Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 119

Village pump
- Policy
- Technical
- Proposals (persistent)
- Idea lab
- WMF
- Miscellaneous

Village pump (policy) archive

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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

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

Draft for Wikipedia:Moratoria

Since we have had occasions for administrators (or the community) to declare moratoria on future discussions, and we have no policy governing that practice, I have started an essay on the topic at Wikipedia:Moratoria, which I hope can be refined into a policy governing the operation of moratoria. Any thoughts are welcome. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's a copy of the middle paragraph:

Where the same proposal is made repeatedly, and the same proposal is made again only a short time after the close of the previous proposal, administrators closing the discussion may be requested to impose a moratorium on future efforts to repeat the failed proposal for a period of time. A moratorium may also be imposed by a discussion achieving the clear consensus of the community.

There's considerable ambiguity there. "administrators ... may be requested ...". What constitutes a valid request? But really, the whole idea of administrators imposing anything is grotesque. Administrators detect and implement community consensus. There is no other way to legitimate their imposing anything. Another:

"a moratorium may not last more than one year from the initiation".

Instruction creep. Again, it's for community consensus to determine the length of any mortorium. There's no need to prescribe limits on community consensus about such things. Sorry, but this essay is a terrible idea. --Stfg (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Without something in writing, we have unwritten instruction creep. Moratoria are imposed, and there is no guidance as to how they function, so they are necessarily arbitrary. bd2412 T 23:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If they can be imposed by admins without community consensus, there's a huge problem. Please clarify who imposes them, and with what legitimacy. If admins do so without community consensus, please give examples. As to "unwritten" instruction creep, what "instructions" are creeping? Please clarify. --Stfg (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That's part of the problem, there's no clarity on those points. For example, Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Propose moratorium on pagemove discussion, my own closing panel in the Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request, and the recently expired moratorium on move requests for Hillary Rodham Clinton. bd2412 T 01:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, are there examples of admins declaring moratorium on future discussions, that weren't themselves supported by a consensus in favor the moratorium? (Outside of user conduct appeals where a moratorium on further appeals is not uncommon, and discretionary sanctions which are fully under Arbcom's authority) Monty ₈₄₅ 12:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not aware of any, other than the one imposed in the Chelsea Manning case. However, you raise useful points - with user conduct appeals, for example, there are moratoria, but where are the rules explaining why those are permissible and how they work? If we want it made clear that only community consensus can effect one (and not an admin declaration in closing a particularly vigorous discussion), we need to say that somewhere. bd2412 T 13:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, if it really needs saying, then let's say it. I understand that there are exceptional cases where it's urgent to prevent disruption, and tools like page protection are needed for that. But other than in this limited sense of urgent defence against disruption, the idea that admins, or an ad-hoc closing committee, can unilaterally impose on good-faith, productive editors a restriction on our use of our consensus processes seems grotesque to me. I don't frequent user conduct discussions and won't comment on that aspect, but for things like page moves, those interminable MOS debates, frequent tendentious attempts to reverse recent consensus, and all such things, the community's consensus processes are adequate for creating and enforcing any moratoria we want. I strongly oppose giving any mandate to admins to impose such restrictions without proper consensus. The community can do it, and the Clinton discussion above and the Sarah Jane Brown case you link to above are good examples of the right way to go about it. As to the one-year limit, we just don't need it: the length of any moratorium should be subject only to the consensus regarding that moratorium, nothing else, imho. --Stfg (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

What kind of conditions would be looked for to end a moratorium? At the least, those involved should be aware of the latest filing that motivated the moratorium before moving to re-open. There should be new facts or arguments to bring to bear. Perhaps an inverse request for closure should be recommended to establish only that such conditions are met, before opening the floor to underlying issues. Rhoark (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Most moratoria include a time limit, I think. But you're right, other conditions like the ones you suggest could be used instead or as well. --Stfg (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

How to inform editors of a variance in WP:RS standards?

Recently while editing an article I was informed via the talk page that the article was:

"[...] an article on a recognized academic topic of study, with several editors familiar with the academic work who follow and protect the article." (emphasis added)

and that:

"It's an article on a scholarly topic that has been researched and defined within the field of sociology. So, this article requires a higher level of sources than opinion stories [by journalists from Time Magazine, The NY Times, and Al Jazeera]." (emphasis added)

While I do not necessarily object to the concept of higher standards for some topics, I am wondering how this variance in WP sourcing standards is to be communicated to average editors to prevent them from wasting effort making contributions based on otherwise acceptable standards but not for certain articles? Are there any written guideline(s) and/or template(s) that we can put at the top of such an article? Also by whom and how is it determined when such a variance of WP:RS is applicable? 104.32.193.6 (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not so much that some topics have a "higher" standard... it's that the type of sources that are most appropriate for an article will depend on the topic. Articles on topics that fall within an academic field would appropriately rely heavily on academic sources (and much less on media sources). Articles on current events would appropriately rely mostly on news media sources. Pop culture topics would rely on media sources that cover pop culture... etc. We always look for the highest quality sources... but what qualifies as "highest quality" will vary from topic to topic. Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, that even makes sense. But... the core questions still stand:

1. How can this concept of "most appropriate" sources be communicated to editors stumbling across an article that they have not previously visited?

2. Are there written guidelines on this concept?

3. Are there templates that can be added to such articles (or article talk pages) to declare the need for such sources (and more importantly the disqualification of normally acceptable sources)?

For example: Is there / Can there be / Should there be a template that says something like "This article is on a scholarly topic and therefor requires non-opinion based sources only." or "This article requires scholarly sources only, please do not use opinion sources." ?

4. Who decides / how is it decided when an article rises to the level of needing such specialized sources?

104.32.193.6 (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I have responded to your question at the other place you posted this but again this is already covered in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS on that page. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so that is the general context - it is not news. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, my personal opinion is:

1) I guess by trial and error... WP:BOLD and WP:BRD and then by discussion on the talk page and so forth, as happened with you.

2) Maybe, but not that I personally know of. This is the sort of thing that is learned over time (for instance, as you are learning now) and passed on to new generations of editors individually.

3) Not that I know of, and I personally don't see the need for such templates.

4) The community of editors, or rather the subset of that community that is engaged in and watching that page (unless there's a serious dispute, in which case the larger community might get involved).

The thing is that in theory all the material in all articles should be backed up by very excellent sources. In practice, this is not done. I myself sometimes write material on obscure popular-culture subjects and there just aren't AAA-level sources (peer-reviewed academic journals or reputable mainstream journalistic sources known to have good fact-checking operations) for a lot of this stuff. So I use a variety of sources, down to and including some guy's blog; I often slap on a {{better source}} template or something, but realistically, good sources are not likely to be found for a superhero who appeared in two stories in 1940 and 1942 and stuff like that.

But the thing is, we can't really say this out loud, I'd say. We can't write it down. This would be opening a can of worms I think. Better to leave it how it is. This leaves wriggle room for human judgement without opening the door to formal acceptance of lower-value sources for any material. Herostratus (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Herostratus: I have to say that yours is the most helpful and useful answer on this topic. While other editors have essentially said the same thing in part, this response really brings it all together and helps it all make sense. Thank you. 104.32.193.6 (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

What you were told sounds to me like a bald attempt to WP:OWN the article. Peer-reviewed journals are often the best sources, but that doesn't mean there's nothing else to say on the topic. There's broad consensus of heightened reliability standards for medical claims, novel scientific discoveries (guarding against fringiness and self-promotion), and claims about living persons. I've never heard of heightened standards for sociology. Rhoark (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

We should use only the best available sources. If a field of study is well-covered by scholarship, then (1) peer-reviewed secondary sources in high quality specialist journals, (2) graduate-level textbooks, and (3) scholarly- and professional-society position statements should be used, and opinion pieces in generalist sources like magazines and newspapers should never be used in an encyclopedia article that attempts to reflect the current scholarly consensus on a topic. (An exception would be if a serious source cited the magazine or newspaper opinion piece - in that case both the scholarly source that cites the opinion as well as the newspaper/magazine piece should be cited.) If we allow anonymous Wikipedia editors to pick and choose from the primary sources we're breaching our policy against original research. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Umm... I was with you @Anthonyhcole right up to the part where you said "If we allow anonymous Wikipedia editors to pick and choose from the primary sources we're breaching our policy against original research." ... Why only "anonymous" editors? Are you saying its okay for "named" accounts to pick and choose? Having a name on an account doesn't actually change the anonymity of a user. I can get a thousand throwaway email accounts and open a thousand named WP accounts so what difference does being an anonymous editor make in this case? 104.32.193.6 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Having a name on an account doesn't actually change the anonymity of a user. I can get a thousand throwaway email accounts and open a thousand named WP accounts so what difference does being an anonymous editor make in this case? says to me that you believe that all accounts are anonymous (named accounts are actually more anonymous because your IP isn't as easily exposed which can be traced back to an origin), so your interpretation of If we allow anonymous Wikipedia editors to pick and choose from the primary sources we're breaching our policy against original research. would have logically been If we allow anony~~mous~~ Wikipedia editors to pick and choose from the primary sources we're breaching our policy against original research. and now your entire point is wasted because you contradicted yourself. I'd probably want to create a named account if I was you so that I would be more anonymous. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Even within a single article standards may vary. The actual subject may have been the subject of some scholarly research, but its history not so much and some attention inn the media even less. They'd all be notable but each bit would have its own standard. But normally in any single top level section the standard should not vary too much. Dmcq (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright clarification

I uploaded a screenshot of a newscast displaying the flag of Utica, New York cut off by a podium. Originally the license for this image was non free symbol, and then later flag. An editor and I determined that non free news screenshot would be the most appropriate license instead of non-free symbol.

This image was used to create a flag, specifically using an SVG seal which was previously made from available information, and then using the colors within the news screenshot to create a flag based upon this screenshot.

Is there a copyright issue based upon our process? Can an SVG copy of this flag replace the low resolution PNG copy? Buffaboy ^talk 06:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

the non-free SVG

File:Flag of Utica, New York.jpg

the photo from which this is derived

Buffaboy Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files is the usual place to list files, but since this is a deeper question than usually is addressed there, asking here seems okay too.

We started with a low-quality photo. A clean SVG was made. It seems like there is a question about the lack of color in the original art, and the derivation of the colors from the flag in the photo.

First, the news screenshot needs no attribution. The colored flag does, not the news photo.

The rule for nonfree images emphasizes low-resolution copies, but that does not apply to SVG images because they cleanly scale to any resolution. You have the image tagged with Template:Non-free flag, and in my opinion, that is the only licensing explanation that you need to make. It would be nice if you had that file link off-wiki to the source of a color image of the flag, but that is not necessary. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Blue Raspberry: Thank you for the succinct explanation. Buffaboy ^talk 14:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the design possibly PD by virtue of its age? Please note that fair use images can only be used in articles - not in templates. (And I concur with Blue Rasberry, by the way, we should use SVG logos wherever possible.) --B (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

From what I understand, that could be a yes. The seal itself is actually very old because I've seen an older version lying around somewhere on Google. Does that mean the flag is? Well, I can't say yes or no. The mistake I made was not using an external link linking to the picture when I first submitted the request to WP:GL. As far as SVGs are concerned I am almost 100% sure artist Offnfopt has a copy that I can ask for. And for the fair use image in the template, at the time I never thought about the license but then I remembered it was there and that I could've messed up. Buffaboy ^talk 00:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Modify all unencrypted links to Chinese servers

I am seeing reports that China's government has deployed a "Great Cannon" system that hijacks unencrypted http: sessions to deliver a malware payload to users who visit websites on the Chinese network. Note that the interception occurs not against a few opponents of the government - though it has been pointed out that the system could be altered so that some specific targeted person would receive swapped-out packets whenever he visited any web site - rather, 1.75% of all visitors to Baidu and other sites received a payload that had been altered at a national level. [1] The result of this alteration was a DDOS against GreatFire and Github.

My understanding is that current Wikipedia practice is either to remove or render unclickable links that would take a reader to a malware site, and the conclusion to be drawn from such reports is that any site in China is essentially a malware site, or can be converted to one at a moment's notice without the operator's knowledge. Unless, that is, you use https, maybe (there is an ongoing issue regarding China's ability to issue certificates...)

Presently, our article Baidu links to the company's site as https://www.baidu.com/ , which for the moment has not been shown to be a link going to be hijacked. But the first reference is to http://ir.baidu.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=188488&p=irol-govmanage . As I understand the publications above and at Great Cannon, for five days anyone clicking that link had a 1.75% chance of being enlisted into a DDOS attack on Github.

The obvious proposal then is:

1) Somehow go through all of Wikipedia and identify every link to a site in the People's Republic of China.
2) Somehow check all of the http: links to see if https: delivers the same document.

2a) If https: works, convert the link to https:
2b) If only http: works, convert the link to a text that cannot be followed by a simple click.

3) For all the China links, insert a small, brightly colored Malware advisory that leads to a page advising users of the Great Cannon threat.

Should we do this now or wait for additional attacks? Should we do this to all Chinese links or just links known to have been hijacked? And oh yes, what's the best way to go about actually doing the "somehow"s above? Wnt (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's do it now. It doesn't just affect Chinese users, it also affects anyone else trying to go to a Chinese website. This is worrying. If only http: works, we should turn it into regular text instead of wikitext. Epic Genius (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Regretfully Oppose #3 slapping terror-warnings on countless innocent websites. And I can't even consider support for re-writing links as https without an experienced bot operator weighing in on it and volunteering. I suspect it would be a technically ugly endeavor. Alsee (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I was a bit concerned about the Great Cannon as well, and actually started the article the day it was publicized. However, I have to oppose because I think this proposal would not work. While #1 should be achievable, #2a won't achieve much as most Chinese websites do not currently support HTTPS. Baidu just turned it on about a month ago, and just for the main search page. (I am Chinese.) #2b: I don't think nullifying all HTTP links is wise and #3, in my opinion, is an overkill. If we do this, we also need to do it to HTTP-only websites hosted in the U.S. or the U.K. because of the NSA & GCHQ 's Quantum Insert system, which works the same way as the Great Cannon. (Except it isn't used for DDOS, but for targeted attacks.) Tony Tan · talk 17:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

OpenHistory as source

Note: Section was moved to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#OpenHistory as source. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected talk pages shouldn't be

There are 80-odd pages in Category:Semi-protected talk pages. Some of them, like WT:Reference desk, are bad ideas of recent origin (there's a discussion there now about where to tell the IP/new editors to propose questions, now that they're banned from both desk and talk!). But most are fire-and-forget indefinite protections that have been hanging around from years. Of those, some are relatively irrelevant protections of archive pages - though I see no reason why something like this ever really needed protecting. But some are quite serious restrictions that could deter new users who are looking for a place to get started or to suggest inclusion of some important fact, for example Talk:Autism and Talk:Causes of autism.

My feeling is that all of these pages should be unprotected. There is simply no justification in blocking a handful of talk pages when you know full well any problem user is just going to move on to the next one. It's better if they drop their turds in a litter box you can change frequently than if you lock them out of that room and then have to scout for their keepsakes all over the house. The extreme rarity of semi-protected talk pages should be an indication that this isn't the approach most people would take.

It is of course desirable, though not essential, to replace protection with some other measure. For example, you could have a WP:edit filter to flag for scrutiny all edits to talk space pages with "archive" in the title when they are made by an IP/new user. You might need to recruit vandalism patrollers to the autism pages more frequently somehow.

Even if you feel at wits' end and insist on protection for some heavily vandalized talk pages, it is still better for an admin to have to come back in five or six times placing short-term protection than to have long or indefinite terms of protection. This is because it takes admins just a few minutes to protect a page, but new users coming up against protection won't see how to edit and won't know if they're blocked, misunderstanding the software, if the site is "really" editable etc., nor will they know where to go for advice about it (especially when pages like the Refdesk talk are blocked). It's better to put in a few more minutes of adminning than to have potential editors bounce off the site and possibly never come back.

Even if I fail to persuade you to give up on long-term protections of talk pages, at least the current batch could use a reinspection. Pages like Talk:Raccoon City that have been semiprotected since 2011 probably don't need to be (indeed, I don't see why an ordinary AfD led to suppression of the text on the talk page to start with!). Wnt (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree: we should not have protected talk pages unless that protection is actually necessary. Since I suspect that some would object to unprotecting all of them at once, I'd suggest unprotecting them in batches of 10–20 per week for all those older than a month. If there are any objections, then we can exclude or re-protect some as necessary. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 17:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Why lift a semi off archived pages or closed arbcom cases? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

If there is a default state of the site (i.e. open to editing by all), then shouldn't the onus of the argument be on those wishing to change the default state (i.e. maintaining the odd application of semi-protection on a talk page)? Killiondude (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

If you believe that a page should be unprotected, request it at WP:UNPROTECT. But I don't favor a blanket unprotected of these pages. Instead, the reasons for why each page was protected should be reviewed on a page-by-page bases. —Farix (t | c) 18:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. All these pages were protected for specific reasons. If a particular reason no longer applies, the explanation can accompany the unprotect request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I object. While I'm open to reviewing each case individually, our first and most important assumption should be that talk pages should not be protected. I've already unprotected Talk:Kronk's New Groove as an example: it's been semi-protected since December 2009 against vandalism—surely after five years, at least an experimental unprotection is warranted. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 19:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

How many of these are only protected for a short duration anyway? You mention WT:Reference desk but that page was only protected for a duration of 24 hours very recently in response to active and repeated vandalism. Presumably if an admin sets a short duration protection, it is reasonable to assume that they had a justification for doing so. Dragons flight (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Per Dragons flight, we should be drawing a distinction between short term expiring semi-protection which, was applied because it was needed, and is expiring soon so we don't have to remove it and indefinite semi-protection, which I agree needs to be reviewed regularly on a case-by-case basis. We should ignore the short term stuff, because that's going to take care of itself when it expires automatically, and instead focus on reviewing the indefinite semi-protection stuff. Talk pages should not normally be indefinitely (or long-term, like multi-month or longer) protected. All protections should be targeted and used only as needed; doubly so for talk pages which should be left open as possible. Perhaps, also, we should encourage more use of the Edit filter to target problems and allow the talk pages to remain open. --Jayron 32 03:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we should never protect a talk page (this doesn't apply to subages of talk pages, such as archives and Talk:Abortion/FAQ for more than a year at a time; nor for more than a week unless shorter protections have ben tried and not been long enough. I specificly think that any talk page which has been protected for more than a year should be unprotected - but only a few a day, to keep an eye on things at real time. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing some encouraging progress (indeed, the category is down to 79 pages), but it's not clear to me if admins are going to continue unprotecting articles on their own. Should I put in some WP:UNPROTECT requests for batches of pages? Wnt (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Remember at WP:RFPP the procedure for unprotection is that you should only request there "if the protecting admin is inactive or you have already asked them", so if the admin who originally protected the page is still active you need to ask them first. You might get the best response if you did that anyway as they may well agree that the pages no longer need semi-protection and just unprotect themselves. Davewild (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of these are project-talk pages, ArbCom-related pages, subpages in talkspace, archives, all of which are not meant to be edited, and which can (and should) be protected, should they become a target. Simple article talk pages should only be semi-protected for very short periods of time to combat a vandalism spree, but the category page does not show the protection's duration. In any case, the wide majority of these protections are there for very good reasons -- what you seem to perceive as a problem is actually the least-bad (and sometimes only) solution to a much worse issue. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If the Arbcom archives shouldn't be edited, then semi-protecting half a dozen really old case pages, usually not even all the pages from the same case, is a pretty haphazard way to do it. But I think the risk that someone will vandalize (or more likely, add a parting comment to) a rarely read page about an old dispute between editors is one of the least worrisome scenarios on Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

FAQs should be in Wikipedia space, not article talk space

Per the thread above, I don't think we should have any long term semi-protection of talk pages. However, there may be good reason for semi-protecting the FAQ pages on the list: Talk:Abortion/FAQ, Talk:India/FAQ, Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, Talk:Sega Genesis/FAQ. This leads inescapably to the conclusion that these are not talk pages; and indeed, looking at them, I don't see signatures, I don't see indents, I don't see people following any rules not to edit one anothers' comments... they are collaborative works, not individual user comments, and that's why there are edit wars on them that lead to admin intervention.

Therefore, I propose that all FAQ pages of this type (whether or not they have been found needing of protection) should be moved to Wikipedia space. They're basically essays - not policy, but collaborative and influential - and might be tagged as such. So Talk:India/FAQ should become WP:India/FAQ, etc. (I considered dropping the slash, but on consideration, WP:India FAQ might sound like some general advice about India or even India-based editors rather than commentary on the article India.) Wnt (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they belong in project: space. They are not about the Wikipedia project, and as such don't belong in that namespace. They are questions that are frequently asked on the talk page, and as such, belong as a sub page of the talk page. They are the talk page equivalent of template:.../doc. As such, I don't think that protection of talk page documentation is a bad thing if it is necessary. I'm sure most of those semi-protections could be lowered to PC1, but I'm not in a position to make those changes. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Really I think they are about the Wikipedia project! Consider the first question from India/FAQ: "Q1: Why is Bhārat Gaṇarājya not rendered in Devanagari script? A1: See this discussion." That's a question about Wikipedia editing, not a question about India. Wnt (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

That looks like a question about the article to me, not a question about Wikipedia itself. If there was a WP:WikiProject India, it would be reasonable for WP:India and WP:INDIA to be redirects to that project. Now, to have a sub-page of WP:India located at WP:India/FAQ that should actually be a sub-page of Talk:India since it is documentation for that page would just be confusing... This is why these need to stay as talk page documentation pages like they are now in my opinion. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, if this name is confusing then we could try something like WP:Article FAQs/India instead (WP:Article FAQs might be an index page... which would be helpful just around now as I consider moving them). But they're definitely not talk pages because they don't go by any talk page guidelines. They belong in Wikipedia namespace based on their intent and the relevant rules that govern them; what precise name to use is a lower-level detail. Wnt (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

They are no more or less talk pages than talk page archives. You're not proposing to move all archive pages too, are you? (I jest, but hope you say no).

WP:BIKESHED issue: This is a purely arbitrary change and makes no functional difference. If anything, keeping the FAQs as a subpage of the article they are about is a Good Idea. --Jayron32 13:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- WP:BIKESHED indeed. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  - No rationale given for mass moving. The talk faqs address subjects perennially brought up in talk, ergo are properly in talk space. If you wish to discuss creating a new family of pages for another purpose, feel free to do so - but IMO a mainspace collection of FAQs would only be a trivia section anyway. Puppy does not approve. Killer Chihuahua 15:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Article FAQs are informal collections of ways to address perennial requests, they're not analogous to essays. "Why doesn't Obama's article mention that he's a radical Islamist Marxist Kenyan?" can now just get "See FAQ #2" rather than a long, drawn-out response. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep where they are - each of the talk FAQs existrs to serve the relevant talk page; it should be clearly associated with it - and having it as a subpage is part of this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep as is. Talk page FAQs are about the relevant article and answers to questions that frequently arise in that talk page and DO NOT belong to any WP namespace. Moving them to WP:* will be semantically incorrect. Now, regarding protection: talk page archives are not to be edited and shall be exempt from no long term protection. Likewise Talk:FAQs. — nafSadh did say 20:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep as is no functional difference and these are not FAQs about Wikipedia topics. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep as is Make-work proposals do not belong at Wikipedia. Someone may see a benefit related to political purity, but there is nothing there to assist the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep as is per the last few. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Blatantly OR essays

What should be done about blatantly original research opinion essays? A number of these have shown up and I marked several for speedy deletion as duplicates. For example, Google Search as a Technological Artefact for Learning duplicates Google, because all the factual information in the new article is present in the main article. But now I see that OR, opinion, and WP:NOTESSAY are not grounds for speedy deletion. Does that mean that they should be nominated as AfD? It seems like that would waste a lot of time. Should I use WP:PROD instead? Roches (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

All essays should be in support of the project. Any Wikipedian opinion on any Wikipedia matter passes. Disputed single author opinions belong in userspace, where there is very wide latitude. Acceptable material does not include forking content, or hosting content not suitable for mainspace. Fake content is often deleted at MfD will a call to WP:FAKEARTICLE. It will be deleted if there is no objection. This is not frequent enough to justify a speedy criterion, just use MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant essay-like articles in mainspace. The example article has been deleted by PROD. Roches (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If it looks salvageable, you can tag it with {{essay-like}} or rewrite it yourself. Blatant, unsalvageable essays will often have to be prodded or go to AfD. If the title is a valid redirect, you could boldly redirect it. You're right that essays are not a criteria for speedy deletion, but you could check if WP:A10 (duplication of another article), WP:G4 (already deleted at AfD), WP:G5 (created by a banned user in violation of the ban), or WP:G12 (copyright violation) apply. It helps to do a Google search on one representative sentence to see if it was copy-pasted from elsewhere on the Internet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I had an issue about copyright too. As I understand it now, marking for speedy deletion is allowed when no assertion of copyright ownership is made. I'm less sure about WP:A10. These articles are blatant opinion and OR. Removing the unusable content would create a duplicate article, but the article isn't a duplicate when it has the opinion present. Roches (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

RFC about RFC ownership

I’ve just opened a discussion at WT:RFC#RFC: Can originators dictate the scope of RFCs? because I couldn’t find an answer either way anywhere in existing policy. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Should we start directing users to Special:GlobalRenameRequest?

Comments invited as to whether we should begin directing users to the Special:GlobalRenameRequest interface for straightforward renames. –xeno^talk 16:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Protection policy for "project interactions" pages

The page Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language is currently semi protected meaning that I can't post questions to that page. Instead I had to post my question to the talk page of the Reference desk (Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk) and rely on another editor to move my question over. But then I had follow up responses to make. To make a long story short, the conversation ended up being split between two different project pages and even a user talk page.

Now, I understand why page protection exists and that it is only meant to be temporary and so on, but can I suggest that certain pages meant for answering questions of people who may not be regular Wikipedia editors (Village pump and the Reference desk for example, maybe more) be excluded from the protection policies. I mean you are basically saying, if you are not a regular user and have a question, ask here; but in order to ask your question here you need to be a regular user?!? Or at least have a four day old account. 2A02:8084:9300:A80:90AD:946E:EF56:F50 (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We actually tried to remove the edit protection on the 17th, but within 10 minutes we had different new accounts attacking the page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This happened in the 11 minutes it was unprotected. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Given how long this is going on for, and that the vandalism is just ordinary vandalism with the intent to disrupt, I personally would be in favor of rounding up some admins to play whack a mole with the sock puppets for a few hours to see if it keeps going (or until it escalates). That said, the current approach is well within policy, and policy needs to allow protection of such pages for cases where it is necessary to stop a vandal that does things worse than just blanking. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. When this kind of aggressive vandalism is occurring, with a lot of section and page blanking, the desks are largely useless to all, whether they are confirmed or not. So semiprotection is clearly the lesser of two evils in this situation. In my opinion, whatever benefit there is in not registering is exceeded by its cost, but I'm sure you've heard that before. You don't have to be a regular user to register an account. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If anyone has edit filter skills, there's a proposal at WP:EF/R for a possible solution. --Jayron 32 13:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. A stream of section-deletion edits like this looks like something that could be done by bot... and if someone is fooling with bots to do this, it can only be a matter of time before he or she figures out how to get an account autoconfirmed entirely by bot editing. Wnt (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I was just at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language and I don't currently see any protection lock logo on the page. But to address this problem, I feel that edit filters could be the solution. I'm going to look into this more thoroughly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam.gov (talk • contribs) 23:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I done some research into the edit filter concept. According to its project page, it can be used by trusted users to set specific controls on user activity and create automated reactions. If I'm not mistaking, it can be used to set filter on certain edits on the reference desk, such as vandalism. There may be some false positives but users can report it. This may require testing before a filter is fully implemented, to avoid disruption. This could be better then blocking users from editing on the reference desk for help. Sam.gov (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawn. I'll go ahead an make a master list with reasons and notify admins... I've got time to kill. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 23:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If I've learned anything from going through semi-protected edit requests, it's that a ton of pages that exist that were indefinitely semi-protected several years before. This is clearly against the basic principles of Wikipedia, and it's nonsense to think that if there has been some vandalism over a couple of months it'll be like that in five years, or because a sock made some edits they'll remember they did in three years. In fact, many of these pages have a long history of productive semi-protected edit requests, and that's assuming that only a small fraction of people who want to make edits take the time to fill out edit requests (which is a battle to fight another day). Therefore; I propose that:

All pages in the mainspace that have been protected for more than three years be systematically unprotected, unless a reasonable objection is raised to each individual unprotection, and,
Administrators are strongly encouraged to not semi-protect an article for more than one year unless there's community consensus to do so.

Comments are appreciated. -Kharkiv07 ^Talk 23:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify, if you take a look here you can see all the pages indefinitely semi-protected. I agree that some of them are just vandalism magnets, and those are the ones we can bring "reasonable objection"s to. Besides that, many have been protected a long time without givening IPs and chance to prove themselves. They deserve at least a chance. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 04:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Some of these articles have proven themselves to be vandalism magnets... they are articles that went through a long series of incrementally longer and longer semi-protections for repeated vandalism by multiple vandals. Each time the protection was lifted, the vandalism started up again. That history has to be considered before unprotecting. So... no, I can not support an automatic un-protection after three years. I would, however, support a review of such articles to re-examine a) why they were protected in the first place, and b) whether that protection is likely to still be needed. Blueboar (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Blueboar, I think a review process would be more beneficial. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I had a really good persistent-vandalism reason for protecting Soleil Moon Frye for 5 years. I would oppose any blanket rules against necessary protections like this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yup. Generally speaking, long-term protection is imposed as a result of repeated vandalism when shorter periods of protection end. Certainly, if someone wishes to systematically go through the list and nominate individual articles for unprotection after a proper assessment, there isn't a problem, but systematically unprotecting articles that have been repeatedly vandalised without prior assessment will clearly result in vandalism recurring - and on pages that may not be on as many watchlists as they might otherwise have been. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - I would certainly support if this were restricted to articles which haven't had a protection of 6 months to a year; however, in many cases, it turns out that even that's not enough and we need to allow more extreme measures to be taken as necessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Please find something useful to do. If there were some examples to be considered this might not be a total waste of time, but it is not helpful make proposals based on liberty when what is needed are actions that assist the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't suggest that everyone has to work on Wikipedia in the same way. - dcljr (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Of Wikipedia's 4.8 M articles, about 2500 are indefinitely semiprotected (0.05%). To my mind, that small fraction shows that admins do exercise restraint with respect to long-term semiprotection. That said, as an advocate of open editing, I would probably be in favor of unlocking many of the old ones if they were discussed individually. And, please feel to nominate any specific cases for discussion. However, I don't think we should be unlocking them all indiscriminately without taking any effort to examine why an admin chose to lock them in the first place. Dragons flight (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to go through all of them... if I had an easier way than spamming WP:RfPP or the talk page of every protecting admin in Wikipedia... Kharkiv07 ^Talk 04:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

They were protected by many people over many years. Its not surprising that it might take a while to review each one. However, that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be looked at individually. If you wanted to review 20 per day, you could get through all of them in less than four months, and probably wouldn't generate that much spam. Or less time if you recruited other people to help. It would be a long-term project but hardly an insurmountable one.

For example, let's consider the first 20 on your list:

Which of these do you think should be unprotected? Dragons flight (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Which some are redirects that are semi'd and not the target page. Mlpearc (open channel) 06:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, in 2009, Tony Sidaway went through and reviewed slightly less than 2000 articles that were indef semiprotected at that time. He ultimately nominated about 100 of them that he felt deserved unprotection (he skipped articles that were obvious magnets for vandalism as well as all redirects). After review, about 65 of the articles he suggested were unprotected. That's an example both that systematic review is possible, and that perhaps many of the articles that are protected nonetheless deserve to be. Dragons flight (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the category, Category:Wikipedia indefinitely semi-protected pages, there are only perhaps nine or ten on the first page that should obviously remained protected forever. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 13:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Kharkiv... you have to look beyond what is "obvious", because the reason a page might be indef protected is not always obvious... and a lack of an "obvious" reason does not mean the should be unprotected. You have to look into the history of why a page was protected to know whether it should be unprotected. Let me turn your question around... are there any on the first page of the category that you think should "obviously" be unprotected? Why? Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Gladly, I'm a bit short on time so let's just look at the first five.

The first page is /b/. It has been semi'd three times, the first being in 2006 and the last being in 2008, it hasn't been given a chance in 7 years.
Next is 0 (number), which has been semi'd since 2010, but since then the talk page shows a history of productive activities by IPs.
After is 1918 flu pandemic, which was only protected once before it was indefinitely protected, not even giving people a chance.
2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup is next, and it was indefinitely protected for "edit warring/content dispute", if you look at the protection policy it's only encouraged for persistent vandalism or BLP issues.
Finally, 2010 FIFA World Cup... which I can't argue with.

I picked the first five alphabetically, and could keep going, but out of that 80% could be lifted in my opinion. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 15:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Regards /b/, that protection is obvious to me, if not you (the /b/ referenced as the second bullet on that item will remake that in their own image otherwise). Your other analysis seems fine, but I think that single article makes it obvious that some protections aren't obvious. --Izno (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Should another move request at Hillary Rodham Clinton be permitted?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm not entirely certain if I should be amused or horrified that there needs to be a discussion about whether it is permissible to hold a discussion about renaming and article; but the acrimony from the previous RfM certainly show the need.

There is no immediately clear consensus in this discussion despite a fairly evident 2/3 split in favour of allowing a new RM; some of the support is nuanced, or conditional, and some of the opposition is also not entirely unmitigated. That said, the previous moratorium has expired and the only reasonable outcome of an RfC where consensus is absent or marginal is to retain status quo – in this case: permit further discussion and allow a new RM to take place.

In addition, there is broad support in both "camps" that if a RM does take place then its result needs to be "locked in" for at least a year to prevent the issue being debated to death (with a year being repeatedly suggested). That sounds like a very good idea to me and I would strongly recommend anyone drafting a RM for that article to include such a clause in the request. — Coren ^(talk) 20:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It has been noted at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Fair notification of pending RM that some editors intend to file a new move request within the coming weeks proposing to move Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. Since 2007, there have been nine move requests made for this article (including one proposal to move to Secretary Clinton and one to move to Hillary (politician). Of the requests that have been made, six were fully considered, and three were speedy-closed. Following the most recent request, closed by a three-admin panel in April 2014, a moratorium was put in place by consensus of the community, prohibiting any further move requests until February 2015 and placing a minimum content threshold on move requests made until February 2017. At the time, it was argued that a potential candidacy by the subject might shift public perceptions of the subject's common name.

However, following the placement of that note, an editor has stated:

After a point this just becomes like an AfD, when partisans nominate and re-nominate and re-nominate an article year after year, hoping that the Wiki-Slot Machine will come up in the combination of editors and closing admin(s) that will produced the result that they already think should happen. This is gaming the system.

gaming the system is something that we as a community do not permit, so if the community in general feels that permitting another move request to be made does, in fact, constitute "gaming the system", then such a request should not be allowed. I therefore request a determination of the consensus of the community as to whether a new move request should be permitted.

It is important to dispose of this issue before any new move request is initiated. If the community agrees that a request should not be permitted, this will prevent the initiation of an improper request. If the community agrees that a request should be permitted, this will allow the discussion to focus on the merits of the request itself, and avoid tangential discussions about whether the discussion should be permitted. bd2412 T 19:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Support allowing a new move request at Hillary Rodham Clinton

Support. The moratorium has expired, and there are an additional year's worth of data points to consider. bd2412 T 19:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Support consensus can change, though this does seem awfully frequent, there is no harm in it happening again. I didn't know this was a debate, having joined Wikipedia after the most recent request, but will definitely participate. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Support - the restriction on move requests was clearly defined and has clearly expired. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; we must prefer discussion to unnecessarily restrictive bureaucracy. Ivanvector (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Support - that restriction has expired, and WP:CCC. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Support. Quite clearly, a decent majority of editors believe there is a problem with the current title. This will become even worse when Clinton starts her presidential campaign. The moratorium has expired and it is now time to sort it out. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Support The current title has never had consensus and banning discussion is no substitute for a collaborative process. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Support - Per Cwobeel. Expired and WP:CCC. NickCT (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Support As others have said consensus can change, the moratorium has expired and the last discussion ended as no consensus, not a consensus for the current title. Davewild (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Support Consensus can change and it's very much necessary that it can change to better suite the needs of the encylopedia. WP:NOTBURO as well. Tutelary (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Support with the caveat that the moratorium returns immediately upon the results of this one being enacted. There's no harm in an occasional discussion and a consensus check. But the last batch of move requests seemed to be an attempt by some to "win" their side of the dispute by brute force. That helps no one. So, the logical solution is to allow a one-time check, and then return to a moratorium for another year or so. --Jayron32 21:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Jayron32:, in fairness to the editors who have initiated the previous discussions, almost all of them were started by editors who were not aware of the previous discussions. This just happens to be a topic for which editors coming across it are inclined to think that the title needs to be changed. It will probably continue to be. bd2412 T 21:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Support - There doesn't seem be a valid reason for not allowing a move request discussion now. I don't think that gaming the system is a factor at all.- Mr X 21:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Support allowing the Requested Move discussion, Oppose the proposed Requested Move destination. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Support Outside the US the current title just seems odd (maybe inside too). Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Support. Consensus (by any reasonable standard) was in favor of the move at the most recent request. Maybe when Hillary Clinton runs for president again as "Hillary Clinton" people will drop the notion she prefers something else. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks like Hillary Clinton is running for president, as Hillary Clinton. So what's the rationale for not allowing this again? Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Support. I don't know anyone or any publication that calls her (or has called her in the past couple of decades) Hillary Rodham Clinton, nor do I know any other notable Hillary Clinton with whom she might be confused. As someone said above, consensus can change, and WP:COMMONNAME can change. If some extraterrestrial investigates the remnants of human history thousands of years from now, there will still be a redirect from HRC if they get confused. Softlavender (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's just not true. Today's New York Times, front page, first sentence, for example. Tvoz/talk 04:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Check the headline. Softlavender (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Support. I oppose the move to Hillary Clinton but also oppose stifling debate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Support Greg Kaye 15:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Support. I asked myself here, what would Rand Paul do? Rand Paul would champion the First Amendment, and the right to freedom of speech and debate. And that is just what I will do here, today. Blessings! Pandeist (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Support The conditions specified in the moratorium have been met as we are past Feb 2015 and she is in the news again with fresh coverage. For example, The Economist led on her this week in the edition I have here. They have an extensive editorial and profile which go on for pages but they don't use the name Rodham once nor refer to the name as being any kind of issue. Rodham's day has past and it's time to move on. Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Support. The old moratorium has expired and I see no reason to retroactively extend it. If a move should happen can be discussed at the RM, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Support. Consensus can change, and the request is not unreasonable on the face of it, as most of the world knows her as "Hillary Clinton". -- The Anome (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Support. The moratorium has ended. Why are we unreasonably prohibiting discussion? Even if one opposes the page move, they can say so in a new RM. Banning RMs is a waste of time, so why not just make a new RM already? Epic Genius (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Support seems like a no-brainer that the current location is not the common name.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Support, of course, as consensus has never ever ever determined that the name should be HRC Red Slash 21:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Support I think that rehashing this a waste of time, and in a vote would vote against a move, but I will not vote to oppose debate and community decision making, as doing so is the thin end of a wedge.--KTo288 (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Support allowing the discussion. I do not think this !vote needs any further qualification.--John Cline (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Support I see no reason why should cut off legitimate discussion especially after the moratorium has expired. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
(groan) reluctantly support as moratorium has expired. I still think this is a colossal waste of time. If possible I think we should have a moratorium again afterwards. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Support – FYI, after the last move discussion, and ample discussion at WT:NCP (and other places) a new section, relevant to the H(R)C page name, has been added to people naming convention in August last year: WP:NCP#Self-published name changes, which should make a new WP:RM less high-strung. Time to put the new guidance to the test IMHO. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Support - If I understand the premise here, there hasn't been a serious conversation about the correct title in many years and certainly it's reasonable to allow a serious conversation. From a 30-second glance at her own (campaign) website, she seems to prefer the name "Hillary Clinton" and barring a really really good reason not to move it, that seems to be the right answer. But regardless of it is, allowing a serious discussion seems reasonable. --B (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
For accuracy, the last serious move request finished just less than one year ago. Dragons flight (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
That would be the case if one considers a move request where 70% supported the move and it was closed as "no consensus" to be serious. bd2412 T 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm reading that RM now. The reasons for opposing the move don't impress me. The most impressive was a laundry list of other encyclopediae and the like, which title their article HRC ... but a lot of these like PBS just use middle names and also name Bill Clinton's article WJC. One of the reasons was even downright downright bizarre - that "Hillary Clinton" is her "slave name"??? I don't see any fathomable reason that this RM should have been closed the way it was. HC is overwhelmingly more common than HRC and is (apparently) her preferred name. Not only should this previous RM not bar a new RM, this previous RM should have been closed differently. --B (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Support – This is a legitimate discussion to have and in the light of her recent announcement it would seem to be an appropriate time to have such a discussion to see if a new consensus has emerged due to changing circumstances over time. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Support - This is a rather trivial discussion, but one which needs to be had, especially as the vast majority of media outlets no longer use both her maiden and married name, opting instead for her married name. I cannot believe this discussion needs to be had nor can I believe the ignoring of WP:COMMONNAME in favour of pig-headed consensus-based ad nauseam argument. James ^{(T • C)} • 8:35 PM • 09:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Support:
- SUPPORT permitting an RM, properly respecting that the well-deserved moratorium did expire.
- ADVISE delaying any such RM, to allow her new campaign to play out for a while.
- SUPPORT a renewed 1 year moratorium be seriously considered as part of a close of any RM. Persistent RMing is disruptive. Alsee (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Support with the moratorium provision. --GRuban (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Support with provisions defined by Alsee. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 03:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Support previous opposition was largely based on her self-naming in the public domain.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Support, just as said by TonyTheTiger. By the time we get done here it will be more than the full year anyway. Torquemama007 (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Support I see no harm in it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose allowing a new move request at Hillary Rodham Clinton

Oppose - This is like an AfD where tendentious editors try year after year after year (Israel and the apartheid analogy comes to mind) to roll the dice and hope for the right lucky combo of supportive votes + closing admin(s) that will give them the result that they desire. At some point you have to stop and say "the community has spoken, and is tired". This is one of them. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, albeit not strongly, but the community's collective time is its most precious resource, and should not be squandered in this manner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Adding that since consensus is emerging to proceed with an RM discussion, Jayron32's suggestion above his merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please, we argue about whether it's "The Beatles" or "the Beatles" and about how best to create a dash. This is the bane of our existence on Wikipedia, to forever argue about stupid s**t. At least this is less stupid than some other disputes. And at a cursory glance, we appear to have gotten it wrong. We should be following WP:COMMONNAME which is "Hilary Clinton". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose as there seems to be no new information on the subject, and a consensus has never before emerged. This is shaping up to be one more discussion just like past discussions, with all the same information and arguments. Omnedon (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I would object to an RM being made between titles "Hillary Clinton" and "Hillary Rodham Clinton". However, if a move was made to "Hillary Clinton" and, for whatever reason, editor's wanted to request a move to a title such as "Hillary", I would not object. Greg Kaye 21:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose- Unless and until there is a significant development concerning Hilary Rodham Clinton's name(for example a name change), having another RM citing the same google hits and ngrams, citing the same policies(both pro and con) is a colossal waste of everyone's time. There simply is no justification for another RM right now. A solid, policy-based decision just over a year ago by an uninvolved 3-admin panel should be enough for editors to understand that any RM should have be after such a significant event, not before. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - A gross waste of time. This has been discussed over and over again, always with the same result. The encyclopedia needs work and this is a squandering of resources, again. Tvoz/talk 04:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose' - Old news and per most everyone in this section. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, nothing has been presented that doesn't show this as a complete waste of time. Nakon 04:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose – This is an amazing waste of time. This kind of repeated RM should not be encouraged. It is essentially shopping for a result. I agree that discussion shouldn't be shut down. However, in this one case, a group of editors has made it their goal to change the title of the article, and will not rest until it is changed. There is no reason to encourage this kind of behaviour. If an amazingly significant development occurs that would necessitate a change, that's one thing. No such thing has happened. Do not encourage this kind of timewasting behaviour. Re-establish the moratorium. RGloucester — ☎ 05:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - despite the fact that I would have supported an RM had I known about it, per COMMONNAME. If this Google Books Ngram Viewer doesn't win the COMMONNAME argument, nothing will, and being right doesn't justify a bite at the apple once a year. Things don't change that much in a year. Give it another year, and ping me for the RM then. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose – I know WP doesn't embrace stare decisis as a guideline per se, but as a practical matter I believe it has some value. There are some major political articles where I was on the losing side of content or phrasing disagreements that had much discussion a few years ago, but the main prevailing editor has since left the scene and no one probably is paying much attention to it now. I could go in and change the article to what I wanted back then, but I haven't done that. What was settled then should stay settled, keep moving forward, don't look back. I believe the same applies here. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose serves no factual or practical purpose, is simple disruption, we have plenty of redirects and we should not be driven by the subjects own changing whims upon the matter. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with the whims of the subject. It has to do with the name that most commonly comes to mind when people look for the subject, and factors like WP:CONCISE. Even longstanding titles can change if consensus changes. bd2412 T 19:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. The facts that have, each time, led to the article staying at "Hillary Rodham Clinton" have not changed. She believes her name to be "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and the most reliable sources have long included "Rodham" on first reference. (Her signature online includes Rodham. Her website is at hillaryclinton.com for brevity, but her shortlinks are using the hrc.io domain. Brevity alone, though, isn't — and shouldn't be — our only consideration.) Wikipedia works when we have lots of editors improving things. Wikipedia doesn't work when we retread the same argument repeatedly, and we're getting painfully close to a dozen contentious trips down the same path. It's a mistake. Justen (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Is the community allowed to consider whether the launch of a high-profile campaign under a specific name constitutes a new piece of information with respect to the utility of that name as a title? bd2412 T 22:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. The front page of her website, which announces her campaign, displays her signature as Hillary Rodham Clinton. It's a mouthful, so for brevity, particularly when dealing with the media and setting up a website, she's using Hillary Clinton. But an encyclopaedia article needn't observe those constraints. It doesn't seem like a good use of community resources to go over this for the seventh or so time. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Heh - most people's signatures bear only the vaguest resemblance to their names. Her campaign's website Bio page, however, calls her Hillary Clinton, and it clearly isn't strapped for space any more - or less - than we are. --GRuban (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - I especially oppose the Russian roulette aspect - after 5 or so move attempts, it's just time to give it up unless something concrete has happened that would change people's minds. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. The previous RM we had on this topic was remarkably active, lengthy, and detailed, and its closure by a neutral three-admin panel was both careful and thoughtful (and designed to bring some measure of finality to the matter). There needs to be a good reason to throw all of that out and revisit it once again given that it's likely to consume a lot of time and effort – not merely for the community to tiresomely re-argue the whole thing but for the closing panel (perhaps five admins this time around? seven? eleven?) to repeat the work of the last panel. Simply wanting to re-run the request (perhaps in the hope that chance might produce a different outcome) is not IMHO a good reason, nor is the possibility that consensus might have changed despite there being no evidence of such a shift. All signs, notably including some preliminary yet fairly lengthy and cantankerous squabbling already on the talk page, strongly suggest that the very same familiar arguments would be hashed out yet again this time around. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus can change with respect to the value of arguments previously raised. In fact, that has often happened in new discussions of old questions. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  - Consensus on anything can change, but nothing suggests it has in this case. Normally a perennial proposal (which this isn't officially yet, though it's looking a lot like one) is not routinely/repeatedly re-opened without some good reason to do so. I see nothing to indicate that a new RM held now would be significantly different from the last RM – and do see indications, both from preliminary surveys of usage and from the very familiar posts made so far, that it'd likely be much the same.
    WP:TITLECHANGES puts it well: "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." Let's consider looking for those other ways. ╠╣uw [talk] 15:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose for now She's about to run for president. That will produce a lot of new evidence, and will make it worth revisiting... but not yet. For now, it's premature. Let's let the campaigns get well underway, see how she portrays herself in ads, and so on and so forth. Once that's happened, we should rejudge, but there's no point reopening this only to then have to keep reopening it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per ╠╣uw 's acknowledgement that the last discussion was both wide-ranging and in-depth, and that the closing admins put in significant care in evaluating responses. While I recognize the good faith of those who want to re-visit the issue yet again, I haven't seen presentation of enough new factors to indicate a re-assessment would be looking at new facts so much as re-hashing old arguments on the chance of a different outcome because of a random difference in participants. This is just too time-consuming and distracting to end up largely as an outcome of the roll of the dice. FactStraight (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Please provide a link to the prior move discussion / start of moratorium. Dragons flight (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is the moratorium discussion, and the most recent move discussion is here. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Other than the generic "consensus can change" and the possibility that public preferences might have evolved, am I correct in thinking that there is no specific event or major new piece of evidence driving an interest in a new discussion? For example, Hillary didn't suddenly come out and unexpectedly say "I wanted to be called X going forward"? Dragons flight (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Having a new discussion at all was initially proposed by an editor who was not aware of the previous discussions, apparently based on the current state of Google results and returns from other search engines, and the creation of a new http://www.hillaryclintonoffice.com/ website. There has not been a single massive event or seismic shift in treatment, although the results do show a continued shift across sources at different levels towards excluding "Rodham". It's sort of like the story of the frog sitting in pot of water that's slowly being boiled - there's no sudden change that signals the shift, but the frog gets killed anyway. Of course, all of this excludes the real elephant in the room, which is the campaign announcement supposedly happening on Sunday. If it becomes clear that the subject will prosecute a campaign under the name, "Hillary Clinton", this will only exacerbate the confusion expressed by those who are unfamiliar with her maiden name. Since that event is likely to happen before any RM is actually filed (and since that was part of the contemplation for the original moratorium) the question of a "specific event" is likely to be moot by dinner time on Sunday. bd2412 T 22:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. I think I understand the context now. For a humorous aside, if you click "Contact" at the new website you mentioned, the title of the form that appears is "Contact the Office of Hillary Clinton" but lower on the same form they give the mailing address as "Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton...". In other words, both the long and short form of her name appear nearly simultaneously on that part of her website. Dragons flight (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That inconsistency is actually fairly common with respect to this subject - boldly and publicly presenting a shorter form, and in less noticeable ways presenting a longer form. That is one reason, perhaps, why many editors have considered conciseness and commonality as overriding factors. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Hillary running for president or not? There seems to be a frenzy of excitement in anticipation. Allowing unfocused anticipatory frenzies onto the article talk page is disruptive. Please keep time sink discussions on subpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Now is not the right time, as there is too much anticipatory excitement not conducive to calm discussion. I suggest waiting about four weeks. whether she declares or not, that decision will be discussed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe the intention is to wait at least a week or more to refine the request and let the smoke clear. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dragons flight:: In answer to your question, no, I'm not aware of any significant new evidence, nor AFAIK is there any pronounced shift in that direction. However, since Hillary has now declared her candidacy, I thought it might be useful anyway to perform a very brief spot check of the nation's largest newspapers to see if that's so, and observe the forms they use in reporting the news of her announcement. Here are the opening words of each story, showing how Hillary's name appears on first use in the text:

Wall Street Journal: "Hillary Clinton ended years of speculation about her plans Sunday..."
The New York Times: "Ending two years of speculation and coy denials, Hillary Rodham Clinton announced on Sunday..."
USA Today: "Hillary Clinton formally launched her second presidential bid today..."
The Los Angeles Times: "Hillary Rodham Clinton's long-anticipated announcement Sunday that she’s running for president..."
Daily News: "It’s official: Hillary Clinton is running for president..."
New York Post: "Hillary Clinton finally ended speculation Sunday..."
The Washington Post: "Hillary Rodham Clinton entered the presidential race Sunday..."
Chicago Sun Times: "Hillary Rodham Clinton finally jumped in the White House race on Sunday..."
Denver Post: "Hillary Rodham Clinton jumped back into presidential politics on Sunday..."
Chicago Tribune: "Hillary Rodham Clinton entered the presidential race on Sunday..."
The Orange County Register: "Hillary Rodham Clinton says she’s running for president..."
San Jose Mercury News: "Hillary Rodham Clinton jumped back into presidential politics on Sunday..."
Newsday: "Hillary Rodham Clinton declared Sunday she is running for president..."

As before, Rodham's reasonably common; the best one can probably say is that (again as before) usage remains mixed. I won't do any more source analysis here since this is just the preliminary discussion about whether we should have the debate, but I think this is sufficient to show that if another RM does begin we'll almost certainly descend once again into the lengthy and ultimately conclusion-less contest of my x sources use HC versus my y sources use HRC. All signs suggest it'll be much the same as last time. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This is why we should stay out of the business of choosing which sources or criteria are most meaningful. Just do a simple automated count of occurrences within reliable sources and call it a day. Repeat every two years. In the end, it's an article title, nothing more. Molehills do come in different sizes but this is still in the molehill range. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's understandable how our choice of title is rightly a little more complex than just a raw frequency count, particularly when it comes to articles about individuals. Still, I entirely agree that endlessly (and frequently) repeating the same debate is a waste. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Question: I get the impression that this is somehow considered politically contentious. I could understand Wikipedians arguing about WP:COMMONNAME and all the finer points of all our policies. But why, if my impression is correct, is this seen as remotely real-life politically contentious? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's weird, isn't it? I do think it's possible that the longer name is more used by her critics than her supporters, for whatever reason. But I seriously doubt the outcome of the election will depend on whether the article is at HC or HRC.

However, Wikipedia being such an important source for people to find information that may influence their choices, we can expect conflict over anything that seems to have the tiniest possible impact on those choices for the next almost 19 months. That environment is unlikely to be one conducive to the best approach to our encyclopedic mission. For that reason it would be nice to settle this one now and say, not once and for all, but at least until after the election, which is what I said in the "moratorium" section. Honestly, though, not that it's really going to help — there's a certain amount of energy people are going to spend at WP on what they perceive will make it more or less likely for her to be elected, and I suppose it might as well go into the article title as anything else. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Double or nothing for both sides, whatever is decided the results should apply to the daughter articles and categories too; for example Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, where the short form is used in the title and the long form in the article. The last thing we want is for whoever loses this to take the fight to other articles.--KTo288 (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

No. If the 2016 presidential campaign features little of "Rodham", then Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 is a good title. Hillary Rodham Clinton is more about the complete person. This campaign may be just her last hurrah. Formal titles don't have to cascade down to daughter articles in full. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@KTo288:, you mean where the WP:SHORTFORM is used in the title? bd2412 T 23:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks, missed that, scrub name changing of the titles of daughter articles as a bad idea, but to use whatever is decided when referring to the person within the article.--KTo288 (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's my issue with this vote (this one about whether to have the discussion). We basically are having the vote about the name too. Anyone who wants to keep the current name is going to say that there shouldn't be another discussion, and anyone who wants a change will be for another discussion... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's entirely true. Some people have !voted to allow a discussion while specifically stating that they oppose the move. However, this discussion was necessary because some opinions were expressed that there should not be a new move discussion, and it is important to settle that procedural question on its own merits, so that it does not interfere with a discussion of the applicability of WP:AT to the article title itself. bd2412 T 00:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look at these screen shots made today, and tell me if a change in name will make any difference as to whether the Hillary page can be found easily, either within Wikipedia or in a general search of the internet. (hint: it makes no difference).
<a href=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Screen_Shot_2015-04-13_at_10.16.53_PM.png>Wikipedia quick search results for Hillary Ro</a>
<a href=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Screen_Shot_2015-04-13_at_10.16.39_PM.png>Wikipedia quick search results for Hillary Clin</a>
<a href=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Screen_Shot_2015-04-13_at_10.15.39_PM.png>Google search results for Hillary Rodham Clinton</a>
<a href=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Screen_Shot_2015-04-13_at_10.15.16_PM.png>Google search results for Hillary Clinton</a> David.thompson.esq (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

We have a project page called Wikipedia:Requested moves. Every day we deal with dozens of pages for which this exact point could be asserted. Quite often, these pages get moved. Since you seem to have an interest in this, I would encourage you to participate in some of those discussions. I may be mistaken, but I don't believe that I have seen you participating in that area. You might find it very informative to do so. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Quick note on BLP concerns

An editor has proposed in discussion elsewhere that WP:BLP concerns "should make any move impossible". Please note if this concern changes anyone's opinion as to whether a new move discussion should be held. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

To begin with, it's rather odd, as a vocal supporter of changing Hillary Rodham Clinton name, who apparently thinks the last move request was an unfair loss, that you bring this proposal here (no one on the other side of the question proposed closing discussion at VPP) -- of course, BLP does apply to matters concerning a BLP. Do you contend, for example, that a woman using her maiden name is not a matter of contention and commentary in society or in the lives of living women? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The question is, is there any reason based on BLP concerns that a move request should be prohibited? Obviously, I don't want to go to the trouble of helping to draft a request if the request itself is for some reason not permitted. bd2412 T 14:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Your the one who has raised the preventing it on this policy board - no one else did that (and again you want it moved -so there would be no reason for you to raise preventing it). Your stirring up of such a thing on a policy board is the very least way to get reflective input. It's grand standing or climbing the reichstag (it's a shame - it is just a shame). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I withdraw the question, then. Many of the participants in the above discussion are experienced editors who are very familiar with WP:BLP; I will assume good faith that if BLP concerns were any reason not to have another move discussion, they would have said so. Thank you for clarifying things. bd2412 T 17:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Moratorium following any new Clinton move discussion

If a new move discussion occurs at Hillary Rodham Clinton, then the result of that RM should be accepted as the definitive one for now, and no additional requested moves should be allowed at that page during the subsequent year to foreclose any disruptive attempts to repeatedly reargue the question.

Support. This is my suggestion. Dragons flight (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Support. For the record, I made the suggestion first above. But it's cool. --Jayron 32 02:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Support. There are obviously strong feelings on both sides of the question, and no need to raise those more than once in a year. bd2412 T 03:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Support with the proviso that the typo in the proposal is corrected :) — This, that and the other (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
D'oh and done. Dragons flight (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Support for any overwhelming consensus in a new move discussion to be fixed in stone for one year's duration. Softlavender (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose restricting future discussion, support immediate blocking of any editor(s) attempting to be solely disruptive in a request. If there is a valid reason to put in a request, then that should never be impeded by beaurcratical creep. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose ideas and consensus changes so we should not restrict further requested moves in the future. If it is raised again it is because users are not happy or somethings changed and we should assume good faith and they should be allowed to raise it again. MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose If there are no major irregularities with the discussion, it everyone should probably wait a year to propose another. However we don't know how the move discussion is going to go, whether there will be irregularities, and so locking in the result before the discussion has even started strikes me as a bad idea, especially as broadly worded as the proposal is here. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. A year is too long, especially considering the timing. A six-month moratorium seems reasonable, or even until the start of next year. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I have come from the future!!!I come from the year 2793 to remind you that you all have better things to do than have yet another move discussion about this page, given the zombie apocalypse that is coming at you in a mere two fleen cycles. Honestly, I can't believe anyone wants to waste more time on this. You now have a discussion about whether to have a discussion (about something that will have no impact on the google ranking of the page in question). This will be followed (perhaps) by the discussion authorized by the present discussion (in which there is a sub-discussion discussing the need to ensure that any subsequent discussion is deemed the definitive discussion), but if the subsequent discussion doesn't foreclose other discussions, then there will be more discussions. FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY KNOCK IT OFF!!!!!!!!! Wikilove to all!!!! BUT PLEASE STOP!!!! There's lot's to do at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Horse Is Dead, Dead I Tell You!! David.thompson.esq (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

No one is holding a gun to your head making you debate this. If you feel it's a waste of time, find something better to do. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 03:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Have to agree with Calidum. Your attention-getting and hyper-dramatic posts on every single discussion even remotely concerning the situation says more about you than it does about people actually trying to come to a consensus on what's best for the encyclopedia. You're free to take the article off your watch list; since you've never edited it and never opined substantively (except to complain) on the talk page, that seems the logical thing to do if lengthy or repetitive discussions bother you. I for one personally find your posts on the pages disruptive, especially since you use all caps, lengthy redlinks, 36-point type, and multiple exclamation marks. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I would be careful about automatic processes here. If the current RM is put together well and runs without major hick-ups, it may be reasonable to have a new moratorium. But I don't want a situation where someone proposes to move the article to "Hillary (exalted being)" or "Rodham (dog poo)" and thus forestalls legitimate discussion on a technicality. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Not long enough. A one-year moratorium just shifts the debate into the heart of the presidential campaign. Have it out now, and then accept the result until after the election. --Trovatore (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. New evidence may be established, and more people may !vote or change their opinions. Epic Genius (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Support but agree with User:Trovatore, an 18 month moratorium, to prevent this coming up again in the middle of the campaign.--KTo288 (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Regardless as to the length of the moratorium, debate on the article's talk page should be permitted. A moratorium, if there is one, should be only regarding article moves, not discussions over whether there should be or should have been such a move. SMP0328. (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
support There's really no reason for constant reassessment of the name of a prominent article, especially when it's just a choice between two perfectly valid names. Mangoe (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose This is just impeding progress. For the same reasons we should allow one now, we should always allow them, as long as they are not obviously disruptive, or providing few bits of new evidence. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
If we allow a new move discussion, it will the the 7th full discussion (not counting the three additional ones that were speedy closed). After that much discussion, I think that one has to assume that repeatedly rearguing what name should be used is implicitly disruptive (even if no one is explicitly intending it to be disruptive). Dragons flight (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that we can overlook the fact that the last RM had more than 70% in favor of moving the article, with more community participation than all of the previous RMs combined. There comes a point where we have to ask, can consensus change? Can that be treated as a fluke? Is there some unwritten prohibition against a change in consensus, some secret rule requiring suspension of WP:AT and deviation from the usual standards by which common names are determined? bd2412 T 02:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there may be reasons for occasionally revisiting the issue. I simply saying there ought to be reasonable limits on how often we do that. Dragons flight (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412 and Dragons flight: The {{Maintained}} TfD is proof consensus can change, even on the fourth discussion, and even if the votes are almost evenly split with equal arguments. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment I support a moratorium in theory, but am unsure whether 6 months or 12 months is sufficient time. I don't wish to close off debate prematurely, so I am tentatively leaning towards 6 months. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
support any concerns about change in the outside world are trumped by the concerns over the repeated attempts to force the namechange on the article and the subsequent waste of time. I reckon 12 months. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Weak Support - Per A Quest For Knowledge; I certainly don't plan to discuss this again for 6-12 after the proposal. The reason I am "weak" is because something significant might change in the next 6 months which might affect the article title. Instead of imposing an absolute gag order, we should just say something like "Unless consensus can be reached that some event has had significant impact on the proper naming of this article, further RM discussions should be avoided for the next XXX months." NickCT (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose formal moratorium as contrary to regular consensus building which this project is built on. However, repeatedly asking the same question is clearly disruptive; if the same editors are responsible for it, the community could impose a unique sort of topic ban forbidding those users from new move requests. I've seen similar sanctions before but couldn't point you to a specific example. Ivanvector (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Given how many times the change has been (unsuccessfully) argued, perhaps we should class it as a perennial proposal, a designation that more tightly governs – but does not rule out – future discussions. Otherwise, I would support a moratorium lasting until the conclusion of the presidential campaign. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Only if there are no new facts. Right now, her website calls her Hillary Clinton exclusively except for the signature on her home page. Hypothetical: she does focus group testing and determines that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" tests better and so she changes her website to say "Hillary Rodham Clinton" exclusively. I would think that in this case, it should be moved back. For a non-political comparison, consider a notable athlete named "Michael". In college, he was Michael. Then when he went pro, he started going by Mike because it sounded better for marketing and what not. Then, he said that his momma told him that she named him Michael, not Mike and he asked to be called Michael again. If the underlying facts of the situation change, we should rename our articles accordingly. --B (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. With her now being a presidential candidate, things can change very quickly over the course of a whole year. Preemptively cutting off future debate when we don't know all the things that will happen over the course of the coming year is unwise. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose agree with RReagan. A presidential campaign is a bad time to try to forbid debate. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Premature attempt to shut down future discussion. Completely against the spirit of community discussion. James ^{(T • C)} • 2:00 PM • 03:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Support closer discretion to include a temporary RM moratorium. A 1 year RM moratorium is a very reasonable close when a page has seen a disruptive number of RMs. The closer can consider any critical arguments that may be raised regarding appropriateness of a moratorium or specific end date, which is very plausible given the active campaign. Alsee (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Communication on the issue should remain open.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Meaning?

I'm a bit befuddled by the meaning of all this. Must there be consensus for having the discussion, for the discussion to be.... not prohibited? Isn't the normal course that there must be consensus against having discussion for the discussion to be prohibited? And one would think things may always be discussed. I'm a bit surprised at the number who would seem set to squelch free speech. Pandeist (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Pandeist, You have it a bit backwards. This is a proposal to create a prohibition. It looks pretty clear that a formal page move debate is not going to be prevented, but it is very possible that any outcome will carry a 1 year lock-in to avoid disruptive repetition.

On a side note, please don't misuse the Free Speech argument. I'm a pretty extreme supporter of Free Speech. You can publish what you want on your own webserver, but you have no affirmative right to publish your speech on someone else's webserver. We can revoke someone's editing privileges if they become too disruptive of our general work. More to the point, we are perfectly free to limit our formal page move procedures to once per year. Alsee (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not at all clear to me that the debate will not be prevented. It is just barely over 2/3rds in favor of having it. What if an administrator looks at that and decides, well there's not a solid enough consensus to permit the debate at all? Last year's discussion had 70% for the move and the admins didn't like it enough, so why would 2/3rds favoring a discussion be enough for consensus here? And if it's decided there must not be a discussion, does that hold for a year, no matter what? And as to free speech, private web server and all, yes, but that's not exactly the spirit of this whole free culture movement is it? I'm not talking so much about the proposal to create the prohibition, but that nearly 1/3rd here are against the discussion even taking place -- no matter the new developments or the outcome of the last one leaving the matter largely open. This just seems the wrong direction to head down. Pandeist (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that the 60-odd percent currently supporting reopening is likely insufficient, but IMHO that's appropriate given the somewhat unusual circumstances of this case:

Per policy, consensus is determined by the quality of arguments, not by a simple counted majority, and last year's RM was one of those relatively uncommon cases where the !vote count pointed a different direction than the prevailing arguments. Particularly given that a move review affirmed the appropriateness of that closure, it seems like an especially strong majority would be needed to throw that out and start again – otherwise the provision in our consensus rules that puts the strength of arguments ahead of mere majority becomes toothless. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alsee:, you see? Even after the last discussion -- ended with 70% backing a move and no consensus for the current name -- those who have dug in their heels for the current name can still press the illusion that their opposition must be overcome just to discuss the matter. And this is after nearly a full year has passed, the conditions set after the past discussion have long expired, and there has been a momentous event shifting facts in favor of a move. Pandeist (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Pandeist, the matter is being discussed at the Hilary Rodham Clinton talk page. Extensively. Yet there is still no consensus. How can a move succeed when there is clearly no consensus to move? Omnedon (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Uh, not so much being "discussed" as being rambled on about, there, by the same set always entrenched on the question. With the discussion inevitably deteriorating into one not on the issue but on who's being uncivil to who this time around. Too much ingroupthink going on there. No thanks!! But blessings to you. Pandeist (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It's being discussed in much the same manner as it was in move requests. No one is trying to stifle discussion; but some are trying to avoid a complete waste of editors' time. Omnedon (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

....with giant wall of text back and forths. Not a timesaver. I saw one guy jumped in there and posted tldr a dozen times.... Pandeist (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No, no -- some editors have been trying to avoid getting sucked into yet another RM that will likely lead to the same result as in the past. Hence this discussion here. Omnedon (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Why would the results be the same when the situation has changed? Example: in the discussion before User:TonyTheTiger opposing because "If she is going to run I would like to see what her campaign name is." Well now we know. HillaryClinton.com, Hillary Clinton in the "big print," Hillary Clinton on Facebook. It's probably hard for people who're involved in the day to day to recall how a year ago it was really an unknown if she would be a candidate at all, or to envision how "Hillary Clinton" she's made this. Goodness how things have changed! Pandeist (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Pandeist: The "momentous event" of Hillary's candidacy was reported in many of the nation's biggest papers as "Hillary Rodham Clinton entered the presidential race on Sunday..." (or similar), as earlier links show. She also had a "Hillary Clinton" website at hillaryclintonoffice.com when we had the last debate. Nothing shows that usage has changed significantly since the last RM – we simply have loud claims that it has. Goodness how things stay the same... ╠╣uw [talk] 10:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Owning an ambiguously purposes website and relaunching it as an "I'm running for President (primarily) as Hillary Clinton" platform are two very different propositions, especially when done in tandem with a lot of other moves signaling predominance of that name. So yes, it's momentous change, from last month even, much less from a year ago. But one must have a less involved view to see this objectively. Pandeist (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You may wish to mention that to reliable sources since they don't seem to have gotten the message... ╠╣uw [talk] 14:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

But by your own words, that is information available "when we had the last debate" and so off the table for a new discussion focusing on the situation as changed since then. And here is an example of that change, the content of the hillaryclinton.com website as of last year which primarily focuses on the name "Hillary" alone, crucially lacking an assertion of having Hillary Clinton's own express approval. Compare that to the current rebranding -- released amidst a tremendous flurry of publicity -- which primarily focuses on "Hillary Clinton" and with the unmissable impression of her being the approver of it. There is as well the little matter of ALL of her opponents, female or male, married or not, from the left and from the right, acceding to that primacy and referencing her solely as "Hillary Clinton." For example, here is left-most Senator Bernie Sanders, “I do have doubts that Hillary Clinton or any Republican out there will take on big-money interests who control so much of our economy," and on the other side here is rightist Carly Fiorina (hmmmm, not Carly Sneed Fiorina), "Hillary Clinton must not be president." No matter. Support for a discussion at the moment stands about 70%. So it seems enough people think there's new news now. Pandeist (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, a RM needs consensus to succeed, and (at least according to the closer) failed to get it. So the status quo held. In this situation, the default is the other way round. The default is that we allow RMs. We would need a consensus to prohibit a new RM, and I don't see that remotely. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Note: Preparation for the next RM discussion is at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Pursuant to the above discussion, the proposal has now been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request‎ to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. bd2412 T 17:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed new policy on term used during move requests

I wanted to bring attention to the village pump about a discussion I have started at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Changing term used in article while move discussion is taking place which is an attempt to create a new policy which will mean that during a move request proposal that: the term used in the article at the moment of the move request should be maintained during the period of the discussion. Particiaption would be very much appreciated. Ebonelm (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

What is a "consensus" and who decides about "quality of arguments"?

Recently I noticed that someone replaces all the short and nice cite_isbn templates in my articles, with long and tedious cite_book templates. I looked at Template:Cite isbn and saw a notice saying that "Per consensus, this template should no longer be used". I clicked the "consensus" link and got to the talk page of a different page - Cite doi - which claims that there is a consensus on deprecating cite:doi, and the discussion is closed. The discussion close message says that "Because there is not clear numerical majority consensus; this closure is based on the relative policy strength of the various arguments". Indeed, there was a clear majority (11 vs. 6) AGAINST deprecating the template, but Wikipedia:Consensus says that "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)". Now this raises several questions:

Why does Wikipedia use the word "consensus" in a meaning so different than its original? It sounds weird to talk about "consensus" when the majority is against it... it reminds of the "consensus" by which leaders are elected in some East-Asian countries...
A more practical question is: who decides what is the "quality" or the "strength" of the arguments? What if most editors feel that the arguments against the decision are stronger?

-- Erel Segal (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It all rests with the judgment of the closing administrator. And if there is any COI from the closing administrador′s side... we just do not learn that there is. (This was not directed to a specific administrator. When, however, possibilities of abuse are so high, it has to be mentioned.)--The Theosophist (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:CABAL on the definition of consensus ;-). Seriously, I feel similarly in principle. But with no voter registration and on-sit and off-site canvassing and sock- and meatpuppeting, and typically very low visibility in very many discussions, Wikipedia has leaned to give the closers a lot of leeway in reading "community consensus". Discussions can be closed by any reasonably experience editor, but more controversial ones are often closed by admins, and for highly controversial ones, sometime a panel of respected admins self-assembles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Erel Segal: I completely understand you. Personally, I believe that if the practice of editors forming article-specific, WikiProject-specific or template-specific consensuses was dropped, Wikipedia would make a step forward that very moment.--The Theosophist (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI, Erel asked a version of this question in the form of a suggestion over at the Consensus Policy talk page and I responded in a manner similar to Stephen Schulz there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It is frankly dangerous to disregard the reasonable arguments of the numerical majority, because that only invites future disruption. That is precisely the dynamic playing out now at the Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request‎; there was a discussion a year ago with 70% favoring a move, it was closed as not moved, and now (after a similar percentage supported having a new discussion), the same debate is being rehashed all over again, with pages and pages of dispute. If you have a substantial majority in favor of a particular solution, unless their arguments are complete nonsense, the majority opinion should be respected. Otherwise, the close is an execution rather than a judgment. bd2412 T 16:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please, no more refining something as major as 'What is a consensus' if it limits the discussion between editors (both admins and regular folk). I think consensus is something you know when you see it, and it must contain the weight of all discussion, not just items discussed and voted upon by past editors (which includes MOS). Their are two equal viewpoints at the Hillary Rodham Clinton page, with each having many diverse points to point to, almost all of them with considerable weight (in terms of WikiWeight). So once again the logical decision will very likely be, as it should, in favor of 'no consensus', which means the name stays where it has been. I don't see what's wrong with that. There are sometimes major decision and policy shifts brought about by a handful or two of editors, and then some go and point to these major policy changes as if they were handed down from on-high and engrave them on gold and then point to them when a discussion is taking place. I try to keep away from these pages now that I know about them, the legalese and politics involved is a bit time consuming, and as long as the rope isn't tied too-tightly around the horse then it should have some range of motion. Asking 'What is consensus?' is a bit like asking what to order on your pizza. Everyone likes it slightly differently. Wikipedia should stay a large pizza, divided up into thousands of slices, each one cooked, with various ingredients, to perfection. Randy Kryn 16:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah... but what is meant by "cooked"... and define "perfection" Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipizzia, the encyclopedia anyone can eat. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Block for undeclared revealed COI

I was wondering what is the community's thoughts on having a block cause based on an editor's breach of the conflict of interest guidelines that would work the same as {{uw-spamublock}}. For example, EditorA creates an article about SubjectB (alternatively, they edit the article or any other scenario). Their edits are reverted, or article is modified by other editors somehow, tagged with issues or speedy deletion or nominated for AFD. As part of the response to this, EditorA reveals on-wiki that they are associated with SubjectB in a clear way that places them squarely under the COI umbrella. They did not disclose this conflict of interest beforehand as we require it. Assuming there is no other reason to block (username, edit warring, blatant spamming, legal threats, etc) EditorA would then be hardblocked with an appropriate notice, and unblocking would involve the same thing we do when we respond to an appeal made under a spam username/spam edits block: Agreement to follow the COI guidelines and indication that they understand what they mean. The global Terms of Use refer in wording more to the Wiki-PR types, and not the intern at YoYoDyne Corp. who decided to write an article about the company. Therefore this would be en.wp-specific. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that a user volentarily revealing information which the community couldn't have figured out otherwise, unless itself a breech of some policy, shoul;d generally not cause any penalty. So if the user reveals a COI which was involved with a preious edit, and the community had no idea, then that COI, combined with previous edits, can't be a cause for a block. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

To make an other point: Let's say that EditorA realizes, after the fact, that (s)he should have revealed his/her COI. Do we want to encourage the user to reveal it, or discourage him/her? A policy of blocking under these cercumstances would tend to discourage. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes please, BLOCK THEM! But after a warning telling them to declare their COI edit, but if the warning ignored, block them.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 22:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Od Mishehu's arguments seem persuasive to me. Seems like Excessive Force to respond to a voluntary, on-wiki "revelation" with a block. Why can't the same thing be accomplished with a conversation on the user's talk page (or wherever the user made their revelation, especially if an IP editor)? - dcljr (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

How about hard blocks for people who don't follow WP:AGF and WP:BITE? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

A block for this reason would be counter productive. Instead those that care can reevaluate the edits of the user to see if there are problems. Few editors will reveal all their interests. A paid form of COI is just a more extreme form of an unpaid bias or interest. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu, Aldnonymous, Dcljr, Pigsonthewing, and Graeme Bartlett: Thank you all for your thoughts. I thought about this further and I think it would probably be counterproductive and won't really help with the paid editing problems we have. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Uniform infobox policy for biographies: a proposal

Snow close. Given the prior history of controversy, this proposal has not a snowball's chance in hell of reaching consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

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

I have been thinking about this for some time but now I feel it is time to propose it. If a biographical article has two sections or more, then it must have an infobox next to the lede. An infobox exists for the sake of hosting basic information about an individual. The absence of an infobox can be very disturbing when someone looks for information like the place of death of the subject, especially in large articles (e.g. Giacomo Puccini). Thankfully, most biographies do have an infobox. The problem is that in some articles, editors have formed an article-specific consensus about the article′s infobox. In Peter Sellers, for example, there is a consensus that the infobox is to be collapsed and every time someone tries to make it look like a normal infobox, they are directed to that consensus. I find nothing peculiar in Peter Sellers's article that could justify a unique infobox policy for it. It is a normal biography and should be treated like all normal biographies.

I find it outrageous that Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes needs to contain the following note: “Word of caution! Certain biography articles have opposition camps on infoboxes. With the current work groups, it is generally safe, but, for instance, scientist articles can have some heated debates on these. So, if you are intending to apply one of the templates to an article about a scientist, academic, or classical composer, musician or singer, first ask on the Talk page.” Of course, even though scientists and academics are mentioned, we all know which ones are the big deal.

In short, no biographical article (or group of articles) should have its own (their own) infobox policy. There must be an inter-Wikipedia discussion to form a universal consensus for a Uniform Infobox Policy. If that consensus is to completely get rid of infoboxes, then that should we do. If it is that all articles of so-and-so length should have an infobox, then that should we do. No “middle ground” or “a different article - a different policy” should be allowed. --The Theosophist (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Damn right—a volunteer project to collaboratively build an encyclopedia is no place for individuality. And let's get rid of WP:ENGVAR while we're at it. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the situation at the Peter Sellers article is beyond stupid, and favour infobox use in probably 99% of all articles, but all or nothing approaches rarely work well. Reso lute 00:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Resolute: The arguments of the other side (i.e. we should have a specific policy for this article because there happened to be a specific consensus for this article) are insufficient. Thus, if we address them "federally" they will most likely not stand for much time. My all-or-nothing banter above was mainly used for emphasis. What I ask is, not necessarily that it is made a rule that all biographies should have an infobox, but that it is made a rule that no biography (or group of biographies) should have its own infobox policy.--The Theosophist (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the amount of disinformation routinely found in biographical infoboxes (i.e. opinion stated as fact, unsourced assertions, and statements that are directly contradicted by the article body) I would have to suggest that removing infoboxes entirely would be the appropriate course of action, if we are to have a common policy on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I cannot say that I agree with "why fix it when you can trash it" views.--The Theosophist (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

- Huh? Didn't you get the WMF memo? We're competing against Facebook and pages need infoboxes to look good—who cares what's in them? I forgot to mention that the so-called content builders need to just write the articles, then get out of the way—the automated editors will take over. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The only way this proposal would work is if an infobox could be designed that worked in 100% of biographical articles. Given the variability in reasons why an article might be written about a person, I seriously doubt that a single infobox, or even a reasonably sized set of infoboxes, could ever be created that could handle all possible cases. Heck, there are articles where little details like a person's name or date of birth have too much uncertainty to fit into a simple form. I am like Resolute and feel that infoboxes are useful in a large number of cases. As the proposer is looking for a solution that will work in all cases however, the only viable option is to remove all infoboxes. --Allen3 ^talk 01:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Allen3: I did not say that we should be having one form of an infobox for all cases. What I said was that no editor should be able to remove an infobox from a regular biography because of a consensus that applies only to this regular biography.--The Theosophist (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you called for this proposal to apply to any biographical article with two of more sections. As any functional article complying with both WP:VERIFY and MOS:LAYOUT will have a lead, one or more sections of text, and a references section, the only biographies not covered by your proposal are unsourced WP:STUBs. With Wikipedia's efforts to build the encyclopedia. we must assume there is a high probability that the topics excluded by this single section exemption may be turned into functional articles at a future time, and thus there are no biographical topics not affected by this proposal. As any biographical topic eventually requires an infobox under your proposal, where is the list of infoboxes that fit all possible topics. An argument that if no such template exists it will never be added does not fly either, as anyone with a bit of experience on the project knows that if something is possible then someone of limited insight will eventually attempt to do it. As a result, it is just a matter of time before some over eager infobox advocate attempts to shoehorn a box someplace it does not fit and all this proposal will do is prevent anyone from fixing the resulting problem. --Allen3 ^talk 09:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that any biographical articles with significant content (2 sections would work) should have at least a basic infobox for metadata (to replace the ageing persondata) and easy of reading for our readers. As a Wikipedia reader for 10 years, its still the first place I look, and is specially useful for simple facts that are hard to find in prose. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Infoboxes are nice and I like them in general, but we should not create unenforcable rules. If it brings you joy to add them where needed, I can find no reason to stop you. But we should not require things like this. The idea is a good one as an idea, but the writing of a rule requiring it is a Bad Idea ^tm. --Jayron 32 03:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: You did not understand the problem. The only reason for me proposing this, is that if I go to, say, Ludwig van Beethoven and add an infobox, it will be removed because "consensus was not to put infoboxes in classical composer articles". This is what I want to stop. Classical composer biographies should be like any other biography. They should not be having their own infobox policy.--The Theosophist (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Disambiguation

Is this okay? BlueworldSpeccie (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a set index, not a disambiguation page. Set index maintenance is normally done by the appropriate WikiProject, so if you still have concerns, they would be best addressed by WikiProject Comics.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 7, 2015; 17:57 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for responding so fast. BlueworldSpeccie (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:AT – proposed update regarding Precision, Conciseness and Disambiguation

See Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Combined proposal.

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Comments on #Combined proposal, tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Restoring articles to original Language

Recently, I put up humour for a move attempt to restore it to it's original spelling. As expected, there was some jibes at different countries spellings, etc. There are many other high profile articles that were similarly changed, such as cheque and honour. It seems the argument against moving it back is either "it's been like this for a while" and "The English created the Language, thus we get to do what we want." The second part of that argument should be of course be dismissed out of hand, but regarding the first, what is the time limit for restoring what, is in effect, vandalism? Should there be a time limit? If there is no time limit, then does the policy clearly state these articles should be restored against vandalism?

Cheers ~~ipuser 90.194.62.161 (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, the question for me is whether this is worth fighting over. I'm American, and prefer the American versions, but with the availability of redirects, does it really matter? Obviously questionable, new, ENGVAR moves will get scrutiny, but going back and trying to fight over old ones just seems like a waste of time. Monty ₈₄₅ 13:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The answer for all WP:ENGVAR issues should always be "If there is no compelling reason to move it, don't move it." The fact that a proportion of the English speaking world spells it differently (but not universally) OR the fact that once, many years ago, the article was under a different title, neither seem like compelling reasons. The purpose of WP:ENGVAR is to encourage people not to have debates at all about such issues and just leave it be. Generally, for a newly-created article, or one whose provenance or history is muddled a bit, or where there has been a bunch of recent changes to the spelling, we default to the initial version in disputes. But the game of playing "GOTCHA!" by digging up many-years-old versions of articles to start a new ENGVAR dispute where none had existed in all that time is a Bad Idea. --Jayron 32 14:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, since I didn't catch this in my first response, and let me bold this so it's importance is clear and unambiguous, it is not vandalism. It is not "in effect" vandalism, it is not "equivalent to" vandalism, it and vandalism do not occupy the same plane of existence. Vandalism is not "something I disagree with". Vandalism means, only means, and never means anything else except "Actions taken by someone to deliberately harm Wikipedia." It never means ANY other violation of rules or norms or any other thing which you may think is wrong. Changing to one's own preferred spelling, while it may be contraindicated by WP:ENGVAR, would never be considered vandalism. Stop using that word in any capacity until you learn what it means. --Jayron 32 14:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I would counter that some of it obviously is vandalism. Yes, there's a grey area between them, but something like this edit : (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sidewalk&oldid=647014038) is vandalism, but is often taken as gospel truth to those that don't like a different kind of English than their own (yes, cutting all ways). What happens when someone makes an edit like that, and then it creeps through and starts changing the whole article to that variety of English, as has happened at humour, honour etc? Should it not be restored simply because as Monty845 says, it's a waste of time? In my opinion (and of course, again, I could be wrong, please prove me so if the case) if there was the opposite creep, American English taking over BrE articles, it wouldn't stand, and there would be, well, not rioting in the streets, but many many angry characters typed upon this forum!! Yes, it's not the end of the world, but, nevertheless, obviously people care, so should there b a guideline? ~Cheers, ipuser 90.194.62.161 (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

When you've finished mischief making here, perhaps you'd like to jog over to Talk:Strained yogurt and demand it's returned to its original title, 'Strained yoghurt'.--Ykraps (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ykraps, I guess the difference there is it went through a proper move request, with discussion, as opposed to a single user arbitrarily deciding to move it. But, I'm but a simple human, same as you, always can be in error 90.194.62.161 (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, please don't take a condescending tone to your fellow editors Ykraps, I might have a different view than you, and a different focus on wikipedia, doesn't mean I don't think it is a valuable resource. If nobody did the dishes, the kitchen would cease to run.

Cheers, ~~ipuser 90.194.62.161 (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The point I am making is that if you wish to form a policy that sends titles back to their original spellings, then that is one which will be moved. You can't have it both ways: Either we have a policy or we decide by consensus and consensus currently determines that humour stays at humour. Which is it you prefer?--Ykraps (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No, if it had been unilaterally moved without a proper request move, I would say, "of course! Move it back!" but it was moved with a proper request move, unlike humour, honour, etc. Those were moved by people who, in their own words, didn't like American spellings vs. british spellings. Humor was moved to Humour without consensus. It shouldn't need, in my opinion, a consensus to move it back, as it is simply restoring someone violating our own guidelines. Now of course, ask for consensus, it's a group effort, but the guideline I'm asking for is, is there a brightline time when what was often vandalism from one form of english to another goes from 'restoring due to WP:ENGVAR' to 'maintain due to WP:MAINTAIN'? ~~ipuser 90.194.62.161 (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

They may well have been moved without consensus but the consensus now is that they stay there. What you are seeking now is a page move from Humour to Humor and your argument is that a guideline trumps consensus. The validity of that argument does not concern me, although you might like to read WP:Policies and guidelines, particularly the part that describes how they should, “...reflect consensus”. What does concern me is that once that precedent has been set, it will be used to instigate further page moves. Rather than doing the dishes, as you claim, it appears instead that you are throwing them back into the dirty water.--Ykraps (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, as I don’t spell yoghourt either of those ways, I have little interest in whether the article is strained yogurt or strained yoghurt. Nor do I have a strong preference for where the Humour article resides, having arrived at the page only through the blatant WP: Canvassing at Talk: Yogurt.--Ykraps (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I am simply pushing the issue because it has lead to so many talk page debates before, that it should have a hard and fast rule. No, it's not, on the grand scheme of the world, a big deal, but alas, too many pages have been thrown afoul of it, so why not have a rule. Also, my preferred version of yogurt is frozen. ~~ipuse 90.194.62.161 (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Another interesting opportunity for you to show your colours has arisen at Talk:Pajamas--Ykraps (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I stated before, if it started as one variety of English, it should stay that way. I didn't notice you weighing in on the topic. What happened to assuming good faith, as opposed to trying to call someone out on 'their true colors', and hoping that their true colors, keep shining through. ~ipuser 90.194.62.161 (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't call you out or say anything about true colours, I merely invited you to show your colours which you did admirably with your non-commital contribution. No, I haven't weighed in with that or any of the move requests we've been discussing here but had I have done, rest assured that my arguments would have been consistent. The article had clearly been started in British English and given what you have said here, you should have supported the move but you failed to do so.--Ykraps (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I voted to restore to whatever the first nonstub variety of english was, you can read the talk page if you want. I didn't fail to do anything, I said, in no uncertain terms, it should be whatever it was as originally. Is that not consistent with my statements here, previous things I've voted for, etc, or are you just looking to try to undermine my credibility? cheers ipuser 90.194.62.161 (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You are undermining your own credibility; all I’ve done here is highlight the problems with your proposal. I have given you two examples of articles which would return to their original titles under your proposal and on both occasions you have failed to back up your words with actions. Your vote at Talk: Pajamas which is "support or oppose" will be disregarded as I suspect you know. The non-stub clause you are now latching on to was not part of your initial proposal and is only valid, "...when no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue". This change in policy you are seeking clearly doesn’t fit your agenda and I don’t see how you can continue to support it.--Ykraps (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Which two examples did you give? Strained yogurt, which was moved, with consensus, after a proper request move, and pajamas, which I said, in no uncertain terms that I would support whichever version of english, whether british English or American english that the article was written in. So, I support the move, if it was originally written in british English, and oppose the move if the article was written in American English to start, but, nobody can figure it out. Further more, I didn't vote at the move request, NOBODY votes at a move request, it's not a popularity contest, but rather, trying to figure out the consensus of the community. This is why, I'm asking for a hard and fast rule that says "if an article was started in one variety of english, if changed without a proper move request, it should be changed back." Ykraps, do you disagree with that, and why?

Cheers. ~ipuser 90.194.62.161 (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It is very difficult to either agree or disagree with you because you keep changing your mind about what it is you want. You initially asked for a hard and fast rule that changes titles back to their original form. Under your initial proposal, "strained yogurt" and "pajamas" will return to "strained yoghurt" and "pyjamas", and your "Yeah but..., no but..." arguments will count for nothing! Now, presumably because that rule doesn't fit your agenda at those articles, you are seeking provisos such as, "first non-stub version" and "only if it wasn't moved with a proper move request". If you keep going you will eventually end up with the policy we currently have! I am undecided whether I would like a hard and fast rule and came here to see how it might work, but you have been less than helpful in that respect. Also I could do without a lecture on consensus from someone who seeks to overturn it just about everywhere he goes.--Ykraps (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, let me make this perfectly clear. If a page is moved from one style of english to another, without a move request, when does WP:MAINTAIN and WP:ENGVAR shift from the original style of english to the new style? That is, if a page is started in british english, and someone moves it to American English without a move request, or anything, and nobody notices it for a while, should it be moved back to british english, or should it stay at American English? That is the question. I encourage anyone, not just ykraps, to reply, to the question at hand. ~~cheers, ~ipuser90.194.62.161 (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The short answer to that is, when consensus says so. Please understand that the policies and guidelines are written in the same way as individual articles; by a tiny proportion of editors, sometimes with consensus and sometimes unilaterally. As I said earlier, guidelines follow consensus. If people continue to kick against the guidelines, the guidelines are wrong but obviously this doesn't happen overnight and so we are constantly in a state where at times, consensus seems at odds with policy!--Ykraps (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Also could you do the British the courtesy of spelling it with a capital letter? You have used lowercase twice above and here [[2]], here [[3]], here [[4]], here [[5]] and here [[6]]! They can't all be typos, particularly as you have managed to capitalise American on each occassion. This could be seen as indicative of a hidden agenda, which is something I have not yet ruled out.--Ykraps (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Look at pajamas now. There is the same argument going on, but with a page moved from British to American english. This argument will be perpetual, when should a page that has been moved WP:BOLD (as someone there said) be considered stable, and when should it be reverted? If it's been stable for one week? One month? One year? One decade? Or do we say "Regardless of length of time, it was in violation of the guidelines, so, it should be back" That it was I'm trying to debate, not my capitlisation. So should there be a guideline that says when to move, or when it's been too long? Often, people canvass to make their own consensus, to make a page move where they want (which is not above board, but does happen). ~~cheers, ipuser 94.14.222.249 (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that this has come up again at Pillar(car). I'm all for restoring it back to the original, should there actually be a policy for this (and can we get Ykraps to actually debate the issue as opposed to trying to just play 'gotcha' with the inferior colonials?) ~ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Articles on Schools exempt from WP:A7

You will have to forgive me, I am returning to an active status being only moderately active for several years. Yesterday, I was looking through WP:AFD, and came across theAFD for British International School Lagos. When I went to the page at the time [7], it was 3 lines long, referencing only its own website with no assertion of notability. I closed the AFD as [{WP:A7]], an organization with no assertion of notability, as I would have with any other article with the same amount of information and same quality of references. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools @WhisperToMe: asked me to review it, citing an essay summarizing past WP:AFD decisions about schools. Since then, the article has been expanded, but not for the better of the project, not as a result of the editor, but as a result of the lack of actual notable references available. For example, the following was added "...the school had difficulty finding qualified German teachers, so the possibility that the school would have to cancel its German classes existed...". At the end of the day, I believe this passes a WP:DUCK of not being appropriate for Wikipedia. I suspect that, if asked if the above quote came from either a.) and encyclopedia, or b.) from the minutes of a PTA meeting, that many would choose the latter.

The underlying issue here is not one of the editor, who has made an WP:AGF attempt to find and cite articles to bring it up to standard, but will never be able to because of the nature of schools, of which, a huge majority will never pass the WP:ORG notability requirements. In a domain of articles where one can make a very strong case that a most of the subjects will fail WP:ORG, why then is it exempt from WP:A7? If there is something that I am missing here, I would appreciate somebody clearing the air. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris. The relevant page for common outcomes is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools. See to see past high school AFD discussions, which have largely stopped after 2010.

Significant sourced content about a school from a secondary source that is independent of the subject and is non-routine coverage helps the school pass WP:GNG. Of course the page does say ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."

Chris, in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools you said "Not all content in books are notable. " - According to WP:GNG the content does not count towards notability if it's not independent of the subject and/or if it's "routine" news coverage. If it's not of a routine nature, and it gives significant coverage, and is independent of the subject, it counts towards notability

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

A couple of things, Firstly, not all content that we can attribute to a source is notable, we need to use some common sense here ( the header of WP:GNG states "...It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply...".). Secondly, the argument "This is the way it has been done for some time" so, it is ok to keep doing it is also dangerous. Both of these use words to skirt the actual issue at hand, that most schools are not inherently notable. Chris

It's not about the content per se. It's whether there is "the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." (see Wikipedia:Notability#Article_content_does_not_determine_notability) In fact "notability" doesn't apply to article content at all (Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article). It's strictly a matter of whether the topic is appropriate for inclusion or not.

It's true that often things "always done" are not automatically something that should be done. The reality is that the question of whether senior high schools are inherently notable has been brought up many times before, and people in a community who have dealt with an argument many times before oftentimes don't want to spend more time and energy rehashing it again. Often people want precedent to continue and spend their time/resources tackling new problems or simply writing articles.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

What I am saying is, there is nowhere where it is said that they are "inherently notable", and anybody acting on that assumption is grossly mis-informed. Notability needs to be asserted, and having a loophole where "any article in this class is automatically notable" takes all the responsibility off of the creating editors to use their best judgement when creating an article, and requires significant resources from the community to address them as exceptions to the rule, when there is no rationale foundation for it's existence. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It de facto says that they are presumed to be automatically notable (unless no source is able to verify their existence which is different from something not meeting WP:GNG) in the common outcomes page. As for editors' judgment, when they see numerous articles about senior high schools in various countries around the world they will judge that they too should start articles about schools/their own schools/other schools. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Our job in deletion processes is to assess the notability of the topic, not the sources. We assess the independence and reliability of the sources, Chrislk02.

There is a difference between "inherent notability" and a "strong presumption of notability". The second is a very useful tool in deletion debates, and that presumption definitely exists regarding secondary schools.

There is a widespread working consensus that degree-awarding secondary schools are presumed to be notable, and that with sufficient effort, acceptable sources can be found. For example, Two hours spent in a library in Lagos would almost certainly produce many good sources about the British International School Lagos. The vast majority of articles about secondary schools are kept if brought to AfD. Let a group of editors debate and discuss the topic. If the article is a hoax, or about a home school with a handful of students, then it will be deleted.

Accordingly, I strongly oppose any speedy deletion of articles about secondary schools. Most articles about primary schools should be redirected instead of being deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Now, this may be a separate consideration and not entirely about notability. The reason why I support senior high school articles, aside from the fact that in several cases one is able to write well-sourced articles about such institutions, is that they are a way of attracting young people who may be future Wikipedia editors. Often people want to write articles about their interests. Many students at first are immediately interested in their schools. One can let them play around and work on such articles, and they can "graduate" to other and more serious topics as they grow older and become more experienced. Senior high school and university levels are in general good places for editors since they often have enough free time to contribute and are well educated enough to be productive editors.

The reason why I support the current status quo regarding senior high schools (presume automatic notability in most cases), and likewise with other "presume automatically notable" subjects, is that it streamlines the process of article acceptance and greatly reduces the burden on new Wikipedia editors. As you know user participation has been slumping and there is a concern of retaining editors. Often people have less time and energy than one may expect, and they need to be able to meaningfully contribute to Wikipedia on a casual editing basis. Putting too many hoops in front of editing will choke the flow of new editors. In theory an editor who sees his/her page get speedied should learn from his or her mistakes, read up on policies, do a better job next time, etc. Instead in reality many people simply quit due to frustration. I understand that editors want Wikipedia to be an encyclopedic, comprehensive resource, but that must be balanced with the interests of the general public and the need for an accessible way to become a new editor. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

So, an article about a school that is 3 lines long, with no assertion of notability is treated different than an article about a non profit that is 3 lines long with no assertion of notability? Where do we draw the line? The entire argument is based on the most faulty of logic, and honestly, it opens a very dangerous door for arguments such as "based on common outcomes of AFD's about school where most are kept, we should keep this article about a school that is at AFD" Nowhere is notability asserted, and use common sense, an article about a small school in Nigeria that could not find a German teacher at some point is not encyclopedic, plain and simple. Using all of this backdoor rationalization does not change that. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The status quo is that being a degree-awarding senior high school "is a statement of notability" and makes the article ineligible for speedy. If any door is open, it's been open for at least five years, if not longer. I do understand that "because it's the way it's always done" isn't always a good argument, but it does somebody well to study previous discussions and consider whether he/she is going to bring something new to the recurring argument. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I am asking, where outright is there a community wide consensus that says schools "presume automatic notability"? I have researched the issue and cannot seem to find where that was established? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes/Archive_2#Proposed_amendment_to_schools seems to be where the wording was last changed and set to its current state. Do you want to invite User:Terriersfan (now User:Just Chilling) to the discussion to clarify this? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is confusing "exempt from speedy deletion" as being the same as "automatically notable". There is a lot of gray area between those two extremes; nothing is automatically notable. Speedy deletion is for articles which have no hope of being kept, for various reasons. There is a long-established pattern that articles on secondary and higher-level schools are frequently demonstrated to be notable in deletion discussions, so much so that an automatic exemption from WP:A7 actually benefits the project by saving a large number of articles from needing to be undeleted and preventing biting of newbies. That doesn't mean they can't be deleted at all; WP:G3 applies if the school doesn't exist, and any article on any school can be taken to AfD. Ivanvector (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I would not say that school articles are "exempt" from speedy deletion under A7... I would instead say that A7 rarely applies to school articles - however, "rare" is not the same as "never". I would say that before saying that a school does meet the A7 deletion criteria, you almost have to prove the negative... and lay out the case for deletion (ie demonstrate that the school is one of the rare cases where it does meet A7). And, as long as you are doing that... you might as well send it to AfD anyway (ie skip the speedy). Blueboar (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

A7 specifically excludes Educational Institutions. So unless we are talking about a hoax, which is deletable under G3, its hard to imagine how a school would not be an educational institution. Of course you can always bring it to WP:AFD or make a WP:PROD, but it will be exempt at the speedy deletion stage. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are...

Indefinite blocks so common? It's really hard to find a user in the block log that doesn't get blocked indefinitely, and many unblock requests are refused, which effectively means once you are indeffed, you don't have that great of a chance of coming back, unless you seemingly force yourself to change, which...doesn't seem genuine. I know indefinite means "however long is needed for the user to address the issue", but... I've heard of at least one case where a user displayed he understood the reason and wouldn't repeat what he did but got banned anyway. I think, with the exception of already-banned users + socks and sock masters, we should start toning down the indefinite blocks and removing many stale blocks that have been around since 2004. I'm sure some accounts would, just like IP addresses, stop vandalizing after a 24 hour halt. Indefinite blocks may be justified if a user gets blocked for the same disruption about 3-4 times in a row, but that should be it. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If a user registers an account and then proceeds to make four contributions and all of them are malicious, do you think they'll come back and be constructive? Kharkiv07 ^Talk 01:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's another not-so-secret fact. Let's say you created that account, and went on a vandalism rampage, and got blocked right away, as just happened. Lets say that like, a week later, you come to your senses and say "You know what, I'd really like to help out at Wikipedia. That whole vandalism thing I did was pretty stupid. Let me just create a new account and be helpful from now on". You want to know what happens to you? Nothing. You get to keep being helpful. No one at Wikipedia bothers you, no one has any reason to suspect you had an earlier account which vandalized a bunch of stuff. Literally, it's like you didn't make the first mistake. No one will ever know. So, if you want to be useful, just be useful. If you just want to be a pain in the ass, expect swift blocks. The end result is entirely up to your choice and no one elses. --Jayron 32 01:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

A lot of good editors started with vandalizing edits. And often, some good faith edits may look like vandalism, new editors learn from mistakes. Many editors start by testing the reliability of Wikipedia. Now if an editor goes on vandalizing, tens or twenties or more deliberate vandal edits, that user is definitely disruptive. Block indef is often abuse of power and bad for growth of Wikipedia community. We cannot eliminate block indef, but we shall definitely LIMIT where block indef can apply. I think: sock (puppets and masters) can be block indef. Deliberate vandals can be long term blocked (3-4 months or a year). - nafSadh did say 02:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should gve vandalism-only accounts a 24 hour block the first time, indef the second. I doubt, though, that many of them would come back for the second round. I think that the main problem of indef blocks is that we are probably quick to block meatpuppets, frequently working from a single school or work place (and therefore indistinguishable by checkuser) as sockpuppets. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I do think the second time block should not be indef either, rather long term. SPI is also a big issue today. They can be wrong and abused. nafSadh did say 03:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Every time I check WP:SPI, it's a mess. There are currently 70 reports. The entire table is bigger than my entire monitor. I have a good feeling some of these reports wouldn't HAVE to exist if there weren't as much indef blocking going on. In fact, if indef blocks were less common right now, SPI would be easier to clean after all of the current reports are checked. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree that overdoing indef blocks can easily cause a boat to the size of SPI - for two reasons: Firstly, creating an account is so cheap that many users, if stopped by a block, will simply wait 24 hours, create a new account, and continue where they left off. Secondly, when we block meatpuppets as sockpuppets, we are, at the same time, giving them a reason to want to "get back" at us, and telling them how to do it with the block reason. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu

There's too much indef blocking going on. I propose that indefinite blocks should only be used when;

The user is banned from Wikipedia
The user has a username problem
The user disrupted Wikipedia in a specific way 4 times in a row (1st block = 24 hours, 2nd block = 72 hours, 3rd block = 1 month, 4th block = indefinite)
The user is a blatant sockpuppet

We might be (pretty much) banning users that may eventually flourish into amazing contributors if they aren't blocked. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If someone I indef blocked for unambiguous but routine vandalism came back a day later, and made a good faith request for unblock, acknowledging they had vandalized, and promising to edit constructively going forward, I'd be happy to give them another chance. So many unblock requests are junk. They argue that there was nothing wrong with what they did when it was clearly in violation of policy, or they attack people. But a strict blocking rubric is not the solution. If someone has filled a page with libel, they should not get a chance to do it again the next day on the same account. Likewise for editors who vandalize with tons of hate speech. We may be a bit too eager to block new accounts in less clear situations, but your proposal goes way too far in the other direction. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Countdown clock

Some pages have a countdown clock to some event, e.g. New Horizons#Current_status. Is such a countdown appropriate for an encyclopedia article? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think presenting it the way we are presenting it is necessary or encyclopedic, but I don't see a problem with the clock itself. Can always take it to WP:TFD if you don't agree with its existence, for wider community consensus. --Izno (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should have things like a countdown to the year 2016 or a countdown to the 2017 US presidential inauguration, etc. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This is now at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_11#Template:Countdown-ymd. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deleting old pages

I've noticed lately that a number of very old articles are being speedy deleted, and I suspect some of them date from times when referencing and proving notability requirements were looser. A case in point is Dean Roberts - the subject is definitely notable enough for an article but notability wasn't proved in the article as it only referenced one allmusic.com page. If the article was AFD'd or PRODed it would have given the small number of WPNZ volunteers a chance to find proper references and improve the page. I'm guessing the page was over a decade old as I remember referring to it about 8 or 9 years ago. Therefore I propose that speedy deletions be restricted to pages created in the last few years. -- haminoon (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually the material appears to have been added in 2013. There is an interesting history with some issues of where the dab page belongs. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Any way A7 should not have applied as the person was a member of a band with a Wikipedia article, a claim of importance. So this could be challenged with the deleting admin. Chrislk02 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The system for challenging speedy deletions is opaque - why only the deleting admin? Why can't any admin undelete it? And how can a non-admin make a case when they can't see the page? The above page was tagged at 2am NZ time and deleted at 3am. If a NZer wants it to be reconsidered they could be having a frustating to-and-fro conversation with an admin in another time zone for several days. I fail to see why any article over five years old would ever need to be speedy deleted. -- haminoon (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure about 2013? The Google cache shows a 2010 tag. This is another problem with speedy deletion - it makes it very difficult for non-admins to talk about what was on the page. -- haminoon (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Pretty. The history before that was page moves with the dab page and deletes. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Its possible the history wasn't moved properly when it was moved to and from Dean Roberts (musician). The 2006 snapshot is essentially the same as the slightly updated 2015 snapshot. -- haminoon (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Another example is Somaly Mam Foundation, an 8-year-old page of a clearly notable organisation. It was speedily deleted with no discussion or warning. -- haminoon (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure? From the convoluted history it appears you replaced everything with a redirect on April 21. Note that also deleted the speedy tag for spam. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Am sure. I put the redirect in after it was speedy deleted because other pages still linked to it. See the deletion log. -- haminoon (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that there are still many articles linking to Dean Roberts and no redirect has been made - another reason why speedy deletions of long-established articles is a bad idea. A slower process would allow editors to do the job properly. -- haminoon (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The 15 or so links to the article have been deleted by another editor now. -- haminoon (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT - If an article has been speedy deleted for not properly establishing notability, and you think the deletion is in error (and that subject actually is notable) ... nothing prevents you from creating a new article on the subject - one that actually does properly establish notability (and thus won't be deleted again). Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
COMMENT - I'm with haminoon on this and support the concept that articles beyond a certain age should simply not be eligible to be speedied, but will always have to go through a prod or an AfD. Rather than a particular age, we could alternatively tie this to "articles first created before 200x" to reflect that notability criteria were much less stringent in the early days. Speedy deletions put editors who are not admins at a distinct disadvantage (can't see history, hard to argue the point of something that you last saw several years ago, etc) and it's always easier to improve something existing than starting from scratch, and for that reason, I disagree with Blueboar's view. Schwede 66 18:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

To reply to both of you, speedy deletion under Criteria A7 is separate from notability, though it shares a similar goal. Under A7 the requirement to avoid deletion is that the article make a credible (believable) claim of importance. No references needed, doesn't need to meet any notability criteria. Any article that has ever passed any version of any notability criteria should be able to survive A7. But I do agree that A7 should not be used on old articles, as its very rare for an article several years old to actually fail the criteria. However many other CSD Criteria can and should be used no matter how old the article is. G12, G10, G3 and G9 all have important policy considerations that require they always be available for things that slip through the cracks. Likewise G6, G7, and G8, when applicable, make perfect sense to apply to articles of any age. I don't do much with F criteria, but many of them are designed around older files too. Its really only the A criteria that would make sense to time limit. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment while I agree with you in principal, this is the wrong forum for changes of policy such as this. Personally I think that the best solution would be a PROD process, with the date extended for a day per month of article existence and compulsory notification of creators. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the correct forum? -- haminoon (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not 100% sure. I'd start with a draft RfC (because if you get the first one wrong you start building up resistance to your idea) in your user namespace, then ping participants in this conversation for initial feedback, then an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion with a note about it posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (since it's administrators who do make the calls on speedies) and back here (because this is where the conversation started). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I undeleted Dean Roberts after the deleting admin came back from the weekend and had no objection. I have however been unable to find references to get it to meet the WP:BIO/WP:MUSBIO notability guidelines. Help would be appreciated if anyone can find any good references, before the attention here ends up getting it deleted at AfD. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Guidance on commas before Jr. and Sr.

Per the request on the Administrators' Noticeboard, I have read the discussion and considered the arguments on both sides. Having done so, the results are highly split, with editors supporting all proposed options. Honestly, there is no strong consensus. However, I am not able to simply say go no consensus and move on ... having reviewed the arguments, I would interpret a rough consensus in favor of Option 3, allowing for both uses with internal consistency. The internal consistency is key, and I find no arguments that adequately assess the inherent damage to the encyclopedia of allowing both options, provided that each article remains consistent. Consequently, I find it prudent to authorize the least destructive option. I will leave the final subsection open for continued discussion. If any editors have concerns with this interpretation, they are welcome to contact me on my talk page. Thank you. Go Phightins! 02:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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

What should Wikipedia's guidance be regarding commas before Jr. and Sr.? 02:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Options

Option 1—no commas, no exceptions:
Do not place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation. Examples: Sammy Davis Jr., Otis D. Wright II

Option 1A—no commas, subject and source exception:
Do not place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation unless it is the preference of the subject or sources concerning the subject. Examples: Sammy Davis, Jr., Otis D. Wright II

Option 2—use commas, no exceptions:
Place a comma before Jr. or Sr., but not before a Roman numeral designation. Examples: Martin Luther King, Sr., Otis D. Wright II

Option 2A—use commas, subject and source exception:
Place a comma before Jr. or Sr., but not before a Roman numeral designation. A comma before Jr. or Sr. should be omitted if it is the preference of the subject or sources concerning the subject. Examples: Martin Luther King, Sr., Otis D. Wright II

Option 3—allow both, with internal consistency:
Editors may use or omit a comma before Jr. or Sr. so long as each article is internally consistent. Do not place a comma before a Roman numeral designation. Examples: Sammy Davis Jr. or Martin Luther King, Sr., but Otis D. Wright II, not Otis D. Wright, II

Option 4: No guidance (remove WP:JR)

Note: This RfC only concerns the comma before Jr. and Sr. If the result allows for that comma, then a follow-up discussion may be necessary regarding guidance on a comma after Jr. or Sr.

Relevant recent discussions

Pings to previous participants

User:Herostratus User:sroc User:W. P. Uzer User:HandsomeFella User:Dicklyon User:Calidum User:GiantSnowman User:Robert McClenon User:Tony1 User:Cinderella157 User:Atsme User:Randy Kryn User:DrKiernan User:FactStraight User:Collect User:PBS User:Blueboar User:Musdan77 User:RGloucester User:Amakuru User:Hobit User:Cuchullain User:George Ho User:AjaxSmack User:Imzadi1979 User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) User:In ictu oculi User:MONGO User:SarekOfVulcan User:Vegaswikian User:Red Slash User:CookieMonster755 User:Tarc User:Loriendrew User:SmokeyJoe User:Chasewc91 User:Lugnuts

I'm pretty sure this attempt to ping cannot work. The mechanism requires a signature, for one thing, and has number limits for another; I did not get the ping. Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I tried reformulating the pings. I obviously don't really know how they work very well. I'm glad they didn't work though - I was getting dismayed at the lack of early participation. If this doesn't work I'll go back to the old-fashioned notifications via talkpage. Dohn joe (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The reformulated pings didn't work either. All the above were manually notified on their talkpages. Dohn joe (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not get a ping about the discussion, but I did get your message on my talk page. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC: Survey

3, 2A, 1A. Both styles are widely accepted, and both should be allowed in Wikipedia. Because the comma before Jr. may in fact be the majority style in reliable sources - do your own searches and see - banning (or systematically removing) the comma is unnecessary and will be frustrating and confusing to editors. It is also counter to very regular practice on WP allowing multiple styles, as long as articles are internally consistent. See for example:
- MOS:SERIAL: Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent
- MOS:EMDASH: There are two options. Use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes consistently in an article.
- MOS:DATEFORMAT: Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that country (month-day for the US, except in military usage; day-month for most others; articles related to Canada may use either consistently).
- MOS:NUM: In general, use a comma to delimit numbers with five or more digits to the left of the decimal point. Numbers with four digits are at the editor's discretion: 12,345, but either 1,000 or 1000.
- MOS:GNL: Ships may be referred to using either feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers") or neutral forms ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively.

Editors should not use their worries over the proper usage of a comma after Jr. to eliminate the comma before. If, however, we do favor using or omitting the comma, we should allow for exceptions based on the demonstrated preference of the subject or sources. Dohn joe (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Option 3 or 4. As Dohn joe explained, both styles are considered acceptable. Wikipedia does not enforce consistent spellings across articles per MOS:ENGVAR (our article on tire uses American spelling, unless we want to discuss motorcycle tyres, for example). Wikipedia allows discretion on which date system to use. Those are on top of the issues Dohn joe pointed out. Also note, "written rules themselves do not set accepted practice; rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected," (per WP:BURO) so we should base our guidelines on comma usage relative to Jr. and Sr. on accepted practice. And that accepted practice has been to decide on a case-by-case basis, just as we do on date formats, varieties of English, etc. Calidum T|C 03:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
3. Basically, follow the sources. I would not expect Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (or Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.) to be moved for the sake of conformance to a standard divorced from common usage. bd2412 T 03:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Some sources do drop the comma in Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. So can we. Same with Sr., though his name more often appears without this disambiguator; it is not really part of his name. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I would actually feel a lot better about a "follow the sources" guidance here than with option 3, if people are not cool with option 1. I moved a ton of "XXX, Jr." articles on Mexican wresters, where the Jr. designation is pretty common but almost never found with a comma in sources, yet someone had gone and moved move of them to the with-comma version. Consistently omitting the comma, however, would still be preferred, as a modern and widely recommended style in most current style guides. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

1 – The last 3 editions of the Chicago Manual of Style, as well as a majority of other recent guides (according to one source quoted at the first discussion linked above), recommend dropping the traditional comma, for various reasons that have been well addressed in the previous discussions. Dohn Joe suggests that "Editors should not use their worries over the proper usage of a comma after Jr. to eliminate the comma before", but that is indeed an important worry, and a good reason to avoid commas, since, as a perusal of articles will show, it is so common for unknowing editors to get this wrong. All the guides say that if you use a comma before, you need a matching comma after (except at the end of a sentence or clause); yet even our National Park Service employees routinely mess this up. Leaving out the commas altogether will make for a cleaner and more uniform and modern presentation, more in accord with current grammar and usage guides. Dropping the comma will not be confused by anyone with attempting to change a name, I'm sure. Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course it changes someone's name. Look at Martin Luther King, Jr. The official name of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial in Washington, D.C. (notice that the official name doesn't include the comma after "Jr.", as you suggest is needed. That's one of the most useless and commonly broken ground rules in overly strict and legalistic rule books, and is rightly ignored by most sources) includes the comma. The official National Holiday named for him includes the comma. His own books printed during his lifetime contain the comma. His gravestone includes a chiseled comma, a comma which will stay on that stone and not be removed, no matter what the Chicago Manual of Style says. It was his name, and to change it goes totally against both sources and against it being Dr. King's common name. Since you unilaterally removed the comma from Dr. King's main article and many other articles with his name in the title, listing them as uncontroversial moves, and because you haven't held an RM on the Memorial or National Holiday pages, which still properly include the comma, no requested move discussion has taken place. Randy Kryn 3:14 16 April, 2015 (UTC)
Why do so many drop the comma then, when trying to honor him? Dicklyon (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Because people don't put commas on street signs. People do use them in encyclopedias though. Calidum T|C 22:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
1 per Dicklyon. No fuss, no muss, no edit wars. No commas. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't forcing every page to include commas also eliminate the fuss, muss and edit wars? Calidum T|C 22:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Calidum: Yes. Both are solutions to that problem. The difference is small, but my preference stems from a general opinion that unnecessary things should be omitted, no matter how small. But I'd be almost as happy with unconditional inclusion — the main thing is saving editor time that would serve the project better elsewhere, and eliminating one unnecessary opportunity for editor conflict. To make a big issue of this comma is classic pedantic overthink, in my opinion. I would be the last to argue that correctness on style and language is not important in an encyclopedia, but things need to be weighed against their cost. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
3 or 4 - Deep-six the guideline or keep the options open per sources and common name For example, Martin Luther King, Jr. has the comma included as part of his common name, both during his lifetime and since. It appears on the covers of all of his books published while he was alive, is the official name of his Washington, D.C. Memorial, is the official name of his U.S. national holiday, and last but not least, is carved into the very stone of his grave. Since the man's grave will carry the comma into eternity (or what's left of it), I can't see how Wikipedia wouldn't use it as his official and common name. The example of Sammy Davis Jr., on the other hand, seems fine, because he removed the comma during his lifetime (see his albums). So the option should be there to use either, depending on common sourced name. Randy Kryn 23:38 15 April, 2015 (UTC)
1: Drop the commas except where absolutely necessary. CMOS has moved forward toward dropping them, and it's a "minor typographic change" that can be made without comment and without changing the meaning of quoted text, just its stylistic presentation. It's just a simpler rule to follow than to constantly be on the lookout for missing commas following names. Imzadi 1979 → 02:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Imzadi1979: what does "absolutely necessary" mean for you here? Dohn joe (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Option 1: Lets try to avoid edit wars as much as possible. No confusing or arguing on Requested moves. Also per Dicklyon's comments. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Including the commas on all articles would accomplish the same thing, would it not? Calidum T|C 22:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Option 3: I never understood why we changed the titles and didn't just add the extra comma after the Jr and Sr. that is demanded by the arcane rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Option 3: I really want more discussions case-by-case. In fact, I found commas unnecessary usually, but I see the logics of including a comma before abbreviation (not Roman numeral). If the guideline is inconsistent, why not use policy, like WP:COMMONNAMES? --George Ho (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Why would you want more arguments on individual cases by people who don't have a firm understanding on punctuation rules in English? This is precisely why we have a Manual of Style to address these issues through centralised consensus. —sroc 💬 04:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If there is a consensus, and someone violates the consensus, then move-protection is needed. Of course, sometimes move-protection occurs without RM involvement. Also, RMs are needed to reduce name-warring. --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Search engines ignore punctuation. Ngram Viewer uses comma to separate the search phrases being compared (I tried it, and it was unable to compare Martin Luther King Jr. to Martin Luther King, Jr., even when both phrases were enclosed in quotes). So an application of COMMONNAME would necessarily be very subjective and haphazard, resulting in (1) inevitable cherry-picking of sources, conscious or otherwise, (2) enormous amounts of editor time spent debating the question at the article level — My sources are more meaningful than yours!! —, and (3) the edit warring that will always occur until someone figures out how to genetically modify human nature. The comma is not completely unimportant, but it's not worth the cost of determining it on a case-by-case basis. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Option 1: It is simpler to omit commas, consistent with MOS:COMMA to avoid "excessive use of commas", follows the contemporary trend to leave the commas out (in keeping with a modern online encyclopedia), makes comma-separated lists of people easier to read, avoids needless recurring debates over whether a comma after Jr. or Sr. is needed, circumvents arguments over whether to include or omit commas in particular cases, and makes redundant checking (and arguing over) sources whether individual subject prefer the comma which should be irrelevant to a matter of house style. If we were to allow a comma before Jr. and Sr., then we would need to include additional guidance to require a matching comma afterwards as well (as style guides agree, although some editors vehemently dispute it), which would make the guideline more involved than it needs to be by simply omitting the commas altogether. —sroc 💬 04:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Option 1: It is quite acceptable for WP to make determinations on matter of style which over-ride 'personal preference' of the subject. For instance, I believe that it specifically does so in regard to capitalisation of the titles of works for instance. It is my understanding that Jr, Sr or roman numerals are not part of a person's official name (as recorded on a birth certificate) but they are distinctions added and would be part of a persons 'common name' - that by which they are commonly known. It is my understanding that the use of commas is traditionally as a paired comma but just as the first of these is often dropped, the second (in a contemporary sense) is also redundant - since it is certainly not 'spoken' as a pause. I would also observe that the full-stop is also quite redundant. The full-stop and the comma are nothing more than clutter, especially when both are used. It is also appropriate for WP to determine (as a matter of style) the preferred abbreviation for both junior and senior, though this is not the specific question here. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! Sammy Davis Sr. wasn't named such on his birth certificate, I'm sure. —sroc 💬 04:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

But he can certainly chose to use it on album covers, books, etc. Calidum T|C 22:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Option 4. Instruction creep. With no instruction, the default course of action is to follow the sources. I note, without actually doing careful research, that the comma is more often omitted before Jr than omitted before Sr. This is consistent with Jr becoming, in practice, part of someone's proper name, the same not commonly true for Sr. There is an an attempt here to create a false consistency between Jr and Sr. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
"Follow the sources" is not part of our style recommendations. It was in there for a while, inserted by Pmanderson and removed after he was banned, but it pretty much conflicts with the idea of having a house style, like most publishers have. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
"Follow the sources" is not part of our style recommendations is a telling point. The style recommendations are at odds with the principles of the project. Why should Wikipedia have a house style? Who decides? Who decides which? Who says these decisions were previously properly made? Why not have content that reflects the sources? Why ostracize a small group of editors building content on obscure subjects that have non-standard styling? If having a house style means means conflict with following sources, then ditch house style. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
"Why should Wikipedia have a house style?" For consistency and to avoid needless arguing on individual talk pages. "Who decides?" The Wikipedia community via consensus. "Who says these decisions were previously properly made?" The community; consensus can change and the community can decide to change any guidelines with new consensus. —sroc 💬 16:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that the MOS has provoked more arguments than it solved, and interestingly, the MOS gets tossed whenever enough editors get involved. Show me the evidence of consensus for the past decisions. Seems to me, and I've looked, that the MOS, especially its fine detail, arose as individual actions on backwater pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Say that to those disputing capitalization of short words, like like and but. See Talk:Smells Like Teen Spirit. --George Ho (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I support any instruction creep that prevents vast amounts of editor time spent on relatively unimportant details. Follow which sources? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Follow which sources? The reliable secondary sources that support the content of the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
By that do you mean only the sources that are used in refs in the article? If so, how can that reasonably be considered a representative sample of reliable sources per COMMONNAME? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is what Smokey means... I assume he means all the sources that support the content of an article, whether they are used as a reference or not. I have always supported the idea of a COMMONSTYLE guideline... similar to how we have a COMMONNAME provision for which names to use. That said, a "house style" is useful for situations where there isn't a COMMONSTYLE in connection to a particular topic. It could remain as a tie breaker. Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I mean use the sources that support the content. Not all of them, you would not use the narrowly used primary sources supporting single facts, sources that do not cover the subject directly and in depth. The sources used to support the content should already be representative of all good sources. If not, then the situation must be unusual and sophisticated, or there is a WP:NPOV problem with the sourcing. If sources that could be used to support the content are collectively different to sources that currently do support the content, then there is a much bigger problem. :::::: Someone writing a new article based on a handful of sources should be entirely justified in adopting the style used throughout those sources. Most articles only have a handful of sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Number 1 – heck, why not go with Chicago Manual of Style? It typically lags behind contemporary practice—but they do finally move with it, years too late. If they now say no dot, we should not be plumbing the depths of old-fashioned nonogenerian usage. I suppose my second choice, if dragged to it, would be number 3, within-article consistency. Tony (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Really? This still hasn't been settled? It indicates a major failure of Wikipedian decision-making process that such a trivial matter can drag out for so long and waste so much time. Option 1, for the reasons given by others, subject to the understanding that on Wikipedia there can never be absolutely no exceptions. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Number 1 as per Chicago Style guides. I feel Dicklyon said it best. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
1. "[S]o long as each article is internally consistent..." This means that in one article a person could have the comma and in another, not (to match that article's prescribed consistency, if there is more than one "junior" mentioned in the article). Hmmm. Anyway, hate to prescribe and proscribe what other editors must or must not write, but this seems a big bone of contention. Let's settle it. On the merits, I could hardly care less which form is used. As a business matter, much better to have a simple rule that prevents arguments. (If the trend was to favor the opposite -- always requiring, rather than proscribing, the comma, that would be OK with me, and if the trend turns that way (not likely) you may consider my vote changed to support that. Herostratus (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Option 3 or Option 4 - I am a firm believer that facts should always be based on reliable sources. That is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. And yes, the issue of whether there is or is not a comma in a specific person's name is a matter of fact, and not a matter of "style". Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Option 1 Sources are not helpful here, since they follow their own house style guides at different times, and do not follow the alleged or supposed wishes of the bearer of the name. Older book sources mostly use the comma, newer newspaper sources do not. And none of those who bear the name is on record saying a single word about it. So, keep it simple. Kraxler (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Options 3 or 4. Typical case of MOS overreach, part of some MOS regulars' frantic drive to impose linguistic uniformity in a domain that is simply not in need of uniformity. As long as both variants are clearly legitimate and common forms in careful written English, the MOS has no business messing with our writing to dictate which of the two we should use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Options 3 or 4 We follow the sources. If writing an article about a book titled "Martin Luther King, Jr." we shouldn't omit the comma to comply with MOS as it would them be incorrectly titled.--MONGO 15:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Options 3 or 4 Follow the sources. A building named after a person might not use punctuation the same way as the person, and shouldn't be forced to. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Options 3 or 4 Follow the sources. Agree with Mongo and Future Perfect here... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Option 3 Given that use of commas has been in common practice, there is no reason to get rid of them now because some recent versions of modern style guides no longer recommends their use. I will also remind the editors !voting for Option 1 that Wikipedia's Manual of Style are suppose to be descriptive of common practices, not proscriptive. —Farix (t | c) 11:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Option 3 WP:UCRN would be diminished if we allow other rules to impinge. However I do not think that in many cases that it would be a big deal if a comma were excluded or added. If it is possible I would suggest a convention that after a comma related RM a moratorium is placed on similar RMs for at least a year. Greg Kaye 13:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Option 3 or 4. The status quo of the article prevails, and a talk page discussion should be required to switch from one style to another on any given article. --L235 (alt / t / c / ping in reply) 19:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Something akin to 2A/3/4. If it's going to be a problem, we should provide some guidance; but that guidance should be that our representation of a name should follow the reliable sources about that person. There's nothing special about the comma or II; we have the same issues with Müller/Muller/Mueller. There may be some people who, for whatever reasons of where they lived or what media covered them, are encountered with the commas missing, and definitely others who have them present. The style that is familiar to the eye when used about an entertainer may not be familiar when used about a reverend. I think though it would be very unusual to see a comma before II. Wnt (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Option 4, followed by 3. It's MOS instruction creep. No guidance is needed here, keep things simple and cut back the number of guidelines to memorize that are only meaningful when they clash with sources that should be primary anyway. SnowFire (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Option 2A, then Option 4, followed by 3 - I'd just say "Unless there is strong and clear preference among reliable sources on a subject to do so, do not place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation. Examples: Sammy Davis Jr., John F. Kennedy Jr., Otis D. Wright II.". NickCT (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

In British English we don't use Sr. & Jr. much, but I'm pretty sure this comma convention is wholly unknown, & we don't use commas. Whatever is decided (hollow laugh) it should be made clear that the decision & any MOS prescription, applies only within the sphere of American English per WP:ENGVAR. On that basis, I don't care what is decided. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Option 2A or 1A followed by 3. Wikipedia should have a house style (slight preference) to deal with cases of mixed sources or too few sources and to avoid RM battles over every such article. However, exceptions should be allowed if sources (and maybe some subjects themselves) have a clear preference (=WP:COMMONNAMES). — AjaxSmack 02:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: - re "Wikipedia should have a house style (slight preference) .... exceptions should be allowed if .... (=WP:COMMONNAMES)." - Exactly right! And well put. NickCT (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Option 4 (remove this section entirely), followed by Option 3. The obvious answer is to follow the sources (how does the subject render his own name? How do reliable sources render the name?), not impose some sort of ridiculous and unnecessary uniform rule or "presumption." I agree so wholeheartedly with Fut.Perf. that I will reproduce his or her comments here: "Typical case of MOS overreach, part of some MOS regulars' frantic drive to impose linguistic uniformity in a domain that is simply not in need of uniformity. As long as both variants are clearly legitimate and common forms in careful written English, the MOS has no business messing with our writing to dictate which of the two we should use." Neutrality^talk 04:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
1A, 3. Prefer no-comma as it renders cleaner url, makes life easier for parsing tools but we should allow both, subject to sources. If sources support both comma and non-comma, then prefer non-comma. -- nafSadh did say 01:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
3 or 4 per Calidum. There really is no need to be prescriptive about this. Internal consistency, and following sources where there is a clear preponderance of one form or the other, would seem pragmatic ways to operate, but neither form is wrong, and I don't think we should have anything that forces people down one route or another. — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Option 1B -- Do not use the comma unless sources require it. This is an intermediate between 1 and 1A; the recent edits that changed 1A to 1 have some merit, but also some unintended consequences, in my opinion. Findings and reasoning follow in the discussion section below. 172.56.16.178 (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Option 1B as per an IP. Do not use the comma unless the source requires it. "Martin Luther King Jr." always, but "Martin Luther King, Jr., Library" because that is the proper name of the library. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Option 2 (or 2A when it is part of a pen name or stage name) “Junior” is, essentially, a clarification. “Martin Luther King, Jr.”, for example, means “Martin Luther King, that is not Martin Luther King the father but Martin Luther King the son”. The comma is supposed to create a small pause before the “Junior”, which signifies that it is indeed a clarification. If the comma is omitted, then it is like the “Junior” is part of the surname (i.e., someone whose first name was Martin, middle name was Luther and surname was King Junior). Numerals, on the other hand, are not clarifications but orderings. “Cornelius Vanderbilt III” does not mean “Cornelius Vanderbilt, that is not the first, neither the second but third of the Vanderbilt family to be named Cornelius”. Rather, it just means “The third of the Vanderbilt family to be named Cornelius”. A pen name and a stage name is not a person′s actual name, so it is not liable to such rules.--The Theosophist (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Option 4 (3 as a backup) – There is no need for guidance on this matter. This is a waste of time. Either format is acceptable, and neither makes the encylopaedia look sloppy. The best way to stop this kind of time wasting is to remove the guidance altogether, even though I personally favour the no comma version. Let the WP:AT policy serve as a basis for changing article titles, as it should. RGloucester — ☎ 13:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC: Discussion

Question: Why are Roman Numerals treated differently than Jr. and Sr. in the above options? --Jayron 32 12:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It has pretty much never been the convention to use a comma before a Roman numeral. Picture "King Henry, VIII", "King George, III", or "Pope John Paul, II". bd2412 T 03:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Side issue: Above, I supported deprecating the comma in a persons name, partly based on this being a common name, rather than it being part of their 'official' name. I perceive that their may be a distinction for 'places' (such as the memorial parkway above) which may or may not include a comma (or any other punctuation for that matter). My view is that an article should reflect the official name of the place (not withstanding the requirements of common name). I see no inconsistency in this, that the article about the person does not use the comma. Conversely, if a place is named without the comma, should the article for the place have a comma just because someone purports that the individual had a preference for using the comma - no. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, Jr. is always part of the official, legal name of a person so named, as it will usually first appear on that person's birth certificate, and will remain the legal name until legally changed. On the other hand, Sr. is rarely part of a legal name, as there will be a long trail of documents without Sr., as , Sr. only becomes necessary after a Jr., son of the father, is born. , Jr. or , Sr. (or , II, , III, , Nth) distinguish individuals in the same or collateral lines of decent, and might be considered a parenthetical (thus the second comma?), but of these, the Sr. is the only one that would never be part of the official, legal name unless a legal name change was executed. As an example, I am legally a , Jr.; my father began signing , Sr. after I was born; I signed , Jr. until my father died, but my official, legal name does, and always has, included , Jr., though I now sign only my given and family names. In the US, just try to get a driver's license, passport, or official ID without using your full legal name. Thinking of full legal name, has anyone thought of pinging newyorkbrad. Generally I support Wikipedia presenting correct form, when that can be determined, over easy algorithms. After all, Wikipedia is for people, not machines. - Neonorange (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

In many jurisdictions, there is no impediment to changing a legal name to another legal name. In the U.S., for example, your legal name can usually be changed at any time for any reason, no questions asked. So, just because it isn't the name that was put on your birth certificate doesn't mean that it isn't legal. --Jayron 32 01:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Neonorange, Jr. is onto something. A 'Sr.' has to earn the title. Jr.'s are handed it along with a crib and a rattle. Randy Kryn 1:12 17 April, 2015 (UTC)

"Sr." is a retronym awarded when a "Jr." is born. Sometimes Jr. becomes Sr. when III is born and I is dead already, at least in the New York Times archive.

@{u|Jayron32}}: You quibble. In the US, try getting a driver's license, passport, social security card, or other government ID; or a mortgage or deed for real property—then see how laissez-faire the official, legal name requirements are. Other jurisdictions, would, I expect, have much the same requirements for an official, legal name. — Neonorange (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Question Is the rule to have comma after Jr., and Sr., to let us know that sentence has not really ended? If that is so, we have to add a comma after Co., and Inc., and other abbreviations too. Can someone point me to where this rule is discussed in a non-Wikipedia source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it has nothing to do with that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Answer Chicago Manual of Style: "... the function of the comma is to set off these abbreviations, so an additional comma is needed after the abbreviation if the sentence continues." The rule is not really about Sr. and Jr., it is about using a period in the middle of a sentence and adding a comma to let the reader know that this was not the end of a sentence but was an abbreviation. The people who originated the argument here at Wikipedia have been misrepresenting it. We still have to add a comma after every mid-sentence period. I think the originators of the Wikipedia rule have conflated two very different style rules: 1) The mid-sentence period rule, which has nothing to do with commas before the period; and 2) the "John Doe, Sr.", vs "John Doe Sr.", rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a nutty interpretation. Do you add a comma after "Mr." in "Mr. Smith"? Of course not. What about if Junior was spelled out? Would that be any different? No, it would not; still need a comma after it in a sentence, if and only if you have a comma before; see apposition. Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Quite so. The matching comma after "John Doe, Sr." is required for the same reason as the comma after "April 18, 2015" and "Paris, Texas"—not because the comma indicates that the sentence continues but because the commas set off the additional element which might otherwise be treated as a parenthetical remark providing clarification/disambiguation: "John Doe (Sr.)"; "April 18 (2015)"; "Paris (Texas)". In each case, the parentheses are replaced with commas, but the final comma is superseded by terminal punctuation (e.g., a full stop) at the end of a sentence. —sroc 💬 16:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Reaction to comments: I have no strong opinion on the comma, but I do object to those commenters who take it for granted that the suffix is part of a person's name. West's Encyclopedia of American Law (2nd ed, s.v. "JUNIOR") says that "Jr." is merely descriptive, not a part of a person's name. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That's quite right, the Jr. is usually dropped after the death of the Sr., and the son of the Jr. later becomes the Jr., and the previous Jr. then becomes the Sr. and so on. Jr. should only be used if it the COMMONNAME, Sr. should only be used if the person during their lifetime used it and was known as Sr. The latter case is rather rare, but some users adds Sr. to any person who had a son with the Jr. suffix. In that case, by some not very well explained rule, the sources may be overlooked, but when it comes to the comma, heaven and hell must be moved to preserve or erradicate it. Just another timesink... Kraxler (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Try telling that to someone who has a Jr. or Sr. in their name. Perhaps in terms of grammar it isn't technically part of a name ... but emotionally it is certainly perceived as being a very important part of the the person's name. And there are certainly people who are routinely referred to by the name "Junior". Blueboar (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about people who do not have a Sr. in their name, never had it, were never known as the "Sr.", but got it added by some overeager Wikipedian. It's not helpful to talk at cross-purposes. Kraxler (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I put "who take it for granted that the suffix is part of a person's name" in my comment deliberately. My point is that since it is not an official part of the name (as a general rule in the US, which is what West's is intended to cover) there is no fixed rule. This means, from a Wikipedia editing point of view, if an editor read that John Jones died and the editor could prove that there was a Wikipedia article about John Jones Jr., it would be wrong to immediately move the "John Jones Jr." article to "John Jones". It would be equally wrong to resist such a change if reliable sources could be found indicating that John Jones Jr. had dropped the suffix. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:172.56.16.178's findings and reasoning on "Option 1B"

Note: Split because of excessive length. Epic Genius (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This book omits comma before Jr. in names, including

Sammy Davis Jr.
Martin Luther King Jr.
Florenz Ziegfeld Jr.
Richard Maltby Jr.
Johann Strauss Jr.
Eddie Foy Jr.

but includes comma before Jr. in show names that use it:

George Washington, Jr.
Sherlock, Jr.

This one omits commas from a huge number of names, including Harry Connick Jr., and like the other, includes the comma in some show titles such as Robinson Crusoe, Jr."

This book by a leading authority on MLK Jr. omits the comma except where citing a title that used it, or when listing the author's name the way it appears on the work.

My conclusion is that it is a common style choice to omit the comma, except when literally reproducing the title or author as it appears on a work. The observation that various publishers or authors make different style choices should not stop Wikipedia from making a style choice. Leaving it up to the whim of editors, on the other hand, seems like a chaotic idea. And trying to determine the preference of the subject seems essentially impossible. Even if a person wrote their name with a comma, as was more traditional in past years, that does not indicate that they ever considered the option or expressed a preference one way or the other. My impression is that if any significant fraction of reliable sources about them omit the comma, then it is OK to omit the comma.

As Calidum puts it, "people don't put commas on street signs", which is the logical counter to Randy Kryn's "it changes someone's name". We do not dishonor Dr. King by our choice of how to style the "Jr." qualifier to his name.

Are there any names for which a significant fraction of reliable sources do NOT omit the comma? Not that I have found so far, but they must exist; if we find them we should probably use the comma with those.

On the other hand, some sources mix it up, with who knows what criterion. This one: [8] has:

Harry Connick Sr and Jr
Mel Kiper Jr and Mel Sr
Robert Downey, Jr., and Bobbie Sr.
Cuba Gooding Jr. and Cuba Sr.
Ray Parker, Jr., and Ray Parker Jr and Ray Jr and ...

So I'd say some sources have no style. Oddly, Robert Downey Jr. and Ray Parker Jr. sources are more than 80% without comma, yet this source added a comma for them while mostly not using the comma.

Some such as this book use a comma in the full name but omit it with the shorted Holmes Jr. and Holmes Sr. That's a style, too. It looks like over half omit the comma from the Holmes pair, so it's not clear what bd2412's objection is in "I would not expect Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (or Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.) to be moved...".

Nobody would put a comma or two in Leland Stanford Jr. University, but if you look at books that mention "Leland Stanford Jr. Museum", you find some that put a comma before Jr., some that put commas before and after, and at least one that puts a comma only after. They make their style choices, and maybe a few mistakes.

SmokeyJoe's suggestion "use the sources that support the content" is good, as long as the sources agree. When they don't, we should use our house style, which should be to omit the comma, as it has been for at least 5 years. And Randy Kryn is right that we should not modify official names such as "Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial", even though the mismatched comma makes no grammatical sense; it is not our job to try to fix that. On the other hand, "Martin Luther King, Jr. Day" is not the official name of that holiday, so we may have more flexibility in fixing that one.

George Ho's point about wanting more discussion of individual cases is hard to understand. He has restored commas to a number of articles where no cited source, or no cited source other than Find-A-Grave, uses the comma; so why did he not discuss that? It looks like Find-A-Grave has their own style (some of their contributors omit the comma from their names, but all of their grave listings for Jr and Sr use the comma); does that mean we add a comma whenever somebody dies? In Albert Gore, Sr., one source uses the comma, but the others do not; yet he moved it without discussion, even while our MOS said to omit the comma.

This WP history shows Flo Ziegfeld moved in 2011 to Florenz Ziegfeld, Jr.. Why the comma? Probably because the redirect Florenz Ziegfeld Jr. already existed, in the way. Not a good reason. Our WP:JR didn't say back in 2007 not to do that, but now it's time to improve it and match the style to that of many other articles that do conform to our style guidelines.

172.56.16.178 (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposal to extend the scope of this Rfc

It is proposed to amend the Manual of Style to recommend that the full stop after Dr, Cllr, Mr, Mrs, Jr, Sr and similar words be omitted. Discussion to include treatment of Ms, which is not an abbreviation of anything.

Support It is grammatically wrong to append this dot. The dot indicates that letters have been omitted after the last letter that appears in the abbreviation. These words all have letters missing from the interior of the word, not the end. I support the non - inclusion of a dot at the end of Ms, because that is useful to distinguish it from Ms. (manuscript). 156.61.250.250 (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to start a separate RfC, but it's a different issue from the current one, and would unnecessarily confuse it, especially at this point in the discussion. Dohn joe (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose conflating these issues, per Dohn. The scope is different and would involve further amendments to other sections. Don't confuse matters further. Start a separate RfC for that. —sroc 💬 16:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. This is an WP:ENGVAR issue; American English uses the period after those abbreviations while British English does not. Calidum T|C 21:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Per sroc and Calidum. GregJackP Boomer! 23:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per Calidum. American English style guides recommend it, British ones recommend against it. Clear WP:ENGVAR issue. Current general ENGVAR guidance, merely requiring internal consistency, is adequate. --Jayron 32 11:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment Actually, Americans are ambivalent on the issue. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability (breeds)

I have written a very early draft for a notability guideline on animal breeds. I would like to invite editors to comment. Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (breeds) and Wikipedia:Notability (breeds). Thanks. JT_dale^Talk~ 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish might be interested in this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'd been thinking a guideline on this should be established, as we have a few breed articles that look like WP:PROD/WP:AFD material, because they cite few (or single) sources and make no assertion of notability. A handful of them may be "vanity articles" promoting someone's attempt to establish a new breed, which is most often a for-profit concern. We need to discourage creation of such junk articles, while also discouraging the deletion-targeting of articles on actually notable breeds that simply haven't had the citation attention here yet that they deserve. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

A few other pings off the top of my head: @Peter coxhead, GregKaye, Montanabw, and Justlettersandnumbers: — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pings, SMC. I also saw the messages at the various wikiprojects and have already made some preliminary comments. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC re:Anthroponymy page guidelines

There is an active RfC on moving Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anthroponymy/Standards into the MOS, at either Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anthroponymy pages or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anthroponymy. Please contribute. Thanks! —Swpb^talk 20:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Establish MoS as the official page for style questions

There is now a proposal at the Village Pump that WT:MoS be established as Wikipedia's official page for style Q&A (rather than create a dedicated style noticeboard). This would involve actively guiding editors with style questions to WT:MoS and away from other pages. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Limits on promotional lists

Some types of items, such as entertainment industry awards, are largely inherently promotional in nature. Since we don’t want to unduly promote things on Wikipedia, should we have guidance, perhaps at MOS:SAL, instructing to be more selective in listings of such items than we may be with other types of lists? (Note: There is some discussion of this question in a narrower scope at WT:FILM. I don’t know whether we do need a rule like this; that’s why I’m asking the community. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(clarification copied from a reply below) What I mean by this question is, should we only list the likes of the high-profile Golden Globes or Academy Awards, or Pulitzers, or the Nobel Prize in Literature? Or should we list every single verifiable award (including frivolous ones)? Every notable award? Only awards that meet some yet-to-be-determined threshold? Or are our current guidelines sufficient for editors to make case-by-case judgements without issues? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Recognition is not promotion. Things like the Golden Globe Awards and the Academy Awards are widely recognized and accepted as significant accomplishments within the film industry. It is not promotional to note who wins such awards anymore than it is for the Nobel Prizes or the Pulitzer Prizes or anything else. Just because Wikipedia contains information about commercial ventures does not mean it is promoting those ventures. --Jayron 32 10:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming the nominator hoped people would read the very long discussion on that page so did not go into more detail regarding this issue. The issue is this (again, please read the long discussion as I won't do justice by summarizing it): should stand-alone list articles regarding awards (that was the original issue) list -all- awards that a given subject has received or notable awards only. What are notable awards? Awards that have or should have (but currently don't) a Wikipedia article (and thus satisfying notability guidelines). Why should we limit them? Because if a local elementary school gives an award to actor Philip Seymour Hoffman and it was covered by some local newspaper, should an article such as List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman add that award to the list. The side not wanting to add non-notable awards cited WP:CSC#1 ("Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment.") as adding non-notable awards to such a list serves only those non-notable organizations which as a consequence become notable not because of what they do, but because they have Wikipedia mentions. --Gonnym (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone’s of the opinion that we shouldn’t list awards like the Golden Globes or Academy Awards, or Pulitzers, or the Nobel Prize in Literature. But should we only list awards of that caliber? Should we list every single verifiable award (including frivolous ones)? Every notable award? Only awards that meet some yet-to-be-determined threshold? Or are our current guidelines sufficient for editors to make case-by-case judgements without issues? That’s what I meant by my question here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

We should rely on WP:notability and other long-standing guidelines. Awards that get in-depth coverage in independent third party reliable sources get articles. Note that 'local person wins obscure award' coverage is not in depth coverage of the obscure award but of local person. Those articles can be expanded (with lists of winners, lists of judges, etc) where those are found in reliable sources, as per WP:Article size. Breaking out by year or category requires than each year or category has received in-depth coverage in independent third party reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I strongly suggest this discussion be {hat}ed. A closely overlapping RfC is scheduled to close in a day or so. A new Village Pump discussion can be started, if appropriate, with more clarity and focus once that RfC closes. Alsee (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I’m of the opinion that that discussion should have been hatted long ago. That RFC in that place is not capable of producing a binding consensus on the topic it deviated into. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. I do not see it deviating from its original topic. With 34 editors contributing to the discussion, some more than once, it seems the issue answered all the possible questions someone might have and if viewing its "vote" count it would seem those in favor of limiting award lists articles to only notable awards are almost twice as many as those against (18 in favor, 10 oppose (with one writing "No" but his comment seemed more as a support) and 6 commented in the discussion without stating clearly their opinion). --Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  - But that RFC was asking whether our guidelines already do limit award list articles. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    - And as shown numerous times, they do. --Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
      - They provide the option to. Not the same thing. We have no guidelines about lists of awards, but our guidelines also allow lists without wikilinks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Awards don't seem to qualify as "promotional items" in the usual sense, something that exists primarily to promote or sell, like a promotional T-shirt printed with an advertising message. Insofar as awards recognize superior achievement, they have an inherent promotional value, but they are about evaluating merit, not selling stuff. This does not seem like a reason to create special list inclusion guidelines specifically for awards. --Tsavage (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments/analysis WP:N and WP:GNG apply to article topics only, not content within articles, so there is no policy basis on which to exclude verifiable facts from such a list (whether a stand-alone or embedded list) on the basis of subjective personal estimates of whether something's trivial or not, unless they clearly trigger some other identifiable concern like WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, or WP:NFT. One of the most important distinguishing characteristics governing the content of a list vs. a WP:Category of whole articles is much more permissive inclusion criteria than WP:N. Many not-quite-notable things get intentionally merged into lists as a way to retain the content. It's absolutely unworkable to wholesale exclude industry (or other within-field) awards from stand-alone or embedded-in-article lists of awards received by someone/something (or a list of the awards in a particular field) because only a vanishingly small fraction of verifiable awards are notable for WP purposes as article topics in their own right. As just one example, there may well be no cue sports-related award besides the BCA Hall of Fame and World Snooker HoF (which doesn't have it's own article here, and may never) that would satisfy the GNG, aside from competition medals, e.g. from the Asian Games. But it would be an editing "crime" to gut all cue sports biographical articles of awards-related information, some of which may pertain to amateur leagues, and smaller pro circuits, or disciplines that are not shown on ESPN, or which have not existed since 1940, or whatever. Doing so, when that material is verifiable with reliable sources, would not only be a WP:NPOV problem, of personal bias in favor of only a certain few "preferred" awards, it would also be an end-run notability attack on the bio subjects themselves, since many of the reliable sources about them may be sports journalism and sometimes mainstream journalism articles that are specifically about those very awards! Getting into the One-pocket Hall of Fame is probably at least as significant as getting into the BCA HoF, because one-pocket is a vastly more difficult discipline than more popular cue sports like nine-ball, despite being a less well-recognized HoF for a sport with a comparatively small number of pro players.
There's also a WP:Systemic bias problem, in that awards conferred in certain fields (e.g. filmmaking and popular music) are heaped with a grossly undue amount of attention in Western culture, while honors awarded at a regional, national or even international level in areas of endeavor that are not "hot" topics (geophysics, herpetology, whatever) may have no article here at all, and be hard to establish as notable, especially if they pertain mostly to non-Anglophone countries. It's a pure accident that Soviet Russian regalia (and big cats) attract just barely enough special interest editing that the old mountaineering medal, the Snow Leopard award, has an article here; an exact equivalent award issued by Argentina or Sweden almost certainly would not have an article here even 20 years from now.
Yet another problem is that the relevance and notability-establishment value of the same award to one subject may be higher than for another. A "best voice acting" award from a foreign anime cinema organization is probably meaningless for notability establishment purposes for, say, Angelina Jolie, and might be omitted from her article entirely, but may be important for an article on a new actress with only 3 film credits. [If you think no such article should exist anyway, the community disagrees, as I found out when I nominated Chipo Chung as a tiny stub for deletion back when she had only a handful of credits, and little more than passing mention in any reviews anywhere, but the article was kept anyway. I would argue to keep it now myself, as her career has progressed and the article has improved, along with reliable sourcing for it, but at the time it appeared to be a clear WP:NOTYET.] Another example of different weighting might be that mention of winning an amateur city championship by someone notable as a professional boxer with a long career could be overkill/trivia (unless appropriately worked into a section on their early life/career), but it might be very salient in a paragraph on some notable news anchor or painter who also competes as a boxer (reportage of that win might be the sole reliable source for his pugilistic hobby).
When it comes to truly trivial, entirely promotional "awards" issued by non-organizations no one could reasonably care about, this will be self-evident probably. I don't think that Jimbob's Restaurant Poughkeepsie Frisbee Player of the Year would sanely get included in a article, unless there were some particular reason to mention it, like some unusual controversy. Such a case could conceivably arise over, e.g., a publicized fistfight at a celebrity fund-raising tournament, or whatever. But WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policy already covers attempts to include really pointless garbage, and WP:SPAM/WP:EL cover attempts to include what amounts to advertising for the commercial sponsors of non-organizational promotional opportunities masquerading as "awards", and WP:NFT additionally covers attempts to include awards someone made up the other day, like at a university organization (NFT covers content generally, not just whole articles). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome or reject mention of Google doodles throughout the encyclopaedia?

I hope that this was not discussed already. I couldn’t find anything about it except this in a noticeboard.

I regularly see, freshly added to articles, the mention that the topic of the article (often, a person) was the subject of one of Google’s “doodles”. Often, such mention is placed in a “legacy and honors” (or similar) section, as shown in this most recent example.

One could view those mentions either as

welcome additions to encyclopaedic content that make articles more complete and useful;

or as

trivial information that, taken as a whole (throughout the encyclopaedia), amounts to pervasive spam and is better avoided (except for special cases).

I hold the latter opinion but others may disagree. So I would like to propose, assuming that it hasn’t been done before, that we clarify whether this quasi-systematic mention of Google doodles is, in fact, welcome or not. Regardless of the outcome, I think that it would be a good thing to have an archive of the discussion about it, so that people like me can refer to it and know what to do (or not to do).

To start, here’s my take on this issue.

Regardless of what one may think of the actual doodle (the graphic artwork published by Google), and of the general popularity enjoyed by the corporation and its doodles, the fact that a subject was chosen by a handful of Google employees as inspiration for an amusing illustration of the day does not constitute any particularly great recognition of a person or topic, worthy of mention in an encyclopaedia. It constitutes, at best, trivia.

It is not rare to find trivia in Wikipedia articles, and such trivia can be entertaining and interesting. However, not all trivia is equal. The article on Veuve Clicquot mentions that the company’s product is featured in the motion picture Casablanca, but the article on Casablanca is mum on the topic, and rightfully so. When the article on Humphrey Bogart mentions the “Bogart” issue of the Phantom, it is probably acceptable because it’s a notable and rare occurrence in the history of the series, with much work devoted to the topic. Google doodle’s, on the other hand, come often, cover all kinds of topic, have no end in sight and promise to therefore appear throughout the entire encyclopaedia, at Google’s whim. Additionally, they are associated to little work on Google’s part (besides the single piece of graphic artwork). If Claude Monet is mentioned in the article on water lilies, it is because of extensive and enduring work on those subjects. If he is cursorily mentioned again (among other artists) in the article on roses, it’s for similar reasons, with the addition of a recognised trend. Should he then also receive mention in the articles on poppies, willows, poplars, etc.? Probably not (thankfully, he doesn’t).

Given what they are, the amount of press coverage received by Google’s doodles is rather stunning and that fact has been used to argue in favour of the lists of Google doodles maintained on Wikipedia. Press coverage is often (but not always) prompted by the topic’s popularity, and one should not confuse one for the other. I find that such coverage (see the Washington Post and Gizmodo for examples) typically carries little information of interest (besides repeating what any encyclopaedia says better). After all, those among their readers who use Google’s search engine cannot easily miss the doodle; those who don’t probably do not care and if they do, well it’s one trivial click away. In other words, it’s neither great art (not more than, say, the daily Dilbert) nor great news. So why do press outlets slavishly cover the doodles? Perhaps, a few do it out of fanboyishness but I’d wager that most only seek to ride Google’s coattails. Such coverage (basically, free advertisement) is precisely what Google seeks with its doodles. And, in return, it effectively (through the miracles of SEO algorithms) and tangibly rewards the covering site with a top spot on the doodle’s “results” page and with extra inbound traffic.

Do we want Wikipedia to be part of this? Do we want to give Google free advertising space throughout the encyclopaedia, in exchange for some extra traffic? Since Wikipedia is not in the business of selling advertising space, I believe that the answer should be, unequivocally, “no”.

In the end, I’d be in favour of the systematic review and, if appropriate, deletion of such mentions already in the encyclopaedia. I am also in favour of a bot flagging all freshly-added references to Google doodles, allowing for review and reversion as appropriate, along with a notice on the talk page of the user adding such reference to help him understand the reasons for the deletion. I am not against references to the rare doodles that may have achieved special notability through some other event (hypothetical example: some famous artist creates artwork that is based on a Google doodle). I am not opposed to having lists of the Google doodles on dedicated pages as currently done; though I don’t find them particularly useful (after all, Google publishes a much better list), they’re not harmful either.

Thanks for reading and sincere apologies if this had already been debated.

—Wlgrin 03:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:10 year test. I agree, mention of Google Doodles is usually trivia that quickly becomes worthless. Alsee (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I see it as comparable to WP:XKCD. We don’t (or shouldn’t) edit Wikipedia for every xkcd reference. We likewise shouldn’t edit Wikipedia for every Google Doodle. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
It's just more of the "foo in popular culture" crap that already degrades the quality of many articles as it is. And no, it is not relevant to virtually any article to which it is added. I'd favour a blanket removal. Reso lute 23:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
For any pop culture reference thing, I always look to third-party/secondary non-Google sources that make more than a passing mention, in this case, that X was the feature of a Google Doodle. That rarely happens for the most part. Just being there, I totally agree we should not mention it. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
While the Lists of Google Doodles are okay, I would generally consider references to them in individual articles to be trivia, which should usually be removed/avoided. The doodles themselves aren't really special anymore now that there's a new one nearly every day. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't mention them. Google is a commercial site that sells advertising. Why give it free publicity? There are other search engines. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't mention - unless there is a specific case that passes WP:GNG. For example, a Google doodle could become widely covered if it was deemed to be somehow newsworthy, by being historic or offensive or drawn by Kim Jong Un or whatever. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Correction: WP:GNG applies to article subjects only, not things mentioned in the content of articles on notable subjects. An enormous percentage of specific things mentioned in WP articles are not independently notable. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
It's fine to mention them, especially in passing in a legacy/honors section, or as an item in a popular culture section. Given that Google is the most-used online resources in the world, seen by at least hundreds of millions, and possibly billions, every single day (Google averages about 3.5 billion hits per day, but many persons do more than one search), it's not at all a trivial honor, and certainly exceeds the relevance of, say, an homage in an episode of some minor TV series, which we would routinely include, and is arguably more significant than being given some award like [Whatever] of the Year by some little-known industry association, or the Key to the City of San Lorenzo, California, which would also routinely be included. "The medium is not the message"; don't be a Google hatah. ;-) NB: I'm not arguing that "In popular culture" sections are a great idea, but there appears to be both a consensus to keep them and a consensus that they can be rather inclusive, so WP:NPOV requires being even-handed toward Google Doodles (which are certainly more noteworthy thanxkcd mentions, as much as I love that webcomic). WP:XKCD actually gives salient advice here: 'The best way to treat "in popular culture" sections of articles is to use them to cover examples which have actually influenced the way that the public looks at the subject.' Google Doodles undeniably have that effect. I'm pretty well-educated and culturally literate, but there are at least a dozen historical figures I did not know a single thing about until I clicked on a Google Doodle. I cannot possibly be alone in that. The very point of them is to honor some biographical figure in a way that's informative to the public. This is a much more above-board influence on the way the public looks at such subjects than any obscure geeky references in sci-fi nerd webtoons. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't mention - here's an archive of old Doodles. Of course there are some interesting mentions in it, but also a lot of trivial and gimmicky doodles. With a few exceptions (widely discussed, controversial, ...), most of those doodles are not a significant part of their topic on Wikipedia and are forgotten in a few days (quick test: how many doodles of the last 3 months do you still remember?). It's a nice feature for a short moment, but in a long-term perspective it's just trivia. GermanJoe (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't mention, unless there's been non-trivial commentary on them. Much of the little commentary I've seen has been of the kind For the first time ever, Google has recognized an Erewhonian. As an Erewhonian myself, I'm delighted that Erewhon has at last got some much-deserved recognition, zzz. Trivial and uninteresting, though admittedly no more so than "namechecks" in pop songs and so forth. -- Hoary (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Commas after first word of lede

Is there a policy of putting a comma after the first word of a lede (see Romania and others)? It's not grammatically correct, and is redundant with the set of parentheses. Whispered (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The applicable guideline is WP:LEADSENTENCE and it says nothing about a comma. You're correct, it's bad punctuation and should be removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the guideline - the reason I asked instead of simply removing it was it appears on other pages I see too, such as China, but not Berlin. Is it safe to assume I can just remove them if there's not a dependent/descriptive clause immediately following the first word that isn't in parenthesis? Whispered (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

What is "safe" at Wikipedia? You would be being WP:BOLD, which is not only tolerated but encouraged. Even when you're wrong, there is nothing wrong with a bold edit. It simply gets reverted and you can discuss or not, your choice. Go forth and be bold. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is a grammatical rule against a comma after the first word of a sentence per se. Consider this example from WP:LEADSENTENCE: Mumbai, also known as Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. The comma here is used to introduce a parenthetical phrase, which is grammatically correct, according to the article on comma. Simmilarly, the comma in China looks OK. But I agree that the comma in Romania should not be there.--Mhockey (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the comma from Romania as it was ungrammatical, as you rightly pointed out. It's not a rule that a comma cannot follow the first word in a sentence; it's a question of whether the comma should be there or not. In many articles, the headword is followed by additional information in parentheses (e.g., pronunciation); imagine that the parentheses and everything within them were deleted and, if a comma would be included after the headword, then the comma goes after the parentheses:

Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is an Oceanian country ...

(commas surround clause with the official name)

Berlin is the capital of Germany and one of the 16 states of Germany.

(no comma required)

China, officially the People's Republic of China (PRC), is a sovereign state located in East Asia.

(commas surround clause with the official name)

Romania is a unitary semi-presidential republic located in Southeastern-Central Europe ...

(no comma required)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by sroc (talk • contribs) 09:45 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The next question I have is: Is it prefered to put parentheticals (extra information in a dependent clause) inside actual parenthesis (like this), or put them in commas, like this, or is there no rule? Whispered (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if there is an explicit rule, but by convention at least certain "metadata" (e.g., pronunciation, birth/death dates, etc.) are put in parentheses because they are not part of the prose. Commas are more suited to prose. For example, the above lines read well, but then add in the parentheses:

Australia (/ɒˈstreɪliə/, /ə-/, colloquially /-jə/), officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is an Oceanian country ...
Berlin (/bərˈlɪn/, German: [bɛɐ̯ˈliːn] ) is the capital of Germany and one of the 16 states of Germany.
China (simplified Chinese: 中国; traditional Chinese: 中國; pinyin: Zhōngguó), officially the People's Republic of China (PRC), is a sovereign state located in East Asia.
Romania (/roʊˈmeɪniə/ roh-MAY-nee-ə; Romanian: România [romɨˈni.a] ) is a unitary semi-presidential republic located in Southeastern-Central Europe ...

This makes it more readable overall (e.g., you can mentally skip over the parentheses to read the opening line as prose without missing any fundamental meaning). Replacing the commas with parentheses would create a multitude of parentheses for unrelated purposes. Replacing the parentheses with commas would make for some very convoluted opening sentences and make reading the introductory lines more difficult. —sroc 💬 19:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Style matters are WP:MOS guideline matters, not policy matters. We don't even need a guideline about this, it's just basic English punctuation, and Whispered illustrates the correct forms with and without the commas. They are appropriate in some constructions, not in others. This is true of comma usage in any type of sentence, and has nothing to do with WP:LEADs in particular. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that was me (I forgot to sign). —sroc 💬 16:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Is citing the definition of a dictionary an original research

Hello

I'm not sure this is the right place for the discussion, please forgiev me and show me the way to the correct place in this case.

in Role-playing game terms#R, we can read

Race: A character's species, ethnicity, type, or other description of their physical and cultural heredity. Role-playing games often include fantasy races, mutants, robots and other non-human types.

This imho obviously extends usual definition of a race, e.g. in wiktionary:race#Etymology 2

A group of sentient beings, particularly people, distinguished by common heritage or characteristics
A population geographically separated from others of its species that develops significantly different characteristics; an informal term for a subspecies.

(although in the first definition, "sentient beings" could be wide enough to enclose positronic brains). Am I right or am I flawed by the fact that I'm not a native english speaker?

If I'm right -- and even if I'm wrong, the problem could be for another topic --, can I then cite a definition of the dictionary and mention this discrepancy, or would it be considered as an original analysis of primary sources and thus an original research?

cdang|write me 09:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wiktionary so it shouldn't be used as a source per WP:USERGENERATED. Furthermore, the lead of Role-playing game terms is clear that the shown meanings are in the context of role-playing games. Words often have different meanings or nuances in different contexts so citing a "discrepancy" with a reliable dictionary would also be bad, unless that dictionary specifically talks about the meaning of "race" in role-playing games. Such games are full of supernatural and fictional beings so it's hardly surprising if the terminology doesn't adhere strictly to the common usage for real beings. And we certainly don't want users going through Category:Glossaries and point out whenever a field gives a new or modified meaning to an existing word. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I used the Wiktionary because I don't know reliable online English dictionaries and don't have a paper English dictionary with me (I'm not a native English speaker); but the question is about any reliable dictionary, online or paper.

I agree with you that the definition of some words is different in fictional works and in common usage, the question is: is it possible write that it is different, just refering to the definition of a reliable dictionary, or would it be considered as an original research? (The aim is not to point out every word in the glossary; but it can be relevant in some cases.)

cdang|write me 07:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, maybe I could be a bit more specific. I wrote the article Character race. It was a draft until a few hours, and was accepted sooner than I expected (I won't complain (-: ). The aim of my question was to clarify a point to be sure it would be accepted, but my question remains.

I wrote : "The term “race” is even broader than the usual meaning, as it also includes extra-terrestrial beings, vegetal beings — e.g. the Aldryami in Glorantha (1978)[6], the Sylvanians in Fantasy Craft (2010)[7] — and robots — e.g. Artificials in Fantasy Craft or the Forgeborn/Dwarf-forged optional race in 13th Age (2013)[8]."

Notice that I even didn't cite a dictionary (which would be a primary source). Can I write this without a secondary source stating this ?

It may look ridiculous as this, because this statement is quite obvious. But obviousness is a valid arguument for Descartes, it is not for Wikipedia. And, believe it or not, this statement caused me some problem in the French wiki, on the same topic.

So, is it the same on the English WP? Would someone add {{refneeded}} or is the statement acceptable as this?

cdang|write me 20:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. In cases like this though, citing a definition to a defining source would be appropriate, I believe. So yes, you can cite a dictionary (like Oxford or Merriam-Webster, or a game’s rulebook). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm a bit paranoid then (-:

I realise that the main problem is not on the content of the article itself, but on the language. The english word "race" was initially translated as race in French; in French, it was used for both humans and for animals (means "breed"). In the early 1980's, when D&D was first translated in French, this was still accurate, although a bit outdated. But things evolved, essentially pushed by the bad memories of the WWII and the evolution of genetics. A 1991 French dictionary already notes that the notion of race "is to be rejected" for humans (but still give the definition, which is OK because we need to understand outdated texts). Now the consensus is that race can only be used for "breed", and is banned for humans (we use ethnicity or type instead); the word race was even banned from the laws which punishes racism (16 May 2013, [9]).

So it is obvious to me (as the skye is blue) that "race" has become a faux ami (see table below), but well, this is quite new, and there is no source that really states "race is a faux ami", all I have are dictionaries. And thus it is obvious to me that the title of the French article cannot be "race" and I used the word peuple (people) instead. But as the word "race" is still widely used in role-playing game rulebooks in French, I don't have a secondary source citing "people" (but have some primary ones), and "race" is what comes up with Google, so many claim that the notion of "people" does not exist in RPG and that it is an original research of mine. See the point?

So, that does not concern the English WP, but I wanted to explain why I asked that silly question. Sorry for the disturbance.

cdang|write me 12:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Race in modern English and in modern French
Modern English	Modern French
race	éthnie, type
breed	race

A similar question has also come up at Landrace, in such rancorous debate at Talk:Landrace that resolution has been stalled for many months. In that case, one editor wants to include in the lead some wording from and a citation to a general dictionary, and a similar one from an internal regulatory document of the FAO. Meanwhile another editor wants to limit the article's examination of definitional issues to a terminology section devoted to that, including more precise and nuanced definitions from topically-specialized sources, and have the lead only present an overview of what the term refers to, without citing either the dictionary or FAO sources, detailing in the terminology section why these two sources may be questionable on the matter. Each editor has made WP:NOR and WP:NPOV claims against the other over this editing dispute (see Talk:Landrace#POV promotion of vague FAO and OED definitions, and some earlier threads, for details). It needs some new eyes, preferably ones of editors who do not have any vested interest in domestic animal topics. Obviously I am the second of the two editors in this dispute. Both of us are making an effort to avoid further interpersonal conflict, so I think it would be especially helpful in this case for non-involved editors to weigh in on this matter, and others raised on the same talk page. A cursory scan of the article shows that it's stuck in the same in-between state it has been for months, with the dictionary definition moved to the terminology section, but the FAO definition retained in the first sentence of the lead. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish, If it's just the two editors involved in the content dispute, have you considered requesting a third opinion at WP:3O? If you don't get anything there, I'll try to have a look myself, but it might be a day or so. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: I've attempted formal WP:DR with the editor before, but this was rebuffed. I'm skeptical that the opinion of a single additional voice via WP:3O would help much. Rather, multiple editors applying critical thinking about what constitutes WP:OR/WP:SYNTH is needed. Each editor claims that the other is engaging in novel synthesis, and it's unlikely that they can both be right, when the edits they make are back-and-forth, directly opposite edits to the same small bit of the lead. (Of course it's possible for two editors to engage in SYNTH in different ways on the same page.) Either a vague dictionary definition and an out-of-context NGO one from a house organ can be used in place of more particular, secondary, journal sources, or they can't. PS: A third editor might already be involved (one that the other enlists against me in a WP:TAGTEAM on virtually every page in which we come into conflict, for around 18 months now), so WP:3O might not even be available. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Article consensus vs blacklist consensus

There have arrived a problem where article consensus conflict with the blacklist consensus, and as a work-around, a link exist in text format rather than link format.

The article consensus was to add the link to the article, but a non-unanimity consensus had been reached previously on the blacklist page that the type of link that the link represented was bad, and a wildcard entry had been added for the type. A whitelist request was thus requested, but denied since the type of the link was unchanged and thus the situation was identical to the one at blacklisting. Looking at spam blacklist policy and spam policy, it all seem to assume that blocked content are unwanted spam that the community/consensus around an article would not want.

The blacklist policy gives a rather free range of operation to the blacklist operators, by the inclusion of the "or simply violates Wikipedia's policies" line. With this and the infamous WP:IAR we have gotten to the situation where one consensus and interpretation of Wikipedia's policies has been decided on the blacklist, and an other consensus and interpretation on a article talk page. This creates a result in which the link in question is technically blocked in the link format, but then used in text format in the article as per consensus. This seems as an imperfect solution, sends conflicting messages to editors, and where clear policy would help find a consistent solution. Belorn (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Been there done that. The "simply violates Wikipedia's policies" means that ideology trumps building an encyclopaedia. For some reason the content creators have never accepted that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As I've already advised you elsewhere, if you want to reverse existing consensus, or dispute that a consensus exists, raise an RfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus at a single article talk page cannot overrule wider community consensus; this is detailed at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Local consensus on a talk page can't override our policies. This is a good thing IMHO and hardly to do with ideology. Doug Weller (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting case. The operators of TPB were convicted as accessory to crime against copyright law in Sweden and WP:ELNEVER states that "For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: Policy: material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." By providing direct links to TPB sites, are we saying that they don't primarily host copyright infringements according to U.S. law? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Some interesting comments.

@Andy; is each blacklist entry equivalent to an policy decision regarding that entry? Both people on the talk page and the people on the blacklist read the policies, reach their own conclusion based on the policy, and thus a consensus was formed on two separate Wikipedia pages. People reaching different conclusion based on same policy is not unheard of, and when the participants are low (3 in one, 3 in the other) I would even be so bold to say it is common. The question is which consensus should overrule the other, and the current consequences that both consensus are followed at the same time.

@NeilN; The site do not have material that violates copyright, but does encourage copyright infringement, which is what the site founders got caught for. People have discussed this subject several time if TPB official link triggers ELNEVER, and previous consensus has been to keep it, and that anyone is free to send a email to the foundation and ask for their legal input (vaguely recall someone doing that, but could be mistaking it for an other article discussion). The question regarding linking to people who encourage copyright infringement, and if it itself is illegal under U.S. law is an interesting question (Would be assisting in assisting in copyright infringement, but that would only be up to discussion in Sweden if "the primary purpose of the service (Wikipedia) is assistance" as per court judgment quote), but I suspect that is a discussion for different time and place. Belorn (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy violation in linking to something that is not a copyright violation at a site that has some things on it which are copyright violations. If this were the case, we could never link to anything on YouTube or any site like it, since enormous amounts of material on them are copyvios. BTW, it's a known fact that some bands, etc., intentionally release their own material via TPB and other torrent sites. So, the plain language of policy, that "material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked", is not in any way triggered by a link to something non-infringing on a site that may have infringing things on it, including the site's homepage if the article is about that site, or a source being cited if that's the principal or only way to obtain it. Whether there's a simple way to work this fact into how the blacklist works is an open question, as is whether the editors who control it will cooperate enough to make any such solution likely to be practical. There may be non-"ideological" reasons for blacklisting certain types of link (magnet: URLs, or whatever; I honestly don't know what URL schemes and such are blacklisted). And in the case of the archive.is kerfuffle, there are obviously additional concerns at work, including the behavior on WP of people associated with the site. That said, the fact that a few editors took it upon themselves to strip archive.is URLs out of innumerable citations without replacing the archiveurls with alternatives is at least potentially a serious problem (how serious depends on how many of those changes resulted in actual dead links, and have not been fixed). Archive.is no longer appears to be blacklisted.[10]
PS: I'm not convinced by an overbroad, lopsided WP:LOCALCONSENSUS interpretation here. Specific decisions to blacklist this or that often appear to made with very little input, even if they're not unilateral or uncontestible. I'm sympathetic to the view that there being a site-wide, centralized place for this at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist means a decision to blacklist something is less likely to be a LOCALCONSENSUS itself, but that doesn't mean that it's infallible and that local consensus problems can't arise there. It's a much more rarified venue than, say, WT:MOS or WT:RS, which have wide participation and are watchlisted by thousands of editors. If editors at articles keep coming up with local consensuses that the blacklist has entries on it that impede improving the encyclopedia, then it's probably true. And it also may be the kind of instance where resorting to WP:IAR is actually valid. The fact that the blacklist technologically makes it hard to IAR in certain ways is a little problematic. This might be mitigated by the fact that there's more than one way to get around the blacklist if you really want to, e.g. using an "approved" archive site to archive a page at an "unapproved" archive site. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
PPS: The only time I've done this myself that I recall is actually a good illustration of legitimate IAR against the blacklist: I needed to cite a page at a blacklisted site as a primary source for a fact, pertaining to the site itself, that could not be verified any other way, and had to do this with URL fudgery that tricked the blacklist. There is no policy that I have to obey the blacklist, but there is both a policy that facts in articles must be verifiable, and another for my right to ignore a rule, like the blacklist, if it really is necessary to do so in order to improve the encyclopedia. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is very little copyrightable material on TPB homepages on various domains other than the logo. If there is no claim that the logo is copyright-infringing (and I've not seen such a claim), I see no policy-based reason that they can't be linked to. I believe that technically this can be allowed by ensuring that the entry in the blacklist entry contains \b which would match the / between the domain and the path path of the URL. If the blacklist maintainers are not amenable to this, start an RFC to make them amenable (and feel free to ping me of you start an RFC). Stuartyeates (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Disney Cinema

A user at Disney Cinemagic, has reverted my edit to the page in which I changed the incorrect "Disney Movies" to the correct name of the channel "Disney Cinema",[11] the user mentioned "this is the English language wikipedia not the French WP". This comes as a surprise since we have many French TV channels at Category:French television networks listed in their original French. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 13:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

As a first step, I would suggest that you engage the objecting editor in discussion (on the article's talk page) - so you can explain why it might be more appropriate to use the french name in this context. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Would seem the other editor won't change his opinion on this. --Gonnym (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If the source is reliable i think we can use non-English sources especially those languages which uses alphabets similar to English. Provided if a third good faith editor who can read-write-understand both languages,verifies that the source is reliable. And google translate is the best way. Notable French, German, Japanese newspapers , magazines and Authors are also reliable.C E (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"Fair use" from third party as opposed to official sources

Given that a truly free image to illustrate the John Menzies retail outlets can't be found after a reasonable amount of searching, is there any preference in the "fair use" policy to using a non-free images from a third party (e.g. this person's website) as opposed to one taken from the company in question's site ([12]) and presumably owned by them?

My gut instinct would be that the latter is preferable, but I've no idea if that has a basis in legal fact and/or WP policy...? Can any one clarify this?

Ubcule (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I think neither are acceptable, but perhaps I am misunderstanding the question. The business still exists, so why can't someone walk over an take a photo?

Are you talking about photos from other eras?

By the way, this is a subject for this page, which is to discuss changes in policy, not the application of policy. The help desk or wp:MCQ is a better place.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

While Menzies still exists as a newspaper distribution and aviation business, the retail side- which was widespread and very well-known (particularly in Scotland)- was sold off in the late 1990s, and I've been unable to find free photographs of the shops in their original state.

As per your comment, though, I've moved the discussion. Ubcule (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Use of tertiary sources

I've written up a fairly detailed interpretive/guidance essay on tertiary sources and their relation to WP:NOR / WP:V / WP:RS / WP:NPOV issues. I invite a perusal at Wikipedia:Use of tertiary sources. It's not a user essay, and is intended for community development, though of course I'd prefer talk page consensus before significant bold changes, other than to add something I've obviously missed, or to correct obvious errors. While I only spent the afternoon "codifying" it, it represents several years of approaching and thinking about the issues raised by that class of sources. It is written to address genuine WP editing problems I've encountered (though using hypothetical or broad examples to avoid "picking on" any particular pages, interests, or editors). Avoiding WP:CREEP / WP:BEANS issues was a goal. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources seems like it covers the same bases, only for 1ary and 2ary sources. A merge might make sense. --Izno (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In theory, though the new page uses a more explanatory essay style. It's probably more practical to develop the idea and examples and make sure all the ground is covered in an essay, then approach WT:RS with a proposal to integrate the gist, than try to change RS while the ideas are still gestating. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Izno: Sorry, I initially misread that as linking to WP:Identifying reliable sources. I agree these pages could and perhaps should merge, at least conceptually, but the approaches are very different. I'm not sure it's necessary, though I think I'd prefer that outcome. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia:Use of tertiary sources particularily well-written or of much practical value. Somewhat like Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia (tagged "historical" long ago, and of little consequence).

I'd help improve it if I thought it could become something practical, like I improved the primary sources proposal into Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a tertiary source with a somewhat different scope, and more practical. But then again there's already Wikipedia:Sources – SWOT analysis which imho covers the essence on all three types of sources, apart from what is already in the WP:PSTS policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Does this mean you think it can't be made practical? In what way(s) is it not practical? The intent of the page is to be practical, which is why it's organized in a step-wise way (identify tertiary sources, mindful of exceptions to that general rubric, then determine reliability, then check that the use you have in mind is actually appropriate). The SWOT analysis is a nice start, but it's a way of thinking about and evaluating the relative qualities of different source types, not advice, really. I'll link to it from the one I've been working on, but they're completely different kinds of documents. The raison d'etre of WP:Use of tertiary sources in the first place is that WP:PSTS and the other policy and guideline pages barely mention tertiary sources at all, and many editors are not at all clear on the difference. It's my estimation, based on experience, that a large proportion of editors think that most tertiary sources, with the possible exception of other encyclopedias, are secondary. There's frequent trouble discerning tertiary sources that are not in particular categories/formats, like encyclopedias, dictionaries, databases, and textbooks; it suggests widespread confusion that the type of publication rather than the type of content is a determining factor. It's a problem of instilling that "the medium is not the message" when it comes to determining source levels. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with you, Francis Schonken. I also think that the essay is lacking of concreteness. Lot's of bullet points, lot's of examples like "...is usually considered tertiary, although sometimes it might be considered primary or secondary." I think the essay still needs a great deal of work with respect to the readability, and a great deal of concreteness. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the delta in approaches to the differing pages, so the merge is probably non-trivial. Amusingly, you highlighted yet another related page at WP:Person and party on my watchlist today.... --Izno (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been making some conforming tweaks here and there. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Parts of that WP:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources essay are actually wrong. In a list of examples of what would probably be secondary not primary sources, it gives 'Historical reports: A special television program is broadcast to mark the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II. A newspaper column lists the events reported in that newspaper on the same date from 25, 50, 75, and 100 years before.' The second of those is actually a tertiary source, not secondary. And the first one is possibly also tertiary, if the content is regurgitative of previously published work without including some kind of novel analysis/synthesis/commentary. Many "infotainment" one-hour documentaries on The History Channel, etc., are tertiary sources (and some that come to exaggeratory conclusions, as many of them do, are primary with regard to such claims; I don't mean to overgeneralize). I found this problem in the essay just by skimming it for a minute or two; there are probably others. Yeah, I looked again for 15 sec., and found that the "Book reviews" entry makes the same kind of error; such reviews can be primary (aesthetically opinional), secondary (analytical), or tertiary (neutrally abstracting), but the essay calls a neutral abstract primary. This is clear evidence of the kind of problems I was talking about in response to Francis, above. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's complicated. Those examples could both be secondary or tertiary, depending on their content. For example, a list of events that identifies key events or shows their relationship to each could easily be secondary, but a semi-random list of whatever interested the editor would probably be tertiary—assuming that you're using a system that has tertiary sources at all. (That would be very appropriate for a history-related subject, but legal scholars apparently do not admit that tertiary sources exist. It's either "primary" or "not", and the "not primary" sources are called secondaries.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

IMO, you're going in entirely the wrong direction. "Primary", "secondary", or "tertiary" doesn't actually matter except if you're trying to pass WP:N, and all the talk about it in various policies and guidelines is a poor heuristic that has taken on a life of its own over the years after losing sight of the original purpose.

We cite what reliable sources say, we don't apply any of our own analysis no matter whether the source is "primary", "secondary", or "tertiary". There's nothing magical about "secondary" sources that makes their analysis better than that of a "primary" or "tertiary" source. The heuristic exists simply because a "primary" source is likely to have raw data without much analysis that's useful for writing an encyclopedia article, while a "tertiary" source is more likely to be so far from the facts that we risk importing bias and oversimplification.

And, as has already been said above, the same source can be considered "primary", "secondary", and "tertiary" depending on what exactly we're using the source for. One of my favorite examples is a source where John Doe makes some statement X: it could be an unreliable secondary source for "X", but a reliable primary source for "John Doe says X" that we might well use if it's relevant to the topic at hand what John Doe says about it. Anomie ⚔ 00:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The concepts matter a lot for WP:MEDRS. But I agree with you that "primary" is not a synonym for WP:NOTGOODSOURCE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-free image resolution

I've asked before, but never got a clear answer:

Non-free logos should be around 400 x 400px, so I've been told. But, I see them often replaced with svg format. But those are really high resolution, which is not allowed per Template:Non-free use rationale documentation.

I do not know if this and this are relevant. They go on and on and I do not know where they end up on the matter.

Guidance please. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The template doc you linked to already explains this: "for vector graphics, this would involve the level of detail in the image". Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The only allowable use of non-free logos in an SVG format is if the SVG originated directly from the company/entity that the logo represents, such as from their website, a PDF with the SVG embedded or the like. This avoids mis-representation of the SVG in other formats. Otherwise, a low-resolution PNG/JPG must be used instead. User-created versions of non-free logos are not allowed. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The use of SVG reproductions to replace non-free logos has always struck me as dubious at best. Maybe the legal principles here are solid, but I suspect a bit of magical thinking here. At any rate: if the issue is that smaller non-free raster logos are being deleted when a high-quality SVG image is uploaded -- and then the SVG also gets deleted for being too high quality for a non-free image -- this sounds like a reason to update the deletion rationale to make sure that the eligible non-free images are prioritized over ineligible ones. —Tim Pierce (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Where would you suggest as the best place post such am RfC? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I really hadn't thought about it, but now that you'd ask, I'd suggest WT:Deletion process, WT:Files for deletion and possibly also Template talk:Db-meta and WT:Non-free use rationale guideline. —Tim Pierce (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, Tim. The older version gets deleted as unused non-free, then if the svg gets deleted, we have to go find and upload the image again. I'm experiencing this right now at my talk page, not with svg, but high-res pngs. I wish we could have some sort of bright line in terms of px. As for Jackmcbarn's "for vector graphics, this would involve the level of detail in the image", well every svg I've ever seen is infinitely high res. I mean, that's what they are, right? Perfectly smooth lines no matter how much you blow them up, ideal for copying. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

SVGs aren't infinitely high res. They still lose detail when you blow them up, just not in the same way as raster images. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The legal principle involved here is that a non-free use image may not be rendered any larger than is required for the purposes of identification and/or critical commentary. Since an SVG is infinitely scalable, regardless of the underlying quality of the image, Wikipedia has no control over the scale at which it may be rendered and is hence is in breach of that requirement by default. The "safest" option is to avoid use of SVG for all non-free content. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Philg88. And thanks, Jackmcbarn. I stand corrected. I can't get my head around all this res and quality stuff. I do know, however, that these non-free logos and such are just for visitors to identify the subject. When I download some of them, they're a foot wide with sharp edges. Anyhow, for logos, which is what made me post here, can we set a px width or height maximum? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This of course applies only to commercial images, since the purpose is to minimise commercial damage. When dealing with a non-commercial image, it need not and should not be altered. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, Hawkeye7. In fact, can we nail something down right here and now for logos/"commercial" images? How about for future uploads no bigger than 400px x 400px with no svgs allowed? Those would be fine for articles while useless for other purposes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"Commercial images" for the purposes of non-free are images that are meant to be sold, such as press agency's photographs. A non-free logo for a commercial corporation is a non-commercial but non-free image. However, we still want to minimize the size of any non-free used, and that size typically should aim to be less than 0.1 megapixels. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. I went for a good while without seeing yet another debate where people misguidedly argue that SVGs are somehow impossible to use for non-free logos and should be blanket-banned because they can be rendered at arbitrary sizes. Trying to apply raster image pixel limits to something that isn't a raster image is as pointless as trying to apply article-space-specific policies to talk pages and noticeboards.

The key, as has long been established, is level of detail: if rendering the image at 4000×4000 doesn't reveal any detail that is too small to be visible at 400×400, why try to claim the SVG is somehow "too big"? If a user-created SVG is faithful to the source to the limits of the usual resolution, there's no difference between it and a user-created PNG or JPG version. And if a logo is simple enough to be represented perfectly as a low-complexity SVG intended for rendering at small image sizes, we might well have a {{PD-simple}} going on. Anomie ⚔ 00:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

There's zero issue on logos that fail the threshold of originality, to use a user-created SVG licensed as CC-BY or equivalently free. The issue with a user-created version of a non-free logo - which by definition has creativity involved in the base logo - is that the user's version would be a derivative work, not just a simple mechanical rescaling, so creates added complexity. (And this ignores what auto-trace functions try to do which are imperfect to start). If there is a company-owned SVG available, that's fine, but otherwise the non-free logo should be a low-resolution raster image, no matter how easy it would be to recreate it. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Why should a non-free logo be a low-resolution raster image? Why not a low-detail vector image, if that works as well or better for our purposes? Anomie ⚔ 00:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

A low-detail vector - presuming one that had been made by a WP user - is a derivative work, so that complicates the copyright matters, an additional copyright layer atop the logo copyright. So from a free-ness standpoint, the raster version of the logo is freer than the SVG, and we're encouraged to use the free-est version possible. Further, there's little use in a scalable raster image, since most non-free logos are used only once, in the infobox of the entity they represent, and nowhere else. For something like flag icons where the image has many possible uses and thus having infinite scaleability makes sense, it just doesn't for non-free logos. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea where we are at now. Is there any rule I can use to know which logos are too high res, and which are acceptable?

I like to keep things simple. What is not simple is all this talk of scalable raster, high-resolution vector graphics, embedded PNG/JPG, infinitely scalable SVG, commercial-non-commercial, low-complexity with simple mechanical rescaling and added complexity for a low-detail vector image.

How about common sense? To me:

File:Harbin Normal University logo.jpg is nice, rotten quality. Perfect to identify the subject and useless otherwise.

File:China University Of Petroleum (Beijing) badge.svg is as sharp as can be. If I owned that logo, I would certainly say that Wikipedia carries a version that is of commercial quality that can be taken, modified, and used elsewhere. Zoom in and see.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

For the two images, differing claims are made for non-free use; for the University of Petroleum image, no claim of low-resolution is made. To meet the current letter of non-free use, .svg renditions should not be used. For an easy-to-understand example, try a .jpg to .svg conversion of the Harbin image and an .svg to .jpg conversion of the Beijing image. Only .jpg seems to meet the requirements (there is an on-line image converter at [13].

Ignoring the license for a second, should File:China University Of Petroleum (Beijing) badge.svg be allowed at all? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I favor changing what seems to be current consensus interpretation of fair use to, instead, the most liberal interpretation possible of non-free image applicable under US law. That is, both examples you give are OK. There is actually more information in the Harbin image than the Beijing image; I would guess the NSA could recover a comparable quality .svg from the .jpg (I tried, but my efforts left out the orange). — Neonorange (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

More information? I think we need to be clear on the spirit of the law. It is about not hosting images that can be used commercially, right? Well, the Harbin image is useless while the Petroleum image is perfect for copying. Isn't that what this is all about? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I apologize for adding to the confusion. I should not have raised the question of how en.wikipedia should interpret fair-use in this discussion. However, looking at the fair-use rationales used for .svg images in en.wikipedia, what I see are more liberal interpretation of fair-use. Which solves technical problems like to-use-or-not-use .svg images, while improving the utility of en.wikipedia. Either way, the logos in your examples are on the Internet, and the barn door is open (as it should be; a shoddy replication of a logo should not be used). — Neonorange (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Neonorange. Not at all. You didn't cause the confusion. The "barn door" thing is no excuse for copyvio text, so I do not know why high-res logos are okay, but fine. I think I will just drop it. The community doesn't seem to find all of this an issue. All the best, and sorry to waste everyone's time with this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

These discussions just go round and round, with each side claiming to know The Truth™ about fair-use limits to the "resolution" of a vector graphic. How about we try something totally radical, like finding an actual attorney who specialized in this area, and requesting a formal white paper or recommendation or whatever they call it? Maybe we could find someone willing to work pro bono, or maybe we could get an m:IEG to pay for it, but how about we try to get an expert answer from a legitimate professional? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This discussion repeats something that has popped up over and over again. Logos will often have to be considered on a case by case basis as organisations usually have special rules about their use. Often they do not want their image tarnished by a degraded quality. Often they give permission for use to identify them. But derivatives of the logo are not usually permitted. User created .svg files are likely a derivative. But a company supplied .svg should be fine to use here. Anyone else making use of fair use logos from Wikipedia has to justify fair use for themselves, and Wikipedia and its editors do not have to worry about it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing: all of this analysis as to what "really" is or isn't permissible with respect to reproducing a logo is pure guesswork in the absence of qualified legal guidance, and could be more harmful than helpful. Rather than reading the tea leaves or engaging in cargo cult estoppel, I think it would be wiser to reject any SVG logos at all (or perhaps all logos, period) until the legal issues can be resolved. —Tim Pierce (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

BE/AE consistency issue

Consistency in BE vs. AE. Wikipedia/en has a policy of leaving the original version, be it British English or American English, the way an article began it unless the article is about a topic specific to the other version. It also has a policy of consistency of form. In an article about a German town (Bernshausen) with no particular connection to any version of English, the original spelling of 'kilometE/R/E' (that I wrote) is the AE one. It still stands, years later. But at another place in the article, a km bot was later used. This results in 'kilometre'. Consequently, the article has two different spellings for the word. What can and should be done in cases like this? Kdammers (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:ARTCON, follow one variety consistently. Use the spelling/variety used in the article when it was originally written, per WP:RETAIN. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Took the liberty of fixing the issue in this edit. Also added {{American English}} to the talk page so this shouldn't be an issue at that article in the future. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

IPv6 IPs

Anybody can edit Wikipedia. But we need to remember an Ip user when we want to mention him/her in any discussion. these huge Ip s are not easy to remember. So we must encourage them to register. And the check user tool should be good enough to deal with these huge alpha-numeric IPs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2602:306:8B0B:5020:68:EF0B:4734:D9C2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:8C:4000:9C:7D6D:A070:E47C:7EE4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2602:306:3485:AF10:E409:E027:2054:89CE

Now if i mention them anywhere in talk page discussion just think how difficult it would be remember them. Sometimes user report IP socks when they see similar range. But in these cases the users won't be able to recognize IP-shifting socks as it may not be possible for human brain to recognize the IP-range. Wikipedia can't stop them from editing. But if they don't listen to request of opening account, we can come to some solution where they can be shortened through some software.

--C E (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The length of IPv6 addresses is certainly a real problem. What I don't see here, however, is any proposal to make it easier. Do you have a proposal here Cosmic Emperor? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest adding language to the welcome template for IPs that points out that IPv6 addresses are difficult to remember, as an additional incentive to create an account. (IPv4 addresses are worse in one respect. They are usually dynamic, because ISPs have to manage the pool, and this is a different factor that makes it difficult to communicate with them.) About the only reasonable thing that comes to my mind is adding language to the welcome template. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Why would anyone want to remember their own IP address? Or are you suggesting that a significant number would register to make remembering their identity easier on others? I mean, the word incentive usually implies a benefit to one's own interest. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The complaint appears to be about the difficulty of other editors remembering the long IP address, e.g., in order to use their talk page. I agree that remembering your own IP address is a silly issue, especially because the IP can and should always just register an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Another annoying thing is the long prefilled undo edit summaries where the username or IP address is used three times in MediaWiki:Undo-summary with source Undid revision $1 by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]]). For IPv6 we get the form

Undid revision 664551967 by [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F0B:814A:F700:E000:FE0D:D317:BEE1|2A02:2F0B:814A:F700:E000:FE0D:D317:BEE1]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F0B:814A:F700:E000:FE0D:D317:BEE1|talk]])

. It renders as "Undid revision 664551967 by 2A02:2F0B:814A:F700:E000:FE0D:D317:BEE1 (talk)", but the code is 194 characters. Edit summaries can be at most 255 characters so there is only 61 left for the editor to explain the revert, unless part of the prefilled summary is manually removed first. IPv4 only uses 119 characters, leaving 136 for the editor. If you undo an edit then the undone edit is usually right before in the page history so there is easy access to the links, and I very rarely click the links in the undo summary. Is it possible to insert a test in MediaWiki:Undo-summary and produce a shorter text for IPv6 (and possibly long usernames), or would the test code just become part of the edit summary with the current software? I'm and admin so I suppose I could just try but I don't like experimenting with live code. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

PrimeHunter has pointed out another problem. What if an "IPv6 IP" reverts edits made by another "IPv6 IP"?. Just think what the edit History will be like. They have the right to edit WP, but we need to come to a solution which will help us remembering them so that we can report them in case of IP sockpuppetry cases.C E (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

But why do you need to remember these numbers? Surely you're not typing these numbers out manually, and I'm pretty sure that if your computer is modern enough to edit Wikipedia, then it is capable of copying and pasting a mere 39 characters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes Users report IP socks. They are able to find the similarity due to small IPs. Now it will be difficult.C E (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Generally, the first 4 segments are the equivalent of a full IPv4 address. So in theory, 1111:2222:3333:4444:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA and 1111:2222:3333:4444:AAAA:AAAA:BBBB:AAAA are most likely the same person on the same connection to an ISP. 1111:2222:3333:5555:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA should be the same ISP, but is likely a different user. Actual ISP practice isn't well established, and so you could in theory have multiple unrelated people on one /64, or have one person receive IPs from multiple /64s, but it hasn't come up much that I've seen. Monty ₈₄₅ 13:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem with them, I have never desired to memorise IP addresses, and I honestly find IPv6 easier to find hoppers because there is less sharing and the first 16 digits or so tend to be the exact same. 00:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC on "Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes when they are appropriately within scope of the navboxes topic?"

Hi All, there is a RFC on a topic of interest of this community at w:en:Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes?. Please join the conversation, and help us figure out the role of links to other Wikimedia Projects in Navboxes, Sadads (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the holder of a political office be linked within an infobox more than once (i.e. as the successor), when they have already been linked (e.g. as the vice president, predecessor, lieutenant, etc.)?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There appears to be a consensus in support of the proposal here to allow linking to an office holder more than once in the somewhat narrow case of when another office holder was both an underling, and then later a successor, to that person in office. The primary issue here is interpreting the MOS guideline OVERLINK, especially in regards to "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." The key question in this case is the interpretation of the word "helpful", and while some disagree that linking more than once in these situations is "helpful", the consensus seems to be that in these cases multiply linking is "helpful". Also, referencing this previous RfC at the FDR article may be of utility here. (non-admin closure) ----IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Opening rationale and instructions

some possible Reasons to Support-

Ease of navigation
WP:OVERLINK (certain parts)
Conformity with articles where this issue does not occur
WP:IAR, occasional exceptions to rules

some possible Reasons to Oppose-

WP:OVERLINK (spirit of the guideline) and that this issue is already covered there

Having recently closed an RfC discussion at an article regarding ~~this~~ a similar issue, I will not be expressing an opinion here (in the spirit of neutrality). I'm simply advocating consistency, in the hope to unify the style that should be used when this occurs throughout the encyclopedia. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"equal[ing] out the reasons.... [in the spirit of]... fair[ness]" [14]
some more possible Reasons to Oppose-

It looks less professional and more cluttered
Harder on the eyes to follow with continual alternating colors
Multiple links in an infobox are simply unnecessary

Fyunck(click) (talk) 23 May 2015 (UTC) (Restored @Fyunck(click):'s changes here, as opposed to changing my opening post.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC))

Support (names should be linked more than once)

Strong support - any place where readers are likely to expect links, we should give them those links. While in prose text there are issues with some browsers (so I ubderstand, when it comes to browsers for the blind), these issues don't come up as much in infoboxes. And if someone wants to follow up, for example, on all Israeli prime ministers since 1990, they would expect a link to the next prime minister for the 1992-1995 term of Yitzhak Rabin. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Support - WP:OVERLINK does exist for a reason, and it is best that we apply it where practical; however, we need to actually apply common sense before going to endless lengths to ensure that every last policy or guideline is met. Dustin (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Support - WP:OVERLINK says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes". That seems pretty explicit, so why is IAR listed under "some possible Reasons to Support"? There's no IAR necessary. Unlike an article, which has a top-to-bottom flow/narrative, infoboxes and tables are things people scan for particular information -- and we should have that information linked. To be clear, though, I don't think this requires additional language be added to any of the guidelines unless consensus opposes. If supported it's just a reaffirmation of what WP:OVERLINK already says. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Support I try to use common sense as well. While I hate overlinking (everyone knows what an rabbit is) I frequently relink when a lot of names are being used or when information is lenghty and/or difficult to understand, as in a medical article. I try to put myself in the place of a person that has no previous knowledge of the subject. Gandydancer (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a good point. Often in wiki table usage we relink things because to re-find the first linked instance isn't always easy when you want to click on it for more info. In prose it disrupts flow of reading. In an infobox some readers expect all names to be linked because they specifically use it to navigate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Support. I think it's useful there. I've used those links to navigate, and I know others have, too. And, as noted above, there's a clear exception in the overlink policy that supports useful links in infoboxes.--Coemgenus (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Support. WP:OVERLINK explicitly says links can be repeated in infoboxes. It benefits readers to have the links repeated there and it does not clutter the page like overlinking in the prose does. Calidum T|C 16:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Support The whole purpose of the infobox is to present material in a succinct manner. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Support Of course it's helpful to repeat links, and we should do it. Not everybody reads articles top to bottom. Some just look at the infobox, some only read the text without the infobox, many only read a particular section (and we have links to sections all over the place), in some cases users might skip to the navboxes at the bottom. We should be accommodating all of these reading styles, and that means repeating links, sometimes 5 to 10 times in an article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Support As a matter of common sense, it makes navigating Wikipedia easier for readers. WP:OVERLINK is a policy designed to prevent linking to the same article multiple times within the body, which makes sense because if someone is reading through the page, they've already seen the available wikilink. However, when navigating through successive offices (or for that matter NFL seasons, NBA seasons, Artist singles, etc.) using the infobox, it is best to have everything linked for convenience. Yes, this means sometimes people who hold multiple offices will be linked more than once, but for the sake of sanity we should just link them all, if we have to go through each article and determine which ones to do de-link it will be a headache for editors and readers alike, and only serve to cause confusion. We have a hard enough time enforcing WP:OVERLINK within the bodies of articles, let's not give ourselves extra work for no good reason. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Support per all the sound reasons listed above —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Support because it allows much more easy navigation and helps spread knowledge by making it easier to access. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Support—it helps with navigation, and WP:OVERLINK specifically says it can be repeated. Imzadi 1979 → 04:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Support (weakly, on a case-by-case basis). The reason for discouraging duplicate links in running text is that we expect readers to go through the text sequentially, so when they encounter the second instance of the name they will already have seen the first. But the tabulated format of an infobox is designed for non-sequential reading – you can use it for looking up just one piece of information at a time, in any order. A second set of arguments about using or avoiding link is that bluelinks in running text increase visual distraction – but if in a tabulated box you have all entries bluelinked, then the same kind of distraction may be created by having a single one among them not blue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Support readers expect infobox items to be linked and probably think it is an error if it is not. I cant see why it would be seen as overlinking as that really deals with the article body. MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Support Guidelines using the word "generally" are easily overruled by rational justification. The spirit of WP:OVERLINK is to avoid clutter. Logical or expected links are not clutter. Easy and consistent navigation is a high value justification. Alsee (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Support I thought about this carefully and I think the benefits outweigh the cons. I looked at several other infoboxes that were fully linked and it wasn't any tougher visually if all the politicians are linked multiple times (as opposed to prose where it gets very annoying and where I wish the links were the same color as the surrounding text). It's more like a table where, in scrolling down, continual links can be helpful. I'm not 100% convinced we need every city councilperson's name linked many multiple times in an infobox, but I can't see it hurting anything either. The most important subjects should be linked multiple times, and if there is scrolling distance between the last link it may also be linked again. It absolutely can help readers navigate, especially if they are new to the subject, as this happened to myself recently on one of the presidential articles. I agree with @Rhododendrites: that it doesn't go against MoS/Guidelines now so no need to re-write anything. This simply affirms the practice in infoboxes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Support per Alsee. We should be careful with putting links in the body text since too many there become distracting. However, navboxes and infoboxes are hotspots where links are expected. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose (names should not be linked more than once)

Oppose - WP:REPEATLINK says if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes. We have to ask "is it helpful" to repeat this link and generally the answer is no. An infobox is supposed to summarise key features of the page's subject. It is effectively the same as a single, listified section and we don't link multiple times in a section so why would we link multiple times in the infobox? It's unnecessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose as unnecessary repetition. As AussieLegend said, it doesn't really benefit to repeat links. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:OVERLINK oppose. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Does that mean you support rewording the part of WP:OVERLINK that says, "... but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." because unless that wording is changed, then I don't see how WP:OVERLINK can be used to oppose this RfC. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, because its not "helpful for readers" as AussieLegend already said. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how navigational links inside an infobox, even if repeated aren't helpful for readers. It's not a distraction, as it's not a body of text being linked, and if you went to any other website on the web, they would keep this kind of linking consistent because it's what is obviously easier for readers. Especially for infoboxes in succession, there is no way it isn't helpful. Just my opinion though. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:REPEATLINK/WP:OVERLINK. It isn't "helpful for readers" to repeat links in a back-to-back or nearly back-to-back way (and not just in infoboxes; it's a general principle). WP:COMMONSENSE application of "helpful for readers" tells us that in very long infoboxes, where the recurrence of the name is widely separated from its initial occurrence, it's okay to relink. Many of the support !votes are effectively making the case that it's somehow always useful for readers if we repeatedly link these names in infoboxes, but that cannot possibly be true or the "if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes..." wording would not exist! QED. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Twice in the same infobox doesn't mean back-to-back. To take the infobox of Shimon Peres, for example, I can certainly see that there is no need, for the second term as prime minister (84-86), to link to Yitzhak Shamir in both the precceding and the successing. On the other hand, if someone wants to follow the succeding link for the first-listed (most recent) term as Minister of Foreign Affairs, no reason to make the reader have to go all the way up to the prime misinter section to find the same name there, nor to te presedent section to find the second prime minister listed there. (Benjamin Netanyahu). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure. You seem to be restating what I said, in detail, just in different wording and with examples. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I agree per SMcCandlish. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose For reasons that I have given in the discussion section. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

Policy and guidelines on this already make it clear that multiple links can be used where appropriate. We do not not need a "should" or "shouldn't" policy over and above what we already have. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC).

My reasoning behind this RfC was to try and make the linkage of officeholders within the Template:Infobox officeholder consistent throughout its use in the encyclopedia. This can differ with no guideline specific to the matter at hand. Unifying the linkage of names whichever way the consensus of this RfC falls, would be better than it being determined by consensus on a per article basis. We already do this, one such example being guidelines for specific types of articles, such as the video games "manual of style". The need is there, if we want to be homogenize the usage, and I think this is one case where that would be sensible. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment - This is not exactly the same topic that was closed recently at Talk:FDR. That was specifically about the President of the United States and the problems it creates (especially for children) when the "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" are not linked. Every other President of the United States was linked for easy access EXCEPT for Franklin Roosevelt. Truman was the third vice-President so it was not instantly apparent where to click for Truman. And when a youngster is doing a report we want them to have easy access to information, especially for the highest office in the United States. Being able to click from infobox to infobox was very helpful. Of course the result was a snowball to make it consistent with all other US Presidents and because of the importance of the office.

Now whether that should hold true for every other political office/elected official (that would include elected judges/mayors/councilpersons/school board members/etc) I do have my doubts. We've established it for US Presidents, but I'd like to read some viewpoints here on whether that should also apply to every political office. Maybe overlinking shouldn't apply to infoboxes since they are a helpful summary of the most important items of an article? Then again, unless it's as important as potus, why do we really need it linked over and over? Food for thought and I'll be reading some posts before deciding whether to expand things or not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that it was the same issue in my opening statement, merely that it was related. I changed my wording there to be more clear. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is this specific to political offices? There are plethora other templates that link to names. For example, where a TV show uses {{infobox television}}, it is common that the same person may be listed in multiple roles (e.g., in Louie, Louie CK is listed as the creator, writer, director, and star) but only linked in the infobox the first time. Whether it is convenient to do this may depend on how the infobox is built (e.g., whether links are inserted automatically and not easily overridden) and how they appear (e.g., whether the references to the same person appear close together), but what is the reason to treat political offices as a special case and could/should this have a broader application. —sroc 💬 14:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There is succession in political offices. For example a user may want to browse through all the governors of New York in order, from the 1st to the 56th. It could be argued that it would be convenient to have all the successors linked, even if they happened to serve as the previous administration's lieutenant governor for ease of navigation. The same cannot be said about the benefit of linking other non-ordered things, such as in your example. That's why I specified the proposal in the way that I did. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 15:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What about, for example, {{infobox flag}}, which links the words "Name" and "Use" for every flag when multiple flags are listed, such as Flag of Germany? Should that be treated any differently? —sroc 💬 22:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This RfC is specific to the Template:Infobox officeholder, concerning the linkage of names within it more than once. Other infoboxes are outside the scope and not being addressed here. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If "[t]his RfC is specific to the Template:Infobox officeholder", why isn't this RfC taking place at Template talk:Infobox officeholder? Posting it in the Village Pump invites broader discussion. In any case, my point still stands about why the specified infobox should be treated exceptionally; couldn't the same principles equally apply to other infoboxes such as {{Infobox election}}, {{Infobox official post}}, etc.? Consistency in the user experience is beneficial for readers, so if this discussion produces good guidance for one set of infoboxes, we should consider whether that guidance could be applied more broadly. —sroc 💬 02:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend:We often link multiple times in long tables, and the infobox is closer to a table of information than reading actual prose. We know that overlinking in prose is a distraction to the flow of reading. That's why we don't overlink in prose. My question is, if many readers are finding it helpful to use the infoboxes as navigation tools, what does it hurt to link everything? It's usually done in row after row formatting so it really shouldn't cause added eyestrain. Other than it breaks some rule, how does it really hurt those who say we shouldn't do it? Does it really make it harder for people to view the infoboxes if everything is linked? I'm trying to get a grip on why this rule interpretation came into being. Maybe the overlink writers weren't really thinking about infoboxes when it was initially written. I'm not sure. And since if everything is linked in an infobox I don't think it would bother me at all, I'd like to hear some views as to why it causes problems. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The content in an infobox is a range of essentially disjointed information, whereas in a table the content has a common theme. As such, it is closer to this than this, so the table analogy is incorrect. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, there's been someone, using various IP addresses, going through political candidates and removing the extra links, even though this discussion is ongoing. I don't have a horse in this race, but someone should maybe speak to them and invite them to the discussion. Either they don't know about it (AGF) or they do, and are ignoring the trends here. Lets hope its the first. --Jayron 32 16:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking through "support" and "oppose" reasons again, I have to say this proposal comes off as biased for listing more "support" reasons than "oppose" reasons. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I made an attempt to summarize/generalize both sides of a recent rfc I closed regarding a similar issue. I didn't inject any original thought about the proposal, or try and raise reasons that weren't brought up there for the sake of neutrality. I think trying to measure bias numerically has its flaws. There could be 10 reasons against something, while only 1 reason for it, the 1 could be particularly sound. That aside, I apologize if in my attempt at neutrality, I didn't put forth enough for one of the sides. I could have played the angel's advocate and found new reasons for a side, but (again) I'd have had to have put my own thought into it, which I was trying to avoid. I have trust in the competency of the community to find their own reasoning or verses in the guidelines. The reasons were meant more as neutral examples to encourage taking positions and having opinions with a basis, rather than simply liking it or not. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 12:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Many seem to invoke WP:OVERLINK's allowing linking in the infobox as giving carte blanche there, where I think that its one link-per-article-body implies that one still be chary of linking. To have it otherwise verges on being overly-subtle, if not inconsistent. Since people, I think, read articles, especially long ones, in snippets, they might want to have, say, Truman's name linked in all instances in the article body, but that's to be discouraged, whereas in the infobox it's to be allowed to link twice within the space of a centimeter or two?

Wikipedia has predecessor/successor templates for just the sort of thing that people seem to now want the infobox for.

Legibility is less of a problem in the infobox than in the body, but, especially for piped links, it's still going to be harder to read text, at least as an editor in raw mode, if not as a reader.

Maintainability will most likely be more difficult with overlinking, both in having to change links as names gain disambiguation phrases, and with the possibility of link breakage due to clumsy editing (and newcomers love to edit infoboxes). If you clumsily edit an un-wikilinked name, you're less likely to leave a useless infobox strewn across the top of an article. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Accessibility dispute on Template:ISO 15924 script codes and Unicode

Please view and weigh in on a discussion concerning the accessibility of template {{ISO 15924 script codes and Unicode}}. Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding a link to a related discussion on the larger issue, that Complex tables cannot be made accessible in Wikipedia and what to do about it Thisisnotatest (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"Comprised of" and the problem of pet peeves in editing

Giraffedata (talk · contribs) is by now well known for his crusade against the phrase "comprised of" (the phrase has its own article). Some people think it is good that he "takes an interest in grammar", others think it is silly or offensive that he thinks he needs to enforce his own arbitrary preference onto other peoples' completley crammatically correct language usage. I admit I am among the latter. The problem is that his practice creates conflicts, as can be seen from his talkpage where editors regularly complain about his changes to their language, frequently saying that they use the phrase deliberately and pointing out that it is not in fact considered incorrect by English style authorities, or by linguists who specialize in English. Giraffedata, generally responds with contempt asserting that he has a right to change any word in the encyclopedia as he sees fit. This is of course true in principle, but it seems to conflict with our general approach to arbitrary style issues such as WP:RETAIN, WP:CITEVAR and WP:ERA which generally suggests that editors should not arbitrarily change between styles in articles to which they are not major contributors. Giraffedata responds, correctly, that neither these nor the MOS explicitly cover questions such as grammar and word usage.

The problem of course with this attitude is that if Giraffedata can use semiautomatic tools to change between styles, and refuse to for example make a list of exceptions, or to even concede the right of other editors to use these expressions in article space, then any other editor can do the same. I could for example with the same reasoning create a bot to insert the wording "comprised of" instead of "composed of" across articles, or simply manually revert Giraffedata's changes. Or I could choose some other arbitrary style choice or word to systematically change. Currently there is nothing in policy or practice that could deter me or someone else from doing so, or any policy that could be applied if I were to do it, that would not also apply in kind to Giraffedata's practices.

So I think it is time that as a community we discuss the principles in this and whether they should motivate us to change policy, MOS or make some other decision to avoid this kind of issue getting disruptive. I realize that this discussion is both about policy and about dispute and about user conduct - but I hope we can focus on the principle of it, and work towards finding a solution that will make most editors happy.

I think that different possible solutions could be to 1. create a policy that covers this, such as a parallel to WP:RETAIN that states that whenever two grammatical forms can be considered equally correct, the choices of the main contributor should be respected. 2. Require that people doing large scale changes of a single term or construction should maintain a list of articles that are exceptions and will not be "corrected". My suggested solutions can be seen in the essay WP:NOPETPEEVES ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I think the editor you mention as an example is doing good work and contributing positively to the encyclopedia. I am with you in the spirit of your new Wikipedia essay, but the devil is in the detail of discussing when differences of usage matter and when they do not. As a reference on that topic, I recommend that all the editors following this discussion here or watching Maunus's essay under construction read Steven Pinker's book The Sense of Style at their earliest opportunity. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a sufficient fraction of our readership that is going to find "comprised of" jarring that we probably ought to avoid it, even if there are ambits where it's considered unremarkable. It strikes me as rare that it would really be important to phrase things that way. This is sort of in the spirit of WP:COMMONALITY — don't strain to use forms that will appear inferior to a lot of readers, even if you don't think they're inferior, provided there are good substitutes.

What about the fraction of our readership that feels exactly the opposite? Who wins, and why? Barry Town People (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, the which-v-that thing is mostly noticeable only to American readers, but if it makes no difference to UK readers, then why not use "that" even in BrEng articles? --Trovatore (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not it is important to phrase it like that is kind of besides the point - because there are significant fractions that feel either way. The point is that dozens of editors approach Giraffedata on his page to tell him to please not correct that which is not in their eyes wrong. Why should their views be overruled by Giraffedata and the other "significant fractions" views?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you meant to say "beside the point". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Meh. Unless it is part of a direct quotation, I agree with Trovatore that there's little benefit to insisting on using a form that many will find problematic. older ≠ wiser 19:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

OK then. I and plenty of other people find "consists of" to be problematic, so there's little benefit to Giraffedata's insistence on its use. Barry Town People (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of words and usages that "many" find problematic, but which are nonetheless an entirely accepted and acceptable part of ordinary English usage. Should we allow other editors to create crusades to remove split infinitives? Prepositions at the ends of sentences? Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia involving people with many different views, and that alone means there is value to allow pluralism whenever possible. What are your thoughts on the larger principle, that of avoiding conflict over irrelevant style issues?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Has there been an RfC on this? Counting those who complain the loudest (on either side) on a user talk page isn't a reliable way of gauging community consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there has been no, but counting those who complain the highest in an RfC also isnt a good way to gauge consensus necessarily. RfCU's have a tendency to degenerate very quickly. I had hoped that this could be a venue to address the issue without making it about the person, but obviously I shouldnt have named the thread the way I did then (I will proceed to rename it). That is why I am trying to see here whether anyone else sees the problem - which is not specifically Giraffedata's edits but the principle of avoiding conflict on arbitrary style issues. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"Comprised of" is a perfectly acceptable phrase used on a regular basis by the English-speaking world (see comprised of for some examples). I find it disruptive for one user to dedicate himself solely to removing it, despite objections of others. Calidum T|C 00:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
In areas of significant dispute, I think widespread changes should require explicit community support. RfCs may be flawed, but they are the best we have at this point; and most of the flaws are within us, not the process itself. I think (1) Giraffedata should run an RfC, bear the consensus burden, and refrain in the meantime, and (2) Giraffedata should agree beforehand that they will leave all changes of this type to others if the RfC fails, something of a voluntary topic ban. (Side note: Maunus said "RfCU's have a tendency to degenerate very quickly", and I don't know whether that was a typo. RFC/U has been dead for some time, and that's not the kind of RfC I'm referring to.) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that is exactly a good solution. In the absence of a general consensus to deprecate the usage, he should refrain untill the consensus is generated. I forgot that RfC/U is gone, it would be an RfC about "comproised of" then.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Numerous mainstream style guides deprecate the use of "comprised of"; hopefully, no one here wants to argue that point. I will remove or replace the phrase in any article of which I am doing a significant re-write because better word choices are available. That said, it is a relatively minor style point, like campaigning for the mandatory use of the serial comma or such. Frankly, I find it rather weird that anyone would aggressively work for the phrase's universal removal -- who has the time to spend on such a trivial matter across four million Wikipedia articles? There is an element of obsessive-compulsive insanity about it. I suppose the question that should be asked is Are these edits really disruptive, or just irritating to a handful of editors who think "comprised of" represents good writing? If these edits really are disruptive, how about some examples of such disruption? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think your question is answerable in any objective way; it's a matter of perspective. If Ngram Viewer shows nothing but increase in the use of "comprised of" in books, that's enough to require an RfC to establish community consensus. Any evidence from style guides could be presented and considered in the RfC. To clarify, I'm not suggesting that the RfC would decide whether "comprised of" should be abandoned completely, but whether there is community support for widespread changes of a crusade nature such as is being considered here. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Just the fact that he can make hundreds of edits every day of the week, shows that the phrase is considered a totally natural part of many thousand editor's usage. it simply is waaaaay too commonly occurring to be considered incorrect. And of course it is found in literature by writers from Herman Melville to Pynchon. 4,3 million hits on google books, 1,1 million on google scholar.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Myriad English-language quirks, colloquialisms and errors are "natural" parts of thousands of editors' everyday language usage, but that doesn't make them all appropriate in an encyclopedic register. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the relevant Ngram viewer would seem to be one comparing comprised of and composed of, which shows "comprised of" (falling rapidly) well ahead of "composed of" (rising slowly), which leads me to ask what's the third alternative that's taking grammatical market share away from "composed of"? But I think the issue is: does this change protect the integrity of Wikipedia more than it discourages participation? If "comprised of" is grammatical then it is hard to argue that obliterating it protects the integrity of Wikipedia. So then the follow-up question becomes do hypercorrections discourage participation? Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm 100% in agreement with Trovatore. Giraffedata's edits are in the spirit of WP:COMMONALITY, which takes precedence over WP:RETAIN. The former is about seeking common ground (e.g., the mutually acceptable "glasses" instead of "eyeglasses" or "spectacles", each of which is widely used only in certain English varieties). The latter is to be relied upon when there's no consensus that either/any option has tangible benefits when compared with the other. Despite a common misconception, WP:RETAIN is not an instruction to refrain from modifying any style that isn't flat-out incorrect, irrespective of the rationale.
Opinions differ as to whether "comprised of" is proper English. Does anyone assert that Giraffedata's alternative wording isn't (or that it's inferior in some other respect)? If not, what harm is he causing?
It seems as though much of the opposition is based on the principle of the matter, not a belief that Giraffedata is damaging the encyclopedia. Some view his edits – which they perceive as the replacement of one perfectly acceptable style with another – as utterly pointless. That's a valid opinion, but why is it grounds to counter his efforts? If the result is something equally good (albeit not better, in your view), what's the problem? That Giraffedata is wasting his time instead of doing something that you consider worthwhile?
In my opinion, the real waste of time is the crusade to counter Giraffedata's crusade. All of us have better things to do than revert harmless-at-worst edits and participate in discussions such as this one.
Of course, if someone asserts – in good faith – that some of Giraffedata's replacement wording is inferior to "comprised of" (for one or more reasons unrelated to which phrase appeared in the article first), that's a different story. I want to stress that I'm not referring to such a scenario above. —David Levy 08:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I have a few pet peeves myself, but I have refrained from hunting down and "fixing violations" because I felt that would be seen as disruptive. These pet peeves are no different from what is being discussed here. Like this, they are in gray areas where there is no clear consensus in style guides or among the Wikipedia community, but some will of course disagree with them since nothing has total agreement at Wikipedia. They are a matter of personal opinion, and, like Giraffedata, I would be implementing mine on a widespread scale. If your view wins out here I'll consider that a community green light for such activity. It would not be WP:POINTy behavior, as I would be doing it to make what I consider improvements to the encyclopedia, not simply to make a point; my desire to make these changes predates this discussion. Are you ok with this? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
If, among those with an opinion on the matter, a significant percentage regards the styling that you wish to remove as less valid than its potential replacement and substantially everyone else regards the two styles as equally valid, I'm beyond okay with that. —David Levy 10:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Where are you getting your information about how the community feels about "comprised of"? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Please reread my 08:03 message, wherein I convey my observational impression and inquire as to whether anyone's position is inconsistent therewith. You're welcome to answer my questions, of course. —David Levy 12:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I have no particular perception in that area, and I wouldn't use it as a basis for argument if I did because it would be very error-prone. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not requesting an assessment of positions held by the community at large. I'm asking whether any individual's opposition to Giraffedata's edits stems from a sincere belief that the resultant prose is inferior to that which it replaced (i.e., that Giraffedata's changes aren't merely unnecessary, but actually reduce the articles' quality). —David Levy 13:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for my misunderstanding. When writing new prose, I think I would generally choose "comprised of" over "composed of", I guess because "comprise" has a narrower range of definitions than "compose" and is therefore more precise. This is based on nothing but instinct, but I would have to say that, in my opinion, "composed of" does slightly reduce articles' quality. Does the difference matter to five percent of readers? Probably not, and that's why I'm not roaming Wikipedia making this change wherever I see it. I simply ask that others offer me and those like me the same consideration. Does that answer your question? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Giraffedata's replacements are sometimes, not infrequently but not always, clearly inferior. I think "composed of" and "comprised of" are not fully synonymous in all contexts, and sometimes give different nuances to the meaning. To me composed of means that something has been composed into a certain order, with the components in specific relation to eachother, whereas comprised of means that some category simply subsumes a set of elements.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

That could be a valid point in some contexts (especially patent law, as I observed elsewhere). But we know that Giraffedata doesn't robotically replace all cases of "comprised of" with "composed of", and in any given case it's unlikely that he (or anyone else) would object to some other alternative. The fact his choices are not 100% perfect every time according to everyone isn't indicative of a policy problem, a user behavior problem, a generalized style/grammar problem, or any other real problem. There are simply sometimes personal, contextual disagreements, that can be resolved in the usual way. I don't see any evidence provided that Giraffedata insists on retaining his preferred wording. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue, though, is that you don't need an "of" with "comprised". "Comprise" is grammatically the equivalent of "include". You would not say that something is "included of" or "including of" something else; you would say that it "includes" something else, or is "including" something else. See Transitional phrase for the use of these terms in patent law, which is very serious about using the right terms. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
But "include" and "comprise" are not equivalent. It is valid to use "comprised of" but not valid to use "included of". Omnedon (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a matter of context, but a patent claim can either read "consisting of" or "comprising"; if "comprised of" were used, the claim would be invalid. bd2412 T 16:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know that; but even if true, that a specific field has specific usage rules is not really relevant here. "The committee was comprised of three members." "Three members comprised the committee." Both are valid. Omnedon (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

BD2412: The issue, though, is that you don't need an "of" with "comprised". "Comprise" is grammatically the equivalent of "include". You would not say that something is "included of" or "including of" something else; you would say that it "includes" something else, or is "including" something else. Let's suppose for a moment that there is an issue (though I'm not at all sure that there is one). Then this isn't it. Not only is it not the issue, but (like many people) you've conflated the verb COMPRISE (which of course has forms comprised) with what's being (unnecessarily?) discussed in this section: the adjective COMPRISED. (See the article "Comprised of" for the distinction.) That you wouldn't say that something is "included of" or "including of" something else (as I too would not) is by the way. ¶ "Comprised of" is a mildly interesting formula. If it's anomalous, it's not uniquely so: consider the pair POSSESS and possessed of. (Props to Ecwaine for bringing it to our attention.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That goes straight to my later point, that we should not be using words with potentially confusing meanings when more common words are available that don't have this problem. bd2412 T 00:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem with this word is that "The committee comprised three members" and "Three members were comprised by [or in] the committee" are also valid. See any dictionary if you don't believe me. Even wikt:comprise has this in considerable detail. The word is an auto-antonym and thus its use is generally always going to be confusing to someone, even pretty intelligent people, no matter what. A strong case can thus be made that it should generally not be used here except where it must be, and probably the one and only case that is true is, as bd2412 and I have both already pointed out, in patent law, where it is a strictly defined term of art. The fact that there are some editors who do not understand this problem and thus think there is no problem with "comprised of" does not somehow make their opinion that the phrase shouldn't be changed equally valid. WP:Consensus does not require unanimity, and it very, very often comes down to which argument makes more sense, not which is argued with more fervor or preferred by more arguers. There simply is no contest when it comes to which side of that debate has more facts on its side and what conclusion they point to. The auto-antonym problem is genuinely intractable and incontrovertible. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please explain how comprise is an auto-antonym, how it can mean either x or not x. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I read Talk:Comprised_of#Auto-antonymy and consider that a misuse of the term, but I'm not going to quibble over unimportant semantics. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't read that talk page thread, and can't vouch for it. If you just search this VP for "auto-autonomy", you'll find my reasoning on the matter. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
My knee-jerk reaction is to object to editors going around enforcing their views on prescriptive grammar. This is mainly because prescriptivists are often misinformed. I also appreciate that using a form acceptable to both sides may result in a loss of richness in language (as Geoffrey Pullum and/or Arnold Zwicky put it: acceptance means that "crazies win"). However, on examining several of the edits by Giraffedata (talk · contribs) I generally found them to improve the style and/or reduce potential ambiguity, so I agreed with them. I also found the explanation on the user's subpage well-informed and valid (which does not mean that I agree with everything). Similarly with "that"/"which", where I usually find the use of "that" equally appropriate where "which" is used to introduce a "restrictive" relative clause. I have so far resisted the urge to revert what may look like prescriptivist "corrections", since I believe that the restrictive "that" is (at least consciously) accepted by more people, though it should also be noted that many who say they insist on "that" intuitively prefer "which" in some circumstances in their own writing. Another consideration is that some people object to use of "that" when the antecedent is human. So, on balance, I think the decision shoud be based on what is stylistically better and on commonality. For this sort of issue, I am not in favour of invoking strict application of anything like WP:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR, which, I think, have the potential to create more disruption. I would be in favour of advice that recommended avoidance of ambiguity (for instance where "comprise" and "include" may be viewed as denoting substantially different logical relationships, the use or non-use of a comma may be regarded as insufficient differentiation between supplementary and integrated use of relative clauses, or the avoidance of a split infinitive may introduce ambiguity). --Boson (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. There are several points to respond to in this proposal and thread:

Extended content

1. Ultimately, I agree with programmatic efforts to remove a potentially confusing construction that uses an auto-antonym like "comprise", and replace it with something clearer. If the same editor were changing all "comprised of" sentences to "comprising" ones, to invert which of the two self-contradictory meanings of "comprise" were being used, that would be an actual problem and potentially disruptive. Replacing either of them with clearer language is not. [Note, however, that "comprise" and "compose" have specific and mutually exclusive definitions in patent law, and should not be changed in that context. Since almost no one knows this, when we need to use them in WP articles referring to patents, we should probably expand them to indicate their meaning, e.g. with "comprises at least x, y, and z" vs. "is composed exclusively of x, y, and z".]
2. I agree WP:COMMONALITY supersedes WP:RETAIN. And it's a mistake to extrapolate from a handful of very narrowly defined rules like WP:ENGVAR/WP:RETAIN, WP:CITEVAR and WP:ERA, which happen to be similar in only one way, that there's a general principle that whoever edited earlier has more editorial rights at a page than later editors. This is flatly contradicted by policy at WP:BOLD, and by the WP:Five pillars. WP would have nearly no content, and it would all be terrible, if it were true. The only reason those three rules swim against WP:BOLD is that too much editorial strife results otherwise, in those very limited circumstances. They're cases where WP:COMMONSENSE is overriding a general rule, for serious reasons. [Honestly we could drop CITEVAR; it's actually frequently an impediment to article improvement, and leads to pointless editwarring, which is what it was supposed to be preventing. Hopefully we'll make it moot by just finally settling on a single citation style instead of entertaining multiple variants for no clear benefit. WP must be the only major publication in the world that does so.] I shouldn't have to note this about ENGVAR/CITEVAR/ERA, but I clearly do, because people at disparate venues as WP:RM debates and the very one we're in now, quite frequently try to extrapolate from them a generalized principle that names, spellings, styles, wording selections, sentence structures, etc. must not be changed because the original creator of the article or adder of the material didn't want it that way. It's total bollocks.
3. I have to observe that a great deal of what is done with WP:AWB by numerous editors, programmatically across many/all articles, is what someone pejoratively labelled "hypercorrection". The sky has not fallen, and we are not banning AWB. It's very purpose is semi-automating minor, WP:GNOMEy edits, so most of them will, pretty much by definition, look trivial to a lot of other editors, and be the kind of editing they don't feel they want to do or examine. One editor's "pet peeve" is another editor's "cleanup". One editor's "crusade" is another editor's "routine". One editor's "obsession with trivia" is another's "improving readability". Just because you don't share someone else's focus and feelings doesn't mean what they do is worthless. Also, the Crusades were a series of genocidal military campaigns by Christians to take the Holy Land from Muslims. Nothing on Wikipedia is sanely comparable to that, and every time someone refers to another editor as a "crusader" or "on a crusade", they're triggering a corollary of Godwin's law, just substituting the Crusaders for the Nazis, but depending on pro-Christian bias in the English-speaking world to get away with it undetected by people's BS filters. It's also a WP:Civility violation.
4. There's a serious logic problem inherent in simultaneously holding that these things are trivial and don't matter, but that some people focusing on them discourages the participation of others. Only someone who is inordinately concerned with a tiny style/grammar nitpick like this would quit Wikipedia over it, or flee from editing a particular article, or some other WP:DRAMA response. Ergo, no one who feels "discouraged" over something like this can, without hypocrisy, criticize another editor for being supposedly too concerned about the alleged nitpick in question. What would really be happening is they're at least equally concerned about it, just opposed over what the "right" version is. And, in the more generalized case, it's pretty laughable when someone from a wikiproject, who rarely edits anything but articles on a narrow topic of limited interest to most readers and editors, tries to criticize WP:MOS/WP:AT-focused editors for being "too focused" on style and title editing. Cf. WP:KETTLE.
5. Another latent issue in discussions of this sort is that the textual size of an edit really has nothing to do with its importance, and neither does the conceptual category into which someone wants to place it. A view that amounts to "little tweaks like swapping one word or glyph for another are just trivia", or more broadly "style and grammar matters are a waste of time" are common but idiosyncratic and emotional responses to a feeling one could probably summarize as "I don't personally care much about style, usage, grammar and punctuation, and I'm personally irritated by people who are". This attitude accounts for much of the virulently anti-WP:MOS sentiment espoused by a small number of editors. At it's core, it's simply a sublimated form of incivility and assumption of bad faith. Read any flamey WP:MOS or WP:AT-related discussion, and you'll see immediately how quickly the veil drops and the hate comes out in plain view, including on this page right now (just text search for "obsessive" and you'll find numerous nasty examples, with plenty more a post or two away from these). A touch of this view also underlies comments like "I find it disruptive for one user to dedicate himself solely to" [whatever]. Well, most of the rest of us find it disruptive for one user to try dictate what other editors may spend their volunteer time working on.
6. Whether something is technically "grammatical" (according to what sources, contradicted by what other sources?) has little to do with whether it's good writing. "My naked lamps migrate over chicken-massaged postal seeds" is perfectly grammatical but meaningless. The "comprise" problem is that the word is an auto-antonym. All of this grandstanding about it on both sides is a waste of time, because the real solution here is obviously to avoid (and replace) auto-antonyms in any usage in which the meaning could be unclear. We should probably just put that into MOS. It really has nothing at all to do with whether the "proper" use (says who?) is "a collection comprising 50 pieces" (also conveyed by "a collection comprised of 50 pieces") or "50 pieces comprising a collection" (also conveyed by "50 pieces comprised by/in a collection"). Both contradictory meanings of "comprise" have long been well-attested, and while one is older and less common today, possibly headed for obsolescence (or, if you feel the other way, one is somewhat neologistic and only attested in more recent sources), neither are "wrong", despite them being opposite. [The genuinely incorrect one would be "a collection comprised by 50 pieces", which illogically mixes the "by" construction of the "included in" meaning, with the reversed hierarchical order of the "includes" meaning, which can take an "of" construction. Using the "of" construction when the verb is active, as in "a collection which comprises of 50 pieces", is also substandard in almost all English dialects.]
7. Mandruss makes a good point: 'I have a few pet peeves myself, but I have refrained from hunting down and "fixing violations" because I felt that would be seen as disruptive.' We all do [need to] resist this urge. I've observed many times before that it's essentially impossible for any one person to agree with every rule in MOS, because the whole thing is necessarily a compromise between radically divergent style rules from every geographical and vocational part of the English-speaking world. The thing to look at here is that Giraffedata's edits are not simply a "peeve", a willy-nilly preference, but have a reasonable, reader-facing rationale. There's a big difference between that and, say, going around and changing every instance of "forwards" to "forward" just because you hate that minor redundancy and your English dialect doesn't favo[u]r it.
8. I also agree with all of Boson's commonsense observations, immediately above mine.
9. The proponent's 'Currently there is nothing in policy or practice that could deter me or someone else from doing so...' stuff, which almost has a WP:POINTy I'm gonna do this to punish you all, if you don't stop me by agreeing to the rules I want against my own bad idea air to it, also raises WP:BEANS concerns. We should not and do not draft up elaborate, problematic policies to pre-emptively address problems that are not extant, because it just inspires troublesome editors to do precisely what we're newly proscribing when there wasn't anyone doing it before. Thus it's also an exercise in instruction creep.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Updated: 01:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

For words like this that have multiple senses that can be confusing because of their nuance, can't we just replace them with clearer language? Perhaps "the collection includes 50 pieces" or "there are 50 pieces in the collection". While this is not at the level of certain hard sciences articles that use jargon that is incomprehensible to the average reader, vocabulary selections can be a barrier to clear understanding, and one that is easily avoided. bd2412 T 17:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the very idea that's at issue here. Some editors are convinced that such constructions are in no way problematic, and want to take Giraffedata to task for changing them to clearer language. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I would not consider changing "comprised of" to "comprising" to be using clearer language; why not change those uses to more common words like "consisting of" or "including"? bd2412 T 18:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Giraffedata does not change it to comprising, in fact he also removes "comprising" and all other occurences of the verb comprise. The argument that he is simply taking thers to task to make them use clearer language is of course predicated on the notion that comprising is unclear or confusing - an assertion foer which there is no evidence whatsoever. It is not the case that auto-antonyms are necessarily confusing, and I have yet to see a usage of "comprised of" that was actually ambiguous. It is ambiguous only in the mind of someone who thinks it is language's job to be fully governed by binary logic and is unable to understand that meaning of words vary in context. If Giraffedata was actually making attempts to understand the reason why people choose to use the word or see how it fits into contexts, and only changing those that were possibly confusing then I am sure this issue would have never arisen. but that is not his approach, his approach is a one-size (his) fits all argument. Which can be reasonably and non-civility-breachingly be called a crusade.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is one instance of Giraffedata changing "comprised of" to "comprising". bd2412 T 19:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I have seen him change "comprising" to "composed of" as well.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

(EC) bd2412, Giraffedata most commonly uses "composed of" or "consists of", but explains the various replacements here. It's also instructive to actually look at the related threads on Giraffedata's talk page. You find that the characterization of him as 'generally respond[ing] with contempt asserting that he has a right to change any word in the encyclopedia as he sees fit' is quite disingenuous, and borders on psychological projection. Giraffedata even has a well-reasoned and well-researched user essay about the "comprised of" matter at User:Giraffedata/comprised of, but most complainants have not even looked at it, despite his edit summaries linking to it, and despite the fact that the whole point of it is addressing their concerns with reason and sources. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I can count at least three editors on the talkpage saying that they have read his essay and disagrees, and requests for him not to continue to change it in the specific articles they have used the wording int. And in each case he responds in an offended tone, and draws the same ludicruous "ownership" argument that you defend below - which amounts to saying that the person who actually wrote an article has less of a right to determine wording in it than some one who hasn't because allowing any of their preferences to stand would be condoning article ownership. He makes no attempt to reach a consensus on the question, just stubbornly asserts his right to make the change. Yes, I get stubborn and angry as well when faced with that kind of an attitude - but that is EXACTLY the reason we need some kind of policy or guideline on this issue. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree. I find his "tone" (to the extent that word makes sense in a text environment) to be measured, calm, and reasonable. Neither me nor Giraffedata have made any such argument 'that the person who actually wrote an article has less of a right to determine wording in it than some one who hasn't'; rather, the clear fact is that no editor has more or fewer editing rights in this regard, but the proposal we're discussing here would install one, that conflicts with already long-established policy. The rewording of it just above is also self-contradictory on its face, since making any such wording edit automatically constitutes helping to write the article, so it's a self-fulfilling "condition".

Some further background may help others understand why this dispute is a one-sided tempest in a teapot, a demand to fight being made against someone trying to avoid a fight (i.e. you engaging in what looks like the very "bullying" you complain of). Giraffedata said 'You don't have to agree with me either', and explicitly suggests that you revert him in articles where you insist on disagreeing with him, 'unless you're interested in finding a compromise or you think you can convince me this is the least awkward wording'. You'd earlier said to him 'What else do you want me to do, edit war?', to which he responded 'You won't be able to edit war on this, though, because I won't participate. Note that the Wikipedia definition of edit war requires making the same edit multiple times per day, and you have never seen me do that.' I just really don't see a problem here. You're being at least as "stubborn" as he is. I think anyone would be "stubborn" in the face of baldfaced claims that they have no right to edit an article here. When I turned your requirements back on you in a tongue-in-cheek way, you reacted with immediate umbrage, remember? [All of these quotes are from User talk:Giraffedata#Roaring Creek (Pennsylvania), shortly before you opened this VP thread.] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

No, policy is very clear that slow editwarring is also editwarring. And all of te arguments you produce apply in equal measure to giraffedata- his edits are ALSO selfish, You seem to be graduating the latter of disgusting rhetorical strategies, now also attributing quotes to me that I never said. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring does not say what you seem to think it says. I just read it top to bottom, in case it changed. Another relevant policy, WP:Consensus makes it clear that consensus can change, so the notion that once a change is reverted it can never be made again is not applicable. But let's return to your accusations and the facts: Where's the proof that Giraffedata has in fact gamed the three revert rule by slowly re-reverting and re-re-re-reverting the exact same edit? I see no evidence of this, but it is required. Direct policy quote: 'An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.' I'm sure you're aware, as we all are, that it's common editing procedure to try an alternative change if one change is reverted but an editor still feels the present text is flawed. This appears to be Giraffedata's editing pattern. It simply is not the case that he always changes "comprised of" to (or back to) a specific alternative like "composed of". You even said so yourself earlier. And if anyone doubts that I'm quoting accurately, they can simply go read the original thread, since I posted exactly where it is. [PS: If you're just objecting to the [interpolation in square brackets], it was from the sentence immediately preceding the quoted part, which anyone can verify.] I have to observe that there's a clear pattern emerging here: I and others address your points in detail, while you respond with emotive hyperbole and red herring distractions that seem to serve a FUD purpose, but which evade answering most or any actual points raised against your position, and which especially fail to provide any evidence that is asked for. I have to say I don't think this strategy will be successful. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, we did have at least one active admin who believed that every single change to another's contribution was "technically a revert", but I think he got over it when the absurdity of his position was explained (his "rule" meant that every single edit after the page creation was a reversion, no matter what the edit did). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Most people here are failing to address the substance of the proposal, sticking to their own opinions about "comprised of" specifically. The question is: what is the poper etiquette and procedure for enforcing one's pet peeves on other peoples writing? If there were a consensus that "comprised of" should not be used in wikipedia then of course that would settle the specific question here, but not the wider principle of how to handle style related conflicts where there is no "right answer". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

In general, I think that if constructions such as "comprised of" are deemed grammatical, then it's unhelpful for someone to do nothing on Wikipedia but remove them. I would wonder about the motives of someone who edits in such a fashion anyway. Are they here to construct an encyclopedia or just to eradicate a grammar foible that they don't like? That said, if changing wording makes the sentence clearer for people to read, then fair enough. However, I would echo BD2412's point that, if you are going to make wording clearer, use a more common word entirely, or a construction that is unambiguous.

Perhaps, if an editor wants to make a grammar edit where the grammar was previously correct, he/she should only do so while making other substantive edits to the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

To get us back on track: Mandruss has let us know that if i turns out that there is a general consensus in this discussion to the effect that as long as someone can argue that their preference is preferable to some other choice, and there is no general consensus to say otherwise, then an editor is justified in programatically enforcing their preference, then Mandruss will personally take up such a practice. I will myself do the same of course. So what rules of etiquette would you like Mandruss and me I to follow as we purge the encyclopedia systematically of usages that bug us and that we consider to be likely to be bugging likeminded readers?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I for one get my knickers in a twist when someone dare end a sentence with a preposition. Calidum T|C 19:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The "substance of the proposal" is that Maunus wants to turn WP:OWN on its ear. His request for 'a parallel to WP:RETAIN that states that whenever two grammatical forms can be considered equally correct, the choices of the main contributor should be respected' is grotesque and un-wiki. Such an idea is not parallel at all to WP:RETAIN, but an argument for "whoever can dump the most words into a page, whether they are encyclopedic or not, controls it forever". Such a rule would be an unmitigated disaster, and nothing on Wikipedia works anything like that. See also User talk:Giraffedata#Roaring Creek (Pennsylvania), where Maunus makes patent WP:OWN claims over an article: 'No you do not [have as much right to choose article wording]. If you were to actually do something useful and write an article, then you would have a right to make style choices for it.' Maunus then vows a WP:POINTy, WP:BATTLEGROUNDing revertwar campaign: 'I for one am not going to back down, and the next time you revert "comprised of" in an article where I have reverted you once I will not be this gracious about it.' (Note: Nothing was gracious about Maunus's post.). Most of what Maunus says in that thread is very confused about various policies and guidelines, as is what he's saying on this page, too. So, let's be really clear about this: No, Maunus, you do not own and control an article or any page here by virtue of jealously guarding it and ensuring that your own edits dominate its wording. The fact that you object to someone editing "other people's wording", by which you really mean your wording, means you do not understand WP:Five pillars. PS: A key detail in the proposal is ""two grammatical forms [that] can be considered equally correct", which is rarely the actual case with any two forms, is certainly not the case with "comprised of" (which is widely denigrated in numerous reliable sources) and even in cases where is it approximately true that there's "equal" acceptance, it's usually a difference between UK and US English, i.e. it's already governed by WP:ENGVAR. It simply comes up so infrequently that editors like Maunus will vow they're "not going to back down" and "will not be ... gracious about it", that we do not need some new etiquette rule about people using AWB to make minor wording tweaks to articles in series and over time. That's what AWB is designed to do. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

OOh what a civil way to insult and personally attack someone. Very impressive, you must have practiced that a long time. Giraffedata is the one who is in constant battleground mode and is slow editwarring without having any backing by consensus. If there were a consensus that comprised should never be used then I would follow it, but I am not obligated by policy to sit down and peacefully let him bully anyone who disagrees with him. If he wants to change this usage in articles on my watchlist he will have to get a consensus for it on the talkpage in each separate case untill there is a general projectwide consensus that supports him. And in doing so I will be entirely within policy as it currently exists. So either you make a set of guidelines for how to approach this issue, or I will be fully justified in reverting giraffedata on any article where he makes this change - untill a local consensus is established. That is the substance. So if you would like me not to do this I suggest you get your head out of your sanctimonious bum and address the actual issue. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for making my case for me. Please actually read WP:POINT for starters. An "I will hunt you to the ends of the earth if you dare edit one of my pages" attitude is not going to serve you well here. Let's turn your reasoning back on you: Show me a site-wide consensus that the alternatives to "comprised of" that Giraffedata uses (there are lots of them, depending on the contexts in which the phrase is found) and which many other editors prefer, should never be used. None of us are obligated by policy to let you bully us into accepting wording that many find awkward, confusing, ignorant, or jarring. If you ever want to use that phrase again, you must get consensus for it on the talk page in each separate case until there is a general project-wide consensus that supports you. Does that sound fair and reasonable to you? BTW, I've actually read most of the relevant threads on Giraffedata's talk page, and he's quite calm, reasonable, civil, and patient, in stark contrast to the ranty fist-shaking posted there by you and several others with an axe to grind. The fact that it's in favor of some pet peeve instead of against one doesn't make it any less a case of axe-grinding and of advancing the very kind of pet peeve you just produced an essay about avoiding. PS: Being civil does not require being flattering or refraining from criticism. Here's an example of being actually incivil, you referring to another editor's work as 'your crusade'. (See my previous post for why this is essentially the same as saying "your Kristalnacht"). It's also hypocritical to disrespectfully confront another editor, and make long-term editwarring threats, and then call them 'confrontational and disrespectful'. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

So this is where your argument collapses, and you are forced to admit that this kind of behavior is not ok and is disruptive and problematic. Yuo could only see that problem, when it was in the context of an edit with which you didnt agree and by an editor you didnt like. but you saw it. If you can see that it would be a problem if I were agressively inserting comprised of into articles to which I have not otherwise contributed without getting consensus, then of course you can realize that that is esxactly what Giraffedata is doing (and what I am not...yet). And no, using the word the word crusade as a metaphor for a similar agressive coampaign to make the rest of the world conform to one's belief is not a personal attack. Imputing other editors viewpoints they have not expressed or speculating about their real motivations in a snide and sarcastic manner is. So pardon me while I go vomit over your hypocrisy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

That response is an incoherent hand wave, full of straw men, and unresponsive to any point I made. Hmm, "imputing other editors['] viewpoints they have not expressed or speculating about their real motivations..." A good example of that would be "could only see that problem, when it was in the context of an edit with which you didnt agree and by an editor you didnt like. but you saw it." Anyway, you utterly missed the point. I too think it would be unfair to require of you all those things before you could make such an series of edits! That was the whole message of that Gedankenexperiment. Please exit the "me vs. them" mode. I believe, and Giraffedata has also said, you are free to make such edits yourself, even to simply revert him. No one is trying to impose pre-emptive consensus-seeking requirements on you before you can make minor wording tweaks to articles, much less invent some new policy to enforce it. WP:Be bold is already genuine policy here. It's unreasonable of you to expect that policy to not apply to someone else just because you happen to disagree with them on some point of grammar, and to propose your new anti-BOLD policy. I'll quote Giraffedata directly why he doesn't think you should go on a spree of reverting him: 'that [would be] pretty selfish, since I think your choice is one of the most awkward, but I let it stand for months.' That strikes me as remarkably non-confrontational on his part. What we really have here is two editors each with a conflicting preference and each occasionally editing in their preference at a particular article to see if it sticks, and each using a similar rationale. This happens a zillion times a day on Wikipedia, and it's actually highly unusual for one party to such a disagreement to wait months before approaching the change again. It's the exact opposite of edit-warring. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)later and reinser the same change.

Sloweditwarring is also editwarring. And yes, Giraffedata does editwar, he will come back to the same article two months and revert again. And he does not keep a list of articles where his edits are contested. And when requested to make an exception he states that making the edit is his right and that people dissagreeing with him are wrong and selfish to insist in correcting his corrections back. And no, my polic is not anti-bold it is specifically about what to do when a bold style edit s reverted. And the answer is GET CONSENSUS> which is basic fucking policy already. So it is you who is trying to create an exempt category of edits, where the burden of discussion and argumentation is reversed. And yes I am being almost equally stubborn as giraffedata (not yet to the degree of embarking on a crusade) but for some reason you are fine with only faulting me for being stubborn and selfish not him, in spite of the fact that I am the one trying to make a proposal to avoid people being stubborn and selfish in general. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

But only because it suits your editing goals. You've not identified a real problem, you've conjured up a hypothetical abuse problem, and are scapegoating an individual editor whose grammar you don't like. Re: 'Giraffedata does editwar' – For the fifth time: Prove it. Where are the diffs? Attempts at proof by assertion won't convince anyone. I don't only fault you for being stubborn. I clearly observed that being supposedly stubborn in response to threats to your editing rights is entirely reasonably, and that's it's hypocritical to call someone else doing that "stubborn" when you do it yourself. I scare-quoted "stubborn" because it's your word, not mine. We can analyze other word choices of yours like this. Take "crusade". Aside from my feeling that it's a variant of argumentum ad Hitlerum using Saracen-slaughter instead of Jew-slaughter, I think you making a big stink at VP about this rather illusory problem, that is not demonstrably disrupting anything at all, over a personality dispute with another editor, looks like a "crusade" to anyone who doesn't mind that pejorative label, and a particularly ad hominen type of campaign at that. It's fallacious to point at one editor and say what amounts to We have to do something about this terrible problem that might happen if someone other than him abuses editing tools in ways I can't prove he's really doing. It's even worse to then defend at length all your animosity about this particular editor and his edits, while trying to convince us you are really focusing on a general problem, not this editor, and that people are misinterpreting the point of the proposal. It's disingenuous, or confused, I'm not sure which. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

To me this sounds like a behavioral issue... not a content issue. The fact is, going on a Wiki-crusade of any sort is disruptive - no matter what the cause or how just and right it may be. Make a correction (of any sort) in one article, and you are seen as improving wikipedia ... go on a crusade, and make the same correction in thousands of articles, and you are quickly seen as being a disruptive asshole. Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a content issue true, but a behavioral issue which is not covered by any of our behavior policies and which some editors condone because they happen to agree with the person causing the disruption. A solution to the immediate problem would be to establish a consensus that "comprised of" needs to be removed aggressively and people should have barnstaers for doing so. This would however quickly cause other people to do the same, introducing changes that may not be as agreeable to the majority, and then we have the problem again. So the solution is to have a behavior guideline on how to proceed when you want to make style changes across many articles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I have made hundreds of thousands of disambiguation fixes with AWB, and have done mass-repairs of misspellings of "received" and "hierarchy", and have only very rarely been criticized for doing so, even when I have made runs of many thousands of edits at a time. A style change that is likely to make the wording of an article more accessible to a broader audience is not much different, in my view. bd2412 T 21:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Well there is a difference whether or not you can see it. Namely that Giraffedata's talkpage is full of equal amounts of praise and criticism. The difference may have to do with the fact that all users of English agree that recieve and haeirarchy are errors, but there is not such agreement on comprised of and a bunch of other style changes that some consider improving prose and accessibility and other's dont.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"Not much different" already concedes there's a difference. The talk page comments are not really equal, and Wikipedia doesn't work on the basis of voting and headcounts (except to an extent at WP:RFA). We all already surely know that people are an order of magnitude more likely to invest the time and energy to register a disagreement than an agreement; this is a well-known fact of human behavior generally. More interestingly, the praise received is often from editors who never even thought about the question before and were not participating in any related discussions, while the criticisms never seem to be from uninvolved editors. I don't see anyone at his talk page posting that they agree with one of his edits, but oppose his ability to use AWB to make it. No one is even saying that they are undecided on this usage point, but sure that he alone should somehow be retrained from being able to edit articles to reflect what he thinks is better wording. There's also a huge civility gulf; most of the commenters against this editing pattern arrive on his talk page with an aggressive "how dare you" attitude, a belittling view that he's wrong and/or stupid, and that his contributions are of no value and "obsessive". It's deeply insulting, and evidentiary of problems that exist between those commenters' keyboards and chairs.

More importantly, the fact that many do consider the changes to be an improvement is reason enough to make them. WP:BOLD is policy; the only way that WP improves is by people boldly making such changes. The burden is on resisters against wording tweaks to demonstrate that they should be reverted. A change in readability is not comparable to something like insertion of a new fact that may not be properly sourced. Changes to articles that trigger core policy concerns like WP:V, WP:BLP, or WP:COPYRIGHT can basically be reverted with impunity until the policy concerns are satisfied, but there is no comparable policy concern raised by whether "comprised of" or "composed of" (or whatever) is better wording. The Wikipedia default is that such changes can be made "mercilessly". As Giraffedata himself frequently points out, other editors are free to revert such a change at an article. The only place in this dispute where I see anyone suggesting that one editor has no or less right to edit an article is Maunus's comments. I'll quote it again in case anyone missed it: 'If you were to actually do something useful and write an article, then you would have a right to make style choices for it.' I.e., if you did not write most of an article, you have no right to make style edits in it, and if you are not writing an article, the work you're doing on Wikipedia is not useful. It's simultaneously among the most confused and most insulting things I've ever seen here. (BTW, I'm having this reaction without previous involvement; I don't recall ever having interacted with Giraffedata in any way before today, and my interactions with Maunus have been brief, uncommon, and barely memorable.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk about not understanding basic policy: "The burden is on resisters against wording tweaks to demonstrate that they should be reverted." And here you are just inventing policy on the spot: "A change in readability is not comparable to something like insertion of a new fact that may not be properly sourced." Again thanks for the gratuitous condescension and veiled insults - I am getting used to that from the selfavowed upholders of civility by now. Please. And yes I admit wholeheartedly that I consider Giraffedata to be an utterly useless editor who is in no way improving the encyclopedia, but merely wasting other peoples time - but the purpose of this entire discussion is exactly not to enforce that view on others, but to find a way to deal with the problems that this approach would cause if it were generally adopted by others.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:EDITWAR: 'Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.' You self-admittedly directly revert Giraffedata, and have vowed on this talk page to continue to do so, programmatically and pointedly: 'I for one am not going to back down, and ... I will not be ... gracious about it'. For I think the fourth time, I demand proof that Giraffedata is actually engaging in reverts at all. What I see is that he sometimes makes similar edits to the same page, sometimes months after the fact. These do not constitute reverts. But if he once in a while incidentally makes the same edit, it doesn't establish anything like a pattern of editwarring as defined at WP:EDITWAR policy. It's unlikely that any regular editor has never incidentally made the same minor editor long after having made it once before. Next, an observation that some things, like insertion of alleged facts without sources, trigger specific policy concerns, like compliance with WP:V, while making a stylistic change does not trigger them, is not "inventing policy on the spot", it's reading comprehension and basic reasoning. Thanks for at least and at last conceding that you have what we can all see is an intense personality conflict with Giraffedata. No new policy needs to address that. More to the main point, we don't need a new policy that sharply conflicts with established policy, to address some evidence-free hypothetical, like people doing stupid or malicious things with tools like AWB, when we already have permissions approval and revocation processes for them. I think I've covered every point I need to about this proposal and your defenses of it, and it already has so many other objectors that it could never gain consensus, so I'm skeptical that I need to respond here further. My interaction with you directly is just getting circular because you keeping going back to emotive complaints about who is asking evidence instead of providing the evidence. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I know this discussion isn't supposed to be about the word "comprise", my efforts to minimize its use to mean "compose" in Wikipedia, or me, but since I'm being used as the primary example of the problematic behavior, I want to correct a few misconceptions a person could have after reading some of the above: "comprised of" is not a pet peeve of mine; and I don't enforce any particular grammar in Wikipedia.

"Comprised of" does not peeve me any more than about a hundred other forms of fractured English, and probably a thousand other human behaviors, that are common. And it doesn't peeve me more than it peeves everyone else. There are plenty of people who are equally peeved by this - I find them everywhere I look. But I have probably read more "comprised of" than anyone in the world, and have become desensitized to it like a surgeon is to blood.

Enforcing a view would be watching an article and reverting any attempt to change it to something inconsistent with that view. In contrast, I edit an article once. That's nearly always enough, but in rare cases, someone changes it back to its original wording any time I touch it. 2-3 times a year, I'll find that same article again and edit it again. This is entirely reasonable, because any day, the owner of an article could retire or otherwise loosen his grip on the article and give the rest of us a shot. And it's simply not a great burden on someone who cares enough about these two words to argue about it to reinsert them 2-3 times a year. Wikipedia even provides a convenient "I'm right and you're wrong" button for that. Ideally, the person would seek a compromise, but I certainly don't insist. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Bryan, I would suggest that when you change some bit of wording, and another editor reverts your edit... you should be the one who reaches out and seeks a compromise. Try discussion rather than slow revert warring. If you are sure that your reverted edit is right ... don't just go back a few months later and make the same rejected edit again... go to the article talk page and persuade the other editor to see your point of view - engage in discussion. Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess you missed my point. I don't seek compromise because I just roll over and give the other person what he wants -- let someone else fight him on it while I work on things I do better. I don't consider it a reversion to make a similar edit 6 months later, and I certainly don't think you can call something that lazy a revert war. There has to be a horizon past which editors are allowed to call it a new day, forget the history of the article, be bold, and say "what's the consensus today". We just can't say that an editor can plant a flag on an article (or sentence) by reverting a change and say the matter is now presumed to be under dispute for the rest of time. On the timescale of Wikipedia, in which there have to be 3 edit cycles in a day to define a revert war, in which conflicts are often resolved by protecting an article for a week or blocking an editor for a day, and it's hard to find an article that hasn't been edited in the last 3 months, 6 months is forever. If an article gets anonymously vandalized twice a year, it doesn't even qualify for article protection - we just say revert the vandalism when it happens and forget about it.

So if we're going to talk about an editor's right to enforce some word usage across the encyclopedia, we're going to have to come up with some example where the editor actually make articles use the word that way when at least one person wants to use it a different way. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have long advocated a similar approach to weeding out external links. If you get reverted, then move on. Maybe you'll happen to run across the same article in another month or year, but just move on. The person who reverted you might be right or might be wrong, but you can weed out a dozen other link farms in the time that it would take to have a discussion about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on the comprised-versus-composed question, and I understand that that's not the purpose of this debate anyway. The question simply seems to be about the value of that kind of behavior. Is it good for the project when one editor swaps en masse one acceptable phrase for another acceptable phrase based on nothing but his personal preference? Given the contention that apparently surrounds the comprised/composed example, I'd have to say no, it's not good for the project.

While such large-scale behavior may be technically acceptable, it's nonetheless divisive and (rightly or wrongly) a conflict generator, as this and other threads demonstrate. That cost swamps whatever meager benefit we might get from some minor grammatical tweak. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

My comment to the mass-changer is just an observation that I hope may be helpful: when you are changing, your reason is 'you, author, mean something else - so I am changing it to what you mean' - but somehow they have communicated to you what they mean - having done, so - their usage is clear before you changed it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe we're mainly talking about cases where the mass changer does not claim the original meaning is unclear. For example, if someone were to change every instance of "could of" to "could have", there wouldn't be any issue of what was meant by the original. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Re: 'you, author, mean something else - so I am changing it to what you mean' – This essentially does not compute as any kind of analysis of Wikipedia editing. The instant I save a change to an article, there no longer exists any "what I mean", there is only what the article actually says, and how readers around the world are going to interpret it. This is why several of us commenting here think this is just a personal editing spat, with WP:OWN overtones. If you edit something into a WP page, you're giving those words away to the entire world to edit, "mercilessly". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"Essentially does not compute"? That's an absurd phrase and an absurd thought. You are editing someone else's work always when you edit (unless it's your own work you're revising). That hardly means they own it but you had better know that is what you actually are doing, or you really should not be editing here at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You're making the same point I am without seeming to mean to: "You are editing someone else's work always when you edit". Yes, exactly. The obvious consequence of this is when you're done with your edit, the next edit by someone else may be editing your work (which you gave away to the project and the public, so it's no longer yours except in a vague historical sense, evidenced in edit history). The proponent's premise (underlying this proposal, and explictly stated at Giraffedata's talk page, though I've quoted it several times here already) is that he should have more editorial rights than another editor to control the content of an article, in proportion to how much content he's put into the article vs. how much the other did. Wikipedia does not and cannot work that way. Sorry you didn't get the "does not compute" humor; see that article for the cognitive dissonance to which the phrase refers. In a nutshell, the dissonance here is caused between conflating "my own work" (translation: effort I put it in, the past tense), and "my own text" (translation: content I own and control, in the present tense). These concepts are dissimilar, and the second does not apply in any way to Wikipedia. Yet one can sometimes feel about the former the way that one might feel about the latter. This is an impulse that has to be restrained (and re-trained). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, your alleged humor is senseless, as it has nothing to do with understanding the meaning of someone's words - and as you agree you are editing someone's words, understanding their meaning is vital. That you think it's just about editorial control, when what's being discussed is mass changes that others object to and disagree with in substance and in how they are being done is just your mistake. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not a crusade. Comprised means "composed of", So comprised of means "composed of of". Many people makes this silly mistake. We can say "comprised one-third of" , This is not Simple English Wikipedia. If he is correcting grammar, so what? C E (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

He's not just "correcting grammar". He's "correcting grammar that a small number of people believe is already correct". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

To be specific, he's changing "grammar that a small number of people believe is already correct", but which might be confusing to some people, to "grammar that everyone believes is correct", and will be less likely to confuse anyone. bd2412 T 00:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

C E, you seem to be conflating the verb comprise (which of course has the form "comprised") with the adjective comprised, whose alleged misuse is what some people here don't like. Also, your argument seems odd: "I met up with an old friend for lunch" has pretty much the same meaning (in my idiolect, at least) as "I met an old friend for lunch", and I can therefore say that meet (here) means meet up with; but I don't then go on to say that "meet up with" therefore means "meet up with up with" and thus is a silly mistake. Moreover, WhatamIdoing (and others), our man Bryan is hardly "correcting grammar that a small number of people believe is already correct"; rather, he's doing some rewording of what he and a lot of people (including a high percentage of "language mavens") think is infelicitous (or worse) but a lot of people (including a high percentage of ditto; see the American Heritage Dictionary) think is perfectly OK. (As for actual linguists, they're rarely interested in such trivia.) ¶ I've yet to see either (i) a credible account of confusion caused by "comprised of", (ii) similar indignation over "possessed of" (which flourishes in en.wikipedia), or (iii) an explanation of how "comprised of" is worse than "possessed of". -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's my answer to Maunus's question: If you are making the same grammatical or spelling change repeatedly, you should:

be right, according to prescriptivists (e.g., all of those reliable sources that say Giraffedata's changes are correct), even if the grammar construction you're removing is "common";
pay (just) enough attention to what you're doing that you aren't correcting grammar or spelling in direct quotations;
not bother UNDOing reversions to the "wrong" version;
not bother starting discussions with people who do not understand the problem you're fixing, although you should reply (or not) to direct messages about the grammar just like you would reply (or not) to any other direct message; and
not keep a list of articles where some other editor prefers a laissez faire approach to grammar, even though this means that you might re-encounter the error and re-fix it later. For manual edits, lists of random articles basically never work in practice anyway.

My main reason for my last three points is efficiency, although some of them happen to have anti-edit warring effects as well. To give a different example, editors can and should make changes like this one to replace the common, non-standard spelling "alright" with the standard, prescriptivist-approved "all right". But most of the uses in the search results are song titles or direct quotations, and should be kept. (However, in my quick check, looking for this word is a very effective way to find poor writing about pop culture subjects.) Similarly, "alot", which is always considered incorrect, should be fixed whenever you find it outside a title or direct quotation, because this clearly improves the article. But if someone comes along and decides that the original "designers were able to alot a more comprehensive medical reediness kit into missions" is actually better... you know, I can probably trust another editor to handle it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

What is this adjective "comprised"? It's not in Chambers' dictionary. The entry for "comprise" is

vt to contain, include; to comprehend; to consist of (often incorrectly, with "of").

Cosmic Emperor says

Comprised means "composed of".

It doesn't. "Comprises" is the right form, "is comprised of" is the wrong form. "Comprise" does not have a passive form. "compose" does. That's another reason why "comprised of" is wrong and "is composed of" is right. The definition of "compose" is

vt to put in order or at rest; to settle or soothe; to design artistically; to set up for printing; to create.

The passive doesn't imply anything has been put in order, just a set of constituents. I see that "comprised of" is not allowed in patent claims. That's unsurprising since incorrect terminology is not allowed in legalese. "Possess" is a strawman because it can take the passive. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Dictionaries, even respected ones, are very poor guides to lexical categorization. As an example, even now most refuse to recognize that intransitive prepositions exist. Rather, dictionaries seem designed not to upset fogeys who prefer not to question what an earlier generation of fogeys taught them, ignoring decades of consensus in mainstream linguistics. (Grammatical understanding is not just a matter of parroting what you heard decades earlier; it actually advances. In fits and starts, and with some missteps, yes; but it advances all the same.) See Geoffrey K. Pullum, "Lexical categorization in English dictionaries and traditional grammars" on the matter. Additionally, if you're going to limit yourself to the definition(s) of one dictionary, then that dictionary had better be very large: I'd recommend the Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com). -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Didn't you just say that "actual linguists" are "rarely interested in such trivia"? But now you want us to pay attention to "mainstream linguistics" (none of whom I see cited here on the question of whether this particular phrase is accepted)?

I'm actually not sure that we need to worry too much about linguistics. This construction annoys some people, makes other people believe that Wikipedia is poorly written, may mislead still other people, and can be replaced by something that is always accepted as being good grammar. We should put this in the same category as replacing, say, outdated names for ethnic groups: there's no urgent need to keep it, and there's some good in replacing it. So why not just do that, rather than trying to preserve something that is awkward and that an actual majority of reliable sources say is wrong, or suitable only for informal writing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did indeed say that about actual linguists. By "such trivia" I meant the acceptability of this or that particular expression (here, "comprised of"). I didn't mean lexical categorization (say, whether certain sets of words, exemplified by comprised in a certain construction, are verbs or adjectives). I'd be happier if people paid attention to advances in linguistics -- NB not just advances of the last decade, but those of the last century -- before unquestioningly repeating dictionary pronouncements. I don't think I've contradicted myself here, and I hope that I haven't done so. ¶ Actually I'm in broad agreement with you, WhatamIdoing. (One place where I differ is the worry that "comprised of" may mislead people: I hesitate to say that it couldn't do so, but I don't recall seeing examples of where this was likely.) ¶ I'm sorry that this discussion concentrated on "comprised of" itself before pretty much burning itself out, because I think that ·maunus brought up a more general question that's a lot more interesting. I'm sure that many of us have our own bêtes noires, of whose undesirability we are certain; and I don't claim to know how this should be dealt with and would be interested in some thoughtful and dispassionate commentary. (Yes, I'm sure that "unnecessary, pretentious, italicized snippets of French or Anglo-French" is itself the bête noire of several readers.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Making it crystal clear

Comprised means "consist of" or "To be composed of" or " to include" .

About the adjective vs verb thing: In most uses of "is comprised of", "comprised" is indeed an adjective. It is an adjective formed automatically from a verb through the participle mechanism. A participle is an adjective formed from a verb. This one is a past participle, which means it is the past tense of the verb, used as an adjective to say that a noun has had that action done to it. E.g. in a "painted house", "painted" is an adjective, a past participle of the verb "paint". In the phrase "is comprised of", according to dictionaries that acknowledge any meaning of that phrase at all, "comprised" is synonymous with another past participle (adjective): "composed".

Now, in "is comprised of", "comprised" can actually be a verb, used in the passive voice. And the difference in meaning can be quite subtle. But that grammatical construction is far less accepted than the adjective construction, because it's the wrong preposition. In passive voice, the agent is usually identified with "by", as in "the house is painted each year by John", not "the house is painted each year of John". So even though people who write "comprised of" are probably not versed enough in grammar to know what construction they're using, I think it's safe to say it's nearly always the adjective construction.

This is just to complete this subtopic because I thought some readers might be interested. It has no bearing on whether "comprised" or "composed" is the better way to say "composed". Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

And he is famous in media, I am not mentioning his real name here due to privacy policy.C E (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Who's famous in media, and what's it got to do with the discussion? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

He is very much related to this discussion.Cosmic Emperor 11:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And of what is this res comprised? Consider your pet peeve may be another editor's pet phrase—approach replacement accordingly. — Neonorange (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has proven that Wikipedia's people is comprised of content providers and discontent providers. So what ? Pldx1 (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating discussion, but if an editor doesn't like the wording that was inserted into an article why wouldn't they just revert it?

Bfpage |leave a message 21:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)