Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 130

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

Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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

---

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

Notability guidelines and policy for eSports

I am wondering if it might be a good idea for the community to consider a notability guideline for eSports, in light of the increasing number of articles being created about teams and competitors. Unlike most sports, there is no guideline under Notability (sports), so at the moment only general biography rules seem to apply. A nomination - that so far is a keep - at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rekkles has suggested that we need a "serious evaluation of all esports articles" and certainly it does seem like a field that is growing and so we should at least have guidance on. Thoughts? KaisaL (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Speaking from the stance of the video games project, compared to athletic sports, the amount of coverage esports gets is still very low and weak. Whereas athletes that achieve some level of professional play will likely get coverage due to the volume of sources that cover traditional sports, this simply doesn't exist yet for eSports, so the best advice is to stay with the general notability guidelines. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that eSports is still minor in the mainstream, but it doesn't change that the number of articles being created for players and teams is increasing. By our very nature, we're more likely to attract content on the sport. We have specific guidelines for rodeo and curling, and a lot more editing comes into the eSports topics - so it may still be a good idea to create a guideline to be added to the sports topic. Just at a glance through the categories, it is very contentious as to how a lot of it would do at AFD or whether individual players are relevant. KaisaL (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I brought up the issue with the drastically low-quality of eSports articles to Drmies a couple days ago. ESports as a whole is appropriate to keep on Wikipedia, but we at this point have hundreds of low-quality articles, with many featuring dubious notability, that largely are relying on Daily Dot and Liquipedia referencing- the second being a serious no-no, for as referencing is concerned. We must find an effective way to comb through these articles are either fix them or toss them, as the whole topic is running counter to Wikipedia standards. Furthermore, we have a number of categories and navboxes featured on these pages that contribute next to nothing, other than adding to the enormous pile of vague categories. I'd say with the number of eSports player articles, one could click at random on them and almost certainly find what I'm saying to be true verbatim. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

As with any other SNG, one should be tailored to reflect the point where we can presume a subject has achieved the necessary coverage in reliable sources to produce an article. I guess the first step is to consider what sources are reliable, given eSports really doesn't appear in mass market media all that much. What absolutely should not happen is to just say "appeared in random event x or is popular on reddit" = notable. Resolute 23:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of picking out some articles, almost at random, to demonstrate the issues with the content:

1. Lustboy - Won a professional championship as a "support player" in a team and is now a "strategic analyst" in a national league. All sources from Daily Dot. Does winning the championship justify inclusion, or is a support player not important enough? Is a strategic analyst a notable role? Without an expertise of eSports and a guideline it is very difficult to know.

2. FORG1VEN - A player for a League of Legends team that is "off of the starting roster due to lack of motivation". This almost reads like cruft, but there's a reference pointing to ESPN too.

3. Origen (eSports) - A team that finished "3rd-4th" in a League of Legends world championship. What criteria should a team have is a question we haven't really asked - in some sports you need to be winning things and is eSports important enough to include everyone?

4. League of Legends Master Series - A professional competition with a large prize fund, but no real reliable sources. How much coverage does an eSports competition need to be notable, or is being professional enough?

This is just a few examples I've plucked out for a feel of the current content, but there's plenty that are a lot more contentious, and only a few that are clear cut keeps (typically those notable for more than competing in the competitions, so those without a following and press coverage). KaisaL (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• There was a long and oft-caustic debate several years back with "eSports" advocates trying to get a set of guidelines written into WP:NSPORTS. Editors from the various sports WikiProjects were all but unanimously opposed, with the consensus being that they are not actually "sports" -- the wishes of their fans notwithstanding -- but games, that they could always get an independent set of guidelines created, and failing that could rely on the GNG.

  That being said, any set of proposed guidelines for presumptive notability ought to come with ironclad, demonstrated evidence that someone who meets those guidelines will likely meet the GNG. Given my own experiences with AfDs involving "eSports" figures, the overwhelming number of sources proffered as "reliable" tend to be their inhouse blog- and fansites, and I'm concerned that guidelines will reflect "We think this is important" or "ZOMG I love this game so much anyone who's good at it must be a figure of legendary repute!" more than any extant standard of notability. Ravenswing 00:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

  • That particular discussion can be found here, for reference.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Whether or not eSports are a form of "sports" is a side issue: at that time, the regular followers of sports notability guideline did not feel particularly suited to develop rules of thumb for notability of participants in eSports. But as long as the guidelines are reviewed by the general community of editors, they can be formed and maintained by any suitable group, such as the video games WikiProject. isaacl (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• One of the "regular" guidelines for sports notability is "participated in Olympics" or such events. I don't see how we have such a thing here--the events are much less selective, and there are no national committees (the plethora of flagporn on all those articles notwithstanding). I agree that articles on Daily Dot don't amount to notability: it's a niche publication, explicitly. The Rekkles article has better sources, but (and I raised this at the AfD) whether those sources provide the extensive coverage required by the GNG is a matter of discussion, and I am of the opinion that they don't. What's happened with these articles, these hundreds of little biographies and dozens of big, fat, directory-style articles on the teams, is that notability is presumed. BTW, MMA, which is also a kind of a sport, I suppose, was able to draw up guidelines, and the MMA articles have not been brought up in any forum that I know of recently, so it can certainly be done. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• I've just been making articles for things that get coverage in, among other sources, The Daily Dot, TheScore eSports, and ESPN, and from there those articles should meet WP:GNG. From what I've seen, because the landscape of esports is constantly changes, achievement based notability requirements like those in WP:NSPORTS may not work very well. More specifically, making requirements like "players are notable if they have won the League of Legends World Championship" may not work because while the winners of the most recent tournament are notable, because League of Legends was much smaller in 2011 not every player on the 2011 championship team seem to be notable. --Prisencolin (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see how getting written up in Daily Dot or on theScore adds up to notability via the GNG. Do any of these publications matter? Are they reliable, but also, do they have weight? Are they considered to be independent of their subject matter? ESPN isn't, for instance; they depend on the sports they present in all kinds of ways. The landscape of eSports may be changing, but so is that of death metal and Barbie collecting, and neither of those get every participant written up without some kind of standards. For death metal, for instance, WP:NALBUM, WP:NSONG, WP:NBAND still apply. So, if it's a sport, sport guidelines should apply, for instance. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Those publications appear to meet requirements to be reliable sources, and can thus help an article pass WP:GNG. Beyond this whether or not the websites or the topics they cover have any lasting significance to humanity is up to opinion.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, informed opinion. And "appear"--yeah, I don't know. Can you prove that they have reliable editorial boards? Do they publish writing by recognized experts and journalists? Are they truly independent of the topics they cover? I don't know who argues that ESPN is truly independent, for instance; I'd love to see that evidence. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
        • According to its website the Daily Dot was nominated for a Digday Publishing Award, has also received acclaim from other news agencies and has a large writing and editing team.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I don't think there is a dispute regarding ESPN being a third-party source, and I think its analysis can be fairly called independent. However its sports coverage, just like most mass media sports journalism, has an entertainment role, and so not everything reported can be considered to be indicative of meeting Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. isaacl (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
          • There was a discussion about TheScore eSports here.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

So, moving forward: Where do we go from here? Would a formal RFC be an idea here? What are we thinking in terms of guidelines? My thoughts at the moment are that there's three directions we could go in:

1. eSports articles needing independent coverage outside of specialist websites, so only players with significant coverage not exclusive to niche websites covering the sport and related topics;

2. A general rule that certain achievements are a sign of notability (as with, for example, junior gymnastics) - like winning a professional competition of a certain standard solo or as a main part of a team. (Or this could supplement point one.)

3. A decision that the status quo is reasonable, and that all participants in professional competitions are eligible for inclusion.

Obviously we'd need to discuss these, but the general hunch I'm getting - from participants so far here at least - is a concern at the amount of references to The Daily Dot and The Score, and I would agree that their suitability in defining notability is questionable. KaisaL (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• There are more reliable sources than just The Daily Dot and TheScore, and there are also many foreign languages sources that I listed at User:Prisencolin/esportsnews--Prisencolin (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the problem is that so many of these sources are specific to eSports, so they may be reliable within the eSports community, but they don't necessarily prove the notability of eSports articles on Wikipedia. An earlier contributor made an allusion to death metal, in that there's many death metal blogs and websites, but that doesn't automatically make the bands that they cover notable. Some of this sources, certainly, have names attached that make me think they could be useful, like Yahoo! and ESPN.

The key point I would make is this: With most sports, they have their niche websites and blogs, but then they receive coverage on more general websites too. So for Formula One, there's websites like F1 Fanatic and James Allen on F1, but there's also the BBC and national newspapers and so on. It's the same for football, cricket, baseball, and countless others. The question for me is, where is this wider significant coverage beyond websites like Blog of Legends and The Score eSports? I do not dispute their reliability for facts and figures, but I do dispute it for proving that these articles are notable.

This is exactly what we need to explore, else we'll end up with articles for every eSports player and team that these specific websites cover. I personally don't feel that coverage on these should be enough, and that only major competition winners and those with substantial wider coverage should be included, but an RFC or similar process should decide these guidelines.

Your input is massively valuable by the way as you clearly know the topic well. KaisaL (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but just wanted to point out that neither Blog of Legends nor TheScore eSports specialize in eSports coverage; Blog of Legends is owned by FanSided, which covers general sports and entertainment, and is in turn owned by Time Inc., the holdings company of Time magazine, among other publications. TheScore publishes a general sports score app and news webste, and a fantasy sports game.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Going back to the question, the reasoning for having the subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG) like NSPORTS is to spell out conditions where if a topic has met some milestone, there will likely be sufficient sourcing that already exists or will come to exist to have that topic meet the GNG eventually. For example, a Nobel prize award winner routinely gets several articles after the award is named that detail their life and contributions, if this has not already been documented, so an SNG saying that Nobel prize winners are presumed notable works. In sports, a broad line is drawn for those that have in professional games, as to get to the professional level they likely have had to performed exceptionally at lower leagues (college or minors or equivalent), and the volume of coverage of those sports in reliable sources is still high such that these players will be documented there, if not from their current career. These SNG don't need to be 100% accurate in the source availability, since we're only making a presumption of notability, but they need to be the rule with only few exceptions.

The problem then with eSports is that we don't have enough time or sourcing to go on to assure that if an eSports player makes it to a certain level that they are going to have sources sufficient for GNG in the future. It's probably far too early given how new eSports is relative to other sports to be able to make a fair assessment of what "rules" work to make an SNG case out of. Hence that the GNG is a safe backup, and that then leads to the discussion of what are reliable sources for eSports, which is a fair but separate question. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

GNG is a safe bet. I would say a good start for examining what is reliable is to see what pages utilize Liquipedia, which is a completely unreliable source. I fear two things from this discussion. The first is that we will simply find ourselves losing interest or going in circles, as I proposed an evaluation of esports about a year ago and it accomplished nothing, as nobody even began to comb through the articles with proper scrutiny. My second fear is that we'll try to reach a resolution for esports standards that will be inadequate, in comparison with general Wikipedia policies.

I believe the million dollar question is, how do we ensure that every esport article is reviewed for being up to par? There are hundreds that are probably eligible for deletion as of now, so it's a monumental task to bring the project up to snuff. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a good argument Masem, however I would have one point to make regarding it: The fact that eSports is so new and in its relative infancy only supports the notion that blanket inclusion of professional players and teams is probably not appropriate at this time. I do not feel we can allow wide inclusion simply because of the work involved with checking sources. Some basic guidelines, even if they aren't quite as inflexible as something like WP:NFOOTY, would be a great help in deletion decisions. One other thing, too: I personally feel a good half of the eSports players on Wikipedia could reasonably go to AFD and be expected to fail. Such a flood may not be helpful, and we've encountered issues with that sort of thing regarding schools and Pokémon among other topics in the past. KaisaL (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe the million dollar question is, how do we ensure that every esport article is reviewed for being up to par?

This part isn't hard. The vast majority of new (and old) eSports articles are by Prisencolin, so if we make it clear that new (and old) eSports articles need to be sourced to vetted reliable sources, with no unreferenced content in biographies of living people, then the fight is already over. Hopefully this would mean Prisencolin going back to correct previous articles before the rest of Wikipedia was as firm about the sources being used. czar 18:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't have time to wade through the proposals above but I wanted to add that this has been discussed at WT:VG for some time. Instead of following Prisencolin's list of sources, I would encourage you to look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 14#eSports revisited and the related/linked threads, where the sources had at least a modicum of vetting. I don't think we need an automatic bar set for eSports players—I think a surprising amount of them meet the GNG, mainly surprising because few expected so much coverage so fast. An automatic bar would undoubtably lead to even worse articles, like the lowest ranks of any of the athletic notability guidelines, as player articles will/will not be created for the major teams regardless of their actual coverage. So I'd scrap that idea to focus on the GNG. I think there is a question of whether a player is notable if their only coverage is in the Daily Dot. If Daily Dot is presumed reliable, and I believe it is, the only case for not having such an article would be that Daily Dot-exclusive coverage (with no other outside coverage) is not significant coverage for the GNG. Feel free to make that argument if it's convincing, otherwise the most obvious way forward is to check whether each article is significant in WP:VG/RS-vetted sources. Also I'm interested in these "hundreds" of deletion-worthy eSports articles—care to share examples? Because I've been following their creation and while their quality is low (prose copied from another cc-by-sa encyclopedias) and their sourcing needs cleanup, the majority of them do pass the GNG, at least sufficiently so that they would live through AfD noms. I am, however, glad that this content area is finally getting some attention outside the project. Please ping me if I can be useful.  czar 18:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: I would support a requirement for coverage outside of The Daily Dot and eSports sources, with the usual requirements (substantial, significant) for that. That would remove any competition requirements while those are in their infancy, but mean they need to be notable beyond niche eSports circles. I think this might be worth drafting into some sort of remedy to maybe add to Wikipedia:Notability (sports). As an aside, if the same user is creating a lot of the articles, we're kind of going off their judgement, and as the area grows - and from past experience - that doesn't end well. Certainly Prisencolin is the most vocal in AFD debates about eSports. As for there not being many that are debatable, the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FREAKAZOiD being so contentious is a sign that there's a few to look into, and my list at the beginning of this debate has more samples. FREAKAZOiD is one of the better sourced and even he's got delete proposals, so the area could easily fall victim to a particularly proactive AFD lister if some guidance isn't put in a place. A list of reliable sources on the WikiProject probably isn't enough, so I'd go with the outside coverage requirements for now. Sorry for the long reply. KaisaL (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It is going to need coverage outside of e-sport sources like The Daily Dot; they are a closed loop of non-WP:INDY sourcing: gamer writers catering to gamers' hero-worship of other gamers, and everything paid for by advertising of the games. We've already gone through this several years ago with the demo scene, demo artists and demo crews, demo parties, etc., etc.; it was not enough that computer "demo" art online-zines declared someone a demo superstar and a demo event or demo award the most notable thing since Star Wars, and it's not enough that gamer sites/mags gush all over gamers that no one other than hardcore gamers has ever heard of or cares about. While in theory it's true that WP:GNG is sufficient, that's true of all topics, in theory. In actual practice, fanciers of numerous topics misinterpret GNG and it has to be laid out in nit-picky detail why promotionalism of non-notable things in that topic isn't actually acceptable, and why what they want to do is actually promotionalism of non-notable things. This is the entire reason that we have a large number of topical notability guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

eSports proposal

• Proposal. Ok, per Czar and other comments, here's a starter - I'm not suggesting it's added exactly like this - for an addition to Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Thoughts?

eSports:

1. eSports subjects (competitors, teams and competitions) that have received substantial coverage via significant reliable sources beyond the eSports community and media are considered to be notable;

2. eSports subjects that have only received substantial coverage via The Daily Dot, The Score eSports and similar sites are not considered to be notable;

3. Competing in a professional competition is not considered to qualify a subject for inclusion on its own.

This definitely still needs work but it's an idea for starters. Pinging: @DarthBotto:, @Prisencolin:, @Drmies:, @Ravenswing:. KaisaL (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Haven't made up my mind yet about these, but I do object to the guideline's inclusion into WP:NSPORT without broader consensus, since a lot of people just don't consider video games a sport.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, shall we discuss the guidelines and then worry about where to put them later? They're not going to be added overnight, but at least we're finally trying to gauge a consensus on them. KaisaL (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'd simplify as "Significant coverage for separate articles on eSports players/gamers requires coverage outside of dedicated eSports sources (e.g., The Daily Dot, Red Bull)." That seems to be the heart of the discussion above, at least. A discussion at WT:VG could lead to its inclusion in the video games WikiProject guidelines and you could RfC all the way to another notability guideline if you want. I don't think it needs more clauses than that (I don't think we need a site-wide verdict on whether eSports are sports—sounds like a waste of time). czar 23:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this wording would have the effect of not including teams, which are just as potentially troublesome, because by stating "separate articles" it might suggest they can be covered in a team article. Players, teams and competitions should ideally be covered and all should require coverage outside of the decidated eSports sources. The other problem is that this might make The Daily Dot - we seem to have a degree consensus that this is a problematic site - seem legitimate as it isn't purely for eSports. I think it's important to give examples. The list also conforms to the existing notability formats and, with the greatest will in the world, restricting this to a WikiProject guideline might make it less likely to be effectively referenced in notability debates. I'd like to see it in one of the proper guidelines. I think WP:NESPORTS or siimlar would be a good abbreviation. KaisaL (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

But, perhaps, to avoid this becoming essay length might we look to develop a consensus on these generally being a criteria rather than the technicalities just yet? If we can agree on the points broadly we can look into drafting and where they'd be put later on. KaisaL (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Examples are fine—added above. Another angle to consider: I suggested starting with a local guideline as a band-aid for now, but the wound is really the larger point about niche topics and notability. This is really a discussion about what constitutes significant coverage for the general notability guideline and whether several sources from a vetted but niche source together constitute notability. This is like a local/regional paper publishing several articles on a local business, or several low-grade indie film magazines with editorial staff publishing on an indie film, or several mobile-only games websites publishing on indie mobile games—what kind of line is being drawn about the types of noteworthy coverage considered in deciding whether a topic is independently notable for its own article, if we are discussing drawing a line at not including articles that have only been covered in The Daily Dot? czar 23:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we'd be saying any sort of coverage that would meet the usual sort of biography guidelines, we don't have to be too over-specific there, the rest of notability is well-established. KaisaL (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Separately, I think we all would welcome outside opinions on whether The Daily Dot, TheScore, PVP Live, etc. have reputations for reliability in the first place. There are a variety of venues for such a discussion: here, WP:RSN, WT:VG, WT:VG/RS... czar 23:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

In my view every single one would come under point two in my list, requiring coverage via reliable sources outside of the eSports community and media. KaisaL (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

But if an eSports-specific source isn't reliable in the first place then the conversation would be over before it begins czar 23:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, however it can also be reliable but not enough. Yahoo! has an eSports section, for example; We'd say Yahoo! is reliable generally, but if their coverage is confined to their eSports section and niche coverage of competition outcomes there, that wouldn't necessarily be enough. Also, making these sorts of notability criteria makes it less likely we'll be constantly debating the reliability of sources and relevance of them as well. KaisaL (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• I would staunchly oppose the inclusion of any such guideline into NSPORTS. My view from the 2011 RfC hasn't changed, and I'll be happy to quote myself: "Playing video games /= "sport," no matter how much their partisans hunger to be considered Real Athletes ... This recent flurry is by no means the first attempt to claim that video gamers are "athletes" and should be covered by WP:ATHLETE. It won't be the last." Prescient of me.

  That being said, I don't think this proposal does video gamers any favors. It doesn't set up any level of presumptive notability beyond the GNG, and its only stipulations are restrictive. Surely there must be some championships, some level of dollar earnings at which participants can reasonably clear the GNG. Ravenswing 04:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the last part of your point is a lot of the problem - you're raising championships and dollar earnings, but we really have no precedent or prior discussion, so it's difficult for it to be referenced or used as any sort of criteria. My view is that eSports is in its infancy to such an extent that winning a competition alone should not be enough, but the biggest winners are likely to satisfy the criteria by other means. KaisaL (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, KaisaL; I agree that there hasn't been. But it seems that most of the editors involved in this discussion aren't video game experts, and people are commenting here less out eagerness to set forth new and accurate criteria than out of grim determination to clear up ongoing messes at AfD. This isn't the way to go about it. Criteria should be developed by people out of the video games WikiProject, they should be well tested to gauge whether those who meet the criteria are likely to meet the GNG, and all that legwork should be done prior to a formal proposal being raised here or anywhere else. Failing partisans doing that work, I'm entirely comfortable with continuing to rely on the GNG. Ravenswing 13:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the input of experts on eSports and video games is important. However, and having seen this happen in the past, purely having the debate between those especially invested in a field without outside input can lead to a natural bias. I suppose you're right that, if this subject were being discussed actively between those parties now with a specific view to establishing guidelines and recording a consensus, there would be no need for input generally at this stage. I have purely taken on a role here intending to kick start the debate, an advocate for the discussion in a way; This discussion is almost certain to fizzle out for the archives, and my most recently nominated articles for AFD are receiving a response that is going to make it difficult to gauge a consensus on the wider issue from those too. As such, I just hope that the WikiProject and the "video game experts" you refer to actually have this debate before the topic grows much further. I hope this makes sense. KaisaL (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• I honestly believe that GNG does the job already. I mean, I wouldn't be opposed to having this included, so you can count my input as Neutral, but conditional; I insist that there's a tighter leash on this topic, unlike all the previous attempts to fix this particular WikiProject, where people claim they have consensus, but nothing's changed. Implementing these rules may save a number of articles from being deleted, but if it's decided that it's not in favor of the project, I will insist that GNG is followed to the letter. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 08:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment This debate, closed a few hours ago, is an interesting case to reference here. It went to a delete, but a brief discussion of the reliability of sources about eSports occurred; Prisencolin listed a number, and The Daily Dot particularly was disputed by the other user. The AFD went to a close, and this was an eSports topic with an above average amount of external coverage. It could be quite easy to nominate a lot more on similar grounds.

The two key problems I see with just using WP:GNG is that the reliability of the sources that most of our eSports content references is disputed, and will continue to be in debates, and secondly that we have passed no community judgement on this coverage of eSports as a whole. Is an article on a sub-section of Yahoo! dedicated to eSports about the outcome of an event or somebody changing a team, for example, enough to give them notability here? Someone will say yes because it's Yahoo!, and others will say no because it's an area dedicated to the subject. For me, at this time, it's akin to saying that The Non-League Paper is enough to qualify a footballer. However what is unfortunate and may doom this debate, sadly, is that we seem to be more caught up on whether eSports is a sport and not on the actual criteria. The only other solution may be to simply start sending articles to AFD, and see what precedent forms. KaisaL (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

If anybody wants to know, I talked to the deleting admin, and he's allowed fFREAKZOiD to go to WP:DRV.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to currently including any notability guidelines specific to esports at this time, allowing the GNG to do its job, only because the topic is in its infacy and it is impossible to determine if any of these will, the near-majority of the time, lead to GNG-type coverage. Maybe after a few more years we'll be able to make a better assessment, but now is too early. Note that GNG does allow RSes that are not necessarily universally accepted as RSes for any topic and allows subject-specific ones as long as elements like editorial control and fact-checking stand, so while The Daily Dot, for example, I would avoid for some topics, does seem appropriate for the context of eSports. It should be kept in mind that GNG requires significant coverage, and BLP1E still stands, so if all we can do is talk about one win a player has, that's not sufficient for GNG. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The use of The Daily Dot is certainly contentious, as it the use of many of the sites most regularly referenced. I am inclined to test the AFD waters further because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FREAKAZOiD going to a close - that was an article with references - suggests to me that we have huge swathes of non-notable eSports content. I had thought a better solution might be to establish some guidelines, but if that isn't going to be the case, I don't think it's fair to just let the content stand unchallenged due to a perception that a topic is in its "infancy" (which is anything only serves to promote the notion that individual players and teams shouldn't have articles unless they're somehow notable for major events with reach beyond the eSports niche). KaisaL (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated four eSports articles for AFD: Happy (video gamer), Lustboy, FORG1VEN and Allu (gamer). KaisaL (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

That was a bad close of Freakazoid: 3 deletes, 1 redirect, 2 keeps and a 'neutral'. Given two of the delete arguments were 'this isnt notable outside of egaming' - not a valid argument if it satisfies GNG, and 'doesnt satisfy GNG and per 1e' - when the numerous sources listed indicated both it wasnt a 1e (admittedly they were most notable for a particular event) and that it had general coverage for the area. You have at most, 'no consensus' to delete there given the weight of arguments on both sides. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Though I would argue that the Freakazoid afd is a bad example to base the discussion of notability of esports players around given that the only real aspect was the player's role in a bullying incident at an esports competition and less about their skill/player achievements, so the weight of BLP1E readily applies here (justifying the AFD as delete for that purpose). --MASEM (t) 14:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

For BLP1E to be valid (and also the reason its not used that often sadly) it has to be the *only* reason for which they are notable. In this case primarily it was because of that incident, however since sources were presented which were unrelated to said event, it cant be said their only claim is because of that. BLP1E is very difficult to use to get stuff deleted precisely because keep voters will generally find some other coverage unrelated to the event, or will claim the event had wider implications etc. I have lost count of the number of times its blatantly ignored over the flimsiest of excuses. Dont get me wrong though, I dont think its a huge issue if the article stays or goes, however the delete closer listed no reasoning and failed to address the arguments either way (generally required in a close-run delete/keep). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I suspect if you have issue with the close it would be best to take it up with the closer, Kelapstick. My reference to it was simply to point out how even articles with a bit more to them than niche eSports community coverage are disputed under the criteria we have for GNG and BLP1E, and the way that general criteria are being used only serves to strengthen my view (in my opinion, of course) that we need some more specific guidelines. KaisaL (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The notion that esports related sources should be disqualified from esports related articles is just nonsense. There are plenty of topical publications for whom their topicality doesn't, and shouldn't, disqualify them from reference. There may be particular problems with particular sources, but a blanket disqualification is obtuse at best. So long as they are WP:INDEPENDENT sources, and the only interest they have is publishing content that people want to read (like everyone else), whether they concentrate on a particular area of interest is irrelevant.

Compare disqualifying Billboard, Vibe, or The Rolling Stone from music related articles. ESPN has been discussed, and I think it would be absurd to suggest that coverage by ESPN didn't lend itself to the notability of an athlete. So why should it lend itself less so to that of a player? Even more so to WSJ, USA Today, and the like that other's involved in the conversation have been referenced in.

Remove the mostly if not entirely arbitrary ban on a swath of relevant sources and the proposal says nothing. Oppose on the grounds of capriciousness and inanity. TimothyJosephWood 01:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If it can fill up stadiums, make it's participants millionaires, make mainstream publications like ESPN take it seriously and with it's rising popularity among adolescents that it's only a matter of time before this discussion is obsolete but i strongly think X Games gold winners in e-sports should get the nod. I also think it's worrying that people with admitted ignorance, dismissive attitudes and belief of shock at the existence of the subject get to decide what it and is not notable in a field. Specialist websites are also used in most other cases too like Rolling Stone etc, as a fan of Death Metal sources like Metal Hammer are normally used, we can't expect the New York Times to report on everything can we? GuzzyG (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability is not based on popularity, though popularity can potentially lead to notable coverage. The field of eSports is clearly notable, but right now, for players, its hard to tell. As a relevant example, reality television is huge and here to stay, with similar prizes to be won and even larger audiences at times, but we don't cover every player or winner unless there is notability beyond their appearance on the show (eg someone like Susan Boyle or Rob Mariano). --MASEM (t) 01:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd support reality television winners, I made this comment a while ago on this subject and i think it suits it well. "I've noticed there's a alot of subconscious thinking on this encyclopedia that's associated with things that are seen negative in society like reality television, e-sports, porn, beauty pageants, criminals, mass murderers, internet personalities (memes/youtuber), heavier more extreme music (black metal, deathcore etc) and graffiti/street art, you're probably thinking "these are not important/shouldn't be notable/i just don't get it" but that's the point, there' just some notable things in these subjects that's not going to be reported in the mainstream media and where we should start looking in specialist media or we lose our viewers to sub wikis which i think is a waste. (notice there's specific guidelines that block these types of things?) It's a bold prediction but there should honestly be a relook at the qualifying criteria to online entertainment (youtube) and electronic sports as i can only imagine as this current generation gets of old age and is common to this type of thing that it will be the norm. I know some might want to resist that but it's a fact. Yes playing games and being notable at it may be odd to us but i'm sure dunking a ball in a hoop would be odd to some too." i don't think every player should get a article mind you but when it comes to winners of their equivalent of a world championship i do. GuzzyG (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not about the topic being "negative". In fact, the success of the WikiProject Pornography to find a way to create encyclopedic bios for an industry that is looked down upon society is a counterpoint. What we have to recognize is that we are limited by what is covered in RS, and many traditional RSes shy away from these topics. There are bound to be more "new media" sources that will come in the future that will meet our RS definitions then, but they aren't there now, and there's no reason to make special cases in terms of subject specific notability guidelines, only to review RSes to show how the GNG can be met. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd consider The Daily Dot and ESPN a reliable source, would you not agree? I'd also consider winning a medal in a competition like the X Games being notable. I just think that the mission of this site should be to cover notable things in every field, if you win a world championship in a field you get an article if you get nominated for the top award in your field you should qualify. I'm not a fan of sending people to a different place to get information that is source able (The Daily Dot). That's a general site issue though so with these current guidlines i can see that these e-sports players might not pass GNG, i just think that specialist media should be included and encouraged. Then again i have a Excel sheet of over 50, 000 people that should qualify but are bogged down by some ridiculous guideline so it could just be me. GuzzyG (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• My two cents I've mentioned at WP:VG in the past as well - I think the WP:GNG is sufficient at this point, I think the problem more lies in who is writing and maintaining these eSports articles. Much of the core, experienced editors at WikiProject Video Games just aren't all that interested in it (myself included). As such, many of the articles are being created and maintained by relatively inexperienced editors, or ones with extremely lenient interpretations of the GNG, RS, and significant coverage. I think that if/when more people just get more involved, we'll naturally be able to start weeding out some of the garbage out there. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support KaisaL's three points, in one exact wording or another. Sources that are just about e-sports are not WP:INDY and do not represent actual notability. Just being in a pro event does not confer notability; it simply means someone is at least marginally competent at what they're doing. I've competed in international pool championships, but no one is going to write an article about me as pool player. It's the same issue as writing articles on minor actors who've appeared in a movie or TV show as a supporting character. "I actually found work in my line of work" != notability.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • How do you conclude that a magazine entirely about eSports is "not independent"? Are they getting paid off somehow by the sports teams? Is a magazine entirely about association football also "not independent"?
    "Independence" means that you have no financial or other conflict of interest – you're making up your own mind, "independent" of the people and businesses that are involved in the subject. Independence means that you're not being paid by your advertisers or owners to give good reviews to certain products or to cover their granddaughters' birthday parties. I suspect that the words you're looking for are "niche" and "potentially indiscriminate". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
    • See my comment in previous section for a rundown on the WP:INDY matter. It's an INDY failure for the same reason that the Albuquerque Labyrinth, Legend, Faerie, and Vampire Convention isn't a notable event if it's only covered in websites and zines devoted to fan-gushing about cosplay (even if they have an actual editorial staff), funded entirely by costume and comic book retailers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Apologies for length.

@Masem:, it seems, at least to me, that the actual special case is not allowing these sources to weight in on notability, but trying to establish an arbitrary guideline disqualifying them for no apparent reason. I'm only commenting on the League of Legends players, because I don't really follow CS:GO or Starcraft, but looking at the three recent AfDs for league players that partially started this thread:

• Rekkles: 13 sources including USA Today and WSJ already in the article. News searches (WP:BEFORE plz) find further mention in Yahoo and ESPN. You can add the team's official site to the list as a primary. This is in addition to what appears to be probably thousands of hits for outlets that cover esports in particular in multiple languages.

• FORG1VEN: Currently poorly sourced, that's a given, but does include coverage by ESPN. Searches find Yahoo. Official ruling by Riot, which in this case is not simply a game developer, but the officiating organization, so is the esports equivalent of a ruling by FIFA or the NFL. There is substantial corresponding esports coverage pre and post ruling, as well as a good deal of esports coverage regarding his exception from Greek military service.

• Lustboy, currently a stub. Searches find ESPN coverage of him as a coach, and a half dozen other ESPN articles. Looks like he got passing mention in Forbes. I see a dedicated spotlight bio by Riot. And again, all of this is in addition to scores or more of esports outlet coverage.

So, at least for these three individuals, there seems to be no shortage of sources. If we do need a policy beyond WP:GNG these article are patently bad examples of why. Beyond this, there's been, as far a I can tell, no substantive argument as to why esports outlets should be a special case other than ones that seem to boil down to "I don't particularly care for it," "I'm not familiar," or "I'd really just prefer to get rid of a lot of these articles on people I don't personally recognize." TimothyJosephWood 13:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Your comments are kind of what I'm getting at in my comment above. Your examples show an extremely lax interpretation of our notability standards. For example, general consensus is to avoid Forbes "Contributor" written articles, because they're not of the same caliber of actual Forbes staff writers - they're semi-professional bloggers with a history for making mistakes or controversial claims. WP:VG consensus is generally not to use them. Your example of the ESPN source for "Lustboy" is pretty weak too - sure ESPN is a reliable source, but is that really significant coverage for Lustboy himself? Its a very short article, with very little about it in regards to Lustboy (most is about the team, not Lustboy). I think you're setting the bar a bit too low, as are the article creators, and that's why they keep getting sent to AFD... Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The particular forbes contributor writer is John Gaudiosi and according to his self written biography: "I've been covering the video game space for 20 years for outlets like The Washington Post, Reuters, CNET, AOL, Wired Magazine, Yahoo!, Entertainment Weekly, NBC, Variety, Maxim, EGM, and ESPN. I serve as EIC of GamerHub.tv and co-founder of GamerHub Content Network, a video game and technology video syndication network that works with Tribune and DBG to syndicate game videos and editorial around the world. I also cover games for outlets like The Hollywood Reporter, IGN, Geek Monthly, CNN, DigitalTrends and PrimaGames."--Prisencolin (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that notability is more than just being named in a source -we are looking for significant coverage across multiple sources. Most eSports players are listed as winners, but that's not significant coverage, instead we're looking for more to write about beyond the player's record. (Rekkles' mentions in the USA Today article are just about the minimum that we're looking for). If this is typical of the current type of coverage of players, then there's no way we can asset a subject-specific notability guideline since there's no assurance the GNG can be met on a regular basis by winners. But the GNG itself remains just fine for notability, as long as issues with sourcing and reliable sources (as Sergecross alludes to) are met. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, I'm going to have to salt your argument about the people here being ignorant to the topic, so they are not in a position to lend input, as I myself was in the upper management of several prominent esports organizations between 2008 to 2014, and I was the person who brought this issue up with Drmies in the first place. ESPN is terrific and reliable source, but most of the articles in question use it as a source to describe teams and not the players themselves and even then, its presence is light. On top of that, the articles up for deletion are being dared to present the content and reliable sources that will bring them up to par, but they've thus far failed to do so. Even upon independently researching the players, there was next to no content about game-changing transitions that unreliable sources could present. I mean, is there anything encyclopedic about FORG1VEN, aside from his business with H2k-Gaming and facing a ban? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

There's been a real failure on both sides to define exactly what "encyclopedic value" even is. In any case, broader ideas of what does and does not belong on Wikipedia are probably discussion for another time. Consensus is that many athletes and competitors of other types of games belong on Wikipedia, so therefore why can't video game player, provided they have enough coverage in sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Not a single person has argued that articles on video game players don't belong on Wikipedia. Not a single person has argued that video game players inherently lack encyclopedic value. Ravenswing 03:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

DarthBotto has been continuously questioning whether certain types of content are encyclopedic, like here. That's what I'm alluding to.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

DarthBotto has said that eSports is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia, so I agree with Ravenswing: there's no attempt to argue that even with appropriate significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage in reliable sources, this topic should not be covered. isaacl (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have been wondering about somekind of "inherent encyclopedic value" concept for quite some time as well, be it for webcomics or Overwatch porn, so I simply decided that if something is described in words by a reliable source, it is likely to be considered interesting and worth including. The same should go for esports-related topics. The biggest issue in my eyes is that there only seems to be a small set of reliable source frequently discussing the topic. That makes it unclear whether every single thing that The Daily Dot writes is worth repeating on Wikipedia. If the same information is provided by multiple reliable sources, its inherent value is much clearer. The field of said sources is irrelevant, as long as the actual staff is different. ~Mable (chat) 08:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the latest developments at AFD

The ongoing AFD debates on a number of players have had some quite back-and-forth discussions about eSports sources, the importance (or lack thereof) of competing in or even winning professional competitions, and whether passing mentions in articles about teams confer notability. There's also been some less savoury stuff about whether those that aren't experts on the topic have a right to an opinion (which is less up for discussion - they very much do per the way Wikipedia works). I am finding that the community is, indeed, torn on a number of questions:

• What constitutes a reliable source for eSports coverage?
• How important is competing in a professional team competition?
• Should professional eSports competitions carry the same weight as other sports (classification disputed) in considerations of notability?
• Does coverage of a team that mentions a player briefly confer their notability as an individual?
• How important is generic coverage (firings, hirings, competing, results) in establishing notability on Wikipedia?
• Is one or two passing mentions via well-established mainstream sources enough to justify an article?
• What constitutes significant coverage within an acceptable source?

I'm not asking for answers to these questions - consider them hypothetical - but they do give us a feel of the clear split. Furthermore, that split isn't a case of experts versus outsiders, but is happening between contributors to the video gaming WikiProject. The current AFDs are all going to wind up contentious and I think we'll end up with a couple of them going to a no consensus. Some of this is a sign of differing interpretations of WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E, WP:RS and other general Wikipedia guidance. But some of it is a clear sign that a fuller discussion does need to take place about eSports topics - particularly those on individuals - else I wouldn't be surprised to see many more of the articles we have going through the AFD process, and that doesn't seem productive (even if it is appropriate when doubts exist on any topic). KaisaL (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• For my part, it seems strange to me that some of these elements are in dispute at all (although I do agree they are points of contention in the recent AfDs). I certainly do agree that "eSports" are prominent enough to have notability standards, but those standards do not yet exist, so no argument along the lines of "People who've participated in X competition should be notable!" or "People who've coached X team should be notable!" can be sustained. The GNG is unambiguous that fleeting mentions, however prominent the sources, do not count towards notability. WP:ROUTINE is unambiguous about generic coverage not counting towards notability. Ravenswing 17:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Although there are dissenters, a number of your questions have a current consensus view in the general English Wikipedia community:
  • Coverage of a team does not meet Wikipedia's standards of inclusion for the individual team members.
  • Routine coverage such as you listed does not meet Wikipedia's standards of inclusion.
  • Passing mentions do not consist of significant coverage and do not meet Wikipedia's standards of inclusion.
• Regarding participation in competitions, although there are various subject-specific guidelines that list these as rules of thumb that suggest an individual meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, they do not set a new bar for inclusion. Wikipedia does not use achievements as a standard for inclusion: significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources is required. The rules of thumb are just indicative that appropriate coverage can be found, given enough time to locate them. isaacl (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:NSPORT, which seems most applicable, does appear to set some variety of "new bar" for the particular areas it covers. Per the guidance, subject must either meet WP:GNG or the criteria of NSPORT. Even if it is officially just a rule of thumb, it is often used as a hard standard in practice. TimothyJosephWood 19:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The first sentence, second paragraph, and third paragraph of the sports notability guidelines page provide details on the relationship with the general notability guideline, as well as the associated frequently asked questions page, which explicitly states that the guidelines do not create new criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. This has been agreed upon by consensus since the inception of these guidelines and periodically since. If closers of articles for deletion discussion are ignoring this consensus, it's unfortunate. isaacl (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • It doesn't, really, and that's a misconception editors active on sports WikiProjects have to correct at AfD all too often. The whole purpose of NSPORTS criteria is to set forth achievements by which a player is highly likely to meet the GNG. A bunch of us consistently vote to delete at AfD if a player technically meets a criterion if after diligent search we can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Ravenswing 03:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• The article Karrigan was just WP:A7 speedily deleted by @Nyttend: after it had been in mainspace for over a month. Perhaps he wants to share his thoughts here?--Prisencolin (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• This article merely said that he was the "in-game leader" for an e-sports group, mentioned a couple of other groups of which he'd been a member, and noted an immigration hiccup that he'd encountered. It didn't demonstrate any evidence of real-life importance. Of course, A7 shouldn't be used on someone who's demonstrably notable, but it provided no secondary source coverage. This is distinctly not the kind of article that should be retained: barring solid coverage in solid secondary sources, professional video game players should be treated like anyone else. WP:ATHLETE provides for keeping professional sportsmen because they routinely get coverage in secondary sources, and it would be unhelpful to have notability-based deletion discussions for individuals who are almost certain to pass WP:GNG and unhelpful to have the occasional hole for that rare individual who doesn't otherwise pass GNG. Professional video game playing is new enough that there's no parallel to secondary sources such as Category:Baseball books, Category:Boxing books, Category:Association football books, Category:Olympic Games books, etc. Perhaps those sources will start to appear in coming years, but in the absence of extensive sport-wide reference works and other comprehensive publications, presuming these folks to be notable (or even A7-exempt) purely because of their video game accomplishments is fundamentally incompatible with WP:BALL. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The comment, A7 shouldn't be used on someone who's demonstrably notable, but it provided no secondary source coverage demonstrates a lack of understanding of A7. A7 says, The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That's a very low bar. If you're speedy deleting an article based on the lack of secondary sources, that's well outside what A7 allows. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure the proper procedure to do this but I would like to request the article back with an AfD if needed. The subject is one of the top Counter-Strike players in the world, and just look up "Karrigan" on the web and you'll find many secondary sources about him. Oh and there is coverage of him outside of just the teams, this article found on Sport1, for instance.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Prisencolin, you may open up a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I was hoping to work something out with @Nyttend: first.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
        • So I've decided to submit a DRV (another one...), in case I forget it about it later or am unable to. For the record, for the record though, there are some books about esports, including Game Boys by Michael Kane, Raising the Stakes by TL Taylor, and OpTic Gaming: the Making of Esports Champions by H3CZ, NaDeSHot, Scump et al.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Of course, you have every right to do this and I do agree that with this subject, it's necessary to be sure that everything was done correctly. In the meantime, I'd encourage you to lay off the creation of new articles until we have a developed consensus with assertive conclusions. In the time since this very discussion began, you've created nineteen new articles, which unfortunately comes across as an act of defiance. Mind you, I'm a big supporter of esports, but I also want to see the topic held to the same standards as everything else on Wikipedia. I don't believe just adding to the pile is going to help this discussion at all. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
            • Alright I suppose I'll stop for now as a good faith gesture, even though I've been holding myself to a timetable to create the articles that are notable.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If any third party observers wish to know, almost every AfD that was brought up during the source of this discussion ( Rekkles, Allu, Lustboy, FORG1VEN), has either been a keep or no consensus. We're still waiting for Happy to close though, and this one looks like it will be a NC. Overall, this should be an indication that most (but certainly not all) of the eSports article currently on the Wiki are probably notable.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Much of the OP's list of bullets has been covered well, above, already. It must be said, under no uncertain terms, that competition in a pro event does not by itself make someone notable; it simply makes them competent. Winning a pro event doesn't make someone notable either, unless it's of the nature of a world championship, or national championship in a major world nation (US, UK, etc., not Botswana or Grenada), and a "legit" championship for WP purposes, i.e., and event that is itself notable. Generally, it's all going to come down to coverage in mainstream, independent, reliable sources, so any claimant to notability is liable to be winner of multiple such events.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2

This proposal is broadly modeled after WP:NSPORT. Whether you consider this a sport in some broad philosophical sense isn't important, the continuity is in the competitive aspect as it defines notability, as well as the established history of using this type of guideline to determine notability in a range of competitions. Whether a guideline in this area is incorporated into the actual text of NSPORT is equally unimportant.

• An attempt is made to define esports, and is largely done in an effort to remain as analogous to athletic sports as possible. The goal is to exclude as many newcomers or fads as possible, while providing a criteria where areas generally recognized as legitimate (namely Starcraft, League of Legends, and CS:GO) will easily qualify.

• Emphasis is given to the exclusivity of high level competition. An appropriate level of competition should rightfully exclude the vast majority of players, which is what lends notability. This policy anchors this to national level tournaments or higher, in lieu of attempting to specify particular tournaments for each game, and this may not be possible in a policy that would have any longevity. My understanding is that most large tournaments take place on the multi-national/regional level, and so this is a standard that will set a bar easily met by established competitions, and yet easily exclude amateur and semi-professional play.

• Further emphasis is given to continuity of participation. This is a departure from NSPORT, as single event participation in a sufficiently high level event (however unlikely without an extensive history), qualifies individuals in many NSPORT guidelines. This is done to further restrict the potential field and weed out minor players.

I have attempted to be broad enough to apply across games, and specific enough that there will be clear instances where individuals will objectively qualify and not qualify. Improvement can almost certainly be made, but hopefully this is a substantial starting place grounded in similar accepted policy. TimothyJosephWood 19:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Individuals participating in electronic sports/professional video game playing are presumed notable if the following criteria are satisfied:

1. The game being played qualifies as an esport or is otherwise included in high-level, professional competition. Consider the presence of the following:

• Significant barriers-to-entry: Participation requires an extended successful amateur play, extended successful semi-professional play, corporate sponsorship, unusually exceptional ability, or similar requirements which prevent the vast majority of players from participating on a competitive level.
• Status as a spectator event: high-level competitive play consistently draws a substantial audience of viewers as a form of entertainment, especially as events which are broadcast live. Competitions are regularly held in venues designed to accommodate a live viewing audience.
• Codified governing rules, formulated, maintained and enforced by an officiating body
• Regular national, regional and global tournaments including an escalation of the barrier-to-entry which ensures that even significant portions of those who play the game professionally are not admitted to the highest levels of competition.
• Regular media coverage of events and players
• Large consistent base of amateur players. Qualifying games should typically be stable among the most played games globally.

2. The individual has participated substantially on a professional level. Consider the presence of the following:

• The individual consistently participated and was successful in major competitions on the national, regional or global level.
  • Participation in competitions taking place at lower than a national level may only be considered if it garners coverage comparable to that typically given to a competition taking place at the national level or higher.
  • Participation solely in competitions below the national level, even extensively or highly successfully, will most likely not qualify the individual under this critera, barring extenuating circumstances.
  • Individuals with single or very few instances of participation or achievement should typically not be considered notable unless there is reason to expect their continued high-level participation, such as admittance to an established franchise with an extended contract
  • Individuals with a history of participation in global-level competition will typically meet this standard, regardless of whether they have won at this level.
  • First place finishes do not automatically qualify an individual. Neither do successive lesser place finishes disqualify. Rather, career performance should be considered as a whole to establish the degree of overall success.
• The individual consistently earned substantial income from sources related to their competitively played game.
• The individual has achieved other milestones related to their competitive play including:
  • Being admitted to a high-profile franchise
  • Receiving honors related to their participation
  • Was involved in other achievements of a historic value

• Oppose I'm sorry, but not at all. I admire your passion for eSports and certainly you have been a strong voice in the ongoing AFD debates about this, but it is not football, baseball, hockey or a sport of that ilk. Being successful in "major competitions on the national, regional or global level" is an unthinkable level of inclusion for an area with such limited mainstream coverage, and especially when those major competitions are still broadly so niche and receive only specialist coverage the vast majority of the time. Simple "participation substantially on a professional level" is even more so. As for defining a criteria by "being admitted to a high-profile franchise" and "substantial income from sources", those would be dubious even for a genuinely top-level sport. The only thing I could possibly support in terms of competition level for such a niche field (as it is right now) would be to allow winners of the most significant global competitions to have an article, as we (for example) have for gymnastics. But then those winners are often teams, so the individuals should really be merged to those team articles if their only notability were that competition play. I really just think this is a criteria better suited to an eSports Wikia than Wikipedia. KaisaL (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, besides a rewrite of the main League article last year, I haven't contributed to this area at all prior to this. What about settling on world level competition? This seems to be ubiquitous in NSPORT. I didn't even know badminton had a world championship until today. Is that a minimum that could potentially be agreed upon?

As to the franchise and income clauses, those are meant mainly to be exclusionary...as in...if you don't do this full time we're not even going to have the discussion. They both can be removed. I have no objection to that.

I realize you may be against the topic generally. Like it or not there seems to be hundreds of these articles. I actually started to list them and stopped straight away. I'm not sure that the argument they are inherently less notable than badminton or curling really stands muster. So I'm trying to find some kind of middle ground that can be agreed upon. TimothyJosephWood 21:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well there's multiple parts: we have the leagues, the seasons, the teams and then the players. For some "major" sports, the players are generally notable based on a small number of games played. For college football, the league, teams and season articles are but not players. For others, it's more of a mix. There's a middle ground on all of them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well do in fact have articles for some current D1 college football players, just not all of them obviously.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

There may be hundreds of articles, and a large number of them may be of dubious notability. There's four at AFD right now and not one of them is proving to be a clear-cut keep. Badminton and curling are Olympic sports so I would say they're absolutely more notable than eSports at this time. My personal opinion is that a maximum for meeting the notability criteria by way of competition is winning a major individual competition; I wouldn't even say being part of a team that wins a major competition, that should qualify the team and not the player. I would personally say that any guidelines should be focused instead on what constitutes significant coverage for this field, which is what my initial proposals attempted to address. KaisaL (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

What of players who play for multiple notable teams? The teams are just franchises, or in Asia and increasingly the US, just glorified extended corporate sponsorships. It's rare cases where any team goes a season without significant roster changes. TimothyJosephWood 22:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No current esports team is really a franchise of (this was a typo) a larger organization, so the particular word should probably be replaced with just "team".--Prisencolin (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Samsung Galaxy Blue/White, SK Telecom T1, Jin Air Green Wings, SBENU Sonicboom, ROX Tiger (Guongzhou Huaduo Network Technology, LLC). In the US, TSM and CLG are multi-game esports organizations. None of these are a group of five guys who like playing together and when they decide to stop the team ends. They are franchises proper. TimothyJosephWood 23:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

There was a typo, I mean "franchise OF a larger organization" not "franchise OR a larger organization". And by larger organization I'm talking about a league or association like the NFL--Prisencolin (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, for bands for example, the members almost never have their own articles unless they've received substantial coverage or achieved significant success separately. But I don't feel that simply playing for two teams is enough in this sport either, it's just not important enough yet. And, I've not really delved into teams but I'm sure there's issues with some of those too. KaisaL (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to be online much for the next few days (I'm sure you'll be delighted by this!) but I think I've made plenty of quite clear arguments by now anyway. I feel consensus on this whole issue is going to be very hard to come by and so we might indeed be debating WP:GNG for years to come at AFD. KaisaL (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Freaking Oppose: That's an impossibly vague set of criteria. What's "substantial income?" What's a "high-profile franchise?" How broadly do you define "honors?" Do consider that over the years, the various SNGs across Wikipedia started out just as loosey-goosey, and keep on being tightened and tightened, as editors hellbent on saving their creations claim that a collegiate "Academic Rookie of the Week" award constitutes a "preeminent honor," or that having had a speaking line in two Oscar-winning movies constitutes a "significant body of work." Ravenswing 04:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Starting out with something "loosey goosey" and then tightening was kindof the point. And I would appreciate quite more strong opposes so long as they include specific parts people take issue with. Eliminating the honors is perfectly fine. It is vague and there isn't an obvious way to fix that. The goal of the income portion was to categorically eliminate everyone who may play in local tournaments but don't do is as an actual job. What do you think about language saying that players should have played full time? The focus being on categorical elimination of those who don't, not categorical inclusion of those who do. TimothyJosephWood 10:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Consider changing to: "Full-time players: While not all full time players will be notable, those who play competitively on less than a full-time basis will generally not meet notability under this guideline. This includes students who play competitively as part of a scholarship." TimothyJosephWood 12:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's the issue with that: a recent discussion took umbrage with the NHOCKEY guideline, feeling that a couple of leagues (of which she happened to be a partisan) were undervalued, and that they should be considered top-tier leagues. Our retort was, as all NSPORTS guidelines exist as guides as to what athletes can reliably pass the GNG, that she had to do more than assert that some of the players in those leagues were notable. For those leagues to be in the top tier, it would have to be demonstrated that each and every player in league history who had played so much as a single minute could meet the GNG, and it was provably not remotely the case.

If, therefore, you assert (for the sake of argument) that players on eSports teams in a competitive league should be presumptively notable, it needs to be the case that every player on every team in that league can meet the GNG. Demonstrate proof of that, and I'm perfectly willing to support such a criterion. Ravenswing 22:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose "Esports" are a modern enough phenomenon that there is no need for a SNG "presumed notability" either the subject is notable per GNG or not and there in not a significant body of indivduals whose RS are hard to find because they are old, offline etc.

  This should be read by the closer, as a flat opposition to any SNG for "Esports" because SNGs, particularly in sports, are abused to include articles on subjects who do not have nor will ever have coverage which meets GNG. Jbh^Talk 18:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Abstain, this set of guidelines is just too vague to be accepted, as other users have pointed out. It also seems to just uphold the status quo by reiterating Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography over and over again in different ways. Another concern I have is that there isn't a real definition what "national level tournaments" are, because eSports aren't organized along national borders, unlike football competitions. The closest analogue we have, and what you're probably alluding to are the regionals League of Legends leagues, like the LCS, LCK etc. I'm not opposed to these guidelines per se, but they just way to vague to become an official guideline.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said originally, I just wanted to provide a more substantial starting off point for discussion about what might be agreed upon. It's vague by design. But there seems a general feeling of "I don't want anything at all" or people that have been unresponsive to attempts at trying to formulate their criticism into actual changes. So it seems this will probably go nowhere on any front. TimothyJosephWood 23:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

My thought is that if it's this vague, we might as well not have it at all. Either that or we could just have a notice where that just reaffirms the fact that eSports articles need to meet WP:GNG. There's no need define which games are eSports; we can just list out high profile games like LoL, Dota, SC etc. and any new emerging titles can be added later. --Prisencolin (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Mostly oppose. I would prefer something structured like WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NHOCKEY/LA, where we would have a tiered list of esports based on community consensus (e.g. LOL, CS:GO, DOTA II, SC2 etc. as top tier, smaller titles like WOT as a lower tiers) and assess notability for players and teams striclty based on results at top events. For example, community consensus on League may be that a player on a team that reaches the knockout bracket of the League worlds is presumed notable if mentioned in sources covering the event/team result and players on a team that reaches the finals of one of the regional LCS championships is presumed notable if mentioned in sources. For CS:GO, this could be making the finals at a CS:GO Major, for SC2, making the finals of WCS, or winning GSL or Proleague, etc. Of course if a subject could also meet GNG without meeting these standards. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Prisencolin, Patar knight, Maybe there's a different take away lesson here. Maybe what needs to happen is an esports WikiProject, and after there is a substantial involved community knowledgeable about the subject, we should revisit issues like these. TimothyJosephWood 11:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of creating a place holder page here. I'm gonna poke around and see if I can find someone more versed in setting all this up. TimothyJosephWood 12:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm wholly in support of this, but pretty sure you need permission before creating a wikiproject page, so I would move this into userspace for now if I were you.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I read the rules again and found no such guideline. There is a suggestion though that these pages be kept in userspace until enough editors come aboard.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Before adding any SNG criteria, we first should ensure that it really does mean that in a vast majority of cases, subjects covered by it would in fact meet the GNG. SNGs are not "alternate criteria" to the GNG, but instead are meant to highlight cases where sufficient coverage would exist in almost all cases. If that's not in fact true here, such an SNG would be deceptive and unhelpful. Let's figure out that before proposing anything. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Too detailed in some ways, not enough in others, and generally too permissive. In particular, it's missing any requirement of coverage outside of non-WP:INDY gamer mags/sites.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  To elaborate: The attempt to forge a 1:1 correspondence between pro-gaming/e-sports and athletic competition is unworkabe. I think some of those points can be retained, but it's too soon in the development of this type of competition to treat it entirely like football, or even billiards/pool/snooker. The "high barrier to entry" stuff is good, the venue-related requirements not so much; it's entirely likely that many events will be "attended" mostly by remote audiences, for example. A principal stumbling block is that this cannot be tied to specific games, because that's a rapidly moving target. Someone is a notable pro gamer because either a) they win frequently, across many events and are just so legendary that mainstream RS write about them (in-depth), or b) there's something compelling about their story (e.g. made a huge pile of money in a short time, whatever) and again attracted serious mainstream press coverage, or were the focus of a serious book or documentary or something. It might actually be better to approach them like artists rather than sportspeople in some ways, and I would also look to how we figure notability for pro poker players (especially), "reality" and game show contestants (almost as much), and pro chess players (to some extent) as models for some other aspects of how to approach this mess.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - This is extremely vague. Ethanlu121 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 3

I've noticed that the articles that meet these criteria seem to always have significant coverage in sources. Note that the dates are arbitrary cutoffs that nonetheless seem to reflect the existence of sourcing. Also note that this list assumes the current eSports afds will pass, otherwise it may have to become more restrictive:

Proposal 3

Individuals participating in electronic sports/professional video game playing are presumed notable if the following criteria are satisfied:

Teams

• League of Legends:
  • All auto qualifier league teams (EU/NA LCS, LPL, LCK, LMS) as of the 2016 season
  • Wildcard region teams who participate in the World Championship after 2013

• Dota 2
  • Top four team at The International
  • Teams invited to TI

• Counter-Strike
  • Legends seed teams at a CS:GO Major

Players

• League of Legends:
  • Players who have played in the LCS for more than four splits
  • League of Legends World Championship MVPs
  • LCS MVPs or Rookies MVPs
  • Playing on a Worlds winning team, 2013-present

• Counter-Strike (series)
  • Players who win a CS:GO Major

• Dota 2
  • Winning The International

• Hearthstone
  • Win World Championship

• Smash Bros.
  • Winners of EVO, GENESIS, or Apex from 2012-2015

• Street Fighter
  • Top eight at Capcom Cup or EVO 2013-present

• StarCraft: Brood War
  • Winners of the Ongamenet Starleague or MBCGame StarCraft League

• StarCraft II
  • Win WCS or GSL

Competitions

• League of Legends
  • All Tier 1 Professional leagues
  • League of Legends Championship Series splits except Spring 2013
  • Autoqualifier leagues split articles (i.e. 2016 League of Legends Champions Korea) after 2015

• Dota 2
  • Dota 2 Majors + TI
  • ESL One

• Counter-Strike
  • CS:GO Majors
  • $250,000+ prize pool tournaments

• Hearthstone
  • World Championship

• Call of Duty
  • Call of Duty Championship
  • Call of Duty World League
  • MLG events 2015-present

• Fighting games
  • EVO

• StarCraft: Brood War
  • ?

Discussion (esports)

• I agree with what @Seraphimblade just said:

  Before adding any SNG criteria, we first should ensure that it really does mean that in a vast majority of cases, subjects covered by it would in fact meet the GNG. SNGs are not "alternate criteria" to the GNG, but instead are meant to highlight cases where sufficient coverage would exist in almost all cases. If that's not in fact true here, such an SNG would be deceptive and unhelpful. Let's figure out that before proposing anything.

  This is what you would need to show before this could even be considered. czar 06:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• That makes little sense, except maybe you think that GNG means that we have the material to write an article, but that isn't necessarily the case.  If Wikipedians agree that a criteria shows that the topic has attracted the attention of the world, that suggests that the world wants a WP:Verifiable article about the topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Without any explanation, these all look rather...arbitrary. This is all far less clear or clean-cut than, for example, how in the music world, there's the argument that "if a song charted, its likely to have received the significant coverage to meet the GNG. I'd ask how you determined some of these criteria (Why top 4/8/X and not other numbers? Why is $1 million a cutoff point?) but I also agree with Czar/Seraphimblade's notion above, and it may be better to address that first (and my question would probably take a lot of research/explanation, and may well be rendered moot by SB's concern.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The cutoffs are indeed arbitrary, but it's just what I've noticed tends to correlate best with articles that would probably meet GNG.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I created a list of all the League of Legends players who would meet the criterion for playing four or more LCS splits. which can be found here (sorry for lack of formatting). Look some of them up if you want to doublecheck.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I might lower the CS:GO tournament prize pool limit, but it just seems like the media has discussed $1,000,000 as a cutoff and it's more than the amount offered by ELeague, which is larger than the prize pool offered by CS:GO Majors.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support – A precise set of criteria will avoid protracted edit wars and pissing contests, saving lots of editor hours and headaches. Sure, criteria can and will change, and there will be arguable exceptions, but this proposal looks like a solid start to bring order and quiet. — JFG ^talk 17:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support per JFG. For CS:GO, and Starcraft these are all high selective criteria that would only capture the absolute best teams and players that would all meet WP:BASIC if not WP:GNG, and based on my limited knowledge of LOL and DOTA 2, it seems similarly highly restrictive. No comment about the fighting games, but it always can be refined and tweaked if need be. In general terms, this is the kind of SNG I would support. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I can hold no opinion as I am under WP:COI. But the current criteria for League players does not include World Championship winning players? I was wondering if this was an oversight or intentional. Thank you, Richard Ye^talk 04:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Just winning Lol worlds might not make a player notable, as the players Shushei, LaMiaZeaLoT, and Mellisan from fnatic's season 1 worlds team don't seem to pass WP:1E, and some of the Season 2 Taipei Assassins playera are iffy. That being said I think all players post Season 3 are notable so I'll change it.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is a mix of WP:RECENTISM and WP:POV, i.e. "if it involves these current games that I happen to like, then it's notable". Um, no.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  This is a bizarre oppose.The very nature of Esports and reliable reporting on esports is "recent". An esports SNG cannot be like the hockey notability guidelines I linked above that include provisions for defunct leagues without compromising its ability to guarantee that people who meet it would also meet BASIC/GNG. For older esports teams, events, and players, not having much if any reliable sources is the norm, not the exception (e.g. how mainstream Brood War got in Korea)). All the games listed here are basically among the Esports that have the most viewers, most prize money, most players, most cultural significance, and most importantly most coverage from reliable sources. Tweaks can be made in regards to what games should belong (e.g. Maybe Hearthstone should be on the list), but this is not some motley collection of games that one or a few users like, it's an accurate reception of what games are most likely to have their top players meet the GNG. If you do some research on largest, most-watched esports, these are the games that would appear.-- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  "I don't understand your point" != "your point is bizarre". Obviously "recent" is relative and contextual. All of human existence is "recent" on a long enough scale, and what happened yesterday rather than within the hour is not, on another. I don't think anyone else will have trouble getting my meaning.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 

• The utility of these criteria are impossible to evaluate unless you're intimately familiar with the subject and the sources. Have you considered not doing this at this time, and instead saying something like "eSports people are presumptively notable if they meet the WP:GNG, which typically is the case for people who meet these criteria:"? It might be useful to give examples of the best reliable sources, and to explain what might be typical (e.g., if you could quantify "significant coverage" as "at least one article should have 500 words or more about the person, not just about gameplay", or something like that). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a good idea too, so I'll look into it. Anyways, the primary reason I decided to make this specific SNG is because of the dissatisfaction with Proposal 2, which was criticized for being too vague. Are there any other guidelines like this based on article length?--Prisencolin (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support – I think this is a very selective list of criteria and don't think that the one oppose by User:SMcCandlish makes very much sense. Esports has only become popular recently, and so it's not like this user is saying "Well, I know there is a group of people playing Super Mario 64 competitively but I hate that game with a fiery passion and so purely out of spite I'm going to leave it off the list!" I think that if you compare it to other sports-related notability guidelines that it's not a different kind of list, it just happens to cover a lot more ground than the guideline for gymnasts, for example, because like the broader sports guideline itself it is essentially covering a bunch of different sports. Nobody has provided any detailed substantive disagreement with this proposal, aside from one person who thinks it's too stringent. Personally I think this proposal is much better than Proposal 2 because it will keep people from arguing about the details, which after all is the point of notability guidelines. All things considered, I'd have to say that most of the opposition to this idea (rather than this particular proposal, which doesn't seem to have attracted too many eyeballs) is reflective of a lack of knowledge about esports (we can argue until we're blue in the face about whether esports are technically a "sport," but regardless people are competing in them for sizable amounts of money in front of large audiences, which seems notable to me!), not a lack of appropriateness of having a guideline to clear up these recurring notability issues. AgnosticAphid talk 23:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Here is the crux of the problem with this and similar proposals: "people are competing in them for sizable amounts of money in front of large audiences, which seems notable to me!" Competing, for money, with an audience has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:Notability, which is, and only is, about non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject-matter. That it totally misses the point is the most substantive possible objection to this proposal, and no one need ever go into line-by-line details about it, because they've all missed the boat. I could offer a huge prize at a farting competition, and you can create a website and zine about farting competitions, and 10,000 people can show up to watch this farting competition, but if mainstream publications do not write in detail about the farting competition and its champion farters, nothing about this stuff would be notable. Notability does not magically accrue just because money changes hands, people show up, and some individuals devote a lot of time and effort to their involvement in whatever it is. Here's a more concrete example: There are many more professional dog walkers than there are pro gamers, and as a micro-industry, far more money changes hands for pro dog walking than pro gaming, and the activity involves a far larger number of people in the general population as customers/audience, and far more people are aware of the existence of pro dog walkers than of pro gamers. We have Dog walking#Professional dog walkers, and given enough development we could have that section split off into a separate article. We even have an article, Jim Buck, on a pro dog walker, because mainstream reliable sources have written about this person in depth. What we do not have is 100+ articles on dog walkers, despite the fact that Dog Fancy and other specialist publications that are not independent of the subject, regularly interview, mention, or have articles by pro dog walkers. In short, the world as a whole doesn't give a damn about dog walkers as professionals, just like it doesn't give a damn about videogamers as professionals. To the limited extent pro gaming is attracting mainstream press coverage, we already have the articles (mostly about competitions, not individual competitors) that can be supported by that low level of in-depth coverage. The idea that if someone is on a team invited to The International to compete in Dota 2 they're automatically notable, which is exactly what this proposal says, is absurd, is not supportable by policy, and is in fact an attempt to exempt videogamers from WP:N and WP:GNG.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, it's certainly true that I made my point awkwardly. And you're also certainly right that the fact that these people compete in giant events for lots of money in front of big audiences doesn't itself inherently make them notable. However, I think the underlying point I am making still stands. If you go to ESPN's esports site, you'll find a whole boatload of articles written just within the past few days not just about big esports events, but also about various competitors in those events. (I was going to list a sample, but there are so many it's kind of silly.) You might think that esports is trivial and pointless and that nobody cares about people who compete in esports, but that's a point of view, and it's really not an accurate one; I think that ESPN's website is pretty unimpeachable as far as reliable mainstream coverage goes. Your analogy to professional dog-walkers is inapt. I think that I was correct to say that there is room in Wikipedia for detailed and specific notability guidance relating to esports, just as there is for (for example) boxing (WP:NBOX), which says boxers are "presumed notable" if they have competed at specified classes of events or have attained specified rankings by specified organizations. I stand by my conclusion that nobody has said anything to the contrary that makes any real sense. AgnosticAphid talk 20:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd like to add that there are more apt comparisons than WP:NBOX, I just came up with that off the top of my head. A more apt analogy would be something like WP:NGOLF, which is more focused around notability-via-competition. AgnosticAphid talk 20:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• I'm going to oppose each and every one of these categorically since none are based in WP:N or WP:GNG, and a WP:SNG cannot override the former. This is also premature. Let AFD hash on each article--the number of these articles, much less the number of these articles AFDd, isn't going to cause grief at AFD. --Izno (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • From my experience browsing the web for reliable eSports coverage, these guidelines seem to best fit the scope of reliable coverage on eSports at the present. Go ahead and list some pages at afd if you disagree.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    • The operative phrase in your comment is at the present. One of my points is that the present is premature. This is the more minor of my multiple points: WP:GNG serves everyone pretty gosh-darn well, and hyper-specific guidelines don't. --Izno (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I mean, if it meets GNG now, then it just be notable. Several esports tournaments have declines in prominence throughout the years, if this happens we can change the SNG by clarifying that only participants in a tournament from certain years are notable.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:GNG or nothing. There's no compelling reason why we would refuse to accept an article if the subject passes GNG, nor has one been presented why we would want an article for which no reliable sources exist. The particular category a subject belongs to is irrelevant. --Jayron32 12:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: I've been away on vacation and break, but I've thought things over. I say that we stick to GNG and what I mean by that is that we stick the hell out of GNG to every last article of this topic and make sure that every one that is left standing actually belongs on Wikipedia. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Manchester City sign first esports player

Here, for information purposes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources that cover eSports players?

Before we can write an SNG, we need to examine a few examples of reliable independent sources that typically cover eSports players. Once we see what things the sources actually take note of, then we will have a better idea a) whether we should create an SNG, and b) if so, what things we should include as criteria in an SNG. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• User:Prisencolin/esportsnews, there is some controversy over some of the sources I listed under "reliable", however. Also many general gaming websites cover esports to extent nowadays, and the most reliable ones can be found at WP:VGRS--Prisencolin (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• User:Blueboar, I would imagine that the reliability of www.espn.com/esports would be beyond question. AgnosticAphid talk 23:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize this conversation was still ongoing. I'll just say this re sourcing for what it's worth. A theme on the earlier AfDs seemed to be that outlets which cover esports predominately or entirely are somehow less reliable as such. As I argued at AfD, I don't think this holds water. TimothyJosephWood 12:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I also agree that we can't institute a blanket ban on source that predominantly cover the subject. That seems completely stupid. That's like saying "Sources that predominantly cover chemistry, like Journal of the American Chemical Society, cannot be considered reliable sources about Chemistry." Instead, we should be judging reliability in the context of the subject; that is what esports sources have the hallmarks of reliability, as laid out at WP:RS. --Jayron32 12:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines on links to user pages in article space

Could someone remind me where we keep the guidance on when to link to a user page or credit a user within an article, for example a caption to a picture? Many thanks, Hiding T 08:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

For image captions specifically, WP:CREDITS (and WP:WATERMARK is closely related). —Cryptic 08:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

This has always bothered me in the context of NFC. We really should be giving such copyright holders credit wherever the content is used, not just on a click-through page that most readers will never see. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

For compatibly licensed or public domain text, WP:FREECOPYING. For copying text within Wikipedia (or from other Wikimedia projects), WP:COPYWITHIN. - Evad37 [talk] 02:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone. Hiding T 07:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Page creator should be allowed to use fair use image for BLP

Some articles about living people which were created around 2007, don't have any free image and those articles lack images. Many articles about sportsperson, cinematographers, scientists, doctors, professors, archaeologists, soldiers, lack images.

Wikipedia's fair use image policy doesn't apply for living people.

I want this policy to change, as there is no guarantee that less popular people will have a free image. We have to wait for eons; someone will take snap with their camera and upload the image at Wikimedia commons as free license.

If any free image is available in near future, then the image will be deleted.

There will be "picture edit war", if this policy is passed. That's why only the article creator or the editor who took the article to GA/FA level should have the right to upload fair use image at biographies of living people.

Please be WP:BOLD and WP:IAR and support this. --Marvellous Spider-Man 03:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The disallowance of using non-free images of living persons extends from the Foundation, not en.wiki policy. You'd have to convince the Foundation to change their stance on non-free images for this to happen. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Two reasons to oppose this, even ignoring the foundation issues. 1) "It's too hard" is not a reason to violate the "free" aspect of Wikipedia's charter. When we say "free" we mean both free as in free beer and free as in free speech (that is, Wikipedia is both without cost to use, and more importantly for our discussion, unencumbered by restrictions for down-stream users). Every non-free image in Wikipedia hurts the ability of down-stream users to continue to use the encyclopedia, and for that very reason, "fair use rationales" should be extremely limited. 2) The requirement placed on putting the restriction to "article creators" institutes a whole lot of WP:OWN issues that I am also not comfortable with, as it violates Wikipedias open collaboration model. --Jayron32 14:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, though sadly we see "page creator" and "primary editor(s)" being accorded special rights (or proposals to do the same) in an increasing number of discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Typically, an unfree photo of a BLP fits the first issue at WP:FREER - namely, it could be replaced by a free version that has the same effect. If you can reasonably demonstrate that, in a specific case, there is no way that it could (such as a person who, due to a medical condition, is now externally deformed), then you could use an unfree image. To quote Wikipedia:Non-free content: Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That's why EVERY case needs to have INDIVIDUAL rationales that are SPECIFIC to each fair use; there is no such thing as a "blanket fair-use exemption". There have been cases of fair-use images being used in BLPs, but each one has a very specific rationale tailored to the one use, and the rationale is never "I don't feel like waiting for someone to take a picture." For example File:JD Salinger.jpg was included in his article when he was alive, because it was literally the only picture known to exist of him; he was a well-documented recluse and consensus had been reached that this one usage was allowed in this one article because of the particulars of Salinger's life. Public figures who frequently have appeared in public should never be allowed under "fair use", with the exception of those who died before widespread copyleft licenses. --Jayron32 15:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It hasn't been mentioned much above, but I strongly oppose any new policy that will give any sort of exclusivity of article content to specific editors only, please see the Wikipedia:Ownership of content policy for more rationales on this topic. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly the case that many valid fair use images could be added. The question arises therefore whether they should be added. The arguments against are broadly:

• it discourages searching for, or creating free images.
• it's too hard to police.
• unfree is against the spirit of WP and is to be used only as a last resort.

All these have some merit, but I have never found them, even in combination, totally convincing.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC).

The basic principle: unfree images can only be used when it's highly unlikely that a free image would ever be created. With living people, it's generally not the case that such images could not be created; however, this issue has nothing to do with our Living People policy, and exceptions can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis - and my example, of a person with external deformation, would be a perfect example of that. It's the uploader's responsibility to convince the community that, in that specific case, no such image could be created. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Quick redirect categorisation question

Not sure if this has been addressed somewhere already (I tried asking on WT:BLP & didn't get any response), but when the name of a living person redirects to a non-biography (e.g. a {{r from member}}, {{r from writer}}, etc.), does Category:Living people go on the redirect? Seems like such redirects need to be watched more closely than normal, e.g. for target change vandalism, addition of libelous categories, etc.

(For what it's worth, WP:PETSCAN says there are 308 redirects which are in both Category:Living people and a subcategory of Category:Redirects from people. Though it's worth noting that the majority of our millions of redirects haven't been tagged and so aren't in Category:Redirects from people at all). Thanks, 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: New Page Reviewer user right

It is proposed to ensure that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. This user right would bring new page patrolls inline with the requirements for the reviewers at Articles for creation, and the systems for according minor user rights such as rollbacker, template editor, page mover, etc. (see: Requests for permissions). The discussion is taking place at: New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion

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

---

Following the closure at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_128#RfC:_Proposed_draftspace_deletion, and no review, I've created Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion as a proposed process. Given that there is consensus that the policy should be adopted, I'd like to see if we could move it to a policy at this point. Some people express some concerns about the time limits listed so I'll add that. Please vote in the subheaders about (a) the length of inactivity; (b) the length of review; and finally (c) whether to adopt as policy. I figured I'd see where we are before starting on the templates and categories. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• My understanding is that the consensus is that there is no deadlines for pages both in the main namespace as well as the draft namespace; see [[1]] This proposal is thus against the consensus (and cannot be implemented). Please try to find new toys to play with. -- Taku (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  The result of the "Proposed draftspace deletion" RfC means that a PROD-like process can be initiated to remove unwanted drafts without requiring a full Miscellany for Discussion, thus speeding up maintenance. However, since (per consensus) non-AfC Drafts are not subject to deadlines, the Prod should state an explicit reason for their removal - being stale would be not enough. Diego (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarification. I'm fine with streamlining the process. -- Taku (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  TakuyaMurata, they don't seem really unrelated, it looks more like an attempt to overrule the previous consensus regarding the lack of deadlines by placing a streamlined process with more reviews and checks. Well, that doesn't work for me. I'm OK with having the streamlined process for maintenance, but not with having it triggered just by stalled time. PRODs are an acceptable way to remove bad content, but an explicit reason why the content is bad must be provided, and "nobody touched it recently" is not a valid one. Diego (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  It's not. Wikipedia:User_pages/RfC_for_stale_drafts_policy_restructuring was more detailed in that drafts should not be kept indefinitely. If you think there should be an additional requirement that the person explicitly states that they support deletion on WP:NOTHOST grounds, that seems duplicative to me but fine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  Don't you mean the RfC that was used for including in WP:STALEDRAFT the text "In a RfC held in March 2016, the community held the view that drafts have no expiration date and thus, cannot and should not be deleted on the grounds of their age alone."? Removing drafts in order to "not keeping them indefinitely" is only in cases where "notability is unlikely to be achieved", which is a reason different to "having been unedited for a time", which is my point. Diego (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  Oh, and the closing statement of the RfC that you linked includes this gem: "Unless a userspace draft is unacceptable for Wikipedia for GNG-unrelated reasons (copyright violations, self-promotion, and so on), it does not have an expiration date and does not have to comply with WP:GNG. No-hope drafts should not stick around indefinitely, but drafts with some potential should be allowed to stay." To me, this seems fairly incompatible with wanting to delete a draft by PRODing it for being stale without providing a further reason. Diego (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  I'll agree with you on that. The page has been changed to allow for a separate rationale. It's basically an alternative to MFD limited to a subset of draftspace pages with very specific criteria. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Length of inactivity of draft

The current proposal is that the draft must be inactive for at least six months. Any draft submitted to AFC would be subject to G13 deletion under this criteria. A rough estimate says that we are talking about approximately 4400 pages just for a rough number. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Support six month inactivity requirement

• Support as proposer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Thinking "support", but with some expansion that requires six months inactivity not just by the original author, but also by any other editors who opt-in as supporting the draft. This could be taken to include all substantial editors, but that might get complicated due format-fixers, and copy-vio removers, etc, and I think it need be bot-process-able. NB. This would only apply to a small fraction of abandoned drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe only include those editors besides the author who have the draft "watchlisted"? That might make it more manageable... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The identity of watchlisters is private, not available. Good idea though. I am thinking a formal "draft adoption", a tag added to the talk page in which editors may add their name alongside the original author's as editors supporting and taking some responsibility for the draft. Some drafts, on obscure topics, or a little too WP:CRYSTAL, should not be deleted due to inactivity alone. However, I respect that the vast majority of inactive drafts are driveby dumped and without potential.

The alternative would be that such editors would be well advised to move the page into their userspace, and I don't think that is a good way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

There's also wikiprojects which, like with prod, could probably get article alerts as well. Again, we're discussing a month-long notice with a simple WP:REFUND solution if there's an error. It wouldn't be too difficult to sit on something for months, have it sit there for this process, have it deleted and then refund it immediately and sit on it again. At that point, we've had it basically siting unedited for at least 14 months and even then we could do it again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That's true. I am not finding much objectionable here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I quite like the "no potential for use" required assertion by both the tagger and deleter. In the first week, a draft may be no more than an unclear idea, but after six months if there is nothing that looks useful, at all, and the author is six months inactive, then the page surely is just one of the tens of thousands of worthless ill-prepared driveby submissions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose six month inactivity requirement

If you oppose, please state what you suggest instead (one year, two years, longer). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: there is no deadline for draft content if it doesn't contradict any content policy. The people supporting removal based on timelines have never provided a good reason why such deletion would be an improvement to the project over proposed alternatives like tagging and/or blanking stale drafts. Diego (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The RFC was closed with support for this proposal. No one disputed the closure from what I can tell. Do we have to repeatedly obtain a consensus in support with the same people just opposing it repeatedly or will you respect the WP:CONSENSUS that you ignoring the reasons provided as "not good" is not productive? I also reverted your requirement to have an additional concern parameter as there was no consensus for another requirement beyond what was proposed before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  The RFC was closed with support to implement a lightweight process to solve the problems of 1a) being difficult to find pages in draftspace, 1b) archiving pages that don't help in writing an encyclopedia, 1c) having a backlog and MfD and 1d) hosting harmful content. There were nothing in that RfC supporting the deletion of drafts that contain content that should be WP:PRESERVEd (in fact the very closing rationale acknowledges at 2a) that pages that are not harmful do not need to be removed).

  There's consensus that you *can* establish a procedure for cleanup that removes the "not good" drafts, but you don't have consensus for overruling the previous long-standing position that useful drafts should be kept unless there's a reason to remove them; certainly not from the result of that RfC.

  As has been pointed out numerous times, there are remedies for 1a) and 1c) that don't require deleting the good drafts - such as classifying the reviewed drafts and blanking unusable but non-harmful content instead of deleting it. Putting those remedies in place as part of this policy would be a net positive. Diego (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  There's a proposal for sorting at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#General_discussion. However, I don't really understand whether the end goal for the "no potential"/"non-starter" drafts or whatever they are is if the proposal is to mass list those at MFD or something in waves. I don't know why a 100 nomination of say two-year-old non-starter drafts is a better system than just proposing them for deletion as we see them. My other disapproval is that I don't believe that we should like there is an inherent draft sorting system here. There isn't one. It's only by project in mainspace and/or by AFC by choice. That's why I can live with doing it with Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts but all that sorting theory just seems to be debates about how things could be sorted with no progress coming. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  " I don't really understand whether the end goal for the "no potential"/"non-starter" drafts ..."

The end goal is an orderly deletion process for the hopeless stuff, with more focus on positive tagging for the good stuff. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose six months, support one year. Six months is too short (e.g. I'm thinking of some actor BLPs – esp. child actor BLPs – I work on where you want to wait a year to see what develops in the actor's career). A year sounds about right. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose if all of these months of discussions are about less than 5000 pages. These months of discussions all seem like solutions searching to define a problem – comparable to someone selling a robotic vacuum by pointing out where and how a robotic vacuum can be used on a carpet as a replacement for person with a lobby broom and dust pan. I agree with Diego Moya: "there are remedies for 1a) and 1c) that don't require deleting the good drafts". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Question: If they really are "good drafts", why are they sitting in draft space without anyone working to improve them? Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:There is no deadline. There are any number of reasons why an informative yet half-made list or a repository of reliable sources might end up as a draft without anyone currently willing to develop it, of which the most likely ones are 1) an editor started a viable draft but abandoned it along the way, and 2) an AfD process has decided to move to Draftspace an article with potential which nevertheless doesn't satisfy the Notability or Indiscriminate requirements (yet). Diego (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Blueboar: yes, that is my point – just as a person with a lobby broom and dust pan is more discriminant than a robotic vacuum. Someone can look at one of those less than 5000 page and follow an existing process since WP:There is no deadline. This is by far a minor problem - like a cigarette butt dropped on the carpet when compared to the actual dirt that is embedded in the carpet, i.e. the poor content in established articles. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, these are still being nominated and deleted at MFD but I'd like to see if there's a way I don't have to go through at MFD for pages like Draft:Eugene Huang and Draft:Dominic "2k2" Martinez and others among the thousands that eat up the MFD log. Again, no one is suggesting some crazy bot that nominates every page that hasn't been edited in six months for deletion (although we do do that for G13 I might add). It's trying to see if there's a way to touch a clear set of pages other than MFD where they get voted keep for no logical reason and then you get yelled at by those people for creating the backlog of nominations for crap there. It's a straightforward way of "look, here's an old draft that hasn't been edited, does anyone else think it's useful, if so, just remove this tag and we all move on..." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This is ridiculously short. Really drafts should have no upper limit to how long they can be inactive for. There is no reason to force action to have it ready for an article, and even less to delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• I wonder, Graeme Bartlett, if we are working with different definitions of "draft". Draft of what? If a page contains nothing of any potential to use, is it fair to call it a draft? Is an empty page a draft? An autobiography by a school kid? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm beginning to think about drafts that may only be intended (or appropriate as) parts of articles. WP:DRAFT somewhat suggests they shouldn't be there at all (but Help:Userspace draft certainly allows them in userspace). I certainly create drafts of sections and even paragraphs (but I do it in userspace trying to avoid the scrutiny that has arisen in draftspace). For such things most of our normal deletion criteria do not work at all. A "non-notable" draft might be deletable at MFD but not at AFD where a merge might prevail. An AFC submission (but only by a creator) makes the intended status definite. Thincat (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that there can be totally useless drafts that could be deleted without harm. However when I see how many real article attempts are tagged with G5 in userspace, I know that this will be used by some to try to delete just about anything that is not article ready. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose It is dismaying that the draft policy makes no provision whatever for high quality drafts. Taggers should be told (by policy) these are not to be tagged. For high quality drafts there should be no time limit. Thincat (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is no reason to delete what may be useful. If it is worthless nonsense it can be deleted as is, no need for a timed cut-off.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Revised to require "no potential for use." Some drafts themselves are not usable for an article but its contents (particularly if it's like a single sentence that is sourced) can be merged into another article or the like. As I've noted repeatedly, there is no standardized language about this and MFD discussions have never settled on a standard so it's really a lot of take it as we see it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I just checked, and I have several old drafts, with the intention to work on them some day. Two are six years old (yikes). What I wish could happen is that editors use some common sense. If an editor has a single user space draft and has done nothing with it or anything else for six months, they are probaably gone, and the draft should go. If an editor is active, and has several drafts in various stages of progress, they may get to it eventually, and multiple years are warranted. However, if I had to pick an objective, simple rule, I'd go for two years. --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (copied from the proposal talk page, but salient here) I suggest that rather than allow "six months = stale" as an article of faith, that we simply follow past policy - that any draft which violates core policies regarding NPOV, BLP, and the like not need to be "stale" and that articles in draftspace which are not asserted in any way to violate Wikipedia policies governing article not be constrained by any arbitrary "sell-by" date. Thus leaving this new system to be only applicable to draft articles which meet the current criteria for MfD in the first place. I note further my general agreement with Sphilbrick here. Collect (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • So would you then be removing this six month requirement at all? Would any page in draftspace that isn't subject to AFC be subject to someone proposing deletion, with a reason provided in the proposal and then having it deleted in a month if (as revised) it is both considered opposed and the closing administrator finds that the draft has no potential for use? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Read what I wrote, and kindly do not make inferences not directly found in what I wrote. I also note that debate in this section is unlikely to change anyone's stated opinions, and may make others upset at such a misuse of this section for threaded discussions. I suggest, instead, that you use a section intended for threaded discussions for this sort of post. Collect (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like the idea of PRODing a draft just because it is stale, but if we were two do it, I'd say two years at minimum. Six months is definitely too short - as some editors have pointed out, notability and significant coverage is usually determined by time (in that, the longer a topic is talked about, the more significant it is), and six months isn't nearly long enough for many subjects to gain more reliable coverage.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: A time limit as a red herring; it really has nothing to do with whether the content is salvageable. The actually relevant questions are about quality of material in the draft and whether an encyclopedic article can actually be written about the topic. I've had some userspace drafts around for several years, will finish them eventually, and they cause no problems for anyone. If there's some concern that the draft space is getting unwieldy, then maybe we should userspace old drafts. Deletion is counterproductive, unless the material is WP:NONSENSE or directly violates policies like WP:BLP, or the topic itself is WP:NFT garbage or some other non-notable cruft.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose six months Support two years. There is a certain amount of labor sunk by reviewers checking old drafts. By deleting drafts after two years, those drafts are very likely to be abandoned, and also reviewers who browse such things will not perpetually be browsing the same content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• Question: Where is the discussion section for this survey? And what level of activity is the presumed creator of the drafts supposed to have? Are we talking about editors who haven't been active in years? Or are we talking about editors in good standing who have been around for years, and are still active? To prod-delete the drafts of the latter after six months of neglect is insane, especially since we don't keep our userspace drafts on our watchlists. Clearly whatever proposals are put forth need to take into account the level of activity of the draft creator. Softlavender (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose  This seems to be a perennial proposal, but length of inactivity is not a valid criteria for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:DEADLINE. Andrew D. (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose all time limits, also per WP:DEADLINE and WP:NOTFINISHED. There's already plenty of criteria for deleting draft pages; see SMcCandlish's comment a few lines above. Adding arbitrary time limits is contrary to collaborative development. This is deletion for the sake of deletion; there is no benefit to the encyclopedia in removing drafts created in good faith just because nobody's actively working on them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I see some notes above about "no potential for use" - if there's genuinely no potential for use, then there's no need to wait six months or even six minutes, just do what needs to be done. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Length of review

The current proposal is that the draft must be sitting in the category for at least 30 days (one month can vary). In contrast, the current MFD method has a one week review process. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Support one month review

• Support as proposer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support a lightweight process as long as "being stale" is never considered a reason on itself for deleting a draft, and a different reason is required such as WP:NOTHOST or WP:BLP. Per WP:PRESERVE, those drafts containing verifiable facts and reliable sources that could be reused at any article in main space should never be deleted through this process. Diego (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTHOST would apply to most every page, would it not? Does it actually need to be stated in each proposed deletion? It seems unnecessary. I'd support additional language such as "no plausible chance of any use" or something more but we have never managed to get any solid criteria on when a draft is appropriate to be kept versus deleting it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  WP:NOTHOST only applies to pages which do not contain useful content, so hardly "most every page"; every former article that has been moved from mainspace as a result of an AfD decision, or draft page containing references to reliable sources (i.e. content useful for writing the encyclopedia) would not fall under WP:NOTHOST.

  we have never managed to get any solid criteria on when a draft is appropriate to be kept versus deleting it That is the reason why a process that can remove any stalled draft, without even providing a reason for that removal and without reaching a consensus from multiple editors is madness and should not happen as is. Diego (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  I struck it. You have a good point. I restored the parameter as well to the template as well as the policy language. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• A month seems a reasonable time, better than a week. However it should never get to this point anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No draft should ever get to the point of being considered for deletion? Draft:They we love is a waste of resources at MFD but that's arguably a WP:WEBHOST in contrast with Draft:Dominic "2k2" Martinez which is just plain dumb. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• The two provisions should be made consistent. I do not, however, support the notion that a draft that could be viable with some work should be deleted simply because a month has passed; it should instead be userspaced.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• I support 30 days as the minimum length of time for a draft to be proposed for deletion. If drafts sit in that state for months or even a few years, it won't bother me, but I don't want someone to be able to propose the deletion on Monday and an admin to delete it on Friday. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose one month review

If you oppose, please state what you suggest instead (one week, two weeks, two months, six months, longer). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Rule creep. And no "suggestion" that a "suggestion" is required as it makes no sense. Points to those who parse that correctly. Collect (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. No reason has been provided for any deletions at all. G13 should be banned as well. Wikijuniorwarrior (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  User is a banned sock, so I have struck their comment. --Izno (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

  Why was this struck and not the bottom one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akskdjfjrhrheh (talk • contribs) 21:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

  Struck that, too.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose –BoBoMisiu (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose rule creep. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose  This proposal is unclear, but based on context, it is part of a plan to delete content contributions without good reason for so doing.  The effect would not apply to administrators, so I suggest that an administrator should not be making proposals that only apply to non-administrators.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Question: Do you all realize what you're saying? Having no timeline at all means an admin can "legally" delete drafts (assuming s/he agrees that it ought to be deleted) at any time after the proposal is made – mere seconds afterwards, even. If your POV is that you don't want drafts deleted, then you should either argue for a very long time, or you should argue against doing this at all, but not against setting some minimum time before the nominated draft could be deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

    @WhatamIdoing: yes, I realize that an admin can delete anything at any time – even immediately after something is posted – I think that is a non sequitur and only reiterates standard procedures. My opposition is against all the various proposals, presented over several months, which circumvent existing procedures. Again, the months of discussion are about what was described as less than 5000 pages. I think that is an insignificant number of pages to create new procedures, which are proposed in my opinion, to circumvent existing procedures. I think these are solutions looking for non-existant, or at best insignificant, problems. My oppose to this one month review proposal is inline with that. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

    So would it be correct to characterize your vote above as "don't do this thing at all", rather than "if this thing happens, then 30 days is the wrong length of time for it" (=the question actually being asked in this section)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

    @WhatamIdoing: there are several months of proposals (which I do not readily see how they fit together) but my oppose, in this section, is to this one month review proposal. My general opinion to all the proposals is also oppose. The reason for my opposition in this section (and the 6 month proposal) is that, I think, there is consensus that contributors are not managed by others who set deadlines. People contribute at their own pace – as slowly as they choose. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

    If this thing happens, and if we don't set a fairly generous minimum time for the draft to be tagged for deletion, then we're not going to get "as slowly as [the contributors] choose". We're going to get "as quickly as an admin chooses to delete articles". Specifically, I'm concerned that if we don't set a minimum time of 30 days, then some admin is going to believe that AFD and PROD run for just 7 days, so anything older than seven days is a "backlog" that "needs" to be processed immediately. (Remember, it's the fastest admin who makes the decision about when to evaluate drafts for deletion, not the slowest. That's why we have specific minimum times in all of our deletion processes except CSD.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

    @WhatamIdoing: as I see it, the problem is not what was described as less than 5000 pages – which for some reason is described as an admin backlog instead of contributor drafts. The problem is not placing the contributor first. Contributors should not be managed by others who set deadlines. There is no need for minimum time standards to limit willy-nilly deletions in a new process which will circumvent existing procedures. Proposing a minimum time standard increases the risk that a bot will be written to process drafts – I think that will reduce the admin eyeball-time-per-draft and effectively promote willy-nilly deletions. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

    You seem to be assuming that "no timeline" means "never happens". I don't know what you base this assumption on. I remember when AFD was "about five days", and we had a steady stream of complaints about articles getting deleted (or closed as "keep", depending upon who was complaining) after "only" four and a half days of discussion. To deal with the overeager closing, we extended the AFD time to seven days and made it much more rigid. So, based upon these previous aggressive efforts to jump the clock, my assumption is that "no timeline" would be interpreted by some admins – and it only takes one – as matching the only other deletion process with no timeline, which is speedy deletion. If this proposal were implemented without a minimum time, then we would be able to find out which of our assumptions is correct, but I hope that my POV, and the risks that I see in opposing any timeline, makes sense to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

    @WhatamIdoing: no, of course not, I am not "assuming that 'no timeline' means 'never happens'". My voting is against what I think is a misplaced application of something similar to getting an email inbox to zero – I don't see less than 5000 drafts as a backlog that needs to be processed with a turnaround time like an email inbox. My votes are dissent in opposition to the new process. You are right, I base my assumptions and conclusions only on what I read in the discussions (which are fragmented and hard to follow) and mapping that to what I think is a pattern. Are these time limit proposals also about a timeframe for AFDs? Or are these time limit proposals about the new process which will circumvent existing procedures like AFDs? I don't know. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

    These drafts currently go through CSD or MFD, because there is no specifically defined process for drafts. Drafts are currently excluded even from PROD (although there has been support for expanding PROD to include some drafts in the past).
    If (and only if) we adopt a separate process (e.g., a "DFD" for drafts or a "DRAFTPROD"), and if we do not specify a minimum time in between the nomination for deletion and the closing of that deletion nomination, then the minimum time will be "whenever the fastest admin feels like it". Given the history at AFD, "whenever the fastest admin feels like it" is likely to be much shorter than I want. The point behind having a 30-day mandatory waiting period is to prevent admins from treating it like CSD, and to give the contributors a significant opportunity to object to deletion. Without a mandatory waiting period, we have to assume that every single admin will "just happen" to feel like waiting around for weeks, and that's just not realistic. Even if literally 99.9% of admins are happy to wait around for weeks, months, or years, there would be nothing to stop the admin at the 0.1% fastest end of the range from deleting them immediately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

    thank you for the explanation. You point out that "drafts currently go through CSD or MFD".

    While "there is no specifically defined process for drafts", that is a red herring because the MFD policy includes pages in the Draft namespace which are "usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required."

    Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion is a proposal for "an easier method of removing drafts than" MFD policy but "for uncontroversial deletion". It is meant for drafts that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion and do not seem to have any potential for use." It substitutes "consensus" with "objection". "The draft is eligible for proposed deletion: the draft was never edited in the six months prior to the proposed draftspace deletion tagging." Which is the same eligiblity as WP:G6. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Adoption as a policy

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.

WP:SNOWBALL close.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC) — NAC

---

Just want to check if there's support for adoption as is. Doubtful but a first shot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Support adoption

• Support -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It's WP:POINTy to open a proposal that you say yourself is "doubtful" and then !vote in support of it as a devil's advocate. Also, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, so we don't need any "first shots".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose adoption

• Oppose And demur on the current non-admin close of a proposal which had significant substantial and reasoned opposition in any case. I suggest the proposer note this and ask for a formal closure by an admin with at least 2000 total edits to close it. Collect (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Collect Then I suggest you take it to WP:AN. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Collect: There is a close challenge discussion at WP:AN if you wish to make that point there. Note that opposing because it's an non-admin is against policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose –BoBoMisiu (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose solution for a non problem, and will create lots of work and trouble for nothing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose the policy as drafted. I have given some reasons in the discussion below. Thincat (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, as Graeme says, a non-problem. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – Useless. — JFG ^talk 17:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Other comments

• I agree that a completely inactive Draft should be removed from Draftspace if a reasonable time has passed with no edits... But before we delete the draft, we should notify relevant editors (such as the draft creator) and give them the opportunity to request userfication. Blueboar (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Blueboar: That's already a part of Nominating #4. I haven't created it yet but Template:Proposed draft deletion notify will probably be worded even easier than Template:Proposed deletion notify. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It mentions notification... But does not say anything about the possibility of userfication. That should be in there somewhere. Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that as a proposal. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Blueboar Feel free to revise the proposal if you think more is needed. The actual templates will probably need more work as well. I'm not particularly confident this as is will succeed but let's see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• I wholeheartedly oppose the notion that being inactive is a reason to remove a draft in Draftspace. The whole reason of having such space to begin with is to allow the possibility that any editor may find usable content that could be reused in the future, but it does not conform to the main space strict criteria (yet); if we delete such content, we might as well get rid of the Draft space entirely. Diego (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not "being inactive", it really should be "not edited and not likely to go anywhere." Old drafts that are useful are currently reviewed and extended via AFC. Old drafts that are ready currently get moved to mainspace. As such, it's basically an extended MFD for older drafts in a particular space with the rationale being provided there in the notice and just a single veto needed rather than a formal discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Ricky81682, I would more happily agree with you if you avoided probability-based statements. "likely" is a bad guidance word. Change "not likely to go anywhere" to "not containing material suitable for mainspace"?

More importantly though, "Old drafts that are useful are currently reviewed and extended via AFC"? Can you tell me more about this? This sounds like what I am trying to re-invent at Wikipedia talk:Drafts? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:GNG was equally as vague when it started. It has to be built up. The refusal to even suggest a wording is why there's no real solutions here. I still cannot find a standard for when people should vote at AFD to draftify a page other than "someone wants it." See Category:AfC postponed G13. The highest one is 4 postponements which is as much as 2 years. Removing a tag is the same idea here but I don't see the need for a counter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• As drafted the policy seems to me seriously unsatisfactory in that it makes no statement at all about drafts that are of a good quality. It says deletion would be "uncontroversial" but the policy (if adopted) would be controversial and clearly it contemplates disregarding objections such as these. CSD is supposed to be uncontroversial but nominations are regularly rejected and invalid deletions overturned at DRV. The instruction about checking for vandalism hints that good content might be an asset but this is far too weak a suggestion. It is unsatisfactory to presume that tagged drafts are of unsatisfactory quality merely because no one has objected. So far as I can judge, the instructions to administrators make no mention of assessing drafts for quality. WP:REFUND seems to be merely held out as a sop because (1) many inexperienced editors, confronted with a draft that has gone, will not be able to find their way to this and (2) refund would be ineffective if, as conceded in WP:Deletion policy#Archiving, deleted pages may be removed from the database at any time. Thincat (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem is we don't have any standard for when a draft should be kept. Even suggesting something as vague as "plausible change to be useful" or "likely to be useful" is opposed. Revise as needed. I'm fine with the closing admin being told to review the draft but what's the question for them? Is the draft "useful"? If so, fine with me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you for making that change. I'll certainly think about things. One the one hand not seeming to have "any potential for use" would be, for me, so strict, that I would be hard put to prod anything. On the other hand I see so many PRODs and even CSD tags for deletions that would in no way be uncontroversial and (at FFD) boilerplate nominations such as "unused, no foreseeable use" issued at a rate of several a minute where no thought whatever could have been put into the foreseeable part of it. You ask a good question of what should be asked of the closer but again I'll need to ponder. In my immediate opinion very brief snippets could be deleted fairly harmlessly even if they could be useful (they can be re-typed). As a slight aside I think all our draft deletion considerations need to have a stronger focus on whether the "draft" was intended to be a full article. Standards of notability, verification, being NPOV and so on may not apply at all if we are unknowingly looking at the draft of something to be merged as a section or even a paragraph of some other article. Thincat (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• I haven't looked through the proposed P/G at this time, but I think there should probably be a {{draft with potential}} that could act to easily indicate whether a draft should be prodded. Also, I would expect that draft prods would cause an article alert for the WikiProjects of interest--at least for pop culture topics, the aid of the WikiProjects could easily (and has done so) identify whether the draft has potential, or whether the topic of the draft has potential, regardless of the present quality of the draft. Right now a number of WikiProjects have a "requested articles" bucket that draftspace could help move toward "actually a topic of interest". --Izno (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • There is such a system. It's been suggested in a multitude of ways with no actual impetus to do it since these pages aren't actually being suggested for deletion. My thought is that that project can then tag the drafts as needed, use article alerts and be the equivalent of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron for drafts. We could add that once a proposed draft is removed, it can never be listed again so that you don't really need that tag more than one time. Otherwise, I can live with an exemption list, it doesn't actually matter that much to me. If the exemption becomes a problem, we'll re-evaluate it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I think we should clarify the role of the Draft namespace. Based on some editors' contributions to that namespace, it seems like it is basically just used as a personal scratch-pad for material that might eventually be incorporated into some article, but also might not. That material does not need to be sourced, or even remotely coherent (I'm looking at most of the drafts in this collection, for example). As far as I can tell, it is rather hard to get drafts deleted, because they are supposed to be drafts, rather than polished content. On the other hand, if material is really unlikely to be expanded into the mainspace, it seems like there should be some kind of timetable, at least to get a draft to a point where it might plausibly be useful for the project. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Move to Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_draftspace_deletion

I think this discussion should be moved to Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_draftspace_deletion. Link from here, transclude it to here, whatever, by all means, but proposal development discussion belongs on the proposal's talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Plus it'll be easier to remove this lunacy when that page is finally defeated and deleted. Wikijuniorwarrior (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wikijuniorwarrior: It won't be deleted just because it doesn't succeed. Besides, what if someone wants to improve on it? We can't go around deleting people's hard work, can we? clpo13_(talk) 16:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No need to move discussion. Here is better as it is a central discussion board. Also no need to delete when it fails, just tag it as a failed proposal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree thst it would make sense to keep the proposal if it does fail. That way if someone does propose something similar in the future they can see what went wrong with the previous proposal to either A, Drop the proposal or, B, Learn why the original proposal failed to help them draft a new proposal that addresses the issues that caused the original proposal to fail.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to copyright strategy discussion

Hello! I'm writing from the Wikimedia Foundation to invite you to give your feedback on a new copyright strategy that is being considered by the Legal department. The consultation will take the form of an open discussion, and we hope to receive a wide range of thoughts and opinions. Please, if you are interested, take part in the discussion on Meta-Wiki. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Protect user pages by default

Please see new RfC on protecting user pages by default from edits by anonymous and new users. Funcrunch (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Language categorization

This could use more eyes but there's a proposal on language categorization ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Languages#How_should_languages_be_categorized. -- Ricky81682 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky81682 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC on rule changes for the December 2016 Arbitration Committee Election

The annual Request For Comment to set rules for the December 2016 Arbitration Committee Election is now open. As in recent years, the rules from 2015 will remain in place unless changed by consensus during this RFC. The RFC is scheduled to last approximately 30 days, and should end after September 30. For anyone interested in participating, the RFC can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016. Thanks in advance for your participation. Monty₈₄₅ 01:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The right to organise a defence

A key feature of Wikipedia is dispute resolution. An effective dispute resolution system must be fair to all involved. People have a right to outline an accusation and make a defense. It may be necessary to get other people involved. Unfortunately, I have discovered the WP:Canvassing rule severely works against less experienced person. At first, I thought no person would rightly apply the Canvassing rule to restrict the right of someone to defend themselves. The rule is there to prevent votestacking on content discussion and to prevent similar manipulations of outcome. However several editors have said it certainly applies, on the basis that the person seeking help to defend themselves, would create an untenable bias by the provider of the help. This is explained at Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#Right_to_defend_yourself

No court, arbitration panel or tribunal that seeks justice would ever entertain such a rule. An accused person is allowed a wide range of freedoms to present a defense to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. Within Wikipedia it is against the principle of good faith, to assume that someone asked to be a witness to a series of events, or provide a character reference, is automatically biased. Finally, it puts an inexperienced editor at a distinct disadvantage, because such a rule is not only unexpected, it is contrary to normal human reaction when accused. If a person wants to defend themselves, they would naturally seek out people and make an appeal for their help. If that gets someone in trouble, and prevents them from defending the accusation, the WP:Canvassing rule produces outcomes that are manifestly unjust. It provides a way to game the system.

Consequently, I argue that the WP:Canvasing rule must be clarified. Seeking help should not be unduly prescriptive, but consistent with being civil as per any other communication. It should be mostly automatic that people who were connected in the dispute can be included. The defendant could ask a few other people to provide an indication of their normal behaviour, because their conduct should be judged in that context. A person with poor conduct in general is unlikely to get support from others, and certainly not just because it was demanded. If a person can organise a conspiracy of friends to avoid a block, then it's the conspiracy which should be identified and prosecuted heavily, for such a thing is a greater injustice that individual acts.

The net result is that a general exception to the canvasing rule is essential is necessary for a just dispute system. Without a just system, there can be no positive outcome from dispute resolution. The wording would be: "The canvasing guidelines are not intended to prevent a person from requesting help, obtaining witness accounts or character descriptions when they are defending themselves from accusations in dispute resolution forums. Such requests must be civil and include a link to the forum where the dispute is being discussed. Excessive requests for help, especially to editors unconnected with the dispute, may still be considered as a factor in determining the outcome of a dispute."

I look forward to a more just dispute resolution system. Travelmite (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'd replied to Travelmite on Canvassing policy talk page but will make my view known to the wider forum. Wikipedia is not here to provide justice in disputes and it is certainly not a legal forum where character reference and assistance is required. Everything that shows what sort of person any editor is can be obtained from the contributions history. Every interaction, except for oversighted ones, can be brought into the light. Editors who are positively inclined towards the editor in question will find the positive diffs while those seeking the balance will find the negative diffs. Dispute resolution is not about finding positive outcomes but with finding an outcome that does the least damage to the encyclopedia. If both editors come out of the dispute without wrist slaps, blocks or bans then that should be seen as a good outcome. A positive outcome is when the article content being dispute is improved. I oppose the wording as proposed as encourages the formation of cliques and walled gardens. Blackmane (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Travelmite has not shown that he/she cannot "request help, obtain witness accounts or character descriptions" while staying within the limits imposed by Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification and Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:Canvasing already makes it clear that we should avoid asking only editors who we know will be on our side (ie stacking the odds in our favour instead of relying on the merits of the argument). Further, WP:Canvasing already says a good way to ask for help is to put a polite post on a relevant project page. No need for change.  Stepho  talk  04:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. The current policy assumes that when an accused person other asks for help, they must be doing so as a tricky strategy, as though anyone wearing boots is going to kick someone. It assumes a person is familiar with the canvassing policy and it's practicalities. Nowhere in the dispute help pages is there a reference to the idea that arranging a defence to an accusation is improper. Having read them, I'm still unclear how prohibiting vote-stacking or jury-stacking is equivalent to seeking help. Of course, vote-stacking is improper, but the policy doesn't prohibit vote-stacking if it's done with nice messages. What is ironic, is that a person not in a dispute apparently is free to seek help. Travelmite (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the key difference is in how the other editors are chosen. If you cherry pick the help by asking only the editors that you are pretty sure will be on your side, then this is akin to vote stacking and is considered canvassing. If you ask particular editors from both sides (perhaps they have participated in previous discussions) then this is not canvassing. If you ask particular editors for comments about yourself (eg "am I doing the right thing", "am I being too picky", "am I being too soft") but don't ask them to participate in the article discussion itself then this is not canvassing. If you ask (politely) in a project talk page then this will attract editors from both sides and is not canvassing. So, it is possible to ask for help without canvassing. The key idea is to get a broad base of opinions, not just those on your side.  Stepho  talk  06:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That is reasonable in the context of discussing an article. Not so reasonable when the person is facing being permanently blocked. Then the priority is checking the penalty is just. In a dispute between a experienced POV pusher and say an eager young student, the POV pusher can organise their allegation free of this constraint, and the student is left defenseless. The very act of seeking help can get the student in more difficulty. An admin just assumes the persons contacted are biased. Maybe I should seek out some cases to gather some more evidence, because it's better than theoretical situations. Travelmite (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have just learnt that this rule may also limits the person preparing a valid allegation. A person would seek out other victims to prepare a strong case. Those communications could be construed as "canvassing" and swing the case. Travelmite (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no need for "witnesses" because everything is logged. The software itself is the ultimate witness. Evidence is expected to be presented in the form of diffs or other links.

New editors are not expected to know all of the Policies. In the case of inadvertent canvassing, normally the only result is an educational warning not to do it again, and canvassed individuals may be set aside when evaluating the outcome. Alsee (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - declare your defense, including relevant links. These links are the only witnesses you need - because we know you didn't fabricate them. On the outside chance you were a good enough hacker to fabricate them, you could equally fabricate the testimony of other users. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: As I tried to explain at WT:CANVASS#Right to defend yourself, there are a number of ways that other editors can be notified of such things without running into problems with WP:CANVASS#Inappropriate notification. Moreover, while it's understandable that an editor may be upset when they are being discussed at AN/ANI/AN3 (something similar happened to me and it's not pleasant), the editor still has to try and stay cool and resist the impulse to immediately do something that may only exacerbate the situation. This is what, in my opinion, WP:CANVASS is all about. As others have pointed out above, it's highly unlikely for a new editors to be bitten over something like canvassing at ANI, unless they take a battleground approach to the matter and draw further attention upon themselves per WP:BOOMERANG. The saying is that "diffs don't lie", so asking others to be a "character witness" is really quite pointless if the diffs show the editor to be in the wrong. Similarly, no diffs or bad diffs almost surely mean that no action is going to be taken, so once again no need for character witnesses. The best thing to do in such situations is to stick to commenting on the diffs and provide clarification using relevant policies and guidelines as needed. Other editors will then examine all the arguments presented and then try and reach a consensus as to what kind of action (if any) needs to be taken. It's not a vote where the "winner" is determined by who brings more "friends" to the discussion. The same thing basically applies to article content disputes, other noticeboard discussions or deletion discussions, etc. where arguments based upon policies and guidelines almost always carry more weight than those which are not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

AN Notification requirement for Extended Confirmed Protection

I have started a discussion to adjust the protection policy related to manual posting, please see Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#ECP_-_Remove_manual_AN_posting_requirement if you are interested. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Should eponymous set categories list their own main article (even when it does not belong to that set)?

Hello.

WP:Categorization is not clear on this matter (see the title). For example, suppose Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States was a set category, should then Nuclear power in the United States be included in this category?. Contradictory answers can be given:

1. No, because “Nuclear power in the United States” is not a member of the set of “Nuclear power stations in the United States” which is the membership criterion for this category.
2. Yes, because “The article itself should be a member of the eponymous category” (from WP:EPON)

Is there an established policy, guideline, or de-facto good practice on this?.

I couldn't find a better place where to ask this question, Is there is a more appropriate venue please tell me. Thanks.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC).

Best practice is to make an attempt to link to the closest related article in the description text of any category. In some cases, this will be an exact textual match, but sometimes it will only be a near match. The example you gave should be linked. --Jayron32 01:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Links to Google Translate

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.

This discussion concerns the use of links to machine translations such as Google Translate in two main situations: 1) as a cited source for information and 2) as a convenience for the reader, provided in addition to a link to the original language website.

Regarding the first situation, there is a a clear consensus that machine translations should not be cited as sources themselves on the basis that the translations are often substandard and cannot reliably convey the intended meanings of original sources. There was some discussion about having users indicate somewhere in the citation whether Google Translate (or other service) was relied upon to verify a claim (such as in the |via= field). The community tends to reject this proposal on the basis that verifiability is based on what the original source says, not the machine translation (additionally, the |via= field is for sites that republish/redistribute content, and machine translation does not fit that description).

The second situation is where it gets interesting. There is some support here for providing links to such machine translations as a convenience to readers as long as they are not the cited references themselves. I do not think there has been enough discussion for a rough consensus on the second situation, and I recommend a second RfC focusing specifically on this situation if this is something that we want. The supporters here tend to agree that if a convenience link should be provided, there should be links to multiple machine translation services, not just Google Translate, because different services may provide different results with a range of quality, and we should not promote one service over another. The template {{machine translate}} may be helpful to accommodate this. Opponents to the convenience link argue that machine translations are typically of poor quality and that the native language of users might not be English. Mz7 (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

---

As this search shows, we have around 4900 links to Google Translate's versions of non-English web pages, mostly in citations, in page sources. (This does not include links that are reasonably included in subtemplates of {{Expand language}}, like {{Expand Bulgarian}}).

I've recently removed one instance, in a citation, here. There was absolutely no need for that. We don't do it for the vast majority of our non-English sources. Likewise, here's a removal from an external links section. We should not, I'd argue, be pushing people to one online service, when they may prefer another; or prefer to use a local app, or indeed be able to read the language concerned.

How should we deal with this?

[My post here repeats points I made at TfD.]

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Both in citations and external link sections, we should not be promoting a particular machine translation service, nor need we assume that our readers are unable to read other languages (provided that we indicate the non-English language with {{link language}}). Graham (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both Andy Mabbett and Graham11. However, if the link appears in a citation and the author of the Wikipedia page relied upon Google's translation to substantiate a claim in a Wikipedia article (or if the article quotes google's translation), then editors should indicate (in the citation) that they are relying upon google's translation. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Surely, Google translate is not a reliable source and should not be "relied upon"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. A human editor can rely upon whatever tool they want to make a source readable to them, but WP's own article WP:Verifiability relies upon what the real source actually says (i.e., as parsed by a fluent reader). WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT should not be misinterpreted as requiring us to do something like misusing the |via= parameter of the cite templates to indicate that we used Systran or Google Translate on our end to read and understand the source, any more that we'd expect a vision impaired users to list the JAWS screen reader in a citation as a tool that helped them read and understand a source, or I would list Firefox as how I read the source. What we're supposed to do is identify the actual publisher of the source and, if there is one, an intermediary republisher/redistributor of it (like Project Gutenberg, Google Books, or a journal article aggregation gateway like PubMed). WP doesn't cite what software we piped an online source through for our own temporary use. It has nothing to do with what we're linking to (or otherwise identifying, e.g. with an ISBN or DOI) as the cited source.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree entirely that we should not be linking to Google Translate, for the reasons noted above. It's irrelevant how the original editor translated the source; all that matters is providing access to the original for others to evaluate. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as External links go, WP:NONENGEL says English content is preferred over non-English. I have to admit, I thought there was much more. This is definitely an accessibility problem for External links. I think it would be extremely helpful to include a working translation for any link to non-English content. This applies to references as well for verifiction. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is an assumption to say that they are relying on machine translation, a fluent contributor could have just as likely added a translation link as a convenience for readers. The reason for the link is unknown without asking the contributor. Moreover, the lack of a translation link in an article does not exclude the possibility that machine translation was used and just not mentioned.

Separately, I think this kind of linking is not "promoting a particular machine translation service" anymore than a contributor choosing to add a Google Books link, instead of a HathiTrust link or an Internet Archive link to the same book, is promoting Google Books – it is, in my opinion, up to the contributor to decide what they contribute and for others to improve the contribution if they want to. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that a convenience link to Google books is the same as all linking to to (google) machine translation. The issue with linking to machine translations is not just that a particular translation engine might be promoted, but more importantly that currently machine translations are still shitty and unreliable as sources. The latter is the important difference to Google books which provides access to a reliable sources. Moreover the main reason for linking to Google books are the cases where no digital copies are available in non-commercial archives.

So personally I don't have issues with linking to a preview on Google books if no other online copy is available, but i do have an issue with linking to any translation engine (including google):--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Aye; a common reason to provide a GBooks link is that the work is available there but not on Project Gutenberg, etc. Another reason is that you found a particular items (e.g. a statement as a specific page) via a Google Books search, and do not have the actual book in-hand; in such a case WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT indicates we should provide a proper cite to the real book, but indicate one way or another (e.g. with a |url= to the GBooks search hit, and a |via=[[Google Books]]) that we were working from a digitized copy via GBooks.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

If you used the Google Books resource as the source for the information, then link to it; but if you used a paper copy of the book, use an ISBN or OCLC link, not a Google Books link. I remember seeing a couple of cases where the ISBN for a book in a citation was different from that on a linked Google Book instance because the two were different editions; that's a completely wrong way to write a citation. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Google is just too convenient. I link to Google Books unless I consciously decide not to. The machine translations may be shitty but, again, Google Chrome, a browser with many users, is too convenient with a right click machine translation link – the translation happens whether or not the link is in Wikipedia or in the browser. The reader determines whether or not that translation is helpful. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

That's beside the point. The fact that you can have Chrome auto-translate for you has nothing to do with whether promote Google Translate in citation is legitimate, nor with reasons to use Google Books URLs. There's no connection between these things other than Google has something to do with them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This is something currently up at meta's glbal blacklist. There are more sides to this coin - the links can and have been abused (blacklist evasion). These links should be blacklisted just for that reason, just like the google.com/url links. But that is besides the point.

Outside of the templated use, these links should not be used. I ran recently into a reference that linked me to the google translation of an external site. For me it raised several questions: 1) did the editor use the Google translation as the source, if they link to the translation, it suggests that they did not have command original language, and, knowing machine translations tend to be bad, the attribution may be wrong; 2) this is the English wikipedia, but the writer is not to decide to tell me which languages to translate for me. I had, in the earlier example, sufficient command in the original language to see whether the attribution was right. I think that linking to the original source overrules the preference to link to English language content. I don't buy the convenience story either, machine translations tend to be bad, and seen that my mother tongue is not English, maybe I want another translation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• We should definitely never be linking directly to any machine translation as the source, since it is not the source, it's someone's temporary, munged copy of the source filtered for their personal needs as a reader. We should also not be adding "convenience links" to machine translations that overwhelmingly market for no one but Google. If consensus arises that providing convenience translation links, somehow, is something we should do, this should be handled the way we already handle ISBNs: by linking to and building on-the-fly a special page that provides many options (in this case, to all the free online translation services we know of, rather than to all the ISBN lookup services we know of). Those of us who use machine translation frequently know to use multiple such services, because (except for very, very simple and short things) they all produced radically different results, which must be contrasted to get a sense of what the original probably actually is saying. It's not just non-neutral and spammy to shunt everyone to Google Translate, it can be directly misleading, suggesting that WP endorses and holds to be correct the gibberish that that particular translation bot spews out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Blacklist evasion through a proxy, like Google translate, could be reduced or eliminated by improving URL scanning for the undesirable or blacklisted strings located not at the beginning of the URL. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I agree with you that "should be handled the way we already handle ISBNs". It seems the only reason for this discussion is because the target translator is Google – there is no mention of any other site in the discussion. A discussion about a convenience link to a translation of a properly cited source has nothing to do with the objective accuracy of the translation or the subjective benefit a user gets by reading it. {{Machinetranslate}} provides more than just a Google link without the weight of a separate page. Of course it should not be used as the source for the content added to article but contributors will do that and not indicate that they ever did. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"It seems the only reason for this discussion is because the target translator is Google" Not in the least. I'm in the process of reviewing all our external link templates, and had I found one for a different translation service I would have sent that for TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. In fact, we have just 152 links to www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from translations; and 330 using http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url - the latter site is defunct, so they don't work. I have just amended {{Machinetranslate}}, of which I was not previously aware, so that it points to Bing, not BabelFish; however that has only 42 trabnsclsuions.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Beetstra: we assume WP:GOODFAITH and have no knowledge if an "editor use[d] the Google translation as the source" unless we ask. A convenience link in an English wikipedia article to a translation of a foreign language reference is reasonable and logical – the foreign language reference is the source and it never affects "the preference to link to English language content" because the linked reference is in a foreign language, i.e. two links: one to the foreign language reference in the citation and another convenience link to a translation. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu: - I assume good faith in that they used the original, so that should be linked, not the translation. I still disagree with the 'convenience', a lot of English speaking people do not have English as their primary language - not any convenience .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This could be handled, for logged in users, with a class; i.e., the ability to hide the template if you don't want to see it. I'd like to see {{Machinetranslate}} offer more options than Google and Microsoft.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: This should then be handled, for logged in users, with a script/gadget that adds a translate link of the user's choice (google, yahoo, microsofttranslate, babel, ..., or all) to all external links (set to autodetect source language) for editors who want such a convenience link. For the link to be a convenience, you'd have to offer multiple translation sites for every non-English link as different translation engines give different outputs of different quality, and on site A (language A) google may be 'good enough', it may be totally useless on site B (language B), and yahoo may be a better choice in the latter, or a 'language B based translation engine'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Exactly what I was thinking.! I did a bit of work on the template today to un-break it (to the extent possible - MS/Bing Translator cannot handle any "https" address, for example), and make it more sensible. I've installed the CSS classes in it and in {{Google translate}}: a general class manchinetrans, and coded language-specific classes based on the source an destination language parameters, in the form machinetrans_to_{{{foo}}} an machinetrans_from_{{{bar}}}, so you can address the entire thing, or only when a specific language is involved. I guess it could also have machinetrans_to_from_{{{foo}}}_{{{bar}}} and vice versa. Whatever people want; it's easy and painless to change at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm opposed to a convenience link in an English wikipedia [sic] article to a translation of a foreign language reference - because we have no way to verify the quality of the translation. When we talk about external links to English-language content, we're talking about human-written content in English, not a machine-translation of some other language. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

In fact, to quote one of these translations: The great rejection that generated in the Colombian public opinion the shooting death Hippo Pepe has made hunting and breeding female is temporarily suspended. (from this translation). Hunting and breeding females? Killing an animal like this can not like anyone Did you mean "No one can like killing an animal like this"? Probably, but I can't be sure. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• As per WP:RS, "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."  [2] is an example of where I've included a quote from Google translate.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• • There's a difference between quoting a small piece of a machine translation (where you take personal responsibility for its accuracy and readability) and linking to a machine translation (where, for all you know, they may change their algorithms the day after you linked there, resulting in sentences like the ones I quoted). A machine translation is never a reliable source, but if you are willing to state that a certain sentence is a good translation of an original reliable source, quote the sentence and link to the source. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

[Restored from archives as on WP:CENT & pending a formal close] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

How should we deal with this?

The question in my OP was "How should we deal with this?". Does anyone have any practical suggestions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Deprecate every instance of a Google Translate link when used as a reference. Since Google change their algorithm literally every few minutes, there's no way of verifying that what any given reader will see when they click on a link is what the person inserting the link saw, so I can't see how it would ever be appropriate for use as a reference. ‑ Iridescent 12:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Certainly they should not be used as references.

However the case in question used Google Translate as a convenience link, something like this:

• "Азис и Китаеца се разделиха без скандали" [Azis and a Chinese parted without scandals]. vsekiden.com. 29 April 2008. Retrieved 4 January 2014. (Translation on Google Translate.)

It seems to me that we cannot simply say that "people know where to find Google translate" and at the same time "people do not know that Google translate may be inaccurate".

We can perhasp label these items clearly as "Machine translations".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC).

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

Create a clear definition of 'firm consensus'

At any highly visible article about post–laissez-faire US politics, an editor has to "obtain firm consensus" before reinstating a challenged edit.

Yet nowhere does Wikipedia say what "firm consensus" means. It could mean a large consensus (how large?); a stable consensus (stable for how long?); a consensus that's not easily challenged or undone; or something else.

Proposal: Give the term "firm consensus" a clear definition.

For background, see Talk:Donald Trump § "RfC: Clarification", especially the comment about not finding clarification in any arbcom remedy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The concept of "firm consensus" does not exist in policy, and I doubt the community would be willing or able to augment WP:CON to define such a thing. "Firm consensus" in the context used in DS edit notices is likely just means "consensus", as opposed to two editors claiming consensus in a dispute with one other editor. If the wording in the edit notices is creating confusion, then I suggest going back to the source of all this and asking for clarification at WP:ARCA.- MrX 12:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Be that as it may, MrX, "you must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining firm consensus on the talk page" of that article. (Emphasis in the original.)

The closing admin said he (1) has authority to find "ordinary ('rough') consensus" but (2) has no authority to find the apparently required "'firm' consensus" -- because he doesn't "know what that means as opposed to ordinary consensus". He's saying he knows the definition of "ordinary ('rough') consensus" but not the definition of "firm consensus". Isn't he thereby saying he needs a definition of "firm consensus"? --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: No, what it tells us is that Sandstein has no idea what Coffee meant when he added the word firm to the DS notice. Only Coffee can answer that question, although he might be a little annoyed by the Wikilawyering.- MrX 00:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: He's been asked. By an admin.

Pinging Sandstein and Coffee. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

This is an attempt to wikilawyer an RFC outcome the OP doesn't like. RFC results are formal consensus. The "firm" language means that a minor informal consensus does not reverse the outcome of a 54-person RFC. It means that editors are expected to work constructively, expected to respect consensus, and expected have some minimum level of competence to estimate what would happen if the general community were to be called in for a new RFC. A 5-1 claimed consensus is not "firm" if the 5 people are astrologers wanting to remove the term "pseudoscience" from the article Astrology. That is patently "unfirm" because everyone dang well knows the one person could call in the general community, and everyone dang well knows the general-community True consensus will squash the small false consensus. Alsee (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

As the admin who closed the RfC at issue, the question is whether "firm" consensus is meant to be a matter of degree (e.g., a supermajority of 80%), or a matter of form, e.g. the result of a formal process such as an RfC. From a practical point of view, the second interpretation seems more appropriate to me, as Alsee wrote. But I agree with MrX that this needs to be clarified by Coffee, who apparently placed or wrote the template at issue; or at WP:ARCA.  Sandstein  14:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Alsee and Sandstein: (A). I categorically deny Alsee's baseless allegations about my conduct. (B). Alsee's second allegation is demonstrably contrary to fact: Of the 34 votes cast, 20 (59%) support the picture I "like". (C). As for "competence", both of the 2 participating sysops support the picture I support; and 1 of the 14 editors opposing it is currently blocked. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, the RfC I closed is about the veracity of Donald Trump's statements, not about any picture.  Sandstein  17:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sandstein: True, and I can understand Alsee's misinterpretation of my comment, which most likely led to her allegations of wikilawyering and such. I responded (obliquely) by categorically denying her allegations (at A) and trying to correct her misinterpretation (at B and C). But I didn't make clear why I was talking about the current discussion rather than the closed one.

In my opening comment, I'm citing the RfC outcome as relevant "background", not challenging it. My proposal is important for determining the impending outcome of the current discussion, not some past outcome. It was Anythingyouwant who challenged that past outcome, not I. (He proposes that "firm consensus" means at least "65% support"; I don't.)

I did oppose the RfC's proposed language, but I've actually been supporting the authoritativeness of your closing decision. Mandruss has phrased it more clearly: "What Dervorguilla said above looks a lot like WP:BRD to me, not a 'revert war', or a 'problem'." --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out what appeared to be flawed reasoning in one comment of hundreds related to this question. I wasn't involved in the RfC and take no side in this. Just sayin', since I was quoted. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Since I was pinged here, I'll just say that equating "firm consensus" to the result of a formal process such as an RfC does not make much sense to me, because then we'd have to have an RFC or the like every time someone wants to revert contested material back into the article, even if 75% of editors have already given policy-based support to the revert.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, I apologize and struck my wikilawyer comment. There seems to have been significant confusion over the two discussions (Trump statements/Trump image). My mention of "competence" was not intended as an attack on you, I was trying to say that "firmness" of a consensus related to a reasonable estimation of reversal. Regarding the image discussion, in my opinion both current options suck. The only good image(File:Donald_Trump_2013_cropped.jpg) didn't seem to make it into the voting. Barring consideration of a new option, I'd advise accepting any majority outcome on the current semi-formal vote. It was a reasonable process and shouldn't be battlegrounded. Alsee (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The current infobox image voting (not an RfC, no closer), closes on 20 September. Voting has slowed to less than a crawl, and it's looking like it might be close, like 55% for the new image. This being a highly contentious issue connected to the Skidmore Wars, I think we'll need guidance on what to do if it's that close, and it would be great to have that before the 20th. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've got it. A discussion didn't have to have an RFC template to get a close. WP:Closing_discussions#Which_discussions_need_to_be_closed says When a discussion involves many people and the outcome is not clear, it may be necessary to formally close the discussion. It also says It may be useful to close Requests for comments, but that's a separate statement in another paragraph. If the outcome isn't clear enough for one side to acknowledge it's over, a uninvolved close can still be requested. Alsee (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

But that's about discussions with arguments that need to be evaluated. In this case, it's counting votes and ruling whether ~55% is sufficient consensus for change. I can count really well, and others can check my counting, so we don't need a closer for that. Must we really go through normal close request channels (and wait who knows how long) just get the same ruling that could be made here beforehand? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should be necessary, and I'm not making assumptions on what the final tally will be. I just said it could be done if that's what it takes to firmly and peacefully end this and get back to work. Alsee (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Alsee: No need to apologize. To the average editor, my comment would indeed have looked rather like "wikilawyering". To the average editor. You, however, are entitled to use this Wikiquote: "I can only say that I am amazed that a man of my intelligence should have been guilty of giving such a [judicial] opinion".

I concur with your esthetic opinion that "both current options suck. The only good image didn't seem to make it into the voting". There is, however, a third option that we -- you, Mandruss, and I -- ought to think about.

Pic E (Vadon, 2015) was added reinstated (on 15 November 2015) in an unexplained edit by an experienced user, Jerchel (talk). He substituted it for the previous picture (Skidmore, 2013) and marked the edit as minor. He's yet to provide a reason for making the change.

Any one of us can challenge it by reverting, by swapping the Skidmore picture back for Pic E. And this time we'd get to keep it -- unless and until there's firm consensus to reinstate Pic E or normal consensus to substitute Pic C.

Can you think of any sustainable objections, counsel?

Retracting suggestion; page sanctions weren't imposed until March 2016. My error. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC) 01:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

(non-counsel comment) - I'm not sure I understand all of that. But 10 months is more than enough de facto consensus for E, so any Jerchel crime has exceeded the statute of limitations and that issue is dead. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: The normal WP cycle is about 12–18 months, not "10 months". Pinging Alsee and SPECIFICO. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: - Intellesting. Where is this "WP cycle" concept explained? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I think it's an empirical observation by SPECIFICO. See Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

As regards the original question: See now WP:AE#Sanctions clarification request: 2016 US Election AE for a clarification request. The above discussion about pictures, etc., is off-topic.  Sandstein  08:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated to the issues being raised here, but in my general opinion, the reason there is not a clear definition of firm consensus is because the term firm is far too open to interpretation. One might interpret firm as to mean 70%, while another might interpret it as 80%. One might interpret 5-1 as a firm consensus but another might interpret 6-4 as a firm consensus. Irrespective however, discussions and consensus aren't all about numbers. Furthermore, part of determining consensus is weighing the arguments that are made in these discussions. Take AFD's for example. Administrators and non-administrators alike are trusted to close these discussions and to respect the consensus that was achieved in these discussions, while also respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (which are also, in themselves, a consensus) and are trusted to weigh the opinions expressed and to discount the opinions of those which fall a long ways outside policy or otherwise blatantly illegitimate concerns. Its achieved not simply only by a majority, but giving due consideration to the arguments made and to give due weight to the opinions expressed. Another issue with this whole firm consensus discussion is that the consensus of a few does not override the consensus of the wider community. Moreover, consensus can change afterall, and giving a clear definition of firm consensus would only open the door to wikilawyering, where editors whom are fighting to get their way would wikilawyer around what is considered a firm consensus. Some things are not policy because of common sense. Treating this as a formality would only open up more arguments between editors, with each arguing their own interpretation of what would be Wikipedia's definition of firm consensus. Not everything on Wikipedia needs to be formalized and what is understood as acceptable community practice can be inferred by one's own participation in this community and understanding how this community and website actually works, which cannot be understood by merely taking the verbatim reading into Wikipedia's policies and guidelines word for word. Administrators and editors should use their own common sense in determining consensus. On the other hand, sometimes ones own determination of consensus is likely to be challenged and that's when you take it to the wider community to determine if the consensus was determined correctly. As does often at AN/ANI or deletion reviews, etc. The definition of the word firm (which we appear to be using firm as a synonym for clear in this case) can at times be ambiguous and that's central to the point of why I do not support adding a clear definition of firm consensus, and formalizing via policy is just going to complicate things further, not de-complicate as this proposal so intends. —Mythdon 08:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mythdon: From Merriam-Webster Unabridged, s.v. "firm" -

2 a (1): not subject to change, revision, or withdrawal; fixed, settled, definite, established <two firm decisions were taken at the meeting> <I cannot quote you a firm price> <is this a firm offer> c (1): not easily challenged or undone; assured, secure, strong <took firm possession of the enemy's trenches> <holds a firm position as the country's leading poet> <this horse is a firm favorite for the big race> (2): well-founded, certain; thorough <he has a firm knowledge of the subject> (3): marked by solidity, precision, or clarity; convincingly, realistically, or solidly drawn.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Images of Area 51

I've noticed that on many images of Area 51, signs can be seen saying that photography is prohibited. In the light of this, surely all such images should be deleted? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Unclear see Freedom of panorama and that it applies to buildings in the US. If taken from outside the boundaries of the site, then it becomes an issue of public place. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 07:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  Almost certainly not. For one thing, in a lot of cases such buildings may fall under {{PD-USGov}} unless they were built by contractors, or commons:COM:De minimis would apply. And if memory serves, Area 51 is old enough that limitations of commons:COM:FOP#United States would not apply because of missing copyright notices and the "public space" rule not existing yet. Finally, I am not sure if such "No photos" rules affect the FoP status at all. Probably a better question for commons:COM:VPC though, more copyright experts work there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  By statute (as Freedom of panorama#United States explains and cites), any copyright in a building in the United States does not apply to a photograph of that building, regardless of the building's age or architect. So there are no copyright restrictions at all in the U.S. on such photographs of architecture. The only exception would be nonfunctional art on buildings such as murals or sculpture, where the normal restrictions on derivatives or copies apply. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  Though this only applies for images of the building taken from a public space. Most defense installations are not public spaces. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@RegistryKey and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Why does everyone always assume that copyright law is the only law we have to abide by and if images are illegal for any other reason, it's all hunky-dory? As I mentioned on the talk, it is explicitly illegal to photograph defense installations. I also don't edit Commons anymore, for legal and moral reasons. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to assume anything. Commons policy spells out that Commons is not concerned with non-copyright restrictions of this sort. If there is a problem, it's between the photographer and the institution forbidding photography. c:Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid that I am not morally able to participate in a site that freely admits to violating US law and makes no attempt to rectify it. Good-bye. Commons had this problem, Wikipedia does, I'm sure all the Wikimedia projects also do, so you won't be seeing me around. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if we need to mechanically apply Commons policies on non-copyright restrictions here as well. I am not familiar enough with this aspect of US law to make a guess on this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Area 51#Illegal photos is a pertinent discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That statute just says it's illegal to "make" such images. It says nothing about what anyone else might do with it. At any rate, an editor who is convinced by their own armchair legal opinion that this site is breaking the law probably would be more comfortable elsewhere. postdlf (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Postdlf:, 18 U.S.C. 797 [3] explicitly bars the distribution of any photos that would be illegal to produce under 18 U.S.C. 795 [4] and EO 10104 [5]. I don't have an opinion on whether the rule actually applies to photos made on public property. The plain reading of the law's text would tend to suggest that the law does apply even to photos taken from public property, but I could just as easily believe that either constitutional case law or interpretive regulations say that photos are allowed from public property. Dragons flight (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

See my comment below, there is actually not much case law, and it does seem the gov't has been successful in defending this position in the few one can document at times. It has a potential for chilling speech if this is tested constitutionally (which it hasn't yet). --MASEM (t) 00:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a valid reason for removing a photograph of a sign saying "photography is prohibited" immediately after the words "beyond this point". Such images have been broadcast on television programs and exist all over the internet. Although it is illegal to photograph some US military facilities ("certain vital military and naval installations") without permission, Wikipedia didn't take this photograph, so our concern should be limited to copyright status, as others have said. - MrX 16:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Commons:Category:Area 51, every single photo there appears to either be taken outside the perimeter, or publicly released by the US government. (Without wishing to state the obvious, I would assume any hostile intelligence agency is going to have a better source of images than Commons.) Also bear in mind that this is a global project; if we were to start deleting images just because they're considered illegal somewhere, it would mean deleting about 75% of Commons including files as apparently innocuous as File:Move icon.svg. ‑ Iridescent 16:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If it is from outside the perimeter (a public space), then they should be fine under FOP. The "no photography" signage would apply to those inside the perimeter. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

^Agree 100% with this one. The US Government knows that they can't stop people from taking images with a telephoto lens or just outside the perimeter. And they don't try. However, photos from inside the perimeter would be considered classified information and uploading them on here would cause an enormous amount of trouble for Wikimedia as they are based in the US. Seeing as the photo is question was taking outside the perimeter (and therefore outside the classified zone) it shouldn't be a problem. --Majora (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That is what I was getting at as well with my original reply. Inside the wire is definitely enforceable, but outside the perimeter in public space it becomes murky. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 22:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Jakec, I urge you to reconsider. Few issues in law are cut-and-dry – that's why we have a court system – and this case doesn't seem to be cut-and-dry either. This project is definitely not "freely admitting to violating US law"; rather, we disagree on what the law is and how it applies here. Why don't we solicit the opinion of WMF Legal? I appreciate that you're standing up for what you believe, but we haven't exhausted our dispute resolution options yet. Mz7 (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I have sent a message to User:Mdennis (WMF) at User talk:Mdennis (WMF)#Legal status of photos of US defense installations. I hope that this will help clear things up. Mz7 (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If there is a security problem with the content here, you can expect that the US government will take steps to notify WMP of the problem and request removal. A problem image or text should be removed so that it cannot be viewed. Oversighting or some technical removal from the database would be the way to go. From what I remember of images in Wikimedia they can be totally removed. If it happened, probably no one would tell us either. So my conclusion from this, is that the photos we have of the military installations here are not actually a problem. Neither a security problem, nor so illegal that anyone (FBI) is going to the effort to do anything. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Mz7: Perhaps I moved too hastily; I will definitely remain here long enough to see what the WMF has to say. But it does gravely concern me when people claim that "Commons policy spells out that Commons is not concerned with non-copyright restrictions". @All others: the text of the law specifically says: "it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission". It makes no mention of where the photo must be taken from to be unlawful, which would imply that it would be illegal whether it is taken from inside the base, on a public road, or even from space. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hmm, that's 18 U.S. Code § 795 [6], and apparently there are some case laws that weigh on the government's favor [7] from 2014, but in this specific case the government appears to settle with the paper. As noted by the CJR article, if they held the law which doesn't account for how much satellite and StreetView imagery there is , it can have chilling effects. But all that said, there's no resolution on this. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm reminded of New York Times Co. v. United States. That it is illegal to take a photograph doesn't necessarily mean it is illegal to publish the photograph. This is a messy legal area, and one best left to the lawyers. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Unless copyright issues are involved, I think we should allow the Foundation to handle this as they see fit. Until such time that they tell us we should prevent photographs of military installations, and once we've informed them about such photographs, it's their concern, not ours. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Noting here that a response from the WMF was posted at User talk:Mdennis (WMF)#Legal status of photos of US defense installations. Mz7 (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Note: I have nominated File:Area51 Tikaboo Peak 07.2008.jpg for deletion on the Commons. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Area51 Tikaboo Peak 07.2008.jpg. Mz7 (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Notifying the page creator in deletion discussion

There are some users who have made 100+ AFD nominations but they never notified the article creator about the ongoing WP:AFD intentionally.

I have been indirectly told that right now there is no firm policy that article creator must be notified about deletion discussion.That whenever an article, draft, user page, template, file, sandbox, userspace draft, is nominated for deletion at WP:MFD, WP:AFD, WP:FFD, WP:TFD, then it's not compulsory for the nominator to notify the page creator about deletion discussion.

I find this inappropriate that in WP:AFD, the article creator won't be notified about the deletion discussion.

It is considered a courtesy to notify the article creator on their talk page about AFD or MFD, but I want that it should be a policy not plain courtesy. --Marvellous Spider-Man 15:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If the correct scripts are used when tagging urticles for PROD, BLPPROD, CSD, and XfD, he creator is automaticaly informed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If a user wants to notify with twinkle, then he can do it. But if a user doesn't notify, then no one can warn him. As this user Jakejr (who makes manual nomination) has nominated 162 articles for deletion, but he never notified the page creator about the AFD. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm guilty of this too, I'll admit, although I have recently started notifying users for afd. Would it be possible to just have an automatic notification sent to anyone who has a nominated article on the watchlist?--Prisencolin (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Prisencolin watchlists are private - so this would have to be done server-side as part of echo to not give away who was watching a page - but would require some work, one primary reason - "nominating a page for deletion" is just "editing" the page from the server side, a catch would have to be put in for every edit that would be of this class. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why do you think it should be policy to notify page creators about an AfD? (I've personally always notified the page creator). FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@FuriouslySerene: I have updated my reason above. --Marvellous Spider-Man 00:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I see your update but still am not convinced. Does notifying the article creator help create a better encyclopedia? The page creator doesn't really WP:OWN the page or they may have only added a sentence or two years ago. It's not entirely clear to me why he or she should be notified. FuriouslySerene (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Occasionally, the page creator isn't the primary contributor to the article. This often happens when a user converts a redirect into an article: the redirect creator gets notified, not the editor who turned it into an article. For this reason, I don't think it should be policy that the page creator must be notified, but I would consider it discourteous not to notify any primary contributors. We could easily add this as step 4 of WP:AFDHOWTO (or even merge it with step 3), but if we do that, we should be clear about what constitutes appropriate notification. Mz7 (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Mz7 I am not arguing about who should get notification, page creator or primary contributor, but lack of good faith in part of AFD nominator.

I know most users notify the article creator. I didn't start this discussion about these nominators.

I started this discussion about those nominators (who don't notify the page creator for years ) and never got any warning for that. Marvellous Spider-Man 00:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand, and I'm inclined to support with adjustments. I also agree with Xaosflux's concerns below. I think the best way of implementing this is adding "notify primary contributors" as step 4 of WP:AFDHOWTO and removing language that implies that notification is merely an optional courtesy. We could also add a statement at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Deletion discussions, something like "Where appropriate, nominators should make an effort to notify the page's creator or primary contributors of the discussion." There are other rare exceptions, such as when a nominator engages in canvassing, or when the only primary contributor has been topic-banned. Ultimately, we want to emphasize the spirit, which is to gain an adequate level of input at the discussion, hearing from both sides of the dispute. Notifying just the page creator is sometimes not enough. Mz7 (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think it's absolutely necessary that in the case of any deletion tags the creator be notified. That's why it gets done automatically when the proper script is used such as Page Curation and Twinkle. Compared to the hundreds of articles that get tagged every day by New Page Patrollers alone, It's extremely rare that the person who turned it into an article is not the creator and that, IMHO is a perfectly tolerable exception. The reasons why the creator should be notified are self-evident. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  Twinkle lets you withhold notification if you so desire. Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#XfD (deletion discussions) advises us that notification is usually a good idea, but not always necessary, particularly in the case of malfeasant editors. I think the issue Marvellous Spider-Man is seeing is users deliberately unchecking the notify page creator box when nominating any page. Doing so is procedurally acceptable under current guidelines, and that's something that needs to change. Mz7 (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Depends - I think we've had this discussion before - I think if the page is newer (especially if it is NPP material such as an unpatrolled page) then this is a good idea, but this requires more of a spirit of who to discuss with then just looking at the history. If I were to recently go and turn a redirect in to an article - I'd like to be notified if it was going to be nominated for deletion - notifying the "page creator" may be useless. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Depends on the circumstances. There's little point in notifying an editor who has been inactive for a year or more. Or what if the page creator just wrote a sentence or two, and most of the article was written by other people? Or the article was created by an IP (which used to be possible)? I suppose one could argue that it doesn't really matter if you notify those page creators. But what if the article's basically self-promoting spam and it realistically has no chance of survival at AFD? In that case, does notifying the page creator actually benefit Wikipedia, or does it just encourage the page creator to have a stressful, drama-filled week? I've occasionally un-checked the Twinkle box for notifications, and I doubt that there has been any harm to the project as a result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This is basically about new page patrol and pages created within two months. Marvellous Spider-Man 00:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's introduce a whole new layer of wikiawyering by having some criteria for whether notification was required or not and then another layer about if notification wasn't made then does that invalidate the entire AFD nomination. I strongly agree that in the vast majority of cases the creator of the page should be notified but don't open up whole new avenues and hours of pointless discussion by making it a mandatory step which can be argued about. If there are users who are routinely not informing creators of AFD discussions then address that user's behaviour not the process when in 999/1000 cases there isn't an issue. Nthep (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a good point, and one that I'm wary of as well. My suggestion above was not to impose bureaucratic restrictions like "you must notify except in scenarios 1a, 1b, 2, and 3, or else the entire process needs to start over", but to add notification as step 4 of WP:AFDHOWTO since, as you say, in the vast majority of cases "notify page creator" is standard AfD procedure. Ultimately, I would still like to see room for discretion and good judgment, but not to the point where never notifying anyone is acceptable (which is what it is right now: acceptable). Mz7 (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Depends - A deletion nomination involving a single page, or a group of pages by the same user, when the author is still around, we should notify the user about it. When nominating a group of pages by different users, or when the author is no longer around, there is frequently no need to notify. An other issue is when a page was changed from a redirect to an article, the author who needs to be notified is the second author, not the redirecting user. And the scripts, for obvious reasons, can't deal properly with deletion nominations of renamed categories from before we could move categories (although I'm history-merging them, it will take a while for me to finish the task). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

If it is not a necessary policy then I won't notify everybody for PROd and AFD. Marvellous Spider-Man 07:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Always Notify If the author knowing about the deletion nomination would change the outcome of the discussion, the article shouldn't be getting deleted. Thus it is almost always better to notify the article creator. Really, we should go further, and notify all substantial contributors to the article, but the semi-automated tools don't really facilitate this. The only time the creator should not receive a notification is if you have analyzed the article history and determined they created it as a redirect (or some sort of procedural creation), however in such a case the editor who transformed it into an article and/or primary contributors should definitely be notified. If the article creator comes along and wants to challenge the deletion afterward, claiming they could have improved it, or the discussion missed relevant information which would have been provided if the notification occurred, we are probably going to need to have a new discussion, and it wastes a ton more time going through deletion reviews, userficiation, and eventually a repeat AfD that all could have been avoided by a simple template notification... When in doubt, notify. Monty₈₄₅ 12:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Normally notify Anyone nominating a hundred pages for deletion is doing every one a disservice, in failing to get important input. Valuable Wikipedia content may have been lost to our readers. I think we do need to make it a policy that major contributors are notified, which could be the people that have written over 10% of the content. Excalating warnings could apply for those that fail to notify. There could be exceptions, such as for long gone or long blocked users, but it is still good to have a record on the user talk page of discussion about content they wrote. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Leave as is, but make clear that abuse may be sanctionable I like Mz7's suggestion at 04:57, 10 September 2016, above, but would remove the reference to primary contributors. That is, per Mz7 with my modification: "We could also add a statement at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Deletion discussions, something like 'Where appropriate, nominators should make an effort to notify the page's creator or primary contributors of the discussion.'" And I might add to that, "Routinely nominating pages for deletion without notifying the page's creator can be grounds for sanctions, especially if the failure to do so is unexplained, appears to be in pursuit of a particular point of view, or both." I don't like the primary contributor part because define "primary" or "substantial." Unless we're going to set up something that blocks some nominations automatically and without penalty or risk to the nominator (or automatically makes the notifications) , we need to avoid making editors afraid to nominate because they haven't got everything just right. Deletion serves a real and valuable purpose and we don't need to chill it. The discussion process is there to decide whether or not to actually delete; that's the safeguard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

And, PS, is there something wrong with presuming that any page creator or contributor who continues to care enough about a page to want to be notified if it's nom'ed will keep that page watchlisted? And if the simplistic nature of our current watchlist system makes that problematical for voluminous or prolific editors, shouldn't our efforts be more focused on improving that (which would have benefits for everyone) rather that trying to work around it with notifications? Just a thought, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

policy on translation

Does the English Wikipedia have a policy how to act with references when an article is translated from another language Wikipedia? Should the translater include all references listed in the original article? (This is the default using the translation tool). Should (s)he check all the references herself? Should (s)he omit references that (s)he has not or could not check? On Dutch Wikipedia we have a discusion about this (not for the first time). The discussion was started after I translated the long article Women in science, with more then 100 references. Surely I did not check them all... that would be a lifetime job. I personally think that removing the references in the translation would severely reduce verifiability. Ellywa (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

English Wikipedia's policy on other-language references is that while English is preferred, there is nothing prohibiting other-language refs (WP:NOENG). If an article is translated from another language wikipedia using the tool etc, there is no policy reason against using the refs included just because they are not in English, and in fact policy requires the article to be referenced. The real problem is that other language wikipedia's may have different rules/policies on reliability and useability of sources as references - eg a primary reference might be ok on say Dutch Wikipedia for use in a biography of a living person, but is heavily frowned upon here except in certain defined circumstances. Which is why the verifiability policy has this bit in it: "When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. Editors should not use machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people." Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

To avoid what is sometimes called "citation plagiarism", I would, personally, recommend including comments to indicate which references were not actually checked by the translator. These comments can be removed by anyone who actually checks the sources to verify that they support the text. It may or may not be appropriate to make these comments visible to the reader. "Citation plagiarism" was, I believe an issue in the dispute between Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz. I would tend to apply the principle for citation taken from secondary sources, where Chicago (16th ed. 14.273) says "To cite a source from a secondary source [...] is generally to be discouraged, since authors are expected to have examined the works they cite [my emphasis]. If an original source is unavailable, however, both the original and secondary source must be listed." --Boson (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Indeed rules are different, but that point is not made in NL Wikipedia. It seems some of the loudest commenters think you should check all references yourself (impossible if you want to translate large articles) I will try to avoid citation plagiarism, as suggested by Boson. Thanks again. It is pleasant to talk with you; so unlike NL Wikipedia... sigh.... Ellywa (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Citation plagiarism – if it's even fair to call that "plagiarism" – is about the duty of the original authors, not translators. No academic expects a translator to check the sources. We do have a rule here that relates to citation plagiarism; it's at WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.
• That bit of WP:V is not explained well. What it means is this: Do not find some news article in a language you can't read, run it through a machine translation system, and then say "See here? The Daily Garble, a source about whose reputation I know absolutely nothing, says that Joe Film is getting divorced! Or something approximately like that, but anyway Google Translate put his name and the word 'divorce' in the same sentence, so that must be what was meant". That rule does not say anything at all about what competent translators should do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Anyone believing themselves to be sufficiently linquistically competent to be doing a translation, should be equally competent to interpret our policies, read the other language sources, and apply our rules to the English version they are creating even if they are not bothering to translate the sources. Never, never, never, rely on machine translations; even German-English - especially this language pair - (and vice versa) can translate exactly the opposite of what was meant in he source language.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC of possible interest

Editors may perhaps be interested in Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC about outing and blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

New PC2 RFC draft

Hi, I've started a draft for another PC2 RfC here. I thought this was a reasonable venue to ask for some opinions, or if anything should be tweaked or elaborated before publishing. Several courtesy pings: @Davidwr, Jackmcbarn, Jc37, Kudpung, and KrakatoaKatie: who have been involved in suggestions, closings of previous RfCs on the subject. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I have left a comment at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment September 2016. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Policies for dealing with new articles at NPP & AfC

Following 5 years of unstructured discussion, a dedicated venue has been created for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also being composed to develop recommendations for necessary changes to policies and related software. It is 'not an RfC, it is a call for genuinely interested users who have significant experience in these areas to join a truly proactive work group. There is some reading to be done before signing up. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Does this Italian Supreme Court ruling on news archival periods affect us?

[8]

From this, it appears that named individuals/businesses in Italy can request news outlets (including archives of such news outlets) to delete news stories they are involved in by request after 2.5 years, though this Supreme Court decision.

While I doubt this could force something like archive.org to stop archiving Italian websites, does this mean we should probably archive any articles from *.it newspapers or the like to avoid losing these articles should individuals named take action to remove them? --MASEM (t) 02:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd think so, although archive.org might not be the best choice thanks to their policy of unpublishing existing archives if the site posts a new robots.txt. Anomie⚔ 11:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

No. The Italian Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in Florida, where the WMF is domiciled. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It obviously has no legal bearing. I think the OP is concerned insofar as Wikipedia articles may use websites from sources in Italy which may become unavailable after 2.5 years due to that ruling. It's a practical question of how to handle updating those links if they become dead. The OP is not asking if the Italians can force Wikipedia to remove anything. They are asking what we should do to fix the problem if the Italians force our sources to disappear... --Jayron32 12:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I very much doubt Italy's ruling would have a legal impact on en.wiki, I'm more worried on sole sources disappearing completely because of this. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• No legal effects, nor does it effect any Italian editors. It will mean (depending on uptake) that Italian news sources might start to disappear. Potentially it could mean Italy would also go after archive sites as well (the EU-based ones anyway) as there is no legal point in requiring organisations to remove online content unless you are also willing to enforce it against the archivers. So any manual or automated request to archive all the Italian-based sources/refs should go to a non-EU based archiver. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Sources do not have to be online, so any reference to a printed newspaper is still valid if the Internet version is deleted. Or does this ruling mean that any copies of the printed article in libraries or archives have to be destroyed too? I think that the real answer here is to stop regarding news reports as secondary sources, and so not to rely on them to verify article content. Historians treat news reports as primary sources, so why do we persist in idiosyncratically treating them as secondary sources? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think it affects print sources or print archives, just online, but this presumes an online source also has a print version. With more and more news sites being online only, we could run into the case where the removal of the online version may make that information disappear forever without proper archiving. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Distinguishing between terrorism and non-terrorism

Ever since I first came here, I have seen a number of debates and controversies over whether certain mass killings should qualify as terrorism and be categorized under it because of the perpetrators' motivations, and what the inclusion criteria is. For example, in regards to the killing of Jo Cox, some users believe that it should be categorized as terrorism now because the perpetrator espoused right-wing motivations and killed a major political leader, and others believe that it should wait at the moment because legal proceedings are still ongoing and the perpetrator's mental health should also be considered. In another example, the Charleston church shooting: some users think it should be terrorism, others believe it should not be because WP:RS seems to vary on the issue.

There have also been content disputes and concerns over lists of terrorist attacks (i.e. Lone wolf (terrorism), List of terrorist incidents, 2016, Terrorism in the United States, etc.), some of which I was involved in. In the disputes, users debate about whether certain attacks should be included because they look like terrorism even though officials in the investigation, and RS, have not mentioned or confirmed a terrorist motivation. For example, I was in a discussion with a couple of users at Talk:List of terrorist incidents in July 2016 over whether the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers and 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers articles should be included in that list, even though they weren't officially categorized and no terrorist angle was mentioned in the investigation or RS.

In addition, I had seen some odd examples listed in Lone wolf (terrorism), which I had since removed. For example, the 2009 shooting of Pittsburgh police officers ([9]), the 1993 Long Island Rail Road shooting ([10]), and the 2014 Isla Vista killings ([11]) were listed but removed by me because of terrorism was unconfirmed or even not mentioned at all. But given the motives of these events (anti-government, racism, sexism), I would understand why people would feel a need to list them as examples.

With the consideration that most of my examples are content disputes, I understand that VPP is not where content disputes are resolved. However, I saw a commonality with all of these examples and more: a widely varying opinion between users over what should qualify as a terrorist attack, and a lack of common understanding over inclusion criteria. For example, if the Dallas shooting is considered racially-motivated violence, should that be classified as a terrorist attack with that kind of thinking? Or would it be a WP:OR violation to say it now when terrorism has not actually been confirmed by officials and RS?

My apologies for the long post, or if anything doesn't seem to be clear, or if this is even relevant here. This is my first rodeo here. Parsley Man (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that "terrorism" is a WP:LABEL, it should only be applied in a factual manner if the authorities responsible for investigating the case have decided to call it as such. I have seen many cases of editors using either public commentary (but not from people involved in the investigates) as well as their own personal theories (that is, OR) to declare something factually as "terrorism" which we absolutely should not be doing per LABEL. It's reasonable to cite attributed opinion that something may be terrorism, but that's different from treating it as a fact (as for example, listing something on that List of terrorist incidents article). --MASEM (t) 17:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely wrong to call something terrorism that hasn't been so designated by responsible authorities. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion on Talk:Terrorism in Europe#Distinction goes in a similar direction. Theoretically spoken, there may be cases where the reputable sources call it "terrorism" and a clear statement by the authorities is missing (maybe because they want to hide something, think of states without free media). These cases should be included, too, based on good sources in the respective article.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a careful line to draw here. I can see a case where there is an incident of international impact where the nation that it happened in and leading the investigation have opted to not call it terrorism, but high-level officials in other nations (who are likely going to have information on the investigation in detail) call it terrorism. That's a time to be reasonably careful on using the term. On the other hand, if in the same situation, it's not high-level officials of other nations, but the press at large that want to call it terrorism (without having any other information), that's a problem. A key thing I've seen it basically using the word of the press or people that are not in any position of authority to assert something is terrorism, which we should be avoiding. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Largely d'accord with this, the other way round we have to keep in mind, that not everything which is called "terrorism" by authoritarian states is in fact "terrorism". For Turkey, most of the Kurds are terrorists, for Russia the Ukrainians and vice versa, but in fact this can be doubted with very good reasons. So we also have to be careful with such labels by authorities, especially of more or less authoritarian states. And this is the point, where the free media are "back in the match", which quote e.g. experts on terrorism.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, but there is also a special case when Islamic terrorism is involved. For example, a great number of terrorist attacks in lists are Islamic terrorist attacks, most of them very recent. In cases like Nice, Orlando, and the like, where the investigation is still ongoing, would it be a WP:OR violation to label them as terrorism (even if sources and officials say it is) when the investigation may ultimately not come to that conclusion. Hypothetically speaking, of course, but from my position, the distinction between terrorism and not terrorism seems to be clearer for non-Islamic attacks.

Also, if an attack barely gets any coverage and only has passing mentions in list articles (see the articles in List of terrorist incidents, 2016 for examples), should we include that even though the investigation may still be ongoing? Parsley Man (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It can always happen that later investigations prove officials and the media wrong, Islamistic or not. Wikipedia should be based on the best sources available and therefore show their actual state of knowledge (e.g. as in the respective article), but it can never grant that the state of knowledge of the officials doesn't change. In fact, I don't know of too many cases regarding terrorism, where things turned out to be completely different than initially reported. But terrorism in some regions (near ISIL territory for example) is happening on a daily base. Maybe in some cases there will never be an investigation sufficing Western standards, but there are also sources that are usually reliable for such regions which cover also the official statements. And I view it as very important that Wikipedia collects such incidents because they show the whole tragic dimension of that phenomenon.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"In fact, I don't know of too many cases regarding terrorism, where things turned out to be completely different than initially reported." I can definitely name the 2016 Munich shooting as an example. Everyone, including the media, got really riled up when the eyewitness account mentioning "Allahu akbar" got involved in the scoop. Then more details about the perpetrator came in, we realized he is either a right-wing extremist or someone out to copycat a school shooting, and the Islamic terrorism angle got mostly thrown out the window (save for those conspiracy theorists who would believe the German media is covering it all up). Parsley Man (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, and how many of the terrorist cases is that? 0,01%? Besides of that, it was clear relatively fast that this case was a little special. In the overwhelming majority of the other cases the things are not completely different than we are initially told in the media, especially not in the Islamistic sector. There are even cases which seem to be "normal" stabbings like the case of Safia S. in Hanover main station, that later turned out to be a terrorist act. Or the Islamistic teenagers in Essen who blew up the Sikh temple. Now, is it violation of a label that we put those away initially as "normal" criminal acts? I would say no, that is the normal error margin of media/officials/Wikipedia.--Gerry1214 (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"Now, is it violation of a label that we put those away initially as "normal" criminal acts?" Yes, when WP:NOR is concerned. I don't know if sources or officials have classified that Sikh temple bombing was classified as a terrorist attack, but if not, then there's definitely a problem if we go with category guns blazing and then the investigation proves us wrong. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Parsley Man (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

In the List of terrorist incidents, 2016, it was decided that we would included suspected terrorist attacks. Suspected terrorist attacks are included when the perpetrator appears to have a political motivation, or if the attack occurs in an area where terrorist activities are common and in the fashion of what a terrorist organization would do. Why is this? I would say the overwhelming majority of attacks in these lists are suspected terror attacks. This is because the attacks often take a long time to investigate, with sometimes the results never being released in the media if the attack is minor. The list likely would not really have anything on it if we did not include these attacks. A politically motivated attack is the same thing as a terrorist attack. If sources state that the perp appears to be politically motivated, but it does not state terrorism, the attack should be added. Beejsterb (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess the question here is whether it should be considered a WP:NOR violation or not, if sources say the attack in question was politically motivated but do not mention terrorism. I guess it does seem obvious in some cases but other times it does not, Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward for instance. Racial motivation, from what I'm seeing, falls into the spectrum of political motives but the shooting did not look like terrorism, judging by the media coverage, at least. Parsley Man (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, a terrorist attack and a politically motivated attack are technically the same thing. Beejsterb (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? I've never heard of such a thing until now. Then why do sources not mention terrorism in some cases when they do with others? Parsley Man (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Another question, what would you consider a "politically motivated attack"? What exactly would fall under that category? Because I feel concerned about someone thinking the 2014 Isla Vista killings could count as a lone-wolf terrorist attack when it's been treated by officials and media as a tragic yet typical spree shooting. Parsley Man (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Lots of political attacks don't use the terror of death to bring change or order, just death to opposition. Assassinations, wars, coups, oppressions and executions are all their own sorts of violence. If you count gang politics as real politics, that's even more. None need to happen in busy public spaces with loud noises, panic and cameras, like terrorism does. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a terrible approach, as it presumes (on WP's part) guilt before innocence. In some countries, (including the US, as I understand the laws), the criminal court proceedings and punishment for a crime determined to be terrorism by authorities are much much harsher than that if it was a politically-motivated incident. Hence the need to avoid presumptive labeling. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here, as someone who occasionally comes across these issues. Specifically I have opposed the inclusion of terrorism categories (as well as the murder and assassination labels) at Killing of Jo Cox. Without getting into a content dispute, I'd like to explain why. Firstly the suspected perpetrator is the subject of legal action and there are BLP issues, so we must be cautious. The case is not being charged as terrorism, but is being treated under terrorism court procedures, and has been investigated by anti-terrorism police. I don't view this as sufficient to describe the act as terrorism. I would normally be content to go with the usual description of terrorism (and assassination) as an act of violence for political (etc) purposes, with those motivations supported by reliable sources. However in this case the motive is far from clear. Several editors have stated that the perpetrator is obviously a right-wing nut job - to quote, "the perpetrator pretty much stated his motivations". Again this is something I disagree with. The perpetrator has uttered only a few words that we know of, and all of them were rather confusing. There are alleged links to right-wing extremism, some of which are dated to some 20 years ago. There are no recent examples the act can be said to follow, and no groups claiming responsibility. The perpetrator has a history of mental illness and frankly, as one judge alluded, doesn't appear sane even for a terrorist. The combination of these factors - sub judice and BLP, lack of terrorism charges, unclear motivations, no claims of responsibility, the mental illness factor - means we are not in a position to apply labels which assume the motivation.

On the wider issue I don't think it's sufficient to find sources which use the terrorism label. It's possible to find sources which describe the killing of Jo Cox terrorism[12], murder,[13], and assassination.^{[citation needed]} It's also possible to find people who claim to know the motivations of the killer.[14] This rather reminds me of people recently saying that Jimmy Wales' first name is James because one archived website once said so.[15] I think we need to look beyond the headlines and single instances.

I confess however that in some cases I have no answer about what should be done. I can't foresee what will happen on the outcome of the Jo Cox trial. I have no solution for the categorisation of Dylann Roof. In some senses I find some of Wikipedia's categorisation systems inherently deficient, and can only suggest we use a combination of third-party labeling, reporting of motivations, and common sense. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I've also been invited to comment and endorse others' comments about there sometimes being an over-readiness to label, especially when the issue is 'hot'. A related issue is the use of 'near-synonyms' by authorities and editors. A particular example is the use of 'terror attack', by authorities, (sometimes authorities come under pressure to use such a term, as Obama has come under pressure recently to use the term 'Islamic terrorism') and by editors here who are ready to treat 'terror' (ie anything which causes mass/widespread public fear) as a synonym of 'terrorist', which IMO has and should have a narrower definition.

The problem is confounded by recent 'lone wolf/self-radicalised' perps, (Orlando gay bar?) where the authorities are unclear/ambiguous about how much private psychology and how much political motivation played a part. I don't know the whole answer, but endorse that authorities must EXPLICITLY characterise thus (not simply marginal news sources and especially not the perp themselves nor organisations like ISIS, which appear to be ready to claim credit for the weather if it suits their agenda!). Without some clear definition on WP, the term is in danger of becoming meaningless through loose use.Pincrete (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

To try a fully different approach: Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence (terror) in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. With that in mind, this discussion is quite academic. Anyone can identify terror, when it happens. It's violence to terrify people for a political, religious, or ideological aim. The common sense knows when something is terror. To be honest, I don't think much of discussions like these. What should be the outcome? We erase articles from a list only because no people sitting in an office classified slaughtered people as slaughtered by a "licensed" terrorist? Are you sure that this bears any sense? I am not convinced.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

What is "terrorism" under the above definition is highly subjective, and as a contentious label, this immediately requires us to consider sources rather than editors' opinion to avoid the OR. But even then, we have to consider that even in the RSes, journalists and other experts without the legal authority on the situation will make such claims, and so many many events could be classified as "terrorism" depending on which subset of sources one decides to use. "Terrorism" is a hot word, which for most readers will immediately set a certain tone, and its clear that sources love to through the word around to try to sway audiences (per fear, uncertainty and doubt). Add in that there are very real ramifications in the criminal prosecution of cases being called "terrorism", and we absolutely should avoid calling something a act of terrorism if that can only be sourced to non-authoritative sources. (That said, in articles about these acts, it is reasonably fine to include a wide opinion that something might be considered a terrorism act with proper attribution even if the authorities have not come to their conclusion as of yet). --MASEM (t) 23:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The thing is that someone can easily apply this logic to events like the Umpqua Community College shooting, for example. The shooter singled out some of his victims because they told him they were Christian (even though at least two of them weren't being honest with their statements), and the shooter was said to have a history of antireligious and white supremacist beliefs. Both beliefs can definitely fall under the "ideological aim" category of the terrorist definition you just used. But based on this, would it be appropriate for the shooting to be categorized as a terrorist attack? As I said before, investigative officials and media outlets have treated this as a mass shooting, and nothing about terrorism was ever mentioned. You may not agree that this would be a terrorist attack, but I'm sure someone else might, and as I mentioned in the first post of this discussion, I had seen (and removed) some very odd examples in the Lone wolf (terrorism) article. Now, some cases are obvious and clear-cut (whether they're terrorist attacks or not terrorist attacks), but others (such as the Charleston shooting) are clearly more up for debate. Where exactly do we draw a line, if we even can? Parsley Man (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A similar disconnect can be seen on Weather Underground, where the FBI (and many others) having labeled the group as terrorists is seen as "not enough". Arkon (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think when it comes to describing an incident as terrorism the motive of the perpetrator has to be clear. Like with the Charleston shooting it became clear very fast that the gunman was driven by White Surpremacist thoughts, like picturing himself with the South African Apartheids flag. So in cases when the perpetrator links himself with terrorist organisations (like ISIL) you can speak of terrorism. I don´t understand why that is so difficult for the Charleston shooting. But for example, the shooting of poice officers in Dallas was perpetrated by a Black Person. His motivations do clearly fit the Black Supremacist Ideology that started in the 1960s. He even posted a picture of himself on the internet in which he makes the black supremacist sign with his fist. Black Supremacist groups like Black Panther also commited terrorist attacks in the early 70s.Joanne Deborah Chesimard was a member of the group and also killed two police officers and she´s still on the most wanted terrorist list. She had the same motives as the gunman who killed five police officers in Dallas, but yet he´s not labeled a terrorist by the media. I think academically speaking (so not what the media says about these events), if you look at the motives and the way the shooting of Dallas was executed you can label the perpetrator as a terrorist. The perpetrator´s action do fit the definition of terrorism but yet that hasn´t been done yet by the FBI or the media. I think it´s just strange that muslims are judged as terrorists very fast by the media in comparison with people of other backgrounds. JBergsma1 (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Like with the Charleston shooting it became clear very fast that the gunman was driven by White Surpremacist thoughts, like picturing himself with the South African Apartheids flag. ... I don´t understand why that is so difficult for the Charleston shooting." I highly recommend you to read this section of the main article, then, because clearly not every top official thinks this is terrorism. Also, judging by your reasoning, could you call the Umpqua Community College shooting or the 2014 Isla Vista killings terrorist attacks and categorize them in the appropriate lists because of the perpetrators' motives, even if terrorism wasn't mentioned at all by officials or media outlets? I for one would call that a severe WP:NOR violation. Parsley Man (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The motives of the perpetrators who committed the Umpqua Community College shooting and the 2014 Isla Vista killings where likely due to psychological reasons. I know that both killers made judgements towards 'christians' and 'women', which could explain the attacks as religiously motivated or motivated by sexism and therefore be terrorism. But in both of these cases the main motives for the gunmen to commit the attacks remains either unknown or were likely due to personal reasons. If you look up information about the Isla Vista killer you'll find that he was frustraded about rejection by women. He even talks constantly about rejection in his 'motivational videos'. While he did target women, you can tell that it wasn't terrorism because there wasn't a political motive involved. In comparison, Marc Lepine, the perpetrator of an attack on a university in Canada in 1989 in which 14 women were killed, was an outspoken anti-feminist and spoke about his hatred for the 'feminisation of society'. This is more close to terrorism in an anti-feminist context. You can't tell that of the Isla Vista killer. Dylann Roff meanwhile, made constantly clear that he had racial views by making pictures. He never talked about being bullied by 'black people' for example (in comparison to the Isla Vista killer that felt rejected by women). He also had no history of psychological problems while the Isla Vista killer was diagnosed. JBergsma1 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

But the thing is, the Charleston shooting is considered controversial because some top officials think it is terrorism while others (including the FBI Director) do not believe it is. Not only would classifying the shooting as an act of terrorism be a severe WP:NOR violation, it would also be undue because such a categorization would practically be catering to the side who thinks the shooting should be terrorism. That can also certainly apply to those attacks were the terrorism angle is sketchy and/or unmentioned, i.e. the Dallas and Baton Rouge police shootings. I think in all cases we should wait until an official classification is made by someone with an intimate connection with the investigation, such as someone with the FBI. Parsley Man (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand that when it comes to naming an event as 'terrorism' a classification is important. But people can still be sceptical about a classification made by a major organisation that investigated the incident, such as the FBI. The FBI has a monopoly on all sorts of investigations and even though most of their conclusions are accepted by most people or countries, there is always a party that remains sceptical. Sometimes things are not 100 % certain because there are always people who interpretate things differently. So when a description of a violent event remains vague when for example no classifcation was given, you could still describe an event as a 'terrorist attack' if it fits the definition of it. So I agree with waiting for a classifcation made by the authorities as it's of course the most accurate thing to do. But when it comes to smaller attacks (like some attacks in Iraq) in which a classification is not made clear by the media, you could still describe the event as a terrorist attack by rational thinking and sticking to the definition.JBergsma1 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That is so, so, SO wrong. Wikipedia does not exist to cater to those who would be skeptical about any conclusion from any investigation into any sort of attack. It was be WP:UNDUE. Parsley Man (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You could describe them as Satanic rituals or cocaine-fueled, by the same logic. Being wrong about hundreds of smaller attacks or definitions isn't much better or worse than being wrong about the big one. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a native English speaker so I make mistakes, but despite that you could still understand what I was saying. Second of all, Satanic rituals or cocaine-fueled have nothing to do with terrorism. you don't get to see narco attacks in Mexico on the list of terrorist incidents because it's gang related crime. i think you're also wrong or just beeing ridiculous if you compare my grammar to my knowledge of terrorism. @InedibleHulk: pinging. JBergsma1 (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he was just being hypothetical. There's no need to be so defensive. Parsley Man (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that terrorism is only labeled as such on wiki when the media and authorities report it as such. I could be wrong, though, especially if you look at the terrorism wiki article, which covers a broader range of definitions. epicgenius (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I think it's a breach of NOR if editors apply any of the definitions themselves. It has to be reliably sourced. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Solution

Is there anything that can be done about this? Should we create some sort of new rule to clarify the issue? If there already is such a rule, should more clarification be done? I'm still seeing more confusion and dispute about the issue and I believe we need some sort of guideline policy for such a case. Parsley Man (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Public figures with charges against them not found guilty and never conclusively resolved

I am currently involved in a BLP dispute that is pretty much this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_examples_for_discussion#Example_1:_Allegations_Against_an_Entertainer The WP:BLPCRIME section links to "public figure" - the wikipedia article on the term as defined in U.S. law. My interpretation of the policy is that the allegations in the example should be included, but other editors obviously disagree. I feel that WP would benefit from an unambiguous general ruling, to avoid thousands of hours being chewed up in these disputes. NPalgan2 (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the nature of the coverage of the allegations, trials, and acquittals in question. No blanket policy will ever be adequate beyond WP:V and WP:UNDUE, and yes, there will always be a tension that must be negotiated in every individual case. On the one hand, we do want to prevent frivolous or unsubstantiated allegations from taking up an undue proportion (in some cases, undue may be any mention at all) in BLP articles. However, a blanket ban on including acquittals from being mentioned would preclude Wikipedia from covering such highly noteworthy cases as the OJ Simpson trial; which would be ludicrous. So, no, I think we're stuck with analyzing the evidence in every case, and applying the basic principles of existing policies and guidelines in each case individually. --Jayron32 05:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that it isn't even acquittals, charges were never actually filed. Just somebody said something at some point. NPalgan2 appears to think that's sufficient to say "accusations were made in court" because, apparently, "other court systems work differently" than the US one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

this page is not for the discussion of content of specific articles. Use the article talk pages going forward. kthxbye. --Jayron32 02:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since you are not actually involved in the discussion you linked to, it would be best if you would cut to the chase and tell us which person you are actually personally concerned about (which Wikipedia BLP article). As Jayron32 says, it's a matter of individual case, and WP:UNDUE. It's also a matter of NPOV. I'm guessing the BLP in question is Alicia Machado, since you filed this: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Alicia_Machado. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Whether or not someone was convicted has no relevance to whether we include it. It is no different from other information. If it has received extensive coverage relative to other coverage of the person, we include it. Otherwise we do not. That is how we treat positive and neutral information as well, per "Balancing aspects." So for example we would exclude stories about celebrities that only appear in tabloids, but are not picked up be the broadsheets. It is coverage in reliable sources that determine what articles are written and what content they should emphasize. If every editor followed the neutrality policy, we could avoid the majority of talk page and notice board discussions. TFD (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Including it in some form or another may be appropriate after evaluating the full range of sources. Sensationalistic "breaking news" type sources are not appropriate for an incident that took place many years ago. Including content that misrepresents the facts, implies guilt, includes innuendo and fails to report the person's denial is most certainly a BLP violation, and will not be permitted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Muchada has chosen to insert herself into the news by making uncorroborated accusations the Republican nominee for U.S. president. As a result the Daily Mail decided to search through stories about her already reported in the Associated Press, the Economist and other reliable sources and re-publish stories that received wide coverage at the time. These reliable sources do not misrepresent the facts, impliy guilt, include innuendo or fail to report the person's denial. In any case, it is not the role of Wikipedia editors to correct the facts in reliable sources. If you disagree then get the RS policy changed so that we can ignore mainstream media. TFD (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Any neutral editor can read the disputed section which I removed once and several other editors also removed from the article. Then those neutral editors can read the sources and evaluate their quality. Any reasonable person will then conclude that the content added to this encyclopedia misrepresented the sources, conflated an informal comment by a judge with an indictment or formal accusation, and failed to include this person's repeated denial of any involvement at all in the violence. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Cullen, you are the one misrepresenting the sources. The judge did not make an 'informal comment'. He accused her of threatening him, and formally initiated a second investigation by a separate judge - "poner el caso a conocimiento de los tribunales para que investigue la amenaza". NPalgan2 (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Cullen, then could you please write a better representation of the sources and we can put it in. BTW how is a widely stated remark by a judge about what Muchada said to him any different from a widely stated remark made by Muchada about what Trump said to her any different. Do you think we should remove her remark or do you think we should pick and choose what content in reliable sources to report based on our personal views of the two individuals? TFD (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC) @The Four Deuces: No, I will not write the content you propose because I am not fluent in Spanish and I am not familiar with the Venezuelan judicial and political systems nor with the reliability of various Venezuelan publications. As for the comments attributed to Trump by Machado alone, I would have no problem replacing those with the many other comments that Trump is on the record as saying about her, both in the 1990s and in recent days. There are plenty to choose from. I have no personal views about Machado, except to prevent the sort of gross and egregious BLP violations that were being added to the article yesterday. Every editor should share that concern. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC) The coverage is meager and appears within other significantly covered topics. And the story is 18 years old, full of holes, and is simply accusations and innuendos. I don't think this is worth having in the article, in the first place - given that it has received trivial coverage. It's like, it doesn't matter. And I agree with Cullen's view on this matter. It is an accurate assessment of the situation. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC) It is not meagre. Muchada's boyfriend's sister jumped off a balcony when 8 months pregnant. The boyfriend blamed the husband and is accused of shooting him at his sister's funeral and taking their infant son. Muchada was accused of driving her boyfriend away from the shooting, but claimed that she was at home sick at the time. The boyfriend subsequently disappeared but was then charged by a judge. The judge said he had received a telephone threat on his career and life and the number was traced to Muchada's phone. Muchada agreed she made the call but said it was a thankyou call not a threat, and she was not charged. That's more of a story than we get in the typical movie review. Indeed the events occurred over twenty years ago and were widely covered at the time, but they have been in the news recently, extensively covered across multiple mainstream media. The fact it occurred 20 years ago does not mean it is not relevant to her biography. Or are you recommending that in biographical articles we omit everything that happened more than 20 years ago? We can start by deleting all the articles about all the U.S. presidents before Jerry Ford. Maybe the media should not have written about it. Take it up with them. Maybe Wikipedia should not base weight on what is covered in mainstream sources. Get the policy changed. In the meantime, we need follow the policies of rs and npov. TFD (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

If reliable sources say the person is/was suspected of a crime, but that this person never went on trial, then we can certainly say so. The presumption of innocence applies to formal punishment, not to the legal right for the suspicion not to be mentioned. It should also be noted that even with convictions, there can still be doubt among the public about guilt - for example, many Isralis believe that Moshe Katsav is iinnocent of raping 2 women, despite the conviction of courrt. We aren't representitives of the court - we simply take the best data we can from reliable sources. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS and AfD

There is disagreement about whether (or how far) NOTNEWS applies to some articles. See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara (August 2016). All input to get a broader spectrum of opinions is welcome. Fram (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Use of Draft namespace to draft AfD nominations

I noticed that @Sk8erPrince: has created three pages in Draft namespace: Draft:Naomi Wakabayashi (AFD), Draft:Yu Kamonomiya (AFD), Draft:Junko Okada (AFD). The reason for this appears to be because of an agreement to slow down their rate of deletion nomination of articles for Japanese voice actors; the discussions surrounding that can be found at WikiProject Anime and Manga and their usertalk, and I provide them as context for why this is being done. To be clear about my question here, this isn't about the deletion nominations, but it is about the use of draft namespace to draft AfD nominations. I wanted to clarify, is this an appropriate usage of the namespace? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

If they are not collaborating on the afd drafts with others, gently directing them to their own userpage subpages would be better. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Draft namespace should not be used for this purpose, but user namespace is perfectly suited to such things. They should be moved there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The Draft: namespce should be used for collaberation witho other users on drafts. If it's your personal draft, do it in your userspace. (Note that I've created several CFD nominations this way - including the still open Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6#Major US cities.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Local policies, local guidelines, and local consensus

At what point does something that the users of a particular page agree upon become a policy or guideline?

Consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Assessment and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines, both of which are labeled as an editing guidelines.

Compare Wikipedia:Help desk/How to answer, which is labeled as an essay and "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines".

In particular, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice specifically threatens those who do not comply with sanctions and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines specifically allows deleting other people's comments on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk in ways not allowed by WP:TPOC.

My concern is this: subpages such as the above that limit their effect to a particular page or pages are generally created and edited by those who participate on those pages, a clear case of WP:LOCALCON, but once you slap that "guideline" or "policy" label on it, it can be and often is used to override policies that have the consensus of the entire community and could be (although so far ANI has declined every enforcement request that doesn't also include violating one of the normal guidelines) used to sanction editors for violating "guidelines" that do not have the support of the larger community. I am also concerned that, unlike other policies and guidelines, edits to these local guidelines don't get a lot of scrutiny.

In my opinion, this also has a detrimental effect on the content of the subpage. Wikipedia:Help desk/How to answer links to specific policies and guidelines for pretty much everything. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines, not so much.

I propose that the above-mentioned local guidelines instead be categorized the way we categorize WP:BRD, with a "this essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline; it is intended to be an explanatory supplement to the X and Y pages." label at the top, and not as guidelines or policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

These types of things sit somewhere between guidelines (which have had general wide community review) and essays (Which generally are the product of one editor).Most of these are edited by a small group of editors deeply invested in that part of the project and are generally useful when dealing in that area. Obviously, they cannot override global guidelines or policies, and such language should be removed to conform to the global ones. I don't think calling them "essays" is fair as that will make other editors ignore them but I think we need a mid-level between "guideline" and "essay" to reflect something developed locally but does not reflect site-wide consensus. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide any instances of where the classification of pages as guidelines or essays has caused problems? It seems to me that, in most cases, people cite these things when they make good sense and don't when they don't, regardless of how they are labelled. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

There's two different situations here:

• Though there's nothing that I know of which establishes this practice, my opinion is that noticeboards and similar venues can set rules for their own use. For example, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard can require the filing editor to list and notify all other editors to a dispute and close filings which do not comply with that requirement. There's no policy, to my knowledge, which gives DRN the right to remove or collapse an editor's posting on that page if that rule isn't followed and, indeed, the talk page guidelines can be read to say that doing so violates the TPG. But noticeboards need such rules to operate efficiently and it seems to be a generally accepted practice to create and enforce them. (Whether or not they can be enforced through sanctions, such as blocking or banning, is a different and open question.) The rules for noticeboards and similar venues are generally created through consensus (often consensus by silence, unfortunately) and apply only at the noticeboard.
• Guidelines such as those which purport to be adopted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Assessment to control article content are a different kettle of fish, however. There is clear policy and guidelines which say that policies and guidelines cannot be created by a limited number of editors. The main source of that policy is the CONLIMITED section of the Consensus policy, but it is also repeated at the Wikiproject Council Guidelines (which is an official guideline). That is not to say that official policy or guidelines cannot be formed at a wikiproject page, but it has to be done in a way which involves the entire community. In my opinion, that has to be done by making clear in the proposal that policy or guideline is being formed and then either one of two things has to happen, either, (a) the proposal (usually a RFC) has to be publicized at places like the Village Pump with a clear statement that policy or guidelines are being formed or (b) there has to be tremendous participation in the discussion. (And, frankly, I disagree with (b) but others do not). I've not looked back through the Formula One history to see if one or the other of those justify the header.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC) PS: I now have taken a look at the Formula One page and see that it kinda deals with article content and kinda doesn't, as it deals with assessment. That's article content since a positive assessment will appear on the article page, but it's also a set of standards by which members of that project are advised to assess article quality. As such it's kind of like noticeboard rules. But what it's not is a project-wide guideline and the header should be removed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Username policy

Just wanted to make sure folks saw this relevant RFC. agtx 18:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

What's a typewriter? (Five pillars)

The first of the Five pillars of Wikipedia says

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. […]

That phrasing of the policy made sense in 2005 when it was apparently written. But I wonder, do young readers these days know what an encyclopedia or almanac or gazetteer even means? Or are those terms as obscure for them as typewriters, rotary phones, dialup modems, library card catalogs, or two-stroke car engines are? If that phrasing is hard to understand, is there a better way to phrase it? The problem is that it's exactly Wikipedia that has largely displaced the use of encyclopedias these days, so I'm not sure how to give a description that isn't self-referential. – b_jonas 20:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

What problem? Each of those terms is linked to the relevant article, just click and all is revealed. WP is also not Kiddypedia, it's not written only for "young people" (however you define "young"). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so there's an "other" missing from your post. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Those few readers who don't understand this sentence can follow the links; the many readers who do understand this sentence would benifit from it being there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Quire? I'd Prefer Not!

At present Wikipedia accepts and uses the word "quire" in writings in which the correct word is "choir." I strongly suggest that this practice be discontinued. While it is true that even the OED presents "quire" as a marginally acceptable replacement for "choir," that still does not give an imprimatur upon the misuse of a word which really has quite a different meaning. By accepting "quire" for "choir," Wikipedia is perpetuating either a flagrant misspelling or an extremely improper definition, and is muddling the English language. In any case, it is wrong for Wikipedia to do so. Precision, particularly in definition, is a very useful concept and tool. If one defines and explains a group of singers, or the area in which they sing, by referring to a particular quantity of paper, one is making understanding almost impossible. Think of the schoolchildren who use Wikipedia as a learning tool and reference, and what the misuse of "quire" could do to their learning process. Please re-think Wikipedia's use of "quire" in the context of "choir," and change your rule permitting the substitution. ——Steve Henigson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.5.182 (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Quire is the older word for the body of singers, there is nothing incorrect about using it at all. If it's good enough for the Prayer Book, I don't see why it can't be good enough for Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Disagreeing with "flagrant misspelling", "extremely improper", "muddling" etc, I agree that "quire" (that I never heard of until today) in the meaning of "choir" seems to be archaic, and using "choir" in article text (not qoutes etc of course) seems reasonable and would probably be generally helpful to readers such as myself. To bad quire "lost" though, the spelling/pronunciation seems more logical. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW, where on Wikipedia is this a "problem"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

[16] -- note some (or possibly many) are false positives. --Izno (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I think all of the first 20 were false positives for this discussion. Of course, there´s a thousand more one could check. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems like OP doesn't like the use of "quire" for choir (architecture), as well as for choir. In that case, there are plenty of relevant results in that search, although I'm less convinced that it is a problem in the case of the architectural feature. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

In general, I think that we should spell "choir" as "choir" rather than "quire", as the most commonly known and used spelling, though there are certainly possible exceptions – e.g. in quotations where the word is spelt "quire". I am unaware that this is a particular problem with the word "quire", though; this should be the case for any word which has outdated alternate spellings (e.g. "clew" for "clue" is common in Sherlock Holmes, but shouldn't be used in wikipedia). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The red dot

Why, when looking at an article with a map showing at the beginning (usually the subject), does it have a red dot, presumably to show the place in question, which when clicking on said map, one gets an enlarged version of the map, but no subject! i.e. red dot.
What is the point of doing this?

Example 1: Gsaf in Tunisia [I've probably spelt it wrongly], (clicking on the map simply produces an empty map of Tunisia).
Example 2: King's Cross station (clicking on the map merely produces a map of part of central London).
Example 3: St Pancras. Same as 'Example 2' above.

Clicking on the map is a waste of time.

RASAM (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Because it isn't a proper map, it's a file with a red dot superposed. Clicking on the map loads the file page, without the red dot as it is not part of the file. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@RASAM: When you want to see more cartographic detail about where a place is located, you should click on the coordinates in an article, not on the pushpin map. Then you can select a mapping service of your choice on the GeoHack page you're taken to and examine a map at whatever level of detail you wish. Deor (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@RASAM: For future reference, your question had no connection to Wikipedia policy, so a better page would have been Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), Wikipedia:Help desk, or Wikipedia:Teahouse. Policy is not any question of the form, "Why does Wikipedia do X?" More at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

On being able to get rid of stupid stupid stupid new screencruft

I've been editing for 12 years, and started a few hundered articles. Today, for the first time, whenever I start a new article, HALF OF MY SODDING SCREEN IS TAKEN UP BY A "Before you edit your first article..." message, which message is so far from welcome as to make me wish those responsible could be immediately be wheeled out behind the wikipedia building and summararily shot. Can we please not pull this sort of stunt? Can we please put even a jot of thought into these things before we do them? 1. Who is responsible? 2. Where is the discussion? 3. Why am I being served with an inappropriate and useless and screen-obscuring message each and every time I create an article? 4. Why should I have to do something extra (preview) to get back to normality. 5. Why can I not collapse it? 6. Why can I not dismiss it? 7. Why is it shown to me more than once? 8. Why is it shown to experienced editors? Bad bad bad bad bad. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

See WT:The future of NPP and AfC#New edit notice.

There is a very big problem that requires a solution. The problem is shown in the graph here, namely that the backlog in the number of new pages that need to be patrolled is rising, rising, rising. Over 15,000 new pages have been created and are waiting for review.

Regarding your problem, a fix is shown at VPT (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying to help out there, mostly just alpha striking the new page feed for CSD candidates and reviewing as many as possible (the Rater Tool is fantastic for talk page WikiProject boxes). But every time I am doing this it seems like I am the only one patrolling the feed (or I see one or two others) and I can't keep up. I recently went back to AfC and found a backlog of over 1000 articles, which I've never seen that high before. Its a big problem. I think that the kinds of messages that the OP is complaining about were designed to reduce these problems. If it isn't working, by all means axe them, but if these messages help reduce these backlogs, Tagishsimon can smack the preview button when they make a new article IMO.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, and especially for the css fix. I don't object to attempts to deal with the crap new article problem, but, perhaps unlike Insertcleverphrasehere, I think these should be well-enough thought out not to cause new problems. Buggering about with people's working environments and saying "just do this new thing we've imposed on you - scroll down and find the now hidden preview button and press it" does not cut it. Moreover, changes which affect everyone should be discussed other than in dark corners. Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC, ffs. That'll be on everyone's watchlist, right?.

There's plenty of current art in the business of displaying messages which users can permanently dismiss, or can opt out of, or which are displayed selectively. Whoever was responsible for this didn't think any of that was at all relevant to their precious problem. Seen from the narrow slant of dealing with crap new articles, the idea of screwing up everyone's new article screens doubtless seems eminently reasonable. Wider discussion before implementation might at least have provided this sort of input before the event, rather than after it.

I'd be obliged if the perps would reconsider their imposition, or the nature of their implementation, in light of these comments, and, especially, undertake to bring their next great idea to a VP forum before they implement it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry... I overlooked that there is a clever way to hide this to confirmed users, and that is now being done. New users can get the benefit of important info about article creation, and experienced users will continue to see the old edit notice (which shows the same information, just on plain black and white) — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Very good; thanks. Mainly, wide-enough consultation was the thing overlooked. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Humourous Wikipedia essays need to be deleted.

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.

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Humourous Wikipedia essays need to be deleted.

 – ―Mandruss ☎ 21:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

These are violating one of Wikipedia's policy, as they are too offensive to readers. I've been tagging them for speedy deletion under G10, as some users are too sensitive to profanity. Consequently, I don't think these humourous essays are necessary anymore. Can anyone please explain this matter? 2600:1:B141:8AAF:18D8:232D:6E42:169 (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

As user:Dawnseeker2000 said in his edit summary "what living person?". WP:CSD#G10 says "Examples of "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced". This pages are not about a living person. If you want to request deletion then the WP:MfD process should be used. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

If you can't handle profanity, get off Wikipedia. WP:NOTCENSORED applies here, as long as the profanity isn't excessive. is this trolling? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess it depends on one's opinion of what qualifies as "foul language", but we do not normally expect "readers" to see pages buried deep within the Wikipedia namespace. I assume what is meant is "editors". But please see WP:NOTCENSORED. We have full-on articles on shit, cunt, fuck and nigger, so saying pages like WP:DICK should be deleted because of "profanity" is somewhat absurd. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

There's also the content disclaimer. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• As we cannot read the mind of OP and can only judge based on actions, and this could easily be the work of a troll, I think it might be best if we treat this as a troll case. Yes, this could be some elderly librarian who tries to discourage anyone under the age of 21 from checking out The Catcher in the Rye, has "lost" all copies of Lady Chatterley’s Lover, and has refused to accept any copies of The Perks of Being a Wallflower, but really, "we should just stop having any fun here" sounds like trolling. Oh, wait, I see that the first thing the OP tagged for deletion was WP:DENY as an attack page -- this is definitely a troll and we need to close this and block any further activity from the IP. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I've reported the account that was most likely made by the IP and the IP to AIV, this and this make it pretty clear that it's trolling. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

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

• @Dennis Brown: et al. the filer is / was the now-blocked User:Darth Tacker, a sock of User:Turkeybutt JC. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Cross-namespace links in articles?

Is there a policy on cross-namespace links in mainspace articles? I know about WP:CNR, but that specifically talks about redirects, not links in articles, so I'm not sure it applies. More specifically, I'm looking at Gnome#Metaphorical_uses, which has a link to Wikipedia:WikiGnome (and, again, in the See Also section). Is that something we should be doing? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid is the guideline that applies, but I'd say that WP:UNDUE will discourage most such links as there is rarely a reason for articles to refer to Wikipedia in this way, except in hatnotes or in articles about Wikipedia (e.g Arbitration Committee). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Cross namespace links in the body of the article or in See Also are bad. The typicial reader is going to have a hard time understanding where they are. Readers expect those links to go to article pages, and pages like Wikipedia:WikiGnome have a confusing similarity to article pages. That would be very WTF content for an article.

I'll replace those links with a ref to a Reliable Source. Because yes, there are a few Reliable Sources defining and even linking directly to, Wikipedia:WikiGnome. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of advanced permissions – community comments

The Arbitration Committee is seeking community feedback on a proposal to modify the ArbCom procedure on Removal of permissions. Your comments are welcome at the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at : Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion to modify removal of advanced permissions ArbCom procedure

Consistency, please

Having just done an extensive, but random, sampling of the numerous languages which treat the subject of 'William Shakespeare' in Wikipedia, it is clear that the majority do not require an extra phrase approximating to 'the free encyclopedia'. The words 'Wikipedia' or 'Wikisource' [for 'Wikisource, the free online library'] are sufficient identifiers not needing elaboration. For the sake of consistency, tidiness -- and shorter file names -- could not Wikimedia's technicians make the small changes needed to achieve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.199.75 (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you point to some examples - URLs - of the thing about which you are raising concerns, so that we can get a clue about what the problem is, please. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the OP is talking about the default file name when using the "Save as" feature in a browser. For example the default for this page is Wikipedia Village pump (policy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.htm and the request is to lose the hyphen and following text. Nthep (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nthep. Mmm. That is rather sucky isn't it. I'd support a proposal to drop the additional wording from page titles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Support. The current text is pointlessly wordy. I found the page for setting this: MediaWiki:Pagetitle. All it takes is an admin edit. In fact this change would be setting it back to the old pagetitle[17] from 2005. Alsee (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This needs to be on the VP Proposals. I've created a proposal there ... please continue any discussions there. @Alsee: - I've not moved your vote across; you may wish to. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Implementation of WP:NCGN

Dear editors,
I have a question about the implentation of this WP. Does the rule (order of languages listed in the lede) also count for historical entities, and specifically administrative provinces of former empires, whose soil later became part of independant nations? E.g. on the Tiflis Governorate a province of the Russian Empire; should Georgian be listed ahead of Russian simply because the letter "G" shows up earlier in the alphabet than the letter "R" or "O"? This "alphabetic rule" is what NCGN, as far as I can see, stands for, but it seems to be solely meant for geographical locations/cities/towns, and waters (e.g. Gulf of Finland, Constantinople/Istanbul, etc.), and not for historical administrative provinces/territories, hence my question. Thanks much in advance - LouisAragon (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I see the following two sentences in that guideline "These are advice, intended to guide, not force, consensus; but they are the consensus of actual experience in move discussions." and " Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages" I do not see anywhere that there is an exception carved out for historical place names vs. currently used place names. --Jayron32 17:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Thanks much for your response. I'd like to ask now if someone could help me with reasoning this matter directly related to it. What do people think, taking this WP in account, for example, about the listing of the three languages in the lede of the Erivan Khanate? The Erivan Khanate was a Persian-ruled and established administrative province of the Persian Empire, where Persian was the official language, as it was in the rest of the realm. Furthermore, a large amount of the populations province spoke Azerbaijani, while the territory that constituted the province, became much later part (in 1991) of the Republic of Armenia, and had a small Armenian minority as well. As of a day ago, suddenly, this was changed by two users who kept insisting that the Armenian transliteration should be listed in front (even though it was not Armenian-ruled, nor was Armenian the official language, nor was it an administrative territory of Armenia) and solely basing their argument on WP:NCGN. As a result, the Armenian transliteration of a Persian province was put in front, while the Persian transliteration was put last. And that, even though as I stipulated once before, the latter was the official language used in the administrative province. Just like it was in the rest of the realm.

Would anyone here be willing, taking this little amount of information into account, to explain what the flaws here are regardless of which side, and additionally (and perhaps most importantly), if the implementation of WP:NCGN is justified here, e.g. to warrant this changed order of languages in the lede? Thanks much. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the first sentence I quoted "These are advice, intended to guide, not force, consensus" is a guidance to BOTH of you. I can see arguments from both sides, as the article states the territory "corresponds to most of present-day central Armenia". I have no direct opinion as to whether that is sufficient or not, but neither side in this dispute has a clear advantage based on any particular argument. You're not going to be able to short circuit a lengthy discussion by claiming that the other side is wrong because of policy. Policy says talk it out, ask for outside help, and achieve consensus. Try WP:DR for some suggestions for first steps. --Jayron32 00:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

(ec) This appears to be WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I opened a discussion regarding this at the talk page of the article in question, why didn't you participate? As for your suggestions here, I must reiterate that you are completely disregarding the most important element to NCGN when it comes to alternate foreign languages and that is relevancy. NCGN must apply when it's merely relevant to a certain group of people, and in this case that would be the Armenians, Azeris, and Persians (See: WP:NCGN #2 "Relevant foreign names..."). To say that one foreign language is more relevant than the other when it comes to a certain territory, whether past or present, would be to fall into POV OR territory. Your mere understanding of NCGN is that the people or country who conquered or governed this particular piece of territory must take precedence over everyone else. But that's just your opinion. We must only deal with the relevancy of this piece of territory to all peoples that have been affected by it (i.e. Armenians, Azeris). Therefore, to avoid nationalists arguing "but it's more sacred to us Persians than it is for you guys! We go first!" argument, we place them alphabetically and hence, it's more neutral that way. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jayron32: My argument is to leave it neutral, his is to take national precedence over others. To keep it neutral, we must have it alphabetical, as NCGN suggests. All this "We Persians conquered it, so we go first!" nonsense is just POV pushing in the most classic sense. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Étienne: Except that his argument from his perspective is that he's trying to keep it neutral, and that yours is to take ethnic precedence over others. It works both ways equally. To say that isn't to say he's more right than you, and that isn't also to say that you are more right than him. I've made not statement about that. But you can't claim "My perspective is correct because reasons" and then say "His is wrong because reasons" as though that's sufficient. From an outside perspective, neither side is particularly better in this case. Also, he's never made any such arguments as you've ascribed to him. You've invented a strawman by stating "We Persians conquered it, so we go first!", since he never made that statement. It is unbecoming to use such tactics. Instead, simply state your rationale for your preferred version on the talk page, allow him to state his rationale for his preferred version on the talk page, and then go through one of the suggestions at WP:DR to solicit outside comments and get an uninvolved consensus. It may take weeks to do so, but there is no deadline. It's better to take the time to get it right, whatever "right" is, than to simply edit war and get blocked. So I'll give you the same advice I gave him: I have no knowledge as to which side is correct, both arguments look valid, so take the time to seek outside input. Policy does not say you get to be "right" any more than it gets to say he is, and the only way forward here is to let others contribute to achieve consensus. --Jayron32 01:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow. Due to your continuous assumption of bad faith towards other users (e.g. "Your mere understanding of NCGN is that the people or country who conquered or governed this particular piece of territory must take precedence over everyone else."), you unfortunately utterly fail (or refuse) to realize and acknowledge the verifiable fact that the province had an official language, and was an administrative territory of a larger realm. That was my main merit. I don't care whether Mongols governed the area, Persians, Kosovars, or Papua New Guineans. I'm simply questioning/looking into a matter that anyone else could and possibly would question as well. The fact that you say "We Persians conquered it, so we go first!", meant as a reference to my words, only reflects your stance towards other users, which is, unfortunately, completely ridden by bad faith and POV.

I was simply just genuinely curious about this WP and its implentation. If the WP backs it up, and/or the majority want it that way, then I obviously have no objections against it. Jeez. Some e-people are simply just way too salty. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Louis, your justification to set Armenian and Azerbaijani aside was that it was "not Armenian ruled", which translates to Persians ruled/conquered it. I didn't just guess your stance, you said it yourself. And just because a certain piece of territory had some official language doesn't mean that that alternate name should take precedence over others. We're merely arguing whether the Erivan Khanate was relevant to Armenians, Azeris, and Persians. And it was. So per NCGN guidelines, we place them alphabetically to avoid these kinds of debates. There's nothing in NCGN that suggests that the official language of this or that territory must take precedence. It's really that simple. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this is not the correct venue to discuss the merits of one version of an article or another. The ONLY correct place to discuss this is on the article talk page. You wanted to know the policy guidance on this matter. You've been told what that guidance is. I will restate the policy guidance on this one last time:

1. Party A makes a defense of their position on the article talk page, and does so without making any mention of any other person, merely the rationale for why they think their version is correct. They are absolutely not to make any comments about the motivations, internal thought processes, or even the behavior, of ANY other editor at all. Just state the reasons why their text is better. This is absolutely nonnegotiable policy, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which states in no uncertain terms in the first sentence "Comment on content, not on the contributor" You are not even to mention the other person, or even acknowledge they exist as a person. Just say why you think your preferred version is correct, and that's it.
2. Party B does the same.
3. One or either party chooses one of the methods described at WP:DR to invite uninvolved editors to come and mediate the dispute and help achieve consensus.
4. After consensus is achieved and clear, we write the article to match consensus, and everyone walks away and leaves it alone.

You're both going down an unproductive path, and neither one looks particularly good. If either or both of you continues this way, one or both is likely to be blocked for bad behavior, and all of Wikipedia loses, because we lose the opportunity to enact the correct result because the person who supported it chose to be a dick about it. No one wants that, so lets get it right by doing what I just told you to do. Now, the ball is in your court. Either do the right thing and get this fixed, or keep personally attacking each other, and get blocked. It makes no difference to me which you do, but only one choice makes Wikipedia better. --Jayron32 01:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron for handling this. I agree with you. I knew this wasn't the forum to solve this matter, that is why I mentioned WP:FORUMSHOPPING when I first commented here. I had opened up a section at the talk page awhile ago, and I suggested several times already that LouisAragon comment there, instead of policy forums and users' talk pages. I'm always open for discussion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTADVOCATE: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment

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'd like to ask for clarification what the following means:

Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:
Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.

— WP:NOT WP:NOTADVOCATE

If a user is advocating his personal point of view by populating various articles with useful, properly sourced and accurate content then is it something that she should be punished for? Furthermore, please take into account the NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias - en:WP:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete.

My main point of concern is the potential abuse of WP:NOTADVOCATE for the purpose of censorship (and in effect advocacy!). Another thing is, does it matter what is the personal opinion of a user when judging if her content is appropriate? I need a clarification on how it should be applied. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

If your contributions always tilt to the extreme side of a point of view and never to the middle ground, then you have a problem. That doesn't mean you always need to write about both extremes, but that your contributions should not excessively tilt towards one of the extremes. The difference is a matter of balance and balance can be delicate and subjective. That's why it is a somewhat vaguely described, so that it can be judged on a case by case basis. In general WP:DUCKTEST applies. If someone can't go touching an article without putting his bias into it in some form, then said person might have a WP:NOTADVOCATE problem. if it is not that obvious, then we should probably discuss, ask a person to change his behavior/step away and eventually possibly topic ban, but at least it's a case that requires more inspection than just calling someone a biased editor (CSD vs. AfD). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• 1. Could you be more precise? I don't understand your clarification - it's not operational for me. 2. ad hominem: [18] --Asterixf2 (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Asterixf2: Please understand that in English, you does not always implies a specific person; See also Generic_you. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The way this should be applied is that when you edit Wikipedia, you should do so with the purpose of improving the project, not advocating a position. If you are worried that someone is going to use WP:NOTADVOCATE against you as a form of censorship, then it's likely that you are violating WP:NOTADVOCATE, because most of those who are here primarily for the purpose of improving the project don't have cause to worry about this. TimothyJosephWood 17:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• 1. Thank you for comment, but please don't make it personal (iirc, it's our first interaction). This is a general question not question about me. 2. You have not answered any question explicitly. I ask this questions, because I think that too many people have to worry about this, especially on other wikis than en. What is abuse of this rule and what is not? --Asterixf2 (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I've not answered anything more specific because you haven't asked anything more specifically answerable. Abuse of this rule is a situation where the community consensus deems it abusive, and non-abuse is the converse. That's how thing on Wikipedia generally work with few exceptions. TimothyJosephWood 18:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@TheDJ: I find your insertion of comment about 'general you' in the middle of thread breaking its natural structure and order inappropriate. For reply, see: [19] --Asterixf2 (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

CONTEXT: It appears that Asterixf2 is currently blockedrecently had a block expire[20] on Polish Wikipedia, related to this issue. I know nothing of the details of what happened there.

@Alsee: I am not blocked and I wasn't complaining about blocks here. [21] In my opinion, those toxic attacks are inappropriate. Thank you for separating this comment from the rest of your reply. IIRC this is our first interaction. --Asterixf2 (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Asterixf2, I corrected my comment. Alsee (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Alsee: How have you verified if it was related to the issue I am raising here? You say you know nothing specific about this. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Asterixf2, an ideal editor will present balanced coverage of a topic. In practice it is not unusual for an editor to mostly present their favored-side while challenging problem-edits by the opposite side, and for other editor(s) to take the opposite role. This is generally acceptable, so long as the editor is adding proper content and removing improper content, helping to bring the article closer to the ideal version. The question of whether an editor is adding proper content depends upon the totality of other policies. Your complaints about "censorship" (here and elsewhere) suggest to me that your block may have been justified. It is not "censorship" for the community to decide that someone's edits are not improving the article. There are many policy reasons that content may be removed from an article. It is not "censorship" to remove original research, to remove content that is poorly sourced, to removed biased content content that gives undue weight to one side of an issue, or for other reasons.

English Wikipedia has a policy WP:NOTCENSORED, but it means that content (and images) are not to be removed merely because some people find them personally offensive for sexual, religious, or similar reasons. It does not apply to removal of content that is biased or violated other policies. Alsee (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

After reading this from your sandbox Asterix, I think you may not get on well here on wikipedia in the long term given current policies and practice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think your presuppositions and reasons are correct, but your conclusion isn't absurd. However, I would appreciate more focus on the main issue raised by me in this post. This is not a place for dispute resolution or discussions focused mainly on an individual case. --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Well given the only real question you posed was "If a user is advocating his personal point of view by populating various articles with useful, properly sourced and accurate content then is it something that she should be punished for?" the answer is most of the time no. The issue is that ADVOCATES (as wikipedia defines them) do not actually do that. They go from article to article inserting material that seeks to skew the articles towards a more favourable viewpoint (of their position). The material they insert may be properly sourced (or not) but almost always violates WP:UNDUE in that it seeks to over-emphasise the validity and/or acceptance of their point of view. They are advocating for a specific slant. This is most obviously visible in the politics, fringe and pseudoscience areas, but crops up almost everywhere. There is one obviously agenda-driven editor who has been continuously rebuffed in articles that differ from their personal POV, and has gone to the extreme of trying to dispute the policy underlying the rationales for their rejected edits. Now if an editor who has a particular POV notices an article within their interest that misrepresents or could be improved, and does so taking into account all the relevant policies, they are unlikely to be accused of advocacy just because their edits are in sync with their personal viewpoint. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

This is another comment confirming that this particular kind of advocacy that I was asking about is welcome. I have asked two questions explicitly. Also please note that articles are not meant to be perfect, and there is no such thing as article that is objectively perfectly balanced and two options are possible (a) removals to 'balance' (b) additions to 'balance'. Shouldn't (b) be preferred most of the time? It seems, that some imbalance should always be tolerated to allow development. --Asterixf2 (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

"There is one obviously" - is this about me? IIRC, this is our first interaction. Actually, I am very satisfied with the outcomes of my past edits and discussions on english wikipedia. --Asterixf2 (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

No I was not referring to you, and assuming the second question is "does it matter what is the personal opinion of a user when judging if her content is appropriate?" the answer is 'It depends on context, material and the editor" which will be of little help to you. In some situations the personal opinion is very important (Neo-nazi's editing about Hitler, Third Reich, Nazi-era Germany etc) in others its negligible (wrestling fans editing about wrestling). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Why the personal opinion of neo-nazis would be important in judging their content? Does it imply that it would be a recommended advice to editors to ask about personal beliefs of other editors so that they can make more accurate (or more biased?) judgements about the content? Promoting such rules creates incentives for people to not expose their personal beliefs to avoid discrimination or harassment. I am not sure if it has a positive role in building open community. Your general answer without more precise criteria is not very clarifying as you have noticed. --Asterixf2 (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that 'advocacy' shouldn't be a part of this policy as it could be easily abused. The intention is to disallow (1) 'propaganda' understood as adding editorial bias not only properly sourced bias (WP:NPOV in other words) and (2) violations of WP:UNDUE, a section of npov, rendering "not advocate" part of the policy redundant. Furthermore, it's clearly not true that "advocacy of any kind" is not allowed. --Asterixf2 (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Our policies are pretty well thought out, and we have a lot of experience applying them to various situations. This discussion looks like a case of someone wanting to change our policies to allow them to do certain things that they have been prevented from doing, all without any discussion about what, exactly, they want to do that the current policies do not allow. I think the answer here is clear: no, you can't have a pony. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Your misleading guesswork introduces bias into the discussion and no real arguments. In my opinion, this is a very important issue. Please see Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, WP:AGF and WP:POLL. IIRC, this is our first interaction. Asterixf2 (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You still don't get a pony, and you don't get to limit the discussion so as to avoid criticism of your behavior. And your repetition of the phrase "this is our first interaction" is just strange. Is there some sort of problem you keep having with your interactions with other Wikipedia editors? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, took me awhile to work out what the point of this was. this page goes some way towards explaining the motivation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

1. @Only in death: I don't remember this discussion very well and I don't see a point in reading it now (waste of time), because my motivation for this post is completely independent of my activity from about 7 months ago that you are pointing to. However, I do remember that among legitimate edits and concerns there was one issue for which I was rightly blocked for 5 days.
2. @Guy Macon: I don't care if this phrase seems strange to you. Purpose of this is to avoid wrong assumption that you know me. I also couldn't care less about your criticism, because I find it nonconstructive.
3. @Guy Macon and Only in death: You may consider starting a new post in an appropriate venue if you want to advance your ad hominem position. However, please be aware that it may constitute a WP:HARASSMENT. --Asterixf2 (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

As with many English Wikipedia policies, the statement is about content, not editors or their intent. Article text must not be written in the style of advocacy, such as in an editorial or opinion essay. isaacl (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Apart from other problems that you have not addressed, in my opinion this policy IS about editors and their intentions "merits of your OPINIONS", "if you WANT". As I see it, this is a 'catch-all policy'. --Asterixf2 (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what problems you are referring to; I am responding to your original post, and the answer to your question is clear from my comment: editor intent does not determine if a given passage is written in the style of an advocacy piece. I understand this is contrary to your opinion; nonetheless, as truly knowing what another person intends is problematic, English Wikipedia policies generally focus on the text of editors' contributions. isaacl (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

"I understand this is contrary to your opinion" is wrong - it seems that we agree. Please also note that you are talking about your interpretation of what this policy should mean (or how it should be interpreted) regardless of its letter. The point of this post is to discuss if its letter is confusing or wrong. --Asterixf2 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You said "in my opinion this policy IS about editors and their intentions"; I said that this policy is about content, namely writing style. isaacl (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Apart from other problems that you have not addressed, in my opinion this policy IS about editors and their intentions "merits of your OPINIONS", "if you WANT". --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your quote disagrees with what I've said. isaacl (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to follow this whole thing, and I still can't tell what the heck you're complaining about. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: My aim was to discuss how other editors understand this policy and whether its letter is aligned with its perceived role. My main concern is the potential of abuse of this policy in its current confusing form by editors that are disturbing wiki-process (for example by attempts to suppress points of view). For instance, I have pointed out that WP:NPOV, including WP:UNDUE are sufficient to handle legitimate cases. I focused my post on clarification to make sure that I understand this policy correctly before discussing changes (if at all).
In my opinion, each point of view in an article should look like written by their best advocates - present best evidence and best arguments while maintaining neutrality by avoiding editorial bias (distortion of sources) and giving due weight.
The discussion was derailed by ad hominem statements (poisoning the well). I think that those editors should first carefully build their case and only then raise such concerns in an appropriate venue if justified. Instead, they had hastily posted accusations and only after that they proceeded to search for and verify evidence with the intent to confirm their guesswork (see confirmation bias and sampling bias).
Furthermore, it's clear to me that editors abusing this policy would not support my position. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Given the behavior described here[22] and the behavior on this page, I propose that we ask for a topic ban preventing Asterixf2 from making any edit about fringe theories, broadly construed.

These decisions are made at AN or ANI, not here, so this is just a straw poll. If there seems to be sufficient support, I will file a formal request at AN or ANI. It would be especially helpful if support votes contained diffs showing the behavior in question. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. The particular fringe theory being pushed here may be found here:[23] Asterixf2's attempt to add it to Entropic force is here:[24] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Here is a fine example of the Law of Holes:[25] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Your campaign to emphasize my misdeeds on enwiki is not constructive, please realize that. I am not even denying them. See Poisoning the well and Illusory correlation. --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Your campaign to change the rules so that what your edits that were rejected would be allowed is not constructive, please realize that. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Once again, this wasn't my goal. It was to discuss this policy and eventual changes. For example, as I see it, I have pointed out the redundancy in policy. The nature of redundancy is that its removal would not allow undesirable content but only limit abuse and confusion. I insist that you read the pledge you have signed User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values. --Asterixf2 (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Your proposal is misguided but I won't be surprised by some herd mentality :) This was a part of a series of edits in a controversial topic as it turned out and the issue was WP:RS - a controversial edit in controversial[26] section of controversial article. As far as this part is concerned, I was blocked for 5 days and it was 7 months ago and it was the only block on english wiki and at the time WP:DONTBITE definitely applied. Overall, I find the block duration appropriate. In my opinion, your behavior constitutes WP:HARASSment. I haven't added any such content since the block and wasn't planning to. I will not add any fringe for 12 months because I just don't care.
  << Removed Icon >> Please see Confirmation bias and Sampling bias. --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I have removed your gratuitous use of an icon which, along with everything else above, is misguided. The one correct statement I see is that you will not add any fringe content. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, your comment is biased. Due to unfair and derogatory ad hominem pressure I wanted to remove any suspicions that it was my intention. In particular, it is not an acknowledgment that proposal was justified in a slightest degree. I have added clarification where the removed icon was. --Asterixf2 (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

On-going discussion

Posting of 'proposal' at the bottom is problematic. For the uninvolved observer it may suggest that it is a kind of summary or conclusion to the discussion which is not the case (ad hominem) and the discussion is on-going. Even if the accusations were correct it would not prove me wrong. See poisoning the well and Hierarchy of Disagreement. --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Mandatory citation for every sentence in an article

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.

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

 – clpo13_(talk) 18:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The <ref> tag should be required to wrap a <ref> sentence </ref> and require that every sentence in an article is cited. If not automatically flag as uncited. Also require every user to create an account for edit. There, vandalism problem solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uni3993 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll make no comment on whether these would be appropriate changes, but I will note that they are both on the list of perennial proposals: Require inline citations for everything and Prohibit anonymous users from editing. clpo13_(talk) 18:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a bloody stupid idea. Eric Corbett 18:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Cite every word! 🙂Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Better yet, cite every letter, symbol and pixel. In serious terms, while I have no love for unsourced content we do typically leave lead sections unsourced, and we'd need a way to handle already existing unsourced content and very obvious claims. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As much of a stickler as I am for having citations, even I think this sounds unwarranted. Given the proposer's limited contribution history, I'm now trying to resist the urge to question their motives as well. DonIago (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

[ Citation Needed ] <-- Note: you might wish to click on the three links in the previous "Citation Needed" instead of assuming that you know where the phrase links to... --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Yo momma was salamander living on the sun. Tell me again, how adding a <ref> tag to everything "solves" vandalism? Dragons flight (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Oppose per those who have already commented. Add to those the fact that it would cause proliferation of identical refs. Many (most) articles will have a paragraph with the reference at the end. This suggestion would require that ref to be applied to every sentence in the paragraph which would be a waste of both time and space. MarnetteD|Talk 19:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose, as Dragons Flight has aptly demonstrated, there is nothing magical about using ref tags that inherently makes the corresponding content more legitimate (only truthier). I think it's part of the typical confusion between "verifiable" (which is what our policy requires) and "verified" (which it does not), and the presence of a ref is meant to help a reader verify on their own when they review the source. Many articles would do just fine with cites at the end of paragraphs or even for entire sections. Honestly the manic way citations are handled in many articles (multiple footnotes glued on to individual words midsentence, or to every entry in a list all cited to the same source) is headache inducing and more about CYA in editwars than helping a reader or maintaining academic standards. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

"CYA"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

See CYA (that's what I had to do). PrimeHunter (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Can this be closed per WP:SNOW? GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:SNOW, but we need clearer instructions about how to deal with challenged and likely-to-be-challenged content. I find

"Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references"

(WP:PROVEIT) quite vague when it does not discuss how "the material and the overall state of the article" figure in this and how much time we need to give. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - as non-starter. Not biting the newbie, but they might wait another several years and several thousand edits before their next ambitious proposal. I would have done the SNOW close, but there are some unresolved tangential comments from others. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Naming a person's children in their biography

For biographies of people with children, it's common not to identify their children by name unless they too are notable. I wanted to advise another editor to do this, but I couldn't find the relevant policy. Would this be something I ought to recommend for the MoS on biographies, or is there a current policy or guideline about this topic? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

People name their kids on personal biographies all the time. As long as info about children isn't excessive, I don't see any problems with this unless its about criminals or other controversial figures.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Some general guidance about this aspect - in biographies of living persons - can be found at WP:BLPNAME. GermanJoe (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. Some of the Mormon women whose pages I'm editing have had a lot of children. Is it better encyclopedic style to say "Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner and her husband had ten children together" rather than naming them all? I'm just trying to figure out if there are good reasons to either identify all the children or not. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

If they are mentioned in reliable sources, then you may as well list them. I expect that her own children would normally be an important part of a woman's life, and that she would talk about them her self. So it is fair enough to mention the names. But please don't add too much detail if these children are still living! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

On the other side of the coin, editorial discretion is both allowed and expected at Wikipedia. The fact that some bit of information is verifiable does not mean that Wikipedia is required to include it. Editors are encouraged to make editorial decisions about which information should and should not be included, being cognizant of other policies and guidelines such as WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and the like. Verifiability is a necessary but not of itself a sufficient condition for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Now, if two editors disagree about whether some verifiable information should or should not be included, that's what the talk page, and WP:RFC and WP:DR is for. But WP:V should never be a valid argument for inclusion. The lack of verifiability is only a valid argument against including some information, but the converse is not a sufficient argument for inclusion. Merely being verifiable is never enough. --Jayron32 22:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

In re "her own children would normally be an important part of a woman's life": Historically true, of course, but taking this as a rule results in sexist outcomes. (And who says that children are usually unimportant to their fathers?) Even when the woman is notable purely for technical and scientific achievements, women's family members get a lot more attention than men's. This isn't Wikipedia's fault; it's unusual to find a reliable source that writes in-depth about a married female CEO without including some variant of "Her husband is supportive of her professional life". But we should think twice about adopting a source's cultural biases about the proper role of women (and perpetuate the stereotype of men as usually being bad fathers) when we would not include the same information in a BLP about a man. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

My quoted statement was in response to Rachel Helps' writing about Mormon women. It does not preclude children of men from being included. The information just has to be sourced appropriately, preferably from non-primary public sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I took part in a discussion about such a case [27], and the closer made a reasonable ruling (against my personal preference, my instinct is not to name non-notable children). If the sources are decent, it´s up to editorial consensus. We can name names, or go with "X has Y children" or some variant thereof. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

An RfC just last September at Talk:Brian Austin Green#RfC: Names and DOB's of children in a BLP made the evenhanded conclusion under the title NAMES & DATES OF BIRTH OF CHILDREN PERMITTED IN ARTICLE

The policy on biographies of living persons clearly leaves the inclusion of details of family members up to the discretion of the article's editors, as long as the information is well-sourced. All editors seem to agree that there are reliable sources, and the overwhelming majority of editors favor keeping full names and dates of birth of the children in the article.--Aervanath (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The thrust of the RfC involved celebrities' children who are personally named by the parents or their representatives in major media. The consensus is that the names and birth dates of, for example, Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's children have been released not only with parental permission but on the covers of magazines with combined circulation in the millions, so that it is both futile and whitewashing not to include them. This is by any definition public knowledge that the parents want to have out there. Same with Beyonce and Jay-Z's child, Prince William and Kate Middleton's, and even lesser-known celebrities such as Brian Austin Green and Megan Fox's, to name just a smattering. It's basic biographical information found in book biographies and in such WP:RS sources as Biography.com.

Conversely, when the parents keep their minor children's name private, guidelines dictate that we do as well — hence, no names for the children of Ginnifer Goodwin and Josh Dallas, even though, as Jayron rightly notes, the names may be verifiable by primary-source birth certificates or other sources. If the parents don't want the names out there, we honor that. If the parents do want the names out there, we honor that, too.

This is settled RfC consensus, though any editor, of course, may open a new RfC, with proper notification to concerned parties. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the clarifications! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

IMO "celebrities" are a different case, because a person who is "famous for being famous" is a bit like royalty – everything that's know about you is "part of" your notability. I'd also put "religious" bios in the same category, because religion is supposed to be about how you live your real life. But for a business, technical, or scientific bio, it feels irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree: For a business, technical, or scientific bio it would rarely come up that the subject or his/her representative would make a big media announcement. In fact, it would probably come up only if the business, technical, or scientific person also happened to be a celebrity! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I think that children's names should be mention only if they are also notable people, or if they are some sort of significance (like Eminem and Hailey). --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Attribution in edit comment of origin of translated articles

Articles translated from other wikipedias should have an edit comment indicating this. I have seen a number of articles that simply have tags later put on the talk page to say that they are translations from another wikipedia version. The problem with this is that attribution is connected to one or several specific revisions of an article, not to the article subject. A later rewrite (which is really a completely new article on the subject) may no longer be a translation and shouldn't have a talk page tag saying so (as that would be a misattribution), but that leaves the previous revisions without the clear attribution they should have and would have had if the translator had bothered to use an edit comment.

I'm inclined to think that articles lacking an edit comment clearly attributing a translation to its original should be summarily deleted. The translator can always repost the article with proper attribution. --Hegvald (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Correct attribution can be made using the appropriate parameters of {{Translated page}}. --Boson (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The best way to supply missing copyright attribution is through a dummy edit. Coupling this with a talk page template is good, but the edit summary is much more direct attribution than the template, in compliance with our copyright licenses. I added model edit summaries at WP:TRANSLATE and at WP:COPYWITHIN earlier this year, and mentioned the dummy edit fix at the latter in WP:PATT, but it may be there should be a dedicated section, such as "Fixing missing attribution". While violations of copywithin technically fall under CSD G12, we do not in practice "summarily deleted" these types of copyvios. Supplying a missing edit summary through a dummy, especially when coupled with a talk page template (but I agree with you, not the other way around) is a suitable fix; it is "appropriate credit"; a "reasonable manner" of "providing ... credit" required by compatible CC By-SA licenses. Hegvald, if you want to see some fixes in application: 1, 2 and 3.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, such articles would not be speedy deletable, as the criterion says that we can spedy delete an article with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license; any Wikipedia has a "compatible free license". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

However, the license rights terminate automatically when you fail to comply with the terms of the license (see provision 7a); once you've demonstrably failed to comply, no assertion of a compatible free license is credible. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to put it out here, depending where it comes from we can import the foreign edits to the history here as well, see WP:RFPI. We really don't want to have overlapping edits - so this is best to do right after a translation is made. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Rfc regarding A1

Just a quick request for comment on the application of the A1 tag on a generic example. Any views would be welcome. Lourdes 14:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)