" as the 321st file named "red car". These fails article naming criteria WP:PRECISION. I think that WP:NAMINGCRITERIA should at least apply to Wikipedia's images, since it would make file names make sense, if not lengthier more descriptive names for those on slow links or with data use charges to be able to figure out what files are without downloading them. We can't even now rename files to WP:Use English, as I found out at File:Орден святого Михаила Архангела1988г.jpg(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) where my rename request was rejected to rename the file to English from Russian Cyrillic.
As no discussion area is available for files, and administrators can rename files, and file redirects work, then WP:Requested moves should accept renaming of files.
The reasons for Commons not renaming files are more due to the need to be acceessible over multiple Wikis, but we are only one Wiki, English Wikipedia, so we should not be restricted to just using the original upload name, there's no multiple wikis to go through and change file links, and on-wiki redirects work so there's no reason anyways.
So, in essence, we need a proper area to discuss renaming files when needed, be able to apply English naming to files, be able to name files using sensible filenames. {{rename media}} should just be folded into WP:Requested moves
The file you mentioned is probably going to be deleted for copyright reasons on Wednesday and it is also unused, so it seems unnecessary to move it.
The renaming criteria, WP:FMV/W, are hosted locally, but were based on Commons:COM:FR and are mostly the same (although there are a few differences). In principle, we can use any criteria, but we also need to accept that files on Commons may have names which do not fit our rules. In particular, we can't force files on Commons to follow WP:USEENGLISH (although it may be a good idea to follow WP:USEENGLISH for local files to simplify administration for users who can't read the file name). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
We are not Commons, it doesn't make sense to enforce rules from Commons on English Wikipedia, when those rules were designed to prevent orphaning file links on other wikis. No other wikis use files from English Wikipedia. We have no discussion process for renaming files on English Wikipedia, but clearly we should, so my suggestion on expanding Requested Moves to cover files. And the minimalist renaming available currently makes no sense, since files should be named logically with sufficient information to identify them without downloading them, or we're not serving our userbase on mobile devices and burning up their data usage limits to get the wrong file. And since it is English Wikipedia, the files should be identified with English. "Red Car 5768.gif" is not useful, but "1992 Toyota Tercel red hatchback rear left view.gif" is a useful title. It would match "Toyota Tercel" article and the model year that the photo represents. This is currently not allowed by the renaming guides currently in place on English Wikipedia. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
If you move a file, you may break links in old revisions of an article, especially if there is no redirect. Very few people type in a file name in the location bar, but many people go to articles by typing in the article title in the location bar. Article titles and file names obviously have different needs. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
If you move a file, the rules restricting the possible names of files doesn't change the fact the file was moved. Why not have a sensible filename when you move a file, instead of adding an iterated number at the end? And as File Redirects work on Wikipedia, even if you move a file, the file will still be displayed in old revisions, as long as the file redirect still exists. So, moving a file does not break file transclusions, since the redirect works just as well, so why not move files to sensisble names? If breaking old transclusions were a reason to never move a file, we'd never delete one either, or templates, which are moved and renamed all the time, and which are deleted or have their redirects deleted. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The premise "there is no way to discuss renaming files" is flawed. Except for items that would cause privacy issues or violate a person's privacy or reputation, one can discuss just about anything on Wikipedia talk pages. The process for renaming files is similar to WP:Edit requests. First submit the request. If the administrator or file mover has questions, or declines your request, have a local discussion with them to attempt to resolve the issue. If you fail to resolve the issue with the admin/file mover to your satisfaction, then your next recourse may be to post a notice to the Wikipedia:File namespace noticeboard, where a broader discussion of the issue is possible. Your request should be promptly dealt with as Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming rarely has a backlog. In contrast, there is nearly always a requested moves backlog, so RM isn't really in a good position to take on additional tasks which might further delay accomplishing its primary mission. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:FMV/W defines what the noticeboard considers acceptable, anything that doesn't fall on that is immediately rejected, with no way to discuss it. Except it is a copy of Commons policy, and is not very good for English Wikipedia, since Commons has issues concerning language bias (do not use English if the original filename isn't English) and multiwiki access. English Wikipedia has none of these concerns, and file redirects work on English Wikipedia, which isn't the case with Commons. We don't need a bot crawling multiple wikis to fix filenames when we rename files, but Commons does. These concerns shaped the commons policy, but are irrelevant with English Wikipedia. That we can't apply WP:ENGLISH/WP:USEENGLISH to filenames ia a major failure. That we can't name files sensibly, according to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA is a major failure. That we can't rename files from Cyrillic, Greek, Chinese or other non-Latin scripts to Latin script is a major failure. The FMVNB furthers WP:LOCALCONSENSUS discussions instead of inviting Wikipedians at large to comment on naming files and establishing consensus, which is not a good idea, since it creates walled garden decisions. It is not an established centralized discussion area for the community to discuss naming content, but a place for discussion amongst filemovers. There is no "process" there. WP:RM promotes discussions to the community at large, without being seemingly off in a corner. The backlog at Requested Moves does not prevent FileMover persons from monitoring Requested Moves and implementing what appears to be consensus decisions and moving files nominated through that process. It would also provide our userbase with a better interface to renaming things, by unifying it at one location, instead of spread out over multiple processes (FMVNB, rename media, FFD discussions, etc). Many users already know the RM process. The current effect of working file redirects makes RM centralization a better option. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of bugs with file redirects on Wikipedia, so there are lots of reasons to avoid them. For example:
If you rename a file while a deletion discussion is ongoing, then you break several links. Therefore, it's a bad idea to rename a file while a discussion is ongoing. {{fdw}}, {{fdw-puf}}, {{non-free content review}}: link to discussion goes to the wrong section title. {{puf2}}, {{puf2a}}, {{ffd2}}, {{ffd2a}}: the links to delete a file and to its history go to the old file name, so the closing admin might end up deleting just the redirect in the event that the decision is to delete a file. For these reasons, it's a very bad idea to rename a file before the discussion ends.
Old log messages remain under the old page name for all pages, don't they? (They seem to, the Protection status does not move when a page is renamed) So this is not a File problem, it happens with all pages, so not really a reason not to rename files, unless nothing on Wikipedia should be renamed.
If the database tool is counting redirects as "uses", then a fix needs to be implemented in the tool, as this shouldn't happen, so a bugreport should be filed.
Just as a note, the comment "a file named "Red Car.JpEg" would only be renamed to "Red Car 321.jpg" as the 321st file named "red car"." is erronious - as criteria #2, changing from a meaningless name, would apply. - The BushrangerOne ping only02:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
If you examine criterion #7, you'll note the genericity of the examples, "bunny" and "ninja", which are more generic than "red car". And the examples used in #2 are "File:22785u9ob807b3c4f4.jpg" and "File:DSC_1342.jpg", which are completely meaningless, unlike "Red Car" -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The theory that en.Wikipedia files are not used elsewhere is flawed. Often a file will be copied to commons and credit the Wikipedia file. It is unhelpful if this is renamed. Also there are useds off wiki as there many mirrors and selected article clones off Wikipedia around. These sites often rely on a link back to Wikipedia to credit the file. Renaming and deleting redirects causes loss of the credit and the rename and delete is a contributory copyright infringement. So anyone renaming files for no good reason that were used off wiki could be sued by the uploader of the file. In the case of Red Car.JpEg there is no reason to rename. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Arabic text on user page
Latest comment: 11 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion
A user has posted what appears to be Arabic text on his or her user page. Is that permitted in user space? I know that non-English text is not permitted in article space, but what about user space?
The specific user page that I was wondering about has been overtaken by events. I would still like an answer to the general question about non-English text and text in non-Roman alphabets on user pages. An administrator deleted the user page because it was an attack on a group. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Provided the text does not break any Wikipedia policies (Such as being a BLP vio, attack, spam etc) then there is no reason at all a person can't have non-English text on their userpage. I will point out that it is discouraged for users to hold a discussion in another language--Jac16888Talk23:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. As mentioned above, in this case, the text did break another Wikipedia policy because it was an attack. (I didn't translate the text and am prepared to accept the judgment of the deleting admin that it was an attack.) The guideline discouraging discussions in foreign languages is more applicable to user talk pages than to user pages. It is still my understanding that non-English text in article pages is not permitted, with a few exceptions (such as providing the original text of a quote, with its English translation, or a discussion of a phrase that is sometimes used in English.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
When you say "that's correct" can you please point to a policy that supports that view? Having hateful conversations in any language is a violation of policy WP:CIVIL, but there's no reason why editors can't collaborate in whatever language they feel comfortable in their own user space. Lots of editors work in multiple languages. For an administrator to say that, I find it very disturbing. USchick (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
See WP:SPEAKENGLISH for the use of English on talk pages. "It is preferable to use English on all talk pages so comments may be comprehensible to the community. If using another language is unavoidable, try to provide a translation of the comments." Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
To be sure, there are differences between article talk pages and user talk pages. I, as one particular native user of American English, would be very annoyed with a discussion in a non-English language on an article talk page, or my own talk page, and would ignore non-English comments on another user's talk page. Any comments about an article that I might be editing, or any comments directed to me, should be in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Some editors are not native English speakers. Should they be banned from English language Wikipedia? What about people who don't know basic English and that's the only language they know? Sometimes foreign language sources are used in an article, and the discussion takes place in both languages to clarify exactly what the source said. For articles that span across cultures, like Kupala Night, 4 languages are used in the introduction. To pretend that only English letters are allowed on English Wikipedia is unrealistic. And even the logo doesn't support that idea. USchick (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree, I see Japanese being used on user pages, this debate should be put to rest I see no harm in having other languages on user pages as long as they follow the same standards as the English words. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
وأنا أتفق مع USchick، ينبغي أن يسمح ذلك للمحررين للتحدث إلى بعضهم البعض في أي اللغة التي يجدون مريحة. أيضا، وذلك بفضل لجوجل، وهذه ليست مشكلة لغيرهم من المحررين الذين يتحدثون لغة مختلفة.
Count Iblis (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Count Iblis, I agree wholeheartedly! [9] Thanks to Google, this is not a problem for other editors who speak a different language. :-) USchick (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
(This is a repeat of an earlier notice.) Since March 2013, various individual members of the Arbitration Committee have been reviewing the existing Discretionary sanctions process, with a view to (i) simplifying its operation and (ii) updating its procedures to reflect various clarification and amendment requests. An updated draft of the procedure is available for scrutiny and discussion here. AGK[•]16:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Creating an equivalent of WP:3RR for civility issues
Latest comment: 11 years ago36 comments22 people in discussion
One of the thorny problems at AN/I recently dealt with some problematic editor behavior. Two users were considered for preventive action (topic bans) - one was highly contested and went on for a few days, eventually closed as no consensus. The other received broad support but remained open until the topic ban became a moot point. I would like to see, at least as a consideration, a more procedural standard for action against editors that violate WP:CIVIL so that admins can feel a little more comfortable about topic banning or blocking editors when it is obvious that undesirable behavior is taking place. It would also give warnings more effect, since they will not be considered empty threats. Like 3RR, "three strikes" would seem a good place to start. The intent of the process is to disrupt disruptive behavior and have a chilling effect on drama epidemics. Procedurally:
User provides three diffs from the same topic showing serious problematic behavior to AN/I. Only three will be provided, the reporting user may strike a diff and add a different diff if needed.
Any uninvolved admin who has confirmed that the three are sufficiently problematic is strongly encouraged to microblock (1 hour) the offender.
The admin conducting the microblock will also briefly review the related discussions and is encouraged to report and take action on any other triple offender. The user providing diffs will also be microblocked if there are two qualifying events, the admin will provide those diffs to AN/I or other users may report them to AN/I and other admins can take action.
Any admin (involved or uninvolved) may, without seeking consensus first, unblock an editor blocked by this procedure.
No editor may be reblocked under this procedure without three new diffs.
The standard of "serious problematic behavior" should obviously include openly offensive comments (transphobia was the case in the Manning incident) but also should include disparaging comments about other editors (accusations of transphobia in the Manning incident), but includes anything on WP:CIVIL. Suggestions? Comments? Trout? Rotten tomatoes? 71.231.186.92 (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I would support this effort, but only if specific behavior is clearly identified as being uncivil. It's too easy for people to get offended and claim WP:CIVIL. USchick (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
If desirable, I can do some research on examples of diffs provided claiming civility issues and we can attempt to tease out a good threshold. Since false positives are expected, the block is easily overturned and it's short duration to begin with. Setting a very high threshold would be counterproductive, the purpose is not to block people, the purpose is to disrupt and discourage. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Wrong analogy. Multiple reverts are a problem, one revert usually is not and it is usually pretty obvious what is a revert and what is not. Incivility by contrast is a problem even if only one comment is seriously incivil, but reasonable people will often disagree as to where the boundary runs between blunt talking and incivility. So we can't use a similar system for 3rr and incivility because we don't want to give people a free pass for two incivil comments per arbitrary time period. ϢereSpielChequers19:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The point, however, is that I'm trying to find a tool that will get Admins to actual take action, even if light action, on incivility, because it appears that the common response is "it's complicated and I don't want to annoy anyone" so it doesn't get done. Creating a procedural threshold would get people to actually take civility seriously instead of just laugh off block warnings. If there's a better way to do it, I'm all ears, but WP:CIVIL is openly mocked in a lot of contexts here on Wikipedia. I don't think the subjectivity is as big a challenge as claimed - 3RR has some judgment calls as well (e.g. whether rephrasing instead of just hitting the undo button is a "revert") and admins don't seem to have trouble with that. Also, this would not be the only threshold for civility blocks, people can easily be blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
There's plenty of discussion in WP:CIVIL to provide a good benchmark. Are you saying that administrators are unable to recognize uncivil behavior? I would assume that if they're trusted enough to hold a mop, they've been around long enough to have a sense of what's acceptable and what's not. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
You assume too much. Many administrators are themselves uncivil, and quick to block for alleged infractions they are themselves guilty of. EricCorbett01:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that incivility is quite easy to identify (attacking the editor, rather than the edits), and should be dealt with. We all have to work together. I've been called a liar twice during an ArbCom discussion (unacceptible), and "incompetent", of "close-minded ignorance", and not to "be a dick", which was actually supported by an Arbitrator. It further doesn't help that we have essays like WP:CIVIL which gives the impression that civility is bad. --Iantresman (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
(undent) I'm thinking we should delist WP:CIVIL as a pillar if no one actually expects it and no one's even interested in trying to fix problems when they happen. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm very keen to fix problems when they happen, but I doubt if we would agree all that often on precisely what the problems are. I find that people who are as certain as you seem to be about what incivility is can sometimes be a little inflexible and therefore uncivil themselves at times. HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It should never have been a pillar, and if I recall correctly wasn't originally. It's simply a convenient stick with which to beat those you dislike or disagree with. EricCorbett02:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
beginning, origin. I'd say that in some way you could say that 'be considerate' of which the civility pillar is an evolution of, is even more strict than the civility policy. Current interpretation of the civility policy seems to be: 'you can be a dick as long as you yourself don't think that being a dick is uncivil or unhelpful in building an encyclopedia' —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Good God no. Please don't expand 3RR. It is unequivocally the worst policy Wikipedia has, and should have been abolished years ago. We need to end 3RR, not expand it to other policy areas. --Jayron3203:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
If I revert your above comment multiple times, should I be blocked? Damned right, I should be. Wanna go? ;) Stops inane edit wars, that policy does. Doctalk04:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you should be blocked. It doesn't make 3RR a good policy as it stands. 3RR is pretry much useless except as a means of allowing people who have no sense of how to resolve disputes a means to Wikilawyer they're way into "rights" they believe they have, including the "right" to revert endlessly without end so long as they can stay below 3 every 24 hours. That's why 3RR is useless, and expanding it to other realms will only expand the mistaken belief that Wikipedia editors have "rights" that they can "defend" rather than Wikipedia editors have "responsibilities" to make the encyclopedia better. All else is distraction. --Jayron3222:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
An accusation of transphobia shouldn't be silenced as uncivil when it's true. A number of users insisted on moving the Chelsea Manning page back to Bradley Manning for blatantly transphobic reasons, and as an attack on her identity. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we should make a firm process about this. While we all agree that being civil is important, we do not always agree on what constitutes incivility. I might think I am being perfectly civil... yet you might take offense nevertheless. Blueboar (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
First rule of communication: what you say does not matter. What they hear is everything. Just because you think you're being civil doesn't matter one bit in the long term. ScienceApologist told me he thought he was perfectly civil, look where it got him... 71.231.186.92 (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
BULL—SHIT. Complete and utter. By that rule, anyone can censor anything, by claiming to be offended. No no no no no, that's just utterly wrong. ---Trovatore (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The main reason this can't work, is that whether you like the 3rr rule or not, in most cases a violation is unambiguous. Either you reverted more then 3 times in 24 hours, or you didn't, absent the rarely relevant exceptions, any disinterested editor will agree as to the underlying fact. Civility, on the other hand, is a quagmire of differing views and thresholds. No two editors are likely to draw the line at whats civil, and whats not, at the same place. That just wont work for a framework that requires a bright line rule. Monty84503:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
There can never be a bright line or a system of cataloging examples of incivility. It's difficult enough to apply sanctions even in the most obvious cases, especially when it is trumped by prolific content work. Sanctions for incivility are probably actually quite rare compared to the number of instances because most admins are going to be wrongly accused of something inappropriate if they dare to take any action, leaving the only remaining course to be an Arbcom case. If data were to be extrapolated from block logs, it may be found that the majority of incivility comes from a minority of users - possibly the same ones. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Extremely bad idea. Everyone has a different level of sensitivity, and pretty soon even the mildest impolite remark or bit of sarcasm will be grounds for blocking. We can't have a bright line rule when the criteria are based on feels. The WordsmithTalk to me09:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
"Can't" in this case sounds like an abdication of responsibility. That it would be hard is unquestionable, but that doesn't mean it can't be done or that it's not worth doing. Again, if we're willing to dismiss civility as a core value of the project, our policies should reflect that reality. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The reason we can't is that we're trying to make an objective rule about something that is inherently subjective. Bright line rules simply don't work that way. The WordsmithTalk to me00:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Several people seem to be trying to take 3RR as a model. I wonder how many of them have read 3RR in the last year or two. It's very different from what it was 'way back in the day. It's not "three reverts in 24 hours". It's more like "edit the same article three times in 24 hours, if your edit could possibly be construed as 'removing' anyone else's contributions, even three completely separate and totally unrelated contributions, like changing one word choice in the lead, removing one unsourced claim from the middle of the article, and removing one spammy link from ==External links==". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, if an admin invokes a block on the basis of 3RR against someone merely changing a word or removing a spam link (simply because they have removed say three unrelated unsourced additions throughout the day for example), then I would hope the admin had an explanation besides "he technically broke 3RR". Betty Logan (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Trying to make bright-line rules about civility is not really a good use of anyone's time. I mean, sure there are some bright lines, such as death threats or overt racism, and those lines are so bright that one such edit is enough for a block. This proposal would have us needing to find a consesus that each of the three remarks was uncivil just so we could block a user for an hour? While I appreciate the attempt to do something about the issue of chrinic incivility this is simply not a workable or desireable approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
If you think that it's going to be easy to get agreement on what counts as incivility, you should look at this strawpoll on whether it is ever acceptable to tell another editor to "fuck off". Responses were about evenly split, with several admins on each side. Bovlb (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer to see a slide scale of blocks from uninvolved editors, begin with 1 day, with subsequent offences increasing to then 2, 4 days, then 1, 2 weeks, then 1, 2, 4, 8 months, then 1 year. --Iantresman (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Blocks won't work well for civility issues unless the behavior is really so bad that it would already have been dealt with within the system we have today. We should instead think of a compulsory change in the username that indicates that the user has civility problems. Or you could think of having a community civility rating process for all editors, the civility rating will be indicated in your username when you sign your posts. Count Iblis (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
We're never going to get everyone to agree on what is or what is not civil. I really think WP:CIVIL needs to be a guideline. It's not enforceable as policy, so it's not fair to keep calling it a policy. --Onorem (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago36 comments19 people in discussion
Why do different subjects have different notability guidelines? I don't see how anyone can argue that one subject is any more important/significant/notable than another.
We allow, for example, articles on (a) every species of plants and animals (b) over 10,000 separate articles on space rocks (c) every minor village on the planet (d) every school in the world. There is no way that their mere existance makes them notable or even encyclopedic. In this respect, Wikipedia is a compendium of trivia. I actaully have no problem with Wikipedia being a compendium, it has never been just an encyclopedia.
But then we have articles which meet general notability guidelines, but which other editors consider aren't notable or significant enough in the subject being considered. For example, (a) an article I created sometime ago, a magazine is now up for an AfD. With a peak circulation of 10,000-20,000 and several non-trivial secondary sources authored by academics,[10][11][12] this exceeds the requirement supporting many specialised peer reviewed journals. In my opinion, some editors are confusing notability with importance. --Iantresman (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Simple. Subjects that benefit from having an article are taken to a higher standard of proof of notability than articles where solely the reader benefits from the existance of an article. You write that some editors are confusing notability with importance and at the same time you refer to minor villages, space rocks and trivia. You place more importance on a magazine than a space rock. That is your call. That does not make it more notable though. Agathoclea (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely not. We should be following sources in all cases; that is the essence of neutrality. If reliable and independent sources have chosen to write extensively about a subject, it is notable (though it must also pass our other content policies). If they have chosen to write little or nothing about a subject, they have decided it is not notable, and we should follow their lead by writing little or nothing and not having a standalone article. That should be true of a company, a person, a "populated place", a school, or a bird. Notability, like everything else, is verifiable, by checking if the subject has verifiably and extensively been noted. The cleanup on villages, schools, etc., has started, but there are some people still too stuck on "outcomes". It'll get done sooner or later. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
How strange coincidence is. I had just come here to start a thread wondering why every goshdarned soccer player who has been on the pitch for even a coupe of seconds in a relevant match has an article, but academics must pass a more exalted threshold at WP:ACADEMEWP:ACADEMIC. WP:GNG should trump all. But, such is the wisdom of crowds, that fans of sports win every time.
Academics vs athletes is a longstanding argument, and it has always been an apples vs. oranges fallacy. Sports is very widely covered in mass media, the web, books, magazines, etc. When academics are covered as prominently, let us know. (That being said, I will not argue NSPORT is perfect as is). Resolute16:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
All of our notability guidelines (the subject-specific ones) should be able defining criteria that assure ultimately meeting the GNG - that there are or will be secondary indepth coverage of the topic, most likely due to meeting the defined criteria. EG if a person wins the Nobel prize, we know there are a number of sources that document the person's history and merit for winning (in addition to any existing sources). It doesn't have to be perfect, because we are presuming notability until such a time that we can be sure that was wrong (working under no deadline). Mind you, I do believe there are some poor criteria out there (like at NSPORT) but most are written towards this end.
That said, this means our notability guides are based on meeting the GNG. And this is where understanding why we have different requirements, because within various fields, what are considered good reliable sources will be different. The bar for sources on many academic topics is much higher than those for things like entertainment fields. So the subject-specific guidelines typically take this source consideration into place and thus why it seems like the requirements are far different - it still comes down to the sources usually available for that field. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
No, that doesn't make sense. I can find a reliable source for every football (soccer) player that has ever played (match programmes, club statistics, governing bodies). I can equally find a reliable source for every academic (college websites, academic papers, etc). As Chris857 mentioned, academics require a much higher notability bar than soccer players. If I was a non-academic, non-soccer fan, I would find that an unreasonable double standard. --Iantresman (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I can even find plenty of sources of a player that has just sat on the bench. He does not get an article. He jumps out just before the final whistle and he gets one. But he is a soccer player acknowledged by soccer players and clubs and federations. An accademic could be someone of note or simply a crank. Someone with wild ideas where the accademic community just shakes their collective heads. That is where the the extra criteria come in, to distinguish the back-alley players from the real boys (in sports or accademics) Agathoclea (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
An academic is an academic regardless of their achievements or "crankiness". If they're good or bad is a detail that we add to their article. It's like judging an article on a soccer player based on whether they are any good. I want to read about all soccer players and all academics, in order to find out about them, good or bad. --Iantresman (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are about 100 postsecondary/academics for every professional athlete. If we had an article on each one, we would nearly triple the number of biographies on Wikipedia, and that's just for the USA. I don't think that you actually want this.
Fundamentally, what we need for any article (see WP:WHYN) is an independent reliable source about the subject. University websites and official sports team websites aren't independent. The source must be about the subject, not written by the subject (otherwise, every person who wrote a letter to the editor would qualify for an article). Knowing that Alice Expert wrote an article about string doesn't tell you anything about Alice. (Also, it'd be a primary source for making a claim that she wrote the article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I would have to agree with you on this issue. What you need for any article is finding those independent reliable sources on the subject. At the moment, I'm trying to put together a Wikipedia article about a high school (not a particular student... but the whole school... something that typically is considered notable automatically and the subject of previous Village Pump discussions). I am having problems finding those independent sources or they are very weak sources that merely mention the existence of the school, thus I have not yet written that article. I would dare say many athletes happen to fit that situation as well, and in particular most academics as well even if they earn a PhD and then become a tenured full professor at a notable university. These people simply aren't notable because other than the publications they have authored they simply haven't done anything of note to the outside world.
It really gets down to if you can even find the content for writing the article as opposed to engaging in original research in the form of personal interviews and writing about that topic from something other than reliable sources. You may even be NPOV, factual, and even verifiable, but it still can't be independently confirmed by other editors without them also doing that kind of original research. Perhaps it is even something important, but for whatever reason if you can't find those hard sources of information that can be confirmed you really don't have something from which you write an article. I don't care if it is a land grant university, academy award winner, Heisman Trophy winner, or whoever it is. If we don't have those reliable independent sources, an article simply can't be written. On the other hand, even if it is your 2nd grade teacher (and the only real claim to fame she or he has), if you can find those reliable sources and get some details about that person, place, or event, you should be able to write that article and have it properly survive an AfD.
I certainly don't think some particular topic should automatically be considered noteworthy or non-notable simply because of some position or status within a community. It may be true that topics like former Presidents of the USA or Kings of England may be considered very likely to have reliable sources, as opposed to the highly improbable 3rd string field goal kicker for a minor league junior high school football team having any source at all. Still, it is incumbent to find those sources first. At best these Wikiproject notability guidelines may simply indicate which kinds of topics are much more likely to have those sources and which ones are very unlikely to have them. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The reason why you get these different notability guidelines is because they are created by Wikiprojects which have their own idiosyncratic ideas about what's important. A handful of project members typically make up their own list of rules which they then defend fiercely. It's classic WP:CREEP and the remedy is to do away with all such special pleading and just use the WP:GNG. Warden (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
""WP:CREEP" is not a substitute for actual arguments. Lengthy instruction can be appropriate if it represents a broad consensus and does more good than harm." So in other words if doing away with it does more harm than good it is not a good idea. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Just putting the record straight: every school in the world is not inherently notable - and that is clearly demonstrated by a long practiced precedent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
"Closed" subjects --that is, ones where we can choose to have an article on every single entity in the set-- tend to have lower notability standards in practice because there is a desire on the part of editors to have a complete list. Public figures likewise tend to get articles more easily than private figures who still get articles more easily than companies. It's just a lot of little biases, personal, political, and internet sub-cultural, adding up. --erachimatalk00:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess I'm the biggest "inclusionist" when it comes to this topic. I was unhappy with the decision that every single space rock with a name (or I guess designation is more proper) should not be classified as notable. I think, personally, WP:NOTPAPER should be considered. Yes, I understand we have server constraints in the long run that do limit in the future just how big we could be; but really? Why not include everything in the world that has a reliable source about it? Every single school, every single community (personally I am in favor of every single community especially). Is there, more than "I don't like it" against doing that? Im truly curious as the answers people give.Camelbinky (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
We don't have the editorial resources to maintain all of those articles. Creating an article is the easy and fun part. Someone needs to develop the article, expand it, acquire sources, monitor the article, revert vandalism, remove obvious nonsense, etc. If we create more and more of these obscure articles without the resources to develop and maintain them, then the overall quality of the encyclopedia suffers. That's my view, anyway. MastCellTalk18:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
We don't have editorial resource to maintain the existing 4-million+ articles, but that has never been a requirement. Any article with a reliable source, by definition, meets minimum standards for reliability and hence quality. It may be the one source a reader is looking for. We can equally argue that removing such an article reduces the overall quality of Wikipedia. Inclusion gives the reader the choice. The real problem is who decides what is obscure, and notable. If a bunch of astronomers decide that 10,000 pieces of space rock are notable (with one inferred primary source), then that is fine by me. But if the same astronomers claim other articles, which have sources, are not notable to them, then I see a double standard. --Iantresman (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
And on top of this, we are ultimately aiming to have good quality articles, not just articles. Yes, for purposes of NOTPAPER and DEADLINE, a minimum standard of having a few sources for a topic is not hard to meet. But, if you can only write a sentence or two on that topic from those sources, and no new sources appear, we should be considering if there's a better way to cover the topic in a larger article or even delete it. It is important to note that notability is a presumption, meaning that any article at any time can be reconsidered for notability, so the guidelines are not automatically affirmations that the topic will never be deleted or merged. So if you create an article with only one or two sources and never work or find it impossible to improve on it, we may still eventually delete it. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that there are double standards at times (though your example would be more problematic if we had articles on each of those planets; summary lists are much less an issue). But debating to correct those standards usually gets stymed by wikiprojects or other interested editors that insist we must have separate articles. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not exactly a double standard. The standard is this:
Notability = Verifiability through independent sources × Compliance with WP:NOT × Editors' discretion
That last item differs between athletes (editors generally favor separate articles for each human) and space rocks (editors generally favor a unified list), but the "equation" is the same for both. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely, we need specific notability guidelines. The WP:GNG is far too permissive. Were it implemented literally, we would have an article about every high-school football player in the United States (because, after all, the high-school newspaper is independent of the individual player, right?). We could construct an article about nearly every home in the United States. Every album track on every album in the history of time would have an article, because they all get mentioned in at least two reviews. The purpose of the specific guidelines is to prevent the information in Wikipedia from getting overwhelmed by the trivial. I agree that every SNG that purports to relax the GNG should be thrown out, but SNGs that serve to filter the wheat from the chaff are good things.—Kww(talk) 18:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I seriously doubt you would be able to get an article made for nearly any high school football player, nor for very many high school newspapers either. Seriously? What are you possibly going to be using as sources? I've seen plenty of AfDs where the pure standards of WP:GNG were more than sufficient to assure deletion of articles made of "prominent high school students"... even if there were perhaps the strict "two independent sources" of information about that student. Not every home in America or for that matter anywhere else in the world would qualify either... although I'm certain you can find a few homes which indeed would qualify and should. Not every album track on every album gets more than what I'd call a "mere mention" that would clearly fail the "significant coverage" aspect of WP:GNG.
I would love to see an example of a topic that would clearly pass WP:GNG yet fails specific notability guidelines. Borderline cases would be borderline and likely be deleted anyway. A successful AfD would be fine and not necessarily an article. --Robert Horning (talk)
Local sources reporting on local people are not independent sources (in terms of material interest, not financial, journalistic, or other type of association), so that is what prevents creation of such articles. "significant secondary coverage in reliable independent sources" is a very fair line to be met. And there are lots of topics that fail the specific notability guideline but meet the GNG: I remember once case of a football player that had not yet played in a pro league game though en route to becoming pro (failing NSPORTS) but had received otherwise considerable coverage under GNG terms, and thus the article was kept. Again the point of the subject specific guidelines is to provide criteria of topics that likely will have GNG-type sourcing available now or in the future due to meeting specific criteria, and thus should be presumed notable. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
It IS skewed, and I think that the GNG's try to address that. Most notably, in sports, the coverage is a part of the activity and anjd so it has immensely more coverage in proportion to actual notability and so we have far too many articles on non-notable sports players. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Local sources are independent sources, they simply have a low weight when it comes to convincing people the article should exist. In the past, there have been attempts to clarify that "Notable" and "Worth Including As An Independent Article" are not the same thing, with the argument generally revolving around the question of if the article will ever reasonably be WP:GA-worthy. It's unfortunate that none of them have ever made it into the guidelines. --erachimatalk21:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
That's probably the main issue. I believe that GNG shouldn't be used as "it's notable? lets split it" but rather, if there's enough information that isn't redundant then it can be notable, but not independently notable. I hope that makes sense. alot of times inclusionists want to split it, and the only reason they can have is that it meets GNG. but GNG never suggests splits. I think GNG should clarify that.Lucia Black (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
We have added WP:NOPAGE to WP:N to try to assure that we don't need a separate article just because it is notable; notability is only used to presume a topic is worthy to have a stand-alone page but that it is not required to make a separate page. The problem I've run into is that when you try to suggest a merge or the like (like presently, for Ivan Drago into Rocky IV) that you get tons of resistance that "the topic's notable, it must have a separate page!" --MASEM (t) 22:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, we're currently looking at the same problem on various anime/manga series, with people wanting different pages for the animated version because it had a somewhat different plot. Basically, if you can have one good article instead of three lousy ones, my stance is to have one article. --erachimatalk23:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Robert, believe me, the reason that WP:NSONGS exists is the fact that WP:GNG is far too lenient. The article explosion problem is the reason that it contains guidance against creating separate articles for every cover version of a song or for album tracks where all the coverage is in the context of reviews of the album as a whole. The weighting against local coverage is another effort to try to work against the leniency the GNG provides, just as are our guidelines against using primary sources (such as census records, deeds, and similar documents). All these work to stem the flood of articles that would be permitted under a literal interpretation of the GNG. The GNG needs to be viewed as the bare minimum threshold an article needs to cross to be considered for creation, not as a reason, in and of itself, for creating an article.—Kww(talk) 23:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
NSONGS repeats what the GNG is - only toned to meet the expectations of those editing music articles as to be clear as to what applies (such as independence meaning separate from artist and label). Mind you, the other facets of NSONGS - such as notability not being there when the song is covered in context of the album - is a factor in WP:N, but it is one that is often lost in debates when those head-set on inclusion go "there's 2 sources, its notable". It is not that the GNG is too lenient, but that those that want inclusion take the most minimalist view of the GNG that requires things like NSONGS to be created. Similarly, NSPORTS explains that notability shown only through local sources aren't sufficient for athletes, preventing the creation of hundreds of thousands of articles on high school/secondary school athletes. This idea of local coverage only is a part of WP:N through the concept of source independence, but again, those dead set on inclusion refute that. Thus, in areas where there have been problematic inclusion of topics that really aren't notable by the community, it is appropriate to explain the specific applicability of the GNG to that topic area, and if necessary, have additional requirements to show notability if the GNG does not cover those (though those of us at WP:N would appreciate to know what is deficit because that likely means that could affect other areas and it would be good to include language in the GNG to make up for that). However, this is the issue for topics where the potential article space is huge. In most other fields, there is no large concern that direct application of the GNG provides a good line between a standalone and a non-notable topic, and thus no additional clarification is needed. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's get rid of 3RR
Latest comment: 11 years ago22 comments15 people in discussion
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.
In the thread about invoking 3RR for civility issues above, User:Jayron32 makes the point that 3RR isn't a good policy anyway and that we should get rid of it. I think he makes a good point, clearly edit warring cannot be construed in terms of the 3RR rule.
Instead of getting rid of 3RR rule altogether, one could keep the 3RR rule in force for only IP editors, and perhaps also new editors who have less than a certain number of edits. Also, 3RR could be imposed on editors as a remedy instead of blocking. But the general 3RR rule that applies to everyone should be scrapped. Count Iblis (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:Edit warring is not construed in terms of the 3RR rule - the 3RR rule is just a hard and fast "if they pass this rule they are definitely edit warring unless exempt". Blocks are often handed out for edit warring even if 3RR isn't breached. ~Charmlet-talk-17:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad had this to say about policing the 3RR rule, earlier this year.
A frequent reason that good-faith editors with otherwise unblemished records get blocked is for 3RR violations. I am not proposing here to change either the intent or the letter of the three-revert rule. However, I've often thought (and occasionally implemented on the rare occasions I close a report on the EW noticeboard) that to block a good contributor from editing anywhere on the site for 24 or 48 hours because he or she got caught up in a dispute on one particular article, is overkill. Wouldn't it be sufficient, in many cases, simply to instruct the editor that he or she is not to edit that article (or perhaps that article and any related articles) for the appropriate time period?
I am aware that this restriction cannot be enforced by the software; there isn't any way I'm aware of to leave User:A unblocked but to disallow User:A from editing Article X (short of protecting it so that no one else can edit it either). Thus, this remedy couldn't be used in every case; if an editor is clearly out of control, a regular block might be required. On the other hand, I would think that most reasonable editors who are told "that's four reverts—in lieu of blocking you, you're not to edit Article X for 24 hours" would abide by the restriction. And if User:A ignored the restriction and edited the article again (especially if he or she reverted again), User:B would presumably report the breach back to the noticeboard and a regular block would follow.
It seems to me that this approach would retain the purposes of the 3RR, without sullying block logs unnecessarily, and without losing the good contributions the blocked editors might make on other topics, and while perhaps allowing the editing dispute to be discussed on the article talkpage without waiting 24 hours.
The issue with 3RR is it discourages both admins and non-admins alike from approaching a conflict with the proper mindset. The goal should always be "We should discuss this out, and bring in outside help if necessary, rather than use the article space to fight over it". Always. What 3RR does is give people methods and reason to refuse to discuss. It encourages people to revert at a schedule rather than rapidly, but it still encourages reverting as a means of enforcing one's view, and it encourages admins to ignore the specifics of behavior that led to the conflict and instead work mechanistically, blocking by counting events, or not blocking for the same reasons (the fourth revert came 24 hrs and 1 minute later, etc.) Instead, admins should block when it is clear that a person is not interested in discussion and consensus building, and is instead merely going to force their own view, and there's no magic number or time limit where that is obvious. 3RR is against every basis of Wikipedia policy on behavior and blocking, because it is punitive and not preventative, except in the "we're preventing this person from editing for a short while". It really does nothing that the WP:EW policy doesn't already do, except that it makes people think less about how to fix a situation, and we should be encouraging people to be more thoughtful, not less. --Jayron3218:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
If an editor in the long run is gaming 3RR to avoid talk page discussions or other means of discussion on a regular basis, then it's time for an RFC/U on that editor. 3RR still works for newer editors as well as a gentle reminder for established areas that normally don't get into such wars. The observations seen are a result of a larger problem with an editor and not 3RR so much. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with what Masem said. I've also seen instances where a user had violated the letter of 3RR but the administrator who handled the case chose to issue a warning instead of a block, so I don't believe it's used as rigidly as some people may think. I think that the 3RR rule is useful psychologically, in a way that WP:EW would not be without it, because it (usually) puts users in mind of the seriousness of edit warring. I fear that removing it from the EW policy would make it more like WP:CIVIL, in that editors would find it difficult to agree about how much edit warring is too much. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
It appears that Masem and Tryptofish are saying that 3RR should be retained, although administrators should be able to apply it flexibly. If so, I agree. As Tryptofish says, retaining a specific rule is useful because otherwise editors and administrators would find it difficult to agree on how much edit warring is too much. The rigidity of 3RR is especially useful to deal with battleground editors and editors who want to Right Great Wrongs, who will otherwise argue that the need to win or the rightness of their cause entitles them to edit war. In my opinion, 3RR should always be addressed, usually with a block and occasionally with a strong warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
That's my thought. There are times that 3RR should be taken mechanically (new editor that is in a combative mood, or two editors that are unrelenting), but there are other times where while an established editor has suppassed 3RR, it may be unintentional or being done that they thought they were within the 3RR exemptions. Hence why the 3RR resolution board gives opportunity to respond to accusations. Again, a key thing to remember is that blocks are meant to be preventative, and while some 3RR violations need to be blocked to prevent disruption, others can be resolved by a simple warning message. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The thing is, all of that argues against a need for 3RR. Blocks should be applied thoughtfully and not mechanistically. Always. 3RR discourages that, and that's why its wrong. If there's that much flexibility in applying it, then just ditch it, and use the already existing policies against edit warring to curb problematic behavior. --Jayron3201:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Not really. I just checked the wording and it is very clear that a 3RR violation is not required to be followed by a block. Now, if admins are blinding going "you passed 3RR, you're blocked" without thought, that's an admin problem, not a problem with 3RR. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I am looking at WP:3RR as well, it says usually 3RR is followed by a block of 24 hours, now that is not the same as a requirement but blocks often do occur from 3RR based on the admin's good judgement case by case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Jayron32 blocked me for reversions on hydraulic accumulator (history, Talk:), without even a breach of 3RR. This was an ignorant editor disagreeing with a stable and significant aspect of the text (a minority view Jayron32 evidently shared, by the way he left the article afterwards). I do a lot of vandalism reversion. Take a look at Dick Strawbridge (history) just tonight. I can count, I do not breach 3RR. Now echoing NewYorkBrad's comments above, how is someone working to protect against vandalism or evident cluelessness supposed to proceed if they're at risk of unwarned instant blocking by this trigger-happy admin who doesn't even have the patience to observe 3RR? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I have no knowledge or opinion of the article in question. You were blocked for edit warring. You could have been correct in the content you wanted in the article, but that isn't relevent. Your behavior merited a block. Try not edit warring next time. --Jayron3201:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I find that even long time editors to Wikipedia sometimes stray a bit too close to edit wars when emotions get heated over content. Sadly, it is often even trolls that seem to know precisely when to push the limits and not cross the threshold or engage in a protracted edit war (lasting days, weeks, or even months), thus not really crossing the strict definition of 3RR. In general, I find myself restrained as a result of this rule, on a positive side, as when I have done two reverts fairly close to each other it is about time to back off and try to get some other neutral 3rd party involved in the dispute. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I have seen my fair share of experienced editors edit war as I have seen admin do the same, I do not see anything positive coming out of doing your proposal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment. Reading the comments of everyone here so far, I think one should actually have a "soft limit" like suggested in the quoted comment of NYB, but not at 3RR but at 1RR. So, here on Wikipedia we should have the mentality that reverting more than once (when it is not vandalism) is to be avoided. So, I do agree with Tryptofish about a psychological limit, but it should be at 1RR because this is the real boundary where edit warring starts. Count Iblis (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I find 3rr useful for the bright line it draws for editors. If someone has 4+ reverts within 24 hours already, I warn them, and they revert again, it is very easy to explain why I was justified in blocking them. Without it, even in the most egregious cases of edit warring, its a fuzzy standard, and is likely to result in disputes over whether the block is justified. As mentioned above, admins aren't required to block for 3rr violations, but its a useful tool if used appropriately. Monty84502:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Oh, God, this would be a madhouse if we got rid of 3RR. Back in the mid-00s, edit warriors were reverting sometimes 20 times a day. No joke. I am not opposed to the topic ban idea, but I'd want that firmly in place before we even begin to think about removing 3RR. Gamaliel (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I would actually be in favor of strengthening 3RR to "three strikes and you're out" - or in other words, 2RR. I see no good reason to revert more than twice in succession. I myself usually stick to just once, and only revert a second time if I believe the other person has made an obvious oversight and/or completely misunderstood why I made the first revert. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:27, 15 September 2013 (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.
Feedback
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I see we have a new feedback system.
More criticism! How I welcome criticism! An article I have been developing largely single handed for about a month has "0% found what they were looking for" and a sad face. (Zero feedback = 0% apparently.)
I find that a lot of people on Wikipedia delight in quibbling and finding fault, and prefer doing that to actually getting some work written. Wikipedia seems to encourage this, e.g. "citation needed" on the main pages. (Imagine a paid-for physical reference book had several annotations like that on its main pages.)
The point I was trying to make is that Wikipedia seems to encourage negativity. These are only examples, but "Citation needed" in the body of an article is unhelpful, when it could much better be on the talk page (although how much better to find a citation). Awarding a page a feedback "score" is unhelpful; it is legitimate to say "This article needs a section on XYZ" (although how much better if that perosn wrote a section on XYZ. But just to give a mark that for some articles will say "This article is pretty poor" makes no progress whatever, and may just demotivate someone who is in the middle of trying to get it right. This may sound like a whinge, but I do worry that Wikipedia gives equal prominence to spoilers as it does to those who write copy. Afterbrunel (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Updating information no longer marked as a guideline
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
I used to refer newbies (and sometimes those who ought to have known better) to WP:NPOV when they were using promotional wording. Then I re-read it several times, and realised that that's not what it's about. I see quite a few patrollers etc using it in similar circumstances. Is there a policy (not an essay or guideline) about neutral tone (not using promo or anti wording) as opposed to neutral point of view (being unbiased)? If not, why not - and isn't it time there were such a policy? Yes, I suppose I should know. I've never seen one yet, though. Peridon (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
NPOV already has the following wordings, which might help you: Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. WifioneMessage19:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
WTW and B2B are essays - like DUCK, very good but not actual policies. PEACOCK looks good and is part of MOS. However, for people who seem to think that PR talk is not promotional (or think we're stupid and might be convinced by their waffle that they are right - after all, they are trying to sell things, aren't they?), I was looking more for something that would make the point to speakers of PR talk that it IS promotional and is NOT acceptable here. The NPOV paragraph wouldn't be understood by these people - if they genuinely don't think they're being promotional, that is. Having once heard two PR types talking this stuff at each other for half an hour, that really could be the case. Peridon (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:COSPLAY is a redlink. Wikipedia:Cosplay images in articles? I don't see an RFC on the question. Are you just looking for more participation in the discussion generally, or are you hoping to have it result in a close that ether promotes or marks it as failed? If the latter, you will need to put forth a formal RFC. Monty84504:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Improved transparency for admins that have changed user name
Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
There is often a reason to look up an admin's RfA(s). However, if they've changed user name since becoming an admin, that can be difficult, especially if they don't mention it on their user page. We should make it a minor but useful policy that when an admin changes user name, a redirect is created from [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Current name]] to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Old name]] (or "Old name 2", etc.). This improves transparency. I've just done it for myself, if you need an example.
I'm willing to bet that someone is going to object to this with "Wikipedia's not a bureaucracy!"... well, this isn't "bureaucracy"; it's making the future easier to deal with. Having rules for things like this means our archives are better-organized and future readers, editors and researchers won't have to spend time scraping around through edit histories to follow tracks around the site. Thanks. — Scott•talk12:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Question: How often does an admin change their name that there are untold archives of RfAs where the admin has made the linkage between their RfA and their current name less than clear? Hasteur (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Probably not all that often, but I've definitely encountered it. I mention my old name briefly on my user page but you could easily miss it; if "RfA/Current admin name" always works, nobody will have to scour anyone's small print. — Scott•talk18:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Reasonable requirement for "in-office" name changes. My only question, I suppose, is what the rule would be for admins who create the redirect and then wind up running RFA again, for whatever reason (reconfirmation, re-RFA after desysopping). Would they create the page under the slightly-misleading title of "Username 2," or would they convert the redirect into a new RFA? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)07:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I would say that it should just be regulation for the redirect to point to the most recent successful RfA. The latest ones will always have links back to earlier ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Martin (talk • contribs) 00:06, 21 September 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Hi, do we have any? I am not really sure... the old ip talk pages are usually cluttered with warnings old months and they mostly don't even belong to same people. Can we remove such warnings? Petrb (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
It's all under WP:UP. Removal of a warning is usually acknowledgement that it's been read. It would not normally be ok for you to remove warnings from an IP - we have a template somewhere that can hide really old ones, but if I was an IP editor, and I stumbled upon "my" talkpage and it was littered with warnings, I'd quite likely create an account to distance myself from whatever vandals I was suddenly being associated with ES&L10:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
There are two sets of templates, {{OW}} which assumes the warnings have been completely removed, and {{Old IP warnings top}} which assumes they have not been. I don't see the second template much anymore, as for the first, its generally on a talk page with {{Repeated abuse}} and one of the long term block notifications, such as {{schoolblock}}, such that there is still lots of notice about the history of the talk page. Generally if the talk page warnings are going to be blanked in favor of {{OW}}, its done at the time of a long term block. Monty84515:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
That of course only makes sense for IP talk pages, for registered accounts, its up to the account holder to remove them if they so choose. Monty84515:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Within the past two days, an IP address editor showed up at the Help Desk and complained that someone had hacked into his or her space and accused him or her of edits that they had not made. The edits were made years ago, and the IP editor didn't understand how things work. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, people who are doing good edits from IP address that used to belong to someone who caused troubles, should have talk page cleaned and replaced with {{Welcome-anon}}. I will probably do that until someone explain to me why doing so is a bad thing... Petrb (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
That is a reasonable idea, but is unrelated to the incident to which I am referring. That unregistered editor hadn't yet done any new edits, but immediately showed up to complain. On the one hand, as noted in the next section, there is an unfortunate tendency by registered editors to fail to [WP:AGF|assume good faith]] on the part of unregistered editors, but, on the other hand, that unregistered editor failed to assume good faith because he or she didn't understand how IP addresses work. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion
I asked this question a while back at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Assistance, but I guess that page is not heavily watched and no one replied, so I'm going to re-ask it here, along with a few more comments.
I've read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Rules, and I see there that "disagreement endorsements" are not supposed to be part of an RfC/U. I've also noticed, however, that some (a minority) of recent request pages have been formatted with separate sections for "support" and "oppose" following each view. So I'd like to ask what the current consensus about that really is, and where it might have last been discussed.
That's what I asked before, and I'll supplement that by asking whether it might make sense to revise the RfC/U instructions to leave it up to the participants whether or not to have "oppose view" sections (while still prohibiting threaded discussions within each of those sections). It seems to me that the purpose, and it's a valid one, of limiting "oppose"s is to avoid having the process break down into long, combative threaded discussions. But my observation is that such discussions end up happening anyway, on the talk page of the RfC/U. As long as the "support" and "oppose" sections following each view are kept separate, it may actually help to decrease arguments, by providing an outlet for disagreement that does not require going to the talk page.
On the one hand, I see no real harm in allowing editors to oppose a view, but I see no need to allow it. The current rule against threaded discussion should be retained. Threaded discussion can be taken to the talk page. I would suggest clarifying the instructions to state that neither threaded discussion nor oppose !votes are appropriate. We also should clarify that, once a diff is entered, or any other statement made on the RFC/U page, it may not be removed. It may be struck if the author withdraws it. (In a currently open RFC/U, the certifiers deleted certain diffs after an outside view disagreed with them, which left the outside view speaking to nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
My reading of the rules on WP:RFC/U is that they preclude Oppose because they permit multiple outside views to be entered. A person disagreeing with the certifiers, rather than !voting Oppose can write an outside view disagreeing with the analysis and praising the editor in question, or in writing a middle-ground analysis, saying, perhaps, that the subject and the certifiers are antagonistic and recommending an interaction ban. That is, there are more options than just agree or disagree, providing more ways that consensus can be determined. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
At the same time, I will comment that I am not sure that WP:RFC/U is as useful or important a procedure as it previously was. In 2005 and 2006 it was typically a step taken prior to asking the ArbCom to ban a user who was a troll, flamer, habitual edit warrior, or otherwise not here to build the encyclopedia. Now users who are clearly destructive or toxic are banned by "community consensus" rather than the ArbCom, and the ArbCom typically handles user conduct issues that interfere with dealing with content issues in contentious areas (such as war zones), or sometimes protracted conflict between two users. I am not sure that WP:RFC/U is productive, because the stated purpose is to persuade the user to change his or her editing behavior, but it often causes the subject to become defensive and does not break down hostility. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
My guess is that these RFC/Us were set up by relatively new Admins... who are used to the way we typically set up more binary article or policy change RfCs (where someone proposes an edit... and others either Support or Oppose that edit). I would agree that this is not really appropriate in the context of an RFC/Us. Blueboar (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I actually agree with you that the process has become one of limited usefulness. But for the moment, I'm thinking in terms of working with what we have. I understand what you are saying with respect to agreeing or disagreeing with the certifiers. But my question has more to do with those multiple outside views. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough, sorry. Let's say someone enters an outside view, and some people support it. But there are other people who disagree with it. Of course, one approach is to create a second outside view, saying the opposite of the first outside view. But that is really no different than creating an "oppose" section just below the "support" section of the first outside view. I'm having trouble seeing the advantage of having to create an entirely separate outside view in that circumstance. And I'm observing that it has become very common to have lengthy and often unproductive threads open on the talk page, where someone argues against an outside view, and I'm thinking that it might be more productive to simply channel that energy into a numbered "oppose" section. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Overall, I think this rule exists because the rule reduces the opportunity for escalating the conflict at the RFC/U. You don't go to RFC/U because you are getting along with someone, and some participants would "disagree" or "oppose" any statement that is even vaguely supportive of their opponents. The goal is to get a statement that everyone can agree with. Having formal "oppose" !votes scattered on the page makes compromise that much harder. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I appreciate that this is the intention. What I am reacting to is that (1) nonetheless, some recent RfC/Us have had "oppose" sections after each outside view (in which case, perhaps the instructions need to be made more clear), and (2) that we still get that unhelpful escalation on the RfC/U talk page, so perhaps it's better to provide a better outlet for that. I think that it often is impossible to get a statement that everyone can agree with, but it can become clearer when some views have tons of support and little opposition, while other views are the other way around. And I'm still seeing this idea as one in which people are not replying/rebutting to one another within the endorsements of a particular view, just some people lining up to agree and others to disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that the instructions should be made clearer. I do not see the need for oppose !votes. With multiple views, consensus can be assessed by which outside views have the most support. I agree with User:WhatamIdoing that "oppose" or "disagree" !votes make it harder to reach consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to jump to premature conclusions, but in the event that the emerging consensus here ends up being against "oppose" comments (which, if that's how the discussion goes, is fine with me, as I just wanted to explore how other editors feel about the alternatives), then yes, I think that we should indeed discuss making the instructions clearer. I have, indeed, seen some recent RfC/Us where there were "oppose" sections, so obviously it's not clear to everyone. And I sure wouldn't want to have to revert someone in the course of a discussion, if they took it on themselves to start an "oppose" section. The "rules" page for the process already says that there should be no "disagreement endorses"; perhaps we should consider also adding no "oppose sections", as in "no disagreement endorses or oppose sections". Perhaps there should also be a notice on the RfC/U page itself to this effect. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
RFC/U, even more than other discussions on WP, is really, really WP:NOTAVOTE. If you don't agree with a position and no position presented reflects your perspective, instead of opposing somebody else you should add your own view and endorse it yourself. If you've made a valid point chances are others will endorse it as well. Threaded discussion or support/oppose back-and-forth should not be employed in the endorsement section. I don't know that it has to be restricted to the talk page or where that convention originally came from, but at the least it should be in its own separate section. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who has responded to me here so far. It looks to me like we have established that the current consensus is not to change the existing practice of having only comments that support a view, and not comments in opposition. I think that we also recognize that there has been some confusion about the process, and therefore that it would be a good idea to revise the rules to make this point clearer.
The page that gives the rules is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Rules. I think that we are looking at the second group of bullet points there, about "The following is NOT permitted:". Specifically, the third bullet point there, which currently reads:
Disagreement endorsements. Partial endorsements ("I agree with the first paragraph") are acceptable.
I suggest revising it to read:
Disagreement endorsements, threaded rebuttals to endorsements, or "oppose view" sections. Partial endorsements ("I agree with the first paragraph") are acceptable. Opposition to views can be expressed on the talk page, or by creating and endorsing a new view.
Although it wasn't the main discussion point, Robert McClenon pointed out something else, that I think should be included here as well, sort of like a friendly amendment. The fourth bullet point could be revised as:
Changing the text of other people's statements or views. To remove your own comment or links, it is preferable to use strike-through notation, like this, instead of deleting it.
Oppose as written, because while admins do take RfC/U extremely seriously, the support count is usually the baseline from which the decision is taken. The most supported view could quite easily be one for which there is far more opposition, and while I agree that opposing outright achieves little, we need an effective way for users to raise concerns. In my experience RfC talk pages are complete waste of time, and the problem with encouraging new views to be created is that we encourage fragmentation, rather trying to bring broadly aligned views together with the ability to clearly register that an endorser is not in complete agreement.
I'm not completely against this suggestion, but could only support if it were accompanied by something which explicitly encourages partial endorsement sections. Then we would be moving away from "yes/no to the entire proposal", and towards building consensus on the key points. —WFC— FL wishlist04:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, WFC, for your comment. I actually had originally expected more editors to express that perspective, and until now, was surprised that no one had. (And I very much agree with you about the talk pages.) But a follow-up question: If you look at the first of the bullet points where I propose a change in wording, you will see that the language that already exists says: "Partial endorsements ("I agree with the first paragraph") are acceptable." Does that sentence satisfy your concern, or is it not enough? Would it help to revise the end of that sentence to: "are acceptable and encouraged when appropriate."? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2013 (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.
Current practice is that every year, around the beginning of October, a major RFC is started to set the rules for the upcoming Arbitration Committee election. To a large extent, the RFC is conducted on a blank slate, with everything being open for discussion, and everything requiring a fresh determination of consensus. In most years, many of the topics arrive at the same, or substantially similar results to the year prior. Rather then spending time discussing every part of the election process, we would be better served starting from the existing rules, and proposing only changes, which would then require consensus to move away from the existing status quo. Doing so would allow us to focus discussion on any actual changes being proposed, and not rehashing the same consensus. This would also allow what would essentially be a codification of the election rules on one persistent page. There would still be an annual RFC, but other then clerical issues, like the exact scheduling, it would be focused on proposals to change the rules, requiring active consensus for a change.
Please limit discussion to the merits of codification; whether this proposal passes or fails, the annual RFC is going to be the place to make any changes to the rules
Support election procedures have largely stabilized; current procedures should continued to be followed unless there is a specific reason to change them. --Jayron3223:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. This is a reasonable compromise between the aim to keep our procedures in line with current consensus and the desire to avoid "election fatigue" (a topic of concern vis-à-vis editor retention and engagement). — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)07:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. As everybody above says, this seems eminently sensible. Consensus can change, but that doesn't mean we need to assume it has changed. AGK[•]11:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, so long as there is still an annual RfC process in which possible amendments can be evaluated, as this proposal says. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Stability in knowing what rules will be applied is laudable. We can always change specific rules that need changing. bd2412T19:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
As someone who's followed more of these elections than anyone should have to, this makes sense to me. Although it might make sense to have a ground-up review at some defined term in the future (perhaps three years hence)? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Also support this notion: over the last few years, there has been little change in the result of the RFC - which incidentally should be started very soon. (The voting should end no later than December 13 so that there is adequate time for vote review and reporting of the results. Thus, the community should be ready for nominations somewhere around November 1.) Risker (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Last year's schedule had nominations start Nov 11, with voting ending Dec 9, so an October 1 RFC should be fine, and that will give this RFC just about a full month if closed promptly. Monty84503:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)#
Support. This is how its done everywhere else on Wikipedia I can think of - you don't need consensus to retain the status quo, you need consensus to change it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support This will become like any other policy or guideline document - there's a version in print, and thus in use, and it's changeable by RfC. I don't see it as being un-wiki, although I do appreciate the sentiments of the two opposers that have commented thus far. Sven ManguardWha?16:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - As is noted by another editor, if anyone has specific proposals for changes to the procedures, they can submit their own RFC in advance. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Although we should decide what to do with Coren's seat. WIll we have a one-year seat this year? That should be decided on an RfC. — ΛΧΣ2117:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. I do have one small proposal for change which I will want to bring up at the RfC, but I think last year's procedures are OK as a starting point for discussion. — Richwales(no relation to Jimbo)03:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Gee, I just assumed we had a set of rules in place. Creating standing rules is the only practical way to run any organization. Imagine if the entire encyclopedia was run this way, or your country's government. Diderot'sdreams(talk)12:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Strong oppose. If there was a stable consensus from year to year, I might agree, but there really hasn't been. This is very much a case of WP:CCC. This is a once a year event, not once a week. There are reasons to go through the process each time. One of which is to establish current community consensus. Setting up aedificiary rules in wiki is a bad thing. And especially since so much about arbcom (some feel by necessity") breaks and/or has exceptions to wiki-wide policies. This is something which needs to be handled every year. And on just a few of the more specific notes, the guides and the questions tend to have yearly tweaking changes, The commission was brand new, and the consensus of secret vs non secret isn't an overwhelming strong one. And finally does anyone "voting" in this rfc honestly believe that such rfcs won't happen anyway, regardless of the outcome of this rfc? As I noted, consensus can change, and so this rfc cannot prevent further rfcs, that's just simply against long standing policy on Wikipedia. - jc3723:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's like saying "let's start from square 0 and go all the way to 100" or "let's start at 40, 50, 60, 70, etc, and work our way toward 100". It's not saying "here's the rules forever", it's saying "let's use this as a starting point to discuss upon". ~Charmlet-talk-01:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
When I initially read Charmlet's (and others') comments, my initial thought was did they read the proposal? It seems to me that those commenting are either commenting based upon what they presume the proposal states, rather than what it actually appears to state, or they presume that we haven't had changes to the rfc nearly every year.
The two key sentences for me are:
"Rather then spending time discussing every part of the election process, we would be better served starting from the existing rules, and proposing only changes, which would then require consensus to move away from the existing status quo." - Seems entirely un-wiki to me. "This is how it is, so now you need a consensus to change it", rather than what it is currently: "It requires a consensus to implement". This is a big difference. This change would seem to go against the principles of WP:CON. Which makes my arguement here a policy argument rather than merely "preferential" as most of the "support comments would appear to be. (In light of that, I wonder what weight the closer will give it...)
"The close of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012 shall be adopted as the standard rules and practices for Arbitration Committee elections going forward." - The closure in question is much broader than merely "clerical issues". It deals with everything. And many of the items in this close are not the same every year, and further, in my estimation, are not necessarily a stable consensus from year to year. I am rather surprised that anyone can look at the RfCs from each year (the actual discussions, not merely the closure) and suggest that these were stable overwhelming consensus that do not/should not need re-affirming each year.
I also don't think that we can even have an RFC like this which supposedly prevents new RFCs. As I said, sounds very un-wiki to me, and contrary to the founding principles. And so the closure of this RFC sounds eminently unenforceable.
Now all that said, I'm more than happy to look in the mirror. How do you feel I am misreading this proposal Floq? - jc3711:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing in here that "supposedly prevents new RFCs"; the fact that you think there is, is what makes me think you're misreading it. If anyone wants to change anything, they can propose it in this year's RFC. This proposal only serves to prevent the automatic discussion and vote on things that no one wants to change; preventing the need to reconfirm everything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The proposal could fairly be read as limiting RFCs on the question to once a year, each October. As practical matter, shortly before the next election is when it makes sense to run any RFCs, and trying to run RFCs at other times is likely to result in substantially reduced participation. That said, the scheduling in October is not the primary point of the proposal, and I wouldn't want to stop someone from running an RFC at some other time if they had a good reason to, for instance if we needed to have an interim election. Monty84514:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. If Jc37's concern is that it prevents ACE RFC's from occuring except in October, then I at least understand. I guess I don't assume there's an "only" between "should" and "be". Even if it were there, I still think this would be a good "plan", but subject to change if a reason for having an earlier RFC ever comes along.
I've sometimes thought that a good time for a "debriefing" RFC would be immediately after an election, when things that worked especially well or especially poorly were fresh in everyone's mind. Not an RFC where changes for the next year would be decided, but just getting everyone's thoughts down and on paper. But by then most people are suffering from election fatigue, I doubt there'd be much participation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Regretfully Oppose: I don't think retroactively saying that the basis rules that were approved last year are to be read as an enduring consensus after multiple years of being asked over and over is the right thing to do. It's concievable that some of the consensus numbers would have changed if people knew that they were contributing to a enduring procedure manual. I to agree that the same questions don't need to be asked every single time, however I do think that we can (at the outset) in this RfC alert the contributors that the consensus agreed to will serve as an enduring consensus until such time that a successful challenge to the consensus has emerged. Hasteur (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: Having seen how entrenched and bureaucratic policies can become once they're implemented, I strongly advise against codifying matters over which there is expected to be considerable dispute. There's a reason we have discussions - namely, to hash out complicated matters in a mutually agreeable way. We should not impose dictates upon ourselves about how much we are allowed to reconsider a topic. Whether codified into policy or not, once you've established certain rules as the "norm" it becomes immeasurably harder to change such guidelines. Wait a few years until an overwhelmingly clear consensus about each of the major issues emerges (if it does), and only then reconsider this proposal. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Are IPs required to register?
Latest comment: 11 years ago58 comments23 people in discussion
Do our policies state that certain IPs are required to register in order to contribute to the project?
Background
Some people believe that every single IP address is a distinct individual account meaning the following.
Any unregistered user who's IP changes—for whatever reason—is in violation of the socking policy
All unregistered users that have a dynamic IP are in violation of WP:SOCK and must register in order to contribute.
For the record, I have been contributing to the project since 2003 with a dynamic IP, which I routinely mention whenever there's a significant lack of WP:AGF. My contribs can be found here.
I would like to get clarification of this please. Do our policies require IPs to register in order to contribute? Thanks for the help. 64.40.54.132 (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
No, IP editors are certainly not required to register to contribute. However, if that is the choice that they make, they need to understand that they will just have to either deal with any scrutiny associated with that IP (whether or not is was them specifically is usually irrelevant) OR create an account so that they only own their own actions and not those of other users of that IP. Technical 13 (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, anyone telling you that you are required to register is simply wrong. Outside very limited circumstances, such as an Arbcom or Community sanction applicable to a specific individual, and as long as you aren't evading a block, you are welcome to edit without registering an account. Do expect to get the occasional message recommending or suggesting an account, and also realize that IP editors are more likely to have other editors fail to WP:AGF with regards to their actions. Monty84516:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The question remains as to why you would choose not to register. Not having a talk page makes it extremely difficult for editors to communicate with you to indicate any trouble they may have with your editing, and it makes it difficult for anyone to be certain that you have actually received a message. There's no policy mandating that you register, that's true, but there are times that I will look at a problem situation and determine that the IP editor is using the dynamic IP specifically to make communication difficult. In situations like that I'm far more likely to semi-protect articles or soft-block ranges.
Basically, if you choose to make it difficult to talk to you, you must also choose to make it so no one needs to talk to you.—Kww(talk) 16:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the comment that not having a talk page makes it extremely difficult for editors to communicate with you to indicate any trouble they have with your editing. An IP address does have a talk page associated. It is impossible to communicate with an unregistered editor who is using dynamic IP addresses, as are typical, for instance, of users using US telephone carriers. It is not difficult to communicate with an unregistered editor who is using a static IP address, as is typical, for instance, of users using a US cable carrier. Is Kww specifically referring to dynamic IP addresses? Is Kww aware that US cable carriers, among others, normally assign static IP addresses? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
How can registered editors know that you have a static IP address? Most editors with static IP addresses wouldn't even know that themselves. They live in blissful ignorance. I've found it mostly pointless to post on the Talk page of almost any editor with just an IP address. Maybe you're the all round good guy here, but you are choosing to place yourself in the same category as editors with less pure motives than yourself. And please realise that an IP address is a crappy handle to have when you're part of a conversation. I can reasonably easily remember names like Kww, Monty, Technical, and the obvious Robert McClenon, but, especially if there's more than one in a conversation, IP addresses just blend into an amorphous cloud. You will be mistaken for others, or people will just avoid talking with you. I simply don't understand why anyone would choose not to register. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The way that a registered editor can sometimes check whether an IP address is static is by checking whether it has a long editing history of editing certain articles. That does not always work, because the unregistered editor may have a variety of interests, like many registered editors. I agree with HiLo48 that a 4-part combination of numbers is a crummy handle, and that a registered editor cannot be expected to keep one string of numbers straight from another. Like HiLo48, I don't understand any valid reason why anyone chooses not to register. There may be misconceptions about disadvantages of registering. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Kww that unregistered editors should be strongly encouraged to register. (I belong to the minority who would prefer to require unregistered editors to register, but I know that I am in a long-term minority that will not change Wikipedia policy.) However, it is not difficult to communicate with unregistered editors who use static IP addresses. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Your assertion that cable operators typically assign static IPs is untrue. Most cable and DSL operators use DHCP, so the addresses change periodically. There's generally a fairly long lease on an IP, but most residential IPs are dynamic.—Kww(talk) 23:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
It appears that some cable operators either assign static IP addresses or assign leases of such long life that they appear to be static. This can be seen from the fact that a few of them have long stable edit histories. I agree with Kww and with HiLo48 that there is no obvious reason to choose not to register. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. There have been over the years a number of very dedicated users who for very good reasons (you need to talk to them individually) have chosen to edit on Wikipedia with only IP addresses. Some of them are fixed addresses and some do have dynamic addresses. By dedicated, I would say they would even qualify to become admins or receive other "privileges" had they bothered to register and really would deserve such recognition as well. This is a significant part of our community, and I am indeed offended that there are some here who would try to drive them away from Wikipedia, as if we need to alienate and discourage even more people from participating.
There are already some strong limitations to editing on Wikipedia without formally registering, and I find it amazing that they are willing to put up with those limitations and still make amazing contributions. While certainly it is important when moderating and evaluating the quality of an edit to perhaps look at edits by unregistered users with extra scrutiny, you by far and away shouldn't have a knee jerk reaction to revert those edits or assume bad faith.
I certainly don't think this apparently personal crusade against unregistered users should be encouraged, and it really should be shut down. If you want to communicate with such a user, try to address specific problems on talk pages of articles they commonly edit on, or engage them in discussion areas elsewhere. While it certainly is harder to carry on a civil conversation with unregistered editors, it isn't impossible. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
What part of "there are times that I will look at a problem situation and determine that the IP editor is using the dynamic IP specifically to make communication difficult. In situations like that I'm far more likely to semi-protect articles or soft-block ranges." did you interpret as a "personal crusade against unregistered users"?—Kww(talk) 17:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: I have not carried on some form of indiscriminate "campaign against unregistered users," as alleged by IP174. That's simply not true. I only targeted suspected socks of a banned editor. That is perfectly legitimate behavior. That thread at AN/I was started by an IP related to a whole bunch of related and disruptive IPs, many of whom have been blocked. Some of them even edited material related to the banned User:KBlott in such a manner that raised suspicion that most of those IPs are actually his block evading sock puppets. Even IP174, who started that thread, admitted this. I only placed a tag on their user pages, with no harassment. Sometimes I encouraged them to register an account in the spirit described in this thread. This tagging happened only occasionally, and hasn't been what it is trumped up to be by IP174, who has driven a revenge campaign against me. Ignorant editors who admit they have not investigated the matter, a huge policy violation demonstrating a lack of good faith, have then bought the IP's arguments, even though some admins defended me because they could recognize I was tagging the right block evading IPs and performing a valuable vandal fighting service. Because things are now stale, so an SPI would be a waste of time, and also since SPIs are time consuming, I have dropped the matter and will let admins do the tagging from now on. The editor still needs to be monitored because block evasion is still forbidden, and monitoring block evaders, which is all I was doing, is the proper thing to do. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Brangifer, I was only trying to explain the comment about the "crusade" to someone who thought it was directed against him or her, by showing where the actual discussion was taking place. That's why I said "some are calling". I didn't intend to imply in this posting any personal position on the subject. I hope that your editing will be less stressful in the future! —Anne Delong (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Your post above was mostly half-truths and non-truths. Any editor reviewing the contributions of these editors on your hitlist will soon discover that there are multiple distinct areas of article topics for various editors. For those interested in this, please read the contributions of KBlott, the original scapegoat account used to associate all these IPs, to conclude they are sockpuppets and block them from editing (nonsense logic used). However, alternative health topics are ones that I had attempted to be involved with and some may not be able to differentiate between "alternative health" and "medicine biology" . Most are clearly involved with music, mostly Beatles articles and never edited a medical or health article in their existence. Yes there are a few others that appear to be involved in the same professional biologist (maybe) level of discussion and those also appear as sockpuppets of KBlott to me, also. To get down to particulars of your statement here, let's discuss your statement above:
"Some of them even edited material related to the banned User:KBlott in such a manner that raised suspicion that most of those IPs are actually his block evading sock puppets. Even IP174, who started that thread, admitted this."
There is a big difference between "most" and what I referred to as "one editor" from a Binksternet edit diff that was brought into the ANI complaint against you. This is similar to the gross exaggerations you recently made on your hitlist[[13]] page where you stated "IP admits". There is no admission of any relationship to my IP usage, or any other IP editor, unlike the implications make there. It is becoming quite apparent that you know better than to do this. This smear campaign you are running on several venue talk pages against me is nothing short of WP:FORUMSHOPing for support of your policy violations. Again, just more harassment and more blatant disregard for Wikipedia policies. Now you have dragged this piss and moan, rabble rousing from ANI onto yet another talk page. When will it stop? I suppose it should be raised at ANI (in a fresh thread?) since you seem to have so much time to spend on this. After reviewing many of the IPs on the list and actually reading contributions (I doubt you have) I would be willing to group them into actually related categories. KBlott made edits from T.O. Primus and my ISP is several hundred kilometres from there. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Let me clarify two points and leave it at that, since we will likely never completely agree.
Your statement that "....KBlott, the original scapegoat account used to associate all these IPs, to conclude they are sockpuppets and block them from editing..." is not true. I didn't know anything about KBlott when I started noticing these IPs which were getting blocked, and then noticed that they then evaded blocks by continuing to edit as other IPs from the same area. Their subject matter and MOs even continued, but as time went on they seemed to learn to move onto other areas where they might not be discovered. This is typical "good hand, bad hand" socking where a banned editor stays away from old stomping grounds. Anyone who would expect to see KBlott, and person of greater than average intelligence, come back and edit the same areas is very naive and doesn't understand how many socks work. When they goof up by revealing a connection, one of their obvious socks will even comment on the matter. Old behavior from socks. Nothing new.
KBlott only came into the picture "for me" when some of those IPs, which were socks of blocked IPs, made suspicious edits of KBlott material and also claimed that they were being outed. That was very odd and something one sees when an IP slips up and reveals more than they are supposed to know. Since I didn't know anything about KBlott other than his contribution history, I noted the likely connection, which was a reasonable supposition. So the KBlott connection had nothing to do with anyone being blocked, to my knowledge, and I don't recall having anything to do with any blocks either. They usually happened before I discovered the IPs and I just tagged those connected to blocked IPs. Most of my work was keeping track of history, not creating it. Other editors were finding these IPs and admins were blocking them for their behavior.
As far as forum shopping, that's pretty far out. I was only responding to mention of the AN/I case and explaining. An editor has a right to clarify matters when they are mentioned. I didn't bring it here. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I think KWW summed it up nicely, note his statement that he "will look at a problem situation and determine that the IP editor is using the dynamic IP specifically to make communication difficult" (emphasis mine). If it appears that an IP editor is intentionally using his IP address to make communication difficult (perhaps by IP hopping to avoid responding to an issue brought up on their talk page) a problem exists. Likewise, if an IP editor takes part in a discussion with two different IP addresses, they must be diligent about self declaring the connection between those addresses, otherwise they are engaged in sockpuppetry. RyanVesey02:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
That is definitely an interesting point KWW makes. It makes collaboration difficult since such dynamic IPs can't even accurately and completely reconstruct where they have edited or which IPs they have used. They don't "choose" the IP, and the next time they edit it's another one. This is just another good reason to register an account. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
None at all. The main rule is that Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia which anyone can edit." For some reason some people seem to think that a requirement to register would prevent someone from editing, but that's not true at all. On the contrary. It is a perverse mindset which seeks to encourage editors to not register, or to oppose registration when there isn't one single good reason not to do so.
I favor allowance for a short time of editing as an IP, and then a requirement to register if one wishes to continue to have access to editing (and maybe commenting) tools. I include commenting tools because most disruption occurs on talk pages. Unfortunately this would still allow for the vast majority of vandalism, but it would also get serious editors into the fold with all the advantages that entails.
Since the advantages are so great, and the disadvantages are also great, there are many editors who wish that registration was required, but so far that policy has not been adopted, so we live with the situation as it is. For some reason we are controlled by those perverse minds mentioned above. That means, as is so eloquently described above by many, that IPs will have to live with distrust and some degree of irritation, and will always be rated with second class citizens. That's sad, but it can't be any other way. Some static IPs build a reputation for excellent work and gain respect. More power to them. Unfortunately they are the exception. Other IPs (dynamic), even if they do good work, don't get credit for it because they have no track record and can't/won't collaborate. That's unfortunate, when they could so easily remedy the situation. Some seem to be "gluttons for punishment." For those who don't understand English, and those who will try to deliberately misunderstand me, that expression has nothing to do with "punishment". It applies to those who deliberately choose the hard road with mud along the way and no rewards, when an easier one is available with greatly eased and more effective editing, with great rewards. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll wait and see if someone can come up with a good, rational reason to not register, but right now, that's my perspective too Brangifer. It means that I tend to see editors who've been here for a long and are not registered as somehow irrational. If they can't think straight on the registration front, it's hard to give great credit to arguments they might come up with in a discussion that don't make much sense at first glance. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason not to register an account, and, apart from the other very valid reasons (an own sandbox, a watchlist, moving pages, starting new articles), there is the additional reason that it can help with flagrant bad faith assumptions. That said, IP editors are every bit as valid an editor as any other editor. If you're not actively trying to abusively use multiple IP's you're not in violation of the sockpuppet policy. At the same time, while in a discussion, and your IP keeps changing, it is a good idea to say you are changing IP's, and that the other side is talking to the same person that just happens to change of IP address a lot (yet another reason why it is more convenient to create an account). The onus of avoiding the perception of votestacking are on you as an editor, because others are unable to differentiate between one person using multiple IP's and multiple people using multiple IP's. Only the editor themselves can. While creating an account can shield you from the blatant bad faith assumptions, the problem is not not having an account, the problems are the bad faith assumptions. That I can think of a good reason not to create an account doesn't mean you have to create an account. If you want to take the activist route, just keep taking it to ANI. I'm not sure if it is worth the hassle, but it's definitely your right as an editor. It might be worth asking yourself however if you are just not creating an account to make a point, and if you are, ask yourself what the point is you are making, and if it can't be made better in a different way. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a very good reason to edit without an account: you get to experience the community as any newcomer who edits as IP. For people that consider that the do not bite the newcomers behavioral guideline is important, it's a good way to find editors who are abusing it and keep them in check. I know of at least one IP editor known to avoid an account for this reason. {{tongueincheek|Of course, if you don't care about following and enforcing [[WP:BITE]] you won't find this is a "rational reason".}} ;-) Diego (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I care a lot about following and enforcing WP:BITE, but don't find that a "rational reason" in the slightest. Playing the deception card is NOT editing in good faith to begin with. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
If the user discloses the connection between various of the IPs used when editing on the same area, how is that "playing the deception card"? And if the user edits on totally unrelated areas, why do you need to know it's the same person? Diego (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, how else do you expect someone to experience the behavior of editors toward newcomers when using a registered account? Diego (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
By observation, obviously. I think you're playing a very silly red herring game here. Police don't have to allow themselves to be murdered in order to catch murderers. Your idea has nothing to do with a normal IP editor not registering anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is quickly moving past the important issue: Nobody should really care about the reason for a specific user not editing under an account, just about that editors not using an account shouldn't be treated differently than those with accounts. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
As an editor with non-anonymous account name, I have found that my decision to be open and honest about who I am, has resulted in other editors actively seeking out, and using facts about my private life, against me (eg. COI claims based on affiliations). Anonymous editors are automatically afforded a level of privacy not shared by those of us who are more open. This double standard is not right. I know one editor who has edited an article about themselves (anonymity rules means I can't say anything), and I know an editor who claimed to be a professor, when they weren't. --Iantresman (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
@HiLo48: so, you've never heard of police going undercover?
@Martijn Hoekstra: This, exactly. This all issue smells of some people wanting to know who's been here enough time to register, so that they look at everybody else as instantly suspicious and block them preemptively instead of just tracking what they're actually doing and correcting only their mistakes. As if being registered made a difference and a problematic editor couldn't just register multiple throwaway accounts. I understand the need of some tools to fight vandalism, and it wouldn't worry me if it wasn't for the huge potential for false positives and the severe damage they produce. Diego (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I too have privacy issues because of death threats. This is NOT a reason not to register, but just to use an anonymous handle here. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe it. Are you aware that an unregistered IP address can be geolocated with simple tools actually made easily available in Wikipedia. As a registered user, other users can know no more about me than I choose to tell them. If I say nothing about who I am, nobody can ever know. I think those last few posts were made in ignorance. Unregistered users actually have LESS anonymity than registered users. HiLo48 (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't give a flying F whether you believe it or not. I know what happened in my case, and it wouldn't have happened if I had been an IP the entire time, geolocation or not. If I had to do it over again, I would not register simply to prevent the disruption to my life. GregJackPBoomer!14:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
So, as to a good, rational reason not to register. When I did recent-changes patrol, I often found that IP editors were frequently making minor but necessary corrections such as typo fixes, spelling/grammar corrections, and the like. These were minor and totally uncontroversial actions, and if they'd had to register to do it, many may not have bothered. When I was myself on an extended wikibreak, I still read Wikipedia, and made the same type of gnoming contributions anonymously. I couldn't be bothered to log into my account, and in fact was deliberately avoiding doing so, but I'm still going to change "teh" to "the" if I run across it. No one would have any realistic need to communicate about that type of change. However, I agree that editors who are going to be actively engaged in the community beyond very minor and totally uncontroversial fixes should generally register. It's easier to differentiate, in one's memory, "Seraphimblade" from "HiLo48" than "363.731.818.991" from "515.880.310.191". (Yes, those addresses are deliberately invalid.) It's also known that if you post on my talk page, you are indeed contacting me, and it won't be reassigned to a different person or off into the ether tomorrow, and that my edit history is mine alone, not that of several different people who happened to pop on through the same NAT. Just because registration isn't required doesn't mean it isn't, in many cases, strongly encouraged and highly advisable. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Hoo boy, this again. We can argue this until the laser cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that the community has, in the past, sent petitions to WMF to require Sign In To Edit with heavy consensus, and WMF said "LOLNO", and I recall it being said by Jimbo Hisself that anon editing is a fundamental part of the Wikipedia vision, no matter what issues are associated with it. So unless there is a seismic shift in the WMF and Jimbo decides he'd rather wet a line in a pond with no fish than hang around with Wikipedians, any and all arguments about whether or not IPs should be allowed to edit/there should be a requirement to register to edit are nothing more than sound and fury, signifying nothing. - The BushrangerOne ping only10:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
To summarise here
IP editors do NOT have to register,
IP editors should be treated the same as if they are registered,
Some IP editors feel they have been treated with prejudice while they were IP editors,
Some registered editors do not see the value of IP editors not registering as they have,
Some registered editors do not like IP edits because their names are hard to remember,
Some registered editors do NOT like IP editors because evaluating their edit values based on number of edits and/or talk page flags by other editors (as opposed to the actual text meaning) is hard to do if they IP hop,
These factors can generate a prejudice against IP editors by some registered editors.
As a specific point, you didn't list the difficulty in user talk communication. As a general point, I don't like how you set this up as a dichotomy between users editing from a registered account and editors not editing from a registered account. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
What difference would a string of numbers or a string of alpha characters make when you just click on the edit or talk link to communicate? Please expand. Are we lumping IP hopping problems with IP editing? 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
A username (genrally) has meaning. An IP doesn't generally have this. This helps with identification.
An IP is almost never permanent. The time between changing IP addresses can change in minutes or years, and there is also a wide range of communication timings.
Without requiring further investigation, an editor can never know if the specific IP address is dynamic or not. An editor looking to communicate with an IP editor on their talkpage will have to take a look around past contributions and/or the talkpage of the IP editor and make an estimation whether or not the editor is more or less fixed, with a chance of being wrong, or risk leaving messages to the wrong person. This is a likely threshold for easy communication.
We? Why would you be lumping IP hopping problems with IP editing? You seem rather determined to defend the opposite
I don't like how you set this up as a dichotomy between users editing from a registered account and editors not editing from a registered account. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the role of registration is actually the opposite of what people think it is - it essentially confers a degree of pseudonymity, reducing the potential value of Wikipedia's internal databases to assailants (mostly of the legal variety). For example, if Joe Blow goes on a page and quickly jots down some juicy revelation about a litigious celebrity, their lawyers can show up at his ISP without visiting Wikimedia headquarters/servers first. Encouraging editors to avoid this in favor of pseudonyms may be to their benefit, but it should be accompanied by a very serious, specific privacy policy that guarantees actual destruction of the records of which IP logged into an account within a fairly short amount of time, to be literally unrecoverable no matter how many fancy blue-backed papers are served or who they are served on, in order to avoid the potential risks of having lawyers getting too comfortable dropping by Wikimedia. Wnt (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
We shouldn't scare the ips off Wikipedia. This is a bit like the whole WP:NEWT thing, where new editors were driven off Wikipedia by well meaning but careless editors deleting their pages. Repeatedly placing sockpuppet tags on talk pages will not stimulate good editing. If we want to get these IPs to edit as good as a regiastered user, we might as well treat them like any other user. Konveyor Beltexpress your horrorat my edits20:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
This isn't about scaring anybody away. It's about expecting new editors, once they have been here a while, to do the rational, helpful and cooperative thing by registering. And we can never treat IP editors the same as registered editors, for all the reasons explained above. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that registering is the right thing to do, but there's no reason to excessively intimidate IPs by reporting them for WP:SOCK as in the instances described above. Doing so will only scare IPs away from actually signing up because they might be led to believe that all of Wikipedia is like the aforementioned abuses. Konveyor Beltexpress your horrorat my edits23:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
While I am starting to agree that IPs should be encouraged to join up, most of these templates are just abrupt and rude sounding (and some editors). I have stated it before that when new users come from say (and especially) Usenet groups and some editor flags your talk page with some official looking message that states "If you do that again you will be blocked" (more or less) the first thing one thinks is "hmmm.. this bully P.O.S. is just trolling here". What would one do on Usenet? Ignore him...good for a block for not collaborating, or tell him to shove it where the sun doesn't shine (more or less)... good for a block. A can't win situation. Now the newbie is pissed off and wants revenge. He gets a new IP address somehow and gets on again. Somebody nails him/her for being a sockpuppet. Well SOaB! "This time I was trying to behave and didn't think that was called for." "Now I will really show these pricks", and so the scenario escalates. In short these templates are the first thing that should go out the window. If you are an admin it needs to be announced. If you don't have time to type something encouraging don't bother unless you want to edit Wikipedia all on your own in ten years. As an added benefit with this scenario, is the other IPs (such as myself, apparently) that get dragged into this mess because they used the same ISP as the last "disruptive" labelled editor. More ownership from the WikiGods? Now you may have twenty or thirty angry editors (increasing exponentially). Some will never come back. Some will try again. Some will try to get even. Then the admin and admin wannabees will say "See, I was right! This editor is disruptive!". Some editors realize this situation and can see past their own egos but probably weren't bullies on the playground as children either. Some don't and don't want to see this. Most new editors are easy prey. If WP wants to increase the editor flock it needs to tone these templates down. The banks are doing it. The cell phone companies are doing it. Most utilities are doing it. Wikipedia needs to get with the 21st century of high tech messaging. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
#1. I'm one of the long-term never-going-to-be-anything-but folks that edits from an IP. Registration has no benefit; I do not care if I get to assign myself a handle, or use special colors/formatting in my uid. Those things make wikipedia into a forum -- they are the equivalent of avatars. Some folks enjoy facebook, googlePlus, signing into microsoft passport, and letting AOL read their email. Jimbo Wales is right: we want wikipedia to be forever friendly to anonymous editing. There are key encyclopedic reasons to appeal to no-registration-required editors, some of which have been covered already. If you are an average consumer, and you notice a typo, we want you to be able to click editBeta and flip teh into the, and then go on with your life. It is easy, it is fun, it gives you a sense of accomplishment. *I* just edited the number-four most popular website in the known universe, ssskwwweeeeee! That is a good thing. Wikipedia should spread joy, when possible, and make the barrier to editing as low as it can be, without catering to spammers. There are also special niches where anonymity is mandatory, or the edit may never happen: whistleblowers both corporate and governmental, sensitive or controversial topics of all stripes and sorts, newbies too embarrassed or too flummoxed to choose a uid, and so on and so forth. Some of them are seemingly-trifling BUT ACT AS A BARRIER TO EDITING, and others are outright hard-n-fast preventative of certain rare but crucial edits. The best way to make sure we keep the barrier low, and the flow of edits as deep and wide as it wishes to be, is anonymous editing, with pseudonymous editing as a second-class citizen, and editing-under-your-real-name-and-government-issued-ID-number as Right Out.
#2. I for one would vote for server-anonymized edits. The only reason you can see my IP at all, is because wikimedia policy is currently to record that IP, and use a bot to auto-sign my edits. This is necessary, of course, for many purposes... if there was *no* somewhat-unique identifier for my recent work, how would you talk to me? But consider this: wikipedia webservers *could* in fact assign me a visible IP identifier which was randomly generated at the time my browser-session-cookie was created. That way, I could get a new IP whenever I wished. Of course, by using IP spoofing on my end, I can do exactly that. For now, wikipedia policy is to use the real IP, and assume 99% of sockpuppets and 90% of spam operators do not have the capability to spoof. This is a reasonable tradeoff, methinks. Somebody that is under actual threat, that needs anonymous access, will figure out how to do it. (They'll definitely spoof their IP and use an anonymizing service and/or Tor ... they may or may not decide to register an account, to hide their 'ip' from non-sysadmins on wikipedia.) Anyways, the current consensus seems pretty clear: the average registered-editor-with-an-account cannot understand *why* those darn irrational unhelpful uncooperative IP-only idiots^H^H^H^H^H 'new' editors are too scared to register for a username here on our beautiful wikipedia community! I hope I have given you a bit of a jolt. There are some of use who have been around a long time. We're not irrational, any more than the usual human. But we think long-term. Facebook, google, the NSA, and your friendly local ISP just love to know everything about you. The *other* websites in the top five all 'encourage' you to register, offering you extra goodies, preventing you from using special features, and so on, just like many of the editors speaking out here seem to wish wikipedia would do. But in the long run, I want wikipedia to be even more anonymity-friendly than it already is.
#3. I want people who visit wikipedia to think... hey, I just used that website without registering... that was easy! I want them to wonder *why* all the other sites are trying to track them, identify them, follow them, tag them, categorize them, analyze them. I want them to get annoyed at it. If wikipedia stays strong, and remembers her roots, sooner or later the wikipedia way -- Anonymous Friends Are Always Welcome otherwise known as WP:AFAAW -- might someday be the norm on the internet. So, if you've started to come around, rather than assuming bad faith of any IP editor (must be a sockpuppet spammer troublemaker *or* a moron newbie *or* both simultaneously), and instead of seeing it as irrational/unhelpful/uncooperative/idiotic, try and widen your horizons a little. Wikipedia needs some form of pseudonymity, to facilitate conversations, and to make it into an online community, for people into that sort of thing. But I'd rather that every template, every policy discussion, and every online-community-converstation in talkpages and so on, started with the core assumption that Anonymous Friends Are Always Welcome. That means, in particular, that wikipedia is an online encyclopedia containing a summarization of human knowledge -- not a datamining website like facebook, not a datamining website like google, and not a datamining website like MI-5. Wikipedia is not the phone book. It's a policy; look it up. But maybe it means more than you think. Wikipedia might someday be the antidote to those datamining operations, with luck... or, as somebody above predicted, Jimbo Wales will get old and retire, and finally we can get rid of idiot anonymous IP folks. I'm hoping for the former, but statistically speaking I'd be a fool not to bet on the latter. Help me prove that statistics sometimes lie, please. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
p.s. I was actually looking for something else entirely, when I stumbled across this policy discussion. If you need further response from me, you can use my talkpage; I can say from experience that cable modem IP addresses are good for months at a time, sometimes years, nowadays (the better to track you with my dears). You may now continue about your non-tinfoil-hat-related business. :-) Carry on. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, the thing is, that "pseudonym" feature does exist - you can register a new account. While doing so repeatedly is a big no-no, the actual ability of admins to crack down on people who don't commit continual abuses and don't go back to old accounts is technically quite limited. And the thing is, if you edit under your IP, which is public, you're inviting anybody on the entire Internet to prowl around, try to find a mapping of that IP to a username on another site, social engineer it out of your ISP, or (if they're serious) get it by subpoena from that ISP. So for the user's sake, I can't picture a circumstance in which anonymity under a username, perhaps switching to a new one every once in a while if you have some reason you want to, is going to be less anonymous than anonymity under an IP address. Though of course neither one is really, not without other steps that sort of moot everything. Wnt (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Registration encouragement page or template?
If there isn't one perhaps a Registration encouragement document could be created. I have been told that I should register, that I must register, that I am breaking the rules and that the benefits are wonderful. Nobody has ever told me what, or told me where to find out what, these benefits are as any kind of incentive. This could be changed to the positive side and further encouragement for IPs to register, instead of making them feel they are being chastised and causing them to run for the hills. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I misstated the intent of my message (slow typer and lost my thought :)). I guess the point was, telling newbies that it's wonderful... I always think..."so what?". I have never heard or read what the actual benefits are with sample usages (why) indicated. People like to be informed consumers these days and the reason the Internet works. The advertisers know this fact and pour billions of dollars into it, keeping it alive and growing. Now a template, like the welcome one would be way to crowded for that kind of detail but a recommended read or even a gentle nudge for editors to use (a polished encouragement page) would be in order there. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago32 comments14 people in discussion
In the case of 3 reverts sometimes the 'culprit' is just reinforcing a previously held consensus against one user who reverts by editing. As things stand the 3RR breaker still gets it in the neck. Wouldn't a better system be the automatic triggering of a DRN (Dispute Resolution Notice) upon 3RR. That is less likely to get users' backs up.Z07x10 (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
No. If the previous consensus still holds, there should be another editor willing to help out. If two editors alone are mano-a-mano, then there is at least no sign of a current consensus. Talk, and establish a new consensus (which may be the old one, sure). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I've seen cases where the timescale of the 3RR is within minutes, and usually only one editor that participated in the consensus is around to revert the changes against an IP or new editor that demands the change even when told of the talk page consensus and/or to take to the talk page (And this is usually when the consensus was recently arrived at, within the last few months). --MASEM (t) 17:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The world is not, usually, going to end if the wrong version is allowed to stand for a few hours. It's grating, but it's better than the alternative of evaluating each claim of "consensus is on my side". And if you go through 6 RRs "within minutes", I wonder if either side has bothered to discuss the issue on the talk page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
MASEM. Thanks. That summed up my point perfectly. Reverts to an article state that has existed for more than a month should not be flagged under 3RR, whereas all edits (reverts or otherwise) should be flagged if they are changing back to an article state only held for a few days or less. This would ease the burden on admins, flag genuine vandals and force the protagonists to take out a DRN rather than someone from a previously held consensus having to do it after getting it in the neck for 3RR. The burden of work/blame should be on new protagonists not the other way round, which will just drive existing contributors away.Z07x10 (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The point is, if people really believe that a consensus exists, then they will come to your aid. This way, if both sides do four reverts each but one of them (supported by consensus) consists of two different people, then the one person going against consensus will have violated 3RR while the two people restoring consensus will have only made two reverts each. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 18:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
But Z07x10 you are still edit warring on Eurofighter Typhoon it doesnt matter if you are in the "right" the large number of reverts that you made to that article (for which you have one block already for edit warring) is clearly disruptive, being "right" is not an excuse to 3RR or to edit war. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
And if I had an account on both my work PC, home PC and wireless I could make 6 reverts without 3RR. If I was a student moving between classrooms, maybe even more still. Sometimes the other parties among your consensus don't read their talk page regularly, or have become so damn sick of the other party edit-warring that they just give-up as happened in this instance.
Even when I personally go to the trouble of raising a DRN, I have to wait for an admin to freeze it rather than the DRN auto-freezing it. If the DRN auto-froze it and provided a DR link, it would force people to DR instead of edit-warring.Z07x10 (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this notion of "there should be another editor willing to help out" is a bit overly simplistic. It should generally be true of higher profile articles with more traffic, but there are so many articles that are not heavily watchlisted. And those editors who are watching are very busy, and they also take wikibreaks. Moreover, editors are often reluctant to get involved in issues that do not interest/affect them. So, if another editor is determined to ignore the process at WP:EDITCONSENSUS, one is stuck trying to canvass third parties to get involved. It's not unusual that notes on Wikiprojects and noticeboards generate no interest. And, frankly, while there are a number of experienced editors who are willing to provide assistance when asked, you can't always go to that well. Those editors are also working on their own stuff. And one can't initiate a 3O for every dispute. So while I appreciate the sentiment behind the idea that someone will come to your aid, it is a bit naive applying it across the board and in some cases it simply favours editors who want to bulldoze the existing status quo and have no interest in discussion or compromise.
How that fits in to the bigger 3RR question, I do not know, and I don't think I am advocating an exception from 3RR or anything. But I did want to express the opinion that the issue is not that simple. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
As an example suppose Stephen Hawking was contributing on quantum theory, or some world leading expert was contributing to evolution theory and someone got together a few people of an unspecified religion to tamper with a consensus on their work which had held for several years, which resulted in a admin blocking them for 3RR. Hopefully people can see how ridiculously inappropriate 3RR would be in this instance. There should be a simple button to freeze a page and bring it to an admin's attention and direct people to DR.
As an additional comment, it does actually state in wiki policy that, like science and maths, consensus is not a democracy. So counting Rs is not really appropriate.Z07x10 (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
If people coordinated like that it would violate policy as well, meatpuppetry. If Steven Hawking showed up here and used reliable sources fine, but an argument from authority would get him absolutely nowhere. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
@Skeezix1000: If the article is low traffic, with few editors watching, and you can't entice anyone in related projects to get interested, then there's very little weight to the idea that there's an existing consensus version to which you're entitled to force a return. Note how WP:CCC and WP:OWN are policy, and WP:STATUSQUO is not. In that case WP:EDITCONSENSUS should give way to WP:CON#Reaching consensus through discussion. Diego (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Diego, I completely disagree with you there. Referring to WP:CON#Reaching consensus through discussion really kind of misses the point (it assumes two good faith editors who are willing to discuss and compromise, which is not the issue we are discussing), and it certainly doesn't trump or exclude WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Not sure why you are referencing WP:CCC or WP:OWN, because those aren't the issue - no one is disputing those two policies. We are discussing where the onus on advocating for change should fall. I would suggest that the onus should be placed with the person who insists on bulldozing over opposition and isn't interested in discussion. You seem to be suggesting that if there is only one editor at a given time watching an article, it's open season. That can't be right. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Skeezix1000, and I (partially) disagree with you. You forget the too frequent case when the editor who's not willing to listen and compromise is the one that arrived first to the article. The nature of the Wiki software is that not version is better than over any other per se, as all can be changed easily; there's no reason at all why the longstanding version should be preferred if someone else sees the need for a constructive change (we are not talking about vandalism here either).
If the editors that have the article in their watchlist want to oppose the change, they have exactly the same onus to discuss the changes and accept a consensus as the newcomer, no more, no less. Any attempt to give some sense of entitlement over the article to editors just because they had participated in it earlier is misguided, and should never be accepted. The encyclopedia is built by expanding and refining articles, not by keeping them frozen at some arbitrary version. Diego (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
@Skeezix, agree that bulldozering happens and 3RR can favor editors who want to bulldoze rather than discussion or compromise, but volume of traffic does not seem a factor to me. I can only offer that while some edits get replaced over time, others on more active pages got replaced faster, and for any contentious page the WP:BRD simply does not work and any content is not a consensus so much as flavor of the day and a rugby scrum. Wikipedia has a list of contentious pages but you can also tell by the history having thousands of changes and the Talk having many posts, some very lengthy and replies going many levels deep to the point it's more a blog than sectioned topic discussions. Contentious by nature of being contentious will tend to game whatever rules there are so mostly use guides in verbal bludgeon or distraction from serious discussions. Markbassett (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
On a slightly similar note, I think it would be better if 3RR was modifed to prohibit "repeat edits" rather than reverts. I recenyly witnessed a case where two editors were going at it: editor 1 added something to an artice, editor 2 reverted, and in the end editor 1 had added the content four times and editor 2 had reverted him four times. Editor 1 ran off to ANI where editor 2 was duly threatened with a block. I was completely independent of the editors and article, and pointed out at the case file that only blocking one editor was unfair: if one were to be blocked then the other should be too, on the basis of one editor adding the same content four times and the other removing it four times. I was put in my place with the explanation only one editor had violated 3RR. I still don't see how that is fair. Both editors warred to the same extent but only one faced a sanction. The current wording of the policy gives one party an advantage in a dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
No, the 3RR is perfectly fine as it is now. The first edit from Editor 1 is encouraged by WP:BOLD, so why should that be punished? Both editors may be equally guilty of stubbornness, but only one breached the rules. Behavior policies are skewed to allow change and encourage discussion; not to protect an established version - which would simply give advantage to the other party, and would make extremely difficult to enhance most articles.
The correct behavior that editor 2 should have followed to avoid a block is to first discuss the change made by the other editor, trying to incorporate their concerns. In my experience most edit wars are avoided if you rewrite the comment made by the other party in a form that you find acceptable, instead of simply deleting it. If all that fails, then looking for wider comment is the only option, even if it takes some time; single-handed forcing back a version that simply disregards the reasons of the other editor is not OK. Diego (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree with that. If both editors each make the same edit four times each there is no fundamental difference in behavior. It is simply gaming the system if one editor gets the block. Editor 1 has no more or less right than editor 2 to impose their version. To say that editor 1 is compliant while editor 2 has broken the rule just because the first edit isn't a "revert" makes a mockery of the rule. It is a bad rule, poorly thought out, and too many times it is applied in an unfair manner. Betty Logan (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. The 3RR is functionally equivalent to a WP:0RR where blind change is allowed and blind revert is not; just giving some more leeway for discussion in the Edit summaries. At some point you need to decide what the default outcome of a disagreement should be, prior to discussion; it's impossible to give both editors exactly the same weight - either the page is allowed to be changed, or it isn't; no matter what, one editor will be favored over the other.
If you draw a bright line, staying one step right under it is a objective difference in behavior against the editor overstepping it. If you forced both editors to follow 1RR instead of three, you'd end just the same with the page being changed, so why having up to 3 allowed reverts would make it any worse? I prefer either letting the change survive for one day or forcing editors to try alternatives much better than always preferring the stable version. Diego (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
We have plenty of policies and guidelines and procedures to determine the "default" outcome in an editing dispute. The purpose of 3RR is not to determine an outcome but purely to service our policy on edit warring. Our edit-warring guidelines are there to curb an editing pattern i.e. it is a behavioral sanction. Now, as it stands, 3RR goes to great pains to point that being "right" doesn't make you exempt, but the wording of the guideline makes a "bold" edit exempt? So four edits that reverse an incorrect edit is a sanctionable offence, but four edits that make an incorrect edit isn't because one of them counts as a "bold" edit? What is that about? If this guideline is supposed to be a purely behavioral guideline it shouldn't be making exceptions for bold edits: if two editors are caught up in a cycle of making the same edit, then the only thing that matters at a behavioral level is the number of times they each make the same edit. If you are looking at behavior, then 3RR can easily be tweaked to be the "three restore rule". If you restore your edit three times then that counts as a violation. That means the bold editor and the reverter are both punished at the same number of edits. Betty Logan (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
While I agree with the spirit of what you say, unfortunately that would have the effect that the second editor could just stop right after the fourth insertion, and then have only Editor 1 banned (after just 1 bold insertion and 3 reverts). Then, the next day Editor 2 could simply make a single revert, while the first editor is unable to edit or discuss. This allows for still worse gaming of the rules. Unless you suggest that both editors are banned only if the second editor performs a fourth revert, and none of them if they allow the fourth insertion to remain; that could make sort of sense, maybe. Though I still don't like that it encourages Editor 2 to perform the full edit war to keep the "right" version, even at the price of a ban. Diego (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
When page protection is applied, the procedure does not care which state the article is protected in, nor should 3RR, it simply exists to put an end to a disruptive activity. At the moment two editors can each make four identical edits but only one is sanctionable under the wording of 3RR. Who cares if Editor 2 runs off and gets Editor 1 blocked after a fourth edit? There are plenty of procedures available to settle an editing dispute so Editor 1 has only got himself to blame. However, there is an inherent unfairness if both editors make the same number of edits but only one is blocked. Betty Logan (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
So, you see asymmetric and unfair having only editor 2 blocked when both have made the same number of edits (with only himself to blame), but don't see as asymmetric and unfair to get only editor 1 blocked when they've made the same number of reverts? Diego (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I see it as an arbitrary distinction. I don't see reverting an edit as any more or less tolerable than making a bold edit: both edits are the editor putting the article in their preferred state and we are all entitled to do that up to a point. What I see as a problem is repeatedly making the same edit over and over rather than pursuing an avenue of resolution. Betty Logan (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not going to be the end of the world if the version of an article you don't like is the one that's there for a while. If there is consensus behind it, following the dispute resolution process will show that. In many cases, for me, it took no more than simply requesting a third opinion. I was awfully certain it would fall my way, and it sure did, and that solved the issue without any need to edit war. But what if it hadn't? If they'd told me "Uh, hey, I don't think you're right, you really need to reconsider your position", that's an indicator to me to do that. If you really are right, and consensus does support you, involving the community will quickly demonstrate that. If the community doesn't support you, or there's more controversy than you thought, maybe it's time to give the issue more thought. Edit warring doesn't demonstrate consensus, it just demonstrates you can click the undo button repeatedly. If the wrong version is there for a little while in the meantime while you seek out what consensus really is, Wikipedia won't collapse from it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that not everyone saves all changes and if lots of changes are made pre-resolution then it can mean significant re-work as opposed to a button press.Z07x10 (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
¿Que? All changes to an article are saved in the page history of the article, so finding an earlier version, or seeing what has changed, is never a problem. Thomas.Wtalk to me13:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Links to non English wiki in the text.
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Is a link like Solln ([[:de:Solln|Solln]]) OK because Solln has no en: article or should this be left a red link in an article? Is the a guideline for this? Thanks --Stone (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it would be best to leave the redlink. Redlinks alert Wikipedia readers that an article needs to be created about a subject. If you remove the redlink, either by removing it altogether, or linking to another language, then people mistakenly believe that the article already exists or does not need to exist at en.wikipedia. And thus, Wikipedia does not get better. Our goal should be to involve more people in making Wikipedia better, so we need redlinks. I would put the redlink back and allow someone to create it. --Jayron3218:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
See WP:RESTRICT. Any community imposed restriction should be there, though it is possible it may be missing a few topic bans from things like unblock conditions. Monty84514:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago25 comments9 people in discussion
On the policy page someone pointed out that it seems to prefer secondary sources over primary sources. Now in some instances, like historical matters, court cases and political events, I can see that the rationale makes sense. However, when I provide a manufacturer's data-sheet for an engineered item that nobody else has true firsthand knowledge of in terms of a) having seen the genuine test results or b) having done any testing themselves, surely that should take precedence over a paragraph in a journalistic publication. Similarly when I provide a figure from a government customer, who has access to the test results, that reads something like '235N/m at a temperature of 385K', surely that should take precedence over a journalistic article on the same piece simply saying 'over 200N/m'.Z07x10 (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Without looking at the page in question I can't say whether the situation is actually as you describe. But if the situation really is as described, then yes, we should use reliable "primary" sources for bare facts over "secondary" sources that have manipulated those facts. But some editors have a "primary source paranoia", where they reject any "primary" sources for the simple fact that they are "primary" sources without considering the situation. Do note, however, that the "secondary" source may have commentary or analysis that is lacking in the "primary" source (and trying to base such text in the article on the "primary" source would be original research), and that the "primary" source is unlikely to be an "independent third-party source" as needed to support WP:N.
IMO, the whole "primary"/"secondary"/"tertiary" distinction is useless for our purposes (except as a poor heuristic) and should be removed from our policies and guidelines. All we care about is reliability (which is not affected by the PSTS distinction) and avoiding original research (it's just a matter of "is the cited information really present in the source": while a "primary" source is less likely to contain useful commentary or analysis, if it does we can use it and if a "secondary" source doesn't contain it we can't use it), and for WP:N we need "independent third-party sources" (which works fine as a designator and avoids the need to explain that some "secondary" sources aren't independent, etc). Anomie⚔10:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Our WP:No original research policy makes it clear that we may cite reliable primary sources, we just need to be careful and cautious when doing so ... You should be OK long as a) the primary source is published, and b) you do not analyze, interpret or draw your own conclusions from the source (note: it is OK to neutrally describe any analysis, interpretation or conclusions that are explicitly contained within the source). Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Note that you can't analyze, interpret, or draw your own conclusions from a "secondary" or "tertiary" source either. Anomie⚔01:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
@Anomie. I concur, noting that it depends on the context and the article. For example, in legal articles, the style guide says to use both primary and secondary sources, and if there is a factual conflict between primary and secondary, the primary one controls. I've run into the same attitude (and will have to remember "primary source paranoia"), and agree with what you say here. GregJackPBoomer!14:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anomie, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the facts have been manipulated by the secondary sources, I'm just saying that they're approximations perhaps based on an initial release of information from the primary sources, possibly in a pre-release build-up statement and as such they're just headlines if that makes sense. I'll be a little more specific. Suppose the item is a fighter aircraft and the manufacturer or an airforce states a value. Is that better or worse than someone like Airforces Monthly stating a value that they haven't tested and have only taken as generalised information pre-released from the primary source. Furthermore the manufacturer and/or airforce state the conditions the figure was achieved at, whereas the magazine doesn't. I also have one guy who thinks that a Haynes manual released in 1994, 10 years before in-service date, is a better source of information for an aircraft than a current airforce operator because Haynes is a 'secondary source'. I have a European Airforce operator quoting a specific speed at a specific altitude and I can't use it because the pre-released information was copied around several sources leaving my source 'out-numbered'.Z07x10 (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I've always argued that secondary sources are best for interpretation, analysis and opinion, but primary sources are best for raw attributed facts. Unfortunately, the wording of WP:RS seems to suggest that secondary sources are always preferred, and used as a justification to remove statements that rely on a primary source. Articles contain a mixture of fact and opinion, so should contain a mixture of primary and secondary sources. To reiterate, secondary sources are better for interpretation, analysis and opinion. Since editors can not agree on this basic principle, Wikipedia suffers. --Iantresman (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
"Secondary" sources aren't better for interpretation, analysis and opinion, it's just that "secondary" sources are more likely to have usable interpretation, analysis and opinion to cite. Part of this is that our policy here on enwiki almost makes it a tautology: a "secondary" source is often defined here as a source with interpretation, analysis, and opinion. And then we start to confuse our definition of "primary" and "secondary" with the differing definitions used in other fields, and people get confused. So I argue for a more basic principle than yours: Articles contain a mixture of fact and interpretation, and so should cite sources that have facts as well as sources that have interpretation, analysis, and opinion. Anomie⚔12:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with that. I'm all for a secondary source that can provide a good analysis but if all the secondary source is doing is re-stating raw data provided by primary sources, and either rounding or approximating it, then it isn't really very useful. If however they've performed an actual test and found differences, or have a valid analysis refuting the raw data, then they become pertinent.Z07x10 (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
@Anomie⚔, I guess I agree and disagree. Both primary and secondary sources can contain interpretation and analysis, it's just that secondary sources are considered to be more independent. Either way, I find WP:RS to be misleading and confused. --Iantresman (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Whether a primary source contains interpretation or analysis varies by field: it's possible in a scientific paper (e.g., reporting an original experiment: we all hope that the authors analyzed their data, right?), but if analysis appears in a newspaper article, then (that particular part of) the article is a secondary source, not a primary one. Independence is a completely separate issue. Independent primary sources are quite common (including all eyewitness news reports, for example). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
But please note that these essays are disputed, and in fact WAID and I are in the process of discussing them. An eyewitness account clearly isn't a secondary source or independent account. It is a primary source, and this is very important to historians because eyewitness account are very often wrong (because involved and emotional), and good historians try not to rely on them if they can avoid it. SlimVirgin(talk)17:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Imagine a newspaper story in which the reporter says "A pedestrian was injured by a speeding car just outside The News offices, right as this reporter walked out of the building". That's eyewitness news report, and I believe that just about everyone will tell you that the reporter is "independent", since the reporter wasn't driving the car and didn't get hit by it.
Ditto for the typical television reporter standing up in front of the burning building while saying "This home on 14th Street is on fire": that's eyewitness news, and nobody with any sense is going to accuse the reporter of being "involved" in it or otherwise anything except an independent reporter merely because of being present.
You're right that we're discussing this again. This is not the first time that you and I have been through this discussion, and, so far, the community has rejected your claim that standing in front of a camera with a burning house in the background makes the reporter "non-independent". That kind of source is both independent and primary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
An eyewitness account of an event is always a primary source of information about that event. The reporter offers an account based on her perspective in space and time (which might be great or limited), and on her emotional response (which might distort what she thinks she saw) and memory (which might be very poor). In addition we have to trust that she's being honest. That doesn't mean this is necessarily a poor source (Wikipedians often think that something's being a primary source means it ought to be avoided, when the opposite is often the case). It just means there are good ways to use it, and bad ways. Historians, as I said, are reluctant to rely on eyewitness accounts because they often provide a distorted view (whether inadvertent or otherwise).
The community has never rejected that claim. You inserted a link to an essay you wrote – which contains in my view an idiosyncratic account of the primary/secondary distinction – into the NOR policy. You should not have done that. I didn't strongly oppose you on it because I couldn't be bothered at the time, but perhaps I should have. I think you're making this much more complex than it needs to be (and possibly wrong), and it's confusing, especially to new editors. SlimVirgin(talk)18:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course it's a primary source, and that's exactly what I said: "That kind of source is both independent and primary." (emphasis added). There are two separate questions for classifying the source:
independence versus non-independence/conflict of interest/affiliation
I don't know how you're using the word "independent." If it's a primary source it's not independent. It was written by someone who was there, an eyewitness, and who was therefore involved in the creation of the narrative. You're arguing as though there is such a thing as an entirely "objective" account of an incident, as though there is such as a thing as The Truth. But there are only narratives, all of which are created by people with varying degrees of distance from the event. As I said above, the reporter's eyewitness account might be based on her being tired, having a bad memory, disliking one of the people who caused the incident, being over-emotional about it because it reminded her of something that had happened to her, etc etc etc. Or it might be none of those things. The point is that her eyewitness account is a primary source. (That doesn't mean it isn't appropriate to use it though.)
Elsewhere you're arguing that reporters are third-party sources, and that third-party sources aren't primary sources. You wrote: "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. This is contrasted with ... a primary source, where the source is the wellspring of the original material ..." That seems to contradict what you are saying here. SlimVirgin(talk)20:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think SlimVirgin's interpretation of WhatamIdoing's edit follows. Independence is a matter of being able to write whatever one wants without having to worry about retaliation or financial loss, and not having had previous dealings with the subject that would lead to bias due to entrenched positions, affection, hate, etc. Third party can be the same as independent, but it can also refer to not being connected to the subject through employment by the same organization or similar relationships. For example, a living employee of the National Geodetic Survey might write an article about Ferdinand Rudolph Hassler, who died in 1843, but since Hassler was the leader of a parent organization of the author's current employer, the author is not a third party, in a formal sense.
Primary vs. secondary is separate from being a third party or independent. Consumer Reports strives to be independent of manufacturers of the items they test, but their articles are primary sources of the results of their tests. An authorized history of a company isn't independent because the company can halt the publication if they are dissatisfied, but it is secondary because it is compiled from other publications and archives. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The difficulty is that WAID has written that third-party sources can't be primary sources (see link above, where the distinction is clearly made: "A third-party source is ... This is contrasted with ... a primary source ..."). That's not correct and it's adding another layer of complexity. We have to think about these issues in terms of what Wikipedians need, especially new editors, and they're not served well by making this so complex that it's hard to follow and ends up contradicting itself across multiple essays, guidelines and policies. I'd like to see all these descriptions pared back to be as simple as possible (without being misleading) . SlimVirgin(talk)23:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
That's not what the essay said at the time. It said that the term "third-party source" is contrasted with "primary source". I take that to mean that "third-party" is a different concept than "primary". It does not mean that a primary source can't be third-party; it means that since they are different concepts, knowing that a source is third party doesn't tell you if it is primary or secondary, and conversely, knowing a source is secondary doesn't tell if you it is third-party. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
If "contrasted with" is being used to mean "is a different concept," it would be better to say that. I read it to mean that we have third-party sources on the one hand, and primary sources on the other. But even if that is corrected, my point still stands about this issue having been made needlessly complicated. I'd be interested to see an example of a Wikipedia article where the sourcing depends on editors deploying these distinctions (primary that is third party, primary that is not, secondary that is third party, secondary that is not). It's likely to be making things difficult for new editors (if they pay attention to them). SlimVirgin(talk)00:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course secondary sources are likely to be independent; any featured article should abound with examples. Primary sources are somewhat unlikely to be independent; most articles that site a manufacturer's website or a patent would probably be examples. An example of a primary independent source may be found in "Porridge" where the Consumer Reports website is cited. I have not found an example of a secondary source that is not independent that is cited in an article. You might try the strategy of thinking of an organization that is likely to produce such documents, go to their Wikipedia article, and click "What links here?" Jc3s5h (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, "contrasted with" means "completely different, unrelated concept and not to be confused with". I'll go make that change at WP:THIRDPARTY.
Jc3s5h, we cite non-independent secondary sources all the time. Any review article, systematic review, or meta-analysis published about a drug and written by the employees of the drug's manufacturer or someone else in the pharma company's pay is a non-independent secondary source. These are often great sources.
Hear, hear! Some of the most annoying encounters on Wikipedia are with people hostile to primary sources. This is particularly strange since of course many of us were first introduced to the concept of primary, secondary, tertiary in writing assignments that called on us to go to the primary sources. For that matter, we were taught that unless you actually look at the figure of the Western blot with your own eyes you don't believe even what that author claims it says. In science articles it is very common for a largely primary article to summarize other sources in secondary fashion, and secondary articles are frequently 'reviews' of the author's own primary publications. It would be far better simply to encourage a rich mix of primary, secondary, and tertiary, recognizing the limitations, viewpoint and selection biases of each source. Wnt (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Alexis_Reich#Requested_move_16_September_2013. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)