Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 150

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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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

Proposed amendment to WP:LISTPEOPLE regarding the inclusion of lists of non-notable victims in articles about tragic events

No consensus to change the existing text at WP:IINFO. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:50, 20 January 2019 (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.

Propose to add the following text to WP:IINFO (or some close facsimile should we decide to tweak the wording at any point):

5. Lists of victims In articles about tragic events, such as crimes or disasters, where people are killed or injured, bare lists of victims, which only compile names and basic information (age, birthplace, occupation, etc.) are to be deprecated. Victims of crimes and disasters and other tragic events may be named as a normal part of a quality prose narrative, but lists of victims names with no context are not useful to most readers anymore than lists of names are in other Wikipedia articles, and advice for creating lists of names of otherwise non-notable people are as applicable to victim's lists as anywhere else in Wikipedia. Victims lists are not accorded any special exemptions from the normal practices of creating lists of otherwise non-notable people.

Such changes are intended to avoid having to re-litigate the constant debates that happen over and over on various article talk pages. The matter has been under discussion at WP:VPIL for some time now, and there seems to be a general consensus to bring forward, for public consideration, the above addition. There was some concern over where to put this guidance, but WP:IINFO seems to be the place where it is most applicable. For the sake of organization, let's do the three section voting: Support, Oppose, and Discussion, where we can discuss tweaking the wording, make comments on our own or other's votes, change the target guidance page, etc.

Support

  1. As nominator --Jayron32 19:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 19:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support - there is no need to include the names of non-notable victims at all in list form, and not in prose either, unless they played an active, notable role in the event (aside from dying) and they're participation is well sourced. Other than that, simply put; (with the one caveat) non-linked (red or blue) names do not belong. - wolf 03:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support As per Wolf. I will make some other points in the discussion section. In particular I think we should establish that the default position is no non-notable names. Lyndaship (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  5. Generally support, modulo the comments of Andy Mabbett and Iridescent, below. We definitely do need to avoid listing non-notable people, and we definitely do need to avoid having to re-re-re-re-re-fight this out page by page. We don't actually need to have the wording copyedited perfectly right here and now, so massaging like they want to do with it is fine, and is something we'd end up doing anyway over time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support with a minor qualification. Whatever we do, I think the status quo is not working. The lack of clear guidance on this subject is leading to numerous, lengthy, and often acrimonious local debates. It's time we resolve this issue one way or another. IMO lists of non-notable victims is a form of unencyclopedic bloat that is contrary to both NOTEVERYTHING and, at least in spirit, NOTMEMORIAL. The only exception I would concede is in some rare cases a mass casualty EVENT may involve a number independently NOTABLE victims whose role in the EVENT was largely limited to their dying. In such circumstances a short list of such NOTABLE victims might be justifiable. Long lists of such, unless they are stand alone articles, should be avoided. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support seems to me a general rule is needed, but a list of non-notable victims seems to fail WP:NOTMEMORIAL. No problem with changing the copy edit to reflect only people who are not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer talk 22:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support. It is Indiscriminate Info to include random names from the phonebook in an article, without a clear and significant encyclopedic-rationale for each individual name to be included. "They died" is not a reason. I'd like to draw attention to a specific phrase from the proposed text: may be named as a normal part of a quality prose narrative. It is my rationale and intention that a "quality prose narrative" equates with a clear and individual rationale why each name is necessary to adequately explain the events and coverage. Examples: A criminal who caused the events is always a core figure in any coverage. If there's one or two victims, the media typically provides in depth coverage of the individualized-victims in the narrative. If a killer hunts down a single targeted victim and also kills a bunch of random bystanders, the target invariably receives in-depth individualized coverage as part of the media narrative. If a celebrity was among the victims, that's invariably a major element in the reporting. If a responding police officer is killed while attempting to save people, they invariably receive unique coverage in the media narrative. If a victim preforms heroic efforts during the crisis, the reporting will give them individualized coverage as a significant player in the narrative. However we should not list random names merely because they died, merely because they were listed in reporting, merely because news report provided some routine info about each victim in systematic and indiscriminate manner with no real significance to the narrative of events. If twenty people die, and a random Jane Doe is a 28 year old mother of two, that sucks but it doesn't add any encyclopedic information. Twenty random people died, obviously they had families and loved ones. Random names and random personal details of random victims generally don't have historical significance. Alsee (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  9. Generally support also, given the caveat expressed by Andy Mabbett. Bare lists of otherwise non-notable names do not add to the understanding of the topic. If the victims played some substantial role, for example due to their actions during the event, then it would be appropriate to include them in the description of the event. But I agree that they otherwise run afoul of NOTMEMORIAL and NOTDIRECTORY (#7). CThomas3 (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  10. Support not listing non-notable victims, who should appear only contextually where their inclusion is specifically necessary to understand the event and its aftermath, per previous discussion here and elsewhere and elsewhere and elsewhere. The principle isn't even really specific to victims -- the same should apply for participants in any notable event (eg Trinity (nuclear test)). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 00:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  11. Support – Wikipedia is not a memorial. There are certainly personal motivations both for and against listing victims, but if we remove those emotional elements, our encyclopedia should focus on its core values, such as WP:Notability and WP:Neutral point of view. Full lists of individual victims who do not stand out for anything else do not qualify for inclusion. Of course discussion on talk pages should be encouraged and honored, but an enormous amount of time will be saved if the general guideline gives a clear indication of the criteria under which people should be listed. — JFG talk 04:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  12. Support we should only list or mention people who are noteworthy, that have a wikipedia article or are notable enough that a stand-alone article could be created. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  13. Support - definitely an improvement Llammakey (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    Llammakey—I see you work on articles such as Passengers of the ships Anne and Little James 1623. Just out of curiosity, do you distinguish between the passengers on those ships and the individuals under consideration in this discussion and if so in what way? Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  14. Support this wording. I think that all objections fail to take into account the part saying "without context". If there is any context to be had, even if tiny, this would not apply. wumbolo ^^^ 08:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  15. Support: Listing not-otherwise-noteworthy people just because they were unlucky enough to be at the wrong place at the wrong time is unencyclopaedic, and frankly, boring to the general reader. An encyclopaedia should give me information I might want to know. I cannot imagine a circumstance where I would want to know the names of everyone who just happened to luck out on the day. If this were to occur, the information could be quite adequately provided by way of a reference or even an external link to a full listing somewhere else. The arguments in opposition below mostly reinforce my conviction that this should be specifically stated in guidance or policy. Special cases can be proposed, and where there is clear local consensus based on the exceptional merits of the case, decided on article talk pages before including in the article. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    You are assuming that what you want to know is what everybody wants to know. Consider someone researching family history or doing sociological research into workers in a particular activity; they might find a list of names, addresses and families something that they "might want to know". Information such as this may be verifiable, but if the source is off line in the bowels of a university library it is not available to any readers "general" or not. To take a specific example: I have recently been working on the Clifton Hall Colliery disaster of 1885 where 178 were killed. A list in the text would be entirely inappropriate, but a separate article listing the name, age, address, occupation, by whom identified and marital/family status might be of use. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    WP:INDISCRIMINATE provides for the existence of information that is true, verifiable, and potentially useful to someone, but whose potential audience is too narrow for it to be considered encyclopedic. That last point is the one you'd need to refute for these lists. —swpbT go beyond 16:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    Abolish WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Well, maybe not abolish, but reduce. Wikipedia is written for the benefit of its readers, and is not paper. All reasonably potentially useful information should be included. Benjamin (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  16. Support. Thanks to Cunard for pinging in people (like me) who've been in previous discussions on this matter. I agree with the proposal, in general we should not be including such lists, they add no value to the encyclopedic understanding of the topic. There may be relevant exceptions, but things like Schoharie limousine crash and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting look like examples where there is no good reason to include a list, and hopefully this clarification of the policy will lead to them being removed in those cases.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  17. Weak support I agree wit those who say that including notable (I.E. notable in their own right) is acceptable, but also fail to see why it would be a list rather then prose. But articles should not become memorials to victims. So I am bit on the fence on this, I could just as easily vote weak Oppose for the same reason.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  18. Support - Alsee has articulated the reasoning quite well. --Khajidha (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  19. For non-notable people, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and also because these were normally non-public figures who merit privacy even shortly after their death. There is little bona fide educational interest in reproducing lists of names. The wording needs editing for conciseness. Sandstein 12:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  20. Support I've taken part in a number of related discussions and have consistently opposed inclusion of victim lists. It may sound heartless, but I see no useful purpose to naming victims unless adding their name significantly adds to understanding the event. Such discussions typically take place in the immediate aftermath of some gut-wrenchingly awful event, often involve new editors, and unfortunately often involve accusations of bad-faith against those of us who wish to exclude ( insert name of other tragic event has a list so why not this event? You wouldn't be arguing that way if the victims were/weren't white/black/hispanic heterosexual/gay adults/children). A clear default position would be helpful and that shold be exclude IMO - whilst I perfectly understand the desire to 'honour' the dead by recording their names, no useful encyc purpose is achieved by doing so IMO - it isn't what we do. Pincrete (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  21. Support again. These lists provide value to exactly nobody, and create work to maintain. Any notable victims should be worked into prose. —swpbT go beyond 14:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  22. Support. Somehow, these lists often end up linked, creating either permanent red links, disambiguation links, or redirects back to the article on the event containing the link. bd2412 T 16:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  23. Support, since most of the time these lists are of people notable only for being victims of the tragedy. There aren't notable people - if they are notable, mention them in prose. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  24. Support generally. (responding to ping) I would suggest this belongs in WP:NOTMEMORIAL and should be more explicit and give a basis. The wording proposed should simply identify the WP guidance instead of a vague “normal practices of creating lists of otherwise non-notable people.” Alternative guidance might be “avoid listing names in mass deaths unless the individual names are commonly listed in accounts, or are otherwise notable.” Guidance might mention that in larger events it is infeasible, and that if accounts generally did not do so it would fail WP:V or WP:WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  25. Mostly support, with the caveat that lists provided in secondary sources are reasonable. (Passengers of the RMS Titanic is an appropriate article, because the list can be derived from secondary sources, particularly books.) But most lists of victims of major disasters are inappropriate, because we simply don't know if there will be secondary coverage of the individuals involved (and there isn't, in most cases), and we shouldn't pretend that issues appearing in primary source coverage, like news reports, will necessarily be reflected in the secondary sources. News reports are fond of adding victim lists, both because people want to learn if they know anyone involved, and because it's an easy way of filling up space, but the solid sources we need to use are the actual indication of whether these individuals' place in the disaster be great enough that we need to mention many or all of them by name. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  26. Support Not a memorial. valereee (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  27. Support A list of people killed in an incident is, on the encyclopedia level, trivia. Wikipedia is neither a memorial site, nor an indiscriminate collection of information; it is an encyclopedia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  28. Support Lists of non-notable individuals do not further the reader's understanding of the topic. –dlthewave ☎ 13:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  29. Support under the premise established in WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy. --Izno (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Unless "bare lists of victims" in the first sentence is changed to something like "bare lists of non-notable (i.e. not blue-linked) victims". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as worded; I agree with the principle that we shouldn't include long lists of non-notable people involved in any incident (victims or not), but having a flat-out rule that victims can only be listed in prose would have far too many false positives. If those voting support really think otherwise, feel free to turn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Bazar de la Charité fire, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of investors in Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of Nazism blue and see what happens. (The last time AFAIK that this principle was seriously tested was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Babi Yar massacre; yes, that was a long time ago and consensus can change but I find it unlikely it will have changed to that extent.) ‑ Iridescent 22:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    Iridescent, you might wish to see this AfD. And, the Babi Yar AFD was a decade back (which is close to a century in wiki-time). ∯WBGconverse 09:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    The 9/11 list was an exceptional case. The numbers involved were huge (the raw text of the names alone came to 120kb); consequently, to source it to Wikipedia's standards would have involved 3000 references (or one reference linked 3000 times) which would have crashed the servers, even had it been split to separate out the four aircraft, three impact sites, and emergency services. I repeat my comment above; if you think consensus has changed, I've given you a bunch of redlinks above any one of which you can turn blue as a test case. ‑ Iridescent 19:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Simple Oppose per WP:KUDZU. Should be decided on article Talk pages. Some of those who have largely refused to engage in dialogue on article Talk pages are now pushing for a top-down solution to their issue with lists of non-notable victims of disasters. Let them use the article Talk page to actually engage in dialogue with those editors with whom they disagree. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. This topic has been discussed to death, a general consensus is that this is to be handled on a case by case basis. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    Appeal to prior consensus is not a strong argument. Even if that was the old consensus, it seems to be going the other way here. —swpbT go beyond 14:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Victims should be included only if there is a reference for them. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Eli355: If we know a name, there is a reference (source) for it. That's where we get the name. Thus your argument as written is that all reported names should be included in the Wikipedia article. For every modern-day mass killing, there is at least one source for the names of all of the dead, as here. Thus your position as stated is that all modern-day mass killing articles should list the names of all of the dead. Is that what you intended? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    "Thus your argument as written is that all reported names should be included in the Wikipedia article." No, I think you are drawing an unreasonable derivation from what was stated, Mandruss. A more conservative conclusion would be that "all reported names could be included in the Wikipedia article." Bus stop (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks, but please let the editor speak for themselves. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    There is a difference between "victims should be included only if there is a reference for them" and "victims should be included if there is a reference for them." And it is as absurd to think we must include the names as to think we must not include the names. Bus stop (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    "Thanks, but please let the editor speak for themselves." - seems pretty straight forward, yet you keep posting. How about not posting and just wait for Eli355 to respond to the question that was asked of them? - wolf 06:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    thewolfchild—User:Eli355 wrote that "Victims should be included only if there is a reference for them." They did not write that it is mandatory that reliably-sourced, non-notable victims be included in an article. You might consider asking all editors that oppose a community-wide ruling whether or not they feel it is mandatory that reliably-sourced, non-notable victims be included in an article. This discussion is degenerating into a badgering of one editor on a flimsy if not entirely inapplicable point on something they may or may not have said. Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    Jeee-zzuz... you just just can't help yourself, can you? Two editors have now asked you to stop replying for Eli355 so that they will hopefully clarify their answer. So please, just stop already. - wolf 19:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Mandruss: That is what I intended. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    Which interpretation does "that" refer to?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: All modern-day mass killing articles should list the names of all of the dead. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    A fresh trout has been delivered[1].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    SMcCandlish—policy-level decisions should be implemented when there is an important issue at stake. But there is no important issue at stake in this discussion. I have heard the argument that there are debates. So what? In my opinion debates are commonplace and potentially constructive. And I'm not aware of any article that has suffered from either the inclusion or the omission of non-notable victim names. Bus stop (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not aware of any article that has suffered from either the inclusion or the omission of non-notable victim names. You've made that statement before. The obvious logical fallacy has been pointed out to you before, but I'll point it out to you one more time. You're not aware of any such article because you disagree with the arguments against the lists. Thus you're essentially saying that you're right because you're right. That is not an argument, and I hope you will stop presenting it as one. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    Mandruss—the burden is on you to tell us not only why non-notable victims should not be included in articles but also why policy should be enacted to curtail the inclusion of information pertaining to non-notable victims. A question of this nature is obviously resolvable on an article Talk page. Why are you trying to enact policy to curtail the inclusion of information pertaining to non-notable victims? That isn't a rhetorical question. That is a question for you to actually attempt to address. I think the burden is on you to present the case for the policy you are trying to enact. Bus stop (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. The individual talk pages should be used to work this out case by case. I agree that references are needed and that it is better to use prose. But a bare list is a transition from nothing to paragraphs of writing. So if we make a blanket rule we placing a higher hurdle to get over to improve the articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    We have a cleanup tag for that: {{prose}}. Nothing about the proposal suggests ignoring WP:NORUSH. —swpbT go beyond 16:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - Can we please just let editors decide things? FOARP (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    That's exactly what we're doing here. —swpbT go beyond 15:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    No, no it isn’t. The people who will vote here will be a vanishingly small sub-set of editors, the most active ones, not in anyway representative of the whole. It will be decided, not based on an actual article, but on what people think in general should be done in a discussion largely detached form the actual subject matter which includes these lists.
    Editors deciding means exactly that - the editors of Wiki, the hundred thousand plus most of whom have never read a policy, deciding whether the articles they edit should include the list or not on a case-by-case basis.
    I mean there’s people !voting here who haven’t started an article in years and whose edits overwhelmingly aren’t in article space. Does that look like “editors deciding” to you? FOARP (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Rules creep. It's entirely down to the context. Lists of victims may or may not be relevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  9. Oppose listing names of victims is a useful and natural part of articles on many events.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  10. Oppose (pinged here) until last sentence is removedThanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  11. Oppose in many articles the name and residence of the victims provides valuable context for the event itself; but not in all of them. It should be up to each page editors' to figure out what is best for each case. This is, in any event, the general conclusion drawn from TP discussions. This proposal looks rather like an attempt to engineer a top-down solution, one-size fits all. Besides, do bureaucrats want to drown editors in a morass of WP:CREEP? That's one nice way to drive away beginners from this project. XavierItzm (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    In my experience, lack of explicit guidance, and the arguing that results, pushes away far more users than being decisively reverted with a summary that points to MOS, so that one can learn something and quickly move on. —swpbT go beyond 16:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  12. Oppose because history has taught us that this will not end up being implemented uniformly. We will still end up with articles including the names of victims of American mass shootings in list format, and Bloody Sunday (1972)#Casualties will not be touched (because there's a huge amount of "relevant detail" in that "narrative" list!); but Remembrance Day bombing and Omagh bombing will never have all victims' names added. Policy will be quoted as to why one article can (must!) have them, and why one can't. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    The proposal accounts for your example. Bloody Sunday (1972)#Casualties is not a "bare list" of "names and basic information" – the detail it gives on how these victims died is academically relevant to someone studying the nature of the event. The line created by the proposal is pretty sharp (I'm sure there are edge cases, but these aren't them). Moreover, the mere division of cases by a line, a "non-uniformity" as you'd have it, is the opposite of a problem: it is the sole means of handling diverse cases objectively, and is the basis of the entire MOS! —swpbT go beyond 15:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  13. Oppose See Discussion. DonFB (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  14. Oppose providing they are named in at least two national reliable sources and are therefore in the public domain so privacy is not an issue. Also this is an example of instruction creep, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC) (pinged by Cunard)
  15. Oppose Instruction creep. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 15:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  16. Odd oppose. Yes, the bare lists of victim names are bad. But the reason why they are bad is that they should be full descriptions of the people killed. Even though victims obviously play a larger role in any massacre than the killer(s), there is a cult on Wikipedia that believes that victims are nameless sheep unworthy of recollection, while mass murderers are change agents who have earned their place in Valhalla by virtue of the souls they have extracted into their bloodstained blades, raising them to superhuman experience levels. The "bare lists" are often bad compromises between these cultists and the people who want to tell the whole story -- what was really lost in the massacre, rather than just that it happened. But my feeling is that to put a ban on the compromise in this "indiscriminate information" collection will be taken as a victory for the cult and a defeat for the encyclopedists, so I won't have it. Wnt (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    You're challenging a much more fundamental consensus than the one largely at issue here. We're talking about whether victims generally agreed to be non-notable should be listed; you're arguing that all victims are inherently notable, as notable even as the killers. While you can make that case if you want, it's going to be a very uphill push: WP:NBIO confers notability through sources, not as a celebration or reward. —swpbT go beyond 16:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think anybody has argued that "non-notable" people are notable. "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."[2] Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    It's actually worse than that. Wnt's rationale is blatantly opposed to the principle that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Not to mention the name calling directed at the supporters of this motion.--Khajidha (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    "Memorial" seems like a very pliable phrase. If multiple news sources profile the victims of a massacre, then when editors summarize what these sources say as part of the article, just as we would summarize intricate details about the car he mowed them over with or the magazine and bullets he shot them with, that is said to be a "memorial", because Everybody Knows they are nobodies not worth remembering. Whereas the killer, of course, should be covered in lavish detail, as he is an Emissary of Father Death, a deity incarnate, on whose words we hang to know the nature of morality and humanity and to decide what things to ban or mandate for all the ordinary little people. That's not a memorial, no ... maybe it's a shrine. I dunno. I'd just rather let editors summarize all the facts from all the articles printed about a topic. Wnt (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  17. Oppose because I think it's poorly written (Could the OP at least make up his mind about whether this new rule is supposed to go in the LISTPEOPLE guideline or in the IINFO policy? The section heading says one and the RFC question says the other), not going to achieve goal of stopping these disputes, and because it doesn't represent the discussions. In particular:
    • It talks about "Victims of crimes and disasters and other tragic events", but the conversation is frequently focused specifically on random mass killings (which, unlike this proposed rule, requires a minimum of four people being killed – this rule is written to apply to all crimes, including those with no fatalities or only one victim).
    • Some supporters of this rule oppose only including these names when they're formatted using unordered bulleted * list formatting, but not opposed to otherwise including these names. As a result, I cannot tell from this proposed text whether the first paragraph in Chicago Tylenol murders#Incidents, which "lists the victims" but does not use "list formatting" to do so, is acceptable, and I don't think anyone else can, either.
    • Then there's the whole thread about whether only "passive" victims should be excluded, so that you exclude the names and locations of the passive victims in the Tylenol murders and most of the non-violent protesters in Peterloo Massacre#Victims, but you include the names of people who did something, and you fight over whether victims of domestic violence or non-resistant martyrs are truly "passive" in the events leading to their murders.
      In short, this rule doesn't seem to get us any closer to actually documenting what the community usually prefers to do. Finally, given the lists below of dozens of articles that contain victims' names, I begin to wonder whether this rule might actually be the opposite of what experienced editors have been doing these last few years. Perhaps those lists aren't representative; I haven't checked for counter-examples (but there sure are a lot of them there...). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  18. Oppose as list vs prose illogical - I could get behind the base logic of "don't include all the names of non-notable victims" or some variant of that. I cannot however understand why this should be suitable in prose and not in lists - or at least reliably so. I can understand a top-down policy approach for an all or nothing approach, but if the dispute is going to be formatting based, then it should be left to the editors. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  19. Oppose (summoned by a ping). I have found lists of victims names useful in the past -- both in terms of human interest and as an aid in further research on the topic. It might not be relevant to you, but it will be relevant to somebody. Often the victims are commemorated with annual events or plaques. There should be some common sense guidelines -- like making sure the names are widely available, providing as much relevant info on the victim (manner of death, any actions taken during the event, any special honors like state funeral after) or limiting/pruning the lists of the number of victims exceed x. There is nothing inherently evil of individually "non-notable" items. Just because it is not a blue link, does not mean that the info is not valuable. Renata (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  20. Oppose whether or not some information is encyclopedic has nothing to do with the format the information is in. If a list of five names is unencyclopedic in list format then it is also unencyclopedic in prose format. I don't think it is necessarily unencyclopedic to include these names, and the lists presented below demonstrate that the proposal isn't merely confirming existing practice on this issue. Media organisations do sometimes devote substantial coverage to the victims of an attack, and while that doesn't make them notable it is accepted practice to include coverage of people only known because of one event in the article about that event. Lists of victims may also be useful for other reasons, e.g. Columbine High School massacre has a list of victims presented inline with the text to illustrate the narrative. Hut 8.5 18:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  21. Oppose - Handling this on a case-by-case basis is preferable to an outright prohibition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  22. OpposeVictim lists should be the default in articles about mass shootings. First, these articles exist because people were killed in a mass shooting; the identities of these people are an important component of the shooting. If you leave out names and descriptive details, you are omitting key information. Second, the victims of shootings tend to receive substantial news coverage. While we are not required to include everything covered by the news media, the fact that they receive so much coverage (and not just the occasional offhand reference) indicates that their identities are in fact significant. Third, NOTMEMORIAL prohibits creating articles about non-notable people (i.e. its an applied restatement of notability requirements). It says nothing about neutrally worded lists of victims within articles. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  23. Oppose This has long been contentious. The archive at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not shows the meaning WP:NOTMEMORIAL has been up for grabs ever since it was first written in 2014. Any time the not-memorial policy is cited, half the editors dispute whether or not it is pertinent because there is no consensus as to what the policy even is.

    The false premise hiding behind all this confusion is that the names of dead people are supposedly special facts, requiring special treatment apart from names of pop songs or symphonies, or the names of products, or events in a timeline, or any other fact or piece of data. Recently deceased people can fall under the extra restriction of the WP:BLP policy, under WP:BDP. But if someone has been dead more than 6-12 months or so, their name is not a special fact. Featured articles like Sex Pistols have embedded lists of singles, about two dozen of them, with only 10 or so bluelinked, notable songs. The rest are just listed because they are facts that enhance the article, based on context and editorial judgement. See the list of non-notable works in the FA Franz Kafka. Non-notable stuff is contained in articles, facts or names in prose or list form, like the works in the FA bio Michael Woodruff, or lists of patents or inventions. If an article happens to have names of casualties or victims or whatever associated with it, it's no different than a band that might have names of band members, producers, managers, etc, associated with it. They're just facts. Do the belong in a particular article? It depends. We don't need a special policy just because the facts in question are the names of dead people.

    If you think a given list or article about an event is worse because it lists the names of deceased people, you should be able to make your case without leaning on a special policy that puts a blanket restriction on the names of the deceased. If editorial consensus is that a given page is better because it includes non-notable casualties, or song titles, or articles written, or patents issued, then you should respect that local consensus. Policy can't intervene and tell editors you disagree with that they're wrong. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

    Well said, Dennis Bratland. Renata (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  24. Oppose: This is clearly an example of a class of editorial decision that ought to be made as a matter of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS by evaluating the merits of each individual case, taking into account the full encyclopedic context of the event being covered and the nature of the content being considered. Creating a default rule here is unnecessary and indeed the most unwieldy, counter-intuitive, and potentially problematic route to contemplate. I try to stay away from the term "rule creep" where possible (as I personally do not view robust policy as per se negative in most instances) but I have to say it would seem to apply in this instance. Snow let's rap 07:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  25. Oppose per WP:CREEP, WP:NOTLAW and the opposes above. Andrew D. (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  26. Oppose This proposal is well-meaning and sounds good in theory, but when I look at article like this,[3] I don't see a problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  27. Oppose {{infobox criminal}} is one such example where a |victims= parameter allows for lists such as these. In light of what Bratland said above about treating facts all the same, it seems arbitrary to say a fact can't come in through the front door when other facts already enter through the side. If this were to become a blanket rule, then all of these other doorways for victim list-inclusion ought to be sealed up as well, shouldn't they?  Spintendo  22:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. I think the local page is often the best place to decide, as I said previously. At the same time, it would be helpful if we had some guidance as when it is and isn't a good idea to include a list. A hard rule isn't the same as guidance. Before we can really reach a consensus on that guidance, or this current rule, I think we need to discuss when it is and isn't a good idea to have lists of names, and develop a criteria that has consensus. Even if it is nothing more than a widely accepted Essay. (like WP:BRD). Also, there needs to be enough wiggle room to deal with what we can't anticipate, which is a lot. A straight up or down vote on disallowing them is never going to pass, and with all due respect, a waste of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  29. Oppose First, I dislike having a blanket rule. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  30. Oppose as extreme WP:CREEP, this should be decided case by case as to what is appropriate for each article, rather than by abstract rule without regard to sources, circumstances, or subject. postdlf (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  31. Oppose In a number of articles listed below, the lists seem appropriate. Also WP:CREEP, etc. Hobit (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. LOOKING FOR A THIRD WAY: In a print source, lists like this are often included in footnotes or in an appendix. That's print's way of striking a balance between including all possible information that might be useful to someone later, and keeping the narrative readable. My suggestion would be to look for a "third way" to tidily meet both concerns. FOR EXAMPLE, what if there were a template to use on TALK PAGES to list people involved in an event? OR something similar to the template for succession boxes that could be added to the bottom of pages, and only expands if you click on it? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
There are emotional reasons why people want to include such lists, and generally they do not improve the quality of the narrative. People trying to get around a new rule won't improve the narrative either, just result in article bloat. There are historical reasons to want to include such lists, and they don't always improve the readability of the narrative either. But the information involved can be useful and a standard technique for handling it would be a way to more easily resolve conflict. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. This should be handled on a case by case basis depending on the article and type of violent incident. If describing the manner/ages/details of how or which victims died would provide additional understanding, a list with explanations of the deaths would be appropriate. For example, the article on the Columbine High School massacre lists the victims, their ages, and how they died, which provides significant understanding as to what people might have been peers of the perpetrators, what people might have been teachers, as well breaking down what parts of their massacre were lethal. This is also demonstrated in the article on the Sandy Hook massacre where distinguishing the teachers, students, and the shooter's mother helps provide understanding of the death toll versus just saying "28 people including the perpetrator were killed".
In contrast, the article on the Lockerbie Bombing provides a detailed breakdown of victims by nationality, as well as notable victims, plus an explanation of which people died on the plane and who died on the ground. This is because providing a detailed list of people who died on the plane like in smaller events would be unwieldy due to the scale of the disaster, and the pertinent information is the nationalities of the victims who have died and groups that the bombing had an outsize influence on (Syracuse University having 35 students die). However, there is a list of people who died on the ground, as while a list of people who died on the flight would not provide too much information to the reader beside a cross section of America/UK/other parts of the world, a list of people who died on the ground allows the reader to understand which houses in Lockerbie were destroyed, as well as how the town was affected by the plane crash.
Honestly, in conclusion, I believe a one-sized fits all policy on lists of names would do more harm than good. Tragedies with large death tolls occur on a spectrum of differentiation that requires a unique assessment of every article in order to see how much detail should be provided in covering the victims of such events. Sometimes it's useful to detail every single person who died and how, in other cases such as plane crashes it might only be useful to detail nationalities, notable people, and specific groups affected. In some cases such as the Mississauga restaurant bombing there's no need to detail specific victims at all, as there's not much to be said about minor injuries. We need to take a case by case basis on every article talk page to see how much detail is appropriate to provide, so I'm !voting neutral instead of oppose as "oppose" would seem to imply that I am definitively in favor of lists, which I am not. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 10:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

As I indicated at VPI, the effect for random mass killings articles will be that editors who want the victims named (for any of a number of reasons, not always openly stated) will simply write "quality prose narratives" that include every victim. The necessary material is almost always gathered by a handful of news organizations who have a different mission (and a profit motive), this CNN article being a typical example. This tactic will defeat the spirit of the guideline and, far from putting an end to the endless battle in this area, will merely change its nature. At VPI I said I would suggest an improvement after sleeping on it, but I have failed to come up with anything. I think we just need more and better minds thinking about it.
It would be easy to say that nobody should be named who doesn't have a Wikipedia article, but I'm not sure that's not too high a bar. It's higher than at WP:BLPNAME, which in my opinion shares the presumption of privacy with this issue. I wonder whether the test should be something more like "a substantial active role in the event". We would still differ on the definition of "substantial" (and maybe there's a better adjective) but we would clearly exclude the vast majority of names of victims, who had no active role. Trying to hide and running away are not active roles. Staying behind to hold a door open for fleeing students is borderline in my opinion. Physically attacking the shooter would be a substantial active role. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This is an ongoing and continuous bone of contention. I feel that although the inclusion of non notables can be discussed on a case by case basis on article talk pages the default position should be no non notables unless agreed by consensus, ie the burden for inclusion should always fall on the proposer, with no squatters rights. Therefore I would support Generally victims should not be mentioned by name unless they were otherwise notable or had significant and substantial involvement in the incident (beyond being a victim). If challenged consensus must be established to include Lyndaship (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
as opposed to a non-continuous bone of contention? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
LOL ok. I suppose I could argue there have been breaks? Lyndaship (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I have a feeling that while I would support this, we need to have a guidance page of how to handle naming victims of a crime/event when you omit the list (too much to cover in an policy page). --Masem (t) 17:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Pigsonthewing and Iridescent: and Lyndaship, if you actually agree with the principle, or the basic initiative here, then why 'oppose'? How about 'support with a condition (or caveat)? Or post a "neutral" !vote (unfortunately there wasn't a 'neutral' section, that's been rectified). It would be unfortunate if this died because of a perceived consensus to oppose when really some of you actually support, but just want some kind of minor wording change. - wolf 10:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I had supported the proposal Lyndaship (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @Lyndaship: Yup, I see that now. Sorry about that, I don't how your name got added there, other than I was trying to do too much in a single edit and goofed up. Mea culpa, ambo te ignosce me. - wolf 15:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    • For the reason I gave in my !vote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Eli355:, can you clarify your position on here? The very brief wording of your "oppose" give the impression you might actually 'support' this proposal. Thanks - wolf 10:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Thewolfchild: People should be included in these lists if there is some reference for them. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @Eli355: Uh, yeah... I saw that the first time you posted it. Like Mandruss pointed out above, we only know about names if there listed in a source. That's the point of this proposal, that shouldn't be the only basis for entry to an article. There should be a more encyclopedic reason. Do you understand that? - wolf 06:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
        • "that shouldn't be the only basis for entry to an article" That is correct, thewolfchild. Verifiability is not sufficient for inclusion. WP:VNOTSUFF: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article." But should we be deciding whether or not to include this information at the Village pump? Or should we be deciding this at individual article Talk pages? Bus stop (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
          • Seriously... not even reading your posts anymore. - wolf 19:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC).
            • @Thewolfchild and Bus stop: Whether the victims names should be included in the article should depend on the number of victims. If an event kills a few people, all of them should be listed, but if an event kills thousands of people, than only the more notable people should be included. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
              • @Eli355: You made a rather vague a comment about names being added if there is a reference for them, you're asked to clarify it, and in response you make an equally vague comment about names being added based on numbers? Can you provide a more substantive reply to support your position on this issue? Thanks - wolf 21:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
                • thewolfchild—I made the same point that Eli355 is making when I said to you "My opinion is that victim identities belong in articles on disasters where practicable." It is practicable to add a small number of victims; it is impracticable to add a large number of victims. We also know that policy states: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted."[4] Therefore without this proposal being passed the victim names can be omitted. Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This discussion started on WP:VPIL where back on 30 Novemebr I posted "Short numbers of names (as proposed by Herostratus above take up a handful of bytes and don't seem too out of place (users read articles, not policies). For longer lists why not simply create a page "List of victims of XYZ" and hat-note to it?". Whether that opinion is right or wrong, it is depressing that nearly three weeks later exactly the same point is being vehemently argued over. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay... Eli, whether this is deliberate bullshit or just a WP:CIR issue, either way I don't care. I don't want you to clarify your opinion as I'm no longer interested in it. Have a nice day. - wolf 04:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Bus stop, Knowledgekid87, and Graeme Bartlett: - each of you had stated in some form that this should be handled on individual talk pages, but one of the reasons why we're here is because that approach has failed over and over again, for years. And even in the odd cases where there was an agreement on particular article talk pages, that has just led to conflicting local consensuses, which in turn leads to wp:ose arguments in this project-wide dispute that has carried on for years without resolution. That is why we need a project-wide policy/guideline to (hopefully and finally) help settle this once and for all. (or for the most part, for awhile, at least). - wolf 10:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
thewolfchild—this is not a question that should be addressed on a community-wide basis. My opinion is that victim identities belong in articles on disasters where practicable. Any time you come up with a one-size-fits-all solution you run the risk of deadening the creative abilities of editors that are champing at the bit to write better articles. Why not just let editors write articles and engage in debate as needed? There shouldn't be a "default" position on something that does not have a consistent identity across all articles, namely "victim lists". And by the way, I do not distinguish between "lists" and "prose" as concerns the mention of victims in articles on disasters. Whichever form fits the specifics of that particular article at that particular stage in its development should be used. And if WP:CONSENSUS is to omit the names—that's OK too. The interested editors are not the same at the article in question as the editors weighing in here. Why devise nonsensical policy here to tie the hands of editors at the articles that will inevitably be affected? Bus stop (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes... BS, we're all well aware of your opinions on this, but you've adding nothing new here with your latest repeat posting of them. (Question, why all the wiktionary links? And, despite using said link, how does one still manage to misspell the word they're actually linking to said dictionary?)
Anyway, you made some grossly misleading comments here. Should this proposal be added to WP policy, in no way will it "deaden the creative abilities of editors that are champing at the bit to write better articles.".
First of all, adding obituary-type lists of meaningless, non-notable names of mass-death-event victims, does not make for "better articles". Second, no one's "hands are going to be tied". If at some point, some editor has a burning need to add an obituary-type list of meaningless, non-notable names of mass-death-event victims to some article, they can always come here and seek a community-wide consensus to change the policy. If the need to add said list is that great, and it will make said article that much better, then I'm sure the community will see that and support said editor.
As for editors who are not currently here to take part in this process, that just sounds like you're trying to create some kind of pre-emptive excuse. This forum is open to everyone. This subject has been discussed on numerous pages, for months, from the USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision talk page, to numerous other article, project and AfD discussion pages, leading to the idea lab and finally here. If these editors that you apparently don't know, and yet you're so concerned about them missing out on this proposal do in fact miss out... oh well. Can't expect everybody to be everywhere, everytime. - wolf 18:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
thewolfchild—here is a good explanation of "champing" vs. "chomping". From your aloof perch here at the Village pump you are in no position to dictate to editors whether they should include or omit names and other brief pieces of information on non-notable individual fatalities resulting from an article's topic. This is an instance of Wikipedia trying to shoot itself in the foot. You've yet to tell us why we should not speak of non-notable decedents. Bus stop (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
"thewolfchild — here is a good explanation of "champing" vs. "chomping". Bus stop 19:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)"
  1. Erm, BS... surely you realize that was a rhetorical question? (as this one is)
  2. You clearly missed the point of that question.
  3. I am already familiar with the expression.
  4. I am already aware of the alternative spellings.
  5. I have no idea why you think I would be interested in any further reading or discussion about this expression, it's meaning, or it's alternative spellings.
  6. I take it you're aware that your comment is both meaningless, and completely off-topic.
  7. I take it that by posting such a meaningless and completely off-topic comment, you are declaring you have nothing new or meaningful to add to the topic being discussed?
  8. Oops, nevermind. I see that while I was typing out my reply, you have since added more to your comment. While your remarks are somewhat snarly and accusatory, I suppose it could be considered "on-topic" (saving your initial comment (quoted above) from being deleted). I'm not on a "perch", I behind a keyboard, just like you, and you seem to have a bizarre definition of "aloof", (here, happy to help out).
I am not "dictating" anything. I'm taking part in a straw-poll and discussion regarding a policy proposal, just like you. (though I'm just being nicer than you are) If I'm not "in a position to dictate to others" that they can't include names... how is it that you seem to think you are "in a position to dictate to others" that they can't omit names?
"This is an instance of Wikipedia trying to shoot itself in the foot." - Umm... ok. Maybe you should take that up with Wikipedia. (I, otoh, am not trying to shoot anything)
"You've yet to tell us why we should not speak of non-notable decedents." - You've yet to explain how adding a list of non-notable names, of mass-death-event victims, who played no role in the event, except for dying, with no meaning to anyone except perhaps for family & friends, will in any way lend to the reader's understanding of the event. If 10 non-notable people died, what more is needed, than to state that 10 people died? Relevant, supporting information such as how they died, when they died (immediately vs later in hospital, etc. notwithstanding, how does adding a list of names add anything remotely encyclopaedic to the article? What insight can that possibly provide to the reader?
Now, this is the part where you don't actually answer questions, you counter them, with a revolving repertoire of circular logic, IDHT & IDLI tautological arguments, off-topic rants, and demands for answers that have already been provided to you, multiple times by multiple editors. Then lather, rinse, repeat... do the whole thing all over again with whoever is willing to respond to you.
As I said earlier, we are all well aware of your opinion on this. Unless you have anything new to add, (about the topic, not me, not some idiom, not about some pair of neat-o shoes you saw at the mall... ), then please stop pinging me. Thank you. - wolf 21:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
thewolfchild—you say "how is it that you seem to think you are in a position to dictate to others that they can't omit names?" I didn't say we "can't omit names". I said "if WP:CONSENSUS is to omit the names—that's OK too." And I said that there shouldn't be a default on this. Let the editors decide on the article Talk pages. And I don't recall referring to some pair of neat-o shoes I saw at the mall. And if you scroll up you will see that you pinged me before I pinged you and you have pinged me a total of two times. Have I pinged you more than 2 times? Maybe, for which I apologize. Bus stop (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Question for Jayron32: The section heading says you want to put this text in the guideline WP:LISTPEOPLE. The proposal says that you want to put this in the policy WP:IINFO. Can you pick one or the other, and fix the proposal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hydronium Hydroxide—you are mentioning Trinity (nuclear test). There were no fatalities in that event and it took place in 1945. You are sort of comparing apples to oranges, aren't you? How does "Trinity (nuclear test)" compare to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, Orlando nightclub shooting, Santa Fe High School shooting, Charleston church shooting—to name just a few of our articles in which non-notable victims are mentioned? Why would a decision at "Village pump (policy)" overrule the WP:CONSENSUS of the editors that wrote those articles? I thought WP:CONSENSUS was sort of sacrosanct. Bus stop (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop: Participants-in-an-event-that-is-tragic and Participants-in-an-event-that-is-not-tragic are both Participants-in-an-event and (from my perspective) should be treated similarly with regards to standards of determination for inclusion in an article; the comparison is of Red delicious apples vs Granny Smith apples. Trinity (nuclear test) is of significantly more impact than any of those events, and led to far more deaths -- thankfully individually unlisted in en-wiki. Non-notable participants (presumably since they are unlinked) are included within that article, but it includes neither indiscriminate lists of those actually involved in the conduct of the test, nor all those who witnessed (part of) it, nor all those present, nor any other indiscriminate list. I'm a little surprised by your final two questions, as you are an editor of so many years experience: Global consensus, where determined, trumps local consensus. If it didn't, then RFCs, AFDs, reasonable adherence to MOS, etc, wouldn't be able to be implemented. This proposal is an attempt to get global consensus on an area where the process of obtaining consensus on a page-by-page basis is deemed by some to be duplicative. Consensus for global consistency and consensus for page-by-page inconsistency may well both lead to groups of unhappy editors, but living with an imperfect standard appears to eat less editor/admin time than page-by-page debates. I understand, for instance, that we're on Infobox Wars part 167 and Cite Wars part 183, though the significant difference is that those are both stylistic preferences, whereas this intersects with actual content policies and guidelines. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Hydronium Hydroxide—a global consensus in this instance would be running roughshod over a clearly established consensus spread over many articles. We are not talking about 1945. Though unstated, I think we are discussing a more recent period. I listed Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, Orlando nightclub shooting, Santa Fe High School shooting, Charleston church shooting in my post above. Add to those 2016 Oakland warehouse fire and Columbine High School massacre. Please search the Talk page archives on those articles for the term "victims". Debates took place and a consensus was reached to include the victim names. We shouldn't be enacting policy to curtail the inclusion of victim names because the more broad-based consensus favors the inclusion of victim names. Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I don’t disagree... However, we also need to keep in mind that “consensus can change”. It isn’t wrong to occasionally ask whether a previously established consensus is still reflecting what the community thinks. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Bus stop You are being selective by only mentioning articles which have formed a consensus to include. Can I remind you on Talk:USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision the vote is 11 to 5 AGAINST inclusion. I do not understand why you cannot support my suggestion that the issue should be decided on individual article talk pages through consensus but the default position should be no names until that consensus is established. Given the consensus to include (albeit by some very small margins) reached on the articles you have quoted why do you doubt the ability of your fellow editors to come to the correct decision Lyndaship (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I am definitely being "selective", Lyndaship. I am trying to prove a point. And you are trying to prove a point. Therefore you mention the Fitzgerald/Crystal collision article. I can name one more to support your point: Thousand Oaks shooting. Consensus there was to omit. But in the majority of instances consensus has been in favor of inclusion. My evidence is merely anecdotal. I admit that. But another point has to be made: there is no reason the same conclusion has to be reached at all articles. This is not unlike the construction of all articles as concerns the inclusion of content. These are editorial decisions left to editorial discretion. I don't think victim names are all that different from a variety of other pieces of information. I happen to favor the inclusion of the names of fatalities resulting from notable incidents. I think this helps to write a complete article. And I find the deliberate omission of this information to be an uncalled-for truncating of the article. But it is not such a terrible thing if in some instances editors decide by means of our consensus-reaching process to omit these names.

Blueboar—this discussion is not "reflecting what the community thinks". The truest reflection of what the community thinks is seen in consensus at individual articles at which this question has had an airing-out. Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Below is a partial (?) and non-chronological list of this years' other discussions that deal with listing non-notable people. Anyone is welcome to add ones I've missed. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC):
  • It is plainly obvious that in the vast majority of instances consensus supports the inclusion in the article of all the victim names whether notable or not. Please see below. Bus stop (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Its plainly obvious that most of these all American shooting and fairly recent events and hardly reflect the range of articles that potential could have lists of non-notable vicitims. In particularly these type of recent events have a high readership from those interested in these news type events so they expect to see victim names as if this was a newspaper which can slew the voting. So these recent events are not really a reflection on the thousands of articles about tragic events that dont or have never included names of non notable victims. MilborneOne (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
It is also plainly obvious that the more gut-wrenchingly awful the event, the more likely the event is to acquire a victim list. I would not be human if I did not sympathise with such a response (Dunblane massacre involved infants and is one of the few UK events listed above) - but is the awfulness of the event really a valid criteria for inclusion/exclusion of names? Because this is what actually happens when 'case by case' is the only guideline (no one has ever articulated how the names serve any useful encyc pupose - the intention, and effect is to 'honour' the victim, by individualising them, which may be an understandable wish, but isn't our mission IMO). Pincrete (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Many people use NOTMEMORIAL to argue against inclusion of names. As some editors have explained, NotMem does not apply to the individuated contents of an article; it applies to the subject matter of the entire article. (Probably for another full discussion: the NotMem text should be revised to make explicitly clear that it refers to a full article, not to just some of its content.) Properly read, NotMem is not a valid argument for excluding victim names from an article about a crime or calamity. I ask: why do mainstream news sources include names? The answer is because they want to provide comprehensive information. Though Wikipedia is NotANewspaper, it shares that goal: to be comprehensive (but not Indiscriminate or Trivial). As the NY Times is said to be the newspaper "of record," Wikipedia is--or should be--the encyclopedia of record. Having said that, I recognize it may be impractical to include names if the list is very long. A decision can be made at the article Talk page. In the interest of encyclopedic coverage, I believe we should not enact a policy or guideline that attempts to make exclusion of names the default choice. I would flip this proposal on its head (or perhaps, sideways) and say we should add an instruction at WP:Victim or WP:Listpeople to say: "Wikipedia does not encourage or discourage inclusion of names of victims in articles about a crime or calamity. Decisions about the encyclopedic value of such names may be made on Talk pages of articles." Such instruction might or might not reduce chronic debates about this issue, but it could prevent the encyclopedia from working against itself as authoritative and as the place at or near the top of people's choices for information of interest to them. DonFB (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Even the below represents only a small fraction of the number of articles mentioning identifying information pertaining to fatalities including name. This list, I believe, could be expanded many times over. The conclusion that I reach is that inclusion of such information is standard practice. I am posting this despite the fact that it takes up so much room because I don't think many participants in this discussion appreciate just how widespread the practice is. We generally allude in one form or another to deceased individuals. It is hard to say whether this is "memorialization" or not. I strongly believe it is relevant to an article. But in some instances editorial consensus is to omit identifying information for decedents. But the point is that in most instances such information is included. Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I only looked at a handful of the articles below (mainly UK IRA events), but in no case was there a bare list - including names in prose, where the individual had a significant role in the event is precisely what is proposed. In many/most cases that I looked from this list, this is what has already happened. Pincrete (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Standard practice is for inclusion. In the vast majority of the articles that I've looked at, some degree of allusion is made to the identities of the deceased. I have not made a distinction between list and prose as concerns this discussion. I don't consider one preferable to the other. As concerns depth of identity of decedents, I have encountered a wide range—from just the name to more extensive background information. In a small number of the articles I've looked at, the identities of the deceased are absent entirely from the article. Those sorts of articles are not included in the list below. I am at this moment adding a considerable number of articles to the below list. I hope I haven't added any articles twice, and I apologize if I have. Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems simple to me. JUST FOLLOW THE CITES. If most sources list the victims then WP should. If most sources do not then WP should not. Do not OR up a list, do not add prose that is UNDUE or OR. Just follow whatever the sources do and how they do it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I used to be strongly against memorializing the victims in these sorts of articles, but I have come around to an abide-by-the-consensus-of-secondary-sources position, with an important caveat that the sources be in English. One should be careful to avoid sources that are biased or are attempting to gain political victimhood for an ethnic group. Abductive (reasoning) 05:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It would concern me that if we allow listing of non-noteworthy victims then we would have a lot of work in hand as some maritime disasters would need in some cases 1000 or more names to be added all of which are available in reliable sources, or is this one rule for recent and particularly American events but doesnt apply to ones outside of memory. It would be good to list the millions of victims of tragic events particularly in wartime but why should they be treated differently to an American school shooting with ten vicitms. MilborneOne (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • That's a good point about accessibility. Where there is an easily accessible list on line (which is likely to remain accessible) then lengthy lists would seem to be a waste of time. In some cases however the list of names many not be available on line and therefore as the world's principal "go-to" reference we should consider including them. It doesn't need to be mandatory, but perhaps the deletionists might allow lists to remain, particularly if they were stand-alone lists which did not dominate the main article. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) MilborneOne—you say "It would concern me that if we allow listing of non-noteworthy victims then we would have a lot of work in hand". Wouldn't we have a lot of work in hand rewriting the hundreds of articles that presently include all victim names? In my estimation 90% of the articles I've encountered include all victim names.

You didn't mention "memorialization" but let me point out that the information on victims is severely limited therefore it may not constitute memorialization. At most we find name, age, role-in-life, such as cop, teacher, student, and maybe home-town. Bus stop (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearly not looking at the same set of articles as me as very for example maritime tragic events do not have lists of victims (an those like Titanic that do are subject to some bickering), loads of other examples. We dont list the 2,259 victims of the Bhopal disaster as one example or the 1012 victims of the RMS Empress of Ireland. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe that where practicable our standard practice is to list all victims both notable and non-notable. A large number of victims presents a case where it is impractical to list all victims. You may be right that maritime events may show a lower incidence of inclusion of victims. I haven't looked at those sorts of articles in great numbers so I just don't know. Editors have by-and-large been exercising good judgement over the years, judging by the articles I have looked at. "Bickering" is not a good enough reason for enacting new policy. "Bickering" goes on in many places on the encyclopedia. What we want are good articles. In my opinion it is unlikely that we can enact policy that has the twin effect of reducing bickering and producing the best possible articles because collaborative editing inevitably involves dissension and disagreement. Talk pages properly used result in good articles where a high degree of collaboration is involved, that is, when a lot of editors are involved in the writing of one article. Bus stop (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
By extension of the reasoning in your first paragraph, this encyclopedia should never have been started because it was too much work. Even if your dubious 90% were 100%, we are allowed to decide to change the encyclopedia's direction without "appeal to status quo" like that. Wikipedia is a work in progress. (Of course my comment applies to any argument about amount of work, including MilborneOne's if that's what they meant. Amount of work should be extremely low on our priority list, on any issue.) ―Mandruss ☎ 16:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Mandruss—was the editorial judgement that went into the writing of all of the articles containing victim names somehow flawed? As FOARP has perceptively said "The people who will vote here will be a vanishingly small sub-set of editors."

If you feel that my "90%" figure is "dubious" I am willing to stand corrected. I have taken the time to pore through many articles that seem to fit the criteria that would make them candidates for this discussion. And I have listed those that support my position. It is true that I did not list the articles that might support your position. I can do little more than state in complete honesty that my crude impression is that 90% of the articles I looked at included all victim names. And it is not only the percentage that matters to the discussion we are having. It is also the total number of articles involved—it is a huge number of articles. I think the list of articles could be expanded several times. I have not attempted to do so because I'm not nuts. Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I see above it has been said that no rationale has been provided for including the list of victims. Put simply the rationale for including a list of victims is 1) it is a relevant fact about the incident, equally as relevant as the number of victims, we know that it is relevant because reliable sources treat it as such. 2) It aids with the understanding of the incident - consider how you might actually describe what happened in this incident without using the names of the victims: you would be left saying "his first victim was killed doing X, then his second victim was killed doing Y", and the reader would be easily confused as to which victim was being referred to if they were only described as numbers.
  • WP:NOTMEMORIAL has been raised above, but people really need to read what that policy says. It says: "Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." (emphasis added). It is clear that NOTMEMORIAL is about the subject of the article being notable, and not a ban on lists of people who died in any particular incident. Where the article is about a notable event NOTMEMORIAL falls by the wayside. FOARP (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
To be fair not memorial is used as it reflects the views of some users that the only reason we would be adding lists of hundreds or in some cases it could be thousands in one article of not noteworthy individuals would be to memorialise them, so far not other valid reason has been raised why a simple link to an external source is not good enough. So yes the policy may not apply but the spirit does. MilborneOne (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
There really aren't articles containing hundreds of victims, at least not to my knowledge. You are talking about the spirit of WP:MEMORIAL. The spirit of WP:MEMORIAL is that we don't create articles on non-notable individuals. I would say that the application of WP:MEMORIAL to this discussion is a misapplication of policy. We can give the benefit of the doubt and say that the reference is to the dictionary definition of memorialization. But the limited amount of information we are providing shows this is not the case. True memorialization involves more extensive information than name, rank, and number. True memorialization involves the presentation of vignettes from the deceased person's life that tug at the heartstrings with their poignancy. We do not indulge in that sort of thing. The sole purpose of our editors is an informational purpose. This is part of explicating a subject. Can you point to an article engaging in sentimentality in the presentation of the identities of fatalities? Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this appears to be a big misunderstanding on the part of the people in support of this proposition. We are not naming/listing those killed out of sentiment. We are doing so because - particularly in the context of terrorist attacks and mass shootings - it is an important part of describing what happened AND it's information that reliable sources treat as important. FOARP (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Break (victims)

Except that in most cases, the bombers/shooters/etc don't really care about who dies. The point is to attack "location X", who exactly is at location X doen't figure into it. If an individual is specifically targeted (if the shooter says "I'm gonna kill you Mitchell!) then that person should be named. If a specific group of unnamed individuals is targeted (say, if the shooter says "all you cheerleaders are bitches who deserve to die") we should state that he targeted that group - without specifically saying that Brittany, Megan, and Rebecca were killed. Absent something like that we should just identify what the general group or location targeted was. For example, "the perpetrator rammed his car into a crowd outside the theater, killing 17" or "the bomb was placed in Monomonee Falls High School, the explosion killed 4 teachers and 9 students" or "the shooter fired into his place of employment, killing 12 people". List people who were explicit targets but not those who are basically collateral damage. --Khajidha (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
When a psychopathic murder kills John Smith first, then John Doe, then Jane Smith, then Jane Doe, and reliable sources state that this is what happened, then we should say exactly that in our article because that is exactly what happened. To advocate anything else is to advocate making this encyclopedia less accurate without good reason, and to ignore what the reliable sources themselves state was important about the event. It doesn't matter what format this is stated in. FOARP (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
There's a difference between specifically killing John Smith, John Doe, Jane Smith, and Jane Doe and going on a random spree that just happens to end in those people's deaths. In the first, the names are relevant, in the second they aren't. --Khajidha (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
You're saying we should first determine the intent of the killer before writing the article. Intent is something that the police, prosecutors, and courts themselves struggle mightily to determine and often get wrong. It clearly is relevant to discuss who was killed when in an article about a massacre or a serial killer since the murderer is progressing from one victim to the next. Indicating victims by numbers or letters ("Victim 1", "Person A"), rather than by their names - something we would have to do if we were not allowed to name victims - is a form of editorialising and requires us to ignore something that reliable sources find important (the identities of the victims).
I find the problem in these discussion is that they are divorced from the reality of the actual subject matter of the actual articles that are discussing. It is useful, then, to consider concrete cases. Please tell me, therefore, how would you describe this incident without naming the victims? FOARP (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
"Dunlap entered the restaurant at 9:00 p.m., where he ordered a ham and cheese sandwich and played an arcade game. He then hid in a restroom at about 9:50 p.m. He exited the restroom after closing at 10:05 p.m. and shot five employees with a .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol.

The first victim was shot while cleaning the salad bar. She was hit from close range in the right ear and was mortally wounded. Another victim was fatally shot near the left eye as he was vacuuming. A third pleaded for her life and sunk to her knees, but Dunlap fatally shot her once through the top of her head. Bobby Stephens, 20, the lone survivor of the shooting, returned to the restaurant after taking a break by smoking outside, thinking the noise he heard from the restaurant when he was outside were children popping balloons nearby.

As he walked into the restaurant and unloaded utensils into the dishwasher, Dunlap came through the kitchen door, raised the handgun at him, and fired a shot that struck Stephens in the jaw. He then fell to the floor and played dead. Dunlap then forced the store manager to unlock the safe. After she opened it, Dunlap shot her in the ear. As he was taking the cash out of the safe, Dunlap fired a second fatal shot through her other ear after he noticed she was still moving.[2] The manager who fired Dunlap was not present at the restaurant.

Stephens escaped through a back door and walked to the nearby Mill Pond apartment complex, where he pounded on a door to alert someone that he and others had been shot at the Chuck E. Cheese. Stephens was hospitalized at Denver General Hospital in fair condition. As authorities arrived on the scene, they found two bodies in the restaurant's hallway, a third in a room off the hallway, and the fourth in the manager's office. The initial victim was sent to Denver General Hospital, where she was declared brain dead.[2] She died from her injuries the next day at Aurora Regional Medical Center.[3]

Dunlap fled the scene with $1,500 worth of cash and game tokens he stole from inside the restaurant. Dunlap was arrested at his mother's apartment twelve hours later.[ " --Khajidha (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Khajidha—we are here to provide information. Reliable sources exist to provide information also. It is not that everything that is reliably sourced must be in an article, but the determining factor as to whether to include something or not is the consensus reached at an individual article. I don't think blanket rules are arrived at, at the Village pump as to whether or not to name fatalities. This is a decision that is best made at an individual article. If we arrive at a "blanket rule" here, the consequence will be the tying of the hands of individual editors for no good reason. Dialogue is essential to reaching the correct conclusions on issues of disagreement, but with the existence of a "blanket rule", dialogue would effectively be suppressed. The sort of reasoning you are presenting—that non-targeted victims should not be mentioned—could be presented by you or any other editor on an individual article's Talk page. Other editors may agree with you and others may disagree with you. No doubt other editors will raise additional factors that they feel should be taken into consideration. But that dialogue is eliminated when you devise "blanket rules" that do not serve serious purposes. What is the important principle at stake here? There is no important principle at stake here. We are discussing facts that are clearly within the scope of the article. Whether or not to include them is an editorial decision. Dialogue is essential to reaching the right decision on whether to include or omit. Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The good reason is that these names are unencyclopedic. --Khajidha (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
You're not defining "unencyclopedic". This is reliably sourced information that is within the scope of the article. I understand that we do not include all reliably sourced information, even if it is within an scope of the article. But what is the big deal with this information that would suggest that we should enact new policy to curtail its inclusion in articles? We use Talk pages to resolve all sorts of disagreements all the time. Would you argue that we cannot use the Talk pages of individual articles to resolve questions like this?

Khajidha—the version you wrote for "1993 Aurora shooting" is fine—if editors agree with you. Which editors? The editors at the Village pump? No—the editors at "1993 Aurora shooting". That is where consensus should be formed because that is where that specific article is being discussed. Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Precisely. Let's look at what an article rewritten to this standard looks like: "The first victim was shot while cleaning the salad bar. She was hit from close range in the right ear and was mortally wounded." So, the gender of the victim is important, the fact they were standing next to the salad bar when shot is important, the fact they were shot in the right ear is important - but who they actually were is not relevant information to include? Instead identifying them by the order in which they were killed - which may not always be clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 17:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I'd be fine with even less detail.--Khajidha (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
This thread is missing the point: This is not a proposal to prohibit naming victims entirely, in fact it specifically states Victims of crimes and disasters and other tragic events may be named as a normal part of a quality prose narrative. Narratives like this one would still stand. As an aside, my personal opinion is that 1993 Aurora shooting is far too detailed. The description was pulled from an exhaustive court transcript, while other sources simply say that he shot the victims in the head and one survivor escaped through the back door. –dlthewave ☎ 19:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Dlthewave—it doesn't matter if victims are listed in prose form or list form. OK, it matters, but it matters to those writing the article. They are in the best position to decide on one form or the other. More than one of the sources already in the "1993 Aurora shooting" article include the names of all of the fatalities. It is up to the editors at an article, after weighing all of the applicable factors, to decide whether to use "prose" or "lists". Neither way is preferable to the other in a general sense. These are alternative ways of presenting information. We should not be trying to come up with a formula at the Village pump for articles that have a particular array of applicable factors known best by those trying to write those articles. I should also add that omitting the names of the fatalities is also acceptable. In a minority of articles it was decided to omit the names of the fatalities. These should be considered decisions best left to editorial discretion. Those working on the article are the best ones to make these decisions. Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
As I said in my comment further up the chain "It doesn't matter what format this is stated in". I am aware that the proposal makes a distinction between prose and tables, but there is no basis for limiting the editor's choices as to how to describe an event in this fashion. FOARP (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on capitalization of the names of standardized breeds

Amended MOS per RfC on 06:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC). --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 06:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The consensus is to retain the current capitalization for the titling of standardized breeds on Wikipedia. While the supporters for a lowercase standard do make valid points regarding Wikipedia's MOS alignment towards less stylization (including capitalization), but in actuality references and standards are either confused or a counter-point. Policy is dictated by the community, not the other way around and general consensus is to retain the current standard of capitalization. There is no specific consensus regarding what standardized breeds constitute and should be clarified in a separate RfC in the future. Furthermore, editors must keep in mind that inconsistencies will occur on any guideline and should exercise discretion with respect to edits which might be seen applicable to this policy. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 14:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)--Updated. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 18:26, 31 January 2019 (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.

Should the names of standardized breeds of domesticated animals be capitalized on Wikipedia, to match the published breed standards? They presently are, with near uniformity, and the practice is almost universally followed in breeds-specific writing, but notably less often in more general writing (except where a breed name is or contains a proper name like "Ennstal Mountain" or "Siamese").

I've been neutral on the question for several years (though arguing at WP:RM to follow a particular pattern in the interim, for WP:CONSISTENCY policy reasons). I have collected every single pro or con argument I've encountered on this question, at WP:BREEDCASE, immediately below which is an index of previous discussions. This may be worth a skim before you respond to this RfC. My interest in seeing the question answered by clear community consensus is to close the gaping hole in MOS:LIFE (it needs to either state that standardized breeds are an exception, or that they are not), and to complete the MOS:ORGANISMS in-depth guideline, which has been stuck in draft state for over six years due to this one question not being resolved (though it is followed aside from the breeds question).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Background

  • The MOS:LIFE guideline has us lower-case all names of generic groupings of animals and plants (including landraces, dog and horse "types", feral populations, breed groups, show/competition classes, and some other things sometimes called "breeds" in the broadest sense of that word). Standardized breeds – a very narrow sense – were left out of MOS:LIFE on purpose, as a point of contention to be settled later. Later has now arrived, overdue.
  • An RfC (WP:BIRDCON, one of Wikipedia's longest ever, and following about eight years of constant dispute) concluded in 2014 to lower-case the vernacular names of species ("Collared Dove" and "Mountain Lion" to "collared dove" and "mountain lion"). But standardized breeds are distinguishable from them on a number of bases, and need to be considered separately.
  • Cultivars, the plant equivalent of standardized breeds, are capitalized but are subject to a formal, international convention that makes them part of the scientific name, whereas zoology recognizes no infraspecific taxa below "subspecies". And not every vernacular term for a cultivar is capitalized (botanists do not write "Broccoli Rabé"), only those registered with ICNCP, plus any trademarked trade designations. So, cultivars are not some "automatic answer" either.

Potential consequences:

  • This RfC would have no effect on anything that is not a standardized breed of domesticated animal (a breed with a published breed standard from a reputable organization). In particular, it can't affect whether an alleged breed is less or more easily able to pass WP:GNG; it's about nothing but a very narrow orthographical matter in Wikipedia's own text. It would have no effect on cultivars, on landraces and other domesticated-animal groupings, historical animal populations, or non-domesticated animals (there's no such thing as a "breed" of wild animal).
  • Continuing with them capitalized would essentially change nothing, other than forestall some future arguments, and codify a particular variance from a more general style rule. There is some potential for "If this can have an exception, so can [insert my personal peccadillo here]" disputation, but MoS codifies many exceptions for many things, and it generally hasn't been much of a problem when the exceptions were not arbitrary and did serve reader-facing purposes (variances that did not have not survived).
  • De-capitalizing these names as a general class would require a non-trivial amount of research into which ones are or contain proper names or adjectives derived from them (not always obvious, especially for breeds with names from non-Western languages), a series of mass-move RMs, quite a lot of copyediting over time, and (as with the lower-casing of species common names) increased care in writing to avoid ambiguity. But we're collectively good at these things already.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Retain capitalization

  • Support.Seems sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, at least for the most part: I'm basically saying that the status quo should pretty much stay as it is. Before commenting here, I read all of the background information, and I want to thank SMcCandlish for such thorough explanation. I'm finding it difficult to conceptualize a generalized rule of thumb that satisfies me. Obviously, for Genus species, we capitalize the genus and generally do not capitalize the species. For garden plants, I think it's Rosa filipes 'Kiftsgate' and Brassica oleracea 'Calabrese', with cultivar names capitalized, which I think should remain standard, but hybrid tea rose, cherry tomato, and 'Big Boy' tomato, for categories of cultivated plants. For domestic animal breeds, German Shepherd dog, without capitalizing "dog", looks right (and that may be a change), and that's consistent with 'Big Boy' tomato. For aquarium fish, pearlscale goldfish and flowerhorn cichlid 'Golden Monkey' correction: flowerhorn cichlid Golden Monkey. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • "German Shepherd dog" would be right, under this orthographic system, unless capitalized "Dog" is included in the breed's formal, published name in the breed standard because it's intolerably ambiguous without it. There are only a few cases of that, such as the American Quarter Horse ("American Quarter" would be mistaken for a coin), and the Norwegian Forest Cat ("Norwegian Forest" would imply not a purring critter but a Scandinavian woodland). The vast majority of breeds simply have names like Siamese, Argentine Criollo, American Buff, etc., with "cat", "horse", or "goose" only tacked on when necessary as natural disambiguation. Actual breeders do that, and WP does as well, following a years-long series of WP:RM discussions (catalogued at WP:BREEDDAB). PS: If aquarium fish breeders have picked up the 'Foo' convention from horticulture, I have to note that this hasn't spread further (no one writes "Canis lupus familiaris 'Golden Retriever'", or "dog 'Golden Retriever'").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks for those clarifications, which make sense to me. (And thanks for taking a close look at Flowerhorn cichlid.) About aquarium fish, I put it that way just above because it looks right to me. (There are very few editors who work routinely on those pages.) But if I think about websites that sell or discuss aquarium fish, I can't say that I actually see the single quote marks ('Golden Monkey' as opposed to Golden Monkey), nor any really consistent pattern of usage. The one area where I'm aware of some organized and scholarly attention to nomenclature is with respect to guppies. I've never paid much attention to guppies, but I'll look into it and let editors here know what I find. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I looked into that information about guppies: [5], [6]. Definitely no 'single quote' marks, about which I was incorrect. Although there is some within-source inconsistency, it ends up as Poecilia reticulata, fancy guppies, snakeskin guppies (lowercase for a group containing multiple strains), and Yellow Mosaic Snakeskin guppy (for a specific strain). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
        • That's about what I would have expected, following the same pattern as better-written material (i.e. not "capitalize all our jargon just to make to it look special and important") on livestock and mammalian pet breeds.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, generally. Without capitalization, "thoroughbred" is widely used as a synonym for purebred, and has a host of other connotations. Capitalized, it unambiguously refers to the breed of horses. I imagine there are many other such instances. Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The section on the culivars in background above suggests a solution. It says "only those registered with ICNCP, plus any trademarked trade designations" are capitalised. A similar rationale would support capitalisation of the breeds that are registered with the bodies that standardise the breeds.   Jts1882 | talk  11:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Jts1882: the problem here is that the ICNCP says that for every kind of cultivated plant there will be one registrar, who then determines the definitive list of cultivars of that kind of plant. But there's no one organization that says who is the registrar for, say, dogs. So there are different national bodies that have, at least historically, failed to agree. So if we agree to the proposal, we will need to make clear exactly how to determine what counts as a "standardized breed". Peter coxhead (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It makes sense (that is how breed standards, breed encyclopedias, magazine articles do it). Also, "abyssinian cat" looks ridiculous.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    (1) That's an example of SMcCandlish's "specialist style fallacy". (2) No-one would suggest "abyssinian cat"; it would be "Abyssinian cat" if we did de-capitalize. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, "abyssinian" would be out of the question, and the RfC is already clear on that: "except where a breed name is or contains a proper name". The WP:SSF stuff I addressed below in more detail. Capitalizing breeds veers towards one, but seems to stop just short, because a) plenty of non-specialist sources do it, and b) it is consequently common enough that it is not "weird" to the reader. If you see WP:BREEDCAPS and look below the for/against arguments and the list of previous discussions, there's some sourcing (N-grams, etc.). The capitalization tendency varies widely (even wildly) by various factors, though the one consistent thing was that no major dictionaries do it (except where a proper name occurs). News sources were all over the place, though they lean a bit lower case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, the Abyssinian cat is just one of the first breed-names that came to mind for me. Yeah, breed-names that are derived from proper nouns would still be capitalized. However, there are also made-up breed names (Ocicat, Cheetoh, Toyger, etc.) that are rather ambiguous on that point; and I still think those would look ridiculous in lower-case: I went to a cat show and saw an ocicat win first prize, and a toyger and cheetoh tied for second place. Also, what about the Savannah breed? In lower-case, it appears to refer to an African grassland: I went to a cat show and the savannah was gorgeous.
Point two, books about cat breeds tend to capitalize; and people coming to Wikipedia to read about a cat breed is likely to be at least somewhat interested in cat breeds. Personally, if I saw one of the two sample sentences I just wrote, I'd have a wtf? reaction.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@SilverTiger12: re your point two, this is precisely the argument that has repeatedly been rejected in previous discussions. Almost all the books on my shelves about plants capitalize their English names, and I originally came to Wikipedia to read about plants. Although I'm more used to de-capitalization now, it can still look wrong to me. But the community's reaction to this has been "so what?" Peter coxhead (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Another part of that is a specious point for WP purposes, because we would never write "the savannah was gorgeous" in reference to a cat (even aside from emotive wording – I mean that we'd use a clearer construction, like "savannah cat"). The "it's necessary for disambiguation" argument completely failed in the WP:BIRDCON RfC, remember. A chief argument in favor of things like "Little Crow" was "If we use 'little crow' people will think we mean any crow that is small", and no one bought this argument, because obviously we'd simply write sensibly: "One crow species, the little crow (Corvus bennetti) is ...". Also, made-up breed names are not magically special. Every name for everything is made up, by someone at some point, yet that are not all proper nouns. E.g., we do not capitalize "carbine rifle" or "surfactant" or "durometer" or "exoplanet". The fact that people reading cat articles here are statistically more likely to be interested in cats and in turn more likely to expect capitalized cat breeds is meaningless; that argument could be used to push every strange style ever encountered in specialist writing, and push it harder the more obsessive the expert/fan base is; it would be a recipe for constant non-stop conflict, and for capitalization of virtually everything subject to any kind of literature of its own (dance steps, surfing and skating moves, videogaming terms, you name it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in general – this the invariable practice in reliable sources, and there's no reason to even consider trying to establish something different here. Reservations: (1) this applies to all domestic breeds, not just those that are "standardised", and also to lines and strains – ISA Brown is capitalised though it is neither standardised nor a breed, but a commercial hybrid. (2) (a question): does the same apply uniformly to plant cultivars? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • It's clearly not the "invariable" practice in reliable sources; the National Geographic, to give just one example, does not capitalize breeds – see, e.g., [7].
    • Plant cultivars are a quite different matter. The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants defines how their names should be written. There's no such equivalent for domesticated animals. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • And there's already the hard-won MOS:LIFE consensus - reaffirmed by the BIRDCON RfC – to not capitalize groups of animals at all. We're contemplating here one single, possibly palatable, very narrow exception for standardized breeds, primarily because they are published standards. They're as close as zoology is willing to get to the cultivar concept; all they lack is a slot in the scientific name. This "standardization of definitions and naming" rationale does not apply to vague overuse of the word breed to mean "named group of dogs/pigs/whatever mentioned in medieval sources", or "landrace", or "feral population", or "backyard-breeders' experiments in cross-breeding and making up names like 'pitsky'", or "naturally occurring wild–domestic hybrids" or "distinct populations of wild animals", or "coat variant I prefer and really like to capitalize because it looks more impressive that way", or "something I think is a breed but which every organization in the field refuses to recognize as one", or anything else. All those are already covered by MOS:LIFE as lower-cased, without exception.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

      • I understand this point, but the problem then is defining what is meant by "standardized breeds" and "published standards". "Standardized" by whom? "Published" where and by whom? In the article at Irish Setter, I see that "Red Setter" is or is not the same breed as "Irish Setter" depending on whose definition you accept. So should it be capitalized or not?
        The one really powerful argument in favour of lower-casing in Wikipedia is that it's a simple rule, easy to follow. Once you start capitalizing some breed names, but not others, as you propose, it gets very complex and open to endless arguments. It also doesn't solve the "wtf" reaction if you do end up with sentences like "There are different opinions as to whether the Irish Setter and the red setter are the same breed".
        The Irish Setter article also raises some other issues that need to be clarified. Should "Working Red Setter" be capitalized, as it is in the article? My answer is "no", as it isn't a standardized breed, so I assume it should be "working Red Setter". The article (like others on breeds) uses the second part of the name alone sometimes, as a way of referring to all breeds of setter (?Setter), and then generally capitalizes it. However, this seems like starting with "Sutton Park" and then using "the Park", which I do in my own writing, but which we don't do here. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
        Addressed most of this below. In the setters example, if we were going with capitalized breeds, then Red Setter would be capitalized since at least one breed registry has it defined as a breed. But "setter" isn't a breed; it's a general class of breeds (like poodle, scenthound, etc.) And, no "working Red Setter" wouldn't have a capital W, any more than we'd write "Jones is Employed at the post office". A short form might be capitalized if exclusive, but "setter" isn't exclusive (i.e., it's the same case as "I like Sutton Park and Peasholm Park, but I'm not really sure which of the Parks is more relaxing, and the Park I spend the most time at is Sutton". Not many people write like that any more, and WP doesn't. We do have a tremendous amount of over-capitalization in breed articles, because most of them were written by breed fans in WP's early days before we even had much in the way of an MoS, and they were created in the same style as breeder magazines and newsletters (capitalize everything related to breeds and breeding, for signification emphasis). Cleaning them up is a slow process, with not many editors involved in it, so many of them still read like that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Martinevans123. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - For me, this ultimately comes down to “what will cause the least amount of disruption and avoidable drama”. Lowercasing may well be the “correct” action in terms of grammar and style, but doing so will upset far more of our editors than retaining the capitalization will. Trying to “correct” the capitalization will simply result MORE disruption, and MORE endless arguments. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    That's a slippery slope argument about a slope that isn't slippery. We know it's not because this didn't happen after the species de-capitalization. Indeed, it's the making of topical exceptions which leads to more endless arguments (for more exceptions). If the readership don't care, and only some breeds-focused editors do care, then there's actually little potential for drama in going lower-case. I know I sound like I'm advocating lower case when I'm supposed to be neutral, but this just seems like a weak argument to me, bordering on 180 degrees reversed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NOTLAW and WP:CREEP. Andrew D. (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Technically, this option is the one on the CREEP side, since it involves codifying a special exception – that some people will not understand or remember – to a general rule. The anti-CREEP option is "do not capitalize terms for groups of animals, period."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It would frankly be embarrassing to make a rule requiring capitalization for every breed when there is no reputable, general-subject manual of style that does so, and universal prescription in dictionaries that many if not most breeds be lower cased. As discussed below, I support a general rule to lower case (except proper nouns) with exceptions for specific breeds when there is dictionary support to capitalize. But, barring that, I would rather have no general rule and just an instruction to do what any reputable dictionary supports than a rule requiring capitalization. --Bsherr (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for formal breeds with a documented breed standard. They're like models of cars in that they're a brand name of sorts, one that indicates it's specific category while at the same time not designating a specific individual. oknazevad (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Oknazevad: could you clarify what you mean by a "documented breed standard"? It's largely the ambiguity over this with the consequent opportunity for edit-warring over what does and does not count as a "documented breed standard" that deters me from supporting the proposal, although I'm often on the side of more capitalization. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I mean that the breed has a published breed standard from a organizing body such as the AKC, UKC, CFA, TICA, and so forth. Now that may be easier to do for some animals, like dogs which have well-established governing bodies, and there's bound to be discussion about whether a particular organization is reputable, but those discussions already exist to a certain extent in deciding whether a breed even gets an article. But the publication of such a standard is itself the formalization as a brand or model that is a proper noun. oknazevad (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Oknazevad's logic, and per other points in the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support both "standardized" breeds and landrace breeds. Not all animal breeds or nations have "standardized" protocols, nor is one nation's standards the same as another, so trying to split out which is which would be a nightmare. Montanabw(talk) 22:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Change to lower-case

  • Support All I can see from the sources cited so far is that 1) sources differ from each other and 2) sources are internally consistent. Point 1 means that we can cherry pick whatever sources we want to defended whatever position we want, which means it isn't very useful, and we should therefor default to our own style guide. There MOS, as noted, is generally conservative on capitalization, and I see no reason why this is any different. Readers are unlikely to be confused by such a difference in style, so I lean towards treating these as any other common nouns.--Jayron32 00:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support lowercase per Jayron. There's too much uncertainty in deciding which breeds to cap, which organizations to take guidance from, etc., otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Sources are mixed and Wikipedia's style generally tends toward less capitalization. It seems strange to put species in lower case, but then capitalize the lower rank of breed. That being said, I acknowledge the status quo and don't feel like fighting about it. If we do change to lower case, I'd be happy to help clean things up.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Breeds aren't actually taxonomic ranks, but their plant equivalent, cultivars, are in fact capitalized (by standardized convention, in ICNCP). But since breeds aren't actually ranks, this may be irrelevant. I covered both sides of this argument in WP:BREEDCAPS. The gist is that it's not weird to capitalize below species, since botany does it programmatically, but they're doing it for a formal-code reason that's not applicable here. And other for/against arguments outlined there also apply more clearly to standardized breeds.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I thank SMcCandlish for his thorough analysis. I agree the The Chicago Manual of Style's §8.128 is rather confused in its examples, but it also prescribes normal proper and common noun capitalization rules. The two examples SMcCandlish calls out from CMS, Rhode Island Red and Maine coon (lower case in CMS) are both capitalized by Oxford dictionary.[8][9] However, MLA, not mentioned yet, is more clear in insisting on lower case, and criticizing those that capitalize, although it also acknowledges that "other breed names are capitalized according to convention and for clarity". But I ultimately think the dictionary results on "German shepherd" highlighted by SMcCandlish are the most damning. Not one capitalizes both words. Then there's the matter of consistency with species names. Bottom line to me is we should lower case (except for proper nouns) unless a reputable dictionary indicates otherwise, and then treat it as we do other spelling variants (keep consistent within article, but otherwise do not change). --Bsherr (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, the partial counter-evidence was that various non-specialist, non-dictionary sources (e.g. news articles) do capitalize them fairly frequently (then again, this doesn't address the "default to lower case when sources are mixed" point by Jayron32, et al., higher up this section). It's just one of those judgement-call things. Do we risk more strife in permitting an exception for breeds, which is apt to inspire more demands for exceptions and which irritates some readers and editors, or by not permitting it, which is apt to irritate breeds-focused editors and also some readers, and which requires more care in writing? We'll always have a consistency issue either way, because probably around 75% of breed names will be capitalized anyway for containing proper names or adjectives derived from them (Hungarian, Nicastrese, etc.). Is it worse to have "a cross between the Nicastrese, pygmy, Russian white, and Norwegian goat breeds" or "a hybrid between the domestic Russian White goat breed and its wild relative, the kri-kri (a subspecies of ibex)"?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Between news articles and dictionaries, I'd think we'd go with the dictionaries. There's a difference between a source that merely encounters the issue and one that has likely considered it. To me, capitalizing breed names containing proper names isn't a consistency issue, it's consistency. Thus, as to your last example, the latter, oh the latter, is much worse. Finally, in the words of Sherlock Holmes: "I never make exceptions. An exception disproves the rule." --Bsherr (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I started out with a bias towards capitalization. (Disclosure: I supported allowing the capitalization of the English names of species, and would support it again if it became an issue.) However, I've seen no arguments that convince me that breed names are different from the English names of species, and that issue has been decided. No-one has produced a clear definition of what constitutes a breed name, and some supporters of capitalization want to take a very wide view, including landraces, for example. If we were going to recommend sentences like "a bald eagle has been recorded as having killed a Rough Collie" or "the animals portrayed included a Red Setter and a red cardinal", there should be a very convincing case, and there just isn't. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support lowercase for general consistency with the WP:BIRDCAPS decision. --Izno (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Neutral / other

  • Neutral: I'm going remain on the fence about this, barring some amazing argument I've not see before.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

    Update: As of this writing, I see that the capitalization is more popular, among regular editors of breed articles, and people who frequently criticize MoS (two very different kinds of vested interest), but most of their rationales are fallacious. The few (so far) comments in favor of lower-case have no such problems, and are firmly grounded in policy and precedent. It's also not clear that we can even establish what "standardized breed" means in a clear enough way to make the capitalization case viable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Better arguments needed I'm generally neutral on this matter (I'd like to see more capitalization in the English Wikipedia, but consistently so); however, there are some weak arguments being put forward.
    • There is no grammatical difference between the scientific names of breeds and the scientific names of species. All the arguments at User:Peter coxhead/English species names as proper names apply equally if a breed name is substituted for an English species name. In particular, a determiner is required with the singular (I saw German Shepherd is wrong) and plurals are fine (I have three German Shepherds), so that a breed name is not a proper noun phrase and hence is not capitalized for that reason.
    • The MoS is generally against capitalization; there should be strong arguments as to why this is an exception. Merely trotting out arguments that equally apply but failed to support the capitalization of the English names of species, such as "it's ambiguous without the capitals", is not enough.
    • If the capitalization of breed names is accepted, then the MoS will be recommending sentences like "A bald eagle has been recorded as having killed a Rough Collie" or "The zoo has specimens of red cardinals and Red Setters". I have to say that these produce a "wtf" reaction in this reader – I can't claim to know what the typical reader would think.
    • The argument from prevalence in sources is more nuanced than sometimes claimed, especially if you discount specialist sources. There's a strong tendency to continue capitalization, so that breed names are more likely to be fully capitalized if the first word is (derived from) a capitalized name or location. Thus Google Ngrams clearly favour "German Shepherd" over "german shepherd" but they also favour "border collie" over "Border Collie", albeit less so. (The same effect is found for species names if you check the Ngrams for "bald eagle"/"Bald Eagle" and "American robin"/"American Robin".) My tests suggest that if the first word isn't capitalized, Ngrams generally favour lower case throughout. I'm also influenced by magazines like National Geographic which regularly discuss both wild and domesticated animals and use lower case for the English names of both (see e.g. [10] for dog breed names).
Peter coxhead (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Syntax is the main but not only reason to capitalize in English; simple convention is often enough if not confined to specialist writing (what MoS advises isn't universally followed in RS or we wouldn't actually need a style guide; e.g. "Aids" and "Nato" are common in the British press, journalists often write things like "Homo Sapiens" instead of of "Homo sapiens", units are very often given with wrong capping, like "DB" for "dB"). The question raised by this RfC boils down to whether there's enough of a convention with regard to standardized breeds, across multiple sorts of writing, and by way of analogy to other standards, to support it on WP. So your second point is very pertinent. After gathering and balancing the arguments at WP:BREEDCAPS, it seems to me a very open question (and, yes, many of the arguments are weak, but that applies to both sides). I addressed the "conflicting consistencies" problem in more detail below. We actually do have a pretty clear idea of reader reaction, because capitalizing species caused a constant stream of complaint, but capitalizing breeds does not (though that is hardly an actual reason to do it). And the fourth point is certainly true; over here I put together over 60 evidentiary links (including some new ones at the bottom showing that the "keep capitalizing if we started capital" effect only applies to breeds). They mostly support lower-casing but indicate a tendency to capitalize when uncertain, and show confusion even among alleged language authorities like The Chicago Manual of Style and a popular English-usage website.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral General comment, no skin in this game: The rationales concerning what is capitalised remain elusive to me, the name of One-horse Town is never queried because it indicates a title recognised by a government or has some … what, 'cultural' value? English texts have slowly moved away from capitals, and that has been generally adopted as an improvement and way of avoiding the select use of them (eg. libraries rigidly using sentence case for book titles), but wikipedia should play no part in changes to current styles in english English; the solution is to skirt suppressing or encouraging a trend away from capitalisation. Or go the whole hog and suppress its in any and every name to avoid the implicit pov. cygnis insignis 07:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Above, the Ngram is given supporting "German Shepherd" over "german shepherd", but this is not the correct comparison, since "German" is always capitalized anyway. The most popular is the mixed "German shepherd". [11]. For an example of a common breed where this confusion isn't happening, "fox terrier" beats "Fox Terrier" and "toy poodle" beats "Toy Poodle". On the other hand, "Chow Chow" beats "chow chow". A hard and fast rule overruling WP:COMMONNAME may not be best solution here, just go with the common name instead? Fram (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is not a style policy and has nothing to do with capitalization; never has. Even if that were to change, it would be completely unworkable, since it would result in breed A (a common and popular breed) being lowercase because it commonly shows up in non-breeder sources and in lower-case, but breed B (an obscure one) being uppercase for no reason other than it not being mentioned except in breeder-oriented publications, which always capitalize. Imagine the chaos. "Johnson has four dogs: a dachshund, a Hygenhund, a golden retriever, and a Cantabrian Water Dog." No, an across-the-board decision is exactly what we need here (other than of course to continue to capitalize proper names like "New Zealand" in a breed name).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended commentary

  • A case can be made that capitalizing breeds is a specialized-style fallacy, but as the primary author of that essay, I would disagree, because it's not sharply at odds with general English-language practice (writing "Gloucestershire Old Spot pigs" or "Doberman Pinscher" does not produce a "WTF?" reaction in the typical reader, while writing "Wild Boar" or "African Elephant" would – readers are already aware that usage is mixed, in everyday sources, with regard to breeds). While we default to lower-case when usage in RS is mixed, we make many exceptions to this (especially at MOS:NUM on units of measure), for cases where a particular upper-case usage is subject to published standards. But an exception being permissible doesn't make it mandatory. This comes down to a community cost-benefit analysis, which is why I've opened this RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    "run you mother run". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    [FBDB] That was a joking reference to this thread.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    But "my Red Setter chased a red cardinal" does produce a "wtf" reaction in me. You need to show that non-specialist sources that regularly discuss both wild and domesticated animals have a different capitalization style for breed names and the English names of species (and also for standardized and non-standardized breeds). Peter coxhead (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    That sort of thing is always going to happen in English (versus in German, which capitalizes all nouns and noun phrases simply because they're "nouny"). Being neutral on this, I don't have to show anything; but supporters of the caps should do so. There's already a repeatedly, deeply tested consensus at MOS:LIFE against capitalizing groups of animals, but a quiet "we're not sure about this one category" hole was left open primarily to not dive immediately into an ugly fight right after BIRDCON when emotions were still running high. Four years is long enough to cool. Personally, I'll be perfectly happy with lower-case if things swing that way. It would be easier in some senses and harder in others. But anyway, in style matters there are always conflicting rationales, conflicting uses from different excessively topical writing, and even conflicting consistencies that are orthogonal to each other (e.g. capitalize cultivars to be consistent with genus and grex, at the cost of consistency with more familiar names like "broccoli" and "Brussels sprouts"). "Can't please everyone, especially in English" should be a real saying. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 , 01:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    Well, on your last point we can certainly agree! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Please try to stay on-topic when commenting here. No one ever suggested anything like lower-casing "german". And trying to leverage or misread the very circumscribed RfC question into a case for over-capitalizing everything anyone ever uses the word "breed" about, is never going to fly. The fact that horse, cat, etc., fanciers and breeders like to capitalize all those not-really-breeds clusters of animals (ferals, landraces, cross-breeds with no recognition as new breeds in their own right, etc) is immaterial. Other sources generally do not, while their treatment of standardized breeds is much more mixed. The same fanciers and breeders also like to capitalize coat colors, eye colors, head shapes, breed clusters, training regimens, breed-development intents ("Beef Cattle", "Herding and Livestock-Guardian Dogs", "Ships' Cats"), and everything else to do with their hobby or livelihood. This is the very essence of the specialized-style fallacy, and is covered, guideline-wise, in the first rule of MOS:CAPS: do not misuse capital letters to emphasize, signify, or highlight in "grocers' capitalization" style. All of those not-really-breeds are already covered by MOS:LIFE, on purpose (and unmistakably, by the selection of terms and breadth of examples given). The only thing it leaves out, pending a discussion like this, is standardized breeds.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

    • What I just don't see is a clear definition of "standardized breeds" that can be used by editors with a wide range of experience and that will not cause nit-picking arguments about what bodies count as being able to standardize. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      Would depend on what the claims are, and what the sourcing for them amounts to.
      • For a breed being developed from a semi-consistent, and somewhat or entirely free-breeding population, like a landrace or a feral group, publication of any breed standard (or studbook, see below) under a unique name should actually be sufficient to capitalize that name.
        • Without evidence of such establishment, the claim that it's a beed is WP:OR. The recent WP:Articles for deletion/Double-nosed Andean tiger hound (which was created at a more capitalized title), concluded that this is basically a cryptid, there's no credible evidence of breed establishment, and that the article should be trimmed and merged into something on bifid noses in dogs (merge hasn't happened yet, though is under discussion at WT:DOGS).
      • Same goes for attempts to establish breeds from new mutations (e.g. a short-legged cattle variety or whatever, though this sort of breeding is more common in pets). As this is just a capitalization question, the notability/reputability of the breeders isn't really an issue. E.g. everything at List of experimental cat breeds is capitalized, though the entire page may not really be encyclopedic (we don't have a corresponding list for horses, geese, rabbits, goats, or anything else, and we probably would not have "List of garage bands in Singapore" to retain non-notable entries, either).
        • If it's just four guys with 15 pigs, the alleged breed would fail WP:Notability and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE, so WP wouldn't cover it anyway (WP:NFT summarizes this).
        • Given a notable feral/landrace population, and a handful of breeders who didn't even bother to change the name when they attempted to purebreed a standardized breed out of them for fixed characteristics, our article would still be about the notable feral population. We might write "Southwestern desert pigs are a population of feral pigs in [Where ever] ...", retaining that style throughout, except somewhere in a section below (or maybe even in the lead), include something like "A small group of breeders in [Where ever] and [Where ever else] are, since 2008, attempting to establish a standardized breed, named Southwestern Desert Pig, from the feral population." – if we thought it necessary to mention the standardization effort in the first place (how much weight does it have in the RS?), and mention what its name is.
        • This is the approach already taken at our articles in such cases. Four examples I can think of off the top of my head: Kiger mustang (with two competing breed-establishment efforts under different names); Cyprus cat; Aegean cat (doesn't mention any breed name – we don't seem to have any RS on what name the breeders are using for it anyway, which would probably be in Greek and need to be translated); and Van cat, just going by recent memory. A fifth is Iron Age pig, being RMed to boar–pig hybrid, because the alleged breed being developed from them under the "Iron Age pig" name is not the main subject of the article but UNDUE promotion by one cluster of intentional breeders in the lead section (such pigs as ferals are a major agricultural and environmental problem in North America and Australia, and that's the encyclopedic topic).
      • Crossbreeds should remain lower-case unless a notable breed registry accepts them as the establishment of a new breed. That's a WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOT#PROMO matter; any time a breeder produces an interesting-looking mongrel they have an incentive to slap a cute name on it for marking purposes, but RS still tell us these are crossbreeds not breeds. Most new breeds that major organizations accept, with sufficient proof of long-term true-breeding of characteristics and a lack of recent outcrossing, originated as crossbreeds of course, but it's a lengthy process (often decades). RS tell us when that process has been completed. For crossbreeds it is more than a typographic matter.
        • We also have a tertiary sourcing problem, where various breed encyclopedias are indiscriminately over-inclusive and try to include every single group of animals they can find a name for as a "breed" without any distinction (the larger the work is, the more comprehensive it looks to buyers). Similarly, the DAD-IS database accepts and uncritically republishes every "breed"-related claim submitted to it by any government or national organization, and thus includes erroneous data. E.g., if there's a common landrace of cattle in Elbonia, the Elbonian agriculture ministry may put the name "Great Elbonian cattle" on it (whether people there and any independent sources have ever used such a name) and claim it's a breed (and may be seeking protected designation of origin status for products made from it, etc. – this stuff may be a mixture of economic concerns, national pride, etc.). The exact same animals across the border in Kerblachistan may get reported to DAD-IS as "Kerblachian Blacheaded cattle" and also be claimed to be a breed, and DAD-IS will report them as separate breeds, without any indication that they're the same animals and are just free-breeding landrace livestock in herds no one is performing much selective breeding on, but simply trying to have enough cows to survive. Tertiary sourcing isn't sufficient to establish analytic, evaluative, or interpretative claims, nor to establish notability, yet we have numerous articles, including content forks for different names for the same animals, which were written in a wave in the 2000s, apparently in an attempt to replicate DAD-IS in Wikipedia, with no sourcing other than DAD-IS, primary (marketing) sources, and iffy breed encyclopedias (at least one of which is known to take paid entries, i.e. advertising).
      Some attempts to address issues like this were drafted at WP:Notability (breeds); while it stalled a while back and hasn't gone through a WP:PROPOSAL process, it was put together by regulars in the topic area, and seems to accurately reflect WP best practices on the topic. I've also summarized, mostly for new editors, how our WP:P&G apply to this topic, at WP:Writing about breeds. (It presumes standardized breeds should be capitalized, since that's the current majority practice here, though of course would have its wording changed if this RfC went the other direction.)
       — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

On standardized breeds. I have some experience with cattle, horses, dogs and cats in respect to the subject. I have followed the links associated with this and find them to be unhelpful in resolving the question of what a standardised breed is. "Breed standards" are used in the context of showing dogs and cats, where show placings are determined by point scoring against a breed standard or "ideal". There are various national showing associations (ie by country) but in some cases, there may be more than one national association for a species. There are then, individual breed associations. For dogs, there are also working dog associations which do not use breed standards but rely on performance. The H|huntaway is an example of a registered breed for which there is not a breed standard. Cattle and horses do not (in my experience) use breed standards - or certainly not in the same way as dogs and cats. Cattle are judged pragmatically - and without reference to individual breed standards, though they may be judged against others of the same breed. They are judged on the basis of purpose. Led horses are judged on fitness for a particular task, which is a matter of conformation. These are not, in my observation, the same as breed standards for dogs and cats, which are about "form" and have essentially nothing to do with "function". My experience is that the distinguishing feature of a breed is the maintenance of a stud registry. I am not certain how this might apply to other "breeds" of other species (specifically birds) which are outside my experience. I suggest this issue might need to be addressed/clarified for this to be a workable proposal. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

A stud registry for these purposes would count as a breed standard. Selection for meatiness, ability to do work, wool production, etc., is still regularized artificial selection for true-breeding characteristics, just different ones than the kind pet breeders care about. Kind of self-enforcing; farmers don't want crappy, low-value livestock no one wants to buy or use as breeding stock, and which produce insufficient or inferior product. Something selected, without regard to ancestry, based on performance under training or the intent to which the animal would be put to use isn't a breed of any kind, but a type, e.g. sled dog, draught horse. Anyway, lots of livestock breeds do in fact have breed standards in the more usual sense (standards of points, conformation standards). Here's one for the American Quarter Horse [12]. Because vastly more money is involved, and commercial predictability and homogeneity of livestock traits is important, breeders are also taking a cue from the development of laboratory strains, and have started issuing genetic standards, which would also qualify as breed standards (the most stringent kind); here's one for Holstein cattle [13].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
If a breed standard is the criterion, we would have "huntaway" but by the national stud registary we would have "Huntaway". Note, (if I have this right) unregistered champion dogs can be added to the registry? IMO, providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the criterion|a to establish the basis for capitalisation (and exception to the general guidance of MOS:CAPS) is pretty important. I think it would be appropriate to amend to both criteria or to foreshadow it. It is also probably appropriate to make the amended guideline explicit wrt capitalising the species (eg pig) or type (eg terrier) unless these are specifically part of the breed name as documented. This is touched upon in the opening discussion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Huntaway cites a breed standard [update: it doesn't actually, just extremely basic description; see new note below]. But I get your point; there will be livestock breeds for which there's a studbook registry organization, but no conformation standard; we should treat them as equivalent for this question. Really, the whole point is if there's reasonable evidence it's an actual breed, in an encyclopedically meaningful sense and within reader expectations of what that word means, then capitalize it (if we continue with the caps at all), but otherwise use lower case per MOS:LIFE and MOS:CAPS more generally. If it's just some local landrace, or dogs mentioned in 1329, or some random yahoo's crossbreed of a German Shepherd and a Great Dane [the awkwardness of "great Dane" indicates one of the reasons some people lean toward caps on this], then it's not a breed, and nothing like a proper name in any sense that WP should care about. It's not a matter of "capitalize breeds, and define that loosely", but of "do not capitalize groups of animals, our long-extant rule, but perhaps make a very narrow exception for standardized breeds, because we're already doing it." I don't mean even that various articles not substantively edited for years and full of over-capitalization of all sorts of things are doing it; I mean that 4+ years of RM decisions have consistently done it (and not done it for things that are not such breeds, but are feral populations, crossbreeds, etc.). Whether to capitalize the species at the end is already de facto settled, exactly as you describe, so if MOS:LIFE had a breeds exception that would be included. PS: The people (two editors that I know of) who want to capitalize everything anyone ever calls a breed are weirdly also very insistent on whether or not to capitalize something like "dog" or "horse" at the end. They're all about very strictly following the exact wording of the breed standards when it suits their preferences, then flipping around and denying that breed standards matter at all to the capitalization question when they want to over-capitalize something like mustang or Van cat (named after Lake Van, not vans in the driving around sense).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC); updated: 10:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

New note: On huntaway dogs, a more detailed page here (British) suggests some additional average traits, but specifically states "Huntaways are not recognised by kennel clubs as a 'true' breed, but as only working dogs". But then it also contradicts itself, with statements like "The Huntaway breed is about 100 years old." Digging around further, one finds that this is just a general class of sheepdogs from New Zealand; it is primarily a training regimen, not a breeding programme. However, the British club are clearly trying to develop a standardized breed, in England, from NZ dogs of this sort, and are basing these efforts on the standardisation of the Border Collie (a recognizable general landrace since the mid-19th c. after standardisation of the Smooth and Rough Collie breeds, but itself only standardized as a breed in the 20th c.). So, for now, huntaways are a mongrel dog type (albeit of insularly limited stock) raised and trained for a particular purpose, not a breed (i.e., it's like "police dog" and "draught horse"), but there's a British group trying to turn them into a breed, which no major kennel club yet recognizes, and (WP:NOT#CRYSTAL) maybe never will. Hat-tip to Cinderella157 for pointing out the "not recognised by kennel clubs" point). Even the recognition it has in the NZKC is as a working dog type which can be registered for dog trial competition (a training test), not as a breed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Clarification - dogs winning trials are admitted to a register (stud book as I understand it). My reading re NZKC is that it is a "recognised" breed but without a "breed standard". Hence my point that maintenance of a studbook or breed register by a national association may be more definative of a breed than a "breed standard" in many or most situations. This is certainly true of livestock, cats and dogs but may not be true of breeds in others species, such as poultry. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
There's more than one reason to maintain a studbook, though, so we'd have to use clearer language. One is breed maintenance, another is the hopefully heritable performance traits of a specific award-winning animal. Both are also done in horse breeding and various other spheres. There are studbooks for the continuity of a specific horse breeds, and for the (often very high-priced) privilege of siring new foals from a consistent race-winner. I'd be willing to grant benefit of the doubt to [h|H]untaway, since NZKC doesn't have a separate section for breeds and non-breeds, and the UK group is trying to establish a standardized breed, but it's an iffy case and this borders on original research (specifically, making WP:AEIS decisions based on nothing but personal interpretation of a primary source). If all that's at stake is whether to capitalize the name or not, it's not a big deal, but the article should not claim this is actually a breed without more evidence. What we have so far is classification of them as working dogs permitted for competition in training, not conformation, shows; and a different group on the other side of the world from where the dogs originated who are attempting to establish a breed but admitting that no major organizations accept it as one yet, which is rather damning on the breed question from an encyclopedic perspective. Especially so if one considers the nature and history of British (and American, and Canadian, and – going in the reverse geographical direction – Australian and New Zealander) breed establishment efforts: they frequently use extremely limited foundation stock, sometimes cross-bred, and produce something markedly different from the local population from which [most of] that stock was taken.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
The length and detail of this discussion simply confirms my view that there's no clear definition available as yet of what would count as a standardized breed for the purposes of capitalizing, so adopting this proposal would be a recipe for confusion and edit-warring. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • My take is that this was an itch that didn't need to be scratched. My take is trying to eliminate capitalization of breed names is going to lead to endless editing wars. Assorted style guides intended for general audiences will always be a problem where there is technical language, and specialist style does, in fact, actually have a place. Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, aside from the question being indefinitely open having the effect of keeping MOS:ORGANISMS in perpetual draft state, the last time we had an "unofficial maybe-exception" anywhere near this sphere, it led to the worst WP:DRAMA outbreak I've ever seen on WP aside from crazily heated topic areas like Israel–Palestine. If we're to make an exception to MOS:LIFE it should be codified (and within bounds pretty much everyone will accept, namely the de facto ones we already mostly use). Otherwise someone will eventually just undo it. The WP:BIRDCON "RfC of doom" happened because someone opened a WP:RM about one bird article, and the RM closed in favor of lower-case, not finding any rule that would say otherwise, and finding that usage in RS was mixed. Exactly the same scenario. The WP:MR that followed that didn't find any fault with the RM's consensus assessment and closure, so the RM was endorsed. No MoS people were involved at all at that point. Someone from WP:BIRDS immediately opened a third discussion about it, at WT:MOS, I put an RfC tag on it to draw in more eyes and brains and get a better consensus record, and a month later we decapitalized all the vernacular names of species, and various editors quit in a huff. Having three consensus debates about it back-to-back put everyone on edge, digging trenches, and even resorting to meat puppetry in one case. It turned into a WP:WINNING contest. I don't want to see anything like that happen again. We should just decide there is an upper-casing exception or there isn't one, and write it down clearly, either way. Not leave a presumptive exception that's not specified and which anyone can challenge as illusory. The only thing in favor of caps right now, on the policy-arguments side, is that MOS:LIFE doesn't specifically mention breeds in its list of examples of not capitalizing groups of animals (which isn't much in the face of a general rule to not capitalize groups of animals, and another general rule to use lower-case when sources' usage is mixed).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Montanabw: where there is technical language ... specialist style does, in fact, actually have a place – I agree with my reformulation of your point, but the crucial issue is what is, and is not, "technical language". As an example, the MoS is clear that the scientific names of organisms should be written in the style required by specialist sources (e.g. capitalized down to the level of genus). Scientific names are clearly technical language, and reliable generalist sources accept this. There are other clear examples, e.g. how SI units should be written.
      Having started out with a relatively open mind (actually with a bias towards capitalization), I have become convinced that this argument does not apply to breeds. No-one can produce a clear, workable definition of what constitutes a breed; there is no convincing evidence that reliable generalist sources consistently treat the naming of breeds as technical language. I hesitate to keep referring to one particular publication, but the National Geographic is very relevant, I think: it's somewhat specialized, but not overly so. It treats the scientific names of organisms as technical language, but not the names of breeds. On the basis of the discussion to date, and given the previous rejection of arguments for capitalization in the case of the English names of species, I conclude we should not capitalize breed names. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2018 (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.

Some clarification

QEDK, I have rolled back you edits to the MOS, just to seek some clarification of the in respect to these. More to follow. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Although I don't contest it, the correct course of action is to open another RfC and modify/remove it using that consensus (if any). I'm open to answering clarifications ofc, although you haven't asked anything yet. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 12:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not dispute your close here, but suggest that there might be some further clarification - particularly where you say: "general consensus is to retain the current standard of capitalization". The proposer has shown that this is "mixed"? Consequently, this statement is possibly not as helpful as you intended? Your edits to the MOS are less equivocal and perhaps, better reflect your intent? I* quote (following) the text at MOS after your edits [less notes]. I have added underlines for reference.

English vernacular ("common") names are given in lower case in article prose (plains zebra, mountain maple, and southwestern red-tailed hawk) and in sentence case at the start of sentences and in other places where the first letter of the first word is capitalized. They are additionally capitalized where they contain proper names: Przewalski's horse, California condor, and fair-maid-of-France. This applies to species and subspecies, as in the previous examples, as well as to general names for groups or types of organism: bird of prey, oak, great apes, Bryde's whales, mountain dog, poodle, Van cat, wolfdog. When the common name coincides with a scientific taxon, do not capitalize or italicize, except where addressing the organism taxonomically: A lynx is any of the four species within the Lynx genus of medium-sized wild cats. Non-English vernacular names, when relevant to include, are handled like any other foreign-language terms: italicized as such, and capitalized only if the rules of the native language require it. Non-English names that have become English-assimilated are treated as English (ayahuasca, okapi). Standardized breeds should generally retain their capitalization wherever possible. This means German Shepherd dog is the correct way to mention the breed, and not German shepherd dog. This applies whether or not the included noun is a proper noun, in contrast to how vernacular names are titled; making Golden Retriever is the correct way to name the breed, with both the words Golden and Retriever capitalized.

Please consider the following:

  • There is an inconsistency with existing text per poodle. A minor issue.
  • Per "generally" - what does that mean or imply?
  • A link is made to Standardized breeds. Within the linked article, there is a further link to Breed standard. Neither of these are "authoritative" articles and the former is tagged. Even the article proper noun is regularly ignored in capitalisation discussions (I can provide details).
  • The OPs intent was to resolve conflict rather than create further conflict. The RfC raised legitimate questions as to what constituted a "standard breed". This is the quintessential question. If the close cannot conclude what the answer is, then it should acknowledge the need to address this further?
  • How do you "define" the "general consensus"? The purpose of the RfC was to define this. The OP has attempted to define the general consensus as a "standardised" breed. Is there a consensus as to what a "standardised breed" is? What is it?
  • The ISA Brown is an example of a commercial but "non-standardised" breed. In this age, any breeder can register and incorporate a breed society and "establish" a "breed standard". The devil is in the detail as to what constitutes a "breed standard" or even if this constitutes a "breed" - across the range of species in which there are "breeds".
  • The essential question is the criteria for what constitutes a "standardised breed" within the context of WP:MOS. Unless this can be defined, the issue of capitalising breeds within WP remains open. Consequently, any attempt to give guidance on this matter will create conflict rather than resolve it.
  • To the final comment in closing the RfC: Policy is dictated by the community, not the other way around and general consensus is to retain the current standard of capitalization. I would observe that the MOS is a guideline (in the first instance) and that policy is also dictated by law (and not just the community).

To conclude, I do not dispute the close. However, the close (as written) does not appear to support the edits made to the MOS nor do those edits appear "watertight" in respect to further conflict and the purpose of the RfC. Please reconcile the changes to the MOS and the close of the RfC by way of more detail. Alternatively, provide guidance in closing the RfC that is both indicative of what the MOS should reflect in consequence of the RfC and how (or what) is required to an achieve an amendment to the MOS. I respect that your edits to the MOS are a step to achieving consensus on the matter. Your conclusions as closer on informing the matter may be [more than] constructive. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Given those responses, I would challenge the close. --Izno (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I will be responding in order to make life a bit easier for all of us (ending with a short monologue maybe):
  1. Inconsistencies will always exist within any guideline, the consensus that emerged was merely a generalization and if there was a "watertight" formulation amongst the supporters of either proposal, I would definitely document it. Just to clarify with respect to poodle, in my analysis of consensus, it would be that if it referred to the particular breed, it's be capitalized and if the "poodle" group of dogs, then not.
  2. I added "generally" simply because of the inconsistencies that could occur, there's possibilities that might not have been considered yet as well. MOS is a guideline and should be treated as such.
  3. Unfortunately, there isn't, but that is the closest documenation to anything that's there. We have the option of not linking to anything and leaving readers guess as what standardized breeds could be referring to.
  4. The RfC did not address with a proper consensus what a standardized breed is. And while the question was raised, the main crux of this RfC was to set a guideline on capitalization and not to address what standardized breeds are. The ideal way would be a RfC that first defined what we regard as standardized breeds and then to decide on any capitalization policy in a different RfC but considering we had one for the latter, it should be left to discretion as to what constitutes standardized breeds, considering if there are status quo standards in place, it's not difficult to move on to anything else.
  5. Another quick note that the primary subject of the RfC at hand is not what you say it is. The work of a closer is to assess consensus presented, there is not enough consensus here regarding any definition of a "standardized" breed and is hence, not documented.
  6. The essential question should either have been arrived to in consensus in a RfC previous or this one, neither of the situations occured. The only general consensus was to have standardized breeds capitalized and as such, that should be addressed in a new RfC.
I hope that does answer all your questions. Consensus is always mixed, the work of the closer is to assess it to give a verdict and the consensus here was clearly leaning towards retaining the current guideline of capitalization. I don't have any viewpoint on this as to what I would push my agenda for. I edited the MOS in a manner that, in my opinion, best reflected the consensus in the RfC. And as Peter coxhead has said on his TP, removing the MOS is technically challenging the close. I would not mind further deliberation as to what should be reconstituted in the new MOS but then I'd like my close to be removed as well (since it is not my close technically) and any editor challenging the close is requested to revert my close here as well the next time. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 21:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you QEDK. Your response fleshes out what was otherwise a very brief closing statement and makes the basis for your edit to MOS clearer. What you are saying is that the job is half done. We know that we should capitalise something but not exactly what it is that we should be capitalising? They were poodle breeders, having: Toy Poodles, Miniature Poodles and Standard Poodles. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe you have summarised the situation, sort of. The implication of my close is that it has to be the editors' discretion where exactly the guideline is to be applied, I'll try to modify my closing statement at a later date when better network resources are available. So either you can let this be as it is or if you desire, open another RfC to determine what exactly are standardized breeds. And as for your example statement, this is indeed how the current MOS guideline states it as. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 14:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Biography Page

Just wondering why you eliminated the birthdays and death days of prominent people from the new look of the Biography page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kchriste101 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you please link the page in question by putting its title in double square brackets, i.e. [[page title]], so we know what this is about. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Authority Control RfC - closed

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.

Per request at WP:RFCL, I have closed the recent RfC regarding the Authority Control template. Since the RfC was archived before closure, I'm posting the result below.


Should the authority control template link to websites that are not primarily databases (i.e. websites where the primary content is not a database structure)?

There is consensus against expanding the authority control template to include links to non-databases.


I'll note that I also closed the (moot) sub-questions in the interest of recording the result, so that if consensus changes in the future the views expressed can be taken into account. This was a (non-admin closure). --DannyS712 (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the evaluation and close. Here is the link.
I also posted notice on the talk page for the template at Template_talk:Authority_control#Close_of_RfC. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2019 (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.

Wikipedia's identity verification process

English Wikipedia and elsewhere in Wikimedia projects there are various processes by means of which the wiki attempts to match a Wikimedia user account with some other off-wiki identity.

I am collecting whatever practices, guidelines, or essays exist on wiki processes for examining off-wiki identity. If anyone has something then please share at

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Mind you don't inadvertently create a guide for outing users. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Ivanvector: Wikipedia:Identity verification might carry a risk of harm. I am not sure. Everything seems okay and I am not aware of a problem, except that I drafted this to relieve uncertainty. All the practices around identity verification are sensitive and I do not know the risks. I am not trying to create any new processes, but rather only document what already happens. I have no particular opinion on the current processes except that we should document their basics somewhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Right on. "Security through obscurity" is generally a terrible idea, and the community cannot fully assess all of these things if we don't even know which ones exist, why, how they work, who uses them, how they could be abused, and how such concerns could be mitigated by technical or policy solutions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Bluerasberry I presume you are aware of Template:Verified account? Basically, you send me anything that verifies you are who you say you are, and I plaster a template on your user page. I've had people send in driver's licenses, passports, pretty much anything as long as it's not available elsewhere online. GMGtalk 19:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I often wonder how qualified OTRS people are in validating pictures of various government-issued documents and associating them with accounts. Training much? -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
      • In the sense of a formalized training process? I don't believe there is any such thing. Pretty much just do as common sense dictates. Normally I would do a reverse image search of the scan to make sure it isn't obviously pulled from online, same as you would do for a suspect image uploaded on Commons, then do a cropped reverse image search of just the photograph, to make sure it isn't a composite image. Then do a general image search of the individual to verify that the image matches, and a general image search of the appearance of the document itself to ensure that, for example, it matches the format for currently issued California state drivers licenses. Often you can also find publicly available documentation of addresses online.
      • Whether that is the normal process that all agents routinely do, I don't believe there's any way to even tell. The OTRS software is famously badly designed. If someone is not familiar with the process of detecting copyright violations on Commons, they may not do any of those things. GMGtalk 19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
        I agree with GMG about lack of existing OTRS process documentation. The current system seems to be working, so from that perspective, I think we are fine to take our time in building out that documentation. If nothing changes for more years then I suppose that is fine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Like how Reddit has bans specific only to subreddits, why doesn't Wikipedia have mini-blocks specific only to specific articles?

Like, if someone engages in an edit war in one article, but edits like a model contributor everywhere else, they shouldn't suffer a site-wide block.

They only need to be blocked from the one article that they edit-war on.

Otherwise, their new, valuable contributions to other articles don't get to be made because the block is site-wide.

So why shouldn't Wikipedia adopt the Reddit model of blocking by giving editors article-blocks for specific articles where they have problems in, like how Redditors are given bans for specific subreddits? --172.124.128.102 (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That's what topic bans are for, which could be for individual articles if necessary - of course, topic bans are enforced by admins rather than software.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is that this sort of tool is coming soon. See this page on meta. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The would make it so some range blocks are far less likely to cause collateral damage. And namespace blocks could have some real advantages. Is anyone working on a policy for applying partial blocks, or is it too soon? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Several weeks ago, I had something typed up, but I ended up reverting it shortly after I submitted because I think it's too soon. Maybe it's time... Mz7 (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon We do not even know how the partial blocks would work so we cannot really work on a policy yet until we know more about it but i would guess topic banned users or users disrupted on some articles or topics but not all articles or topics might have partial blocks Abote2 (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

In the interim we have topic-bans, the violation of which will lead to a regular block, so the need is not urgent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
And if we really want to do this programmatically, we already have the capability to do this using the WP:EDITFILTER. But the current soft methods work pretty well; if an editor won't abide by a topic ban, they are acting disruptively, and that's blockable. -- The Anome (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Blanking and active block messages

WP:BLANKING does not prevent users from removing block notification templates. However, in the case of IP editors, the block notice is likely helpful to later users of a given dynamic IP. I have further seen examples of such blanking being reverted, or even the editor in question having TPA access revoked as a consequence. I'm wondering if it's time to add block notices to blanking policy, in the case of IP editors. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

See also this brief discussion from yesterday. GMGtalk 19:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Could someone please explain to me what purpose a rule preventing removal of block notices serves? It doesn't help the logged-in user -- they have to see it to delete it. It doesn't help the IP user -- they see a notice when they try to edit. -Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd support changing the policy to explicitly ban removing active block notices. They serve as a notification to other people coming to the talk page to raise concerns that action has already been taken, and consequently in my opinion removing them is actively disruptive even if technically allowed by the letter of the law. ‑ Iridescent 19:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Isn't the big pink "This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:" box when you edit the page notification enough for the bystanders? (Aside: I've never really understood the point of block notices anyway. They don't have anything that wouldn't be better placed in either the block log comment or in MediaWiki:Blockedtext.) —Cryptic 19:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
No, as you don't see that until after you've decided to comment on the page, by which time (if you're doing your job right) then provided the situation isn't absolutely clear cut you've already spent considerable time considering how you're going to approach this, what the alternatives to blocking are, and whether you're the best person to comment. Plus, the pink box is only visible to editors using the desktop site (I just double-checked—try it for yourself), which already accounts for fewer than 50% of our editors and that proportion continues to fall steadily. ‑ Iridescent 21:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm one of those dinosaurs who accesses Wikipedia from a desktop, so I don't know what effect this has on mobile users, but must point out that the vast, vast (and even vaster) majority of people who read Wikipedia without being logged in don't make any attempt to edit it. Should such people get a "you have messages" link in yellow just because someone who used their IP address previously was subject to a block? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think leaving notifications of previous blocks can in fact be helpful in certain situations, such as school blocks, but I don't believe we need yet another rule™ for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. All users are invited to express their views and to add new topics for discussion. (To keep discussion in one place, please don't reply to this comment.) Jc86035 (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC on WP:PORNBIO

Hi, there is an ongoing RFC on whether to scrap the pornbio notability guideline (SNG), that is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Link: WT:BIO#Request for comment regarding PORNBIO --DannyS712 (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Notability of theatrical plays

NAC: Unfortunately, I have to conclude that there is No Consensus on whether to adopt this guideline. I am uninvolved with this, and I agree with User:Coastside as to needing guidelines and even ipso facto notability criteria, but the community is divided. Suggest a rewording and more publicity. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2019 (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.

  Bumping thread for 15 days. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Un-bumping thread, discussion is closed --DannyS712 (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This draft offers, in my view, a legitimate set of criteria for the notability of theatrical plays. -The Gnome (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Support

  • Support per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia needs more guidance on notability. This is helpful. Coastside (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I am supporting this as part of a paradigm shift to judge notability on the basis of having a large amount of structured data versus the traditional GNG standard of expecting to see citations to traditional reliable sources. The trend that I am perceiving is that the quality of information in databases is better, and in the case of plays, we can access information about directors, venues, actors, length of run, and local reviews often without having access to reliable sources which establish GNG. English Wikipedia currently judges information from databases generally unreliable. I still respect Wikipedia's reliable source definition, but increasingly, reliable sources means human-written content which may be of low quality whereas database information is machine-arranged information from some authority but which does not meet WP:RS. To me, Gnom's draft appears to be a check of whether we have the data which would complete the Wikidata modeling of a play and even go beyond that to check that related entities - like the theatre house, director, and actors - also have good verified data around them. What I am imagining in this scheme is that we have the infobox for a play completed and referenced to a reliable database, and then perhaps without citations someone summarizes the plot of a play. In such an article there might be no WP:RS cited and WP:GNG met, but to me, such an article would be higher quality than an article about a play which lacked that data but which cited 3 critical reviews to pass GNG. Now might not be the time to approve this because English Wikipedia is still forming its policy on its relationship with data, but I do think that this proposal will seem much stronger when we know how much we can trust databases like Internet Broadway Database. If this fails, I would join anyone in exploring the development of a policy on the reliability of information from databases. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. This is well done, potentially useful, and not in conflict in any way with how we assess notability of such articles. What the oppose people below seem to be missing is that SNGs (with one or two controversial would-be exceptions) are not alternatives to GNG; they are not in competition with WP:N. Their purpose is predictive: they explain in topically specific terms what kinds of articles in that category are likely to pass or fail our overall notability examinations, and why. They're not rulebooks, they're tools for helping (mostly new-ish) editors select appropriate topics and write them up in an encyclopedic manner. We actually need more of these. Should this fail to be elevated to a guideline in this proposal motion, it should be made a wikiproject advice essay and kept at WP:WikiProject Theatre/Notability or whatever. If it is referred to frequently enough – because people find the arguments in it compelling, as with any other essay we use a lot, not because it's being "cited" as a "rule" – then it'll likely become a guideline later. Or it simply won't matter that it doesn't have a guideline tag on it. It won't be the only such page. (Hell, some of our most cherished deletion-related material has {{Essay}} on it: WP:AADD, and what it says is considered actionable in deletion debates; it is effectively a guideline. Similarly, some guidelines effectively have the force of policies, like WP:MEDRS, WP:BRD, WP:ROPE, and WP:CIR – WP and its admins and processes act on their community-acceptance authority with firm force.) Lots of wikiprojects have notability, style, naming-convention, and other pages in this boat. Remember WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. Consensus is what the editorial pool does in the aggregate over time, not what banners it puts on the tops of pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with SMcCandlish's views on the purpose of SNGs. For those concerned with the narrow scope, perhaps envision not just strictly plays but also musicals, operas, any written performed theatrical work. This proposed guideline works for them all. --Bsherr (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support As with Blue, I think it's a good idea to use something other than the GNG in this area. In major theatrical centers essentially everything that opens gets reviewed,thoughfor some material it can be difficult to find, so it doesn't serve as a discriminating factor for notability , but rather for the diligence and access to sources of the contributor. The most satisfactory of the SNGs are the ones that are alternatives--GEOLAND and PROF, and the inclusion of all biological species the charting sections of music. (I'm omitting sports here, because the appropriate levels are always under some degree of dispute) These are ones that can permit us to build content, not argue about nuances of sourcing. All that is necessary in fact to harmonize the others with the SNG is to interpret "presumptive" in the way it means in law--it holds unless there is actual convincing evidence otherwise. It is very rare that a search for sources in most fields is sufficient comprehensive as to really be convincing evidence that none exist. Iyt can be done, and I have seen some afds in restricted fields where it actually is done, but but for most topics nobody has access to all the possible resources. Thus, all we can do is predict. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Why? Is there some perceived need for an SNG specific to plays? --Izno (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    The benefits of having one are the same for having in place one for films. -The Gnome (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    Which are? --Izno (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    On the basis of the strengthening of WP:5P1 and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as well as more and more people turning to Wikipedia "to keep up with the popular culture moments happening around them" (link), Wikipedia has been tightening up on its inclusion criteria. Consequently, subject-specific guidelines for notability have been increasing in number at the rate of approximately one every year. This is a welcome trend as the increasing size of the AfD process indicates. Do you object to having WP:NFILM in place? -The Gnome (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    P.S. Discussions at the pump tend to get unwieldy, as it is, so we should strive for clarity whenever we can. You can !vote to oppose the suggestion in the Oppose section and ask questions at the Discussion section. Wouldn't this be more practical and clear, also for readers? - The Gnome (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    WP:OTHERSTUFF about the FILM question. Please answer my question directly. What is the benefit of Yet Another SNG? If the play is notable, it should be able to meet the WP:GNG. Are there plays which do not which we should cover? Conversely, are there plays we cover that we should not? SNGs, if they are employed, should cover those two cases. I doubt this one does, especially since it was initially drafted in 2011. 8 years is a long time on Wikipedia.
    Please consider reviewing WP:LISTGAP regarding the indenting you changed.
    I'll ignore your comment on discussions. It's my choice to have this discussion under the oppose section since I currently and will continue to oppose until I get some good answers. If you would like to reply in #Discussion, that is your prerogative. --Izno (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I suggested placing this discussion in the, well, Discussion section since this is why we have such sections: to have discussions separately from !votes. It simply makes for better navigation. That's all. Of course, it's your prerogative to post anywhere you feel like. And I asked if you oppose the existence of WP:NFILM. You responded by invoking WP:OSE, which can only mean that you consider WP:NFILM to be "stuff" that "already exists" and "probably should not." Interesting. -The Gnome (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I don’t know where I'll land on this question but this discussion feels like this is really a case of some stuff exists for a reason which not so coincidentally resides at OTHERSTUFF. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, Barkeep49. Izno above asked 'Why?' and I pointed out WP:NFILM strictly as a kind of short hand (similar justification). I then provided a fuller explanation for my proposal without using at all the existence of a precedent as justification. Hope this is clearer now. -The Gnome (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as instruction creep and unneeded bureaucracy as GNG is enough. There are not enough play articles being written to need an SNG in comparison to the far greater number of film articles, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, Atlantic306. The relative dearth of Wikipedia articles on theatrical plays could actually be a shortcoming of our encyclopaedia. -The Gnome (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for multiple reasons. Firstly, I just don't think it is needed. Secondly I believe the guidelines are too limiting - "The play has been produced by a notable theatre company or producing theatre and enjoyed a long and successful run in one or more major venues." A long run should not be a determination of notability. Equally, a play which opens on Broadway and closes within a week would also be notable. Or a play which plays at the Royal Court/Young Vic/National Dofrman would be considered notable despite being limited runs. Mark E (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, Mark E. If you disagree with the language of the specific, currently extant draft, it can, of course, be amended, through a process of suggestions and discussions. If there could be an SNG which you'd find acceptable, then that would mean you would generally support the suggestion to have one. -The Gnome (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No need for an SNG, GNG is enough. Blueboar (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose GNG is sufficient. It has not been demonstrated how the GNG would encourage the deletion of articles that this SNG would somehow save.--Jayron32 16:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    Jayron32, I would argue that # The play was directed by a notable director and starred notable performers.[1] would most likely save a few. Don't ask me which ones ones, though. I'll concede I have no actual clue. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 02:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Well, no SNG should save an article that doesn't pass WP:GNG. The goal here is to make it easier to determine whether something should almost certainly pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 08:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ i.e. those which would be deemed notable enough to have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia
  • Oppose It's a well drafted SNG and I don't have any problems with introducing it generally. My concern revolves around how few articles about plays I've seen around town here. I don't see many if any I remember at AfC or AfD. There's one active PROD over at Musical Theatre (which I agree with) and none over at Theatre as it stands right now. I just don't think it's generally needed in mainspace since determining notability of plays is a fairly rare task, one guided by WP:GNG, and it doesn't outweigh the need to keep the number of SNGs limited. I would consider adding it as a general non-binding guideline over at Wikiproject Theatre if you haven't already since I do think it is a well drafted proposal. I don't see any links to notability on the project page so please excuse me if I'm wrong. SportingFlyer T·C 08:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. The Gnome, please do not get discouraged by the results of this RfC. I have come up with much worse ideas, so do not feel like this anyone here is saying your proposal is that bad. Many editors are simply of the reasonable opinion that there is nothing currently being expressed that warrants this change right now. I suggest that you, as you move forward, create theatre-related articles to improve our coverage of this topic. Thank you for bringing this policy up for debate, and I am sorry if these are not the results you had hoped for. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 02:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words, Matthew J. Long. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I think we need more guides on notability and what to include and exclude in Wikipedia. There is a strong bias against "rules" and "instruction creep", which is understandable. There is a clear libertarian streak amongst the Wikipedia powers-that-be. Those who are comfortable with the status quo don't want more rules. For me the issues isn't rules but guidelines. There must be some kind of reference to help editors navigate. I think Gnome did a great job trying to provide a reference for editors to consider. If someone wants to add an article on a play, why not give them some kind of framework to decide whether it merits an article in an encyclopedia? As I see it, Wikipedia is ballooning into a glorified phonebook for 7 billion people and fansite for every video game character ever conceived. I would like to see more guidance to include content that will be relevant long-term and to exclude content that is better suited in blog posts than the encyclopedia. Soup nazi? No. Guidance and attempt to rationalize the influx of pop culture? Yes. Coastside (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2019 (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.

Query about dealing with clearly non-RS websites on Nazi Germany

I should probably know this, but do we have a policy/process that relates to banning or blocking clearly non-RS fanboi websites? There are a few clearly non-RS fanboi-type websites related to Nazi Germany (like axishistory.com, lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de and feldgrau.com) which should really never be used on WP, and I'm wondering if there is a way to automate rejection of citations to these sites? It is not spamming, per se, but at the moment, those who are interested have to search the website addresses manually to cull them from articles, which is a losing battle, and I just wondered if there was a way to stop them being used across the board. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of these probably qualify as self-published sources, and as such can be blanket removed unless the author is a recognized expert in their field. We do have precedent for blacklisting links in these circumstances, but be careful to make sure that it's not going to exclude anything legitimate. For a topic as heavily researched as Nazi Germany, I'd expect anything worth using as a source to have been published in a legitimate source, so there should rarely be a need to rely on a WP:SPS. The 'recognized expert' clause was introduced for topics like animal husbandry and railroad history, where the authors of major reference works sometimes self-publish appendices to their books or put additional content on their websites, giving the extra detail there wasn't space to include in the book. ‑ Iridescent 07:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. These three that I have mentioned are definitely SPS, and host online fora as well, which are sometimes cited in articles. None of these three have a claim on "recognised expert" status, as their contributors don't meet that bar, they are basically user-generated content with no likelihood to be assessed as RS. Can they be blacklisted, and if so, what is the best method to suggest that? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
You need to propose it at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, to give people a chance to argue in favor of non-blacklisting. Assuming nobody raises a valid objection, it will be blacklisted in due course. (The typical valid objections are "even though the site is inappropriate as a source, it's sometimes necessary to link to it as an external link" or "there aren't enough instances of it to justify a blanket blacklisting"). What you may well find is that people would prefer an edit filter to a formal blacklisting, so don't be surprised if you see people suggesting that; the net effect will be similar. ‑ Iridescent 08:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a link to at least one of the three websites in some 1100 mainspace pages. If these are low value (and I'd say they are), I think these would be a natural spam blacklist addition. --Izno (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
G'day Izno what do you mean by "low value"? Just for my info really. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Just shorthand for your own description of the websites. --Izno (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok. I've listed these three websites at WP:RSN to get confirmation they are not RS, then I'll re-post at the blacklist. Thanks for the advice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Merging style-and-layout guidelines on interwiki linking

  FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects#Requested move 12 March 2019, a proposal to merge WP:SISTER to be either a subpage of MOS:LINKING or more directly a part of MOS:LINKING#Interwiki links. Rationale summary: It's unproductive to have interwiki-linking-style-and-layout material in two different places.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

when sources say "died by suicide" and we're still using "committed suicide"?

See the first paragraph at WP:CCC. The current consensus is recent enough, and no "previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances" are raised. Closing per WP:SNOW. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:59, 11 March 2019 (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 know this has been discussed extensively, but when the cited sources are using "died by", why are we still using "committed"? valereee (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Because consensus for the last three years has been that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not bound by the AP guidelines. See [14] [15] [16]. Praxidicae (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
We do not use euphemisms and we do not follow the AP stylebook that the news articles that use that phrase do. Praxidicae linked to a few discussions above. We've discussed this several times on wikipedia. We don't need to go over this entire issue again. Natureium (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This again. I think the dispute is largely a cultural one - there are certain customs in Australia regarding how the media treats suicide cases. Without time to assess this issue, my preference is for the status quo. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Also this discussion is one of the better ones regarding this matter, particularly InedibleHulk's comment: "Died by suicide" sounds awkwardly passive to me. Suicide is killing yourself, not being killed by yourself. Praxidicae (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) And, anyway, the phrases are synonyms. The word "commit" does not imply anything criminal. Its meaning is much wider than that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Even if sources do use "died by suicide" it's quite normal to paraphrase or rephrase. Equally there is no policy that we have to use "committed suicide" if an alternative construction could be used. But I'd agree it's still debatable if these two phrases are exactly synonymous. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
From the most simple view of it, "died by suicide" is redundant. It's like "died by death", "fatally murdered" or "murdered to death." this discussion most adequately sums up the approach I think we should take. Praxidicae (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of the actual words used, it's important to focus on the event and not make value judgments about the action. So, for example, killed herself is right out. Bradv🍁 18:58, 11 March 2019 (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.

Follow-on discussion

Also, to expand upon "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not bound by the AP guidelines": WP has it's own WP:Manual of Style (including WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch, the usual locus of this perennial debate). We also have a policy, WP:NOT#NEWS: Wikipedia is not written in news style. Virtually nothing in our MoS came from AP Stylebook. In particular, we have adopted nothing from it that has anything to do with euphemistic language to keep certain subsets of readers happier (a business/PR approach, not an encyclopedic one).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, good info, thanks! I had been unaware of the perennial nature of this discussion, and this exact discussion closed before I got back and discovered it, didn't want to add then, so: so sorry! valereee (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for CSD criteria X3 - portals created by The Transhumanist

Please note that there is a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard regarding the creation of a new CSD category for portals created by The Transhumanist. Please contribute to the existing discussion there. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The name is The Transhumanist with a space. SemiHypercube 11:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. (edit | history)
Clearly both sides feel strongly about this question and both have advanced reasonable arguments. Those in favour typically cite the large amount of community effort required to clean up these portals through the normal MfD process, while those against often do not want to see useful content thrown out with the useless. There is also a significant minority who see a need for some fast-track process to avoid wasting community time, but think that this proposal goes too far. As it seems likely that a less-aggressive proposal would gain the support of most of the supporters as well as a large segment of those opposed, the arguments in opposition seem somewhat stronger. So, while there is a small majority in favour of the change, there is no consensus for it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2019 (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.

  Administrator note This proposal is being advertised at WP:VPP and WP:CD, and it has been requested that it stay open for at least 30 days. ~Swarm~ {talk} 05:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I am entering and numbering this proposal in order to get it into the record, but am requesting that action on it be deferred until the current round of MFDs are decided.

As per User:UnitedStatesian, Create Criteria for Speedy Deletion criterion X3, for portals created by User:The Transhumanist between April 2018 and March 2019. Tagging the portals for speedy deletion will provide the notice to users of the portals, if there are any users of the portals. I recommend that instructions to administrators include a request to wait 24 hours before deleting a portal. This is a compromise between the usual 1 to 4 hours for speedy deletion and 7 days for XFD. The availability of Twinkle for one-click tagging will make it easy to tag the pages, while notifying the users (if there are any). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This proposal should be posted in a wider venue, such as WP:VPR or WP:MFD. Many of those portals have been in place for months, making WP:AN too narrow a venue for them. CSD notices wouldn't be placed until after the discussion is over, and therefore would not serve to notify the users of those portals of the discussion. A notice to the discussion of this proposal, since it is a deletion discussion, should be placed on each of the portals, to allow their readers to participate in the discussion. The current round of MfDs are not a random sampling of the portals that were created, and therefore are not necessarily representative of the set. The portals themselves vary in many ways, including scope, the amount of time they've been accessed by readers, quality, number of features, picture support, volume of content, amount of work that went into them, number of editors who worked on them, length, readership, etc.    — The Transhumanist   07:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
How would you suggest to get a representative sample? Legacypac (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. That would be difficult now, since there are already a bunch of portals nominated for MfD. If those were included, then the sample would already be skewed. I expect a truly random sample would reveal that some portals are worth keeping and others are not. A more important question would be "How would we find the portals worth keeping? Which is very similar to the question "what should the creation criteria for portals be?", the very thing they are discussing at the portal guidelines page right now. Many of these portals may qualify under the guideline that is finally arrived upon there. For example, they are discussing scope. There are portals of subjects that fall within Vital articles Level 2, 3, 4, and 5, and there are many portals of subjects of similar scope to the subjects at those levels. And many of the portals had extra work put into them, and who knows how many had contributions by other editors besides me. Another factor is, that the quality of the navigation templates the portals are powered by differs, and some of the portals are powered by other source types, such as lists. Some have hand-crafted lists, as there are multiple slideshow templates available, one of which accepts specific article names as parameters. Another way to do that is provide a manual list in the subtopics section and power the slideshow from that. Some of the portals are of a different design than the standard base template. Some are very well focused, contextually, while others are not. For example, some of the portals have multiple excerpt slideshows to provide additional context.    — The Transhumanist   07:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. Looking at the existing MFD discussions, TTH seems determined to drag and wikilawyer as much as possible to try to derail the discussions, even for blatantly and indefensibly inappropriate microportals like those discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods; it's not a good use of anyone's time to go through the same timesink 5000+ times. (The cynic in me says that a speedy criterion wouldn't work as while the creators wouldn't be able to decline the templates themselves, TTH and Dreamy Jazz would probably just follow the tagger around removing the speedy templates from each other's creations.) In practice, it would probably be more efficient to do what we did with Neelix and have a streamlined MFD nomination process, in which "created by TTH" is considered sufficient grounds for deletion at MFD and they default to delete unless someone can make a strong argument for keep. MFD is less gameable and also gives a space for people to defend them in those rare cases where they're actually worth keeping. (Every time I look, I find that the flood of inane and pointless TTH portals has spread further than I thought; shipping containers portal, anyone?) ‑ Iridescent 08:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    Dreamy Jazz seems unlikely do that, having already decided during this debate to stop donating their time to Wikipedia. Certes (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Another option would be to move these to draft space. The templates and lua modules could be modified so that the portals render right in that namespace (I wish I would have thought of this before). Being in draft space would give time to fix their various problems (keeping in mind that micro-scope is not fixable), and identify the ones worth keeping. I would agree not to move any of them personally, and would propose/request such moves after the new creation criteria guidelines for portals are settled upon. I would also be willing to tag those that did not meet those guidelines with CSD (as creator), saving Legacypac the trouble of nominating them at MfD (he mentioned somewhere that he thought I should help clean up this "mess"). Another benefit of this strategy is that if any of them sit in draft space too long without further development, they automatically become subject to deletion per the draft space guidelines, and those that reach that age without any edits can be deleted en masse without time-consuming effort-wasting MfD discussions. This course of action would of course need the participation of some lua programmers to add the necessary functionality to the modules, which would be a good upgrade for those, to allow for portal drafts to be created in the future.    — The Transhumanist   09:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
P.S. @Iridescent and Legacypac: (pinging)    — The Transhumanist   09:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. The problem is that hundreds of portals on obscure topics makes an unmaintainable mess. Passing it to another namespace does not solve the problem which is that the portals are not helpful and are not maintainable. Automated creation of outlines/portals/anything must stop. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No. I tried moving one broken portal to Draft as a test and it broke even more stuff. Not worth the effort to modify everything for draft space and then let the same little group of editors release them willy nilly back into portal space. Since this group ignored their own Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines "portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." why should anyone trust them to follow stricter guidelines? Legacypac (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Definitely not. What possible benefit would there be to cluttering up another namespace with ≈5000 pages that will never serve any useful purpose? If you want to goof around with wikicode, nobody's stopping you installing your own copy of Mediawiki; we're not your personal test site. ‑ Iridescent 15:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As a general rule, Portal pages should not be draftified. In fact, we should not usually move anything not designed to be an article to draft space. Draft portals should be in portal space, just like draft books should be in book space and draft templates in template space (pages with subpages are a pain to move, and many namespaces have special features that suggest keeping drafts in the same space if possible). If a portal is not ready for viewing by the general public, tag it with a relevant maintenance template and make sure it is not linked to from mainspace or from other portal pages.
  • In the case at hand, TT's mass created portals do not seem like they will all be soon made ready for wider consumption, so deleting them seems the better option. —Kusma (t·c) 20:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • How is this the "only way" to be "sure"? What about actually viewing the portals themselves, as opposed to mass deleting them all sight unseen? North America1000 03:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Could you provide any evidence that all of the portals are "broken"? Many of them that I have viewed and used are fully functional, and not broken at all. North America1000 03:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, too many, too quickly, not enough thought went into their creation. Nuke these, revert other portals that were better before TTH "restarted" them. Automation should help with portal maintenance, not replace portal maintenance or move the maintenance burden to navboxes or other places. —Kusma (t·c) 14:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, sensible and fair way to deal with these. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: MFD could never handle the overwhelming amount of unnecessary and unsustainable portals, considering the magnitude of TTH's portal creation entering the thousands. –eggofreasontalk 20:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support nuking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Transcluded to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support mass creation of portals on these topics isn't appropriate without wider discussion, and the automated/semi-automated method used to create them doesn't produce high quality output. Portal:Sierra County, California, for example, is about a county with a population of 3,240, and consists of the lead of the main article, a few random contextless images grabbed from that article (mostly maps or logos) and portal boilerplate. Cleaning these up will require a temporary speedy deletion criterion, I don't think MfD could handle the load. Hut 8.5 22:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. I had already suggested deferring, but am satisfied that it is going ahead to mass-delete. I will add that, after a consensus is reached on whether and how to use portals, any that were deleted and are needed are available at Requests for Undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This mass page creation went against WP:MEATBOT and at least the spirit of WP:MASSCREATION if not the letter. An appropriate remedy for automated script and semi-automated creation is speedy deletion. Did you know they were driving for 10,000 portals at a rapid pace? It's here [17] Legacypac (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose any and all notions of creating new CSD criteria at any drama board. Discussions here are too rushed, too emotive, too reactionary. Use WT:CSD. Consider using a WT:CSD subpage RfC. Do not attempt to mandate the detail of policy from a drama board. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Transclusion is not good enough. The discussion needs to be searchable from WT:CSD, and the specifics of any and all new criteria need to address the Criteria for a new CSD criterion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Many editors at the Village Pump discussion, the Tban discussion above, and at MfDs also supported this. We do not need to fragment this discussion further. Legacypac (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Proposal 1 will make this Proposal 4 moot. This Proposal 4 is not a proper CSD implementation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: Proposal 1 is about stopping TTH from creating new portals. Proposal 4 is about deleting those he created in the last couple of months. How is P1 going to make P4 moot? —Kusma (t·c) 10:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
List them all in an MfD, if they must all be deleted. A CSD that enables self appointed decision makes for which should go and which might be ok, is inferior to MfD. MfD can handle a list of pages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
If you want them all at MfD stop objecting to the listing of specific Portals at MfD. Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
No. Some of the Portals I would support for deletion, and others definitely no. This makes the proposal for a CSD invalid. It fails the CSD new criterion criteria. The proposal is neither Objective or Uncontestable. It would pick up a lot of portals that should not be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. No care at all went into these portals, they are mindless creations with loads of errors and little actual benefit for our readers. I would also support the restoration of all pre-existing portals to the pre-transhumanist version, the new "single page" version may require less maintenance, but is way too often clearly inferior (see e.g. this, which is more like vandalism than actual improvement, and has been reversed since). Fram (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Anyone restoring old multi-subpage portals should bear in mind that they will require maintenance. If there is no-one willing to maintain them, they, too are likely to be MfDed. No old-style portal with a willing and active maintainer has been converted as far as I know, so I suggest that anyone restoring them should be willing to maintain them. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    • No. Converting an unmaintained but well-designed portal into an unmaintained semi-automated worse portal is not the way forward. Any claims that the new portals are maintained or don't need maintaining is false, as the many problematic new portals demonstrate. Fram (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Portal:Germany was converted (more than once) although it has maintainers. To make sure your portal isn't "improved", you need to put a specific template on the page, which isn't very obvious. There are old-style multi page portals that require only minimal maintenance, and where the conversion removed specific features. All those should be reverted, also to protect the subpages from overzealous deleters (the worst is deleting the /box-footer subpages; this breaks all old revisions by removing a necessary closing div). —Kusma (t·c) 17:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose A mass-deletion of the new generation portals. Listing them at MfD will be sufficient for any that do not meet the criteria laid out in the portal guidelines (which are still under discussion). It makes little sense to remove the whole batch because some of them are problematic. They would need to be properly triaged to ensure the good ones are not caught in the process. I would of course, help with said triage. We're not trying to create more work for the community, just preserve good content. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 23:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - You created more work for the community by creating thousands of portals, some of which do not work, and with no intention to maintain them. I see no evidence that this effort created good content that needs to be preserved. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no new content in the automated portals, it's all poorly repackaged bits of existing content. Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
All portals, old or new, good or bad, manual or automated, repackage existing content. That's their job. New content belongs in articles. Certes (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per wumbolo below: criterion P2 already covers a number of these, the rest should be discussed. I still stand by my original comment which follows this addition. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Original comment: Weak oppose on principle. CSD is a necessary evil, and I don't think we should be hasty to add another criterion that skips our usual consensus process. I'm fine with nuking these portals and not opposed to deleting them, any diamonds in the rough will prove their worth by being created again, but I would prefer one big MfD with the rationale "created by The Transhumanist" which allows proper determination of consensus and gives those who want to spend their time triaging a chance to do so. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 08:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Building multipage MfDs like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods is time consuming and tedious. A temporary CSD is rhe way to go. Consensus against this mess of new portals has already been established at VP, AN and in the test MfDs. Legacypac (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support due to the massive amount of time it would take to put the ~4500 portals through MfD. MfD has been swamped with portal deletion requests from some time ago, and I can't see all this stuff removed via MfD in the foreseeable future (as someone said earlier, there is still a lot of Outlines left over from one of TTH's previous projects, so who knows how long it would take for MfD to delete all of this). This CSD X3 would streamline the process, and it would probably only take a few days to a week. It would help, as also mentioned earlier, to extend the criterion to the other users involved in the mass creation of these portals. Rlin8 (☎·✎·📧) 03:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    • MfD has never had an issue to nominations of list of pages. 4500 separate MfD nominations would be absurd, but a list would be OK. If each is new, and has a single author, notifications of the author will be trivial. A CSD proposal shortcuts a discussion of the merits of the new portals, and pre-supposes deletion to be necessary, contrary to deletion policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
TTH demands we place notification on every portal. We can skip notifying him, but building even 20 page MfD's is very time consuming. How do you propose to discuss 4500 or even 100 assorted portals at a time? These took 3 min to make - but far more than 3 min to list, tag, discuss and vote, then delete - when you add up all the time required from various editors and Admins. The test MfDs are sufficent and the very strong opposition to this automated portal project justifies this temporary CSD. Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
"TTH demands we place notification on every portal"? Legacypac, I have missed that post by him. If he did that, it needs to be repudiated. If these are new pages, and he is the only author, it is sufficient to notify him once. If all 4500 are essentially variations on the same thing, as long as the full set is defined, and browsable, we can discuss them all together at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe during the Portland Oregon neighborhood MFD I specifically said I was not tagging all the related portals but he insisted I tag here [18] I could not get support in the section above to relax the MfD tagging because others wanted this CSD. During the Delete Portals RFC TTH went all out insisting every portal including the community portal be tagged for deletion - then he did it himself. That brought in all kinds of casual infrequent editors who were mostly against deleting the community portal. (Even though that was Pretty much pulled out of consideration for deletion before the tagging project). That massive tagging derailed the deletion RFC. By making cleanup as hard as possible TTH is making a lot of people want to nuke everything. Legacypac (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Legacypac's analysis is erroneous and misleading. The WP:ENDPORTALS RFC was a deletion discussion, and posting a notice on each page up for deletion is required by deletion policy. Note that the Community Portal was only mentioned twice. A portal that was the basis for about 50 oppose votes was the Current Events portal. Neither the Community Portal nor the Current Events portal were exempted in the proposal at any time. If you didn't count those, that left the count at about 150 in support of eliminating portals to about 250 against.    — The Transhumanist   07:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: (edit conflict) See the top of this section for the referred to statement, which is not exactly as he quoted. A notice posted at the top of the portals slated by this proposal would be appropriate. Legacypac has been posting notice for his multi-page nominations using the {{mfd}} template, which auto-generates a link to an mfd page of the same title as the page the template is posted on. Rather than following the template's instructions for multiple pages, he's been creating an MfD page for each, and redirecting them to the combined mfd. Then a bot automatically notifies the creator of each page (me), swamping my user talk page with redundant notifications. Thus, Legacypac believes he'll have to create thousands of mfd redirect pages, and that I somehow want 3500+ notifications on my talk page.    — The Transhumanist   07:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
You want us to manually tag pages for deletion that you used an automated script to create? You flooded Wikipedia with useless pages in violation of WP:MEATBOT but you are worried about having to clean up your talkpage notices? Just create an archiving system for your talkpage like we did for User:Neelix's talkpage. If you don't want notices you could start tagging pages that fail your own guidelines with "delete by author request" instead of commenting on how we will do the cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
TTH, if you don't want so many deletion notices on your talk page, then remember in future not to create thousands of spam pages. Please help with the cleanup, rather than complaining about it.
@Legacypac: good work MFDing the spam, but it does seem that you are using a somewhat inefficient approach to tagging. Have you tried asking at WP:BOTREQ for help? In the right hands, tools such as AWB make fast work of XfD tagging. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support whatever course of action that will result in every portal created in this manner being deleted with the minimal of time and effort required. TTH has set up his automated tool, created a massive mess, and left it unattended for others to sort out. It should take less time to clean up this mess than it did to make it, not more. Nuke the lot and if there is anything of value lost then TTH can manually request pages to be restored one at a time at DRV. Fish+Karate 11:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Fish and karate. RGloucester — ☎ 14:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as written. I could support something that explicitly excluded portals which are in use and/or are being developed, but the current proposal to indiscriminately delete everything, including active portals, unless the admin chooses to notify any editors and the ones notified happen to be online in a narrow time frame is significantly overly broad. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Not that portals are that bad, but I don't think we need portals on smaller subjects. (Portal:Spaghetti when we already have Portal:Pasta? Portal:Nick Jr., anyone?) Some might be worth keeping, but a lot are unneeded and unmaintainable. At least it's not a Neelix case. SemiHypercube 16:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @SemiHypercube: "Some might be worth keeping" is actually an argument against this proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @Thryduulf: Kind of, but that might be a reason not to just mass delete all at once. In the Neelix case there were some redirects that were actually useful, so a separate CSD criterion was used to keep some redirects at the admins' discretion, so this might be a similar case (before you say that contradicts my "it's not a Neelix case" statement, I meant that in terms of what the redirects were about) SemiHypercube 12:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
      • It violates points 1 and 2 of the requirements for CSD criteria: objectivity and unconestability. Unless all the portals covered should be speedily deleted then none of them should be. If you only want to delete some of them then you should be opposing this criterion (just like you should have opposed the subjective Neelix criterion). Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

*Support Only realistic way to deal with these. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC) Duplicate !vote struck. GoldenRing (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Request the posting of a notice at the top of each of the pages being nominated here for mass deletion, as required by the Deletion Policy. This proposal is currently a gross violation of the deletion policy because it is a discussion to delete 3500+ pages, that have been created over the span of a year, that are presently being viewed hundreds of thousands of times per month (projected to millions of times over the coming year) by readers of Wikipedia. The proposal for mass deletion has been made without the required notice being posted at the top of the pages to be deleted. This is being decided by a handful of editors unbeknownst to the wider community, namely, the readership of the portals to be deleted. It may be that those reading such notices would decide that the portals should be deleted, but the point here is that you are denying them the opportunity to participate in the deletion discussion as required by the deletion policy.    — The Transhumanist   21:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Request you stop wasting people's fucking time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • He switched back to Outlines Special:Contributions/The_Transhumanist which are another unpopular plague for Wikipedia. The assertion that hundreds of thousands of readers a month are looking at his 3500 portals is fanciful at best and not supported by readership stats. Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Support opposing anything TTH says from now on. Per OiD. ——SerialNumber54129 13:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose taking ad hominem arguments into consideration. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose WP:BLUDGEONING. ——SerialNumber54129 15:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Legacypac, technically he's probably telling the truth. Even obvious drivel like Portal:Coconuts averages around five views per day, thanks to webcrawlers and people who have the articles watchlisted and are wondering "what's this mystery link that's just been spammed onto the article I wrote?"; multiply that by 3500 and you have 500,000 pageviews per month right there. ‑ Iridescent 22:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Neelix created about 50,000 redirects, which were reviewed by the community. The number of portals is an order of magnitude smaller. If X3 is to be introduced, it should involve a similar review process. We should certainly delete portals which have too narrow a scope or are of poor quality and cannot be improved. However, systematic deletion of all portals which qualify for consideration, purely on an ad hominem argument, would be as wrong as semi-automatic creation. Certes (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Look at the rate these were created [19] sometimes several dozen an hour, and sometimes an average of 12 seconds each. If so little thought went into creation, why make deletion so difficult? The Neelix cleanup took far too long (I was a big part of it) and we deleted the vast majority of those redirects anyway the extra hard way. As far as I could see the editors who insisted we review everything did none of the reviewing. Also, these were created in violation of WP:MEATBOT which is a blockable or at least sanctionable offense Legacypac (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Two wrongs do not make a right - it is much more important that we get the cleanup right than it happens quickly. Whether or not TTH is blocked or otherwise sanctioned is completely irrelevant. While many (maybe even most) of the created portals should be deleted not all of them should be, and this needs human review: see requirement 2 for new CSD criteria at the top of WT:CSD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf, Certes, SmokeyJoe, and Legacypac: Concerning the rate, Legacypac's observation is not accurate. What the edits he is citing do not show, is the method by which the pages were created: they were created in batches, in tabs. Before saving, all the pages/tabs were inspected. For the pages that did not pass muster, such as those that displayed errors (this did not catch all errors, because lua errors can be intermittent or turn up later due to an edit in source material being transcluded), the tabs for those were closed. In a batch of 50, 20 or 30 might survive the cull (though batch sizes varied). Some tabs got additional edits in addition to inspection, to fix errors or remove the sections the errors were in, or further development. After all the tabs in a batch were inspected and the bad ones culled, the remaining ones were saved. That's why the edits' time stamps are so close together. If you look more closely, you'll see the time gap is between the batches rather than the individual page saves. Therefore, WP:MEATBOT was not violated.    — The Transhumanist   18:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
He claims [20] he created 500 portals in 500 to 1000 minutes. and is using a script Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:The_Transhumanist/QuickPortal.js If this is not MEATBOT we should refind MEATBOT as meaningless. Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
A minute or two per portal of the new design sounds about right. Note that the script doesn't save pages. It puts them into preview mode, so that the editor can review them and work on them further before clicking on save.    — The Transhumanist   19:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Legacypac and The Transhumanist: As I said above, the method of creation is irrelevant to this proposal, as is what (if any) sanction is appropriate. Likewise discussions of WP:MEATBOT don't affect this at all. What matters is only that these pages exist but some of them should not, this proposal needs to be rejected or modified such that it deletes only those that need deleting without also deleting those that do not. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural note I have advertised this discussion at WP:VPP and would encourage others to add links where they think interested editors might see. I think this should remain open for 30 days, as it is quite a significant policy change. GoldenRing (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support now that the MfDs (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here) are closing with strong consensus around delete, it is clear this is the fastest path to improving the encyclopedia (which is what we are here for, remember?) Any argument that 3,500 more portals have to go through MfD is strictly throwing sand in the gears. It is going to be enough manual labor pulling the links to the deleted portals from all the templates and pages they have been added to. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • That shows that a speedy deletion criterion is possibly warranted for some, but several comments on those discussions - including your own at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Spaghetti - indicate that this proposed criterion is too broad. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
      • You misunderstand my comment at that MfD: I strongly support that portal's deletion and all the others that would be covered by this proposed criterion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
        • You supported the deletion of Portal:Spaghetti because the topic was covered by Portal:Pasta, even though Portal:Pasta would be deleted under this criterion? That's rather disingenuous at best and very significantly and unnecessary disruptive at worst. Portal:Pasta is an example of a portal that should not be deleted without discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Again, you misunderstand my reasoning: I was specifically pointing out to another editor that the existence of Portal:Pasta could NOT be a reason to delete Portal:Spaghetti, since in my opinion Portal:Pasta would likely also be deleted. Instead, I think the current Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines provide ample OTHER reasons for deleting both portals (and many, many others, of course). Hope that clarifies. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose and keep all. WP:P2 covers unnecessary portals, and there is no rationale presented other than WP:IDLI to delete a large proportion of all of them, which were all kept after a RfC in 2018. The next time content policies are created at AN by the cabal of admins, I am retiring from Wikipedia. wumbolo ^^^ 16:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Wumbolo: Well, if it came to that, take it to WP:RFARB first. Given the past history of WP:FAITACCOMPLI and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS extremism (i.e., WP:FALSECONSENSUS) cases, I have little doubt that ArbCom would agree to take a case about a gaggle of anti-portal people WP:GAMING the consensus-formation process by inventing sweeping policy changes out of their butts in a venue few content editors pay attention to and which is clearly out-of-scope for such a decision, even if it somehow had sufficiently broad input (e.g., via WP:CENT). I'm skeptical any alleged consensus is going to come out of this discussion, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is a repeat of the Neelix situation. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Susmuffin: The situation has similarities, but the proposed criterion is not comparable. Criterion X1 applied only to redirects created by Neelix that the reviewing administrator reasonably believed would be snow deleted if discussed at RfD (i.e. they had to evaluate each redirect), this criterion would apply to every portal created by TTH in the timeframe without any other conditions and without the need for anyone to even look at anything other than the date of creation. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Honestly, there are far too many portals to be deleted through the usual channels. However, an quick evaluation would be reasonable, provided we keep the portal system itself. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Unlike Neelix who created some reasonable redirects along the way, these autogenerated portals are of uniformly low quality. The community has looked at representive samples across a variety of subject areas at MFD and the community has already deleted 143 of the 143 portals nominated at closed MfDs. The yet to be closed MfDs are headed to increasing that number. No one has suggested any alternative deletion criteria for X3. Legacypac (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
That nobody has suggested an alternative is irrelevant - it's not up to those who oppose this proposal to fix it, and those who support it are by-and-large ignoring the objections. The MfDs have been selected as a representative sample of those that, after review, are not worth keeping and have been reviewed by MfD participants. This does not demonstrate that deletion without review is appropriate - indeed quite the opposite. Remember there is no deadline, it is significantly more important that we get it right than we do things quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Not particularly similar to the redirect situation that occurred; portals are vastly different in nature and composition from simple redirects. North America1000 03:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unwarranted and dangerous (and circular reasoning). First, we do not modify CSD without a strong community (not admins' star chamber) consensus that an entire class of material is not just categorically unwanted but so unwanted that it should be deleted on sight without any further consideration. It's our most dangerous policy, and a change like this to it should be an RfC matter at WP:VPPOL. In theory, it could be at WT:CSD, except there is not yet any establishment of a consensus against these portals, and VPPOL is where that would get hashed out, since it's a project-wide question of content presentation and navigation (and maintenance, and whether tools can permissibly substitute for some manual maintenance, and ...). The cart is ahead of the horse here; we can't have a speedy deletion criterion without already having a deletion criterion to begin with. I strongly agree with SmokeyJoe: "Oppose any and all notions of creating new CSD criteria at any drama board. Discussions here are too rushed, too emotive, too reactionary."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – WP:P2 covers problematic portals just fine. A concerning issue here is that some users herein appear to simply not like portals in general, and so there are several arguments above for mass deletion as per this "I don't like it" rationale. Mass deletion should be a last step, not a first step, and portals should be considered on a case-by-case basis. North America1000 22:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
You created some with the same tools. One or two of your creations are now at MfD which is why you are now engaging against this solution. We will consider each of your creations at MfD. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
My !vote here is based upon my view of the matter at hand, and as such, it stands. Period. Regarding my portal creations, so what? You come across as having a penchant for scolding content creators on Wikipedia if you don't like the medium that is used. Please consider refraining from doing so, as it is unnecessary, and patronizing. North America1000 01:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Northamerica1000: I agree - for example, I actually welcome the creation of Portal:Economics because I think econ should be established as distinct from business as in Portal:Business and economics. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 02:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this CSD seems have to no more objective criteria than "shoot unless someone defends it". For this to be justified, they'd have to explain how no-one reacting within 24 hours was sufficient reasoning. As far as the initial proposal included, it didn't contain any acceptable objective criteria for something warranting deletion on quality grounds. Far worse, it didn't contain suitable justification (whether popularity/quality) for these portals to impose such a major hindrance to Wikipedia as to warrant a process with as few eyes (per consideration) as CSD. The nominator might have had more luck with a PortalPROD mechanism. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
This CSD exactly meets each criteria for CSD's at the WP:CSD page. It is clear. It is easy to decide if the page meets the CSD. We ran 145 of these portals through MfD already and none survived. Numerous editors suggested this CSD in the Village Pump discussion. These mass created portals universally have the same flaws. Therefore this oppose rational is flawed. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: will allow to quickly manage the auto-created portals of zero utility. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support enthusiastically. Taking all these portals through MFD would be a massive drain on community resources. TTH created these portals at sustained speeds of up to 40 per hour, so even the time taken to apply a CSD tag and assess it 24 hours later will require more editorial time than TTH took to create them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - There are good quality portals that will be excluded, few maybe, but deserve to remain. For example Portal: Cities, Portal: Architecture Portal:Sculpture.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Guilherme Burn, maybe those are worth keeping. Or maybe not. But even if they are good, they are not worth the price of the community committing huge amounts of time to individually debating every one of the thousands of useless portals which members of the portal project have spewed out over the last year (often as drive by creations, and which project members have then piled into MFDs to keep.
If the Portals Project had exercised discretion so far, then we would be in a very different place. But it's utterly outraegous to ask the community to devote more time to assessing this spam than the Portal Project put into creating them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Could these portals be marked to be spared?Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Guilherme Burn: not according to the proposal as written. The only chance of saving is if an admin chooses to notify and wait 24 hours and somebody objects within those 24 hours and someone spots that CSD has been declined previously if it gets renominated. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Guilherme Burn: Portal:Cities is totally moribund and unread, and has never had a single participant. Portal:Architecture dates from 2005 and wasn't created by TTH or this tag-team, so wouldn't be deleted regardless (although I imagine the enormous wall of pointless links which TTH's bot dumped onto the page a couple of months ago would be reverted). ‑ Iridescent 14:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Iridescent and BrownHairedGirl:One portal that does not meet Mfd criteria is enough for me to keep my opinion. Portal:Cities Although poor visualized is an important and good quality portal and the Portal:Sculpture (erroneously I quoted another portal) as well.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Guilherme Burn: please can you clarify that statement that One portal that does not meet Mfd criteria is enough for me to keep.
Are you saying that you are willing to personally scrutinise a few thousand drive-by Portals at MfD in order to find the one which should be kept? Or do you want others to do that work?
TTH as made it very clear that these portals took on average between one and two minutes each to create ([21] Have you tried creating 500 portals? It is rather repetitious/tedious/time-consuming (from 500 to 1000 minutes)). So many multiples of that-one-to-two minutes per portal do you think it is fair to ask the community to spend scrutinisng them? And how much of that time are you prepared to give? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
So many multiples of that-one-to-two minutes per portal do you think it is fair to ask the community to spend scrutinisng them?Yes. The community also failed to set criteria for creating portals. What is the difference of Portal: Lady Gaga to Portal: ABBA? For me both should be excluded. If the community not had problems to create a portal for a unique singer, why now have problems with someone who has decided to create portals for lot of singers? And to be honest I do not think so much work like that, Mfd can be executed in blocks excluding several portals at the same time.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SmokeyJoe et al. Completely unnecessary to override already existing procedure. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Paine Ellsworth: the administrative work of trawling through several thousand drive-by-created micro-portals is huge. Cleaning up this flood of portalspam through MFD requires a huge amount of editorial time, vastly more than was involved in creating the spam.
If you think that existing procedure is fine, why aren't you devoting large hunks of your time to doing the cleanup by the laborious procedure you defend? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Because...? I don't know, I guess I think this whole thing is rather more of a knee-jerk reaction than a brainy, measured response. Sure I've done my share of big, teejus jobs for the project and plan to continue (on my terms). I have a lot of respect for editors like yourself and TTH who've been lifting this project out of the primal soup of its beginnings even longer than I have (I went over ten in January, or was it Feb? whatever) and I'm tired of seeing good, solid editors get reamed for their work and retire, just leave or get banned. Don't think it can't happen to you, because as good as you are, neither you nor the rest of us are immune to the gang-up-on-em mentality that turns justice into vengeance 'round here. Think you should also know if you don't already that I'm about 95 farts Wikignome and 5 parts other, and it takes a lot less for us to think we're being badgered and handled. I voted correctly for me and my perceptions, and I don't expect either of us will change this unwise world one iota if you vote you and yours! WTF ever happened to forgiveness? REspectfully, Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  13:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Paine Ellsworth: Thank you for adding the words that I dared not write in case I was next against the wall. Certes (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
But it seems to me that the unintended effect of what you are both saying is something like "I am not making any effort to assist the cleanup of this mass portalspam, but I will take the effort to oppose measures which reduce the huge burden on those who are actually doing that necessary cleanup work".
As I say, I do not believe that is what either of you intend. But all I see from either of you is opposition to any restraint on the portalspammer, and opposition to anything which would assist the cleanup. I respect the fine principles from which you two start, but I urge you to consider the effects on the community both of not easing the cleanup burden and of continuing to describe the likes of TTH in positive terms. Look for example at my post in a thread above about the #Lack_of_good_faith_from_User:The_Transhumanist, and at Iridiscent's observation above that of TTH's previous history of spamming useless pages.
As to lifting this project out of the primal soup of its beginnings ... that's an extraordinary way to describe TTH's spamming of hundreds, if not thousands, of useless, unfinished micro-portals.   --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not making any effort to assist with mass deletions, beyond !voting to delete the clearer cases. We already have enough enthusiasts working in that department. Until recently, I had been adjusting individual portals and enhancing the modules behind them to improve quality, but I slowed down when it became obvious that my contributions in that area will be deleted. Certes (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
So that's as I feared, @Certes: members of that WikiProject are leaving it to others to clean up the mess created by the WikiProject and its members.
That only reinforces my impression of a collectively irresponsible project, which doesn't restrain or even actively discourage portalspam, doesn't try to identify it, and doesn't assist in its cleanup.
That's a marked contrast with well-run projects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
To editor BHG: not a surprising perspective, possibly a hasty generalization, however that's not your worst move. Your worst move is to consider "mass deletions" of what you deem "portalspam" as better than the "mass creations" of portals. Who's really to say? As an editor mentions below, "...these portals are doing no harm so great that they can be deleted without due process." So maybe you're wrong about those mass deletions that portray some portals as WMDs instead of the harmless windows into Wikipedia that they were meant to be? No matter, at present you are part of the strong throng. If you're right, you're right. But what if you and the strong throng are wrong? May things continue to go well with you! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  07:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and also apply it to those created by Northamerica1000, who has made such useless portals as Portal:Strawberries and Portal:Waffles. Reywas92Talk 08:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Reywas92: Northamerica1000 has created only 70 pages in the portal namespace (excluding redirects) in the relevant timeperiod. In no conceivable scenario does that justify a speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per F&K (whatever course of action that will result in every portal created in this manner being deleted with the minimal of time and effort required) and SN (nuke from orbit). I'll be honest I don't know enough to know whether it should be a X3 or a P2 or a single MfD list with 4,500 entries... but it should not need to involve manually tagging pages that were created by a bot or otherwise spending any real time figuring out which should be kept and which should not be kept. Delete them all. If editors feel like this portal or that portal should be kept, let them make the case for undeletion afterwards which can be examined on a case-by-case basis. (If that process is followed, it goes without saying that the portal creator should be banned from making any such undeletion requests.) Leviv ich 17:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    How are we supposed to work out what is worth undeleting, short of downloading all portals in advance lest they be deleted? Certes (talk)
    If an editor is not aware of a portal existing, then that editor shouldn't be asking for it to be kept. If there are particular portals that editors know they want saved, then they should have an opportunity to request that it be saved. But there should be no one-by-one examination of thousands and thousands of portals created by one user using semi-automatic methods. Leviv ich 19:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    Kill them all and let God sort them out is very much not the way Wikipedia works and is very much not the way it should work. Why should the review be restricted to administrators (as your proposal would require)? Why is it preferable to significantly harm the encyclopaedia by deleting good portals than to do the job properly and delete only those that actually need deleting (which are doing significantly less harm by existing than deleting good ones would cause)? Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    So let me create several thousand pages semi-automatically, and then I'll put it to you to go through them one by one and tell me which should be deleted and why? I don't think that's how it should work. It should work in reverse. The default should be delete them all, with some process for allowing people to request that particular portals not be deleted. BTW, when I say "all portals" I mean all portals covered by this proposal, not all portals that exist on Wikipedia. Leviv ich 19:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    If an editor created several thousand pages semi-automatically, the correct sequence of events is to analyse a representative sample to determine whether consensus is that they are (a) all good, (b) mostly good, (c) all bad, (d) mostly bad, or (e) a mixture. If (a) then no action is necessary, if (b) then individual deletion nominations are the correct response. If (c) then a CSD criterion to remove all of them is appropriate, if (d) or (e) then a CSD affectingly only the bad ones should be explored. In this the situation is somewhere between (d) and (e) depending on your point of view, but this proposal is treating them as (c). As I've said several times, I'm not opposed to a criterion proposed (in the right place) that caught only the bad ones and allowed for objections - that is not this proposal. This situation is frequently compared to Neelix, but the proposal is very different - this one: All pages created between Time A and Time B, unless anyone objects to the optional tagging within 24 hours. Neelix: All pages created between Time A and Time B that would be snow deleted if nominated at RfD, retargetting would not lead to a useful redirect and no other editor has materially edited the redirect. Do you now understand the fundamental difference? Also remember that pages can be tagged by bot. Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    Yes. We also need to clarify one important detail of the proposal: would an editor be required to look at the portal before applying CSD, or is there an assumption that everything created by this editor in that time period is automatically rubbish and does not deserve assessment? Certes (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    If a human being didn't spend a lot of time making a page, then human beings should not spend much time deciding whether to keep it. I put it to you again: suppose tomorrow I create 5,000 new pages and ask you to go through them and decide which to keep and which to delete. That would be insane; this is a website of volunteers; my doing such a thing would be disruptive. It would make work for others. Nobody reading this thinks it would be a good idea for me to do such a thing. Yet this is what is essentially being asked of us. Insofar as I have a !vote, I !vote no. Delete them all. They are all bad. Any that are good can be recreated as easily as they were created in the first place. Letting people flag keepers in one way or another is a perfectly reasonable way to prevent the baby from being thrown out with the bathwater. But yes, my starting point is that all of them should be deleted because none of them should have been made in the first place, and they do not have content value. Some portals are the product of careful creation and extensive work, but not 5,000 or however-many automatically created by one editor. The quantum portal idea is a much better idea, anyway. Leviv ich 02:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    I've alreadyanswered this immediately above, but as you apparently don't like the answer I'll respond again. If you create 5000 new pages in good faith (which TTH did), then the correct response is for others to go through and look at a representative sample, then gain a consensus about whether they are all bad, mostly bad, a mixture, mostly good or all good. This has been done with TTH's portals and while you may think they are all bad that is not the consensus view, especially as others have taken over some and either have improved them or are working on improving them. This means that it is important that only the bad ones are deleted meaning any proposal (such as this one) to delete all of them is overbroad and needs to be opposed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    This statement by Thryduulf is incorrect on many levels. Who has taken over and improved any of his creations? Where is the concensus view that they are not all bad when so far zero of his creations have been kept at MfDs. Where is the proof any of this was in good faith when he admits several sections down that no one (including him) has followed WP:POG Legacypac (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    Are you even reading the comments made by those who disagree with you because I'm not seeing evidence of it, especially when it comes to the MfDs (to reiterate, a reviewed selection of the worst pages being deleted by consensus but not unanimously in all cases does not provide evidence of the need for deletion of all of them without possibility of review). Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    Thryduulf, so I spend less than 1 minute per page creating 5,000 pages; you and others spend–what, an hour, cumulatively, at least?–per page to analyze it, discuss it, vote it, close it, and delete it. I spend 5,000 minutes; the community spends 5,000 hours. With all due respect I am flabbergasted to hear such a high-ranked Wikipedian express the view that this is OK or preferred. Even with your representative sample approach, say it's 100 portals that are looked at, that's still 100 hours of labor forced upon volunteers. In my opinion, no one should be allowed to make 5,000 pages without going through something like a BAG process to seek community approval. There was once a time, years ago, when it made sense to, for example, automatically create a stub for every known city and town in the world. I believe that time has long since passed; there are not 5,000 pages that can be created automatically that we need to have that we do not already have (IMO). And as for consensus, if they're not being kept at MfD, the consensus is clear. Those portals that people maintain manually are the same ones that can be flagged as exceptions to a mass-deletion. So I feel like we're on the same page about consensus, but I'm saying the consensus to keep a particular portal can be effectuated by allowing people to flag them as exceptions to mass deletion, whereas you seem to be suggesting: let's get together and spend an hour per portal to decide if it should be kept, even though nobody spent anywhere near that time creating it in the first place. If that's where we are, we'll have to agree to disagree, because I fundamentally don't believe these portals are worth a one-by-one analysis, and I believe the representative sample approach you advocate has been done and has led to the conclusion that these are worth mass deleting with exceptions. I guess that's for a closer to make the ultimate decision about, but for my part, from uninvolved editors, I'm seeing a lot more support than oppose for mass deletion. Leviv ich 14:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Levivich: If you're just going to ignore all the explanations I give in response to you (twice) and all the explanations elsewhere from me and others about why a reviewed selection of the worst being deleted (and not unanimously in all cases) is not evidence of the need for all of them to be deleted without possibility of review by others then it is clear we will never agree. Fortunately, per WP:VOLUNTEER, nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want to do - including you - and it's really disappointing that someone as experienced as you feels the need to prevent that work being done by others just because you don't want to. Perhaps between now and the time this is closed those in support of this overbroad proposal will actually choose to address the points in opposition but unless they do the only possible outcomes are no consensus or consensus against. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    Thryduulf, I heard you say: pick a representative sample and decide if they're all bad, some bad, etc. As I understand it, a representative sample has been sent to MfD with consensus to delete almost all of them, if not all of them (I'm not sure if lists I've seen are complete). Then you say that just because the sample is all-delete doesn't mean the whole category is all-delete. I infer you think the sample is not well-chosen? By TTH's admission there are like 4,500–5,000 portals, and a tiny tiny percentage of those are being manually maintained–like less than 5%. Are we on the same page about the facts so far? If so, where do you see consensus other than "delete 95% of these things"? Why can't we tag the 100 that are manually maintained and delete the remaining 4,500? I am reading what you're writing, but I am not understanding it. Leviv ich 16:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: these portals are easy to create semi-automatedly and contain no information not found in articles so we're not losing any information from Wikipedia, which sets this apart from most other CSD criteria. An alternative proposal I would support is to expand the remit of P2 to apply to any portals with fewer than one-hundred pages under their scope (or alternatively, fewer than one-hundred notable topics if there is evidence that the portal creators and users are planning to create such topics as articles). If a topic doesn't have 100 pages on it at the bare minimum, there's absolutely no reason to focus a portal around it. Even for portals covering tens of thousands of articles, reader interest is very, very low and the current semi-automated busywork is not serving the readers. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Biorv: a proposal for expansion of speedy deletion criterion P2 is being discussed currently at [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion}} (which is where proposals related to speedy deletion criteria should be held, not AN), so I will refrain from explaining here why I oppose your suggestion to avoid splitting the discussion. Thryduulf (talk)
  • Support with exceptions. I support the speedy deletion of all portals auto-created in recent months as it seems excessive and unnecessary. However, those few portals which are manually maintained in good faith should be kept. Down the line we need to take another look at a notability threshold to keep a lid on portalmania. Bermicourt (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    • If you believe there should be exceptions for portals maintained in good faith (and I agree there should be), then you should be opposing this proposal in favour of an alternative one that allows for that. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    X3 only covers the mass created automated portals started by TTH so already excludes the type of portal User:Bermicourt wants to exclude. Thryduulf is muddying the facts. Legacypac (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose because a) on procedural grounds this shouldn't be discussed at the AN "closed shop" and b) because these portals are doing no harm so great that they can be deleted without due process. It is not TTH's fault that the guidelines for portal creation are permissive. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have already voted here but I just wanted to provide an example of how much thought was going into the creation of these portals. Portal:Aquatic ecosystem was created by TTH on Aug 15 2018 and in classified as "Complete" despite having 4 selected images. An identical portal was created at Portal:Aquatic ecosystems by TTH on Nov 24 and is classified as "Substantial" (the portalspace equivalent of B-class). One wonders, which portal is of better quality, how was this determined, and how was this oversight not caught? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 13:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Criteria are supposed to be uncontestable - almost all pages could be deleted under this criterion, according to consensus. Looking at the most recent 50 portals created by TTH, I see a lot of frivolous ones, but I also see Portal:Pumpkins, Portal:Woodpeckers, Portal:International trade, and Portal:World economy, all of which represent subjects with well-populated categories. And I could add at least as many that are debatable. If TTH, now under a topic ban, were to create more portals, they could be speedy deleted under WP:G4. But the pages considered here were created before the ban, so they should stand or fall on their own merits. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @RockMagnetist: I think you mean WP:CSD#G5 (Creations by banned or blocked users) rather than WP:CSD#G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
      • WP:CSD#G5 cannot be used here. The locus of G5 revolves around obliterating the edits of LTA's and sockpupeters and for ban-evasion in a generalized scope. << FR (mobileUndo) 15:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
        • G5 can be used to delete pages created in violation of a topic ban, if deletion is the best course of action. I would never use G5 on a page that was a borderline violation, but that's not relevant here (I can't think of any page creation that would be anything other than clear-cut one way or the other). It's all theoretical though as TTH hasn't created any pages in violation of his ban and I think it unlikely they will. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
        • @FR30799386 and Thryduulf: My point in mentioning G4 (oops - G5!) was that it is a more appropriate standard for deleting pages based on who created them. The current proposal is too broad. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have gone over many of the portals. It seems that there are a mix of topics which are mainstream and some which should not have been created. This isn't a white or a black issue, the wheat must be carefully separated from the chaff. << FR (mobileUndo) 12:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC) !vote from sockpuppet struck. GoldenRing (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • FR, is there some issue with deleting them without prejudice to re-creating existing ones? These were basically made by a bot in what amounts to a single spasm, so deleting them all could be seen as a BRD reversion. The next step would be to let uninvolved editors recreate any worth keeping. Yes, that might take a while. There is no deadline and if some potentially useful portals have gone uncreated up til now, it's fine if they stay absent a little longer. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the proposal assumes that none of the portals should have been created, and that is an incorrect assumption. Certainly the are some that perhaps should not exist, but equally there are some that definitely should, and some that need a bit of discussion to determine consensus. Speedy deletion is not the way to resolve this. WaggersTALK 16:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • No, the proposal assumes (correctly) that 95% should never have been created, and that the tiny amount of time spent on those few that might be worth keeping doesn't justify the hours needed to discuss them all at MfD. The ones that get speedy deleted and would be an acceptable portal anyway can easily be recreated if someone really wants them. No effort has gone into creating these portals (usually not even the effort of checking if the result was errorfree, never mind informative or not a duplicate of existing portals), so demanding a week-long discussion for all of them because sometimes the mindless effort created an acceptable result is putting the cart before the horse. Fram (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not a sensible solution. Also, given WP:PAPER, could you explain why the existence of these portals is such a problem? This is nothing more than a massive exercise in punishing a user for the crime of trying to improve the encyclopaedia and getting a bit overenthusiastic. It's horrible to see and I honestly thought the Wikipedia community was better than this. WaggersTALK 11:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    The existence of these portals is a problem because they add extra clutter to already link-intensive articles (the lower part of our articles has become more and more overcrowded over the years, with authority links, navboxes, links to sister projects, ...) and removing links with no or very little value makes the articles better and avoids sending readers to utterly useless pages created in a completely mindless manner without oversight or care. Deleting pages which are useless is not "punishing a user", that is a WP:OWN approach you show there which should not be taken into consideration when debating whether to keep or delete pages. Punishing the user would be blocking or banning them. Fram (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    And that is happening (or has happened) too, so my point very much stands. Describing an editor's good faith hard work as "useless" isn't exactly conducive to a civil discussion either. Certainly some of the portals created are worthy of deletion, others are worthy of being kept. I could support a new PROD criterion, but CSD is not the right tool for this job. WaggersTALK 12:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose—CSD is for stuff where there's zero grey area. At best, this should be a specialized PROD. Gaelan 💬✏️ 14:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (CSD criterion X3)

  • Oppose Although the vast majority may not be needed: that does not mean they should just be deleted (without oversight or consensus). The arguments for this critera seem to be centered around: 'so little work was put into them, therefore we shouldn't need to put in any work to fix it'. Why not just let them sit there then? Is there a deadline? Seeing as portals themselves are an auxiliary aide to our main focus (of writing articles) this seems unnecessary. I'm surprised that this is (at least) the second time that a Private Bill has been proposed for the cSd, I guess times have changed a bit. It seems uncollegial to respond to opposers by saying: "then you better help out with all the MfD's'. I agree with the points made by SMcCandlish and RockMagnetist among others. Crazynas t 23:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • "Why not just let them sit there then"? Have you actually looked at the pure drivel many of these portals are? Most of these portals are not an "auxiliary aid", they are random shit, bot generated without bot permission but without actual human oversight. Sending any reader to such total shit is a disgrace. The below image is how one of these portals looks right now, after it has existed for 7 months and after this discussion highlighting many problems has run for a month. Time spent discussing these (time spent looking at these) is time wasted. Any portal which people think is necessary after all can be recreated (in a much better fashion) afterwards, the speedy deletion of these doesn't restrict this. But keeping the shit an editor mass produced because their may be some less shitty pages included is doing a disservice to the people who actually wander to these portals and can only stare in dsbelief at what we show them. "'Calamba, officially the ', (Tagalog: Lungsod ng Calamba), or known simply as Calamba City is a class of the Philippines in the province of , . According to the ?, it has a population of people. " Fram (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
have you looked at all the shit that sits in the mainspace (some of it for years)? There are like 182,000 unreferenced articles live right now, but this is the hill we're choosing to die on? Crazynas t 21:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Large in-line image
 
Typical example of the kind of portals spammed across enwiki. Not just the five errors, but also the actual "text" of the lead article...
Thank you for identifying a problem with a small number of Philippines portals where the lead contains {{PH wikidata}}, a technique designed for use in infoboxes. I'll pass your helpful comments on to the relevant WikiProject. Certes (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
No, please pass my comment on to all people supporting these portals, but not bothering to actually look at what they propose or defend. Creating and supporting pages with such blatant problems is basically the same as vandalism. There are e.g. also quite a few portals which confront their readers with the below "selected article" (as the default selected article, not even when scrolling deeper). Or with the same image two or three times. Or... The list of problems with these portals is near endless (selected categories only consisting of one redlink? Sure...). The fact that adding a category can cause a page to look completely different and generate different errors (like in the example above) should be a major indicator that this system, used on thousands of pages, is not as foolproof and low in maintenance as is being claimed. Fram (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Large in-line image
 
Read more... and weep
Thank you for your continued help in identifying portal issues. I have found and fixed three pages which had repeated "Read more" links. If you could be kind enough to reveal which portal you have depicted as "PortalShit2.png", we may also be able to fix that case and any similar ones. Certes (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There are two very simple solutions: either support X3, and all these portals are instantly fixed. Or actually take a look at all these low maintenance, automatic portals of the future, find the many issues, and fix them. Which still won't solve the problem that many of them are utterly pointless, mindless creations of course. I've noted more than enough problems with these portals to wholeheartedly support speedy deletion, since spending any time "corecting" a portal like the Calamba one is a waste of time (as it should be deleted anyway, speedy or not). Fram (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Fram: You are clearly not understanding the opposition to this proposal. It is not about supporting the inclusion of poor content, it is about opposing a speedy deletion criterion that fails the criteria for new and expanded criteria and would delete content that should not be deleted in addition to content that should. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
No, I often have trouyble understanding burocratic opposition which creates tons of extra work for very little actual benefit. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that this actually fails the four criteria: it is objective and nonredundant (I guess we all agree on these two?), it is frequent (in the sense that having 3K portals at MfD is quite a heavy load, it's not just one or two pages), so we are left with "Uncontestable", which doesn't mean that as soon ass someone opposes it, it becomes contested, but that "almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus.". Looking at this discussion and the MfDs, I believe this to be true. Opposing this new CSD rule "because it is contested" is circular reasoning, as you are then basically saying "it is contested because it is contested", which is obviously not a valid argument. Having a significant number of portals which fall under the X3 but should not be deleted (which doesn't equal "should never exist", only "should not exist in the current form or any older form in the page history") would be a good argument, but I haven't seen any indication of such. Fram (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Frequent is not an issue (it wouldn't be as a permanent criteria, but as a temporary one it's fine), non-redundant is not an issue for most (although a few might be caught by P2 that's not a significant proportion so not a probelm). This proposal (unlike the ones being discussed at WT:CSD) is objective as written (created by a single user within a defined time period). Uncontestable however very much is, the requirement is "It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. CSD criteria should cover only situations where there is a strong precedent for deletion. Remember that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect, unless you word it carefully." It is very clear from this discussion and others around these portals that not all of them should be deleted - several have received strong objections to deletion at MfD, some are argued to be kept and others merged. "it is contested because it is contested" is exactly the point of this requirement - nobody argues in good faith against deleting copyright violations, patent nonsense, recreations, or specific types of articles that don't assert importance. There is consensus that were these to be discussed they would be unanimously deleted every time. There is no such consensus about these portals. Some, perhaps most, should be deleted but not all of them. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I am pleased to report that a recent module change should eliminate the problem where articles too short to be worth featuring occasionally appear as "Read more... Read more...". This should fix the mystery portal depicted above next time it is purged. Certes (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Thryduulf your opposition to X3 is baffling. You oppose it basically because some topics where Portals were mass created using automated tools against policy may warrant portals. But none of these pages have any original content to preserve. They are mindless spam poorly repackaging existing content. Kind of a poor Wikipedia mirror effort. MFDing these has proven they are unwelcome - yet you want to force us to spend a week debating pages that the creator spent seconds to create without even checking for compliance against their own criteria or for major errors? If these deletions were actually controversial (the only one of the 4 CSD criteria you say is not followed) we would expect a significant number of the MfDs to close Keep. We might expect the creator to defend and explain, but instead the creator freely admits he ignored WP:POG. Seriously makes me doubt your competence and judgement. Admins should show better judgement then this. Legacypac (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Legacypac: Assuming you mean X3, then I have explained every single one of my reasons several times and you have either not listened or not understood on every single one of those occasions so I Will not waste even more of my time explaining them again. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Second Legacypac. Additionally, part of what I meant by "some might be worth keeping" is that they can be deleted, but if any were actually worthy they could be recreated, perhaps with more care and effort than this. SemiHypercube 17:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems like a lot of what is objected to can be covered by a judicious use of P2, G1, and A3 (via P1) but there's probably something I'm missing. @Fram:, I'm not here to support bad content, but bad policy (and precedent) can be far more harmful to the project than 'repackaged nonsense' existing for a bit longer than some people want it to. This would have the side effect of saving the portals worth saving. Crazynas t 22:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose let's discuss deletion based on content and merit of individual portals. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water, this is not how we do things here. You're proposing deletion of many very good portals here. ɱ (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Please identify 35 out of the 3500 (1%) that are "very good portals" so we can run them through MFD to test your statement. Also there is no baby - there is no original content at all. No work done by humans is lost with X3 deletions because they were created using an automated script that was used without BAG approval to repackage existing content. Therefore WP:PRESERVE is not an issue. If someone started creating thousands of articles called "Foo lite" that just copied Foo mindlessly we would CSD them without debate. These are just in another mainspace but they are really Foo lite. Legacypac (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Except that's not comparable at all. The point of portals (which the community has repeatedly endorsed) is to duplicate article content and provide links to related content - which is exactly what these portals are doing. They might be doing it poorly in many cases, but that's qualitatively different to one article duplicating another. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be faster to delete them all and then recreate the ones that need recreating, rather than go through them one by one to see which to keep? Because the number of "keeps" is like 5% or 10% and not 50%? (It would have to be 50% to be equal time between the two approaches.) If you're not convinced that it's 5-10% keep and not 50% keep, what sort of representative sampling process can we engage in to test the theory? Leviv ich 19:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes it would be faster, but there is no deadline so it is very significantly more important to get it right than it is to do it quickly. Deleting something that doesn't need deleting is one of the most harmful things that an administrator can do - and speedily deleting it is an order of magnitude more so. As only administrators can see pages once they have been deleted, and doing so is much harder, deleting it first makes the job of finding the good portals very significantly harder. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Timing matters because this issue is being discussed in several forums at once. If the first debate to close decides to delete, the portals may be gone by the time another discussion reaches a consensus to keep them. Certes (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • CommentI listed The Transhumanist's portal creations, latest first, and examined the top entry on each page, i.e. every 100th portal.
Assessment of a sample of TTH's recent creations
  1. Portal:Polar exploration – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 50 excerpts with more links at the bottom. Four other images, plus plenty more in the 50 leads. Manual input: refining the search criteria for Did You Know and In the News (DYK+ITN).
  2. Portal:Nick Jr. – Lua error: No images found. (To be fair, there may have been images before a recently requested module change to suppress images without captions.) 13 excerpts. No manual input: the wikitext matches that generated by {{bpsp6}}.
  3. Portal:Alternative metal – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 11 excerpts; one other image. Manual input: refining DYK+ITN.
  4. Portal:Modulation – decent but minimal portal with no obvious errors. 30 excerpts; four other images. Several manual improvements.
  5. Portal:Spanish Civil War – potentially good portal but with a couple of display errors which look fixable. 30 excerpts; 20 other images. Manual input: routine maintenance, probably of a routine technical nature rather than creative.
  6. Portal:Carl Jung – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 40+ excerpts; six other images. Routine maintenance.
  7. Portal:Reba McEntire – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ other excerpts; six images. Routine maintenance.
  8. Portal:Romantic music – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 40+ excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance.
  9. Portal:Anton Chekhov – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 36 excerpts; 17 other images. Routine maintenance.
  10. Portal:Media manipulation – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; no image section. Routine maintenance.
  11. Portal:Desalination – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 15 excerpts; six other images. Manual input: refining DYK+ITN.
  12. Portal:Abuse – This portal has display errors which make it hard to evaluate properly. It's had plenty of manual input, possibly in attempts to fix it.
  13. Portal:Emmy Awards – decent appearance; one minor display error which looks fixable.(fixed) 50 excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance.
  14. Portal:Shanghai cuisine – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 19 excerpts; four other images. Routine maintenance.
  15. Portal:Saab Automobile – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; 14 other images. Routine maintenance.
  16. Portal:High-speed rail – decent appearance; one minor display error which looks fixable.(fixed) 40+ excerpts; 30+ other images. Routine maintenance.
  17. Portal:Tetris – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 30+ excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance.
  18. Portal:Azores – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 20 excerpts; 18 other images. Some manual improvements.
  19. Portal:Musical instruments – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 40+ excerpts; 13 other images. Routine maintenance.
  20. Portal:Hidalgo (state) – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 11 excerpts; 16 other images. Routine maintenance.
  21. Portal:Sporting Kansas City – decent appearance; one minor display error which looks fixable;(fixed) narrow scope. 11 excerpts; 7 other images. Routine maintenance.
  22. Portal:Piciformes – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 9 excerpts; one other image. Routine maintenance.
  23. Portal:Birds-of-paradise – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 50 excerpts; five other images. Some manual improvements. Currently at MfD with the rationale that woodpeckers are not a family.
  24. Portal:Coffee production – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; 11 other images. Routine maintenance.
  25. Portal:Albanian diaspora – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 30+ excerpts; three other images. Routine maintenance.
  26. Portal:University of Nebraska–Lincoln – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 18 excerpts; eight other images. Routine maintenance. Currently at MfD with the rationale that Portal:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff contains only two articles.
  27. Portal:University of Gothenburg – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 10 excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance.
  28. Portal:Transformers – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; two other images (everything else is non-free). Some manual improvements.
  29. Portal:Boston Celtics – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; 16 other images. Routine maintenance.
  30. Portal:Newbury Park, California – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 16 excerpts; 34 other images. Routine maintenance.
  31. Portal:Vanessa Williams – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 30+ excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance.
  32. Portal:Bette Midler – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40 excerpts; seven other images. Routine maintenance.
  33. Portal:Ozzy Osbourne – generally decent appearance but several minor display errors;(fixed) narrow scope. 50 excerpts; 17 other images. Routine maintenance.
  34. Portal:Carnegie Mellon University – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 15 excerpts; 28 other images. Routine maintenance.
  35. Portal:Milwaukee – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 15 excerpts; 47 other images. Some manual improvements. Too few excerpts but potentially good.
  36. Portal:Billings, Montana – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. Four excerpts; 27 other images. Some manual improvements.
  37. Portal:Empire of Japan – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; 20 other images but with a couple of repeats. Routine maintenance.
  38. Portal:Cheese – decent appearance; no obvious errors. Nine excerpts; 50+ other images. Extensive manual improvements. Too few excerpts but potentially good.
It appears that most of the portals have a narrow scope and should go but a significant minority are either already of a good enough standard to keep or show sufficient potential to merit further attention. This impression is based not on cherry-picking but on a random sample. Certes (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for this, this is a very good illustration of why this proposal is too broad - it will delete portals that clearly should not be deleted, and others that may or may not need to be deleted (e.g. I've !voted to merge several of the portals about universities). Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Query Why don't we have a CSD for pages created by unauthorized scripts or bots? WP:BAG exists for a reason right? (And this seems to be a good example of it). Crazynas t 21:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Crazynas: because not all of them should be deleted, as [[user:|Certes]] analysis immediately above demonstrates perfectly. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: You're missing my point. Just like we have a policy that banned users are to be reverted in all cases not because they might not make good edits (to game the system or not) but because they are a disruption to the community; so we should have a policy that pages created (or edited I suppose) by unauthorized bots are inherently not welcome, because of the potential for disruption regardless of their merit (by disruption I'm talking about this AN thread as much as the pages themselves). This is the whole reason we have a group dedicated to overseeing and helping with bots right? Crazynas t 22:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
No bots were involved. The pages were created using a template. One of your last page creations was a user talk page, where you welcomed a new editor using Twinkle. You did a very professional job, by applying a template which introduces the new editor with the sort of carefully considered and neatly arranged prose that we don't have time to write every time a new contributor appears. Using a template is not a valid rationale for mass deletions. Certes (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Curious, what template did you use? I guess the difference I see is the twinkle is highly curated and subject to extensive review (as are the templates it calls). If all these pages were manually created, then what happened in the example of (what to me looks pretty much like G1) that Fram posted above? Why didn't the human that pressed the button take responsibility for that (so to speak) pile of rubbish? To clarify, Bot here covers scripts, AWB (which is 'manual'), java implementations etc. In short: "Bot policy covers the operation of all bots and automated scripts used to provide automation of Wikipedia edits, whether completely automated, higher speed, or simply assisting human editors in their own work." The policy explicitly references mass page creation as being under the purview of BAG here. Crazynas t 22:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I haven't used any of these templates myself but recent portals have been created by variants on {{Basic portal start page}}. The numbered versions such as {{bpsp6}} cater for portal-specific conditions such as there being no DYKs to feature. Certes (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Crazynas: I was simply answering your question about why we do not speedy delete every page created by an unauthorised bot, etc - simply because not every page created by such means should be deleted. You are also mistaken about banned users - they may be reverted but they are not required to be. Certes analysis shows that some of the portals created by the script have been improved since, sometimes significantly. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Sure, and this is tangential to the proposal here (which I'm still opposing, if you noticed). In any case the thought I'm having wouldn't be applied ex post facto but it would make it explicitly clear that mass creation of pages by automated or semi-automated means without prior approval is disruptive. Crazynas t 23:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The problem with many of these recently created template-based portals is that it is difficult or impossible to improve them. I've edited portals for over a decade but cannot work out how to change the portal code to include or exclude a particular article or image. (For articles I believe one has to change the template or mark the article as stub to exclude it; for images I believe it just harvests those from the main topic article.) Thus they are not drafts that could be further improved, they are static uneditable entities for which the only solution is to start from scratch. There is no thought to be preserved that is not equally present in the list of articles in the template/images in the root article. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The key issue is that traditionally, portals are viewed as entry points to broad topic areas. However a page generated by the helper templates that draw content from an underlying navigation box is more akin to a second screen experience: it provides an X-ray view into the navigation box. It's not clear this is the experience the community wants to provide for readers visiting something labelled a portal. isaacl (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • the automated scripts are so easy to fool. Even if everything looks perfect when the portal is set up, as soon as someone adds an new link to a nav box (that may make sense in the nav box but not for the portal), adds an image to a page, or creates a DYK completely unrelated to the topic which includes the five letters "horse" within someone's name behind a pipe, you get random inappropriate stuff in an automated portal. The editor adjusting the nav box, adding a picture without a caption per WP:CAPTIONOBVIOUS or creating the DYK has no idea the portal is being busted. There is no edit to the portal to review so watch listing the portal does not help. You have to manually review the portal display regularly. That is before looking at lua errors. Autogenerated content is a bad idea. Forcing other editors to review your auto generated crap is wrong. Ignoring the guidelines because they are "outdated" and leaving 4500 pages that need to be checked and discussed against the guidelines by other editors is wrong. The only reasonable solution is to nuke these from orbit. Then if someone willing to follow the guidelines and use intellgently designed and applied tools want to recreate some titles, that is fine. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Everything you say before "The only reasonable solution..." may be true but is irrelevant to this proposal as written. "Nuking them from orbit" is not the only reasonable solution, as fixing the issues so that the portals don't break is also reasonable. As is not deleting the ones that have been fixed so that the errors you talk about don't occur. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

      Portal creation ... is down to about a minute per portal. The creation part, which is automated, takes about 10 seconds. The other 50 seconds is taken up by manual activities, such as finding candidate subjects, inspecting generated portals, and selecting the portal creation template to be used according to the resources available. Tools are under development to automate these activities as much as possible, to pare portal creation time down even more. Ten seconds each is the goal.
      — Portal Update #29, 13 Feb 2019

      Someone spent less than 50 seconds creating the page; requiring editors to spend more time than that to delete it has an extortionate effect, even though there's a good faith intent. If we don't nuke from orbit, then those who want these automatically-created portals deleted will be forced to spend far, far more than 50 seconds per portal discussing them one by one (or ten by ten, or one hundred by one hundred, it'll still be a lot of time). 50 seconds "taken up by manual activities" is how we end up with a Portal:Sexual fetishism that includes Pedophilia as one of the selected articles–probably not the best selection–but that's been there for five months now. Leviv ich 03:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Two wrongs do not make a right and there is no deadline. The only reason for deleting them all you seem to have is that you don't like that these portals were created so quickly, and that some of them are bad. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion and some of them are bad. However that does not equate to a reason to delete all of them without checking whether they are good or bad. If you have problems with specific portals then they should be fixed and/or nominated for deletion, as I see you have done in this case, but just because X is bad doesn't mean that the entire set of pages of which is a part should be speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
        • "There is no deadline" is a complete non-argument. There is no deadline to have these portals either. Knowingly advocating for keeping problematic portals around until someone not only notices it but also decides to MfD it is exposing readers to shitty, thoughtless reproductions of content for no actual benefit (the benefits" of these portals are addressed dequately by the navigation templates they are based on) and with the risk of showing them all kinds of errors which gives a very poor impression. Luckily very few people get actually exposed to these pages, but this also means that the very hypothetical damage deleting some of these pages would do is extremely minimal. Fram (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
          • There was indeed no deadline for their creation, now they have been created that is irrelevant. If we follow your logic though we should delete every article and then just recreate the ones that admins vet as meeting an undefined standard. Yes, deleting more slowly does increase the risk that some readers will see errors, but thtat's exactly what happens in every other namespace without a problem. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
            • No, that's not my logic. Your use of "no deadline" when it suits you, and the dismissal when it doesn't, is quite clear though. Deleting articles is losing content, deleting these auto-portals is losing nothing. Furthermore, we have in the past speedy deleted large groups of articles by one or two creators once it became clear that too many contained errors. This has been done with thousands of articles by Dr. Blofeld, with thousands by Jaguar, and with thousands by Sander v. Ginkel (the last ones moved to draft and then deleted afterwards). Once we know that with one group of creations by one editor, there are many problems, we had no qualms in the past to speedy delete them. That didn't mean that they can't be recreated, or that admins will first vet them, no idea where you get those ideas. Please don't make a caricature of what I support here, and please don't make absolute statements which don't match reality. Fram (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1) Let's not create precedents where we hand single admins editorial control, admins may well be great editors (some better than others), but let's keep editorial control as much as possible only with all editors. 2) The formulation of this supposed CSD criteria seems to be a WP:PUNISH against a single user. (As an aside, different perspective: there are perhaps millions of pages in article space that are "poor", so portal space is bound to have them, too - just work through it -- and if we come-up with new forward looking policies and guidelines for all portals (or mass creations) consistent as possible with the 5 P, all the better). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per Fish & Karate. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I feel there are much better ways of handling the situation, including but not limited to: expanding P2, Portal PROD, and even MFD. This is too broad of a sword that doesn't even cut in the right places since it's only limited to one user in a given time frame. -- Tavix (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thought I had voted here but I guess I hadn’t. Regardless, my thinking on this has changed because of Certes’ in-depth analysis of TTH’s portal creations. Anyway: Oppose. The mass creation of portals is something that should be dealt with preferably quickly, but this proposal as written is not the right way to do it. Sure, there are a lot of crappy portals that could be deleted fairly uncontroversially, but there are also a lot of good portals as well as edge cases that deserve more community discussion on whether they should be deleted, or at least a longer waiting period so users may object. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I still hope that the proposal might become limited to portals looked at and determined to be poor by some objective criteria, which I could support, but that hasn't yet happened. Speedy ad hominem deletion regardless of subsequent tuning, current quality or even potential for future improvement is likely to throw too many babies out with the bathwater. Certes (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Duplicate !vote stricken. GoldenRing (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Regretfully support: as an editor I dislike the idea of creations made by certain users being deleted en masse but, quite frankly, MfD cannot cope with the influx at the moment. Hell, I've got a decent laptop and MfD is getting so big scrolling down causes a bit of lag. SITH (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support of something to this effect, per WP:MASSCREATION and WP:TNT (i.e., the babies thrown out with the bathwater can be recovered later). However, opponents raise good points of localizing control to a few members, and while I do argue that portals are not content, they are a navigational tool, so community control of them can be a bit "stricter" than mainspace articles, perhaps something like PROD would be better. Regardless of how this pans out, for future portals going forward I proposed Portals for Creation at RfC, and created a mockup here if anyone wants a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John M Wolfson (talk • contribs)
    Why is requiring administrators to comb through deleted portals to find those that should not have been deleted in order to restore them, having inconvenienced those people who use the portals in the mean time, in any way better for the project than deleting only those that need to be deleted? Thryduulf (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Worthless pages which take 12 seconds to create shouldn't take more than 50000 times that for multiple users to delete. If a subject WikiProject or person interested in the portal's subject is willing to "adopt" that portal, or even assert that the portal is not useless, a more nuanced consideration may apply. And, I should point out, some of the individual deletions are incomplete, as user-facing pages (mostly categories and navigation templates, but some actual article pages) still point to the deleted portals. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2019 (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.

Large scale WP:COPYWITHIN

I noticed a student is presently editing the article Ghost hunting as part of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. The student appears to have simply copy/pasted the text from a number of existing articles into Ghost hunting. See Before and After. Bear in mind I don't get the impression the student intends a WP:MERGE of any kind, they seem to be just aggregating other articles they feel are related to the topic. Besides the obvious WP:ATTREQ problem, I don't think this improves the article. But not having run across this situation before, I would appreciate some assistance in identifying the relevant policy/guidelines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The course syllabus Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Texas AM/Technical Editing (Spring 2019). Based on the syllabus, they are not trying to expand new content but improve what exists through "organization, appropriateness, and Wikipedia style". Maybe the student interpreted that to mean copywithin ie. reorganizing content from one article into another. That sort of thing can be done, but if you don't feel it's an improvement discuss/revert through normal process. The syllabus says the students will learn how to work with the community so it is part of the teaching process to engage with them. There are also links to the teacher contacts if there is confusion what "organization" means in terms of copying content between articles. Personally I don't think large-scale copywithin is a good idea as it can create content forks that become hard to untangle and read. Just link to the original. -- GreenC 01:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I see the instructor has also given guidance to students about article practices in the past. One more question, tho. I have always operated under the assumption that when one wrote, say, three paras of text about a topic that is the focus of an existing main article, and then linked to that existing main article, you tried to avoid having the reader arrive at the main article and find the same text they just read repeated over again. I don't know if there is anything in WP:MOS that would formalize or clarify this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:SUMMARY might be the place. -- GreenC 15:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Inline tag preferred when OTRS confirmation is the only reference?

I recently answered an edit request regarding a subject who's marriage was cited properly in their Wikipedia article by the NYT. The couple had separated since then and the subject asked for that to be reflected in the article. (OTRS ident confirmed). I removed the claim entirely, but immediately came to feel that this was wrong and that the obvious solution would have been to input the claim of separation into the article but with a {{cn}} tag. That course of action had initially felt like the wrong thing to do, since a cn tag can have the effect of calling things "into question" when the facts here were not in dispute - it's just that they weren't ref'd by the NYT. But erasing the entire claim felt like I was erasing their relationship, which really feels wrong. Before I go changing things back and forth again I need to know if consensus for dealing with OTRS-only claims is to just {{cn}} tag it.   Thanks in advance for feedback.  Spintendo  01:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have always felt that if we know for a fact a statement in Wikipedia is false, but nominally reliable sources uniformly say it's true, we need to just leave it out entirely. Including situations like this one, where the statement is literally true but implies something false. "Bob married Bobette in 2009" is of course still true even if they divorced years later, but mentioning the marriage without the divorce implies they are still married. Anyway, my vote is always to just include nothing. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
That works for me!   Thanks  Spintendo  08:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Did you look to see if the divorce has been publicized? It is most correct to include both details. (See also WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE.) --Izno (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to store article data in the template namespace

An RfC is being held at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#RfC on templates storing data on the question "Is storing data an acceptable use of template namespace?". Additional participation is requested. -- Netoholic @ 01:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

GA Review done within project?

Hello! I occasionally hear an editor suggest that a GA review must be done by someone outside the project for which it was composed. I can find no such guideline in any official document (and not all articles are composed within the auspices of a project anyway).

Can someone shed definitive light on this?

For the record, given our backlogs, I'd take a review from anyone! :)

Neopeius (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I think there is no such guideline, and there is no "must" about it. I think sometimes we want the kind of expertise you will most likely find in the relevant wikiproject, when the article is on a subject of highly technical interest and proper coverage of the subject matter requires a high level of technicality. Usually, though, we care about accessibility to non-experts, so it may be better to wait for people to turn up and review articles. Were you thinking of advertising the GA review request to the Wikiproject members? — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
That's generally what I do, yes. :) --Neopeius (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Deemphasizing terrorist names

Can you direct me to any information on how Wikipedia deals with "deemphasizing" certain names and other information (such as names of terrorist organizations or specific terrorists themselves) in order to "not give them air". That is, deemphasizing media coverage which might have the effect of causing more violence or terrorism. I'm thinking specifically about the practice of not including the names of individual terrorists or mass murderers IN THE LEAD of the article about the incident. I'm not finding any info about this specific subject in WP:BLP. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia in an encyclopedia, and as such our articles reflect what is in reliable sources. If the sources start purposely omitting names our articles will follow the sources. The other way to get what you want is to propose a change to our BLP policy through an RfC and see if you can get consensus. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is the right place to post such an RcF and WP:RfC gives you the nuts and bolts on how to create an RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Thanks, Guy. But I'm not even sure I have a policy; I was only requesting information. It seems to me that, in most articles, some of the sources will deliberately omit names while some of them won't. So we're back to consensus of the current contributors of the specific article. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
This is pretty much WP:NOTCENSORED. You don't need to plaster Justin Bourque 20348 times in the Moncton shooting article, but you've got to mention him. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • With regard to the case where sources disagree there is the case that when sources don't cover something, we naturally focus our consideration on sources that do. As a general editor pool we wouldn't consider those than don't, when evaluating source consensus, unless they actually state they are de-emphasizing names. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
As with many things on Wikipedia the answer is that it depends on the particular circumstances of the article in question and its sources, so I don't think you will find any prescriptive policy about this. One thing that must be borne in mind is that we shouldn't describe any living person as a murderer or terrorist, rather than a suspected murderer or terrorist, unless they have been convicted. As regards "not give them air", that idea, which was at the time usually known in the UK as "the oxygen of publicity", failed miserably in this case, and I think would also fail in any other case, at least in countries that have some semblance of freedom of expression. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
"Not give them air" seems like WP:RGW to me, and closely related to social activism. My understanding is that Wikipedia tries to be dispassionate as to the social/societal effects of its content (notwithstanding one or two niche areas that have crossed that line). ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject members/participants/volunteers/minions

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.
Thanks for your ideas. ∯WBGconverse 11:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Many years ago, there was some disagreement over what WikiProject members/participants/volunteers/minions should be called. The two leading contenders were the terms members and participants. It was decided that each WikiProject could call their members/participants/volunteers/minions whatever they preferred. Unfortunately, over the years this has led to proponents of either term using their favorite despite the chosen WikiProject members/participants category name. This has led to a perplexing mix of the two terms within many, if not most, WikiProjects. I propose that all WikiProjects be required strongly encouraged to pick either the term members or the term participants and make all references in their project pages, templates, and categories use that term. If a WikiProject does not like its members/participants category name, the members should request a category renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Speedy renaming and merging. Thank you for your consideration,  Buaidh  talk contribs 01:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a problem that this would solve? Natureium (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
This can be very confusing, especially to new and prospective members/participants. They don't know if members and participants are the same thing or if there are two classes of participation. The WikiProject pages, templates, and categories must all be linked together, and the confusion of terms greatly complicates this process. Laissez faire has not worked.  Buaidh  talk contribs 02:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Can you provide any instances of where this has caused any confusion? It just seems like the normal use of normal English words to me, rather than anything confusing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Virtually all of the U.S. state WikiProjects switch back and forth between the terms members and participants. I am in the process of editing project pages and templates to match the WikiProject members/participants category.  Buaidh  talk contribs 02:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question. I don't doubt that projects use more than one name for the people who take part in them, but can you give an example of where this has led to confusion? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
It bedevils me. This is just one more thing that leads to decreased WikiProject participation. I've spent a week trying to straighten these 50 WikiProjects out.  Buaidh  talk contribs 15:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe the proper collective noun is a "confederacy", so individual members are "confederates". –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Cabalists. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I find it difficult to imagine that this makes any meaningful difference whatsoever. Let people use whatever terminology they want. GMGtalk 15:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I propose letting each WikiProject use whatever term they wish. I just ask that they use that term consistently. Inconsistency is slowly eroding Wikipedia. Entropy will eventually triumph.  Buaidh  talk contribs 16:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Rest assured, the impending doom of Wikipedia, whenever it comes, will almost certainly not be the result of somewhat inconsistent usage of essentially synonymous terms in project space. GMGtalk 16:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This is arguably the most pointless proposal I've ever seen; we're not going to introduce a new policy to address a non-existent problem, the existence of which you've not provided the slightest evidence for other than "it bedevils me". Wikiprojects are informal and unofficial groupings of people with similar interests, not paramilitary groups or political parties where the exact degree of someone's formal involvement does potentially have significance; it doesn't make the slightest difference to anyone whether someone considers themselves a "member of", a "participant in" or a "person with an interest in" any given project. In any case, WikiProjects are a legacy of the Wikipedia of 2007 and the overwhelming majority are completely defunct and have no active members, so the point is largely irrelevant. ‑ Iridescent 15:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. If we wish to get rid of WikiProjects, do so. Don't just let them turn into mush. No wonder editors are giving up on Wikipedia.  Buaidh  talk contribs 16:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I think instruction creep poses a much bigger problem for editor retention than variation. postdlf (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think of this as an instruction, but rather a no-brainer like spelling things correctly and consistently. "Color" and "colour" are the same thing, but "culler" is not.  Buaidh  talk contribs 16:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Buaidh, you obviously understand that these words mean the same thing, so this would need evidence that anybody else has been confused or bedevilled (another of those words spelt differently by some) by this. Your color/colour/culler analogy doesn't hold, because all of the words at issue here are spelt and used correctly. And don't you think that your assertions that this issue leads to decreased WikiProject participation or even editors giving up on Wikipedia are just a little hyperbolic and irrational? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I am both hyperbolic and irrational, but this still bothers me. I belong to an older generation that cares about these things.  Buaidh  talk contribs 20:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
There are plenty of us here who belong to an older generation. I'm not quite old enough to have served in the Vietnam War (if I was from one of the combatant countries) but am still the right side of 60. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad for you kids. Are you trying to run up your edit count?  Buaidh  talk contribs 22:24, 18 March 2019 (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.

Consistent Names of Subjects in the Captions of Biography Pages

Across Wikipedia, it looks like the names in the captions in biography pages can be inconsistent. Sometimes, they use the last name of the subject, other times, they use the full name. This should be regularized. A full name is better and has the ability to be more uniform than merely the last name. Here are examples:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton (last name)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein (full name)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking (last name)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bea_Arthur (last name)

I'm thinking this would be a good style policy or guideline. I'm new to Wikipedia proposals (and Village pump), so please excuse me if I didn't follow convention in submitting an idea. InnovativeInventor (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The answer is in the first 14 words at MOS:SURNAME, and it carves out no exception for infobox photo captions. There's no need for a new guideline, and editors disregarding SURNAME would disregard a new guideline as well. I've fixed Einstein. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

On terminology on breaking violent crime articles

In watching how the Christchurch mosque shooting article has developed, and seeing other things in the past, I think we need to better establish some policy for how to describe certain factors related to these crimes while the attack is still recent and investigations are ongoing.

We already have BLP that cautions that we should call any named suspect as actual criminals/murderers. But there are other aspects that are not directly covered by policies that editors rush to jump to conclusions based on media coverage but not necessary by the police authority or judicial body overseeing the change. So for example, in the day(s) after a crime these are problematic:

  • Factually stating the motive of the crime/suspect. Media analysts can make usually judgements that are correct at the end of the day, but the only authoritative voice in the actual motive are the police/government investigators that will present that information in the final report. Even within the government side, you'll have leaders that will make statements of motive but who are not directly involved in the investigation outside of being updated as it proceeds. In such cases, while it is appropriate to include what the media has come to believe, this should always be attributed or stated presumption.
  • Where an attack is terrorism related or not. This is a title editors and media love to jump on, but it is a term to be very careful about. Most countries have laws that define what is a terrorist act actually is which subsequently leads to different penalties for those that commit those acts. But it is very easy for media and politicians to say in the hours after an attack it is terrorism going by the more common definition of the word, but when really the full picture is nowhere close to determining if that's the case from the legal side.
  • Separately, many countries also have provisions for law enforcement officials to treat a situation as terrorism-related which gives them unique powers that help to arrest those more quickly and prevent further harm to the public. So just because a head of police has stated they are treating an attack as a terrorist situation, doesn't meant the attack was terrorism-related, only that they are using the special powers to expedite the immediate threats.

There are probably other parts of recent crime coverage that might also fall out of BLP, but its all related to the fact that the media, while reliable sources, cannot be considered reliable for trying to understand why a crime was done while an active investigation is ongoing. We can consider WP:UNDUE here, and if a crime was widely considered to be driven by, say, anti-immigration, then we can list that with attribution to media. We just have to avoid speaking on these terms in an factual WP voice until we can use the conclusion of the investigation to complete that. --Masem (t) 19:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The best way to deal with such things would be for us to stop trying to be a news site and to start waiting until good quality secondary sources are available before having an article about an event. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Phil, I completely agree... But it ain’t gonna happen. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
It could happen. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
A 24-hour delay after something is reported before an article can be created would be nice, but that's just wishful thinking. Natureium (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, "wishful thinking" is my sentiment exactly. I'm just not sure any amount of reasoned calm discussion at the village pump is ever going to affect the ravenous hordes of breaking news editors. I mean, say what you want about em, but they've got motivation to spare. GMGtalk 12:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my comment rather derailed this discussion. I was saying what I think should happen in an ideal world, rather than what there is much chance of happening in an encyclopedia where many editors rush to be the first to break a piece of news, and seem to believe that we should cover everything that is in the news. In these circumstances the best we can do is to be sceptical about whatever otherwise reliable sources might say, because they haven't had time to be sure of the facts. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm neutral on the waiting front (both sides have major merits), but on these specific points I think @Masem: is onto something - the motive one in particular is all over the place in the first few days. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support what I think the TLDR above is saying; in that we should avoid ascribing motive and cause to events, and merely reporting that they happened. "15 people are shot and killed in Anytown, Nation" is an acceptable blurb. "A terrorist kills 15 people in Anytown, Nation" is not. If people want to know why, they can read our articles and follow our sources. Blurbs should merely link the required article, and give a bare minimum of information so that people know what they are going to be clicking on. As an aside, oppose vehemently setting any arbitrary restrictions on telling people when reliably sourced information can be used to improve Wikipedia articles. If a source is not reliable, we shouldn't of course use it, but if it is requiring people wait some arbitrary amount of time before citing it is just pointless and serves no useful purpose. If it later turns out that a source that was, in good faith, though to be reliable, but was then shown to not be, then we change the article. Wikipedia can be changed. That's the whole point. --Jayron32 10:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Photomontages

Was there a discussion somewhere aometime that anybody can at any moment without any discussion replace a picture in an infobox of an article on a locality / subdivision by a photomontage (like [22])? These montages are proliferating like cancer, and I am not sure what are the legal grounds to add them.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the legal grounds"?  — Scott • talk 16:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The photos in that montage template are all individually linked, so assuming they are all free images this is really just an editorial question as to what best improves the article. If there are multiple fair-use images involved, that could be an issue as it would be stretching the rationale. — xaosflux Talk 17:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
My apologies, I was probably still sleeping before the first coffee yesterday morning. What I mean is: Was there an RfC or smth, or even a project discussion, where consensus emerged that montages are superior to the single photos and it is a best practice to add them, or is every case individual so that WP:BRD applies? I see a lot of montages added without any discussion. I am not asking about fair-use images now, this is a different story.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I don't see any "policy" related issues since we're excluding talking about fair-use. There have been some RfC's on montages before, but they are on using individual people to represent a class of people only. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Images_for_the_lead is worth a read here, and this could be followed up at that talk (or at the more popular Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style) to come up with any new style guidelines if you would like. — xaosflux Talk 18:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, hopefully this should be sufficient.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Confirming a death without reliable sources

An anonymous ip has edited the page of Franco Wanyama, to state that he died on 21 March 2019. A search of google finds no news sources covering this, (it's possible it's too early). The only reference I can find for it is this facebook post and a gofundme page called "Funeral for Franco ‘Thunderbird’ Wanyama" (which it won't let me post the link to but you can find if you search the site for it), which I think confirms that the death is genuine but I'm not sure these are suitable sources to use. Is there some procedure to follow for confirming deaths when there are few reliable sources on Wikipedia? G-13114 (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)]

I was familiar with a similar situation a couple of months ago. The death notice was removed until there was a good source. However, your situation is slightly difference as you are clear it is not fake news, but your source is not perfect. In my case I did not question the death as the guy was 100, but we waited a while until a proper obituary was available. --Bduke (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes I suppose if he only died three days ago, the news may not have filtered through as yet. I imagine it will be covered somewhere at some point given that he was a reasonably prominent sportsman, so maybe wait until then and keep a look out for sources. G-13114 (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
GoFundMe has had a history of scam pleas, and Facebook accounts can get hacked. It seems very unlikely, but it might be easier to wait a bit for obits. -- GreenC 21:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Adding a death notice without reliable sources is a BLP violation and must be removed.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I've found another reference to his death, this time on Twitter [23] although I'm still not sure this is strong enough to count as an RS. G-13114 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
No, Twitter is not a reliable source, but I think this is. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I had to translate it. Unfortunately it doesn't give a date for his death, (only stating last week) but I'll have to do for now. G-13114 (talk)
I've also found this [24] but i'm not sure if this is RS as i'm not sure what it's fact checking procedure is, it appears to be user contacted. G-13114 (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Scope of G5

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the best place to request a discussion or have an RFC but I'd like clarification on the scope of G5, specifically, do any edits from other users negate it? Does copyediting (minor edits) negate it? I have always been under the impression that unless there were substantial edits from other users, G5 would apply and that has been what I've seen in practice, until recently, so I'd like to get some sort of consensus with what "substantial" actually means, particularly as it pertains to policy surrounding terms of use violations. Praxidicae (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I had quite a fruitful discussion on Iridescent's talk page here about this some time back. As a general rule of thumb, I use G5 as a device to delete something that I think hasn't got a hope of hell being improved (and I could normally defer to A7 for G11 except on a technicality) - for anything that has got a possible fighting chance, you might as well leave it to see if anyone else can work on it, even with the seven day grace that PROD / AfD provides. See also User:DragonflySixtyseven/Allegories for an amusing anecdote based on this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
G5 has policy and legal implications that aren't left up to your interpretation alone which is why I'm asking for community involvement to determine a consensus and to have consistency in enforcing it (and that extends beyond just your declines.) Spammy garbage by a serial vanity spammer and paid editor can't be copyedited away and no user space essay can change this. Praxidicae (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
"G5 has policy and legal implications" - Does it? I realise that articles can contain libel, office actions and copyright violations, but these are covered by other CSD criteria anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) G5 has no legal implications. G5 allows for, but does not require, deletion of articles which were created by a banned user, while they were banned, under the aegis of WP:BMB. It is entirely up to the interpretation of the admin if the article so created needs to be deleted or not. Basically, if a banned user returns as a sockpuppet or IP editor to Wikipedia and creates an article, any admin may simply immediately delete that article under the auspices of G5. However, there can be reasons why an admin may choose to NOT delete such an article, which are probably too nuanced or varied to enumerate here; the instructions at WP:CSD capture the most important reason (the article has significant contributions by other editors). Also if an editor in good standing wishes to have such an article undeleted, to "adopt" the content as their own, or who wishes to start the article anew with their own text, there is usually no problem with that at all, an article created by a banned user does not prevent good-standing users from creating the same article. G5's sole purpose is to discourage banned users from dodging their ban. --Jayron32 18:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I should rephrase, G5 doesn't necessarily have legal implications, I was referring specifically to a much broader policy that isn't left up to individual assessment like most other rationales, specifically as it pertains to terms of use violations, which we should be tough on. But my question is more to the point: what is substantial editing because I have generally only come across G5 declines where the editing was more than minor edits and basic copyediting. I also wasn't implying that users in good standing cannot create the articles themselves but I think formatting refs and fixing spelling is a far cry from "substantial" anything. If that's the case, editing farms should go make good hand accounts, rack up innocuous edits and go CE their articles to circumvent G5 deletions. Praxidicae (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:G5 mentions "terms of use" nowhere at all. Where do you get that from?!? --Jayron32 18:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, regarding "editing farms should go make good hand accounts", bans and blocks apply to the person not the account, and good hand/bad hand editing is a big no-no. An article created by a "good hand" account of a banned or blocked editor is exactly what g5 was created for, and how it is used. --Jayron32 18:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
One of the biggest unsolved issues we have is with people who disrupt the Wikipedia process while improving the content at the same time. The problem with "what is substantial editing" is you'll get a different answer from everybody. (For homework, consider "what is significant for A7", "what is blatantly promotional G11" and "what does Britain leaving the EU actually mean")? That's why I prefer to approach it from an angle of "can this article be realistically improved by somebody with no conflict of interest". For a practical example, I declined G5 on Kate Bashabe because I did a search for news sources and it looks salvageable, and pinged an editor highly experienced in being able to rescue and improve those sorts of articles. People drive at 85mph on the motorway, park on double yellow lines, return library books late and "jump" amber lights - just the way of the world. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know that it's an "unsolved issue", because that implies it's a problem that needs a solution. The solution is thus: In my role as an admin, it is my job to assess a situation, decide which course of action is best for the growth, improvement, and maintenance of Wikipedia's content and of the community that creates that content, and then do that thing. We should delete content from banned users (because allowing banned users to continue may be harmful to the community) except when we don't (because deleting the content turns out to be more disruptive than letting it stand). It's a decision that admins make hundreds of times per day. Do I protect the article in an edit war, or block everyone? Do I speedy delete the article per A7, or do I kick it to AFD? Do I close the discussion and enact the consensus, or let it run longer and see where it goes? None of this is determined by following some list of "admin instructions". If it were, a bot could do it. It all depends on the sound and prudent judgement of the admins who are doing the necessary work. And that's it. It's why we have RFA in the first place; we want admins we can trust to make decisions in hard cases and not just blindly follow a checklist and click buttons. If it didn't require sound judgement, anyone, even a bot, could do it. --Jayron32 19:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)WP:G5 covers bans which is part of TOU, ergo, G5 also covers TOU violations to an extent. See also this ongoing discussion/proposal. However this is avoiding my original question which is specifically about substantial editing and how it is defined, so ignoring all the rest, I'd like consensus and an answer on that. Praxidicae (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (again) trying to edit my last comment..... Like everything, but especially policy based issues, there should be some sort of agreement on what is considered substantial, it's a cop out to say "well each person might see it different." And I don't care if someone is a shitty driver, this isn't the highway, it's Wikipedia where we have a standard for consensus and can mostly control what happens. Praxidicae (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
That's a stretch. It also is meaningless, it binds admins to no specific course of action anyways. Admins do not violate the TOU by deciding to not delete something under G5. --Jayron32 18:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
This is going in circles, let's drop the TOU comment, then. I wasn't implying that admins are violating it. I want to know specifically what substantial editing is. Praxidicae (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Editing that, in the opinion of the admin who is deciding whether or not they should or shouldn't delete the article in question, is enough to indicate that editors other than the banned editor have an interest in updating and maintaining the content of the article. Simply put, if it is clear that the article in question has been "adopted" by or is under the editing interest of editors in good standing, it probably won't be deleted. Such a requirement is only there to ensure that the admin's action do not, on the balance, harm the encyclopedia by being overly officious or blindly adhering to policy. The admin makes an assessment "do the benefits of deleting this article outweigh the harm that will come from doing so". There is no "bright line" metric to make that determination. The rough guideline of "are other editors working on this article too" is all we have. "Substantial" is intentionally vague because any specific standard would have too many edge cases. Wikipedia is not adminstrated as a set of rules blindly followed without regard for anything else except the rules. The rules exist for one purpose only. That one purpose is to write a good encyclopedia. That's why you aren't going to get any metric for "substantial". It means "substantial enough to indicate to the admin reviewing the situation that they are convinced that deleting the article is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia even if it means allowing an article created by a banned user to go undeleted." That's all.--Jayron32 18:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
What Jayron said. The G5 criterion means admins can delete articles created in violation of a ban. It doesn't mean, and never has meant, that admins should delete such articles, particularly if there's any indication that an editor in good standing feels the content is appropriate; that another editor is making edits to the article is a good indicator of this, but isn't the only criterion. There are some articles—Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard is the example I usually use—that are virtually exclusively the product of a banned editor, but we keep them because we're confident that they adhere to Wikipedia's standards. The WP:G5 criterion is only valid in the most obvious cases and when no controversy exists (both direct quotes from the relevant policy); as with all speedy deletions, consider it a hard-and-fast rule that if you're not 100% certain that a page is eligible for speedy deletion, it isn't. ‑ Iridescent 19:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Except that not infrequently while doing NPP I will find issue with an article and fix that issue but then decide for any number of reasons that I don't want to fully patrol the article. I might even fix several such issues and still decline to patrol it. Sometimes these fixes could be things like removing sections of content or otherwise making a material impact on content rather than just being technical. I wouldn't want those edits of mine to hold up G5 if that were the case because I'm almost never going to return to an article I see while on NPP unless notified in some way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's why we can't be specific about what "substantial" means. Admins need to assess each situation on its own merits and make a judgement call. You know what, if I deleted an article under G5, and you came back at me and said "Hey, I was working on that!" I (and hopefully every other admin) would undelete it and say "Have fun!". If I took an article tagged G5 because you edited it, and declined the deletion request, and you said "I hope you didn't decline that just because of me, because I'm find with it going", I (and hopefully every other admin) would say "Thanks for the info" and would delete it. --Jayron32 19:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The thinking behind G5 was that if someone has been blocked for creating a lot of inappropriate content and continues to create inappropriate content, it would be a waste of time to have a separate deletion discussion for each thing they created in violation of their ban; it was never meant to be a tool to allow admins to unilaterally declare editors to be nonpersons whose contributions could be removed on sight. Particularly if the ban wasn't in relation to content creation, G5 is rarely going to apply; if someone has been blocked for repeatedly swearing at other editors or for edit-warring over spelling, it would be wilfully perverse to delete their lengthy, well-written and reliably sourced article even if it was created in violation of a ban. ‑ Iridescent 19:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

^^^^THIS^^^^ --Jayron32 19:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Except in this case we're not talking about someone who was blocked for behavioral issues, we're talking about someone who was blocked (and subsequently globally locked on many accounts) for creating the same content in an attempt to spam multiple projects. See Famemix, among others. This is what G5 was meant for, not someone like Kumi returning and writing an otherwise fine stub about a war ship. I'll also note that I've never once said that an admin must delete something because it's G5. I'm seeking clarification by consensus on what substantial editing is.Praxidicae (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
See, here's the deal. You said "in this case" That's an entirely different conversation that the one you started. You're talking about policy in your original post, and now you're asking about a specific case. Questions about the applications of a policy to a specific case are poorly answered by asking general questions about the scope or meaning of the policy itself. Here's why: Unless you give people responding the information necessary to review the case itself, we can't answer intelligently about how the case should be handled. We don't even know if our answers are going to be applicable to that one case, because we don't know that you're asking the question to get answers for that one case. So if you wanted to know "Does G5 apply to this one case here and why or why not", you should have cited the specific example in your original post and asked that specific question. You've been caught by the XY problem here. --Jayron32 11:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
If this was what you had in mind, then IMO that's one of the shittiest speedy deletions I've ever seen; it was deleted four times, each time without discussion, and only one of which was appropriate; the first time it was speedy-deleted as "vandalism" immediately after creation despite having no vandalistic edits; the second time it was deleted under a very questionable WP:A7; the third iteration was a copyvio the deletion of which I have no issue with, and the fourth time under a highly dubious WP:G11 despite being an apparently good faith effort to write a sourced and neutral article. If that's your example I'd recommend finding another, as what I'm seeing there is a lot of people who should know better queueing up to bite a newcomer who was trying to create an article in good faith. ‑ Iridescent 19:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
And there's a reliable source for it. Only one, so probably worthy of AfD, but definitely not a speedy. Still, in retrospect, I think this speedy deletion is more amusing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Our definitions of good faith editors vastly differ. It was repeatedly created by a globally locked vanity spammer, trying to force their creation onto Wikipedia is not good faith, it's spamming. Praxidicae (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Our definitions of good faith are in line with policy, yours isn't; "because I don't like the uploader" isn't a deletion criterion. None of those deletions made any mention of "repeatedly recreated", "globally locked", "vanity spammer" etc; all three of them were flat-out admin abuse. Incidentally Ritchie333, I think you meant this. ‑ Iridescent 21:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Well I never though I'd see the day when just doing something four times was spamming. Back in the days of USENET, you had to excessively cross post your "MAKE MONEY FAST!" Dave Rhodes chain letter to at least 20 newsgroups before Cancelmoose would take umbrage at it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
count again. It’s more than 12. Praxidicae (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
You're aware that we can count, right? ‑ Iridescent 21:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I prefer to ask a subject expert. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Also we're not talking about just 4 creations in mainspace: [25][26][27][28][29] and that's after several warnings. Praxidicae (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a consequence of our WP:Ignore all rules pillar. All our policies and guidelines have to be interpreted with discretion and common sense. They are therefore broad and descriptive and not narrow and proscriptive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

For anyone interested, here are some thoughts I shared on this general topic a few years back, with some other editors' reactions. (Note that a couple of the linked articles have been deleted and rewritten since that time.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

As to the extent of editing by innocent users to prevent G5, I would say that it would either be an indication that the other user knows the reason for the ban and is willing to "adopt" the article; or any edit which shows significant effort for that article, as opposed to an edit handled somewhat automatically (such as category renaming, adding a navbox to all pages in a specific category, creating a category for the intersection of 2 other categories), basic maintenance, or minimal review you might expect from a new page patroller. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Answering the general question, if having an article on the subject would benefit the encyclopaedia (everything that satisfies WP:N and related policies does), the article is of sufficient quality that it is useful to readers looking to find information on the subject, and is not a copyvio or similar, then in almost all cases it should not be deleted. If the author was banned for repeatedly creating articles about non-notable subjects, the subject of this article is at best borderline notable and there have been no significant contributions to the text by other editors then it's better to G5 than to AfD. It is not possible to define "significant" outside the context of each individual article though - adding three lines of prose to a stub is usually significant, adding three lines of prose to an article already several pages long is usually not. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles

I thought these were a rarity. There are 180,000+ (as of March, 2019) of them tagged with 'unreferenced'. And some unknown number, possibly more, that are untagged. I also seem to remember that an article cannot be created without 2 WP:RSs. So how did these get to have none? I'm basically appalled. No one is going to do anything about them any time soon. When an editor walks away from his creation like this, he's done. If they are unfit to be created, they are unfit to exist. I propose that they be moved to an article draft space until they meet the existing criteria for new article creation. The policy should be that they are not allowed. It's a BOLD reform. The mechanics could/should be relegated to a bot. And we need another bot that can go thru the encyclopedia to tag and move articles that aren't tagged as 'unreferenced'. Once they're moved into draft space, no unreferenced article should ever be able to be reinstated. If an article should somehow 'lose' all its references, it should be moved back into draft space as a matter of policy and mechanics. We need to raise the bar, because these articles are basically allowing anyone to say anything they want. Sbalfour (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, there are a couple of scripts to do just this. Ostensibly, I can just use the 'Move' function under 'More' to move the article to 'Draft:<article name>'! The script fixes up some miscellany, so I don't have to check on those. I don't have the Page Mover right, so some administrator will have to delete the cross-namespace redirect. WP:Draftify only describes use of this for new article creation and as an alternative to deletion following a deletion discussion. I don't intend to delete such articles, only to get them referenced before they return to article space. In practice, that doesn't happen - they'll be in perpetual limbo, or they would've gotten fixed in article space. Fine. If anyone cares, they can fix the problem and move it back. I've not seen the Move capability used in this way. Sbalfour (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I assume that's a typo above, because there are 182,000 articles in Category:All_articles_lacking_sources, which tracks articles tagged with {{unreferenced}}. The category isn't completely forgotten, just a year ago it was at 200,000 articles. But obviously at that pace it'll take us a very long time to clear the backlog. Also Category:Articles_lacking_sources breaks down unreferenced articles by month and you can see that about 1,000 new unreferenced articles are added to the backlog each month. This discussion has been had in various places and times while I've been here, but perhaps there's some way to reduce the frequency of new unreferenced articles being created? That said, I would be strongly opposed to boldly moving all unreferenced articles to draft space. I look at a lot of the articles in Category:All_articles_lacking_sources. Some are junk, sure. But some are perfectly fine and just need a reference and some development. Even for the ones that are unhelpful, they're often poorly linked to, unlikely search terms. Basically they're mostly invisible (which is why you were surprised there are so many). So I think the cost of hosting them is low. Draftifying would risk throwing quite a bit of baby out with some bathwater. Ajpolino (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
But some ... just need a reference and some development. Isn't that the definition of draft? Draft is neither purgatory nor a trash bin. It's equivalent to the peer review stage of professional publication: done but not yet conforming to norms for publication. We don't actively use draft space in the encyclopedia for what it is; there are other reasons why an article isn't ready for mainspace. Separately, New Page Reviewers and administrators should never be approving pages with no sources. Sbalfour (talk)
@Sbalfour: Not here. Wikipedia:Drafts are "administration pages in the Draft namespace where new articles may be created and developed, for a limited period of time." The place for incomplete articles that need references and development is mainspace. Drafts don't show up in Google searches (I think?), aren't linked from mainspace, and are basically only looked at by AfC reviewers and new users. So moving things to draftspace basically condemns them to obscurity. Plus old drafts basically get auto-deleted. I totally agree that having 180,000 unreferenced articles is a problem, but I think the best thing we can do is to chip away at the backlog and try to get others to help. There may be no easy work-around to make the backlog drastically shrink without a massive input of man-hours. Ajpolino (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 N Not Done (we shall not move unreferenced articles to draft space.) Proposal closed. Sbalfour (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to expand my inquiry. I think the first order of business is to find all unreferenced articles NOT tagged as 'unreferenced', and apply the tag. I'm afraid of what I'm going to find. I'm a retired Unix Operating system programmer, so writing a javascript app to inspect an article for that shouldn't be too hard, given a specification. Applying it over the encyclopedia with a bot is something I'll need help with. A bot already creates that category; maybe we can add some switchable functionality to it? Like once a month, it searches and tags all unreferenced articles. Then some kind of triage, because some, a large number, tens of thousands probably, really are not appropriate for mainspace (i.e. move to draft). Actually ref'ing an article can take hours per - that's not going to happen any time soon for any significant portion of them. What other alternatives are there? Nominate for deletion? I'm think a small minority (only) might qualify, but flooding the AFD list with thousands of bot-triaged nominations isn't likely to be very welcome, and deletion discussions feel like pilloring an article. 180K unref'ed articles is a slap-in-the-face. We need to get that list down to something policeable, so it will be policed. Is it sufficient that an article lacks a reflist template to tag it as unreferenced? What about when it has one, but no references are listed? I don't think external links should be counted dire ctly as references - it they're usable as such, they should be cited as per form. Sbalfour (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"I also seem to remember that an article cannot be created without 2 WP:RSs." You can created articles with 0 references if you want. Nothing prevents you from doing that. See also WP:NOTFINISHED. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#GreenC_bot_11 for such a bot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
And see also Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 157#Bot to add Template:Unreferenced and Template:No footnotes to pages (single run), a discussion that was closed just a few weeks ago. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Sbalfour, see this which seems to be indicating 1 in 4 articles has 0 references --valereee (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
1 in 4 is a nonsense number. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree. While others were replying to Valereee I did my own survey by hitting "random article" 50 times. I found two articles without references, and another four with references but without in-line citations. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
My own rather intuitive notion is that it might be a very few percent; your experiment suggests 4% or 1/25. That's atrocious by any measure. Who did the original data collection, and what did they say? Did the tagging bot actually run? In which case, the number is 182K/5.8M articles in the encyclopedia = ,03 or 3%. Relatively confirming your 4% sampling. Sbalfour (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I have seen articles that use a {{no footnotes}} rather than unreferenced tag. They have no inline references but may have EL's or a sources or bibliography section. I don't know if they show up in the Category:All articles lacking sources. I also don't know whether this fits in with the rest of the concerns of this thread but I wanted to mention it in case it does. MarnetteD|Talk 17:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
They don't. They show up in Category:Articles lacking in-text citations. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Sbalfour, I think the research was done by Wikimedia Foundation? The number was 24.5%. Maybe they had a decimal point misplaced. Here's the link to the report section: here--valereee (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
We have 182K articles we can find, and if that's all, it's 3% of the encyclopedia. Now what? Two things: we need to cut down the monthly influx to zero, or it's never going to get better. Then, how do we triage the rest? Sbalfour (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Sbalfour, could we set something up that checks whether there's a reflist or similar template on an article and flags if there isn't? Would that possibly catch most? --valereee (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be policy that no article can be created without citing at least three WP:RSes. Wikipedia is past its "stub" stage of development; at this point, if it can't be sourced, we shouldn't have it in the encyclopedia. Any articles that don't have three RSes should be CSD candidates. Deleted articles can always be recreated, and if they don't have any sources, they probably shouldn't be showing up on Google searches. Leviv ich 00:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

In any encyclopaedia there is a role for the short paragraph length entries. As an example small hamlets often don't have enough notable content to make a FA, but where they are (infobox, map, grid reference and/or lat/long) and a line or two is a service to readers. We need to always remember that WP:RF is far more important than great sweeping policy statements that satisfy wikilawyers. What would be far more productive would be for us to collectively think of a term for such short entries that avoids the stigma and bile associated with "stub". Perhaps "minor entry" would be better? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
"Stub" is associated with stigma and bile? My God, I feel old. We should be working to educate people away from that, in that case. Stubs are and always have been part of the ecosystem of this project. I literally can't disagree with you more, Levivich. Wikipedia is past its "stub" stage of development - this is massively presumptuous. Surely you're aware of how bad our coverage is of global topics? Anyway, anyone wanting to speedy a stub for lacking references should understand that the onus is on them to try and reference it first, even if the author didn't. Our primary task here is to collate knowledge, not prevent it from being collated. Your suggestion is also fundamentally hostile to new and inexperienced editors, i.e. WP:BITE.  — Scott • talk 11:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Well said. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I fully agree with that. Providing references is a good thing, but we should not allow that desire to obstruct editors from creating content. Every single case should and must be considered on its own merits. Unreferenced pages are not the big bogy that a lot of people seem to think they are. Most are harmless and easily verified. Much more insidious and much more damaging to us are the articles created by hoaxers, trolls, and spammers. These articles often will have the little blue numbers because they know we are looking for them. One has to actually do a proper investigation to show the page is problematic and find the so-called references are rubbish or fake. So you see, the mere existence of little blue numbers doesn't mean a damn thing and obsessively chasing after them by those that have this disease mostly just has the effect of slowing down our good content creators. SpinningSpark 18:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the influx of new unreferenced articles: it should be quite low, because these days most new articles are BLPs of some description, and an unreferenced BLP should not be able to make it through NPP. The only unreferenced instances I personally would let through are georeferenced (by box) geographical stubs; articles that have external links which clearly may serve as refs but need reformatting; and identified trans-Wiki translations where the original has refs that can just be ported. The latter two will be clearly marked as to where the sources are located. I believe this mirrors the practice of most new page reviewers. There certainly aren't 1000 of these articles entering this way each month. I suspect these are rather tagged from the existing stock (which constitutes desirable clean-up). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Elmidae: Ah I hadn't considered that. As a quick test of your suspicion I arbitrarily grabbed ten articles from Category:Articles lacking sources from February 2019 (which has about 1,000 articles in it) and sure enough 7 were made years ago but just tagged in February, 1 had an external link that could be used to find a reference, and 2 were recent articles created without refs (not BLPs. One on a lake; one on an official state residence). If that sample happens to be representative (and who knows), then the problem may be more on the scale of a couple of hundred new unreferenced articles each month, which is much more manageable. Ajpolino (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be a growing sentiment that all unreferenced stubs should be deleted. eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pradhan senadhipati. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

To which growing sentiment I would reply, as I did here: :"I have a suggestion: Start thinking of Wikipedia as a beautiful forest full of majestic trees, standing tall now, having been planted a couple of decades ago. Even the tallest trees aren't yet mature, but the woodland is extensive, and most trees are strong and healthy. People are tending to them and sunlight streams down, reaching the dense understorey of shrubs, whilst on the forest floor small flowers are in bloom, many with flowers yet to burst open and properly show their true colours. Numerous acorns are germinating, and those that somehow manage to avoid the browsing of the deer or the attacks of bark-stripping squirrels might one day rise up to become sturdy trees in their own right, too. Buzzing between the flowers, or crawling through the leaf litter there are innumerable small creatures. These dipterans, coleopterans, vespids, arachnids, millipedes and isopods mostly go unnoticed by visitors to the forest, but all form part of the rich woodland ecosystem. Without them the woodland will be poorer and not so healthy. Then along comes the woodsman, proud of his big trees, only wanting the best from the forest and, upon seeing some small insect he's never encountered before, roundly stamps upon it, content with himself that he's got rid of some worthless ugly critter that's just getting in the way of people wanting to admire those lovely big trees. Maybe, if he'd got his insect ID book with him, he'd have stopped and taken a moment to identify the innocent creature, and appreciated its worth within the bigger picture of that complex forest system. Had he known how to identify that insect properly he might even have realised its supporting role in cross-pollination, and how it presence adds to the biodiversity and value of the forest. On his way out, he swings his axe at a germinating acorn, not recognising how this sapling oak tree might one day be appreciated by visitors to that forest, or how it might have grown up to become home to countless other woodland species that depend upon it. I sense you are that woodsman - wanting the best, but unable to see how best to manage the forest ecosystem around him. As a start, cease stamping on things. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Places

Wondering if there has been a consensus related to place pages, such as Jacksons, British Columbia, in which places are considered intrinsically notable if they can be verified to exist, and that a lack of citations is common and tolerated among articles like the example put here? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really up to speed on what the current implementation of the GnG is but a government agency is a reliable secondary source right? Crazynas t 23:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:NGEO. --Izno (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violation in large articles with many revisions

I was checking around for copyright violations when I stumbled upon Chennai International Airport. As this copyvio check shows, there are multiple excerpts which are completely copied and pasted into the article from copyrighted websites. Thing is, these violations stretch hundreds of revisions ago, as can be seen in this copyvio check that is only 1 year ago, which is 500 revisions ago. What should be done in this situation? Should hundreds, maybe thousands, of revisions be deleted because of this copyright violation per policy? Or is it not enough violation to count? Or is there something else that should be done? Hecseur (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the copyvio portions of the article should be blanked and perhaps oversighted per policy, if you know which parts are copyvio'd and which ones aren't. -John M Wolfson (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Haven't looked at this, just a technical note, it's not possible to oversight portions of an article. Only option is to oversight the entire text of the revision where offending content was added, along with every revision from there to when it was removed. This creates a headache if an article has received substantial edits, since we risk obliterating the history of valid edits while scrubbing the copyvio. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
That's fair enough, which is a shame if policy behooves us to do so. On another note, I've tried to remove much of the offending material myself w/ Hecseur's check, hope that helps. -John M Wolfson (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully this is a statement of the obvious, but in situations like this double-check the dates. As per the big disclaimer at the top, Earwig's copyvio detector is only valid for brand-new articles; given that Wikipedia content is explicitly re-usable, if the content in question was added a year ago it's entirely plausible that another website has copied from us. ‑ Iridescent 07:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I had considered that, and I haven't looked through all of it, but some of the websites allegedly copied from are newspaper articles about (at the time) brand new announcements regarding the airport. So... seems likely the copying was in our direction. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I also did not consider that, but mostly paraphrased anyway. -John M Wolfson (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@John M Wolfson: generally if these need removal, revision deletion by an admin is all that is needed, oversighting for copyright issues is generally only applied when certain legal actions are being managed by the foundation. — xaosflux Talk 14:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks! -John M Wolfson (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I started compiling old information to determine which matching texts are indeed copyright violations. I'll post which are and why once I'm finished with the ones with a high confidence percentage. Hecseur (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Copyright paranoia. Copyright infringement is not illegal, it is a mere civil matter. It is not serious if incidental and fixed. Very very few, no one realistically, will consider a historical version of a Wikipedia page to be continually publishing. Is the information secret, or is it just that the text can be found elsewhere? Behind a paywall and this article version is being used to evade payment? There is no problem, unless someone makes a ridiculous big deal about it. If the copyright owner complains, then fix it, if it is on a never looked at non-live version. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the only time I would bother to conceal a copyright violation from the revision history is when it's a substantial piece of something that is supposed to be completely paywalled, or not online at all. If a copyright owner finds out and wants more done, there are avenues for them to request as much. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with you, mainly due to the fact that the very first line of WP:CV states "One of the most important aspects of Wikipedia is that its text...may be freely redistributed, reused and built upon by anyone..." If this is one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia, then this case should be dealt with as such. I utterly agree that copyvio deleting thousands of revisions isn't a good solution, but the current policy doesn't give any other options. But this is exactly the place to discuss changes to policy, so a policy change is an option. Hecseur (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
PS: I finished a list of the top 9 confidence copyright violations, but there seem to be a hell of a lot more small ones, almost as if every other line is copied. Hecseur (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
It is important to fix copyright in current versions. It is not important to fix hypothetical copyright issues in long past versions. Copyright infringement includes excessive paraphrasing, or too long a quote, without editor written text making comment and establishing fair use of the copyrighted sentences. Such a copyright infringement is fixed by editing, revision deletion of a version with the wrong balance of quote-to-comment is overkill. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I looked at your first, and would call it a minor issue. If you find these things, you should be using Wikipedia:Copyright problems for reference and for reporting. Beware copyright paranoia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not overkill. We revdelete when a copyright violation exists. Is this at Wikipedia:Copyright problems? SportingFlyer T·C 03:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I think he is overkilling. He is picking up multi-fragment matches. No clear cut violation. The relevant section is Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Suspected or complicated infringement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe this is "overkill", mainly because most of the text in the article is copied and copyrighted. It's blatant to the point that 1 section is copied from site A and the next is copied from site B, I'm the one who individually looked at the copyright infringements site by site, I would know. This should probably be discussed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, since this isn't a clean-cut case, but I still stand my ground that, according to my interpretation, current policy doesn't allow this text to be on Wikipedia. Hecseur (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Support and opposition in RfAs and RfBs (could be used in other areas as well)

Withdrawn per the opposition NoahTalk 03:07, 2 April 2019 (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.

After looking at some of the recent RfAs and RfBs, I would like to propose that all supports and oppositions must explain why they chose their position. When people support without stating why, it seems like a simple rubber stamp, which is not good for the project. When people oppose without stating why, it leaves everyone else in the dark. Is there an actual problem with the candidate or just a minor issue that that that user alone has? I would like to propose in the future that these votes be struck out if the user has been given fair warning and failed to amend the statement to include a rationale. NoahTalk 02:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  • In all seriousness, who would be in charge of enforcing this new rule? If someone's RfA gets sidetracked because everyone is supporting them because the support is obvious, that would be a terrible result. SportingFlyer T·C 02:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @SportingFlyer: The issue is people saying "Support" or "oppose" with nothing behind it at all. By that I mean nada. No explanation period. They don't even say "per the above", "No concerns", or something along those lines. They just write out the word support or oppose. Im quite certain the existing admins would be able to enforce this. There have been numerous cases of struck out votes. These votes do not provide any value whatsoever to the project and would not hold up in any other venue. They shouldn't be allowed here either. NoahTalk 02:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Hurricane Noah: Hence the formatting of my post above. You aren't required to state your reasons, and you shouldn't be required to state your reasons. I can see more problems being created from enforcing this rule than from the rule itself. The participation in and of itself is valuable, and many other venues votes hold up without requiring an explanation. SportingFlyer T·C 02:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I think a lot of this is already taken care of by the rather obscure fact that bureaucrats are not as dumb as everyone seems to think. If you read crat chats, for instance, when there is a significant body of opposition, or even just one or a few very serious concerns about a candidate, the crats don't just say, "hurr hurr hurr, thA mAjoRITy SUpOrrts" and sign off on promotion. They actually discuss the opposes and the supports, and the degree to which either side appears to have engaged with the other's viewpoints. You will see them talk about the difference between the supporters simply not being aware of concerns versus actually recognizing and dismissing those concerns. Basically, there's a reason we expect more from crats than the ability to know which of two numbers is larger. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Good in theory but more trouble than it's worth in practice. -John M Wolfson (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:Anarchism referencing guidelines

I just discovered this "guideline" today. It seem to be a duplicate of already existing guidelines and policies. There also seems to be no evidence that this guideline ever had consensus for implementation, and even if it did it is a decade old and quite outdated. Bringing this up here to see what others think about this page because I don't know where else to bring this up. funplussmart (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly having trouble making sense of the page move history of that page. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot you can move pages into a redirect with one edit. So this has been a guideline in the main project space since 2008? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Input was solicted from the wider community only once, here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17#No_dispute_to_report,_just_peer_review_solicited. Then after some discussion, it was made a guideline. that was reported to the community by a bot, here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_67#Wikipedia:Anarchism_referencing_guidelines_has_been_marked_as_a_guideline. It's in the list of guidelines, but otherwise it's not referenced outside of Anarchism and related project pages. I'm not surprised that I had no idea this guideline even existed. The entire talk page archive prior to becoming an "official" guideline contains comments from only nine different editors. I can't honestly say I know off the top of my head how much discussion and support guideline proposals usually get, but this certainly seems pretty damn low, and it doesn't seem to me to come close to the required amount of notice. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support removing the guideline tag and marking it as historical. There appears to have never been consensus to have this due to the serious lack of input, far too little for a real guideline. funplussmart (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
A guideline is only valid insofar as it it used. This may have seemed like a good idea once (although I can't understand why) but it is much too specific to be of any use. We have policies and guidelines about what constitute reliable sources in general, without having to have such separate guidelines about separate topics. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I do recall this page being used in a number of varied discussions, and it is linked prominently on Wikipedia:WikiProject Anarchism/Resources, so I wouldn't consider it historical. -- Netoholic @ 01:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the page just re-states standard policies, apart from the one point of identifying the journals Anarchist Studies and Journal of Libertarian Studies as WP:RS. -- The Anome (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, there was a longer list of resources that seems to have been recently removed. I'm not sure if that edit is a good one, since links to those resources were kind of the main content of the page and what made it different from the more general guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 12:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Did you not read the edit summary? :) The removal seems reasonable. --Izno (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
For some reason I find it quite satisfying that anarchist websites are (allegedly) ignoring copyright law. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I can't speak for all of them but I know Strike-the-Root and LewRockwell.com were original sources of publication, that's why they were documented on this page as reliable sources. This was very early internet stuff, and they were fundamentally group sites, utilized by a variety of writers, not anything to do with "ignoring copyright laws". -- Netoholic @ 01:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
In which case I would recommend starting a talk page discussion there. Or perhaps ping the man. --Izno (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It looks like generally common-sense application and clarification of general policies to a specialized area of study. Yes, it's inappropriate to put whatever XYZ political scientist says "amounts to anarchism" into the anarchism article. Yes, many statements by self-identified anarchists about what "all anarchists agree on" are polemical rather than reliable assessments. Yes, this is an example where specialized publication may have more credibility than national newspapers whose credibility is otherwise taken as stronger. And yes, this a field where a handful of archival sites have verifiable copies of publications. @Phil Bridger:: these are all places where a naïve application of the rules (e.g., WP:RS) would be counterproductive.
While I don't edit many anarchism-related articles, I'd rather start the conversation at the point represented by this guideline than from ground zero. I'm curious what @Funplussmart: sees as outdated or problematic. Specifics, please.--Carwil (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Naïve application of the rules is a problem in all areas, not just anarchism. I still don't see why we should have a specific guideline for this area of study rather than a warning against such naïvity that covers all topics. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Phil Bridger, and there is still the issue of this guideline having had very little discussion. funplussmart (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • side note - I am having difficulty wrapping my brain around the idea that we have an "anarchism guideline" in the first place... it seems subtly wrong to me. just saying. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove and mark historical. As User:Blueboar and others imply, there's really no reason why we need an anarchism-specific guideline. -John M Wolfson (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Mark dormant, not historical. Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Draft guideline on Notability (plays) might be a model. The way I see it, in the present case there was an RFC and nobody came, so it isn't really a guideline, but it is a best faith effort of a large group of editors specifically interested in the topic area. You might say that "anarchism referencing guidelines is not the law, but it is a good idea..." Wnt (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on disambiguation of TV articles

An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RFC: What disambiguation should shows from the United States and United Kingdom use?. Additional participation is welcomed. -- Netoholic @ 18:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Linking to categories

Do we have any policy or guideline on linking to categories from within the main article text, just like any other article link? I cannot find any mention in WP:CATEGORY or the related advice pages. I have come across a set of articles where this is done, for example in this instance at the head of a list section more or less duplicating the category content. I reverted it as something we don't normally do and the editor concerned has asked me to justify that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects does not directly address this issue, but a similar one. In general, links from the article text to a category should not occur; links to text should usually be just links to articles. We deprecate links to the Wikipedia: namespace and to external links from the main text; there are other places on the page for those sorts of things. A linked word or phrase in the running text of an article should lead the reader to another Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 14:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
For running text, that is the general expectation. The given example, though, is for a "see also" type of link. I think there could be some cases where linking to a category to get a different presentation of related pages can be useful. isaacl (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Isaacl, in running text the only reason I can think of for a link to a category is if the category itself (as distinct from it's content) is somehow relevant to the article (e.g. Category:American women novelists is relevant at List of Wikipedia controversies#2013 although it isn't linked at all), and then it should probably be presented as an external link and mentioned in the third person (per WP:SELFREF). Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Even for a "see also", however, the category should be linked at the bottom of the page if the Category is relevant to the article. --Jayron32 16:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:EGG is the general gist; SELFREF is another. I generally remove links to categories as they are exposing 'the backside'--which has a specific section of the page allowed for it (the category listing). --Izno (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all. I note that while everybody so far agrees with me that the practice is a Bad Thing, I am surprised to see that nobody can come up with a policy or guideline which either says or obviously embraces that. For example WP:SELFREF does not say whether a link to a category counts as a self-reference, only that self-references within the category page itself should be avoided. Nor can an explicit link to a category be misconstrued as an easter egg. And yet, there are so many explicit strictures about the misuse of other namespaces that the misuse of categories is conspicuous by its absence. Maybe we are just a bunch of anal retentives and the editors who like to put category links in articles on schools are fully entitled to do so? Or, should we be updating some policy or guideline to discourage the practice? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I said I could see cases where a "see also" link could usefully point to a category. I'm not clear on how to formulate a general guideline, so I would leave it to a case-by-case basis. isaacl (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
My apologies, I forgot that you had said that. You seem at least not to disagree that an in-article link to a category which duplicates a list which is also maintained in an article (whether the same or a different one) is just pointless clutter. Might I suggest a guideline along the lines of "Categories should not be linked from within the actual content of of the article, unless the listing provided by the category provides further useful information which is inappropriate to include directly in an article."? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Does this really come up often enough that a guideline is needed? Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I can imagine circumstances where there is a short list in an article, and a "see also" link to a category that provides a more expansive list of releveant items. Personally I think what works best is highly dependent on the topic area and what articles already exist, and so I hesitate to propose any general guidelines. isaacl (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
It is quite common in school articles to have a list of alumni together with a link to the alumni category, eg Eton_College#Old_Etonians. There is a prose description of some of the most famous, a list article of others and categories, none of which will duplicate each other. Oculi (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I support the use of such links from school articles to "educated at" categories (as potentially useful to readers and not doing harm). See related discussion at CFD. DexDor (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
What if the article list and the category list are intended to be identical, as in the example I gave? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
In a case like that there's probably little reason for a reader to go to the category (the list is better - the category has little purpose), but as long as the category exists there may be readers/editors who want to navigate to it (e.g. in case the list is incomplete). DexDor (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
In a case like
Linking to categories within an article should be discouraged per the principle of least astonishment. I would support the idea of creating a guidelines for this as I find myself cleaning up such links on a regular basis. Kaldari (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, that expresses my concern perfectly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
If we are talking about "see also" links (especially those in italics) that clearly state they are to a category (i.e. the link is not piped) (as in the example given by the OP) then readers shouldn't be astonished. DexDor (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Featured templates?

Hi, I just was searching for WP:Featured templates on the system, but found nothing! May the question be repetitious; but I am eager to find an answer on the topic. Like featured articles (and good articles), featured lists, featured portals, etc, may the "featured templates" topic will be created someday, or a poll for creating it will be set? I am looking forward the users' ideas on the subject. Thanks, Hamid Hassani (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I can think of a few that should be, but they are Module: space. For wiki templates themselves, I dunno, it would be like an ugly dog contest :) -- GreenC 16:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
GA and FA follow relevant MoS guidelines, but there aren't really any for templates or modules. I think it is pointless to introduce a FT system for templates, before there are any standards those templates need to follow. --Gonnym (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Not to mention that we've been systematically reducing, not increasing, the number of "Featured foo" categories on Wikipedia, which is why Featured Portals and Featured Sounds are no longer with us, and that running a Featured Anything progress is an extremely time-consuming process. (Since in the Wikipedia context "Featured" means "eligible for featuring on the main page as an example to readers of Wikipedia's best work", the mind boggles as to what you're expecting to do with this; we can hardly run "today's featured template is {{uw-color3}}" alongside In The News and On This Day.) ‑ Iridescent 16:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Hardly the reason we don't have Featured Sounds! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 00:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I could see a Featured Template system as a way to promote better coding practices in en.wiki by identifying templates which follow correct template and accessibility guidelines, correct code conventions, fully documented, etc. Unlike the article system which is reader-facing, this system will be an internal one meant for editors. --Gonnym (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Mother of God, spare us. I beseech you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to the arbitration policy

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Pursuant to the arbitration policy's section on "Ratification and amendment", the Arbitration Committee resolves that the following change to the arbitration policy will be submitted for formal ratification by community referendum:

The final paragraph of the "Conduct of arbitrators" section of the arbitration policy is amended as follows:

Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of all arbitrators excluding:
  1. The arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and;
  2. Any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known mediums of communication.

This amendment to the arbitration policy will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this amendment is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect.

The ratification process has begun at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (April 2019). Your participation is welcomed. ~ Rob13Talk 02:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Nature of bureaucrats' discretionary range for closing RfAs

There's an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RfC on the nature of bureaucrats' discretionary range for closing Requests for Adminship on the extent to which the discretionary range is a unified block and the extent to which it's a spectrum. All editors are invited to participate. Sideways713 (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Organization of Impacts

After reading through the WP:MOS trying to find an answer, I officially could not come up with a conclusion or right answer, which is why I would like some help. I have even been through the Missing Manual as well as the Beginner's guide. So, would chronological order be right for impacts (this is the current form in the article) or is alphabetical order (used in March 2019 North American blizzard) correct? I thank you for your time and answering. Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 03:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Zanygenius, I'm unsure whether you are seeking advice or you're concerned about being "correct" according to rules. My guess is that the MOS doesn't provide an answer on something that specific. This might not be the answer you're looking for, but we're more concerned with "improvement" than "correct". You can do whatever you think best so long as the encyclopedia is better with your edit than without it. If/when someone wants to change it, they can provide a rationale or MOS-link for why they think their change would be an improvement. Alsee (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Alsee, Thank you for your feedback. In a way, I was seeking advice on whether alphabetical style or chronologial style was best ofr the subject area I was working in. So you're saying that there isn't a certain order that it must follow, and that if another user has objections they may point out a paragraph at WP:MOS? Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 16:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Zanygenius, Correct. Although to be more precise, I doubt the existence of any formal position on something that specific. No one can know every MOS and guideline and consensus. We're merely expected to respect them when somebody (validly) cites them as a justification for their edit.
As for advice, my impression is that chronological does sound useful but I haven't really looked into it. If there were an editing dispute I'd dig into it and try to help sort it out, I do a lot of that kind of work answering RFCs via the Feedback Request Service. Without a dispute you can be bold in using your judgement on how to improve Wikipedia. Oh... I just thought of WikiProject Meteorology, or maybe WikiProject Non-tropical storms. Those Talk pages don't seem to have much recent dialog, but you may find useful information or people with topic expertise there. Alsee (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Alsee, yes Chronological order can be useful in timelines an sometimes events, and thank you, I'll go ahead and check out those projects. Essentially, the best thing to do is choose as see fit, and if no-one expresses concern, then it's fine? Okay then. Thank you very much. Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 03:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Editing

I have given modest amounts of cash to Wikipedia. But I find the editing can be a bit off-hand. I think if a considered contribution is taken off, there should be some reason given.

I doubt if I'll give $$ in the future.

Yours cordially

M Cochran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:A101:A100:A550:D085:7AAC:7B7B (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Cochran, if you've found editing a bit off-hand, because some addition that you did to an article was reverted, you are absolutely right that an explanation should be given. If you can point us to the actual edit that you undertook and was reverted, we could give more information on the same.
To your other point, donating money to Wikipedia is a voluntary act (and we're thankful for the same), as voluntary an act as editors like I do in donating our time to Wikipedia. Our project is probably still committed to not allowing the inter-mingling of these two facets, where financial donations can influence editorial decisions. Therefore, whether you donate to us or not, your editorial contributions will be viewed independent of that, for their own worth. If there's anything else you need assistance in, do ask. Thanks, Lourdes 03:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Long pages

Our longest 50 pages are all over 425,000 bytes of wiki markup. On several of their talk pages, there are some editors resisting splitting them, often arguing that WP:TOOLONG does not apply because the pages are made up of tables, not "readable prose".

I do not believe it was the community's intention, when WP:TOOLONG was drafted, to allow pages of such size. Do we need a project wide RfC, or is there a better way of setting this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you link to a few examples so we can see some context? Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Social Media Statistics

There is no consensus to implement this proposal. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:45, 13 March 2019 (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.

Social media statistics, such as subscribers, followers, likes, and views may not be used in infoboxes or lead sections and may not be used to establish notability. When it has received significant coverage from an independent reliable source these statistics may be used sparingly in the body of an article accompanied by the month and year that the number was reported. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Support (social media statistics)

  1. Social media networks like Instagram, Twitter, Twitch, and YouTube have experienced persistent problems with the reliability and accuracy of statistical measures. This has meant inflated follower/subscriber counts and paid for or bot generated inflation of the count of individual pieces of content such as views on YouTube or likes on Instagram. This has been a problem for many years (see efforts in 2012 to counter on Youtube or on Twitter in 2014) and remains a problem today (sample of stories from 2019: [30] [31]). On Wikipedia these pieces of information are often used to promote article subjects rather than inform readers. Further they are frequently cited to the social media networks themselves which can be hard to verify as these numbers fluctuate. There is no policy or guideline support for use of these numbers to establish notability; social media influencers and online streamers normally are proved notable through use of the general notability guideline. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Well-worded. A blanket ban wouldn't be appropriate and neither would a blanket inclusion. The context, namely, the notability of the individual and whether YouTube etc is their only endeavour all come into play, meaning application on a case-by-case basis is the best way forward. SITH (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Full Support. I fully support this move. Half of all web traffic on the Internet is just Bots. It's time to stop fooling ourselves. None of these statistics are going to be reliable. Large numbers should not replace Reliable Sources. Thank you all for your time. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 02:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support. Particularly because I think the second sentence is a good standard. If a follower count is seen as newsworthy by reliable sources, it should be included as far as it is due. Otherwise, it's more of a piece of trivia. Natureium (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support the big problem for leads and infoboxes are that these are about impossible to keep up to date. On top of that, as barkeep has pointed out, there is significant manipulation of these numbers and they don't really tell us that much and are highly unreliable. Combine that with the fact that we are not an advertising platform for YouTubers, and I think the weight of the arguments is strongly against these.
    In terms of the body, if high quality sourcing thinks it is significant, we can cover it, but on its own, the numbers are meaningless. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support It trivial, largely unreliable and not even sure it tells us how popular someone is.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support per all above. I call social media stats "spammer metrics" because their primary audience is marketers and advertisers. They only exist to promote the subject, and are not reliable encyclopedic information. The livelihoods of influencers depend on spammer metrics, so that companies can justify spending their marketing budget on them. The platforms have an incentive to look the other way regarding fake likes because they too use spammer metrics to justify growth and audience size to investors and advertiser clients. A simple Google search demonstrates that padding social media stats is surprisingly cheap (about a cent per like) and there is a whole cottage industry dedicated to it. MER-C 11:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support These are bullshit statistics. By itself, absolutely unreliable for proving anything about notability. If someone else comments on it, fine to use, as always, but we add to the problem by reporting these numbers. valereee (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Valereee: This policy would prevent us reporting on these numbers, regardless of their reliability, notability or commentary in secondary sources. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
      Thryduulf, I think it only prevents using them in leads and infoboxes and using them to establish notability, doesn't prevent us from reporting them AT ALL? valereee (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
      Depends how you read it I suppose, but that is certainly my interpretation of it. It would definitely disallow the numbers being mentioned in the infoxbox and lead even when they were (per secondary sources) key parts of the subject's notability and regardless of whether they were reliable or not. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  9. Support: Subscriber, follower, like count isn't an indicator of notability. GN-z11 [[User talk:GN-z11|☎
  10. Support - Subscriber, follower, “like” counts are primary data. They may underlie notability for social media personalities, but (because they ARE primary data) they are not (on their own) enough to determine whether a social media personality is Notable or not. This is why we need independent secondary sources to comment upon the personality (and the numbers). As for listing the numbers in an infobox - given how frequently the numbers fluctuate, I don’t see them being particularly useful data. They will constantly be out of date. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  11. Support Very well worded. They don't necessarily need to be banned from the top section altogether but this is certainly not something that should even be considered when it comes to establishing notability or emphasized in a biography once that is passed. Subjects should have more interesting content about them to fill the lead with than their follower statistics. Reywas92Talk 05:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  12. Support As a very primary source should not be used to establish notability. Once notability established sure may be used sparingly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    • This would also prohibit use in situations where such numbers are the basis of notability in other sources (e.g. where a video becomes notable to reliable sources because it has a large view count.) Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
      • It's not our job to tell readers why The Fooland Times decided Alice B. Ceesdale was worth an article in their newspaper; trying to do so is probably OR. It's our job to scrape the article for encyclopedically relevant information about Ceesdale and cite them as the source for it. If the article was really just an "OMG, she got 42 million Likes!" fluff/puff piece without any real substance, then a) it's not much of a source for anything, and b) it's enough to describe her Youtube video or whatever as having gone viral; the specific number is meaningless, since it'll be different a day later, and even what it means in relative terms will shift over time as social-media usage patterns change. [Back in the day, I was the editor of an online newsletter with around 40K readers and that was huge, one of the most-read publications of the early public Internet. Today, that would be a joke – like, "come talk to us when that has two or three more zeros at the end, dude". Heh.]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
        • If the mention is just a puff piece it isn't suitable for our use (for most purposes) per existing policies, but there are non-puff pieces that this policy would prevent being used with no consideration for quality. This is one of the biggest problems with this proposal it doesn't allow for any consideration of individual circumstances, context or anything that isn't a bad-faith attempt to manipulate our content. A guideline discouraging the use of stats as key information without secondary sources to explain its relevance and significance would be both unproblematic and redundant. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
          It wouldn't prevent non-puff journalism from being used at all; just not used for social media statistics which will soon enough be meaningless or worse.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  13. Support This would help two things simultaneously: the 1) "they have a lot of views, therefore they're notable!" arguments, and 2) making sure user counts, subscribers, or views can be mentioned in the article, but only if backed up by secondary sources. There's currently an ongoing argument on a web-based software platform regarding how many people actually use the site, a problem because the higher number has been discredited but proponents obviously want to use that number instead of the much lower number of daily users. While oppose !voters may be right in saying you can't use primary sourced statistics anyways, I do see a problem here since this can be ignored, and this would help fix the problem. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  14. Support When we have access to good data about social media statistics from a stable third-party source then we should include this. This is defining data, much like the number of employees or revenue of an organization. I recognize that this is primary source content but it is also fundamental to understanding these channels and not something that we are likely to find in what we now define as reliable sources. There are a range of problems with including this data and I think we need to build out some policies and norms, but I support moving in this direction. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Blueraspberry: Your rationale seems to be in contradiction to your bolded "support"? You seem to be in favour of including social media statistics (in at least some circumstances), but this proposal is about disallowing such information in all circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Um... no... the proposal just limits where we can mention the statistics. It does not disallow them entirely.
  15. Limited Support Get rid of it in infoboxes, but if an editor thinks it's important enough that it belongs in the lead, that should be handled case-by-case valereee (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  16. Support. The social media cruft isn't really relevant. If there's coverage of a subject in reliable sources, that's what matters (both in AfD arguments and in what's important to have in an article). Primary-sourced statistics (from proprietary, commercial Web sites, no less) are prone to fakery and deserve no weight. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 16:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  17. Support for multiple reasons, including WP:NOTSPAM and does not lead to subject significance. funplussmart (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  18. Support. Aside from all of the above, there's a WP:NOT#SOAPBOX issue. Reliable sources, not fans of the subject (or even the subjects editing their own article) tell us what these stats are and and when the real world considers them important with regard to a particular subject. It is not lead-section material. If there's ever an exception, e.g. because a particular number of "likes" or whatever (new world record in 24 hours?) is itself part of the reason for notability (and RS say so, not people on the talk page), then an exception can apply per WP:IAR (aside from legal policies forced on us by the foundation, none of WP's rules are exception-free).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @SMcCandlish: if you have to bake in IAR when designing a rule then you've got the rule very, very wrong. IAR is for situations that were not anticipated by the rule or which are truly exceptional and so the rule needs to be bent. This proposal would require frequent examples of the rule not just being bent but broken to the extent of being the exact opposite. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @Thryduulf: I think I've been a bit misread on this. I have in mind what WP:P&G explicitly says about guidelines (i.e., this is an actual rule in policy about them): "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This principle is pretty frequently cited and is a form of IAR. (And IAR itself is a policy, a rule! Heh.) I didn't mean that people need to specifically say "Per WP:IAR." Nor do I think what's being contemplated here is policy rather than guideline material, just to be clear; nit-picks like this don't rise to policy level. This would almost certainly end up in MoS, since it's about leads and infoboxes: MOS:LEAD, MOS:INFOBOX. And it thus would not actually be phrased in terms like "may not be" absolutes, but in our usual softer guideline language. I.e., your concerns that this "bans" or "prohibits" something would not actually be possible, since MoS can't actually do that, just lay out a best-practice default which is sometimes ignored when common sense tells us to ignore it on a case by case basis. That's the heart of IAR anyway, and we do it every day without actually having to cite IAR by name. It's just how guidelines work, so you can just cite the lead of WP:P&G instead of citing WP:IAR.

        Anyway, if you think that exceptions that would really be encyclopedically justifiable, and necessary for proper coverage (not just desired by fanbois trying to PR-massage their idol's article) would actually be all that frequent, then we can write a specific set of exception criteria, or include a more generalized exception statement. We do this all the time (especially in MoS). I understand your reaction to the strident tone of the draft language, but WP:Writing policy is hard, first drafts almost never get it right, wording of such a line-item in any P&G page is not set in stone, and if something is codified in too-stringent an initial form, the kinks get worked out pretty quickly with a round of revision to deal with unintended consequences.
         — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

      • @Barkeep49: Please see the above, and moderate the tone of some of the wording; people are reacting negatively to its "This shall be thy Holy Law" stridency, rather than assessing the intent of it. Read around in the main MoS page, as well as MOS:INFOBOX and MOS:LEAD, to see how MoS guideline material is actually written.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Yes writing policy is hard, that's why we should restrict policy to situations where it is needed (per others this is not one) and go through several drafts where problems are identified and ironed out - which has not happened here. A new rule or policy such as this attempts to be should be correct in (almost) all forseeable circumstances in which it would apply: per my and other's objections this is very much not the case. No we don't want fans attempting to use social media stats to inflate articles, but we don't need this to do that - we already have sufficient policies and guidelines around reliable sources and neutral languages, which work. Whether social media stats are or are not relevant is a matter that needs to be judged in the context of the individual article. Also, this is not just a disagreement about the stridency of it, my objections are also that it is unnecessary. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  19. Support – social media are nothing compared to reliable secondary sources. If a secondary source see fits to comment on exceptional social media stats, then maybe there's something we can say, but not otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Dicklyon: but this proposal would prohibit using social media stats completely, even when that is the basis for coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. If you believe there are any occasions when social media stats are relevant to notability and/or significant information about the subject then you should be opposing this proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Again... no... the proposal does not prohibit using social media statistics completely... it just prohibits them from infoboxes and the lead. We would still be able to mention them in the other sections of the article. Blueboar (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    That's part of the problem - what you intended and what I'm reading are not the same thing, but even if it only prevents them being used in the lead or infobox it does so in all circumstances (and discourages them elsewhere) regardless of what the circumstances are - even when that is a significant part of their reliability which should be mentioned in the lead and/or infobox. What is needed (if anything is) is broad and flexible guidelines as to best practice in typical cases, not hard and fast rules that must be adhered to regardless of what the facts on the ground actually are. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Why don't you draft an alternative and I'll see if I can support that better than this one? Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Dicklyon: because I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only guidance that wouldn't have the same problems this proposal does would be redundant to our existing policies and guidelines (and common sense). Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  20. Support - no reason at all for them to be mentioned in the infobox. In the lead, I could see some very few edge-cases where, for example, PewDiePie is mentioned as the YouTuber with the most followers and there was active RS coverage of him about to lose it; or the Instagram egg with the amount of likes. The stats in this case are important to the context and are equivalent to something like the reported ratings for a TV show. Yes, these stats can be bought, but regardless for these handful of cases, this context is needed in the lead (and body) of the article. It is never needed in the infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  21. Support - A number of people liking something or following someone is not notability (besides some exceptions) and should not be treated as such. Reliable secondary sources should be the go-to. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  22. Support in a WP:NOTSPAM way. Common sense should be used to determine if it's useful information or just promotional. There are obvious exceptions like PewDiePie, but I think that even those cases only deserve a brief mention in the lead. Reliable sources often publish articles with headlines like "X Y passes Z million subscribers", but that is in my opinion usually only good for a mention in an article's body. A big problem is that lead sections have the strongest verifiability requirements as per MOS:LEADCITE, and ever-changing statistics are unlikely to be recorded in a reliable source forever. As subjects about which I wouldn't worry too much about promotional content are non-profits, social experiments, various curators etc. whom we wouldn't really be promoting with several statistics in an article body and up to one in the lead, of course at a specific date and cited to a reliable source. Still, infoboxes should receive minimal changes and so do articles; I can't imagine why "gained X views in the first week" or something like that would need to be constantly brought up-to-date. If it's cited to a reliable source, leave it be. If it isn't, find a source or remove it. There are inaccuracy concerns brought up by some editors, and I don't have an opinion on it. On one hand, you have plenty of reporting on these statistics and on their audits, while on the other hand, you have lengthy reports on their abuse. wumbolo ^^^ 10:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Wumbolo: In other words you think we should continue to do things exactly as currently and decide what is significant and what isn't on a case by case basis using a combination of common sense and reliable sources. Which is exactly the opposite of this proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  23. Support: Social media statistics are trivial to manipulate (See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Please do the following web searches), the only limit to how high your numbers can go is your budget, and there is no way to detect the fraud. You can't say that about sports scores, financial reporting, or election results. Those all make an good-faith effort to give you real numbers instead of letting anyone with a credit card choose whatever numbers they want Wikipedia to report. And there is no "case-by-case basis" decision to be made; social media statistics are trivial to manipulate in all cases, without exception. No known social media platform does any sort of authentication other than asking you to reply using a free throw-away email account. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Quora and Google already have a system in place, although it's not perfect. Twitter and Instagram are getting close. wumbolo ^^^ 19:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think Google has any social media statistics, or anything resembling "likes" "views" "upvotes" etc. Please correct me if I am wrong. Does Quora have anything like that, and can someone post social media statistics from Quora? If so, then it would appear that Quora is an exception to my "No known social media platform does any sort of authentication..." statement above, and I owe you a big thanks for correcting my error. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC).
  24. Support Anything that denies fans their joy pleases me. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  25. Support Everyone above said it well. Subscriber and follower count should be a minor detail, not an establishment of notability here in a encyclopedia. –eggofreasontalk 15:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  26. Support I'm not so happy with the reliability of reliable sources any more but so far that's all we got. --tickle me 03:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  27. Support. Absolutely. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  28. Support. Yes, if they are to be made notable, it is because they have been written about, also, bots. take a look at this if one of the most Subscribed Channels lost that many, what is to say that an account may really have only like 2k subs instead of 5K? LakesideMinersMy Talk Page 17:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  29. Support - Others have said it sufficiently above, and many of us have said it multiple times in the past. Including this kind of material is messy, and we too often inflate their importance (and their connection to notability). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  30. Support – social media stats are easily gamed, and not to be used as an indicator of notability. We base our content decisions on reliable sources, not statistics. Bradv🍁 14:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  31. Support These are difficult to keep current, very susceptible to being gamed and not particularly useful to readers (if the information is relevant, it should be put into context in the article itself, following the lead of how reliable sources contextualize it). Just a Rube (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  32. Support. I agree that this is trivia of interest mostly to marketers. We can discuss it in the body of the article when reliable sources cover it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  33. Finally there is a proposal about this frequent issue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose (social media statistics)

  1. I'd learn toward assuming subscriber and view counts are not largely manipulated, unless there's some specific reason to think so, in any given case. Benjamin (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose based on wording. These should be handled on a case-by-case basis, with well sourced numbers being included where reasonable. The wording used is too restrictive, IMO. Nihlus 02:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose based on wording and Nihlus. These metrics constitute an important part of the notability of many articles that use them, and properly sourced they deserve mention for that reason. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Nihlus und Tom. I also don't see why a blanket ban on use in infoboxes is required even if the numbers are verifiable. Since these are statistics that are oftentimes relevant to readers, they should be quickly glanceable from the infobox (similar to company articles having information of employees and earnings in the infobox). For example, PewDiePie (a good article!) demonstrates how the number of subscribers can be very important to be mentioned in the lead and infobox since that is one of the major reasons why he receives all that significant coverage in reliable sources. Regards SoWhy 12:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Also, that proposal would force editors to violate MOS:LEAD on a regular basis because the lead is supposed to "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight" and this includes such statistics in many cases. Regards SoWhy 12:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Establishing an overarching guideline or policy for social media statistics if a form of instruction creep. Their use in various articles should be decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account existing rules. Calidum 19:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per SoWhy, Tom, and Nihlus. While we shouldn't have an SNG that says "people with X Twitter followers are automatically considered notable", we shouldn't tell editors where to mention the number of followers in case it is worth mentioning. —Kusma (t·c) 20:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Unnecessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. I support the principle behind this proposal, but I don't believe this change is necessary. As primary data, social media statistics already cannot be used on their own to establish notability; notability must be established with reliable sources. And if reliable sources determine that a subject is notable in part because of their social media presence, that information should probably be part of the encyclopedia, so long as the date the information was retrieved is tagged. Novusuna talk 22:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  9. Oppose; the proposal is flawed. While notability something something reliable secondary sources, there is no need for a ban specifically targeting data by social media companies. In addition to the points raised by others about the statistics' importance, a large amount of useful data on other topics (e.g. TV viewership) is also basically unverifiable for practical purposes, and the manipulation of data by third parties does not render the data useless, particularly for services which already actively counteract data manipulation. Jc86035 (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. This absolutely needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes it's significant information, other times it's meaningless trivia. Sometimes they should be included in an infobox, other times they shouldn't. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  11. Oppose They should rarelybe in aninfoboxx or lede, but there willbe occassionalarticles where it's the key information. Foor notability , we should use and evaluate whatever is available. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  12. Partial oppose I have no problem with some of their use in infoboxes or in lead sections, however I agree that explicit language needs to say that they have no bearing on notability for Wikipedia purposes. Some social media numbers, for example YouTube subscriber and viewership numbers, are equivalent to, say, album sales or Neilson Ratings in other media forms, and are important metrics. Some social media numbers aren't that big of a deal (Facebook friends, for example). I could support a statement that only makes explicit that these numbers have no bearing on notability, AND I could support a guideline that explains where and why some social media numbers are good, and others are not, but I can't support this statement which conflates several issues, and lacks the nuance necessary to handle the issues around social media stats. --Jayron32 13:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per WP:CREEP and WP:NOTLAW. Statistics of this sort are naturally suspect and so need good evidence -- the size of a crowd, the number of sales, the volume of a print run -- but we should not discriminate against modern technologies just because they are new. Andrew D. (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  14. Oppose not so much overall. I fully agree that social media stats originating from just checking the person's channel/page/etc. is the type of thing to avoid in infoboxes or ledes. On the other hand, there are enough cases of third-party RS sources that comment on subscriber counts (eg I know there exists some for PewDiePie but that was from a few years ago) that is core information about why we have an article on that person that should be in the lede, but based on the point in time given by the RS. This also speaks to the notabilty issue - agree that only on simply viewer count is nowhere near sufficient (the GNG already dismisses popularity as a notability reason), but that when you get this type of coverage in third-party, you are getting the right sources even though that may be solely based on viewer count. In other words, the proposal has the right ideas in mind but throws out the baby with the bathwater. --Masem (t) 14:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    To add, I fully support a ban on these types of stats in infoboxes until we have a reliable third-party tracking source similar to Neilsen for television programs or Alexa Internet for web page rankings or the like. Such fields should not be in any related infobox as they will draw in "bad" data in the absence of a reliable source. But the lede inclusion is different. --Masem (t) 14:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  15. Oppose as it is one of the main claims of significance of a youtuber and removing that information from the easy to find infobox will only frustrate and annoy the reader who expects to find the germane information in a wikipedia article. It's similar to record sales or film box office takings, all statistics are vulnerable to manipulation but YouTube and other social media concerns are currently reforming their processes with the intention of making these figures more reliable and trustworthy. Also, as these statistics are routinely reported in many reliable sources that should be the determing factor that they have a place in wikipedia with perhaps a caveat of including a link to an information page or article about the reliability of such statistics, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  16. Oppose As mentioned above, this rule would force us to violate MOS:LEAD whenever the social-media standing of an individual is an important aspect of their life or career. XOR'easter (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
    Also, as others have pointed out, the proposal conflates distinct issues. There's the question of what can justify the existence of an article (notability), versus what belongs in an article (comprehensiveness, verifiability, due weight), versus what belongs in which part of an article (layout and style). Lumping all these together is counterproductive. In addition, we need to distinguish primary from secondary sources. If I look up a YouTube video and see its current number of up-votes, or if I look up a scientific journal article and the website tells me its altmetric scores, then that's a primary source for the figure in question. Maybe a big number means something, and maybe it doesn't; making a judgment call there would likely amount to Original Research. But if Science or Nature report on a journal article getting the most hashtag coverage of the year, then someone else has made the judgment call about that being important. XOR'easter (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  17. Oppose as worded because it combines too much: notability (new stand-alone article) with inclusion (in existing article), infoboxes with leads, and all social media statistics in one category. These are separate issues, and I can see a lot of case-by-case variation. I feel our existing policies on verifiability and notability are sufficient to guide editors for those case-by-case decisions; I'm not seeing the benefit of having a new overarching rule, and I'm afraid this rule, as currently worded, would constrain editors' decisions rather than help them make those decisions. For example: There are cases where people or videos or images are notable because of how many "views" or whatever they've gotten, and in those cases, it would be strange not to include that information in the lead of those articles. We already have policies not to include content that's not reliably sourced and this proposal doesn't address what is and what isn't an RS for social media stats. "Sparingly" is too open to interpretation, and maybe too permissive (why would we state the number of views more than once? ...and why would we need a rule about how often to say something anyway? NOTBURO.). So I wouldn't be in favor of making this proposed language into a new policy. That said, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to changes to existing policies/guidelines relating to social media, e.g., for notability, in infoboxes, etc. I could see changes to WP:N, WP:RS, WP:MOS, and I'm not sure where the rules are for infoboxes. I also wouldn't be opposed to like a social media guideline that essentially interpreted our policies as they apply to social media, but it would need to be a lot longer than a few sentences to be helpful. Leviv ich 00:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  18. Oppose as worded. Usually they do not show notability , usually they do not belong in infoboxes or ledes. If they are high enough, and reliable sourced, they do contribute to showing notability . Such cases are rare, but they do exist. A blanket ban on anything is rarely a good idea. WP should be made not by a bot-like process, but by humans who think. And, if they are reported by a selective RS, that report makes them non-primary. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
    DGG I would suggest, and indeed am suggesting, that even in exceptional circumstances, given the lack of any sort of SNG, that it's going to be the coverage by RS that makes a social media influencer notable not the raw (inherently unreliable) numbers. So the numbers don't help establish notability and instead we should, as we do as good encyclopedia writers, take our cue from RS about how much, if any, overall coverage to give them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per XOR'easter above. Sometimes the number of likes/views/etc. is important to an article - Gangnam Style comes to mind, see the first lead paragraph. I agree that a high number can't give notability on its own and that in many cases it would be inappropriate to mention in an infobox or lead, but this proposal goes a bit too far. ansh666 01:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. While there's good reasons not to put too much emphasis on these statistics for notability, a blanket ban on their use in the lede or infobox is an overreach, and restricting their use in the body to the bare minimum is ridiculous. Often for the subjects of these articles, these statistics are a good rough estimate of their relative importance as a social media personality, and should be included, since this is helpful to the reader. And in certain cases, social media statistics are central to the subject's importance and should have more than sparing coverage in the body and should be included in the lede. For example, articles such as Pewdiepie, Despacito, Gangnam Style should absolutely mention statistics more like being the most-subscribed YouTuber, most viewed YouTube video, first YouTube video to 1 billion views, and this proposal as written would disallow mention of that in the lede or body beyond very short coverage. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. There are very occasional subjects that receive significant coverage in independent secondary sources precisely because of their social media statistics. R2 (bleep) 20:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutral (social media statistics)

  1. Neutral should be on a case by case basis as they may be cases where the stats are useful for example in the PewDiePie vs T-Series article where 2 youtube channels are competing to be number 1 in subscribers. However I believe in the majority of cases the stats should not be used in articles Abote2 (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Neutral If we had stable access to some third party database which maintained this kind of information then I would support us including it in infoboxes. I agree that social media statistics, like number of subscribers, is defining information for people, organizations, and publications which have social media channels as their primary venues. The problematic point of this to me is verifying that numbers are correct. If a citation claims a social media count in a point in time, then so far as I know, we have no good way of verifying that count. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Bluerasberry: For most sites I would think the Internet Archive would be good enough, mainly because of the difficulty which would be involved in falsifying data. I used it to (deliberately) collect the data in the graph at List of most-disliked YouTube videos, for example. Jc86035 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Jc86035: I did not realize that Internet Archive repeatedly archived user responses to YouTube videos. Wow, that does make for stable information. I am going to change to support. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Bluerasberry: Wait, you support including the information in infoboxes, but you've changed your !vote to support a proposal that would ban including this information in infoboxes? Novusuna talk 00:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (social media statistics)

  • As a bit of a tech luddite, I'd welcome a broader discussion as to how these stats relate (or not) to notability. Such articles are often nominated for speedy deletion under the A7 criterion, despite ostensibly containing claims to notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I am leaning oppose but would appreciate hearing editors opinions on:
  1. Our articles are accurate even when the numbers aren't. If a Twitter account has a million followers, and we say "According to Twitter, the account has a million followers", we're not saying a million people follow the account; we're saying Twitter says a million people follow the account. It's verifiably true that Twitter made the statement, even if the statement is wrong.
  2. It's relative. Whether PewDiePie or T-Series is "winning" is based solely on what YouTube says their subscriber count is. It doesn't matter if it's accurate, inflated, not inflated, etc., because, for example, if it is inflated, presumably they're both inflating it, and what matters is who was more successful at inflating it. If cheating is allowed in a race, and both runners cheat and one of them wins, they're still the winner, even though they cheated, and the article on them should still say they won the race, and what their time was, even if it was manipulated by cheating.
  3. The world believes it. RSes report on SM stats. Shouldn't that be the end of the discussion? If we substitute our judgment for RSes, isn't that WP:OR?
  4. When YouTube reports data about their website (which is what social media stats are), isn't that something we accept as a reliable source per WP:ABOUTSELF?
  5. Corporate profits are overstated and manipulated but we still provide them (because RSes report them); so are Nielsen television ratings; professional athletes sometimes cheat, we still list their stats even though we know them to be manipulated. All sorts of statistics are manipulated; the world is an inaccurate place; why are social media stats special? Leviv ich 01:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
On your last point, egregious manipulation of corporate profits is illegal, the law is actually enforced and every now and then someone gets busted for it. Executives have been sent to prison for securities fraud, but padding social media stats has very little consequence. MER-C 12:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nihlus: This proposal leaves open, on a case by case basis, the inclusion of what you're asking for ("well sourced numbers"). It does give a bit more structure to what well sourced is (sigcov in independent RS) but this leaves lots of room for editors to find the right balance. For instance under this standard I would expect that PewDiePie would have numbers covered in some depth because there is plenty of sourcing that meets this standard for him. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk)
  • Can we please split the proposed language? It combines two completely different things: a) whether statistics etc. establish notability and b) how such information may be used. Users currently have no way to support a) without supporting b) and vice versa. Regards SoWhy 13:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Agree this would be helpful; my votes on a) and b) would be different. Leviv ich 21:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is this needed? Surely our current policy/guidelines lead to pretty much the same conclusion? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    • In such circumstances its usually because the existing policies/guidelines sometimes result in consensuses a few people don't like, so they feel the need to introduce rules that don't allow for things like exceptions, common sense, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I still think I'm missing something here. Can someone give an example where this proposal would lead to a different outcome from current policies and guidelines? Was this prompted by any particular incident? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Ok, I think I've found what prompted this: Talk:Mark Dice. We all (or at least those who have been editing here for a long time) know that Jimmy Wales likes to suck up to people who he imagines to be rich and powerful, and to support their efforts to make promotional edits about themselves if they contact him directly. That's no reason for anyone else to take any notice of what he says, and certainly no reason to change policy or guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
      Most of this is an outgrowth of current practice in some areas - AfC for instance - but not others, i.e. the pages of many YouTubers, and the results of the never endng stream of scandals around maniupulation. Literally as I was preparing this RfC the latest issue with Instagram broke. I'm not inventing a problem out of nowhere. Before going down this route I tried a series of edits and faced several editors who told me "reverting if you want this get an RfC." Since doing this RfC the rest of my edits were reverted in bulk though it's not clear if it's as a result of this or not as that editor has not commented here.
      Thryduulf I do regret the style guidance above. That was overly prescriptive and gets in the way of the larger point. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • YouTube regularly audits views and subscribers. [32] [33] [34] [35] wumbolo ^^^ 20:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • That's just whistling in the wind. Those sources by no means counter the overwhelming evidence to the contrary that such statistics are unreliable. I could easily sign up with many different accounts from many different locations and "like" people on social media, and nobody would know that I am the same person. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please do the following web searches

Do a web search on "buy twitter followers", "buy facebook followers", "buy instagram followers", "buy youtube subscribers", "buy reddit upvotes", "buy flickr followers", "buy pinterest followers" "buy tumblr followers"...

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

We should certainly treat such statistics with a large bucketful of salt, but I don't see why we need a new guideline to do so. We judge the reliability of all sorts of sources for all statements in all articles all the time, so shouldn't we just do the same for these statistics produced by social media sites? They can clearly be gamed, so shouldn't be treated as reliable, especially when they are claimed to boost someone's notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: How is that different from corporate profits or corporations' net worth? Those are manipulated routinely, reported in RSes routinely, and included in our infoboxes routinely. We report the finishing times of Lance Armstrong and the batting average of Barry Bonds even though we know those statistics were obtained by cheating. I mean, lots of information is subject to manipulation or is not objectively true and accurate, but we still include it if the RSes include it. Why should SM be any different? (This applies to including the information in the article, not to using the information for establishing notability, which is a separate issue.) Leviv ich 19:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
A rule would be helpful since a lot of the time the RS component gets ignored, at least from my limited experience editing in the area. SportingFlyer T·C 19:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
If the current rules get ignored then that's the problem we should address, rather than introduce a new rule that will also get ignored. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Levivich asks "How is that different from corporate profits or corporations' net worth? Those are manipulated routinely, reported in RSes routinely, and included in our infoboxes routinely. We report the finishing times of Lance Armstrong and the batting average of Barry Bonds even though we know those statistics were obtained by cheating." Let's start with Lance Armstrong and Barry Bonds. Lance actually rode that fast and Barry actually hit those balls. If the number of times Barry Bond hit the ball was something that anybody with enough money could undetectably alter, we would treat reports of his batting average as being unreliable.

  • those things have ALWAYS happened. See Payola. We still use metrics like RIAA certifications and Nielsen Ratings and the like, even though it has happened before (and probably still happens to an extent) that the metrics can be gamed. YouTube subscriber numbers are still used by industry sources as a metric. --Jayron32 17:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The difference between old-fashioned Payola and the manipulation of social media statistics is that the old way was difficult and expensive to implement, but social media statistics can be manipulated very easily and very little cost. After all, there's a limit to the number of times a record (am I showing my age by using that word?) can be played on the radio or bought in the right shop. I don't want to go too far into WP:BEANS territory, but I don't think I'm giving away any great secrets by saying that it's possible to write a script to create any number different user ids on a social media site and to like or download or whatever is needed any number of times. This is a big step change from Payola methods, which now seem rather quaint and innocent. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

As for corporate profits or corporations' net worth, as Business Insider says, "An analysis of results from 500 major companies by The Associated Press, based on data provided by S&P Capital IQ, a research firm, found that the gap between the "adjusted" profits that analysts cite and bottom-line earnings figures that companies are legally obliged to report, or net income, has widened dramatically over the past five years."[36] The key point here is that the Securities and Exchange Commission exists and will put you in jail if they catch you reporting fake financials of the official forms. Also, the auditor's report, published in the annual report in conjunction with the financial statements, gives us an independatt evaluation on whether a company's financial statements comply with generally accepted accounting principles. If a company could simply get on the net and buy fake numbers for profit or revenue, we would not consider those numbers to be reliable.

Please don't assume that just because I say that the numbers for social media likes/followers/etc. are trivial to fake that I am saying that we need a new rule. That is an entirely different question and hinges on whether our existing rules are adequate. But the fact remains that social media statistics are trivial to manipulate, the only limit to how high your numbers go is your budget, and there is no way to detect the fraud. You can't say that about sports scores, financial reporting, or election results. Those examples all at least attempt to give you real numbers instead of fake numbers. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Separating infobox inclusion from lead inclusion

I think it would be helpful to break this into two separate questions...

  1. Under what circumstances should the statistics be included in infoboxes?
  2. Under what circumstances should the statistics be mentioned in the lead?

Personally, I would have different answers to each question - Much more inclined to allow mentions in leads, and much less so when it comes to infoboxes. Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  • The only possible answer to both is "when they are verifiable and there is a consensus among contributors to the article that they should be included in the infobox/lead". There are far too many variables to get more specific than that for such high level questions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Thryduulf, what is your definition of verifiable as it applies to social media statistics? valereee (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Well that depends on the statistic, but primary sources will be fine for verification in most cases - (e.g. [37] verifies that Cyndi Lauper's version of Girls Just Want To Have Fun had 708 million views as of 16 February 2019), and reliable source reports are good too - e.g. [38] supports the statement that Ellen DeGeneres' tweet was retweeted more than 2 millions times by the end of the night on which it was taken. $Random_celebrity reported in a reliable source as claiming that they have more than a million followers on Twitter does not count as verification of the figure (although it obviously verifies the claim, but such claims shouldn't be in the infobox and are unlikely going to be appropriate in the lead, although it's possible). "Social media" is a very broad term and there are almost an infinite number of stats that can be derived from it - YouTube (displayed) view counts are prominent and easy to verify, but something like the number of people who have seen a person's posts on facebook is equally a social media statistic but much harder to verify (if it is even possible). Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No information should be listed in the infobox that isn't already in the body of the article. Also, no information in the lead section should not already be in the body of the article. Basically, I tend to take the general idea that it goes body-->lead-->infobox, though not strictly speaking, because there will be some information appropriate for the infobox that might not be mentioned in the lead, and vice-versa, but in general, the lead is a text summary of the body of the article, and the infobox is a data summary of the body of the article. There should (almost) never be information in either place that wasn't already explained in more detail in the body of the article. With regard to social media statistics, it really depends on context, and I am mostly with Thryduulf on this: I can see where some statistics, like YouTube views or channel subscriptions, are metrics that are akin to RIAA certifications or Nielsen SoundScan sales, and as such, are probably useful to include. For media that exists only on YouTube, insofar as it may be notable for a Wikipedia article, metrics regarding consumption of that media are useful to know. For things like "Facebook friends" or the like, I'm less inclined to find it universally useful as I would YouTube subscribers (for example, nearly all articles on music albums include data on album sales, or movies on ticket sales), but I can't say we should ban the statistic in all cases. There may be times when, in the context of an article, it bears mentioning, and even mentioning in the lead. My own lack of imagination doesn't mean I can say I would ban it from the lead, per se. However, YouTube channel subscribership does seem like the kind of data that would regularly appear in leads and/or infoboxes. Regarding reliable sources, I don't know that YouTube algorithms are unreliable, I would trust their own statements as reliable sources for their own viewership numbers. While it has been mentioned that those numbers can be faked, that's true, but it's also true for every metric of media consumption. See Payola for one famous example; when radio airplay is used as a metric, record companies bribe radio programming directors to play the song more. And so on. Reliable sources at large still report such media consumption statistics, and we should to. --Jayron32 17:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Jayron makes some valid points... however, not all information that is mentioned in the body of an article deserves to be included (summarized) in the lead or highlighted in an infobox. We do use judgement when summarizing. So, the questions are: 1) Under what circumstances are viewer statistics important enough to be a) highlighted in an infobox, or b) summarized in the lead. (Are there circumstances where we should do one, but not the other?) And 2) Under what circumstances are the stats NOT important enough to be included? Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, of course. The word "summarize" has meaning, and its actual meaning is why I chose it. I hope I don't have to define every word I use, because that would get tiresome. We shouldn't be using an axe to do editing that requires a scalpel. We should decide when we should usually include such statistics, when we should usually exclude them, of course noting that there will still be times when we include something that isn't in our guidelines on such usage. I would say that metrics on consumption of social media, which is analogous to similar metrics from pre-Internet media should be used in similar ways; the subscription data for YouTube channels is analogous to the sales numbers of books. The viewership numbers of a specific video is similar in many ways to the Neilson ratings of TV shows. That is, if data is relevant to a TV show, it is relevant to a YouTube video, since they form a similar role in the modern media landscape. --Jayron32 19:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
That’s fine as theory, but it does not address the questions I have asked: Under what circumstances should we a) mention in the lead, b) include in infobox? Under what circumstances should we NOT a) mention in the lead, and b) include in infobox? Blueboar (talk)|
The questions are not answerable at such a high level - that's the point Jayron and I are making. The answer for a video will be different to the answer for a politician from a YouTuber, a YouTube channel, a person primarily known for twitter, and the developer of a social media platform will all be different again. List of most-retweeted tweets correctly includes a social media statistic in the lead (it doesn't have an infobox), T-Series (company) includes subscriber and video view counts in both infobox and lead (I think correctly). Tom Scott (entertainer) does include them but Ed Sheeran doesn't despite both having very a strong social media presence. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Thryduulf hits the point on the head, though I will say I did address your questions: You asked "Under what circumstances should we (include social media data)", and my response was essentially "when the metrics serve an equivalent role to analogous metrics in other forms of media". I thought that was fairly clear. I would also add "when it makes sense in the context of a specific article." and "when the metric itself is the subject of mainstream coverage of a topic." That seems to capture when it is reasonable to include social media data. Also, regarding when to include the data in the lead or infobox, I also answered that clearly. As I said earlier, "No information should be listed in the infobox that isn't already in the body of the article. Also, no information in the lead section should not already be in the body of the article." So, it would need to already be discussed in the body. In summation of what I had already said, we should include information in the lead and/or infobox 1) for information which is analogous to metrics used in non-social-media like TV, Radio, Books, Movies, etc. and 2) When it has already been discussed in the body of the article. When we should not include it is when it doesn't meet those conditions, allowing for WP:IAR-exceptions and articles where context determines that the data is a significant portion of the narrative. --Jayron32 14:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
head |========> point
While you hit the wrong end of the metaphorical nail, which I attempted to crudely illustrate [above], I completely agree with your approach to this; that is the right way round :) I think of best practice as building the content from the base up, not plugging in data and scrabbling around to back that if challenged. A well written lead leads to the relevant content below and shows the infobox for what it is: merely redundant or contrary data vying to replace the content, information with context and citations in sentences. Any contested field "Number of friends = " obviously can only be provided with context, wikidata is the place for labelled data fields. Pretty obviously I dislike infoboxes altogether, so advocate tight constraint on their use and misuse, and have few friends if this is what I am worrying about. cygnis insignis 14:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I tend to write articles the other way around: I start with the body of the article, where I have already written the necessary details and provided references and context for all of it, and THEN I write a summary of the body as the lead. It seems odd to me that one would start with the summary. What is one summarizing? --Jayron32 16:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
As an aside, some people like to write an outline of what they plan to write, and then fill out the details. Of course there can be some back-and-forth between the two. isaacl (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I apologize if I repeat a point already made as I have been busy and so I admittedly skim read a lot of this discussion, but we're not and in a place where the types of statistics are as reliable as non-social media. If that happens, I would be all about their widerspread use. But that's not the reality right now and if it ever becomes that reality we can change our practices, as a lagging indicator to reflect that changed reality. The reality also is that while the numbers themselves aren't currently reliable they do have some importance, which is why there is the carve out for discussion by RS, and, importantly, the removal of them are resisted by some number of editors meaning community consensus is important. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Notifications

I have left notifications about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Blogging (chosen as these projects tag articles about Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and three YouTubers I follow). Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_150&oldid=955597943"