From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This is the Village pump (all) page which lists all topics for easy viewing. Go to the village pump to view a list of the Village Pump divisions, or click the edit link above the section you'd like to comment in. To view a list of all recent revisions to this page, click the history link above and follow the on-screen directions.

Click here to purge the server cache of this page (to see recent changes on Village pump subpages)

Welcome to the Village Pump. This set of pages is used to discuss the technical issues, policies, and operations of Wikipedia, and is divided into five village pump sections. Please use the table below to find the most appropriate section to post in, or post in the miscellaneous section. You can view all village pump sections at once here.

This page is not for discussions. Use the "Village pump sections" part below to navigate.

Shortcuts: WP:VP WP:PUMP WP:VILLAGE WP:VILLAGEPUMP

Village pump sections
Policy post \| watch \| search To discuss existing and proposed policies	Technical post \| watch \| search To discuss technical issues. For wiki software bug reports, use Bugzilla	Proposals post \| watch \| search To discuss new proposals that are not policy-related. See also: perennial proposals and persistent proposals.	Idea lab post \| watch \| search To discuss ideas before proposing them to the community and attempt to find solutions to issues	Miscellaneous post \| watch \| search To post messages that do not fit into any other category

I want...					Where to go
...to browse all village pump topics at once					Village pump (all)
...to search all village pump section archives, Oct 2007 - present					Search
...help using Wikipedia					Help desk
...to find my way around Wikipedia					Department directory
...specific facts (e.g. Who was the first pope?)					Reference desk
...constructive criticisms from others for a specific article					Peer review
...help resolving a specific article edit dispute or making a user conduct dispute complaint					Requests for comment
...to comment on a specific article					Article's talk page
...to view other Wikimedia projects					Wikimedia Meta-wiki
...to learn about citing Wikipedia in a bibliography					Citing Wikipedia
...to report sites that copy Wikipedia content					Mirrors and forks
...to ask questions or make comments					Questions
...to discuss MediaWiki interface messages					MediaWiki messages

It can only be speculated that, like the modern office water cooler, the village pump must have been a gathering place to discuss ideas for the improvement of the locale in which its members dwelled.

Policy

Secondary schools should meet WP:GNG or are they exempt?

Recently I started a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools because I did not understand why articles on clearly non-notable schools are kept. Result was a animated discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#Notability of secondary schools (part 2). In general the useful replies could be bundled in two general groups: a) something has to be done on the notability guidelines and b) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes served us wel.

In the most recent discussion a few attempts were made to get somewhere. NickCT came with Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Draft RfC, TerriersFan with User:TerriersFan/Notability of schools and I came up with User:Night of the Big Wind/Notability of schools. To no avail.

In effect, the current "policy" is to keep all articles about secondary schools/highschools as soon as they can proof that they exist. To prove notability is not necessary.

So my question for this RfC is: Should secondary schools/highschools meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or are they exempt from that? Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of the current situation is that secondary schools are assumed to pass WP:GNG. If that's the case, then your RfC question doesn't help; the answer to it is "yes they should". It might be more fruitful for the RfC to question that assumption, or to require actual references to reliable sources? But even if it did the former, my unscientific understanding of the UK situation is that pretty much every secondary school would pass GNG since there is extensive press coverage of individual schools, not least as a result of OFSTED report and league tables. (For fun, I searched for news stories for a few schools I could bring to mind, up and down the country. None let me down in terms of GNG.) I don't know if the UK situation can be extended to other countries. As to the latter, I would be uninclined to see a secondary school article deleted merely for lack of sources. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe on paper, but the current policy is to keep everything, regardless of notability. People make a real fuss about AfD for schools, even finding deletion-campaigns in it: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#AfD Campaign on schools. A very unhealthy situation. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools is used as policy, overriding WP:GNG. Especially the sentence Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. is often used in a deletion discussion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it is an unhealthy situation, but there is a campaign. There's a small group of editors who seem to nominate/!vote for deletion on as many articles as they can find from mid-December to the end of January there were over 200 school AfD's. 150-odd of which were nominated by the one user.

And it is because of these users that I actually support your moves here. I completely agree that there should be more concrete notability guidelines for schools. I think that schools have claims towards notability per WP:ORG, per this sentence:

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

(emphasis added)

By definition, schools have educational value. But, further, schools, almost by default, have societal value and frequently have historical and athletic value.

At the moment, differing interpretations of what is and is not notable cause a great deal of stupid debate at AfD and leads to many schools being deleted that should probably be kept. For example, Middle Harbour PS was merged into it's locality despite achieving a consistently high rank in standardised testing, being (approximately?) a hundred years old, being one of the schools at which the primary school ethics program was piloted, and being the catalyst for a change in law regarding speed zones (none of this was enough). On the other hand, Kesser Torah (school) is A-OK because it's a K to 12 school (emphasis on the "to 12" bit), despite it's relatively low enrolment and no special claims towards notability (I'm told that it's a decent school, though, however second hand that is).

So a more concrete set of criteria would be good. Not sure which draft I like most at the moment, let me think about it for a bit longer. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

While I take no position on the notability-of-every-high-school question, I believe that your reading of WP:ORG is a tad overbroad. There is an important distinction between having "significant or demonstrable effects on...education" and "being a building where education (in some form) takes place". (Similarly, a given textbook might be notable, but the warehouse from which it was distributed, or the presses on which it was printed, probably would not be.) High schools – as a collective phenomenon, and as a way to deliver education – certainly are notable and have without question shaped society's creation, consumption, and interpretation of culture, athletics, economics, history, literature, and science. It's less clear that we should make an a priori assumption that any randomly-selected high school will have had some particular part in shaping that phenomenon and therefore be inherently notable (absent reliable sources corroborating that claim).

To draw a loose analogy, The Catcher in the Rye is a notable work of literature about which we certainly should have an article; on the other hand, we don't want or need a separate article about each of the 65 million copies in print—but we do have a fair bit of commentary about the particular copy Mark David Chapman was carrying when he shot John Lennon. Our articles about high schools need to strive to identify the factors that make each one unique and culturally-relevant. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In my eyes this has always been a point of friction, both because Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes clash here and because (certainly in the early years of wikipedia, not sure about today) a disproportionate number of WP editors were/are young and their high school(s) loomed large and emotive in their minds. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The past has suggested supporting these, but I strongly believe we can move on and require GNG notability to be met for schools. That means we need more than information from the school or its local community itself to have an article. Since we generally presume all towns and regions are notable as geographical features (as long as they are recognized by their respective governments, at minimum), information on a town's secondary schools can easily fit up into that one, barring the cases where GNG can actually be met. They can be searchable terms (leaving redirects behind and included in appropriate disamb. pages) but shouldn't have separate articles. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been involved in a fair number of worldwide school articles and school AfDs over the last few years. It is my experience that for almost all secondary schools in English-language-speaking countries reliable sources can easily be found to demonstrate notability. If such schools ever get nominated for deletion they are always kept. Articles that have been deleted in the past eventually get recreated. There is, therefore, an assumption that all secondary schools which can be verified are inherently notable. Problems do arise, however, for schools in countries where English is not the first language. The majority of such schools probably would be notable if we had editors who could read the articles in the native language but it is often difficult to find English-language sources. Consequently, we have literally thousands of articles about American high schools but only a handful of articles on secondary schools in China, a county which has a far larger population and in theory should also have thousands of notable schools. There is an argument that a certain leeway should be allowed to encourage creation of such articles to counter the systemic bias on Wikipedia. If an editor makes a valiant effort to create a school article and English is not their first language, I think we should be encouraging their efforts and not nominating their articles for deletion at the first opportunity. The unfortunate consequence of the prevailing view that all secondary schools are notable is that some editors now take the counter view that all primary/elementary schools are non-notable whereas this is not necessarily the case. In practice perhaps 90% or more of these schools are non-notable, but conversely 10% probably are. This view has resulted in the unfortunate mass deletion campaign over the Christmas holidays in which articles for some notable primary schools were deleted because editors did not have the time to vote, let alone investigate and source the articles, simply because of the timing and the sheer scale of the nominations. In England, for example, many historic schools which now serve as primary schools were once the only school in the locality. Children of all ages attended these schools until the then school leaving age so these schools were effectively the equivalent of the present-day secondary school. The current name is often not the same as the historic name which means care must be taken when looking for sources. However, the mass AfD nominators only ever seem to make cursory checks, if any, to see what sources are available and always fail to look for sources under alternate names. I would like to see a guideline in place which prevents a single editor from nominating more than a handful of articles per week. Nominators should also be asked to do more thorough searches before nomination, and especially where a school is over 100 years old. Dahliarose (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a self fulfilling prophecy. Articles are kept because other articles are kept. And based on that, articles are kept...

It's not a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's simply a statement of fact. Secondary school articles are invariably kept at AfD because reliable sources are always found to prove their notability. The only exceptions are some schools in non-English-speaking countries where English-speaking editors can't access the sources in the appropriate language. Dahliarose (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As admin mr. Kudpung wrote earlier: if you were to read everything I've ever posted on this topic over the years, including on my RfA, you will have noticed, as many have, that I don't personally mind which way consensus falls as a result of a correctly and neutrally proposed RfC, but that I will firmly uphold any existing conventions, precedents, and unwritten consensus that clearly exist until they are confirmed or changed. Note that WP:OUTCOMES, although an essay, neutrally documents historical facts and 'is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Deletion policy' Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Dahlia, I think that User:Night of the Big Wind/Notability of schools might be worth a look. It'd certainly create some guidance to prevent what you and I have seen at AfD today. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If we were serious about changing how this "inherent" notability of secondary schools was treated, requiring GNG instead of just saying the schools exist, I would imagine there would be a grandfathering process during 6 months - 1 year where all such articles would be "frozen" with respect to deletion, allowing time for sources to be added, and then after that period an organized process to redirect/merge those that weren't shown to be notable. As such, trying to do it piece-part as suggested that happened recent will likely lead to reversion since its not a consensus driven change. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That would just be wasting everyone's time. The sources invariably exist to prove notability. There must be a better way of improving and sourcing articles rather than going through AfD each time. Dahliarose (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not true. Yes, there are sources for the schools, but spot checking a good number of schools shows that most of these are local papers or the like. The bulk of local papers are not independent when it comes to talking about the school, a necessary requirement for notability. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

But local papers are independent sources. Schools have no control over what content is published in them. A newspaper or magazine by the school itself would, however, not be an independent source. Dahliarose (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting to see that people have a great concern about deletions in a discussion about notability. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? Deletion is the normal fate of the non-notable article. I seem to be missing your point. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact they acknowledge that there are loads of articles out there, that should not be there at all. Breaking the "common outcomes"-policy to keep everything, puts all those articles at risk to be challenged. (And even then, I assume that a big chunk of the nominated articles can be rescued and brought up to standard.) Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your reading differs from mine. I still have the impression that they are notable in terms of GNG, but that in many cases they do not provide references to RS, a secondary problem. I do not believe that "common outcomes" is what forestalls deletion, so much as that deletion is forestalled by the recognition that they meet GNG, and this has led to "common outcomes" as a guide to prevent further waste of time. I don't think anyone disagrees about whether or not they should meet GNG to stay. But you seem unpursuaded that, on the whole, and evenin the absence of references to RS, that they do meet GNG. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems unlikely in the extreme that a random secondary school exists today in such a secretive town that there is nothing at all published about it in any RS. Perhaps a few such could exist somewhere in North Korea, but not as a general worldwide rule. Failure to cite sources does not equate to nonexistence of sources. That said, there might have been a few pre-Gutenberg schools for which there remains no extant source to cite. Schools almost all have budget battles, bussing issues, staff scandals, real estate, zoning impacts, traffic control effects, etc. Any of these things can show up on the public record, in the news, on concil minutes, and so forth. If someone looks hard enough, the sources are there to be used. The real question is how to motivate people to do that looking, but that in no way is a wp:N issue. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"Schools almost all have budget battles, bussing issues, staff scandals, real estate, zoning impacts, traffic control effects, etc. Any of these things can show up on the public record, in the news, on concil minutes, and so forth." This is all information that would be of local impact, from local sources, and thus fails the independence aspect for WP:GNG (and possibly WP:V). Also, consider : is any of that information of encyclopedic value? If there is value, it is the impact on the town that the school is in, and thus, even a better drive to push that information into the town article (which I don't see going anywhere anytime soon). --MASEM (t) 16:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why a group of articles should be exempt from GNG. Some people see GNG as a ceiling, i.e. "anything that meets GNG is notable". I see GNG as a floor, i.e. "anything that doesn't meet GNG is non-notable", and in addition some things that pass GNG but fail specific guidelines like WP:POLITICIAN are also non-notable. I think that schools of any stripe should have significant non-trivial coverage. I take that to mean coverage above and beyond the following five types of coverage that fail to establish notability:

Local coverage (Recall that before WWII, newspapers in small towns also mentioned when townsfolk had the flu or relatives from out-of-town over)
Routine coverage (The San Gabriel Valley Newspaper Group has a "School of the Week" feature where they have a half-page blurb in each of their papers about an area school. Since the feature is several years old, every school has been coveraged. That doesn't make all of them notable.)
Fleeting (a couple mentions of the school here and there, or a five-sentence writeup does not notability make)
Human interest stories that aren't really about the school (if there's a story about an 8-year-old who beat cancer and happens to goes to Spiro T. Agnew Elementary School, that article is attesting to the notability of the 8-year-old, not the school).
Random coverage (Many news stories pick a school, essentially at random, to illustrate some larger point about a district or state. They could've picked any number of schools to make the same point, therefore the article doesn't really establish the notability of the school they picked)

If, and only if, a school has coverage that isn't any of those five things should it be kept. In short, nothing should be exempt from WP:GNG. Not primary schools, not secondary schools, not anything. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Merely being able to prove that a school exists via RS doesn't mean that every school deserves a stand-alone article. The choice is not simply keep/delete; information about schools not meeting the GNG for a separate article can be merged into existing articles on their respective localities. A related issue seems to be a recent rash of deletion requests which has brought the schools issue to a head; while deleting is always easier than fixing, it's often not the best course and in the case of many (but not all) school articles would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The trouble with mass AFD nominations is that there's no time to separate wheat from chaff (let alone figure out what to do with the wheat). Miniapolis (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'll point out that if there's general agreement that secondary schools are immediately notable and need to meet the GNG, the steps to complete this would start with a 6-12 month grandfather blocking on any AFD of these schools giving editors time to find sources, followed by a rigorous evaluation to redirect/merge non-notable schools to the town article that they serve. This process would have to be broadly announced, likely given a workpage in WP space to explain what's happening and the like. None of these should hit AFD as the name of a school is a likely search term, and its always possible the school may become notable in the future. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This all points to the glaring problem of trying to apply a guideline written to limit "encyclopedic" entries to an article which exists to fulfill one of the other two-thirds of the WP mission (almanac and gazetteer). These are gazetteer articles, but the guideline still does not reflect that standards must be different for articles of this nature. A secondary school is like a navigable waterway in being notable enough by its existance without the additional burden of our definition in WP:N. It still, however, must meet WP:V - no sources, no article. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A redirect/merge of the school name to its locality does not fail the gazetteer function. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a redirect could serve such a function, but this would result in an inconsistent and incoherent mix of results. There is no way to properly convey the information on every secondary school in New York City in the article on the city. And while schools in public school districts could be redirected to the article on the district, as is regularly done with primary and middle schools, private secondary schools would have no such redirect available. The end result would be that some schools would have articles, some would be redirects to localities, and some redirects to school districts. This seems to be more than an acceptable amount of difficulty for the reader. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In the case of large metro areas with more than a handful of schools, I can see supporting the redirect to "Education in X", and further breakout if needed (see List of public elementary schools in New York City extending from Education in New York City). The same could be done for private/parochial schools if they are a sufficiently large number, though I'd suspect we need a specific metric for even inclusion in the list to avoid some person tutoring out of their home to be called out as a school. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And importantly, if all the reader is doing is using this work as a gazetteer to locate a school, this functionality still works. Redirects can take readers directly to a line on a table or a section of an article. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

For what little it's worth, the original "policy" to blanket keep all secondary schools was based on VFD outcomes from about late 2003 to mid-2005 that were (much later) shown to have been tainted by the Radman1/GRider sockfarm. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with redirecting to the locality/education district is that you would lose most if not all of the information in the article. The typical Secondary school is a large and busy institution, this proposal appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the concept of a local newspaper, in most places the local newspapers are independent of the school. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Local papers are not independent because their primary focus is that region of interest. This is why NSPORTS calls out against using local papers to try to demonstrate the notability of high school and amateur athletes, and why we require a strong reliable source than just a local restaurant guide for eateries or other businesses. They're ok as sources once notability is established, but not before then. As for losing information, most of the information that when I spot check through these schools is highly routine and news/timeline-like, and doesn't make for good encyclopedic information in an article by itself. As part of the larger coverage of education in that town or the like, sure, but not as a standalone article. That's why its'a "redirect/merge" suggestion, not just "redirect", some information can be brought over. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Their focus doesn't diminish their independence, or indeed their status as a reliable source. Independence is about whether the school has editorial influence on the paper, reliability about having adequate processes in place for fact checking. Notability is of course a very different subject, and at first glance you might think that NSPORTS doesn't follow the GNG. But, and this difference is crucial, NSPORTS is dealing with individual High School athletes as opposed to the actual school - the career of an individual High school athlete can be little more than a BLP1E. Schools are usually longer lived. As for the idea that much of the information in many school articles is routine and overly focussed on the present, yes that's true but also much isn't. More importantly such an approach verges on considering the article as is rather than the potential of the subject. The difficulty of identifying a secondary school that fails the GNG is that you'd need access to the local papers in that area. In theory there could be a secondary school that was ignored by the media throughout its life, but it isn't very likely. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    - Yes, it does actually. The more focused a source is on some field, such as a specific geographic location, the less likely they are independent of what exists within that field. Basically - it's tooting one's own horn even if the connection is not financial or personal. This is an idea spelled out at WP:ROUTINE and WP:DIVERSE. And every argument that you can apply to the local coverage of a school can typically apply to any business at the same local level. Yes, some businesses have shorter lifetimes than schools, some don't. And yet some will get the same type of coverage as a local school, but they would fail WP:ORG.
      - Again, I note I'm not talking about removal of information, as, at least with public schools, they are part of a government system. Searching for "Smalltown Elementary School" would still be a valid link, redirecting to the Education section of Smalltown, and where likely the most encyclopedic information can be put such as when it was built, what grades it serves, approximate student body size, etc. Some school may have more in-depth coverage and thus would require a longer discussion and a full article, but I doubt most really can when you work at it. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
        
        WP:ROUTINE is not related to the concept of independence, independence is a matter of editorial control and standards of journalism. It would be wrong to assume that journalistic standards are proportionate to circulation size. It is highly likely that most name checks of a school in Local Papers will be routine, but enough will not be routine that practically all conventionally sized secondary schools will be notable. WP:DIVERSE isn't about independence either; DIVERSE does have a requirement for national rather than local coverage, but that is a guideline for events not a policy, nor is it applicable to institutions. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
        
        It's absolutely applicable to institutions. The equivalent passage on WP:ORG currently has a shortcut at WP:CORPDEPTH; it's been on the page, essentially unchanged, since 11 September 2008. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
        
        You have to remember that we're writing a world-wide encyclopedia. If we cannot explain the importance of a topic outside of its local field, we're probably in too much detail and need to resummarize to a higher level. If a topic is only covered in depth via local sources, it has very little impact to the whole of mankind, and thus should be discussed in less detail in a border topic. Again, this is not dismissing local sources as WP:V sources, but only as a the sole indicators for notability. On the flip side, the logic being used to justify why local papers give schools notability would be sufficient to give most businesses, local landmarks, and numerous residents of any town with its own paper notability for WP, and that's just not going to happen (WP:IINFO for one). --MASEM (t) 12:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
        
        There is no business or institution that has the societal impact on a community that a school has. On the physical level, there are many towns in Australia where the school is one of the oldest and most permanent structures (alongside some combination of a pub, railway station, police station, war memorial and another pub). On a sheer numbers level, there are no places where there are so many people (including children as people) attend full time for so long. On a social level, a change in staffing or pedagogy at a school reverberates through the community; principal retires, Aboriginal education becomes integrated across the curriculum, whatever. On an organisational level, schools are often sites where governments seek to base other community services, such as welfare programs, nurses or children's dental programs. These things tend to be reported in the local news media. If a school (or even a teacher) does something right (or wrong) for their classes across their career, the effects are felt for generations. I'm speaking mostly based on my teaching and educational consultancy experience here in Australia, but I imagine the same is true for everywhere else on the planet.

The local butcher? Not so much. The content of the news article (whether it be local or national) is what makes the difference here. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

- - - - Is any of this impact documented, however? You may be able to document the changes, but if you can't document that impact (secondary information), then you're placing undue weight on what the importance of these changes have. And there are other institutions that may be more important than schools: a local business that the town was founded around, or in some cases, churches may be more valuable to the community than the school. The point is: schools have no special weight within WP, and are not intrinsically notable simply because there happens to be very local coverage of them. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
        
        What are you asking is documented here? That more people attend schools full time than they do at the local barber shop (sources can usually be found for this, even in the local paper)? Or that school buildings tend to be the oldest documented structures (this is often easy enough to source)? The impact of teachers (the effect of good/bad teachers is receiving wide coverage at the moment in the general news media, as well as more academic publications)? That schools tend to be sites where other services get built in (easy enough to find sources for this too for schools where these services get offered)? You're too quick to insist that local newsmedia be considered unreliable when they most often report these issues quite reasonably.

As for "more important", I'm not arguing that there might be other places that are "more important", even though I think that this is often rarely the case. I am arguing that this is what makes schools notable. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No, we're looking for more than just mere existence or mention as a factual event in a local news story. Why should anyone else in the world care about the school? That's why we need non-local sources that provide significant coverage of the school to make an encyclopedic article about it - otherwise its datum with no context, useful as part of a larger article but not enough for an article by itself. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The current thinking at WP:CORPDEPTH was introduced with minimal discussion and has been controversial since then. The Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill page originally contained content which supported the "local sources don't count" idea, but it was removed due to opposition. WP:ITSLOCAL also remains in the heavily viewed WP:ATA essay, which argues against "local sources don't count", and this makes some sense since the WP:GNG, which gets a lot more scrutiny on its content than SNGs, says nothing about local sources being disallowed. Ultimately, the GNG states than an article should pass either the GNG or one or more SNGs, so if a school article passes the GNG, there is really no issue. This idea of local sources being bad opens a large can of worms. What is a "local source" and a "local area"? Where do you draw the line? One could argue that "most of the world doesn't care" about what goes into the national newspapers of a particular country, therefore we should demand international coverage of topic before covering it in an encyclopedia. Judging notability by depth of coverage and independence e.t.c. is far more objective. CT Cooper · talk 00:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In considering WP:IINFO, we have to state, at some point, where coverage of a topic is so focused and localized enough that it no longer qualifies for a stand alone topic - otherwise, on the assumption that local papers are otherwise reliable sources, you run into the problem that numerous people, businesses, and the like are suddenly "notable" when, when thinking about the larger idea of WP being a summarizing work of human knowledge, is obviously just not going to work. The deciding point between what is strictly just local coverage, and the same for what is just strictly regional coverage, and how that applies to notability, is a discussion that likely has to be resolved at AFD or a similar consensus-based venue, because it is not a hard line. I do agree that summarizing that into "most of the world doesn't care" can be a loaded statement, but the way to look at it is that if you have a geographically-fixed object (the school), and its influence is only to those that live in its immediate location such that no one outside of that location has cared to write about it, it probably doesn't have a larger influence needed for a good encyclopedic article. Not all schools fall into this, but I'd say that at a worldwide level, the likelihood of a school having in-depth coverage from outside its immediate local area is very low. Ergo, it is improper to assume these schools should have stand-alone articles. Covered in the articles on the local area, yes, but not on their own. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The appropriateness of an article's existence should be judged by the ability to write a policy compliant article on it. If there are a large collection of local non-trivial independent sources on the topic, then an article might be appropriate, on the other hand if there are a small number of trivial sources on a topic from multiple countries, then such an article would not be appropriate. The idea of blanket excluding local sources is very arbitrary with little relation to article content, no matter how it is defined, as there is no reason why regional sources would be of interest to a worldwide audience, itself a vague idea, while local sources would not be. Excluding local sources would make sense if the aim was to cap the number of articles, but that is not part of the stated aims of notability guidelines, although I recognize some editors think it should be (e.g. to keep vandalism under control, a frequent complaint of school articles). CT Cooper · talk 15:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

We aren't capping the number of articles but we are avoiding indiscriminate information, that's a goal of notability. Taking the argument that several non-trivial local sources are appropriate for a school, it is very easy to make that same apply to people, groups, businesses, and the like all of a local nature. But we know as a work that would be far from appropriate for inclusion: WP:ORG, for example, requires wider coverage for this reason. It also further exaggerates an already weighted systematic bias on western cultures, where there are a lot of local papers that cover local events, compared to less better-off countries where the idea of local publication is non-existent. Now, note, I'm not saying its possible that consensus could decide that an article, solely resting on local sources but really well written local sources as to make a very strong encyclopedic article on a school that everyone agrees should be kept. But the challenge is : can that be done for every school in the world? Very very doubtful. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

The mere application of notability guidelines, policies such as WP:NOT, and content guidance such as WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI, mean that school articles are not indiscriminate collections of information, whether they be based on local sources or not. The rationale for excluding local sources remains far from clear. Arguing against local coverage to tackle systematic bias is not an argument I have heard previously, but while the systematic bias is an issue, dealing with it is not a goal of notability and is mainly caused by the English Wikipedia missing content from non-English speaking countries, not having too much content from the English speaking world. Trying to rebalance systematic bias by limiting content from the English speaking world, is in practice little different, to cap on articles. Ultimately, the issue about the lack of publications in certain places is not a bias, it is just a reality of the World as it is now, and one that will inevitably have knock on effects to an encyclopedia based on verifiability.

As for exemptions to the local sources requirement, almost everything has exemptions, but if a good article can be written based on local sources is undermines the case for a local sources rule significantly. I don't think anyone is arguing that all schools are notable; it has long been accepted that the vast majority of schools do not pass the WP:GNG, most of these being primary/elementary schools, which there are far more of than higher level institutions. If the GNG is applied properly then merging and re-directing to locality articles or school districts is the correct solution for most school articles (which can probably be extended to businesses and other such things as well), whether any rule against local sources is present or not. CT Cooper · talk 17:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me put on my thinking cap and try and remember the old discussions. At one point we were spending a lot of time at AfD for schools. Generally secondary schools were getting kept and the others merged or deleted. The guidelines were discussed and many suggestions were made. What came out of those discussions was a general guide that secondary schools should be able to meet WP:GNG. So as a rule these should be kept. I don't believe that the intention back then was to override the GNG. The focus was to reduce the number of school articles at AfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Schools, like other subjects, shouldn't be exempt from the WP:N/WP:ORG guidelines, but we aren't in a position to organize a witch hunt to rout out the nonnotable schools. If, after a dedicated search, a school doesn't meet the WP:N/WP:ORG guidelines, the article should be merged elsewhere or deleted. Most high schools meet our notability criteria, at least in high-coverage areas like the first world. Editors should be cautious about nominating these for deletion without doing a WP:BEFORE search. Them From Space 02:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
All chools need to meet WP:ORG and WP:GNG. The "all high schools are so important that they're automatically kept" argument is wrong and outdated: there are many high schools that have only one or two students, are really minor extensions of much larger entities (tiny religious schools attached to churches or mosques or run out of the home of a minister), or that exist in places where high schools aren't written about in published sources (most rural schools in developing countries). But the fact is that ~99% of government-run high schools—and middle schools, a fact overlooked by many pro-high school editors—in Canada and the US will easily meet both ORG and GNG, so the practical difference is minimal.
Anyone with a daily newspaper subscription should think it through: how many papers do you see in a week that contain zero information about your local schools? Has any public school in your area, regardless of the age of the students, ever built a single school building or passed a single tax without information about that change being amply and repeatedly discussed in your newspaper? No? Well, then those schools definitely meet the basic source requirements for notability, don't they? And not "because they're high schools, and we keep all high schools", but because they easily meet the GNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
In general we should be keeping secondary schools. As others have noted, WP:N is almost always trivial to meet for schools in the English-speaking parts of the world. The problem that arises is that some people will call that coverage routine, or local, or whatever, even if there are literally 100s of articles. I personally suspect that what will happen is we'll end up with some schools deleted because "all they have is the coverage you'd expect of any high school" (with a cite to WP:ROUTINE) which is effectively making the argument that high schools aren't notable for the normal coverage you'd expect of them. And for non-English speaking places, we generally suspect that the coverage exists, we just can't find it. Perhaps we should have a contest. Someone go through and pick 10 "real" high schools in English speaking locations (say at least 100 students that have been around for at least 4 years) they think notability can't be established for. And others seek at least 2 sources (routine or otherwise) that provide more than trivial coverage of the school (including its bands, sports teams, clubs and the like). I'm having a hard time imagining that the majority of the "worst" wouldn't be sourceable... Hobit (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

An important difference will be that school will not be kept because they exist, but because they are notable. We will see quite a few discussion about the definitions of "notable", "reliable sources" and "routine coverage" related to this topic, but at least the article should proof why a school is notable and/or special. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand notability as it applies on Wikipedia. It is a term of art. In this case it can be thought of as "others have noticed". That is, we want sources that cover the topic, not that the topic is "special" in any way. I realize that others disagree with that notion, but I think WP:N speaks for itself. Hobit (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't really see the problem. Secondary schools are generally large important institutions, individually and collectively, sometimes going back a century or more. Given the amount of money, legal status, and social/cultural issues they embody it seems like a waste of time to not have default inclusion, except for the most decrepit article. Some will have larger articles than others depending on weight but still they seem like they generally belong in the sum of all human knowledge. (If we were talking about primary schools, I would probabely suggest a different default) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There would be hundreds of thousands of secondary schools in the world. Rather than having a time wasting debate over notability hundreds of thousands of times, in (almost?) all cases ending with a Keep decision, I have no problem in keeping them all, and instead putting that editor effort into improving the quality of them all. Far too many school articles are way below Wikipedia standard. (I suspect that's the real reason in many cases why deletion is sought.) Don't delete. Fix. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

wrong question. The problem is not the secondary schools. It's the primary schools. Too many. The vast majority have nothing notable about them. Fmph (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48. The present policy may be slightly rough-and-ready at the margins but it is workable and is not causing any problems. This whole debate is a waste of time, trying to find a solution when there is no problem to fix. I also share CT Cooper's alarm at MASEM's attempt to redefine the concept of "independence" to exclude purely local media. As CT says, where are you going to draw the line? Viewed from the United States, say, it may be easy to see the distinction between local, regional (state) and national, but what are you going to do about, say, Singapore (pop. 5 million) where the city is also the nation? Please tell me this idea is going nowhere. -- Alarics (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There are problems at the moment. As I've stated elsewhere, there have been 215 (give or take) schools nominated for deletion from Dec. 17 to now. 150 odd of these were made by one user in the space of 3 weeks over the Xmas and New Years period. While 90% of these AfDs were legitimate, the remaining 10% were problematic, for example:

The delete !vote-ers and nominators in these are either voting on the basis of primary schools are not notable, period, or that there is nothing that can make a primary school notable (in fact, one of the editors involved in the campaign has said that primary schools are "inherently non-notable". This is a problem that needs solving.

Night of the Big Wind, despite the fact that he is coming across this situation from a completely different angle, is doing the right thing. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It is never wise for an editor or group of editors to push AFD to try to implement policy change, even if its a result of a common outcome that has no exact backing from any guideline or policy. That issue is addressed more by an RFC/U if they know they're fighting policy and trying to fix it that way (WP:POINT), and if they continue to do that, I do recommend that solution. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This RfC will not lead to a policy change. It will lead to the closing off of an undesired stray off the policy, commonly know as "Common Outcomes". Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is explicitly policy or not, it's still extremely gamey and pointy to try to subvert a long-term community consensus in this manner. AFD is the worst place to start a battle. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a subject that has been annoying me for ages, and I start by thanking Night of the Big Wind for starting this. It's a hornet's nest, and I think you're a brave Wikipedian for poking at it with a big stick. I almost started this at WP:SCHOOL a while ago, but I chickened out. :)

So... if you consider a school an organization, which I don't think is a big stretch, then we can apply WP:CORPDEPTH which says (in part), "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." (emphasis added.) What we have been doing for ages is short-circuiting the GNG and allowing a class of articles to exist under a special exemption. I say this stops now. If a school has coverage in reliable sources from outside its service area, then it's notable. If it's only covered in sources distributed in the same area as the school serves, then it's not notable. I'd really like to see the whole schools tree of articles refactored in the following way:

Add a paragraph or so in the article about the city/county/whatever (or, in fact all of the above) that describes the school board that serves the area.
Create school board articles with a list of each school governed by the board. Schools which do not meet the GNG can be covered in a paragraph in the school board article. Schools which do meet the GNG have their own articles and a hat in the school board article pointing to the article on the notable school.
Create redirects for all non-notable schools in the region pointing back to the school board article, anchored to the paragraph on the specific school.

There, done, easy-peasie, lemon-squeezie. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that now we have these school board articles which have several problems: most would likely suffer the same CORPDEPTH problem of being only significant to local sources, and that the structure of a school board isn't replicated across the globe.

There's already a better article that every non-notable school article can be merged up into: the article about the community it serves. We already acknowledge any government recognized town or village as notable, so we can create sections on "Education" within those to discuss the schools (and school boards if they exist). When these are large as they would be for large cities, separate "Education in X" can be spun out. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, as soon as I hit 'save' I thought of the first problem you pointed out, I just hoped nobody else would be smart enough to think of it too. I hadn't thought of the second, but they're both valid points. My proposal sucks, but I agree 100% to merge them back in to the town/village/city/county/arrondissement/whatever. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Western world Schools will easily meet GNG as schools get numerous independent reports carried out and it would be hard in the western world not to find sources written about a school to meet GNG. I also think they meet guidelines in WP:ORG. Therefore the guildline of common consensus was that all Secondary Schools are notable has been in place for sometime. It allows people to work on content rather than fighting AFDs that will ultimately fail as will be worked on. As I've previously pointed out to Night the problem isn't Western schools if you go with all Secondary schools must meet GNG because it would be very hard for them to fail when worked on my problem is schools outside the west they are no less notable than my local school but would be far more difficult to source enough to meet GNG. I have a big issue there we cant include some and not others. My other concern is the clear campaign being run against schools shown by the huge number of recent AFDS that needs addressed its far too many in number to allow people to assess and look to work on. There really needs to be a limit how many one editor can nominate at any one time. I think everyone agrees the majority of Primary schools are non notable unless they have extensive sources to prove notability so why are they being taken to AFD when there is a clear consensus in those AFds to redirect its a waist of everyones time.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Great! Then you will be able to write an article about the "Plantage Mavo" in Beverwijk, the Netherlands. It is one of my former secondary schools, but I consider the school not notable. If you can proof otherwise, you are welcome to do that! Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is no consensus that primary schools are non-notable. There is currently a small band of editors who take this stance and are nominating primary schools for deletion purely because they are primary schools. While perhaps the majority of primary schools are non-notable there are some which are clearly notable that are located in historic buildings and which have served their local community for centuries. Some of these schools have got swept up in the school AfD campaign and have been inappropriately deleted or redirected. The people who would normally help to improve and source these articles haven't been able to do so because of the bad timing over the Christmas holidays and the sheer numbers involved. There have been about have been about 222 school related AfDs since 17th December and one user has been responsible for 157 of those AfDs. His editing history shows that he sometimes looks at the articles for just a few minutes before nominating them for AfD. I really think there should be a limit to the number of AfDs that a single user is allowed to make in any given period. The articles can of course be recreated but it doesn't help that one of the articles involved was being worked on by a new user who now unsurprisingly seems to have given up editing altogether. Dahliarose (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  - More accurately, there is probably agreement that some primary and secondary schools are notable by the GNG, but the argument is that not all primary schools are necessary notable - particularly if the only coverage of the school is by local sources. We don't allow local sources to stand as sufficient GNG evidence for other topics, so it doesn't stand the same to allow schools to get away with it as well. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And how can you possibly tell from someone's contributions how long they have spent looking at an article before nominating it? Fmph (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen his list of contributions? Every few minutes a tag or deletion nomination. Unless he reads all the articles and put them in line for tagging/nominating first, it is impossible to give the articles a good look in such a short time. He is efficient enough to standardize his nomination-reasons

Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The focus of the RFC was are secondary schools notable so we should keep to that subject as much as possible as so far this isn't really going either way. However the consensus on primary schools is they are not automatically notable. Secondary schools are far more notable than primary schools mainly due to being far more coverage on them and and has been found in most of those AFDS there aren't good sources to make primary schools meet GNG and they don't pass previously held common consensus either. Anyone looking at a primary school should asses whether meets GNG and if not be bold and redirect there is no need for an AFD in those cases unless contested then they should go to AFD. In regards to sourcing we do allow local sources in some cases to go towards GNG depending on there nature and level of coverage plus inspectorate reports are clearly independent and reliable sourcing. It should be noted i am strongly against the mass nominating of AFDS by one user they aren't looking at them closely enough it also make it impossible for people to adequately asses them and have time to work on them. Also to address a point further up there are loads of projects who have clear consensus that things don't have to meet GNG the schools consensus was never laid out as such and that should of been formally done however the argument cant be everything on wiki has to meet GNG as that isn't the case it needs to be do Secondary schools have sufficient merit not to meet GNG. We also need to asses whether by using GNG as a standpoint on schools we are creating a situation where western schools pass but say Indian schools fail due to lacking substantial sources they are no less notable. Its time the RFC was brought back to the main issue so we can move forward one way or another. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Because of the strange layout, I answer Livitup here

I do not agree with your opinion and your attempt to turn the RfC away. This RfC was set up to check if secondary schools (and in fact also primary schools and universities) had to satify WP:GNG or that the Common Outcomes, as used in relating for schools, was allowed to override WP:GNG. The consensus on that point is clear: the Common Outcomes are not allowed to override WP:GNG. So articles about schools just have to satisfy WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something the RFC opening statement says Should secondary schools/highschools meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or are they exempt from that? that does not mention primary schools or UNI's. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I was also thinking today that, absent further substantive debate, it was time to do something before this withers away into another failed attempt at documenting consensus. I think there are two key arguments here:

Sources with local distribution are sufficient to prove notability. Since almost every school in the world is covered in at least local sources, schools are defacto notable.
Sources with local distribution are not sufficient to prove notability; notability must be proven by coverage in sources of wider distribution, or sources outside the "home area" of the subject of the article. Some schools have such notability, some schools do not, so each article should be judged on the sources within that article.

Once we settle this basic argument, we can move on to determining a guideline for the creation and deletion of school articles. So without further ado, I present a:

Straw poll to test consensus

Proposed: Schools must be shown to have attention from regional, national, or international sources to show notability. Sources with limited or local distribution are not indications of notability for schools.

Support

As straw poll author. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 22:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Weak support: The "schools are automatically notable" idea is just favoritism shown by people with an overt interest in schools or (more often) people who think their school is Important, and want to bend the rules to favor their local editing interest without any care for the broader effect of doing so. Schools, as organizations, architectural structures, subcultures, or any other categorization are not magically special. I understand DGG's point in the "oppose" section, and it makes sense as observation, but doesn't seem to me to override the issue that there are an unbelievable number of "civic pride" and "local vanity" articles on Wikipedia that should upmerge into broader school district, local government or even town pages. My support is weak because the wording "have attention from ... sources" is not particularly helpful, and this may be too specific – schools are a common example of the problem, but "local crap" is the real problem, not schools per se. That said, some variant of this could deal with that more broadly, by not focusing on schools exactly, but "local civic institutions", and even if it didn't, just slowing the profusion of "my skool's kool!" wannabe-articles would be a net positive. User:Night of the Big Wind's more detailed draft, mentioned at the #Suggestions sub-topic below looks like a good place to start, if schools in particular were to remain the focus. Even that looks to me like it could be broadened to include civic institutions more broadly, from city councils to high school football teams to whatever "local crap" people are generating pointless vanity articles about. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Weak support - This idea needs a rewriting, but I understand and support the motivation. The idea that by simple virtue of being a high school, a high school meets notability requirements, is a bad idea. Most high schools will meet the GNG, but many won't, and we need to separate out out the chaff and be rid of it. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I can support this, although I would prefer more precise wording with regards to sources. I don't think this proposal requires all schools to provide evidence of notability from the get-go, but rather if no sources can be found after a diligent WP:BEFORE search, we should consider merging or deletion. Again its worthwhile to point out that I feel most high schools in the first world meet the WP:ORG/WP:N criteria, so this proposal would necessitate little action. Them From Space 16:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Sort of support. I don't think most schools have enough notable information to warrant a separate article. While notable by themselves with broadish GNG interpretation, I don't think every school should necessarily be a separate page. Surely, several paragraphs of info can be placed in the parent articles. I guess what I'm saying is that WP:MERGE can be the best editorial decision even if the school itself is notable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
yes --Guerillero | My Talk 04:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. Kaldari (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Support There's no reason to treat secondary schools differently from any other organisation. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. It is already policy that sources are required, otherwise Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This stands to reason since unless sources are known to exist, an article that complies with WP:V and WP:NOR cannot exist. The "inherent notability" argument, which is essentially the presumption that sources must exist but we haven't found them yet, is misguided: if and when suitable sources are identified, an article can and should be created. Jakew (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Support even though I fully expect this to be a snowball fail. Civic pride, boosterism, and coverage of routine operations in local publications are not an adequate basis for encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is part gazetteer but, even though it is "not paper", it is inappropriate to devote a separate page for each gazetteer entry. DGG and CT Cooper make cogent points about raising the bar above GNG and RS; but the problem lies in the subjectivity of distinguishing "significant coverage" from trivial, routine, or self-interested coverage. This is difficult for our more youthful contributors, and some sort of benchmark would be helpful. (Disclosure: I am old enough for my children to have graduated. In hindsight, the granfalloon that was the center of my world for four years is completely unremarkable, and nothing of encyclopedic significance has been written about it.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Support definitely - I think school articles aren't particularly useful unless they are very well known (e.g. Eton college). -- Eraserhead1 <talk>
Support per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTYELLOW. Mere location, number of students and activity are too generic for a standalone article. Brandmeister t 13:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Strong support. (edit conflict) The notability guideline is by its own definition a method of testing an article against our verifiability policy; that is, whether a subject is sourced enough to merit an article about it. Granting any exceptions whatsoever to the GNG, the basic test that all other notability guidelines refer back to, risks undermining that policy and cracking the first of our site's five pillars by allowing that category to become an indiscriminate collection of information. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment below. Diego (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

The distinction doesn't make sense as a formal rule, for there will be too many exceptions; in practice for schools as for other local institutions we relatively downgrade the importance of merely local news accounts, but it depends to a good deal what is said in them. I'm more likely to be found arguing against local sources as showing the notability of local institutions than the other way around, but it depends on the article. RS is a matter of interpretation and shades of grey, and most contested AfD discussions tend to involve the nuances of such interpretation. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. Notability has always been about significant independent coverage. Schools where significant independent is met by local sources still meet GNG. The 'non-local' requirement is in the guidelines for wp:organizations, which is an alternate way to meet notability. This proposal would conflate guidelines, requiring schools to meet both instead of either one. This would be a deep change of the current community consensus that would affect all other organizations and even other subject-specific guidelines. While I can empathize with the motivation to avoid lots of half-backed articles about trivial items, fighting them through the local criteria is absolutely the wrong way to approach the situation. What should be questioned is the reliability and quality of sources available, not their geographic proximity; the existing WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS guidelines are good enough to avoid indiscriminate topic coverage (and have never required non-local sources to establish notability). It would make sense to require a stricter enforcement of GNG if in exchange all this nonsense about local and routine sources was dropped, or at least reduced to criteria to assess the quality of the sources found, not an absolute requirement. Diego (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Not only because the distinction between "regional" and "local" is unworkable but because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If someone wants to write an article on some incurious secondary school, is the resulting article any less worthy for inclusion that

What happened here? Where is the other half of the opinion and the signature? Sven Manguard Wha? 15:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This was inserted together with the paragraph below by User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid [1]. A rewrite that they forgot to delete? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If someone wants to write an article on a some innocuous secondary school then is the resulting article any less worthy of inclusion than Teardrops on My Drum, Julius von Mohl or Doite? Those are the last three articles I got when I clicked Random article. No more than those articles, articles on secondary schools may not be notable to you, but they are notable to someone, they meet the general notablility guidelines, and just because they exist doesn't mean anyone ever has to read them. We are only collect the sum of human knowledge, we are not saying that any of it is interesting. --RA (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The logic you're using means that I should write an article on myself , since that's notable to me. (And I can find local sources for that). We can't be indiscriminate despite being paper (we are not the "sum" of human knowledge, we are a summary of human knowlege): at some point we have to recognize that detailed coverage fails our goal of summarizing information. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That would almost certainly be excluded by trivial or routine coverage. Biographies can pass either WP:GNG or WP:BIO, and neither of them ban articles on individuals of local interest. In fact, WP:POLITICIAN opens the door to articles on local politicians. CT Cooper · talk 18:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Notability is not a solipsistic notion of "notability". "Notability" is intrinsically about what other people believe is notable. To you and I, any topic may still be non-notable, but, if it is notable to others, unrelated to the topic of the article, that's notable enough for Wikipedia.

So, "I think I am notable" doesn't cut it. What is required is for multiple, independent sources to write significantly on the topic. That is, "Other people think I am notable". Those other people may not be you or I, but it is they are someone. It doesn't matter if those people are "local", "regional", "national" or "international". All that matters is that the topic is notable to some group of people.

By "sum of human knowledge" I was referring to the Jimbo quote: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing." Of course some summarising is needed ... so we summarise about a secondary school, we don't write about every door and hallway or list every past pupil. But we do summarise it. --RA (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This is why notability on WP is treated differently from the concept of "noted by others" or the standard English dictionary definition. It is meant as an objective metric by demonstrating that sources have found the topic to be of note, and not just the subjective argument "others find this notable". To that end that's why we also require significant coverage to assure that it is not isolated by a small group of people. When the coverage is just local, that's a problem towards our goal of summarizing human knowledge. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - The accusation is frequently levied that schools are getting lax treatment with regard to the GNG. If that is true, then the solution is to properly enforce the GNG, and demand a decent level of coverage with trivial references and routine coverage excluded. This proposal will instead raise the bar above the level which is required for the GNG, by excluding "local sources" in a blanket and arbitrary fashion, with absolute no regard to the reasons notability requirements exist in the first place. Reasons given for justifying local sources exclusions among editors have been inconsistent and unclear - with arguments varying from personal dislike of articles on localities (with them being described as "crap" e.t.c.), trying to reduce the number of articles in general, and even trying to tackle systematic bias. There is no evidence that there has ever been a clear consensus for such a rule, with this being demonstrated right here, at WP:ITSLOCAL and WP:ROTM, and by reviewing the "discussion" that led to WP:CORPDEPTH. There remain many unanswered questions on how this actually works, with a lack of any clear definition of what "local" is and how to determine a "local source" in all possible media being the tip of the iceberg. Given these unanswered questions, I think supporting this is analogous to signing a blank cheque. CT Cooper · talk 17:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - The idea of limiting coverage to subjects that get more than local coverage is antithetical to my idea of what WP is. Even though it is not intended to include all human knowledge (I had Raisin Bran for breakfast, just in case you want to know), I believe that it should include what I would expect to find in, say, A History of Foo County, for all Foos in English-speaking nations and for any other Foos that any of our readers are interested in and that our editors are willing to work on. That means, for every city, county, and township in the U.S., coverage of the founders, the locally-noted institutions and personages, the local climate and development patterns, the local history, government, culture, education, sports, and so on. All of that is included in the suggested coverage for all settlements, and most of the sourcing wil be local. Once you start writing an article on a settlement and aim for GA quality, almost every major section will, eventually, require a sub-article, where almost all of the sources will be local. This policy would lead to endless warfare between the notability police and editors, with creative editors adding encyclopedic content to the project and deletionists taking it to AfD and proposing to merge and redirect it back to the locality. In reality, "merge and redirect" for schools and most similar institutions means "delete all of the content except their name and a self-referencing link to an empty redirect."--Hjal (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. This poll is flawed. There is no need for altherantive guidelines for schools if the majority feel the current common outcomes is wrong then schools should meet the same set of guidelines as anything else. They must meet GNG the above proposal is wrong and would mean changing GNG you can't have lower or higher rules for schools than anything else. The original poll should be reinstated immediately. Should schools meet GNG or are they inherently notable. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Wikipedia should cover all reasonably importent subjects, of course, but the reason there are notability guidelines is because nobody wants to read about some small grocery store or a kid's garage band. But schools are always a fairly major institution: in most countries they have to be inspected by the government, and they are generally very important to people that live near them or whose children attend them, unlike grocery stores. So deleting articles that are important to many people (and not just one owner of a grocery store) is unfair to those people. Liam98 7 16:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose THis will not help our mission to create an encyclopedia. More articles on suitable topics is better. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Existing guidelines (GNG) are sufficient. Additionally, distinguishing "local" from "regional" is not plausible. (Is a New City school covered only in New York Times not notable? What about a Gillette, Wyoming school covered in the regional (but much less significant) newspaper Campbell County Observer?) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose It's a trivial bar for a high school to reach, given that the wide majority will have such coverage over its bands or teams in a town or regional newspaper. Throw in a few stellar students or faculty members and it's going to be a long slog to find a few schools which don't pass GNG. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - The current de facto consensus, that primary schools are presumed not notable unless they are made newsworthy by extraordinary circumstances and that secondary schools are presumed notable per se assuming their existence can be verified (a la populated villages, species of plants and animals, professional baseball players, etc.) works and saves a small crew of regular AfD participants from being swamped by a deluge of notability challenges, both from deletionists seeking to eliminate high school stubs and from inclusionists wanting to preserve pieces on ordinary elementary schools. It is a highly effective, very functional compromise between those favoring a narrow and those favoring a focused encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree with User:Carrite; per se notability solves the inevitable time suck of deletion attempts which almost always fail. It's also a recognition that sources out there are likely, but their access on the web from afar may not be, and solves the First World bias by saying that high schools in the US because most have web pages and nearly every town has a newspaper and many have tv stations, radio stations, all with web presences pass GNG, but those in the Democratic Republic of Congo or Ethiopia or Burma aren't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Carrite has stated the situation exactly. Experience has shown that a diploma-granting secondary school or a degree-granting college will virtually ALWAYS be found to have significant coverage, and thus we "presume" they are notable to save everyone's time. Instead of nominating such schools for deletion, they should be improved by the addition of the sources that are virtually certain to exist, at least in Western countries (and as Carlossuarez points out, requiring lots of internet-accessible coverage for secondary schools could result in a de facto rule that high schools in developed countries have articles but high schools in developing countries do not). Primary and middle schools usually do NOT receive that kind of coverage, so they have to prove their notability via independent coverage in multiple reliable sources. What is so hard about that? --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

To put it rude: You think is is ok to bluntly ignore WP:GNG and WP:V and don't ask for sources to proof notability is they are not provided, because it is too much work? Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose It is up to the author to proof notability and I don't care how (s)he does it, as long as it is convincing. Shooting down sources upfront is unfair.
Oppose It is important to have neutral encyclopedic material about schools, and we at Wikipedia can provide it, even if the sources are only local. --99of9 (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is it important? Why stop at secondary schools? Why not primary schools? Local churches and businesses? --MASEM (t) 15:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. It is reasonable to include articles about secondary schools, regardless of whether or not the schools are notable. Schools are helpful to "build the web" of how different subjects are connected, especially in terms of notable individuals and which schools they attended. Biographies in most tertiary sources include information about someone's schooling, and Wikipedia is uniquely suited to have those schools be linkable. To only make notable schools linkable would result in uneven coverage -- better is to have all secondary schools covered. --El on ka 05:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We already have a better link point for this type of thing: we consider every town and village to be notable and linkable, and that's likely more important than just the school in describing the background of a notable person. Schools can be discussed in the context of the locality if otherwise not significantly notable. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Secondary schools are inherently notable. Buffs (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No topic is inherently notable. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose These kinds of articles are always going to be out there and I'd rather see them standardized and improved rather than the current whack-a-mole, inconsistent AFD treatment. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That argument could be used for a wide number of pop culture topics (every episode of TV shows, etc.) The inconsistent AFD treatment is due to the fact that how schools are handled is not standardized, and thus trying to remedy that by appropriate change in policy. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per Carrite, Carlossuarez46 and MelanieN. Edison (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I think it is important to understand the important role of schools.Leutha (talk) 09:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The present situation has served us well and no good reason to change has been put forward. High schools are well covered by local media. Even if 'local' can be defined, why should such sources be excluded? TerriersFan (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Should schools have to meet GNG

Proposal Are Secondary schools inherently notable or should they meet the full guidelines laid out at WP:GNG the above poll is flawed as if schools are not inherently notable schools should meet the main guidlines as everything else not lesser or higher standards. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Support:

strong support. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. Kaldari (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Oppose I have no idea what this run-on sentence even means. Buffs (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Because the violins of September wound my heart in a slow, monotonous langour. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The proposal is too vague. Edison (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Confused proposal. TerriersFan (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose this poll as being completely unintelligible. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll discussion

Trouts and pitchforks welcome. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 22:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Again thats a side argument the GNG guidelines are already there as are the WP:ORG. A straw poll is needed but it should be the straight question do Secondary schools need to meet GNG or are the exempt the original question of the RFC.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I think this is the right question to be asking. The justification in the above sections and past AFD is that any secondary school will have local source, ergo defacto notability by the GNG. It is not the case we allow secondary school articles never to have to show any type of notability. No topic is except from the GNG; the reason secondary schools are kept is the presumption of GNG -meeting. When framed in this manner the question is whether local sources satisfy the GNG for secondary schools. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well thats not true at all there are plenty of things that are exempt from meeting GNG such as professional sports players. That poll is for another RFC not this one thats a RFC on GNG and what is needed to pass it not are schools notable.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Masem, you're echoing exactly what I am trying to get at. If we can first decide whether local notability is enough for schools to meet the GNG, then we can decide what to do. If the consensus here is that yes, local sources are enough, then we can probably wrap up this RFC and move on with our lives. But if we decide local coverage does not make a school notable, then we can discuss what to do with schools that only have local coverage. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 22:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Edinburg, we're not talking about "lots of things". We're talking about schools. For years, secondary schools have been presumed notable based on coverage in sources of local or limited distribution. My straw poll just tries to determine if this is still consensus or not. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 22:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No GNG is the same for everything it is no different whether for a person, school or football team therefore a debate on what is needed to pass as GNG for schools isn't appropriate its for another RFC altogether. You cant set a level of sources required for one thing and not another its taking this on another route and the end result will be this RFC getting nothing done. The original question needs answered first If you want to go on a sidetrack meaning the main issue does not get addressed then go ahead. The subject of what is required to meet GNG is a different story all together. It should also be pointed out the RFC isn't about all schools its about secondary ones which will be able to be sourced a lot better also WP:ORG does come into play at that level not just GNG. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Livitup it was already as said above by Masem taken on another route when he said No topic is except from the GNG. Thats shows this is going to be about GNG not schools. There are so many things on wiki where consensus was laid down properly that things don't have to meet GNG. All I'm saying is you risk this being about GNG not schools.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, pro sports players aren't exempt from notability guidelines. They have to meet the criteria of the sub-notability guideline NSPORT, which is to establish criteria that - given time and resources to locate sources - GNG sourcing can eventually be obtained. While I personally disagree with some of the points, the arguments at NSPORT given for each rational make sense as to why there will likely be non-local coverage of each pro player, for example.

Note that there is no subnotability guideline for schools. It has always been listed in OUTCOME on the justification that local sources are likely to exist to satisfy notability. The question is now raised: are local sources sufficient? They are disallowed via WP:ORG (another sub-notability guideline) and NSPORT rejects them as notability measures, so is there a different consensus for schools? That's the question to be asked. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No they are exempt from GNG if they meet those guidelines as at WP:Footy loads of players aren't well sourced but it they play in a fully pro league they stay. You said nothing is exempt from GNG which is wrong.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead but its a side argument that in no way need addressed there are no sub guidelines for schools as you say just common outcomes. Therefore they are either notable inherently or the must meet GNG. The original question is the best do they need to meet GNG or not. By going down local sourcing we aren't getting anywhere. What your saying is schools should have sub guidelines its no better than common outcomes. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Remember, the GNG is not the overarching guideline for inclusion, it is WP:N itself, which says that notability is determined by either meeting the GNG or by a subject-specific notability guideline. As there is no sub-notability guideline for schools (unless you want them under WP:ORG) we have to look to see if they meet the GNG. The argument until recently is "yes secondary schools meet the GNG because they have coverage by, at minimum, local papers". The arguing in question is can local papers be used to justify the GNG. It has never been the case that the GNG has never been applied for schools, simply that the default answer has been presumed yes due to the local sourcing. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue, also, is that sourcing should be appropriate for a claim of notability. People voted delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle Harbour Public School (2nd_nomination), despite coverage in national level news media on issues of (a) being the cause for a change to legislation in regards to speed zones near schools; (b) the principal being a go-to expect on school issues; and (b) being a highly ranked school as determined by standardised testing. Personally, I think that should be enough (and voted so), but the bar regarding what is and is not notable in terms of schools is set artificially high. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Its fair to say it hasn't been applied. It has always been the common outcome that Secondary schools are likely to meet GNG therefore should stay. Thats been the case at so many AFDs over the years. It means that schools are very rarely fully assessed. There isn't a need for another subguideline. Eithier the common outcome is correct and should be put down properly or must fully meet GNG. Then you go down the route of what a local source is. Also independent National reports are published for all Secondary schools in the UK anyway that are widely reported in the national press so either way that is an independent national reliable source.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Annual school reports commisioned by the same government that pays for the schools? I don't think you can call those reports "independent sources". The old saying still works: Who pays the piper calls the tune. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not just "local" coverage. We need "significant coverage in secondary sources". I am absolutely sure in most Western countries and probably some Eastern ones that there's an annual document accessing all schools - number of students, teachers, graduating, average grade, etc. That's not significant coverage - that's data points. Now, if a report praised the top 5-10 schools and described how they got there; or critiqued the bottom schools for certain aspects, that's secondary and a start for the GNG. To take Danjel's example of a school where an incident lead to a national/state law, we have the concept that singular events aren't sufficient to lead to notability, unless there's a much larger and long-term impact (eg Columbine).

To put this another way: prior to recent discussion, the approach to secondary schools is "OUTCOME says will meet GNG, ergo no need to delete/!keep vote at AFD". Now people are saying "Ok, how exactly does Smalltown High meet the GNG?", exposing that most of these are built on local sources. The question is begged: are local sources sufficient for schools (where no other area allows for them) or not, and thus adjusting some policy/guideline somewhere to reflect that consensus. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Its a common outcome and national reports are very likely when combined with other sources to meet the general notability guidelines. Im not saying schools shouldn't be subject to GNG I'm saying that going down the line of what is enough to meet GNG in a schools case isn't helpful its a sidetrack issue. The original question needs answered first should schools meet GNG. If the answer to that is yes then you could say what constitutes enough in a schools case to meet that but by not answering the original question its not going anywhere. Anyway if the consensus is we should go down that route first then fine but the risk is the original question will get missed. As is shown the longer the discussion goes on people drift away from it so if you don't answer the main question by the time you get to it you may no longer have a discussion its a risk but hey ill let everyone else pitch in.

We don't have gun massacres at schools in Australia, but this is a similar sort of thing. Speed zones near schools is a major political issue in Australia at the moment, with positions by both major parties (Liberal and ALP). There is substantial and continuing coverage on this issue, and the school where the issue started is of note. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, there you go, that's an example of showing a school notable, which I'm satisfied with. But let's take the case of something like Emma E. Booker Elementary School - this is the school where President Bush was at when the 9/11 attacks started. Just because that happened to be where he was at on a historically critical moment doesn't create notability for the school - its a passing mention for all practical purposes.

To the preceeding question: every entry on OUTCOMES that suggests "keep" is one that has been justified (in the past) that sources will ultimately exist to meet the GNG. None of the entries in OUTCOME is a bypassing of GNG to allow an article. So it has always been about the GNG, not the non-existent free ride that schools got from the GNG. Whether local sources satisfy the GNG is the heart of this matter. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice attempt to declare all schools notable. But I don't buy that! In general the line was that all school-articles have to meet WP:GNG. Now you are trying to lower the requirements to a level that is almost zero. With help of several other, I have compiled a draft for a set of rules to check if a school is notable. The draft only tries to give an upper limit (on or above this level = notable) and a lower limit (on or under this level = not notable). The grey area in between is for discussion. Life is too creative in inventing exceptions, that I don't even try to write a manual on notable/not-notable. That won't work. You can find the draft here: User:Night of the Big Wind/Notability of schools. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The question is flawed. I don't see why any additional guidelines should be needed for schools when WP:N already suffices. The key point in WP:N seems to me "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger article or relevant list." Virtually all secondary-level schools in English-speaking countries can easily meet WP:N. The problem with the current AfD campaign is that the editors are setting a higher bar for any school that has the word "middle", "primary" or "elementary" in its title, regardless of the history or importance of the school. This 300-year-old school for instance got redirected despite the fact that there are nationally available sources including a whole book written about the school and mentions in several other published books, though the delete/redirect voters weren't aware of this when they voted. I plan to recreate the article but it just wastes everyone's time and discourages new editors when certain types of articles are singled out for a witch hunt. Dahliarose (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Lack of independent reliable sources killed off that article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That article got redirected because of block voting by people who ~~hadn't read the article or checked for sources and~~ were voting simply because the school had the word "middle" in its title despite the fact that it had only been a middle school for a short part of its history. The sources were found after they'd voted. Dahliarose (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If you had sources available, why did you not add them? Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That is an extremely bad faith accusation to lay on those editors. You should strike it now. You have no idea in the world whether they read the article or checked for sources. Fmph (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't prove or disprove that people haven't checked for sources but the voters in this case clearly hadn't understood the article properly and the votes were cast *before* additional content had been added to the article. The school has only recently been called a "middle" school so it is not surprising that sources couldn't be found if searches were restricted to the present name. There was no such thing as a middle school in 1725. The school leaving age was 14 right up until the beginning of the twentieth century in England. 11:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've now struck through the comment. It is, however, clear that nominators and voters should take more time to investigate sources rather than voting on gut instinct which does seem to be the case with a lot of these school articles (high school = keep primary/middle = delete). For any school article one should always omit words like "primary" and "middle" from searches as schools, especially old ones, often undergo frequent name changes. Dahliarose (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, at issue are secondary schools as well. Most that I spot check are only locally sourced, and suffer the same problems as elementary schools.

The question: Are local sources suitable for demonstrating notability of a topic? is the core of the matter here. If they are, then yes, likely all primary and secondary schools are notable. If not, then most are likely non-notable and should be merged to the town/community they serve.

Again, I would put a large cavaet on this discussion: if this consensus drives towards that local sources are not notable, hence making schools *not* inherently notable, I would strongly suggest a 6 -12 month moratorium on deletion of school articles , giving time for editors to find sources for notability. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it makes any difference whether the sources are local or not. All that matters is whether sufficient non-trivial sources can be found to produce an article of a reasonable length. National sources can be found for every single school in England, because every school is inspected either by OFSTED (state-run schools) or the Private Schools' Inspectorate (fee-paying schools). I don't think this should mean that every primary school in England is automatically notable simply because it is has a detailed OFSTED inspection every few years. The key points are that multiple reliable sources should be found and the article should be of a non-trivial nature. Dahliarose (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It does make a significant difference. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. At some point, as the focus of a reliable source gets narrower and tighter, the relevance of the material within that source to goal of summarizing information as a tertiary sources becomes less and less. Eg: not only would all primary and secondary schools be notable, but all churches, most restaurants, many businesses, most student athletes, all streets and roads, would be notable by the same means. That's indiscriminate and would fail that part of our goals. We also have to worry about the systematic bias between nations with a large amount of free press and those without that for various reasons. By restricting local sources, we avoid that systematic bias and maintain a discrete summary of mankind's knowledge. This is why NSPORTS and ORG already put the foot down on local sources for evidence of notability. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Masem, if the problem is that routine coverage would create an indiscriminate amount of non-notable articles, the point that has to be clarified is routine, not local. Of course sources shown to provide significant and independent coverage can be used even if they happen to be geographically close to the subject. They are both within the spirit and the letter of GNG, which is having something relevant to say about the topic, and compatible with WP:NOTPAPER. Most churches, restaurants et. al. still wouldn't be covered because they don't get significant coverage beyond routine, but we should keep the small percentage that do get it (NOTPAPER again, and WP:SNOWFLAKE). Diego (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not routine coverage, it's "local" coverage. Local coverage, broadly taken, often includes routine elements (a local paper has a weekly restaurant review column, for example), but not all local coverage is routine; not all routine cover is local. And routine coverage is not necessarily bad - eg: we pretty much assume every film that reaches a movie theater screen is notable because, by routine, it will be reviewed, establishing secondary sources, though often there's more coverage than that. The point is to understand that to fairly apply the idea of "WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is to restrict articles on topics that can only be covered in depth by local sources, whether that coverage is routine or not. As soon as something outside that local area takes notice, it's a different ballgame, but not until then. --MASEM (t) 07:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If people want to restrict the use of local sources to prove notability then it's WP:N that needs changing. You can't make one rule for schools that other articles aren't required to follow. Schools need to meet WP:N. We need to get away from the divisive and unhelpful AfD debates where one camp argues that a school must be kept simply because it is a "high school" and another camp argues that a school should be deleted simply because it is a primary/elementary middle school. Dahliarose (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, I fail to see how significant coverage by several independent local sources that provides enough context for the topic (and thus are non-routine) can make that coverage "indiscriminate". You're discriminating from all the other items that don't have significant coverage by several independent local sources. Diego (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's because if you allow "significant coverage in local sources only" to be allowed to use to show notability for one class of articles, you have to extend that to all classes of articles, which suddenly is going to drastically expand WP without reasonable bounds and consideration for discriminate coverage (churches, businesses, etc.) --MASEM (t) 13:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Significant coverage in local sources" is already allowed for all classes of articles, it's called the General Notability Guideline. What you suggest is to restrict the GNG for schools so that an additional requirement (non-local sources) would be required for that class. Again, that indiscriminate coverage that you fear is not happening because not all churchers or businesses are covered by significant reliable sources, not even local. Those which are covered should definitely have an article because Wikipedia is not paper. Diego (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Significant coverage in secondary sources" and "local coverage only" are contradictory statements - barring some exceptional cases, you cannot have "significant coverage" if the secondary source coverage is only coming from local sources. The same type of coverage that some in this discussion have said assures schools are notable - despite coming from local sources - also exists for many other local entities. While WP is not paper we are still a tertiary source meant to summarize information, not outline every possible tidbit. That's why restricting the creation of articles on topics that have only local source coverage helps to assure that if we are including a specific school, business, or other factor, it has wider reaching notability beyond just the community it serves. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Significant coverage in secondary sources and local coverage only are contradictory statements" - only in your mind. There's nothing that by their nature would make a local source necessarily not significant, and you have failed to make a convincing case why this would be so. If the goal is to avoid lots of cruft, I can empathize with that sentiment; but that's logically unrelated to the physical position of the sources with respect to the covered item. We are not "outlining every possible tidbit", only those which have been noted by reliable third parties. Why should "local" be synonym with "not reliable"? Diego (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:N as currently written makes no discrimination between local and non-local sources. The GNG guideline does exclude routine and trivial coverage, as it should, though that doesn't mean local sources are banned entirely. However, I am doubtful that if the guideline is applied as currently written, that all primary schools would survive. Secondary schools usually have a lot more coverage, and do overwhelming have the sources available to pass the GNG as currently written. What would happen with a local sources exclusion is more debatable, with the vagueness of the proposal with defining what local is e.t.c. being the primary cause of this. I have seen at least one supporter of the local sources exclusion claim that a decent majority of secondary schools would survive such an exclusion. CT Cooper · talk 01:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the suggestion that all primary schools are notable (as much as I think it) is an appropriate compromise, so no one's really saying it seriously. But I strongly agree with you that the guidelines as they are not being applied appropriately. But rather than worrying about survivability, I worry that the bar is being set inappropriately high for primary schools (with local, regional, national and international sources not being enough, for example, in the AfD I linked to above). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Significant coverage" suggests that local-only coverage fails notability; there is also the aspect that a local paper reporting on local events is a partially dependent source since they have a vested interest in coverage in the news in that local area. Notability is meant to be demonstrated by a breadth of sources. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I don't see anything here which can reasonably be interpreted to mean local sources are banned. There is also more to local sources than local newspapers, and while some local sources may have be closely connected to a school, it is rather sweeping to suggest they all are. CT Cooper · talk 22:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because it's not written down explicitly doesn't mean it's not taken that way. The idea of local sources not being sufficient for notability is a defacto standards for people, organizations, businesses, and the like, and schools cannot have special exemption from them. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The archives at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)] suggest otherwise. Once and again the warnings for local sources were as caveats to mind the possibility of non-significant or non-independent coverage, not to ban them outright; and that the notability for organizations and businesses guideline is not an additional requirement that articles should meet but an alternate way to reach notability. So not only schools don't have any special exemption but all organizations are treated the same way, and can find notability from local sources of enough quality. That is what Notability means, and that is the consensus that our wikipedian Founding Fathers left us. The interpretation that non-local sources are an absolute requirement has never reached community-wide consensus. Diego (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The idea that any organization less significant than, say, a national or (major sub-national, e.g. US state, UK county) government should not have to meet the WP:GNG is pure favoritism by people especially interested in such organizations. Of course schools of all kinds should have to meet the GNG. We've long merged pointless "my school is so cool" wannabe-articles into broader articles on school districts. If you ask me (and this is an RfC, so you did!), school district articles in turn should almost always actually merge into articles on the city government more generally, which for most cities (and virtually all smaller-than-city settlements) should in turn probably merge into the article on the city, unless and until WP:SUMMARY criteria are met that strongly suggest splitting. There are innumerable "local vanity" articles. I.e., if New York City gets an article about its bus system, editors in Peoria and Albuquerque want one too, as a matter of civic pride. Wikipedia is not a place for hanging pennants. The vast majority of articles on schools below the collegiate/university level are not particularly useful, and can be done away with as separate articles as long as searches like "Franklin High School, Dallas" will still find their subsections in the city government article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that "favoritism" is as outrageous as having one school who does meet the GNG deleted because all the significant coverage is from local independent sources. If school articles shouldn't require less than meeting the GNG, they also shouldn't require more. Diego (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

The proposal needs a target policy (I suggest WP:ORG) and I'd really prefer for it to be more definite in order to provide a brighter line. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Something like this draft: User:Night of the Big Wind/Notability of schools? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To avoid misunderstandings: this draft is not a set of rules hammered in stone, but a set of guidelines (unfortunately I have named them rules earlier) to help determine if a school is notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. :) ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Something like that would work. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I can't see that guideline working. Fundamentally, any school is notable if it meets the GNG. So the various sections on "A school is not notable when ..." or "A school is only notable when ..." don't work, as the aim of the specialised notability guidelines is to show sufficient but not necessary criteria. Limiting it to necessary criteria is a problem. - Bilby (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Further to the above, generally the aim of the GNG is not to indicate importance, but to indicate the possibility of something having sufficient coverage so that it is possible to write a verifiable NPOV article on the subject. The difficulty with the draft schools criteria is that it seems tied to importance (or at least significance). Thus many of the criteria could be passed without having sufficient coverage to create (as opposed to warrant) an article. The assumption in the past has been that secondary schools will meet the GNG by dint of being secondary schools, and therefore they will have sufficient coverage. If this is incorrect, replacing it with more refined assumptions that also fail to indicate meeting the GNG won't progress things. The bar needs to be set in a different location. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you translate this in plain English, I do not understand what you mean by this. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested guideline is going in the wrong direction. You can't spell out what isn't notable, because anything is potentially notable if it has sufficient non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. So the sections saying things like "No school is notable unless they satisfy one of the next conditions" are incorrect - schools can be notable, even if they fail to meet your criteria. Similarly, "Schools are not notable when ..." is also incorrect.

Secondly, much of the criteria you use is also going the wrong direction, looking at what makes a school important rather than what allows us to write about it. You are using things like the existence of historic school buildings or the enrollment numbers. Those sorts of things don't indicate the existence of reliable sources, so they don't really speak to notability (in the case of the buildings, for example, they only say that we can write an article on the building, not the school). - Bilby (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sub-notability and wikiprojects can set out guides to restrict notability-equals-standalone-article even if the subject meets the GNG, but they usually should have a good reason to do so, and usually with allowances for things that clearly are notable beyond all doubt. For example, at the video games wikiproject, we generally encourage remakes of older games on newer systems to be covered in the original article about the game, since the story and gameplay remain the same for the work, even if the remake gains additional reviews on publication; but if the remake has its own development history or the like, then a separate page is fine. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

True enough. But in this case, the proposal is fundamentally about excluding schools, when I've always felt that the notability criteria are more about recognising under what circumstances we can assume things to be notable. Rather than spelling out threshold conditions from the outset, the aim should be to identify conditions under which we can safely assume notability first (noting that necessary conditions aren't really necessary in practice if it passes the GNG). Which raises the second problem, in that the conditions listed are not generally connected to notability, so much as significance. The two shouldn't necessarily be separate, but they tend to be. Focusing on significance isn't going to fix the current concern.

Personally, rather than more guidelines, I'd prefer just to see more use of the GNG. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You have a point on the buildings and school numbers. As you can see, they have already a less important role then other criteria. But I think you have missed an essential part of the draft: Grey area: * This set of guidelines gives a number of conditions on which a school is always considered to be noteworthy or notable. It also gives a set of conditions under which a school is never notable. Given the huge differences in schools and the circumstances they are operating in, the set of conditions will not cover all possibilities. Therefore, the author of an article is always free to plea for the notability of his/her article and to try to convince the community that the school is notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Night, I commend your attempt at coming up with a set of criteria and guidelines for handling this question, but I think that setting arbitrary limits based on age of the school or its buildings, or the number of notable alumni or teachers, is just not a tenable solution. I'm specifically not criticizing your work, or the criteria or limits you set. I'm simply saying that there are no criteria or limits that will make sense as arbitrary barometers of notability. That said, there are several things in your draft that I agree with, for example being highly ranked, receiving awards or acknowledgement for quality of education, or being involved in a notable event. But all those things have one thing in common: they would, in all likelihood, result in the exact kind of non-trivial, non-regional coverage in independent sources that would make everyone go "yes, that school is notable." So, this might be a simple solution to a complex problem, but why can't we just call schools organizations, and make them subject to the criteria at WP:ORG? Can somebody tell me why Wikipedia:ORG#Primary_criteria isn't a perfect set of tests for school notability? Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that WP:ORG is very strangely considered when it comes to schools. While High Schools seem to be considered automagically (emphasis on the g) notable, primary schools have to pass an arbitrarily high bar to also be considered notable. This arises out of differing subjective interpretations of WP:ORG. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle Harbour Public School (2nd nomination) was deleted despite coverage in national level news media as being the site of the catalysing event for a politically important issue for Australia (school speed zones) and being one of the highest ranked primary schools in NSW (55th out of ~2000). This should easily pass WP:ORG#Primary_criteria because the depth of the coverage is substantially beyond the not trivial/incidental and is given in independent reliable sources. The audience is substantial, because of the real public interest in education (at least in Australia, every major newspaper has an education section, every major TV news has education reporters, etc.).

You keep coming back to your perception that the speed limit being changed near a school is a strong argument for the notability of the school, and I do not agree at all. Take it to DRV. Edison (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it almost sounds like a non-person version of WP:ONEEVENT. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

NotBW's work provides a basis for a school to be considered notable. It's not exhaustive (he mentions this explicitly in regards to the "grey area", and is substantively based on WP:ORG itself. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, if a local organisation's main claim to notability is that it was just outside the top 50 organisations in that particular field in the state, then it would be very unlikely to pass WP:ORG. - Bilby (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Danjel, nobody debates that the notability of schools has been automagically determined in the past. But there is nothing in WP:ORG that codifies this magic treatment; indeed, schools are specifically called out as one of the things that are defined in the "Primary Criteria." What I am trying to say is that if we take out all the past history and eliminate the automagical "high schools are notable, primary/secondary schools are not" nonsense, and actually evaluate school articles based on WP:ORG, then we will have slain the beast. If you take out all the "it's automagic" !votes in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle Harbour Public School (2nd nomination), then what would be left is a very reasonable debate on if the sources for this particular organization support notability. I find nothing at all wrong with letting the majority of school articles stake their claim by references within the article, and the outliers going to AfD. The only thing we will be missing is a new CSD category for locally-notable schools! (I'm kidding) Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:ORG seems somewhat ambiguous and open to interpretation. I wonder how one would define a school’s ‘local area’. Would it be the town or village, the English county, the US state or the Canadian province? Schools by their very nature will receive most of their coverage from the local area. Many older schools have had entire books written about them, but they’re usually written by local historians or former pupils so would such books be disallowed as sources? Articles about schools often appear in local history society journals, and these articles can sometimes be quite substantial, but again would these sources be disallowed because they are local? In contrast, all English schools receive national attention on a regular basis from OFSTED who write very lengthy and very informative reports on the school. However, if I wanted to write an article about a school then it’s always the books and journals that are the most useful sources. WP:N seems to be far more applicable to schools. It’s the range, nature and quantity of sources that are available that is important not whether or not they are local. There are already articles on the vast majority of the 5,000 or so secondary schools in the UK and I’ve yet to find a UK secondary school that doesn’t have sufficient sources to write a reasonable article. In contrast there must be 20,000 or more articles on American high schools, quite a few of which would struggle to meet WP:ORG but I don’t think any rational person would suggest that we now go through all these articles and delete them. I think the problem is that editors are looking for a one-size-fits-all solution, but there is no easy fix. NightoftheBigWind is on the right track as editors with no familiarity with schools do want some easy-to-understand rule-of-thumb guidelines. I’ve found from my work on assessing school articles that the age of the school and the number of notable alumni are usually the best predictors of a school’s notability, and generally mean that sufficient sources exist though I would not like to see this set in stone. Schools are very similar to churches, which have often been the centre of their local community for hundreds of years. Are there any guidelines on churches? I would certainly like to see some sort of consensus develop so that we can move on from the current situation where non-notable high schools are routinely kept because they are “high schools” and, as has been happening in recent weeks, notable schools with long histories are deleted or redirected simply because they currently have the word "primary" in their name, even if they've only been a primary school for a short part of their total history. The other point to consider is that school articles are often the point of entry for new Wikipedia editors. I think we should be doing our best to encourage new editors. Dahliarose (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends on interpretation, DahliaRose! I do not regard the Ofsted-reports (and similar in other countries) as independent sources. Those reports are ordered and payed for by the Government. Is it not more then likely, that they write what the Governments wants? Who pays the piper calls the tune! Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OFSTED reports are independent of the school. The teaching is of course judged by the whims of the existing government at the time so schools get penalised for not providing enough "cultural diversity" for example. The facts contained in the reports can be relied on, such as the numbers of pupils, number of languages spoken, number of children with special needs, awards granted, specialisms, etc. Dahliarose (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

.... none of which establishes notability ... Fmph (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, something like the OFSTED report is routine coverage, not indicative of notability. We are a) making the argument that not every school is notable, yet b) every school is covered in a OSFTED report, so logic says that if some schools are not notable, then the OSFTED reports can not indicate notability. Similarly, 9 out of 10 American high schools receive coverage in local newspapers for their athletics. Stuff like "Anytown Animals pound Othertown Otters in annual football matchup". Again, this is routine coverage, and again in my opinion not indicative of notability. My small town's annual 4th of July parade is not notable, but it gets coverage in our local newspaper every year. The Rose parade is notable, it gets nationwide coverage. I recognize that the GNG doesn't really make such a distinction, which is why WP:ORG seems to me to be a great subject-specific guideline to follow. I agree that it is a little vague, but this is a good thing in my opinion. I don't think we want to set bright-line, absolute requirements for school notability. I think that there should be some school articles that make it to AfD. We should not attempt to create a guideline that is so absolute that we never question it. I don't think we need to set a specific mile/km radius around the school that denotes "local coverage," the WP:ORG people have been doing OK with their guideline and common sense for quite a while. As another example, the local Pizza Hut franchise in my town burned to the ground several years back, which got covered in several articles in the county newspaper, but nobody would suggest that this particular Pizza Hut is notable.

Finally, I do think that if some guideline gets created as a result of this, that existing articles should be brought into compliance with the new guideline. I don't think anyone is advocating for deletion of school articles; the most common scenario I have seen mentioned is that we redirect them all back to the town/village/county/municipality/whatever that the school serves. I for one would be happy to work on that effort. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would support a guideline stating that schools should meet WP:GNG to get their own article. The argument then would be what constitutes significant coverage. OFSTED reports shouldn't count towards notability since every school gets them as a matter of course, and having one doesn't tell us that the school is considered noteworthy by independent sources (which after all is at the heart of notability). I don't want to rule out local sources as an indication of notability altogether, but it is true that a lot of local coverage is routine. So perhaps, like WP:ORG to some extent does now, we should require at least one regional or national source amongst those offering significant coverage. Whatever guidelines we come up with should be applied equally to primary and secondary schools (insert equivalent terms from other countries here if you want). Alzarian16 (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Could we perhaps turn this discussion on its head? The difference between schools and other organisations is that they are a key part of their local community, and information about local schools is by its very nature encyclopaedic, unlike most local shops, companies restaurants, etc. English county histories, for example, will routinely include information about schools and churches in their chapters or sections on a town or village, even if they are only mentioned in a single sentence. Could we not, therefore, develop simple guidelines which are positive - ie telling people what they should do - rather than negative - telling people what they can't do. We could explain that schools should be mentioned in the appropriate locality article or, for US schools in the School District article if there is one. Large towns will often need a separate "Education in" page. Schools should only be expanded into a standalone article if sufficient sources exist to write a reasonable length article in compliance with WP:N. One of the biggest problems at the moment is the lack of a proper policy on what do with schools that don't merit a standalone article. Some get deleted, some get redirected and some get merged. It would be helpful to have an agreed consensus on what to do in such situations. I would personally favour a merge. If a school is at least mentioned in a locality article there is less chance of someone trying to create a new meaningless stub. Dahliarose (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Simply having some particular high percentile ranking in an all-inclusive national listing and review of schools does not establish notability. We are not a Michelin guide to schools. "High quality" would apply to a school being an "Excellent school" in the US, perhaps equivalent to "top 5%", or to having a high rating in Ofsted. "Notable" is not a synonym for "excellent." If a school does a really good job, then it is likely to get significant coverage in newspapers and perhaps books. That school (in the US at least) is likely to be a well funded one in a rich community and to have a low percentage of minorities and low income students, and a low percentage of students with English as a second language. But conversely, if a school were horrible (controlled by gangs, teachers molesting the students, girls raped on the schoolgrounds after school events while a crowd watches, few students graduating, a physically unsafe facility) it would be just as likely to get national and international coverage. The two tails of the distribution of quality would be equally noted and notable. Regional and national coverage of only the very best and very worst high schools would by GNG only leave them with articles, and would fail the gazetteer function for the middle 90%, which all have lots of local coverage and some regional coverage, since they compete with each other (in the US) at the state level in athletics, and in academic and arts competitions. Thus I support a general assumption of notability for all legitimate high schools (if not home schools and tiny private high school operations). Edison (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ elektrik, the notability guideline is not about the verifiability policy, which is related to the Neutral Point of View pillar. An article that is 100% based on verified reliable sources can still be deleted if all references are primary. Notability is about the Encyclopedia pillar, which is defined by what Wikipedia is not. Neutral and verified content that is not noticed by others should be better included inside an overarching article on a topic where is relevant. This is the meaning of notability, a style guideline for where content is better placed. Diego (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Reread the first paragraph of WP:N. Unless I'm grossly misreading it, I don't see a contradiction. In any case, it really just feels like we're arguing over the same point. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Summary

If I read it correctly, the discussion can be summarized in the following points:

Most people support the fact that schools must meet WP: GNG
There is disagreement or local resources are sufficient to proof of notability
There is disagreement over the use of reports ordered and paid by the government
There is support, but certainly no consensus, for the guidelines developed by me. Some things, such as age of the school, buildings and pupil numbers are controversial.

Is this correct? Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think your summary is correct. I don't want this discussion to die off, so let's keep the momentum going. In your opinion, which is the more productive exercise: forming consensus on your second and third points, or further development of your guidelines? My preference would be to settle 2 and 3 one way or the other and use points 1-3 as a framework to develop a guideline, rather than trying to create guidelines based on numerical thresholds. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think whatever is decided the fairest thing would be to allow a month or two as a grace period possibly longer to allow editors to work on getting them up to scratch. Given this will be a substantial change that would be only fair. I actually think age could be reason depending on the school building it be listed or have historic significance as well. I also feel local sources if significantly substantial should be allowed along with other work to go towards GNG. Whatever the decision it has to be made clear that people must fully assess the articles before nominating as appears not to have been fully done by everyone recently because on the scale we are taking that could be a lot. I also agree the schools should be redirected to a parent article although at a few Afds they were redirected to articles that didn't actually have an appropriate section. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As I've recommended, if there is a change towards school articles from OUTCOME, then a 6 to 12 month grandfathering should be used - articles created before a set date (eg say, March 1) are exempt from deletion processes (save for cases of copyvio or blatently false info) to allow editors time to improve, after which they are "Free game". This needs to have a site wide notice if this going to occur as well, and possible get a bot to point to a central page to describe this result (should it be implemented). --MASEM (t) 15:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and for sure this can be fully advertised (WP:CENT, etc.). So now what's next? Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A change to the inclusion guideline for schools would really need an RfC. A discussion at the pump among a few folks really shouldn't be the basis to claim consensus for a change of this magnitude. I'll create the RfC if no one else will, but I think those of you favoring the change should be the one to write it rather than someone who prefers the status quo. Masem, you want to give it a shot? Hobit (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The RFC approach is probably right. The question is whether this is just about schools, just about local sources, or a combination of both? My take on this discussion, in combination with a similar thread about restaurant reviews at WP:ORG, suggests that we can resolve this with an RFC on the clarification of the use of local sources for notability indicators, but that's my take. We could just focus an RFC on the draft notability guideline for schools that has been presented, with any discussion of local sources specific to that writing, which might be easier to manage. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I support this. If a consensus is found about local sources for schools, its implications will likely extend slowly to all guidelines that have something to say about local sources - so why don't ask about them from the beginning? Diego (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, this RfC is just one step towards consensus about "when is a school notable". The use of local sources and Government-reports are two related, but seperate issues. Only when they are solved, we can look at my draft (if that is still necessary then). Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree with this summary, but mostly with the premise that there is a problem. Could someone
- provide examples where we are keeping real high schools in English-speaking countries that don't meet WP:N? If there are none, I'm not sure what problem we are fixing.
- explain why local sources aren't acceptable for schools (or anything else for that matter). WP:N is the general bar, I'm not seeing a reason to narrow it, especially for a topic that has had such broad support for inclusion in the past.

I continue to believe that many of you misunderstand "notability" as it exists on Wikipidia. It means "has been noted" (thus WP:N requiring sources, not national sources or sources that say it's cool) not "something special". Hobit (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with "notability" is that it depends on significant attention, and thus not all notice is valid. Many people are interpreting "local coverage" as essentialy not significant in any case (I for one don't agree with that). In the talk page of the "Notability (organizations)" guideline I have expressed my opinion about local sources in this and this threads, I think you may find it interesting. Diego (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Some the reasons to consider against the use of "notability conferred only through local sources" includes:

The fact that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but a summary. We can't cover everything that is of interest to at least one person, but instead must look when that topic is of interest to a larger group of people, and ideally more geographically diverse. Where that cutoff is can be difficult to assert, but starting from the idea of local coverage does provide a clean albeit slightly fuzzy breakpoint for this. This is supported by the fact that we don't really question the existence of articles on every recognized town and village in the world, but anything more specific than that tends to require better evidence for inclusion. This also helps to deal with issues of "local" works with regional or national or international readerships (eg New York Times), because we can easily determine when the paper is covering something "locally" and when it is covering something for the broader readership.
Systematic bias - Western/developed countries are clearly going to have local coverage from nearly every town and village; the same is just not true in undeveloped/third world countries. To at least counter some of that bias, it makes sense to limit coverage from local sources where these sources are aplenty, as opposed to expecting the undeveloped areas to eventually gain such sources (which is not necessary practical, possible, or foreseeable in the future).
Reliability. I am not saying that all local sources are not reliable, but that as you move from national to regional to local sources, both the reliable and the ability to judge that reliability gets weaker. Again, important to stress: just being a local source doesn't make one reliable, it's just that it can be difficult to affirm.
Independence. No, most local sources have no direct connection to the content they serve. But these sources, as they get more local, become more self-serving, viewing news through their local viewpoint. This is not necessary bad, but does put into question about the work's independence
Routine verses significant coverage. Local coverage tends to be more primary to the work in question than secondary. News blotters, results of elections, local happenings. Perfectly fine to source with, but without any type of secondary sourcing that considers analysis or evaluation or the like, it becomes difficult to write an article to explain how the local topic is important to the rest of the world.

I believe that our guidance should be to avoid asserting notability based on local sources only, but emphasis that consensus can override this in an IAR manner. Say that an old building lands on a historic building register simply due to age, but that's the only non-local information there is on it, but a local source puts out a very detailed history of the building after this fact (say, part of the Underground Railroad). Strict by-the-rules against local sources would say non-notable, but if that local source is known to be reliable and an expert on the subject of this area, consensus may allow for it. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

~~A discussion about what is regarded a "local source" could be useful. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)~~After a second reading, I can only support Masems stand with regard to local souces. In fact, it falls straight into the grey area of my draft. Some local sources can be reliable, some articles in national newspapers can be unreliable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going to offer to draft a RfC, but I think that Masem's point-by-point analysis above is 100% right on target. I further support making the RfC be about local notability in general and not restricting the issue to schools. We could point out the long-standing guidance at WP:ORG that in that subtopic local notability is not sufficient notability to warrant article creation. Masem, if you want help drafting an RfC, start something in your userspace and I'll edit it with you. A copy/paste of your points above would be an excellent starting point. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I clearly support further comment on the school issue however does no one else think the local sourcing is more relevant to a RFC on GNG than schools. The likelihood of changing two issues at once is unlikely in my mind and altering other guidelines with the local sourcing issue to me really could just bog down the primary issue meaning that really nothing gets achieved. I really think the should be done separately.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

- I'm likely to be off-line for 8-48 hours, so I'll throw my quick 2 cents in. I think local sources are perfectly fine for most topics. I further think that the long-standing consensus that "high schools" are so commonly notable that they can be assumed to be notable (until proven otherwise) is unlikely to have changed. Further, I think the way we counter systematic bias is to be more inclusive, not less. If the sources exist in English, they likely exist (for "foreign" schools) in their own languages. Just figure out exactly what changes you want and develop an RfC. Hobit (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
When this RfC is translated into policy, I think it will have the effect of assuming that school are not notable, unless proven otherwise. (You have to proof that a school satisfies WP:GNG). The current use is to assume that they are notable, unless you can not proof that it exists.

To grandfather an article for a certain amount of time, seems the wrong way to me. I prefer a list of schools with notability problems, filled by everyone who desires so. The "project" will protect the articles against serial-nominators and the likes. Editors can claim an article to work on what prevents double work. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd just urge you to start the RfC and propose exactly what you are looking for. I don't think you have the numbers (in terms of total folks or their agreement) to claim you have consensus for a change at this time (I can't tell if you are claiming there should be an RfC or there has been an RfC...) OK, finally out of here... Hobit (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, let's get the ball rolling. WT:N is probably the best place to post the actual RFC. If Masem doesn't want to draft it, I will, but I'd give him first whack at it, since any attempt I make will be heavily plagiarized from his comments in this thread. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in draft an RFC but this gets complicated rather quickly. Points to consider:

It's not just a WP:N issue. It affects all the other subject-specific guides for notability, as well as our sourcing policies in general.

It ties in with the current discussion on WP:ORG regarding restaurant reviews...

...and because of that, it also ties in WP:ROUTINE that is over on WP:NEVENT.

It also needs to be clear that we are starting on the basis of secondary schools - until now a common OUTCOME - but that the change will affect those articles if its agreed, and possibly others, and thus we also need a process to discuss how to deal with such articles that may suddenly may be no longer notable (the grandfathering aspects I have alluded to).

This is a potentially significant change , though it more comes to the idea of consistency verses consensus rather than introducing something totally new. As such while I know what to ask in an RFC I can't write one immediately just yet as I still feel that we've got the full picture of what's desired yet. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to clarify first of all what exactly is meant by local sources. Local sources are effectively offline resources. I can only talk about my experience of working on articles on English schools. Schools, especially once they get to a certain age, will often be covered in books about the town or village where they are located. These books are usually not scanned and made available on Google Books, but will be freely available in the relevant local library and of course anyone with an interest in the subject, wherever they are in the world, can easily buy the book. Often when a school celebrates a particular milestone like a 50-year or 100-year anniversary then a book will be written by a local history society or perhaps volunteers from the Parent Teachers’ Association. While we shouldn’t rely on a single source, such a book would provide the basis for locating additional sources to cite. Schools can sometimes be very difficult to research online because the school name often changes over the years. Recent news stories are freely available online, and nineteenth-century local British newspapers are available online with a subscription. However, twentieth-century local papers are only available on microfilm in a local library or by visiting the British Library newspaper collection in North London. The problem, therefore, is not so much with the quality of the sources but the fact that they are not easily accessible online. Decisions about notability always seem to be based on the availability of internet sources, hence we have thousands of articles on trivial subjects which have multiple online sources. It is much more difficult to write articles about historical subjects, including schools, unless you have access to the offline resources. Take at look at three contrasting school articles which illustrate the problems quite well. The Hyde Park Junior School has now survived two AfDs. On the last occasion a local editor was able to access some books about the town to provide some additional information about the school, and has produced an interesting article. Compare this article with a typical American high school article such as Lockland High School which I selected at random. It has a fair few references but little in the way of interesting, noteworthy or encyclopaedic content. There must be thousands of similar such articles. On the other hand we have African schools such as the Arch-Bishop Okoth Ojolla Girls School which is potentially quite a noteworthy school but is supported by little in the way of reliable sources. Schools have always had to comply with WP:GNG. The problem has always been with how the guideline is applied. Some editors will insist that schools should have some notable (ie, out of the ordinary or “noteworthy”) aspects to merit an article, whereas other editors are happy to accept articles so long as they are properly sourced. The question of whether content is “run-of-the-mill” is always very subjective. The current way that the guidelines are interpreted seems to make it very difficult for articles like Hyde Park Junior School and African schools to exist while encouraging the creation of endless bog standard American high schools. Dahliarose (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Local sources and being online sources are two completely separate matters. We should not be confusing these when it comes to notability (as notability is completely ignorant by design whether sources are online or not). --MASEM (t) 01:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
To my opinion, the bar must be raised quite high to sift out the “run-of-the-mill”. I do not think that that will give significant problems, our African friends will be creative enough to come up with proper sources. Maybe they need some guidance for that, but as you said, there will be written sources available to them. I does not matter in what language they are. It is better to have a chat about the sources, then learn them that sourcing is not necessary.

And to me, a “run-of-the-mill” school is a school that just do it teaching. Proper and thorough, without special highlights. Schools are supposed to teach, so that alone does not make them notable. They need to have something extra to make them notable. And that can be everything, positive or negative. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hobit is right in his comment above - you're confounding importance with notability, which has nothing to do with "being special". Notability is designed to outsource the call for importance to third parties, so that we can have an objective criterion by which collect information. To show a topic notable we just have to find it being noted in a significant way - we only have to decide on the level of coverage, never directly on which highlights the topic may have. Run-of-the-mill has always been a somewhat misguided essay in this sense, because it centers around the topic more than the sources. Diego (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not confusing them. A notable, not-"run of the mill" school will show that "special" or "important" bit. Unless ypou can show me a school dat is notable, not-"run of the mill" and not special or important. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to show that thing to write an article, I should only have to show a school that somebody has written about. That's the whole point of notability, that we don't get to decide what is run of the mill, special nor important; we go by what others have found interesting, and we just decide whether to trust them. Diego (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Point is that we most proof that a school is notable and that is more then proofing that a school exists. If you can only proof that a certain school exists, there is a big chance that somebody will nominate that article for deletion due to being run-of-the-mill. It may not be in the rules or guidelines, but it is working that way... Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

We agree that notability is more than proof that a school exists. But it is less than being special or important; if you require that the school has something special you are placing a more strict requirement than the GNG. The point between "it exists" and "it's important" is what we call notability and it only requires that someone has noticed it, not that someone thinks the school is special. There's a reason why Run-of-the-mill is not a guideline - it can be successfully contested at AfD under strict notability criteria. Diego (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL, this is becoming a discussing on the square millimeter. Isn't it that something extra, that something special or important, that makes a school stand out of the crowd and make it noteworthy? How can a school be noteworthy, if they do nothing to get the attention to be noted? (In fact, this discussion doesn't matter at all. Accidents get AfD-ed and get rescued till they are safe loud and clear. Or they get deleted/merged/redirected, when there are no extra sourced to back up the claim for notability. Just part of the process. Feel free to plea, and so.) Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

- Local sources and being online sources are two completely separate matters. We should not be confusing these when it comes to notability (as notability is completely ignorant by design whether sources are online or not). --MASEM (t) 01:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

- - But how do we judge notability if we cannot access the relevant offline sources? Do we simply permit stubs for certain types of article on the assumption that offline sources will exist? If not then we bias the whole of Wikipedia in favour of articles on topical subjects that are readily verifiable. Dahliarose (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    - - No, the author still has to give his/her sources. Online of offline makes no difference. In English, in Dutch or in a language I have never heard off, also makes no difference. The source has to be given. Sooner or later someone will have access to that source (while mastering the language) and check it. Unfortunately, we can only hope it is not a bogus source.Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

- - - Yes.
    - And I'm not trying to be terse here, but this is a long-running question and one that WP:V addresses. As long as someone (not anyone) can access the source, we assume good faith that the editor has stated what they added that's attributed to that source (including the aspect of notability). If its a problem that the source is inaccessable within reasonable limits, that's the only time we disallow such sources. --MASEM (t) 02:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

But this is the whole crux of the problem. We're not talking about verifying individual facts but establishing whether or not sufficient sources exist to write an article. Some editors will argue that an article should remain because sufficient offline sources will exist. Other editors will argue that the article should be deleted because the only sources that can be found online do not establish notability. Neither viewpoint can be proven without checking the offline sources. Take the school I cited earlier Lockland High School. As it stands, it probably doesn't pass WP:N as the few sources that have been found do not support a proper article. I would argue that such an article should stand because there must be numerous local and offline sources available for a school which has been established for over 60 years but it is impossible to prove one way or another. Dahliarose (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's an issue, but we cannot restrict local sources simply because they tend to be offline. In fact, putting any weight on favoring sources that are online over offline is completely against WP:V's policy. But remember, we're talking about people that have identified specific sources (and can provide basic fundamental citation information for anyone else to locate) that simply might be offline and take effort to locate, and those that simply claim there must be offline sources but never named it. We accept the former's claims on good faith, but the latter is not an argument with weight at AFD or other discussions. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that for articles about local subjects you can't identify the offline sources unless you live in the country in question. This results in recentism and systemic bias. We have thousands of articles about American high schools but only a handful of articles about African schools. I don't know how we get the balance right. Dahliarose (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The first part - about being in the country that the works are published in - is something WP:V acknowledges and something we can't change. But we can change the systematic bias issue due to the fact that local sources are readily available in some parts of the world, and not at all in others. If we could reasonably expect that the rest of the world would ultimately have the same type of local coverage, then there's less a problem keeping articles based on local sources only. But this prospect is very unlikely to happen in our lifetimes due to a number of sociopolitical factors. Instead, we can counter the bias by stating that notability demonstrable only by local sources is not appropriate, which now puts all schools (and other topics) to have regional or better sourcing for notability. It's not perfectly even, but it certainly removes the bias and recentism issue. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This is again all gets back to the question of how you define local sources. Sources on schools in an African country are only likely to be available in that country. There might be significant coverage in the national newspapers in that country but unless you live in the country you are unable to access these sources. Dahliarose (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue around local sources has nothing to do with access to local sources, it is the target coverage that local sources purportedly aim for and what makes them inappropriate as demonstration of notability. Per WP:V Verifiability in this context means that other people should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. We cannot alter that. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have never understood why "if the target coverage is local, that makes them inappropriate as demonstration of notability". Can you elaborate on what makes you think that way? I can understand that it might correlate to not being independent, or that sources aiming for exhaustive coverage may make them routine; but in that case the reasons for the inappropriate notability are those specific causes, not for being local. Diego (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I also don't really understand this concern. For many topics a local source will be the most reliable source. As an example, if you want detailed accurate information about a tiny village, the best source would usually be the local history society who would probably have published a local journal for many years with numerous detailed articles. I don't see why a source like this shouldn't be preferred over a general book covering an entire county or country. National newspapers often get their facts wrong about local issues but local papers are more reliable for factual local content. Dahliarose (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Again, I have to go back to the 5 points I had above.

We are a tertiary source, meant to summarize information. To that extent, we have to recognize there is a bound to detailed information that is only of interest to a smaller group of people compared to all mankind - there is some line that is drawn. Clearly, things only local to literally a few people should not be included, while topics that reach interested people in the millions are clearly worth including. We have to have a line somewhere between there. The local level is immediately that line or just below it, in that going more narrower than local sources means that we likely no longer have reliable, unbiased sourcing, while sourcing at the higher levels are generally going to be easy to judge for reliability and independence. But we could draw that line higher than local sources, due to the fact that not every local area has a local source, thus creating systematic bias towards more developed countries. This is what is done in ORG and in NSPORT to prevent everyday business and local, non-pro athletes that may frequently be reported at the local to be excluded (in so far we don't have a stand-alone article for them.)

Remember: this does not prevent the use of local sources as reliable sources for general verified information, as has Dahliarose states, they sometimes are more accurate than any broader source. But accuracy is not the same as notability. If no one else in the world has shown interest in that one topic detailed at the local level, then that makes those details extraneous for ourselves as s tertiary work. --MASEM (t) 00:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, here's the core tenet of disagreement. "Nothing human is alien to me"; Wikipedia is not supposed to leave topics outside because they are of interest to few people. We have drawn a line already and it says nothing about a number too small of people interested in a topic; but quite the contrary.

The essence of what can be included is the Neutral Point of View pillar; thus accuracy is more important than notability, since it's what guarantees neutrality. Unlike WP:NPOV, which is a pillar itself, Notability is about the "encyclopedia" pillar, but what's encyclopedic is defined in the negative. Thus WP:N is just an organization principle; it's used as a guideline on when an article will likely not meet the policies founded on the pillars (in the same way that WP:V and WP:OR are "just" guides to ensure WP:NPOV). The problem with the deletionism philosophy is that they want to establish Notability as the sixth pillar with a meaning of "importance", but this runs against the "all human knowledge" motto at the core of Wikipedia. Unless editors of your same opinion recognize that the current consensual guidelines are built around content quality and not importance, there's no chance to build a new consensus on local sources.

I think there's also a misunderstanding of what WP:INDISCRIMINATE means. As it's currently written in policy, it only warns against raw dumps of data. Anything meaningful has a place even if it's not important to the rest of the world, because being important to the world is not a requirement - obscure topics are fine; what's required is that enough context is provided to establish what the information means, what topics it relates to and where it's situated.

The five points you stated above are a good place to start building a guideline. But they should be seen as heuristics, to detect when sources are not providing enough quality to build a neutral and accurate article - not as the default position with which to exclude articles as you suggested at 16:38, 17 February. Diego (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

All sources should be judged on a case-by-case basis due to the huge differences in quality and availability of the local sources. The bottom line is WP:GNG. Availability of many sources raises the threshold of quality of the sources. Lack of sources does not lower them below WP:GNG. No sources, no article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the conclusion, which is in opposition to basic WP:Deletion policy. First, according to the Deletion Policy guideline, nothing has absolutely to meet WP:GNG--its merely the usual criterion. The guideline there states very specifically that it does not apply in all cases. Second, it's in opposition to consistent practice on hundreds of articles, as which is that secondary schools are almost always kept on AfD , generally with the explanation for those who insist on the GNG that they are presumed to meet the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is revolving around some type of formalization of the acceptance of school articles for inclusion, so while OUTCOMES currently says that, this is anticipated to change. Whether the change is to create a NSCHOOLS subject-specific guideline, or whether to have schools be determined notable by the GNG, that's unclear yet. So we're looking at a "consensus can change" scenario. What exactly the change is is what this discussion is about, and how to approach a larger RFC to present to the community on these aspects. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Full Stop

Can we go back to the discussion about the notability of schools please? The discussion about what are "proper sources" is turning ugly and out of scope of this RfC (if not, I, as starter of this RfC, declare it out of scope).

Back to the summary. Let us talk about the the use of reports ordered and paid by the government. Are reports, ordered and paid by the government, independent enough to proof notability? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There should be no doubt they are independent. They accurately display whether a school is up to standard or not. They aren't biased towards them its the government that look bad is schools are failing not Ofsted or similar organisations. As raised above do schools come under WP:ORG if they do which i feel they do then possibly. However i would say they dont meet it alone. Again though this is a different topic you need to establish whether schools need to meet GNG if they do then this conversation is valid if they don't then there really is no point to this. There is isn't enough of cosensus above to change from the staus quo at present mainly because its been muddied so much. Change and or firmer guidelines are needed but a firm consenus is required to overhaul it. I suggest once its clear what route were going down then look at other points.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I severely doubt if the reports are independent. If someone places an order with you, you deliver what your client wants. And that is not necessary the best availble (or in this case: the full truth). Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

They are totally independent the government does not tell them what to wright. They can fail schools if they wish which happens frequently to say they print what the client wants is wrong they are a totally independent organisation as stated below [[ombudsman] like you need to look into it further. But as I've said above do schools come under WP:ORG or not because that has a baring on my answer. However you need more than a ofsted report to fill out an article but it certainly contributes as its coverage of the school in reliable secondary sources. It may not be enough in total but it cant be excluded alltogether Edinburgh Wanderer 16:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Night: you have to consider these reports (and similar reports in Australia, "Annual School Reports" and information published on www.myschool.edu.au) to be a little bit more than reports ordered for and paid by the government. An ombudsman-like independent authority assesses schools against a particular predetermined standard. The reports are effectively statutory like the publication of census data or some such. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, is someone saying that Ofsted (etc.) reports are sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG? That's ludicrous. Notability is supposed to be a measure as to whether or not the rest of the world has taken notice of a subject. These are reports that are, as far as I know, either mandated or highly recommended by law. No one is taking notice of the school, other than the fact that it exists and therefore must be written about. That's like saying that the existence of a publicly available environmental impact report for a new building by Company X somehow indicates notability of that building (or company, for that matter). That's like saying that a legal decision imputes notability upon the person whom the court is passing judgment on. Note that I'm not disputing that Ofsted reports are in depth--I'm disputing that they are not run-of-the-mill. Danjel, your use of the word statutory, in fact, points to exactly why these reports do not in any way establish notability. The reports are definitely useful as reliable sources, they're just not in any way useful for establishing notability (if we decide that schools need to establish notability). Apologies if I've misunderstood--there's a lot to process here. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you're right in regards to run of the mill Oftsed reports, but those aren't the ones I'm more interested in. Consistently good reports from Ofsted (or consistently good results in MySchool or whatever the local equivalent is) would strongly suggest that the school is doing something notably interesting in terms of its educational programs or that there is some other notable reason for its good results. Educational programs being the core business of schools, this would be something which would need to be investigated.

In any case, I'm mainly addressing the concern that Ofsted reports (and similar) are (or are not) WP:RS. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

In regard to the consistently good reports, while you might wish to argue that they're necessary to justify an article, they aren't of any use in notability. The question is whether or not consistently good reports is an indicator of the existence of sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to create the article. As they don't do that, they aren't an indicator that a school is notable.

This is my main concern with the proposed criteria. It isn't a school's importance that is the primary concern, but the extent and nature of the coverage of the school in reliable sources. Importance only comes into play if it is an indicator of the existence of such coverage, or if we wish to use it to exclude some schools that would otherwise pass the GNG. - Bilby (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Government reports on schools are reliable sources which can be used to reference school articles. The point about government reports, however, is that they do not on their own provide sufficient material to write an encyclopaedic article about a school. Government reports are not concerned with topics like the history of a school or the notable alumni who attended a school. OFSTED reports for English schools are often quite lengthy and can be a good source for the numbers of pupils at the school and the recent awards won by the school, but there's little else in the reports that can be used to construct an article. In practice any school that's been around for 50 or 100 years will have had masses of stuff written about it other than routine government reports. Dahliarose (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘In my opinion, these reports are reliable, but they do not give any indication towards notability. Reports such as these are done on every school in a state/county/nation/district/whatever. This fact alone indicates that being the subject of such a report is not notabile, it is routine. This is the same argument that I have with local coverage—my argument is that every high school with an (American) football program is going to have articles written about that program in the local newspaper. This is routine coverage. The notable football programs are the ones that are written up in newspapers of larger circulation, or that cover a larger area.

And with all due respect to Night, the two discussions are linked... "proper" sources denote notability. If we want to limit our scope to schools, then we can do so—the precedent to state "some sources prove notability more than others" is already in WP:CORPDEPTH. Let's just Again, with all respect, I think that setting up guidelines with numerical thresholds of criteria is the wrong way to go... In my opinion, defining what sources establish notability, and then letting the evaluation of those sources be done by intelligent editors is the correct approach. Even WP:SCHOOL states that school articles should meet WP:ORG, and WP:ORG contains the warning about local sources. And it seems like only high schools are, by tradition, presumed notable without needing to meet the notability criteria of ORG. So if we could just get consensus that high schools also have to meet SCHOOL/ORG/GNG, then we'd be done here. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you took the wrong turn, Livitup! The next section seeks an answer on the question: do we need guidelines at all. So discussing the contents of a personal draft is out of place here. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I helped write the wording at WP:SCHOOLS, and while it does indicate that both guidelines can be applied to schools, the wording at WP:N is clear - an article has to pass the GNG or a SNG; one or the other, not both. There is nothing about local sources in the GNG, and given the outcome of the straw poll and previous discussions on the issue, at best, there is no consensus on the issue. The term "routine" isn't in the GNG either, though it is present on the WP:N page in relation to events or single topic coverage only. CT Cooper · talk 18:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines

As most of you know, I have been fooling around to make draft for guidelines: User:Night of the Big Wind/Notability of schools. At the present state of the discussion I have an important question regarding to them: Do we need still Guidelines? If so, anybody interested in working on them in a kind of working group to make them ready for an official presentation? Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we are massively further forward from where we were when this started as there isnt a great deal of consnsus eithier way. Other than non notable scholls should be redirected to a partent article rather than deleted on every occasion. Im happy to help although dont have much time once I'm finished on the footy stuff but if others want to I will as much as I can.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

To my opinion, the big gain up until now is not so much seen in consensus. The disappearence of "we were used to do it this way", "Common Outcomes served us well" and "schools are automatically notable", all three without any questioning why, is the big gain. There is now discussion possible about what to do next. I agree, we have a long and difficult way to go, but instead of being in the trenches surrounded by minefield and barbed wire, we are now at the negotiating table. No matter what the results, that is a major progress! Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in taking this forward then they might like to refer to all the previous failed school guidelines which are linked from this page: Wikipedia:Schools. There is also further guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines which does have consensus, though I've just noticed that it does contain contradictory statements on whether non-notable schools should be merged or redirected. Dahliarose (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Get in touch with me if you ever do launch these proposed guidelines for decision, I'd very much like to make the counter case that their adoption would make for a logistical catastrophe at AfD. An elementary school receives a "significant award" for the quality of its teaching and is in!?? What about if it got an ambiguously "significant" award in 1976 once? Can you not see how you are opening Pandora's box here? Common Outcomes have served us well, and I can explain how and why. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why high schools are exempt from GNG and the notability guidelines of WP:ORG, which WP:SCHOOLS states school articles should meet? Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A logistical nightmare can be avoided when we start a list where "troubled articles" are identified for rescue. Something like this: User:Night of the Big Wind/Schools with notability problems. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As I've been thinking about what an RFC might look like to publish to the wider community to get input on, I've realized that the larger question to ask first is: "Do we want WP to include coverage of all secondary schools?" - once we know the general answer to that, we can write the guidelines to meet that. This has to be answered in the light of at least four additional questions:

"What makes the inclusion of secondary schools more important that primary schools?"
"What makes the inclusion of secondary schools more important than commercial businesses, religious buildings, or government institutions?" * "What makes the inclusion of secondary schools more important than other educational facilities (religious, accredited or not, etc.)?"
"Can it be possible to make an encyclopedic-quality article on every secondary school?"

(Please don't answer these now, this is food for thought). Presumably, if there's wide consensus that the main question is answered affirmatively, we will have hopefully gotten enough answers in the other four questions to make other establishing "rules" for school inclusion and the use of local sources.

What makes this a more difficult issue than it seems is that if we do allow local sources for notability, then absolutely all schools - including primary - are notable, but then this means many local businesses, etc. are also notable. What I believe the issue needs to be centered around is a willingness to recognize appropriate depth of coverage for Wikipedia, and can we have generalized guidelines (eg restricting the use of local sources as notability indicators) or do we need to carve out specific exceptions that override other guidelines. I don't personally have a good feel on which way consensus is on this, and hence the right RFC to flesh it out.

I'm still working out the shape of this RFC to get the most bang for the buck. But I would point out that the guidelines suggested may be a fallout from this RFC (eg why I'm asking about importance). --MASEM (t) 17:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The answer on your question "Do we want WP to include coverage of all secondary schools?" is simpel: No, we only want those schools covered in Wikipedia that satisfy WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You did see the part that I said "don't answer this now", right? :) I think consensus thinks the answer is no, but I can't start there. Hence an RFC to get that ball rolling. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't want Wikipedia to cover all secondary schools by default because, with the best will in the world, not all secondary schools will ever be able meet WP:GNG. Any guideline would have to apply not just to a few countries but to all countries in the world. You'd end up with lots of single sentence stubs that would be prone to vandalism and would be a nightmare to maintain, especially if we don't have editors with sufficient knowledge of Chinese, Japanese, etc to check that the sources cited are valid. See this article as an example that's just come up at AfD: Arben Broci High School, Tirana. Given time it might be possible for any good editor to write a reasonably encyclopaedic well sourced article on this school but there aren't enough editors with the time and inclination to do this sort of work. A more pertinent question would be should every single secondary school be covered in the appropriate locality article if sufficient material is not available to produce a standalone article? Dahliarose (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what you think, that's what I think, and that's probably what a few others thing. The point is that that doesn't necessarily reflect consensus. Hence the need for an RFC to establish that, because that's unclear. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not au fait with all the procedures but if you think that an RFC would establish a consensus once and for all so that we have a foundation to work on then it would be worthwhile. I know there are many editors who trot out the line "all high schools are notable" but I think they really mean all American high schools not all secondary schools worldwide. Dahliarose (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

em thats a bit short sighted All American. What about all British or all Spanish or all German for that matter remember wiki is world wide not just in the the US.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've only ever seen people claim that all "high schools" are notable. High school is a term mostly used in the US, and it seems to be mostly US editors who make that claim. This is actually one of the problems with any RFC as you would have to get the terminology right. Secondary school is the more widely used term in Europe. I'm not even sure what the overall term is in Germany for their various types of schools. See: Education in Germany.

I live in Scotland part of the uk and I went to a High School Firrhill High School also Boroughmuir High School and many more. Edinburgh Wanderer 10:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the term was invented in Scotland, or at least according to our Wiki article on High school! The varying uses of the terminology in the UK is confusing to say the least! Dahliarose (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

To make it worse: "Technische Hogeschool Twente" is the former name of the University of Twente. Just as we had the "Technische Hoogeschool van Delft", now the Delft University of Technology. They, and several other, were promoted to universities to make room for more practical "hogescholen" (contrary to the more theoratical universities). I attended the "Hanzehogeschool Groningen" (in English: Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen. So in my opinion, the use of the word "highschool" is dangerous and can lead to misunderstandings. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Perhaps "dangerous" is not the best choice of words but it is certainly confusing to say the least. You've also got the problem of former communist countries which have middle schools providing the final stage of secondary education. I try and use the phrase "institutions providing the final stage of secondary education" to avoid ambiguity. Another problem is that these schools aren't all equivalent in different countries. American high schools only cover the last four years of secondary education. Most European schools cover the last seven years of secondary education from age 11 to 18. In England we have some large sixth form colleges which are for students doing A levels (the last two years of education). There are private schools that might provide education from 3 to 18, but some are very small and I doubt sufficient sources would exist to write articles about all of them. I would imagine there are many schools in Africa that probably only educate children up to the age of about fourteen, but I see no reason why such a school should be considered less notable than a bog-standard four-year American high school simply because of the age of the children it educates. Phrasing an RFC to cover all these complexities is possibly quite challenging. Dahliarose (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Aha, more trouble on the radar

As far as I know, primary schools in the Netherlands and Ireland cater for the age bracket 4-12. Secondary schools cater for the age bracket 12-17/18. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Back to ther original question, but now better worded: Do we need Guidelines to clarify WP:GNG? Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No GNG is pretty clear. Do we need proper school guidelines yes.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Edinburgh, the PWP:Deletion Policy is in fact pretty clear that while the GNG is the usual guideline, it is not the only one. We can make whatever exceptions have consensus. Personally, I don't particularly care whether the default is to include all high schools or not--I am not a fan of local notability, What I do care about is reducing the burden on AfD. Back when we were debating notability of schools we had dozens of school AfDs a week, and great time and ingenuity was spent on them--all of which is really unnecessary, for it doesn't make a difference whether of not borderline high school are included. The usual critical issue was both the use of local sources, and whether the sources gave substantial coverage. That last point is normally interpreted however the participants in a given AfD choose, as an examination of any day;s AfDs will demonstrate. I ask those who wish to disturb one of the few balances we have, whether there are not much more important problems hereto be worked on, uch as the unreferenced articles, and the large amount on new and old promotional content? Compared to those, what difference does it make what we do with high schools?

Night, we need first of all a question of whether the GNG should in fact be applicable, because the standard outcome has been to ignore it. Then, if we decide it is applicable, the guidelines being talked about are actually the ones for LOCAL, and well affect a great many articles of various types. This is going to end as a very wide ranging discusssion, and I ask you, as I asked Edinborough, whether we shouldn't leave well enough alone and concentrate on promotionalism and other genuine problems. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It is Edinburgh the capital city of Scotland. But yes I'm fully aware that there are other guideline that apply. I don't think GNG should be changed there isn't anything wrong with it. And we do need proper school guidelines yes even if its just the current common outcomes properly put down. There is not enough consensus for anything here its very mixed. I would much rather focus on content but as long as these issues come up they do need discussed.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you read this discussion? It is pretty clear that most people think that articles on schools, regardless of level, should satisfy WP:GNG. The point is now how to determine notability. What can we use and what can't we use, guidelines on top of WP:GNG or guidelines just to explain and clarify WP:GNG and so on. Do you want a strawpoll or an offical vote on this, DGG? Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't thinks thats the case actually night. The consensus isn't totally clear above its fairly mixed and not enough to develop consensus. Yes that guidelines need to be properly laid out and determined but not exactly where the bar should be set. And if you want to change GNG you'll need to start a full RFC on that as you will need a lot more input than you have here as that is a far more wider reaching issue than schools.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I don't understand you. This RfC is about the question Should secondary schools/highschools meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or are they exempt from that? Unless I have read it hopelessly wrong, in general the answer is: "yes, they should meet the standards of WP:GNG."

A related question, but not directly part of it, is the question: "And how do we determine the notability of schools?" To put it mildly: we have not yet an answer on that. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The question of inclusion of schools is very very closely tied with the concept of local sources; the questions can't be separated, or at least at first blush. I am narrowing the idea of a larger RFC that asks the question: "Should we have stand-alone articles on every secondary school?" that will have 6 possible answers:

"Yes, we should, irregardless of all other policy/guideline" (result: OUTCOMES remains unchanged)
"Yes, we should as they will meet the GNG with allowance for local sources" (result: some guidance on local sources at WP:N, possibly approve the SNG propsed for schools)
"Yes, we should by specialized notability criteria" (result: we seek to approve the school SNG that has been proposed here)
"No, unless they meet the GNG with allowance for local sources (result: some guidance on local sources at WP:N)
"No, unless they meet the GNG without allownance for local sources (result: some guideance on local sources at WP:N)
"No, unless they meet specific criteria" (result: approach the school SNG )

There may be other answers, but these are the 6 that I see as giving reasonably clear guidance as to what the next step is. That's why this is a complicated question. We could just ask if OUTCOMES for secondary schools hold true, but that doesn't get to the point of the matter about local sourcing and the like. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The first option is in fact nothing else then a friendly wording of "yes, and we don't gave a s**t that we override other policies. We are right anyway."

And there is a fourth no-option: "No, they just have to meet WP:GNG. It up to the author to proof the notability." Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The first one is an opinion that has been expressed and while it may seem a blatant insult to notability, it is a possible option to consider. That is, effectively what we have now.

And the fourth one is important to understand that it removes the immediate allowance for secondary schools just because they are secondary sources, and yes, requires GNG meeting. Again also a valid option from this discussion. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a notability guideline on schools would be long overdue. However, I also believe that most of the articles on schools should be merged to articles on the town or city, occasionally merging them to "education" articles for municipalities with a sizable population and multiple schools. People citing local sources together with WP:GNG in order to justify "keep ALL the articles" are misunderstanding and abusing the guideline, in my opinion. Applying that principal we would pretty much have to accept articles on every hometown hero and local politician the world over. Not. Going. To. Happen.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The next step

To me, this RfC looks ready to be closed. Not that we have a strict consensus on the full issue, but we have made a big progress. In my opinion, the RfC can be closed as an "in general opinion that all school-articles should meet WP:GNG". Not enough for a policy change right now, but good enough for further discussion. Essential is that we start need seperate RfCs on the use of locals sources and on the need and type of Guidelines (on top of WP:GNG, a help page related to schools & notability or something in between). The contents of the Guidelines is a separate discussion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly this is not a valid conclusion of the discussion, but is your opinion only. A better summary is that secondary school articles are expected to pass GNG without actual proof, and are therefore kept. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting personal opinion. But with a discussion going on about the use of local sources, clearly not the truth. I am aware that we can't draw real conclusions and real decisions, but at least the car is moving again and not stuck anymore. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Night, even though I think your proposal is likely good, your claim of a consensus isn't even slightly close to accurate. I don't even know if you have a majority. I see many of the same arguments against changing as before: sources are almost certainly available even if we can't immediately find them, thus deletions discussions are a waste of time, and the lesser used but also valid argument that school's play a critical role in the life of a community. I disagree with both of these arguments, but I don't think there's a consensus to reject them. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I have worded it badly, but what I mean is that "my" RfC has run its course, that it can be closed, and that several other RfC can be started to discuss a few items in more detail, without clogging up this RfC. As far as I know, a RfC is for discussion and not a vote. I am aware of the two camps involved here, roughly described as: Camp 1, who thinks that the threshold for school-articles should be raised to WP:GNG, and Camp 2, who thinks that WP:GNG is just a nuisance and should be ignored for articles about school. I am also aware that camp 2 is increasinly active in this discussion, roughly from the point that it looked that something could be changed fundamentally. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Night, I completely disagree with your conclusion and with your proposed closure. Graeme Bartlett's summary is correct; yours is not. If you look at the "straw poll" above, there is an almost 3-to-1 opinion (14 to 5) in favor of keeping the current system (secondary schools are presumed notable, primary schools have to prove their notability). There is no consensus to change this, and your well-meant efforts to write a new policy are not supported by the discussion here. And BTW your summary of the "Camp 2" position ("WP:GNG is just a nuisance and should be ignored for articles about school.") is a distortion or parody, not even close to what people are actually saying --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is a strawpoll about the use of sources, not about the question if school articles should meet WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Melanie, I could have described it another way: Camp 2, who thinks that WP:GNG and WP:V can be ignored because it is safe to gamble that sources will exist for every school. You think something like this acceptable: User:Night of the Big Wind/Workpage11? Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Since you are continuing to frame the other side's opinion via distortion and parody, is it safe to say that you are not really interested in listening to or respecting their viewpoint? The actual opposing viewpoint is "WP:V applies to schools as it does to everything, i.e. the actual existence and grade level of a secondary school must be verified in some way; that is not in dispute. WP:GNG applies to schools as it does to everything, but for diploma-granting secondary schools and degree-granting colleges it can be assumed that WP:GNG will be met with appropriate research." Your strawpoll below is based on your distorted/parodied view of the issues, and should be ignored as not a real question in dispute. --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Then why did you not show up earlier and take part in the discussions? it can be assumed is something else then it can be proofed. And personally I don't care what kind of sources you use (as long as they are convincing) but I want proof, not assumptions. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your position is clear; it does not gain force by restating it over and over. You want proof of notability. However, that is not the current consensus for high schools, as demonstrated at hundreds of AfD discussions. A discussion here involving a few dozen editors is not going to change that. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If there was really consensus about it, it would not be the subject of endless discussions and RfC's, don't you think? Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It only takes one person to start, restart, and continue to flog "endless discussions and RfC's." You, for instance. --MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you be brave and come with a proposal for a RfC if you think I did it wrong. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Put the brakes on your juggernaut. I disagree with the claim that there is a consensus that all high school articles have to actually present sources, right now, to satisfy GNG, as opposed to an assumption that such sources likely exist, due to the fact that these institutions routinely compete in academics, sports, and arts at regional and state levels (and at national levels in countries smaller than the US). Only a tiny minority of newspapers are searchable via Google News, and Google News has discontinued adding material to its Google News Archive. The inability to readily access free online sources does not mean that such sources do not exist in print media from reliable and independent sources. No newspaper from my medium sized present town or from the region where I grew up, is accessible in any Google search, but I know that there is frequent coverage of academics, arts, sports, changes of educational policies, and funding for the high schools, in regional as well as local papers. It defies belief that the same is not true for high schools in other locales. Edison (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe you should read WP:N: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. That sounds to me like a request for sources... Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Strawpoll 2

Question: Should secondary schools/highschools meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or are they exempt from that? Note: How to determine notability is not part of this poll. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Support meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:

as author of this RfC and strawpoll Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Definitely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Per my comments on the strawpoll above. Writing an exception to the GNG for anything is a violation of the core principles of this encyclopedia. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:

They should meet specific categorical guidelines (perhaps by nation), as I think the discussion above keeps saying over and over again, but it seems to be be becoming a case of I did not hear that. If, in the particular case of an article, there is no specific categorical guideline in which the article fits, it would default to the General guideline (which is why it is called "General"), unless it is determined a new specific categorical guideline for that type of institution makes sense in the future - part of the problem is it appears that people are using different terms for the same thing or they are using the same term for different things.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Choose not to respond to this strawpoll about an issue that is not in dispute

See my comments immediately above this strawpoll. Nobody has claimed that secondary schools are "exempt" from notability guidelines. The existing ~~policy~~ consensus (correction in response to Masem below) is that it can be assumed that secondary schools and colleges DO meet notability guidelines, even if the evidence for notability has not been presented. As pointed out above, this is similar to existing guidelines about professional players of major sports. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NSPORTS documents how sports players can be shown notable outside of the GNG. With no equivalent for just schools themselves (OUTCOME is not a notability guideline), this means they fall under WP:ORG and for that purpose, some may not be notable due to the requirement on the type of sources. The point of this entire exercise is to figure out what consensus is (we have no idea what the reasoning is, only they are generally kept AFD) so that we can codify schools properly into guidelines. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You are free not to vote in this strawpoll. Unfortunately for you, the question brought up here is the same as the original question from the RfC. So I think it is well in the scope of this RfC. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The question is incorrectly worded. The issue is not whether or not high schools need to meet the GNG, but, per MelanieN, whether or not they need to demonstrate that they meet the GNG. The secondary issue, if the second stance is the current view, is how they are to demonstrate that they meet the GNG, which is what Masem raises - do they demonstrate this by proving that they are a high school, or are more refined criteria required? - Bilby (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The only issue in dispute at Wikipedia is whether/how notability is to be demonstrated for secondary schools, but Night of the Big Wind has specifically ruled out discussion of that point in this strawpoll - therefore it has no point. ~~(I see he has now even taken to informing editors that they are "not free to vote" in this strawpoll!)~~ (My apologies, I misread your comment. You said "free not to vote"; I misread it as "not free to vote." SelfTroutSlap!) --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes Melanie, it is up to you to vote or to abstain. You are free to make your own choice. Nothing mandatory. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Melanie.

You give me serious the idea that you did not read the whole discussion. As you can see above, there was already a big discussion about sourcing and what sources where usefull. You would make me very happy to come with a suggestion for a seperate RfC about sourcing and sources, so we can close this RfC. That prevents clogging up of the present one, that, to my opinion, has done its duty by bringing people on speaking terms and in serious discussion. So again, you would make me happy with a proposal. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

sigh It is a bit confusing, Bilby. According to WP:GNG you need sources to proof notability. As is stated there: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.. So, in my opinion clean and clear: a notable subject has its notability proven by sources. Or do I see that wrong?

What I try to move to a seperate RfC is the question How do we prove notability of schools. Reason: this RfC is becoming too long and too many sideroads had to be explored. Yes, we have made progress (mainly be getting the real issues at the table, in my opinion). And no, we have not reached any consensus for change. But it is clear that the present consensus has shaky foundations. The follow-up RfC should get that more clear, and I hope that Masem will initiate that one. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would really rather secondary schools have to undergo stricter notability than other subjects. They create far more trouble in vandalism than they are worth - and unless you are an alumni they really aren't very interesting.

Sure places like Eton college should have an article, but I think local secondary schools having one is much more dubious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A clear way of saying "I don't like it," when you demand a higher standard of notability for some class of articles, than for, say, hamlets, species, chemical compounds, anyone who served in a state legislature for one term, any building listed in some"national register" and anyone who played professionally in one game of any sport. Edison (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

To be true, I would like so see higher thresholds for hamlets & villages (they should prove their notability, not only existence) and sport persons (to cut out the one day fly). But that is near impossible to achieve Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Object to this straw poll as ill-formed, per MelanieN. Edison (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Instead of bickering about this poll, are there any suggestions for the new RfC about how to prove notability? Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What we are all trying to say is: we don't need a new RfC. The consensus is already clear, as stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education. You referred above to "endless discussions and RfC's", but you are the only one creating and promoting them. Just let it go. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the old consensus and has been challenged; remember that consensus can change. There is enough here to say that while it will still be likely that all secondary schools will be included with their own article (only based on those responding), we can set that outcome as being one based on all secondary schools meeting the GNG , with the inclusion of local sources in those cases to meet the GNG. This is a significant improvement on the "just because" reason that OUTCOMES currently states, and brings the reason why we include secondary schools in line with all other notability guidelines. But a wide-input RFC to assure that this is the case is still important to have. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, what you are trying to say is that you don't want a new RfC because it could lead to changes. And if you had read the recent discussions here and on Wikiproject Schools, you could have seen that I am not the only one asking for change. That is a plain distortion from your side, Melanie. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

A different approach

Could it be a handy idea to start a "Taskforce Improve US Highschool Articles" to identify the articles that are completely unsourced or have only primary sources and list them for improvement? Night of the Big Wind _talk 04:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Now THAT sounds like a good idea. Rather than trying to delete them, let's identify and improve them. I would serve on such a task force. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC) P.S. why limit it to U.S. high school articles?

I'm not half as bad as you think I am! But recent visit to few US Highschools, found on your website, revealed a disaster area. So it seems handy to start there where the situation is most urgent.

In fact, it is not a change of mind of me, only a change in approach. I did not fully understand the fears for mass nominations and potential massacres. Reason of that is that most secondary school articles I have seen, were European, Asian or African. Most problems with the Asian and African schools could be solved by explaining that sources could be in any language or script, not just English and Western script. But coming across those badly sourced articles, I suddenly realized that "you guys" are maybe not objecting against a change in the "Common Outcomes" or a tightening of the notability rules, but are scared shitless (sorry for the rude word) about the consequences of any change.

So, by starting the Taskforce before a change of rules is on the cards, I hope to prevent a massacre when agreement on a change on is reached (whenever that is, not now clearly). And secondly, by improving the articles I hope to reduce the fears.

Finally, I don't think I am the most suitable one to coordinate the taskforce. I think I stepped on a few toes here and there. The coordinator should be diplomatic enough to achieve agreement on the question what the desired level to reach is. And to get agreement on the question: how do we do that?

Of course, it is just a proposal to name it "Taskforce Improve US Highschool Articles". Another scope or more then one taskforce is also possible.

And to promote my work: User:Night of the Big Wind/Schools with notability problems can be an idea.

Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

But recent visit to few US Highschools, found on your website, revealed a disaster area. Not sure what you are talking about. Found on my website? I don't have a website. Do you mean my userpage, or my talkpage, or what? I'm not aware of any "disaster area" high schools associated with me. I only have three high schools on my watchlist, and they are in decent shape. Or if you regard them as "disaster areas" you have an awfully broad definition of a disaster area; not every article here has to meet Good Article standards. In any case, my comment was intended to support your idea of a task force; don't know why you responded with a snarl. --MelanieN (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Please read your website as your talkpage.

And no, it is not ment to be a snarl, just an explanation how I came across it (links posted by DPL-bot) and that I came to a new insight and as a result of that, changed my approach towards the case. And I don't blame you for it, I just said that I found those articles through your talkpage. AGF please. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me again stress a point: if we ultimately decide to change the existing approach for secondary schools, which is strictly said "they are rarely deleted" per OUTCOMES, to anything else (even if we say, notable by GNG due to likelihood of local sources), we should have a 6-12 month moratorium on any AFD for schools following that change. If this task force is formed, this would give them time to improve school articles due to the new changes; otherwise it will be a loose effort but the time will be there. Furthermore, in most cases, we would not be talking about deletion but rather merge and redirect for schools that don't meet the new requirements. The moratorium would likely extend to that, unless of course the working group does agree "hey, this school should be merged to the town article." Basically, the point is that if change the present approach to school articles, we don't want to have users that have a chip against these articles to immediately race off and get them deleted as soon a new guideline is in place. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone intrested in coordinating the Taskforce? Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean that we have, in effect, given up the idea of changing the status-quo—that we accept high-school articles are notable, and we're just going to go start improving articles to include sourcing to prove that they are notable? So my community's two local high-schools, which have never received coverage outside the locally published and circulated newspaper, are notable? If so, I weep for the lost opportunity here. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not. It is a two pronged approach: a road to follow is fixing the articles, the other road to follow is the discussion about changes in the notability rules and Common Outcomes.

As I have stated above, we should try to solve the problems arising out of a change even before we agree to any change. It looks like people are reluctant or even resist a change, due to the sheer consequences. By fixing the consequences beforehand, I hope to ease the fears for (en prevent the) mass nominations and massacres. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The silence is deafening. So I have made a little start with it and picked up some needy articles for improvement. The state is chosen almost at random (the last one in the alphabetic list) but I think the list is a good example for the task on hand. Be bold, improve an article You can find the list here: User:Night of the Big Wind/Schools with notability problems. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Obscured sigs

What do we make of user sigs which use 'leet' or other obfuscation (for example changing ls to 1s or Os to 0s), making it difficult to search for the user's contributions on busy talk pages? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of leet in usernames is part of a user's personal expression. You can use copy-paste to put it in your Find box. Dcoetzee 03:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:SIG nutshells "Please sign your posts on talk pages, using ~~~~. Keep the coding of your signature short, do not make the signature too large and ensure that the end result is easily readable by virtually everybody." It's nice to have a brief discussion about a simple guideline that everybody should be able to agree with. ;-) --Hjal (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite, Do we think leet sigs comply with that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

We're here to build an encyclopedia, not express our personality; the latter should not stand in the way of the former. Copy & paste requires first finding an example of the sig... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the usability issues are minor. Many people consider the specific leet spelling of their name to be the actual name of their esablished online persona, distinguishing them from similarly named people. In the notable scifi work Snow Crash, there was a character named "Da5id" who was referred to as such consistently throughout the work and in critical analyses. He is not "David". That said, I really think sigs should match usernames, regardless of whether the usernames use leetspeak or not. Dcoetzee 22:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated above, my concern is not leet per se, but obfuscation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What about the other way around? ^_^ — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. ^^ — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

People are allowed to make stupid and childish looking signatures. As long as they are more or less readable, I see no problem in them. As stated above: a personal expression. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC) hmmm, do I see a non-standard sig there?

Because people are allowed to be stupid and childish (if it is that) does not mean they should be encouraged or coddled to be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about sigs which are unreadable (which is another issue) but those which are unfindable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you'll have to give us an example. Everyone who signs with four ~ symbols has their page linked. I've seen one user who made a special signature, then purposefully left out the link to their userpage, and that was a couple years ago. So, I'm not seeing an ongoing trend that needs fixed. As long as you can click their name to go to their page, it's easy to find their contributions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have a name in your sig that isn't your user name, that causes confusion. It makes it harder to communicate with someone if you don't know what name to use to refer to them. Does Pigsonthewing want to be called Andy Mabbett or Pigsonthewing? How are we meant to know? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You could try 'asking him. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk page

Wouldn't it be more convenient if we made our talk page and whatnot subpages?

[[File:Wink.jpg]] (talk)

P.S. You can sign with ~~~ now!!!!

Well that three tilde just means no date. And reading your sig I can't easily tell its from Walex03. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I changed my sig. But anyway, can you talk to me about that? I'll be signing with ~~~~ if I'm putting down a date.

The #1 Awesome Guy ;) (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If I understand your original query you are suggesting that your talk will be User:Walex03/talk. This would be difficult for the links on the user page and contributions that links to user talk:Walex03. This is actually a media wiki name space, and has options in search pages, so if you make talk a sub page you would remove it from the search and linking features, and many people would still post to your user talk page instead of your user .../talk page. Can you see any advantage to it? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. The original one's been going around for nine years or so. If we make such a sudden move as if what I proposed to the policy we would have to take down the entire thing and start from scratch. We'd have to send send large messages to well-established users, change sig coding, re-establish the automated pages sent out, it's just too much of a wreck.

Walex03 (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Time for a policy on tagging?

It's been clear to me for some time that dispute tags (by which I mean {{POV}} and friends) are frequently misused as a means of protesting against a decision with which editors might disagree, or otherwise 'warning' the reader. Many, many times I've seen tags hastily applied with no explanation, making them entirely useless to anyone who might be able to help. Incredibly, I've recently seen editors arguing that the existence of any NPOV-related discussion on an article's talk page would justify a tag (which would, in effect, imply that many articles should be permanently tagged). I don't wish to imply that tags are necessarily bad — they can be used well and effectively — but better guidance seems badly needed. WP:DRIVEBY contains some good, and some bad, guidance, but it isn't policy. The documentation at {{POV}} contains some good, but sadly too brief, discussion.

I believe that we need a policy (or, perhaps more realistically, a guideline), documenting among other things:

When it is (and isn't) appropriate to use these tags
What their purpose is, and how long they are expected to be present
What information needs to be provided on the talk page, in order to help editors determine how to resolve the issues, and indeed whether they've been resolved
Some guidance about unresolvable issues (eg., those that are mere misunderstandings of policy rather than violations)

I had thought about drafting something, but I thought it best to get a feel for community feeling first. Thoughts? Jakew (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a larger issue than that! Besides POV, I often find myself re-dating and/or removing Unreferenced (those that tag an article rarely bother to add a References section with {{reflist}}, which is a great way to annoy and confuse novice editors since most of them don't know how to cite inline, much less create the section for it), Merge (shocking how many merges never get... merge discussions), Notability & Disputed (same reason as Merge), and others with less frequency such as Cleanup or Copy Edit. My rule of thumb is that if the tag is more than a month old and the editor that added it didn't bother to write any guidance on the article's talk page as to why he tagged it, it goes unless it's obvious why it's there. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: there is a wikiproject starting up to clean up the merge tag backlog, which now stands at about 3 years. Feel free to join up! Perhaps after it is established this project can evolve to target the other tags as well... Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The project has now been started, so you can go directly to Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge if you want to sign up (the more the merrier!). Quasi human | Talk 20:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

And what annoys me is seeing the big orphan tagging on top. I want to read the text of the article, not a bunch of warnings. It would help if those top tagging were less intrusive, some perhaps could just add to a hidden category. Though I feel that we are getting a lot of bureaucracy and too many pages of instructions and policies and guidelines. However it would be good to have helpful text on the topic for those that do want to read it. I don't imagine drive by taggers to want to put a huge effort into knowing how they should be used correctly though. A warrior over POV will still be a warrior even if they are told not to use a POV tag as a weapon. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have run into the exact same problems as both Jakew; using tags as weapons/scarlet letters/badges of shame, insisting they have to stay on the article effectively forever until they get their way. I've also run into the problem mentioned by Markvs88, people insisting they can stick a "merge" tag on an article but don't need to open a discussion about the merge: in this current discussion a user objects to having to do so, despite my explanations. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no need to put most of these cleanup tags on stubs at all because the fact that its a stub is enough to say that the article needs cleanup, expanded, copyedit, etc. Some such as Unreferenced and Disputed are ok though. With all that said, unless someone is willing to stand up and say that some of these arguments like not opening a proper merge discussion rather than just slapping a tag on it is not appropriate and has the support of the community there is little point in arguing it. It often seems that we have policies only when we choose and not when the editor that does it is an Admin, well liked, etc. If we can start evenly enforcing some of our policies things will work themselves out. --Kumioko (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup is different from stub in my opinion. Stub means it needs material added, cleanup means that was is there needs work (copyedit, layout, etc.) However it is odd that a stub need cleanup because there is so little there that it is easy to cleanup, usually. RJFJR (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I ran into this problem recently with an editor who was doing a lot of drive-by tagging. He then started to go back and delete chunks of text simply because they were unreferenced, even though in one case the article was already very well referenced and the remaining unreferenced sections were uncontroversial. I discovered that there is an essay on tagging at Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems but was surprised to find that there was no official policy. Perhaps this could be used as a basis for a policy. I think it would be helpful to have some agreement, especially in terms of the length of time that tags should stay in place before actions such as merges can be done and when it is acceptable to remove unnecessary tags. It seems silly to me to add lots of tags and templates about a lack of references to stub and start articles. Dahliarose (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As some food for thought, consider that the purpose of these tags in mainspace is to encourage our readers to become editors, and should absolutely not be a replacement for editor-to-editor communication of problems on a talk page. They should be carefully used to highlight overarching problems with articles that we can anticipate that an interested reader should be able to fix anonymously (if they so desire).

As such, we should not be placing these when only a small portion of an article is a problem (for example if the article is well sourced except one section, the {{Unreferenced section}} should be added at the right point rather than at the top via {{Unreferenced}}.

Thus, there are some of these that should never be on the main page but placed on a talk page for the article. For example, {{Citation style}} - consistent citation style is important, yes, but I don't expect the non-registered reader to know how to fix this immediately.

My opinion: I'd think all these tags would be better on the talk of the affected article, but I would like to see one unified header tag that has specific callouts for specific problems that we can expect inexperienced readers to possibly help to fix, with language to encourage them to fix it. Section-specific and line-specific (eg {{cn}}) tags are still fine when they are fine-pointing problems, but its better to advise the help for probably that don't require a lot of en.wiki policy/guideline/mos understanding to fix, leaving that message to the actual editors on the talk page. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In my experience the vast majority of tags were placed correctly (even if the article has been improved since then and the tags remain), and only a small proportion of problem articles are tagged, so an article is far more likely to be flawed but untagged than good but tagged. We need more tagged articles, but also better tags, and this includes adding reasons and reducing the amount of screen taken up by them. Another helpful idea would be to promote tools like Twinkle which force you to enter reasons for certain tags - maybe if someone adds a lot of tags manually they could be pointed towards the automatic tools that make the procedure both easier and more reliable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Sigh, "drive by tagging" canard. Accusations of drive by tagging are so nonsensical. Let me paint a picture. I'm sitting on my million pound yacht, using my gold-plated iPad to read my favourite website, Wikipedia. I come across an article and boom, it has no lead! No lead, you say? Yes, no lead! That's bad! So I tap on the Twinkle 'Tag' option and add a no lead template. I have limited time: James Bond is rumoured to be on his way to kill me and I need to get a move on, get the yacht over to my secret hollowed-out volcano bunker with massive laser beams capable of destroying human civilization as we know it. Naughty me. I didn't provide an explanation for why this is a problem or leave a lovely talk page message explaining the issue, or go and serve a plate of fresh grapes to the creator of the page. Naughty naughty me. I'm a drive-by tagger! I exaggerate somewhat, but I guess when you compare me to the perpetrator of a drive-by shooting, that can tend to make me a little grumpy. The point is simple: some tags require explanations, some don't. Sometimes it is obvious what needs tagging. If someone does drive-by tag, politely revert it and ask them to provide an explanation on the talk page. Simple. Requiring everyone to provide lengthy reasoning in order to point out the bloody obvious, especially when they might be on a mobile device where editing or text input is hard is really utterly pointless. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- My feeling is that if it's truly obvious that the tag belongs, then nobody is ever likely to challenge your application of it, so that should leave plenty of time for your world domination project. The problems I've seen occur when it's not obvious that the tag belongs. In those instances, then I would say yes, we really need an explanation, and adding a tag without providing one does more harm than good. I'd therefore suggest not trying use a mobile device to do things that require communicating one's thoughts to other editors. Jakew (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  - If the cause of the tag is truly obvious, then the tag serves absolutely no purpose, since anyone looking at the article can easily see the way in which it is deficient. Tags should only ever be used when there's something subtly wrong with an article. The rest of the banners and tags should be deleted on sight. Gigs (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    - Many tags add articles to categories patrolled by article maintainers. For example, {{Unreferenced}} adds articles where it appears to Category:Articles lacking sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
      - They can still function this way when tagged on talk pages. Just a few extra steps to get from maintenance category to the article. --MASEM (t) 06:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
        
        Are we drifting into WP:PEREN#Move maintenance tags to talk pages territory again? Anomie ⚔ 17:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
        
        There's a simple alternative: if a tag doesn't have a link to a corresponding talk page discussion, make it invisible. That way, it still adds the page to the relevant category. And since the rationale for making tags visible is that it might encourage new editors, it's a bit unfair on those new editors to expect them to fix subtle problems with no talk page explanation. It seems too simple, though: what's wrong with it? Jakew (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
        
        I do recognize it as a PEREN, but at the same time, I don't think the tag system is perfect. We want readers to become editors, and placing tags on articles to entice that is a good thing. But then when put tags on articles that do require a bit of know-how of how WP works and the like (such as fixing citations with bare URLs, or dealing with long plots, etc.) while a reader possibly could help fix it, a reader-cum-editor could make it a lot worse too. If we considered only the tags that are "really easy" for readers to jump in and participate as the only ones that should be present on the page to start with, moving the other tags to the talk page, that might be one way to stem the issue. Of course, this requires editors to be aware of what are article page tags and what are talk page tags, and that's a whole other ball game. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Well-placed, well-selected tags warn readers about the quality of the article. I edit in the area of Martial Arts: there are hundreds of articles with only primary sources and/or fan sites as references. In 2010 the MA Project did a massive cleanup: we used the 'notability' tag and the Catscan tool to manage the process. Many articles were improved, many were prodded and many to AFD (Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Article Review). Some articles (Bujinkan comes to mind) have severe problems with the quality of their source but there is an army of supporters to defend the article (Talk:Bujinkan). I doubt if a guideline or policy about tagging can resovle/improve a POV war. jmcw (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Except that dispute-related tags aren't supposed to be used to "warn readers". See, e.g., the rules for Template:POV, which say "This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article."
I support the creation of a policy or guideline on this issue. I've thought about drafting one myself in the past, but haven't actually managed to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, there seems to be some support for a policy/guideline. I'm mostly interested in those related to disputes, by which I mean {{POV}}, {{Disputed}}, {{Systemic bias}} and (in some situations) {{Original research}}. My inclination is to draft something discussing these cases, with the hope that it can later be merged into a larger document that discusses other tags. I don't think I'm well placed to write about the other tags, however, as I'm not familiar with best practices regarding their use. Do others have any interest in working on that? Jakew (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you start in a user sandbox. If you want to drop a note on my user talk page with the page name, I'd be happy to help out. I think the tags you name are the most important ones, but I think I could add information about best practices for clean up tags and such. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Using tags as battle-standards on policy/guideline pages

Unfortunately, the use of "tags" such as "disputed" or "under discussion" has gotten out-of-hand lately on Pol/Guideline pages, due perhaps to infighting at some recent Arbcom cases, one of which is yet to finalize. These tags indicate distrust of a policy, when in fact as described above, the totality of the whole section is not at all deprecated, and the only dispute is to add/remove the "tag" itself, and edit war.

These "tags" should not stay "in perpetuity" that is counter-productive. How long and why are tags added? We do need a guideline, to come out of a discussion of this matter, as called for above. I would support these given ideas as such. I believe that we need a policy (or, perhaps more realistically, a guideline), documenting among other things:

When it is (and isn't) appropriate to use these tags
What their purpose is, and how long they are expected to be present
What information needs to be provided on the talk page, in order to help editors determine how to resolve the issues, and indeed whether they've been resolved
Some guidance about unresolvable issues (eg., those that are mere misunderstandings of policy rather than violations) PER Jakew (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Peace! NewbyG ( talk) 02:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Guideline truly needed!

There is being an RFC over at Template talk:Cleanup on mandating the tag's reason parameter, which I invite you to look at. This discussion arose precisely out of the circumstance that templates are frequently slapped to an article – often by half-automated means – without giving an outsider editor any clue on why the tag has been added. Neither is an inline comment being attached nor is a rationale on the talk page being provided. One issue that makes this all considerably more difficult is that everyone has his own understanding on when a tag is warranted and when not. Trying to remove a tag that has just been carelessly added has a high chance of resulting in an edit war.

Example 1: Have a look at this version of the FBI article. Do you see anything that makes you think "this article really is in need of cleanup"? Yet, this is precisely what happened. I reverted the tag, and I was reverted by an uninvolved editor claiming my revert was just WP:POINTy (seemingly, in reference to the discussion at Template talk:Cleanup). That editor then rub it into my nose what needed cleanup by showing me this diff of changes he applied. Is a couple of pedantic MOS issues really what we want to point out when adding the {{cleanup}} template? I probably don't have to add that this would warrant the addition of the cleanup template on each and every non-featured article on Wikipedia, and even some of these – according to that editor. Obviously, we have different concepts of "cleanup".

Example 2: Looks look at an article that really is in desperate need of clean up, and at exactly the opposite behavior when it comes to removal of the cleanup template. I have added the cleanup template on this very weak article ages ago, providing a detailed explanation on the talk page of the article. Yet, said editor from above and another one jump in, make a few (ridiculously) minor style changes, and then remove the cleanup template. So we keep the template in the first example but remove it from the second???

Example 3: This editor, who has given up at some point in time, had the habit of continually and usually without discussion removing all unsourced information from an article and add {{refimprove}} and {{cleanup}} tags onto it. I do not want to debate whether his actions were justified. But I had a minor argument over his actions at the Authentication article, with my principal complaint being that he would only drive-by-tag articles without explaining what exactly needed cleanup. Because I could not convince him of removing the tag and as I do have some expertise in the area I settled the dispute by adding a detailed reason inline in the template. Yet, it should not be me adding a reason for tagging but the tagger!

In light of these examples (I can come up with more if you need) as well as of the recent template discussions (1, 2, 3) I think a guideline on tagging is absolutely crucial! There already is what may be used as a basis for such a guideline: WP:RESPTAG. Unfortunately, it is only an essay, and as such it is disregarded as a 35kb rant. Certainly, this essay will need rework if we want to bring it up to guideline status, but do we – do you want to? What are your thoughts on this?

Many thanks for your input! Nageh (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. Obviously, tagging behavior seems to be an important issue to lots of editors. Yet, I get absolutely no reply. Why is that? Nageh (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised to find out that WP:Template messages/Cleanup contains quite some useful guidelines. Really, taggers need to be pointed to these guidelines, it already may help avoiding quite some anger and edit warring. Just words to myself. Nageh (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Partly you got no reply because your post is a touch long and convoluted. And partly because you seem to be denouncing anyone who disagrees with you about tags as "carelessly added", and saying another editor "rub it into my nose (sic)". Your wording comes across as combative. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I brought up examples with the intention of pointing out specific problems rather than resorting to hand-waiving. Denouncing anyone was certainly not my intention, sorry when it came across like that. Thanks again, Nageh (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

is there a place where disillusioned and tired editors can "hang out" - like the waste bucket of WP ?

Relevance

This might seem almost obvious but looking at a discussion in [3] makes me ask: do any existing policies cover that article content should be directly related to the subject of the article or that comment on the degree of relevance? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a gaping hole in WP:NPOV. I have been slowly developing an analysis and ideas at [Strategic Issues with core policies / WP:NPOV] Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If the material isn't directly related to the subject of the page (NB: not the title of the page, but its subject, which is sometimes materially different), then including the material is WP:UNDUE. You might also like to read about WP:COATRACKs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Addition to WP:NOT

I think that the following section should be added to the page WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a question-answer website. I do not know exactly how this will be written., but I believe that this represents the general consensus and rules of Wikipedia. Wer900 (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Already covered by WP:NOTBLOG. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

We also have the RefDesk for largely that purpose (as long as your question isn't homework). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing environment has been marked as a guideline

This categorization seems inappropriate to me for an essay that debuted on 3 March 2012, and whose talk page does not show much consensus, if any. Is it common for essays to be classed as "guidelines"? --Bejnar (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the procedure for elevating the status of a guidance essay?

The guidance essay WP:Formal organization has a banner as a guidance essay. In contrast, the project page WP:About is not classified in this way, although IMO both are similar in providing simple descriptions of aspects of WP.

WP:Formal organization describes the WP officers and duties as described in WP documentation. As such it is not an essay in the sense of expressing commentary or assessment or viewpoint, but simply an outline of WP's self-stated structure.

Moreover, this material has undergone several review procedures as outlined on its Talk page, and reflects changes suggested by many editors.

The question is, can the essay designation of WP:Formal organization be removed to make it a simple summary page similar to WP:About? If not, what process might lead to that result? Brews ohare (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The usual (although not, strictly speaking, absolutely required) process for identifying a page as a formal {{policy}} or {{guideline}} is at WP:PROPOSAL. Any page at all can be designated an {{essay}} by anyone at all (including any subtype of essay, e.g., a notability essay), since "essay" in Wikijargon means something like "any page that isn't an officially designated policy or guideline" rather than an essay in the literary sense of the word.

There's no defined process for identifying other types of pages, such as a procedure page or an informational page. There have been few disputes about such pages in the past, so defining a particular process has seemed unnecessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. It seems improbable that WP:Formal organization could be considered to be a guideline or a policy, as it is about neither of those subjects.

The question then arises as to whether a For..see link can be attached to the article Wikipedia to refer readers to WP:Formal organization? Editor Blackburne has objected to this on the grounds that it is a link to a personal essay. It would appear that (i) there may or may not be a policy on this matter, and (ii) one might argue that a factual outline of WP documentation is hardly a "personal" essay, if such a category exists. How can this disagreement be resolved? Brews ohare (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:SELF seems to suggest that including it under ==External links== might be preferable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: It seems to me that a possible process is to classify WP:Formal organization as an Information page, which it is because it contains no opinion, assessment, or point-of-view, but consists only of what WP documentation says about WP hierarchy. To be classified this way apparently requires "communal consensus". How is that stamp of approval obtained, do you know? Brews ohare (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Boldly, that is done by slapping the template on the page and hoping no one objects.

Collegially, it is done by starting a talk page discussion and seeing whether or not anyone objects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: OK, I'll open a discussion like that here. Would you be so kind as to add your thoughts about this proposal there? Brews ohare (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What is an arena's name?

Two people refuse to allow the article Asheville Civic Center to U.S. Cellular Center (Asheville, North Carolina) even though they seem to accept that the first sentence of the article is true:

Asheville Civic Center (officially renamed U.S. Cellular Center in November 2011) is a 7,654-seat multi-purpose arena, in Asheville, North Carolina.

If that statement is the truth, then what's the problem? They point me to all sorts of policy statements, but none of those answer the question. I admit I have seen only that the local paper uses the new name, but they do not refer to "Asheville Civic Center" except as a former name. And I haven't searched extensively to see that other papers use the term, though my own paper referred to Southern Conference men's basketball tournament games at "U.S. Cellular Arena". I need to call the paper (done) and get that corrected, though I'm not even sure that would help the case.

If what people call it has to change to move the article, I don't imagine too many people in Asheville have changed what they call it, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I've given up my formal proposal but I just want to see some comments because right now the article looks strange to me.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Jack Kent Cooke Stadium => FedEx Field — Ravens Stadium and PSINet Stadium => M&T Bank Stadium. I think the article should be titled as the current name of the stadium, as decided by the stadium owner/operator, and any previous names shoud be redirects. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. If you could just say that here.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Remove prognostication from WP:BLP1E, to conform with WP:1E and WP:CRYSTAL

The policy WP:BLP1E, Subjects notable only for one event in WP:Biographies of living persons seems to be at odds with WP:CRYSTAL, and less workable than the same policy covered over in WP:1E, in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. I can't envision how a group of editors is supposed to agree on what a living person will do in the future, or whether the reliable sources of the future will elevate someone to greater notability. WP:1E stays focused on the question of whether the person is notable or not, and whether the subject is better covered in an article about the event and not the person. It doesn't ask us to wonder what will happen next. If a single event is not notable, should we keep an article about the person because, we think the person will go on to greater things? If we know the person will not do anything else, such as if they're deceased, or we're certain they will remain out of the public eye, does that really resolve anything?

With subjects like Joe the Plumber or Tank Man, you can see how in the days after the initial event that made them famous, there was no way to guess whether the single event would gain importance in the future or be forgotten, and/or the person will become notable for more events. There are some deceased people, like Pierlucio Tinazzi or Edith Macefield, who, as it turned out, need only one event to secure their notability. Or consider Category:Recipients of the Medal of Honor for hundreds of examples of individuals who have articles for only one event. In any of these examples, what possible role could theories about the future be of any use? Many obscure individuals will some day become notable when future historians take notice of them and amplify their lives in writing -- but that only matters to us after that history is written, not before. We can't know who is "likely" to become famous. What facts are editors supposed to cite in order to reach consensus on whether someone is "is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" or not? How is an admin supposed to judge which prognosticator's argument is better?

WP:BLP1E is the odd one out here, and should be aligned with WP:1E and WP:CRYSTAL. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP1E trumps those other policies. We're erring on the side of caution, that a person shouldn't have their name plastered on Wikipedia for a single event in their lives. We wait for reliable third-party sources to show that the one event has remained notable. And sometimes, it's more reasonable to have a page on the event instead of the person.

Also, you've got WP:CRYSTAL backwards. You're right, we can't know who is likely to become famous. So we don't put up a page on them until they meet WP:N. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP1E doesn't say that. It places a high burden to delete, having to meet not one but two conditions. The first is reasonable: notable for more than one event. But even if the news coverage is in the context of only one event, then a second condition must be met in order to "avoid having an article." The second condition is "if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." How do we decide that? Do you know of any cases where an editor cited an actual source to support the second condition? Or did they merely speculate?

Take a look at cases where BLP1E was cited. Do any of these hinge on the clause about future speculation? Or do we, in the end, often after multiple deletion nominations and deletion reviews, end up making the decision on the article's merits with no regard to speculation about the future?

Removing the future prediction clause would have the benefit of avoiding a vast amount of wooly thinking and idle guesses about what might happen. We currently have editors filling up deletion discussions debating one another about future events with no reference whatsoever to facts. What good is that? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it widely believed that this 'likely to remain low profile' condition is an expression of caution in creating articles? That it leans deletionist, not inclusionist? If so, it's an example of the conjunction fallacy. If you want to avoid creating articles prematurely, and to make it easier to delete articles about people notable for one event, that's all the more reason to remove the likelihood of being low profile condition. Or else completely rewrite the thing to say what you think it says. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP is designed to protect individuals, and BLP1E is an extension of that. We don't create an article then wait to see if the person gets more coverage. Until it can be shown that this person has remained notable for an extended period, we don't keep an article on them. The future clause was precisely because some articles were being made about people who were only known for one event, and then never were heard about again in secondary reliable sources.

The entire point is that we don't guess that the person will continue to be discussed in the media. The "wooly thinking and idle guesses about what might happen" is why BLP1E exists. If the person is in the spotlight for one event and then disappears from the public view, they should never have an article in the first place. We don't "guess" that they're going to still be notable a year from now because of a single event in their lives. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I did try to resolve some of the ambiguities surrounding that line a little while ago - and met some resistance. Some editors believe that line is a caveat that means if an individual has coverage purely for one event but that coverage is high profile and extends for some time, this satisfies BLP1E. It was my understanding the line was actually intended to preclude those situations by requiring an individual to have reasonable coverage unrelated to the single event (the case in point at the time was Amanda Knox). In addition it is somewhat speculative, as Dennis says; I've noted several times a BLP1E discussion depending on editors speculation over whether the individual will become notable. If anything the confusion weakens the policy. I think the line needs changing to remove those ambiguities, my view was always that it should read something like this: In situations where a person receives coverage from reliable sources in the context of a single event and, outside that event, they remain a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them This removes the future prospect of increased notability (the article can always be created at that point) and clarifies that. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The Hand That Feeds You, I'm sorry if I'm not following you correctly, but it sounds like you're still not parsing the sentence correctly. I suggested a rewrite over at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP1E so that we can at least start to agree about what the policy really says. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've parsed the sentence correctly. BLP1E was very contentious in the first place, so that wording was a compromise. This is a case of "letter of the law vs. intent of the law." The intent, as I stated earlier and Errant points out, is to prevent people being immortalize on Wikipedia for something that ends up being a non-notable event. I actually like Errant's rewrite rather well, and would support that change. Getting it changed may be a challenge, though. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

All I can do is repeat that the current policy does not error on the side of caution. It errors on the side of keeping the bio. If you know anyone who is an expert in law, or English grammar, or logic, you might want to try discussing with them the sentence, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Maybe they can convince you. As far as what the intent was, it's like saying, "sure the sign says STOP, but the intent was YIELD. Trust me on that one." I'm saying if they really meant yield, they should have said yield in the first place. From where I sit, the words say stop and I have every right to presume they mean nothing more or less than what they say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm

Wikipedia is not a legal document. In fact, treating it as such is discouraged. I'm trying to tell you that, yes, the wording is vague, but that was a compromise. And don't insult me by telling me to find an expert on English grammar, when you fail to use proper grammar yourself. It's "to err" not "to error." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this attitude is that it reinforces an old-boy network, and tends to exclude outsiders and newcomers. Instead of democratically allowing anybody who is willing to take the time to carefully read policy to participate in important decisions, the application of policy must is limited to in-group who are privy to the esoteric meaning. We can't just read for ourselves; we must rely on the elders who were there at the time when it was written, and the elders' proteges, to tell us what it "really means". The accusation of Wikilawyering is a defense mechanism that reinforces a hierarchical status quo.

There needs to be an RfC to rewrite BLP1E into language that actually says what we are told it means. The wise elders who handed BLP1E down to us clearly were not all that wise, because they made a terrible blunder and gave us a howler of a policy that says exactly the opposite of what they wanted it to say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

No. We all know that there are two kinds of editors: those who acknowledge that protecting people in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is important, and those who want everything included. No tweaking of wording is ever going to change that. BLP1E is intended to stop the permanent recording as encyclopedic content of news-of-the-day ephemera; it has the added benefit of reducing trivia and gossip in the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

So the fact that it is important causes the flawed wording to not be flawed? Seems like since it's important you'd be motivated to make it correct and clear. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOT Automobiles

Has there been any discussion about the notability of automobiles, racing cars, aircraft, and the like? NealeFamily (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

They have no official notability guidelines, but project specific guidelines may exist. For example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Notability. Look at the respective wikiprojects for more information about that. Yoenit (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - found Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles) which has what I was looking for. NealeFamily (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor Edit War

Would someone like to comment on a minor edit war re: 2012 WGC-Cadillac Championship. I spent some time creating this page (the tournament starts on Thursday) and then 12 minutes after an edit someone puts a stupid box at the top of it, which I tried to remove. This resulted in a minor edit war. I'm threatened with not being allowed to edit wikipedia any more, which is a bit like being threatened with a 10 dollar bonus, i.e. pointless. Anyway the whole exercise has been sufficiently annoying to put me off editing anyway. My recollection is that wikipedia is keen to encourage occasional editors not drive them away.Nigej 09:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Good luck. Day by day, moment by moment, Wikipedia is killing off its casual editors. If you're not an admin, you're nobody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.102.100 (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement even though I don't really know what an Admin is. P.S. I don't want to know what an Admin is.Nigej 09:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Nigej, the "annoying little boxes" serve a very real purpose at Wikipedia. They put articles in categories that flag them for attention by people who improve the quality of articles through doing specific maintenance tasks. For example, I am a copy-editor, but I don't really like creating new articles from scratch. So when I feel like editing, I often look in Category:All articles needing copy edit, pick an article, and edit. Articles get added to that category automatically when someone adds the {{copyedit}} tag to the top of the article. These maintenance tags are a very important tool here, and removing them without addressing the problem is considered very bad form. Please don't take the addition of such tags personally—they do not reflect on the quality of the article, or of the article's contributors, they are just a call to action for Wikipedians who like to do very specific jobs. In the case of this article, you could have gotten surprise help from someone who likes to do research and find sources! Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You call these boxes "maintenance tags". Maintenance - "The work of keeping something in proper condition". The operative word here is KEEPING. Surely this implies that the real use of these boxes is for articles that were once ok but have fallen on hard times. Using them for a part written article is nothing to do with maintenance. The other point is consistency. Why include them in specific article when countless similar ones do not have the tags. I still think they are overused. Many articles have them in for years and everyone ignores them. What is the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigej (talk • contribs) 15:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the problem has been solved by addressing the concern raised by the user.

I agree that these templates are often overused, but they can be helpful and aren't always ignored. I don't think that it's valuable to edit war over {{one source}} in a one-day-old article (especially since the removal of the template indicates that its primary author is aware of the concern). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, and for what it's worth (which isn't much), when the primary author of a one-day-old-article removes maintenance tags such as {{one source}}, {{unreferenced}}, or {{COI}}, it is an indication that the author is aware of the concern, but isn't particularly aware of the reason for the concern, the importance of the concern, or that they have any intention of actually solving the problem. I'm not saying that this is the case with this particular article/author, but an edit war such as this over maintenance tags is often a precursor to AfD. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The reasons give here for these "maintenance tags" are decidedly tenuous, repeating the party line. Also they don't address the points I made. Also why can't I remove a box that has been added. What give him more rights that me? Why threaten to kick me out? Why didn't he say - obviously this editor feel strongly that the box shouldn't be there, I'll bow to his feelings and leave it out? Clicking on "one source" leads to some advice on when to use it:

A single source is not automatically a problem. Good judgment and common sense should be used.

Please consider improving the article or making a good faith attempt to find additional citations before adding this template.

It is considered good form to provide a rationale in your edit summary or on the talk page of the article. The more specifically you describe your concerns, the less likely other editors are to misunderstand.

If you believe problems exist beyond the sources themselves, address that issue with an appropriate template (see below), rather than simply questioning the sources.

None of this was done. He simply plonked a box at the top of the page. P.S. I've go no idea what COI or AfD mean. No. Don't tell me, I don't want to know.Nigej 10:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Try typing 'coi' or 'afd' in the search field. jmcw (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Consider the following fable: Fred is building a brick wall. It's morning coffee time and he goes off for a drink, leaving the wall partly built. When he returns a council official has stuck a notice on the wall: "This wall is in a terrible state, please improve it." Fred removes the notice and builds a bit more of the wall. Now it's lunch time and he goes home for some food but when he returns the council official has stuck the notice up again. Fred removes it again. Now it's afternoon coffee time and he goes off for his drink but when he returns the council official has stuck the notice up yet again. This time there also another notice saying "Do not remove this notice. Removing such notices 3 times is a grave offence. If you remove this notice again I'll ban you from building walls ever again." Despite this he removes the notice again. Fred is annoyed at the interfering official. Fred complains to the council but they reply that they have a policy of sticking these notices on poorly built walls, that the use of these notices was a important way of improving the quality of walls and the official was only doing his duty anyway. They also tell him that regulations A17b and B34q part 3 lay down the precise form of these and similar notices. Fred leaves aggrieved, not knowing or caring about these regulations. By the way, Fred was doing the work for nothing for the local old people's home. It's true that Fred's walls were not of the highest quality but he was a well-meaning person and was left thinking that a bit more common sense should be used when it came to sticking such notices up.Nigej 13:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Now consider this fable retelling where Fred, understanding that he's building a wall in a public park, takes some time to ask about the official rules that regulate these public constructions. Fred is told that he has to communicate with other people in the park, since anyone can help him build the wall; and that he can use the public communications system to his benefit, by telling others that this is a new building, that he knows what he's doing and he's actively working on the wall. While going away for a rest, they told him he can change the notice so that others will respect his work while away under penalty of a house arrest (as long as Fred reciprocates). Now wouldn't you agree that there's a bit of common sense in a town that has been populated by well meaning citizens for some times? And what would you think of Fred if he was there dismissing whatever he is being told and saying that he doesn't care about the rules? Diego (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Or an alternative ending to your fable: When Fred returns from his drink he see the notice, gets angry and rips off the notice because he is offended that some official would judge his wall as being sub-standard. When he leaves for lunch the official adds the notice back, but before Fred returns from lunch, another wall-builder walks past Fred's construction site. He sees the wall, sees the notice, says to himself "I like to build walls and this chap looks like he could use some help." He picks up the stones and trowel and sets to work. When Fred returns from lunch he is amazed to find the wall in much better shape that it was before he left. Fred says "Hey, thanks," the other builder says "No problem, mate," and walks off.

Several times in this discussion you have said "don't tell me, I don't want to know." You've got to realize that this attitude is extremely counterproductive. Wikipedia is a community project, and in order to have any chance at having fun and success here you must be a member of the community. That means learning about and working within the norms of the community. Please stop taking this personally. The article is not yours, it is ours. Another editor saw a problem, but he/she was either unwilling or unqualified to solve it. That editor did something which is long-standing practice here by adding the maintenance tags. Other people (including myself) have offered to explain why this happens by pointing you to the relevant policies and you have said "I don't want to learn, just leave me alone." I'm really sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Later on Fred receives a number of replies to his complaints from trades-union officials telling him that building walls is only for fully training people and that, really, amateurs like Fred shouldn't be building such things in public places. Fred is of the belief that wall-building is likely to be a closed-shop at some time in the future anyway. In fact Fred has some sympathy with the trades-unionists views but somehow thought that years ago they thought differently. Fred decides that perhaps wall-building is not for him. He might repair a brick or two when he sees one dislodged but otherwise he'll stick to different activities.Nigej 14:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, enough with the metaphors. :-) You have faced what is a systemic problem nowadays at Wikipedia; we know that creating articles is difficult, much more than it was back at the early ages, and we know that this scares potential editors away. There are debates everywhere with ideas on how to solve the problem (some in this very page), but none seems to gain traction; we're hoping the new developments and studies requested from the Arbitrators committee will change this tendency; meanwhile, alghough there are established procedures to handle disagreements and misbehavior, you can never predict how they will develope; so we're on our own. Wikipedia is a huge place and we can only expect that in the little corner in which you participate, you will find reasonable people that behaves in a civiliced way; I'll only say that it's much easier if you play along, but that it often requires significant maturity to keep oneself in check. The era of settlers has finished, we are now on the late Wild West. I hope you'll find some pleasing activity to perform and don't abandon the project as a whole as an active editor. Diego (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for the responses. Discussion closed.Nigej 16:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

How to handle name changes?

I'm intending to rename an article about a living person who has recently married and is now publicly going by her married name. However I'm unsure about changing all instances of the name, in both the article in question and other articles that refer to the person. The article in question is Alicia Gorey, but the issue could equally apply to other biographes. I raised the question at WT:Manual of Style/Biographies#How to handle name changes?, and have had some feedback, but it's still not clear to me what to do. Further input - at WT:Manual of Style/Biographies#How to handle name changes?, to keep the discussion in one place - would be appreciated. Thanks. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Ukraine > Ukraine

A proposal to formalise Wikipedia's naming convention for the country of Ukraine. From Name of Ukraine#"Ukraine" versus "The Ukraine":

In English, the country was formerly often referred to with the definite article, that is, the Ukraine (as in the Netherlands, the Gambia, the Bronx, the Congo, and the Sudan), and occasionally still is. However, usage without the article is now more frequent.^[1] This approach has also become established in journalism and diplomacy since the country's independence (for example, within the style guides of The Economist,^[2] The Guardian^[3] and The Times^[4]).

Wikipedia uses Ukraine in the country's article, and in most other articles. However there's a few The Ukraines floating around. I propose we standardise to Ukraine across Wikipedia - I have an WP:AWB set-up ready to comb through and make the corrections. LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The Ukraine redirects properly to Ukraine, and should remain that way for when editors add the "The". I'm not sure that going through and fixing the redirects is necessary, particularly if they refer to "The Ukraine" when it was typically referred to as such. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no purpose in enforcing such uniformity. Also some bots in the past have changed citations, specifically article and book titles, making them incorrect, and harder to verify. Accept the variance as one of life's little joys. --Bejnar (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Refimprove"

Hi. In regards to the template, {{Refimprove}}. I don't find this very useful on some articles because certain types of articles don't have existent sources for them. For example, Caps lock, has Refimprove, but there are obviously no viable sources that can be found for that because we know it's existent but there's nothing significant to cover on the subject. This is just a rough discussion on changing policies on how to reference and use reliable sources on subjects that we know are real but can't be verified through the existing mediums (i.e. references). 184.146.126.165 (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Every article is required to have sources, per WP:V. There has to be some history as to the need for a caps lock key. Mere existence isn't sufficient. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree that there has to be verifiability and sufficient sources. However, there are good articles that are highly referenced only because there is a high frequency of sources available for the said subject, on the other hand, there are not-so-good articles that are unreferenced only because there is a low or no frequency of sources available for the said subject. (Or actually sources that are considered "reliable" by Wikipedia). No matter how hard you try to find it. Caps lock is just an example, hence, the words "for example". There are many more. 184.146.126.165 (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Every article needs sources. Thus, when an article that clearly should have sources (like Caps Lock - someone had to invent the idea of including it on keyboards), the RefImprove tag is completely appropriate. Note that this is different from when a subject's notability is in question and no sources are provided, in which deletion is usually the approach taken; when there's assurance that a topic is presumed notable as would be Caps Locks, there's no need to delete, but a need to find sources. Even if they are hard to come by. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have myself many times stumble onto this problem. Sometimes IAR/COMMON should be used where good faith exist and the article do not try to cover areas beyond what is commonly known. It is also good to remember that information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged should only exist if there is a viable source for it. If a article lacks sources, then one need to avoid over-reaching and large claims. Belorn (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to prove that no references exist for an article. The references may be obscure, e.g. they could be journals of organization specially interested in a subject, or books published for and by collectors of odd items. These may not have the profile of say the New York Times, but we don't even know that the NYT hasn't published an article on something until we check, and checking could be a challenge (I'm no sure how to check that the NYT has never published an article on Caps Lock.) RJFJR (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO a tag asking for references on an article which has none is per se fine. Other things related to that or arising from that would need separate consideration. North8000 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It may be hard to find viable references, but I'd be surprised if you could not find any references for something basically undisputed. How hard did you try finding sources? Try this. Nageh (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe this... —MistyMorn (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If your suggestion is to not demand sources for things "we know are real" you rather not go that way. There will always be someone who disagrees and the only way to resolve such situation is to refer to a reliable source. Nageh (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: When I was a boy, I heard about a strange temple near the city center that housed all of the knowledge of the ancient ones. My uncle warned me against going there as not everything the ancients said was true. Indeed, he said, they even tried to trick you in how they described what they said: instead of "fable" or "tall tale", they called it "fiction". Then instead of "true story" they'd call it... NON-fiction! They also kept the information on paper because they didn't have electricity until thousands of years after they started recording the non-fiction. And the fiction too, come to think of it. The ancients were also stingy in revealing things, so they didn't put the collections of papers in order! They didn't group them by the writer, or even by color! Instead they would write or somehow adhere a number to the side, which you had to know how to find. My uncle said that some temples had computerized search capabilities, but that most of the time you had to look on yet MORE paper to find what you were looking for! Those sly ancients! When I was older, I discovered that many cities and towns had such temples, and some had several or even many of them! Some of the collections of papers were very thin, and seemed to be printed monthly, weekly, or even daily! Those were the thinnest of all and the paper easily ripped. Other places in the temple also had other ancient knowledge, mostly stored on strange MP3s... some were round and dark, with grooves on them, or silver and smaller. Still others were hard and had little wheels inside them! All in all, I recommend visiting these old temples. They're called "Lie brair ees". But if you borrow from the ancients in search of knowledge, be sure to return the artifact before the agreed upon time! Else they become angry and send you notices marked "PAST DUE" and "YOUR FINE IS". Note that these usually are delivered by the ancient's messenger, whom wear a blue livery and drives a slow, white vehicle marked "US MAIL". If you keep a weather eye, the messenger is easy to avoid but often leaves the notice at your abode. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Given there are no citation needed templates, I'm at a loss as to what actually needs referencing. The article seems to meet WP:GNG so for now seems fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, everything. Each reasonably good article is supposed to be a literature review about some topic; you cannot do that without any literature. Just because no facts have been questioned doesn't mean the sources are not highly desirable. And there are enough statements, which really could use a source, even if no one suspects them to be sufficiently wrong to demand a "citation needed". For example, "Some manufacturers include an option in the controller software to deactivate the caps lock key." (which manufacturers?) or "Because the shift key mechanism on a mechanical typewriter requires more force to operate and is usually operated by the little finger on the left hand, [...]" (maybe there were some ways to use some other finger?). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

editing references

Oops, moved to WP:VPR#editing references, letter "P" mistake. -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Composers

Is it a policy that Composers haven't infoboxes? If yes, why?--188.4.233.216 (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Policy? No. A lot of people from Wikiproject Composers feel, however, that composers are somehow special and that "they can't be dumbed down into a box", and so claim consensus that they shouldn't have them. Despite the argument usually being "some composers will have issues with their birth location!" or whatever else that could apply to ANY historical figure. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but no composer has an infobox at all!--188.4.233.216 (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a long and hard fought battle over this some years back. A group of people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers got their way and presumably enforced it exhaustively. Others who think infoboxes are the norm and cannot grok whatever are the issues which make composers a special case, did not get their way. This is a weakness, or strength, of wikipedia, depending upon your point of view and/or which side of a specific argument you're on. Should you wish to challenge the status quo, then I'd point you at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Biographical_infoboxes, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Lead_section and then at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers. And I'd wish you the very best of luck; I've seen the mangled remains of at least one person who came up against them :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It's time this blatant breach of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS was dealt with once and for all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes they do ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. —danhash (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Does not matter what some small wikiproject thinks- we have made this clear to all - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles = "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article"...Moxy (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

So, Moxy you say that it's a coincidence that the only really big biographical articles without an infobox are those of composers?--188.4.233.216 (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I do believe there are a couple other areas that don't as well. And it's not a coincidence, rather that people who tend to edit composer articles tend to be part of WP:COMPOSERS, so it ends up meaning close to the same thing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Its was all done with intent by a Wikiproject and its members (See here). As you can see its telling our editors they must ask permission to edit a page before hand. This is simply not reasonable and has caused many many problems. It is against our core principle policies that all can edit. Not even policy pages have such restrictions. What this has lead to is the isolation of these articles.Moxy (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

One can either revisit the local consensus of the composers project because consensus can change or one can find a composer article for which there is a valid rationale for including an infobox for that article that trumps the local consensus and build from there. If you cannot find an article for which there is an obvious reason to include an infobox, then it would seem that the other option is to ignore what is merely a cosmetic difference between articles. (or i guess one could bitch about it, but that doesnt seem to be very productive) -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well put... but WProjects dont have authority over articles in that manner - they do not have ownership of format or content of articles that they believe may or may not be under there scope (See here). In fact this exact topic is covered here.Moxy (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think the fact that it's a cosmetic difference is pretty important actually -- that is, the fact that one set of articles looks different for no good apparent reason (that is to say, someone coming across them wouldn't understand why this set alone has them, such as 188 here). It's especially silly when people like Alexander Borodin have them, because "well he was a famous chemist too", yet as one might expect the article focuses mainly on him as a composer. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Melodia, that's EXACTLY what I meant when I started this topic.--188.4.233.216 (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

please check out this link and advise on what is happening

http://lohere.net/kulkapedia/samuel/I_Nyoman_Masriadi

220.255.2.161 (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Not in the scope of this page. You may want the Project:Support desk at MediaWiki. – Allen4names 07:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is in the scope of the mediawiki support desk either. The problem is an copy of our article by an external website, which has been turned into an attackpage. To the IP adress above, There is nothing we can do, as that page is not part of wikipedia. Yoenit (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Check the Edit and View history link on that page. They point to the Hungarian Wikipedia. – Allen4names 06:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, but I don't see how it is relevant. Yoenit (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Either the site was hacked (and still is) or it is an attack site. In the latter case there is no use going to the support desk, but in the former case there may be some help to be had by going there. – Allen4names 16:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Link to noticeboard in article talk page

Quite often a matter is brought to a noticeboard and no notice is given on the talk page of the article the advice is being sought about. I know some people want a bit of advice without the usual crowd as it were jumping in and swamping things, but on the other hand notice boards sometimes turn into a recruiting ground for mobbing people in the article. A bit of input from editors on the article before people start doing silly things can be useful to stop such behaviour which can lead to good editors leaving Wikipedia.

We have an information note WP:Noticeboards but no policy that I know of on anything like this or even reasonable guidance. I think one should say at the top of noticeboards that the discussion should normally be linked to in the original article's talk page or whereever is most relevant but what do others think about this? Should WP:Noticeboards have something like this and be made a guideline? Dmcq (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What if Jimbo goes nuts?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that there were plans in place in case this ever happened. I can't find comments about these plans now.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:JIMBO#Contingencies. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If he goes nuts, a steward will lock his account and the WMF board will remove him as a board member by a majority vote under wmf:Bylaws#ARTICLE_V_-_OFFICERS_AND_DUTIES. MBisanz ^talk 19:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

And if all else fails, we can just shave his beard. (As everyone knows, that's the source of his powers.) —David Levy 19:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That's what I was looking for.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions has been marked as a guideline

Technical

Problem displaying wikipedia content in iPad application

I'm seeing Wikipedia mobile content not sized correctly when displayed within iPad apps using UIWebView. It is as though the mobile version has the page width fixed to the size of the iPad device, not the actual view it is displayed in. This is what I'm seeing: [4] This is what I want to see: [5] This used to work correctly. I suspect Wikipedia has become smarter in detecting it is displaying on an iPad and adjusting the frame size assuming it is being displayed with the iPad Safari browser. Is there any way to specify the content width along the lines of http://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jupiter&device-width=320.0 (which doesn't work by the way)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.55.100 (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2012

Issues arising from rollout of mediawiki 1.19

Could you please record any issues with Wikipedia since the rollout of 1.19 here, so that we can keep them all in one place, please. Thanks in advance, BarkingFish 00:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Any way to get the green back in diffs?

Resolved

I see the new diff system was implamented, possibly in the last few minutes. It's nice being able to see tiny changes better but I really like the old green color of the right column a lot better as it's much easier to read. Any way to get it back? I assume it'd have to be css but if so, then so be it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to change only the background color of the right column, add the following code (adapted from MediaWiki:Gadget-ClassicDiff.css, which should be implemented as a gadget soon) to your monobook.css:

td.diff-addedline { background: #CFC; }

Goodvac (talk) 23:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to do anything. Is it the right color? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. I've modified the code. Goodvac (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. I'll note it if it changes back. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The diff color change has been reverted, and the reversion has been synchronized to the Wikimedia servers. The yellow/green coloring should be back now. PleaseStand (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

HistoryNumDiff problem...

Resolved

I assume the change in colors in diffs has broken this somehow. I have HistoryNumDiff enabled in my preferences and now it's showing the changes double, like so:

(cur | prev) 22:58, 29 February 2012‎ The Bushranger (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (+234) (+234)‎ . . (→‎Unfounded sanction and possible admin tools abuse: arbchive) (undo)

...I can haz fix plz? Kthx. Just as a note, in the watchlist the HistoryNumDiff displays fine, it's only in page histories where it's redundantly redundant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The gadget HistoryNumDiff adds the net diff change to the history. MediaWiki 1.19 has just been rolled out to the English Wikipedia and has this feature built in (see mw:Special:Code/MediaWiki/111800). I would recommend disabling HistoryNumDiff in your gadgets. Goodvac (talk) 23:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Aha, so now we can see total size and change. Nifty. And that did the trick! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had an issue with this, I have always had HistoryNumDiff unchecked in my preferences, but suddendly today, coninciding with this apparent software change, now it has started appearing without having checked it. When I check the option, the HistoryNumDiff figures appear in duplicate, while unchecked it appears only once; there appears to be no way to get it to sling its hook and shove off. Any suggestions on how to get it to vanish, not to appear once, twice, or once again, but no appearences at all? Kyteto (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.19 automatically includes the net diff change and the total bytes listed in the history. If you want to get rid of the net diff change, add the following to your skin.css:

.action-history .mw-plusminus-pos, .action-history .mw-plusminus-neg, .action-history .mw-plusminus-null { display: none; }

Goodvac (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the best thing would be to rewrite HistoryNumDiff to provide a "±" switch between size and dif size. — AlexSm 01:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I've pasted that line of code at the location provided, I'll wait and see if it makes a difference, no change so far even with a cleared cache. But doesn't it suggest that there's a deeper flaw, what could be the possible point of 'doubling up' on the figure? And shouldn't the GUI box to switch off feature A...actually switch off feature A, rather than turn on and off a redundant/pointless duplicate? If that how it's supposed to work/is it working like that for other people/am I simply stupid? Kyteto (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Add the code to your common.css. The link above was supposed to "redirect" to your monobook/vector.css file (not sure why it did not happen), your User:Kyteto/skin.css is not executed by MediaWiki. — AlexSm 03:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please remove the gadget from MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition and then mark this as resolved. — AlexSm 03:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Function akeytt disappeared

Apparently there was a function named akeytt() in the site javascript, which has disappeared. I had to delete a call to it from one of my user scripts to make things work again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Animum/easyblock.js is one commonly used script that calls the function, and I suspect that it is the cause of a report that one of my scripts was not working. It took me a while to identify it as a problematic script because it does nothing for non-admins like me. PleaseStand (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 33836

The function akeytt is deprecated since MW 1.17 if I remember correctly.

See mw:ResourceLoader/JavaScript Deprecations#wikibits.js and watch bugzilla:33836. Helder 02:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually akeytt has been deprecated a little longer, since 2009. See also mw:RL/MGU#ta[] Tooltip and Accesskeys. Back then this tooltip/accesskey feature has been integrated into core MediaWiki for all wikis to use and to enjoy localization as well.

Since MediaWiki 1.16 (or earlier) we've replaced the deprecated variables (the global ta object and akeytt function) with dummies to avoid scripts from throwing exceptions for undefined variables. After 3 versions they were eventually removed in MediaWiki 1.19. Note that the errors appearing for scripts still using them are not breakages of functionality. The scripts currently referring to ta and akeytt haven't done anything since 2009.

The addPortletLink function takes a parameter for 'tooltip' and 'accesskey' for scripts that add new links and want to use tooltips and/or accesskeys. To modify the default tooltips and accesskeys for portlet links outputted by default (e.g. "What links here", "My preferences", "View history" etc.) change the interface messages in the MediaWiki-namespace (tooltips / accesskeys. Krinkle (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... it does seem a lot of scripts still reference it. Mark Hurd (talk)

Edit section for old revisions

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 34841

I'm not 100% sure if this is due to MW1.19, but I think it might be. Anyway, when I'm looking at an old revision of a page there are edit section links available, however when I click on one it takes me to editing the same numbered section, but of the current revision, not the old revision that I was looking at (does that make sense?). So, is this a new thing or has it always been like that? Jenks24 (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's new. It occurs for all sections on all pages I tested but an example can be good anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&oldid=478913156#Article_counter currently has a section edit link saying http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&action=edit&section=50. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, I think the proper behavior is to not have section edit links there. You should file a bug about this at <https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org>. If you need any help filing a bug, let me know. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Filed a bug. Use "Enable tracking bugs on Bugzilla ..." in Gadgets to get it to get better tracking here. -- ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 04:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mark. Jenks24 (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

See also bug 33671. Helder 12:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

HTML validation

We are now up to four endemic HTML validation errors per page. See W3C markup validation for User:Gadget850/blank for the validation of a blank page.

there is no attribute "class"
end tag for "ul" which is not finished; two instances
value of attribute "dir" cannot be "auto"; must be one of "ltr", "rtl"

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please file a bug about this: <https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/>. I'd offer to do it for you, but I don't want to mess up any details. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the second bullet (about <ul>) is covered by bugzilla:24500, bugzilla:25366, and bugzilla:23026.

Roan thinks the other two are probably also issues with not using HTML5 yet, but you can file bugs if you'd like. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed just a note in the validation report. The HTML5 standard does allow it, and afaik browsers never had a problem with it. These empty portlets are also (albeit being invisible anyway) additionally hidden through CSS so screenreaders shouldn't have an issue with them either (note that this is not new in MediaWiki 1.19). Krinkle (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right: these error are not detected if Doctype is set to HTML5. But three different errors are shown. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Setting MediaWiki to HTML5 does a bit more than only changing the doctype, but that still leaves one minor error result of Mediawiki in HTML5. The meta is actually only a marker, I think it will be removed in 1.20. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI: MediaWiki offers a Special:BlankPage by default =) Helder 12:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I seem to recall a very similar problem just over a year ago (1.17), but at the time there were three errors: the <html class=> and the two </ul>. I remember commenting that you couldn't use a class= attribute until some classes had been defined, and that classes can't be defined earlier that the <head>...</head> section, which is always enclosed by <html>...</html> and so any classes are invisible to the <html> tag.. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's valid in HTML5 though. It also does have a function, it's used by a javascript that (in theory) will actually run before the body might be in the dom model. Anyway that is something that have to be further tested, but the ResourceLoader is complicated enough, i'm not touching it ever :D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist time (in the box area) shows UTC

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 34835

While the times in the list itself is fine, the part in the box (following "in the last 72 hours, as of") shows UTC time now. I have to hope this is a bug, not a feature. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like a bug. Please file a bug in Bugzilla: <https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org>. If you need any help, let me know. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Filed a bug. Use "Enable tracking bugs on Bugzilla ..." in Gadgets to get it to get better tracking here. -- ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 03:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Bug fixed. Will deploy later on Hashar (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have deployed the bug fix. Please note that on enwiki UTC is intentional, see the MediaWiki:Wlnote. Any sysop can replace it with the default MediaWiki message by just deleting that article. Unlikely I will come back here, so please follow up on bug 34835 Hashar (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Didn't it always show UTC time? But I've taken Hashar's suggestion and deleted the message to use the MediaWiki default that uses the users local time. Anomie ⚔ 23:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It most certainly did not use UTC time. I have to wonder why the hell it'd be "intentional" on enwiki. I've been using it ever since I started using my watchlist to see when I last checked it, based on my own time. I see it's be half fixed, as it now appears AFTER the date instead of before. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I found it! In 1.18, the watchlist used MediaWiki:rcnote for time periods over 1 day, and that message behaves just as you describe. In r102284 the watchlist was changed to use MediaWiki:wlnote only; you may also notice that the watchlist is now displaying "in the last 72 hours" rather than "in the last 3 days". Anomie ⚔ 04:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it seems to be normal now, outside the 72 hours instead of 3 days (why the change? Not a huge deal though). On a side note I see the missing edit button when viewing diffs issue has finally been taken care of as well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Broken script

Resolved

User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css, at least, is no longer working since the change. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"No longer working" isn't very descriptive. What exactly isn't working? Where are you importing this? What browser are you using? What behavior do you expect? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I had used using('mw.util', ...) instead of using('mediawiki.util', ...). Script is fixed now. Anomie ⚔ 03:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't give more details because "everything" wasn't working and "normal" was the expected behavior. ;) But it's fixed now. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Any way to remove characters added / removed from Contributions pages?

It's super unsightly and makes the article titles, the far more important item, form a ragged edge. Especially for lists of my own contributions, I do not care how much I added or removed; I wanted to be reminded of what pages I've been looking at lately. Is there a way to hide them just from Contributions pages? Or, at the very least, align them in their own columns, and return to aligning all the titles (perhaps with a "minor" marker) together? SnowFire (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, might be a reasonable idea for a JavaScript gadget (under "Gadgets" section of Special:Preferences). Requests for new gadgets go... somewhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals or Wikipedia_talk:Gadget is where requests go according to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition -- ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 03:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You can also add the code

.mw-special-Contributions .mw-plusminus-pos, .mw-special-Contributions .mw-plusminus-neg, .mw-special-Contributions .mw-plusminus-null { display: none; }

to your skin.css page to hide them, though the dots around the count and a space appear where it would be. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That works. Thanks a lot. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not that familiar with skin.css or the required format. Do I need to create a file called skin.css (in addition to monobook.js), or should it be monobook.css (which is what appeared when I clicked the link above)? Also, does the CSS code need to spread across several lines, or entered on one line?

Like SnowFire, I don't like the bytes changed disturbing the alignment of the article names. Could they be moved to the end of the line? Astronaut (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The link Special:MyPage/skin.css is to a special page that should redirect within a second or two, and for you it ends up at User:Astronaut/monobook.css, because you have MonoBook set as current skin in My preferences → Appearance. You can put the code in Special:MyPage/common.css (which for you should redirect to User:Astronaut/common.css), and it should then continue to work should you decide to change skin.

Yes, it can go all on one line, or you can use a few line breaks instead of some or more of the spaces:

.mw-special-Contributions .mw-plusminus-pos,
.mw-special-Contributions .mw-plusminus-neg,
.mw-special-Contributions .mw-plusminus-null {
  display: none;
}

--Redrose64 (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That works, thanks. Astronaut (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing toolbar buttons?

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 31511

Is anyone having issues with the older toolbar? When I go to the edit window, sometimes some of the buttons are missing. The only button that has appeared every time is the "cite" button (which, when I'm having this problem, is often the only button to come up). This just started happening tonight. I'm using IE8. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

IE8 "developer tool" shows some errors in MediaWiki:RefToolbarLegacy.js (on the line document.getElementById('citeselect').appendChild) so that might be the reason. — AlexSm 04:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a known issue. Use "Enable tracking bugs on Bugzilla ..." in Gadgets to get it to get better tracking here. -- ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 04:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So... is there a way to fix this other than refreshing a couple times? - Purplewowies (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There is currently no fix, other than disabling the ref toolbar, or refreshing till it works. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not limited to IE. I'm using Firefox (versions 9 and 10, on different machines). I'm consistently seeing only about half of the buttons on the older toolbar. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had it on various versions of Safari for more than a year. The best thing to do is to chose "show edit toolbar" in preferences and swap out the old toolbar. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Revert button on move page feature doesn't work

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 34887

Firstly, I don't really like the new namespace selector in the move page function. I don't see the benefit of it and it'll confuse newer users who don't know what a namespace is. However a more serious issue is that the revert button in the move page feature doesn't work at all; it produces a "No such target page" error message. I just tried it at User:Graham87/test, but it also didn't work at User:Malcolm Farmer, where I was trying to use the move page feature to import old edits from the Nostalgia Wikipedia. Graham87 05:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The change was necessary to fix bug 29454 and the reasons are explained on rev:110209.

See also bug 34848. Helder 13:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you have admin flag at least you could remove the link from MediaWiki:Movepage-moved until someone suggests a solution. — AlexSm 15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reported it as bug 34887. Graham87 07:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this error is related to the new namespace selector because the (old) url parameter for full title still works fine (example) Krinkle (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC).

I've added some additional test results and information to bugzilla:34887. New title: "$3 and $4 are not being substituted in {{urlencode:}} in message "movepage-moved"". Krinkle (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Contributions lists for truncated IP addresses don't work anymore

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 34873

The contributions lists for truncated IP addresses used in old versions of Wikipedia's software (e.g. 62.253.64.xxx, which made this edit that I just imported to Malcolm Farmer's user page), and 11.105, which is used as an example at User:0, do not come up with any contributions. This is also true in the former case at the Nostalgia Wikipedia. Interestingly, the deleted contribs lists for these addresses come up fine. Graham87 05:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Popups (which I assume work via AJAX API calls) provide the full list, which is suggestive of a problem with Special:Contributions itself rather than the underlying functionality. But that would be weird in a sense, because you'd have thought it was a problem handling "unusual" usernames in general. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Filed in bugzilla —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Incredible slowness

Resolved

Is it always going to be 5 times slower than the old software or will the speed eventually increase? DrKiernan (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? It's not being any slower for me. But yes, it's only something to worry about if it lasts. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll assume it's an coincidental issue for the moment. DrKiernan (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflicts: Not the new text at all

Hey all. I was wondering if someone could replicate an edit conflict I just had, where I swear the intervening edit didn't display on the page at all, so when I copied my addition from the bottom box to the top, I obliterated it. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Can't replicate, but a very similar thing happened to me a few days ago. Ended up making a right old mess what with edit conflicts. Astronaut (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

When I get an edit conflict, I don't attempt to amend the upper window; instead I mark and copy my new post, back out and edit the section again, paste in my new text and save (as I advised to somebody else on 26 January 2012). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well either way it's clearly defective to have diffs that claim to display one thing but actually display another (thanks for restoring the other edit I managed to lose, btw). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]}

Editing old revisions: Wrong "changes"

Resolved

When editing an old revision (such as this) and checking the changes to the current revision via "Show changes", what is shown is the changes to the old revision, not to the current revision as claimed. Huon (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

== Unexpected results using [Show changes] ==

Profile

Chrome 16.0.912.63 m
Monobook

Upon logging in for today's session, I noticed a number of stylistic changes while editing... most are welcome. When editing an article from an older page-version however, the [Show changes] button no longer shows the live-dif. Is this something that can be tweaked? -- WikHead (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was deliberate change or not but for now you can use my script User:Js/ajaxPreview that still shows changes compared to the current version. — AlexSm 16:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed (reverted to old behavior) and deployed live: bugzilla:34849. — AlexSm 20:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Short Pages report's talk page link

Resolved

The changes to the Short Pages report are quite awesome IMHO. But I do have one, in comparison minor, complaint. The report has lost it's header. The header, among other things, gave a link to the report's talk page. Now, there's no way to get from the report to its talk page. An example of how this header used to look can be seen on some of the other special reports like Special:DoubleRedirects. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the "header" was before but right now ?uselang=qqx points the the message MediaWiki:Shortpages-summary. — AlexSm 15:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So, in theory, if I create a new "header" at the link you gave, it should display at the top of the report? That would work out nice enough, I would think. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And a quick test shows that it does indeed work. I'll get on constructing at least a basic header for the report. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And I have added a similar new header for the Long Pages report, which appears to have been updated similarly to the Short Pages report. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Was the old header the rather generic one from Mediawiki:perfcached? Anomie ⚔ 23:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Close. At a minimum I remember that it also had the timestamp of the last generation of the cached version, which I do not see on that generic one. Unfortunately, beyond that and it linking to the talk page, I do not remember exactly what was on it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Large template not transcluding

Not sure if this is a 1.19 issue or what, but if you go to WP:AFC/S, you'll notice there is a link to Template:AFC statistics. If you look in the wikicode, however, you'll see that it should be transcluded. The template is quite large, not sure if that has something to do with it. —SW— ^spout 15:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Likely. On the discussion for one of the PC RFCs that are being set up, there was talk that there is a hard limit to transclusion. I'll see if I can find the conversation. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And here's the link from the mentioned discussion, to the page that'll be useful, hopefully. Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving saves username in edit summary

Looks like message MediaWiki:Logentry-move-move (and its variants) is now used both for logs and for history/contribs so pagemoves summaries are recorded like "U moved page A to B: some reason" (example). I think the username is really unnecessary in the edit summary, this does not go well with WP:Changing username and (probably) leaves less space for user added comment. — AlexSm 17:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

===Page move text summary===

I noticed that since the 1.19 deployment, the move summary is now longer. Prior to the update, move summaries used "moved <Oldname> to <Newname>: <reason for the move>". Since the update was deployed, the move summaries now use "<Username> moved page <Oldname> to <Newname>: <reason for the move>". With the old method, the username is displayed in the logs and in the diff, just not in the edit summary. With the new method, the username is displayed in the logs, the diff, and in the edit summary. By forcing the extra <Username> moved page, it is further limiting the move rationale. Is it possible to use the old edit summary? Alpha_Quadrant (talk)

In 1.18, it looks like moving used MediaWiki:1movedto2 / MediaWiki:1movedto2 redir for the edit summary and MediaWiki:logentry-move-move / MediaWiki:logentry-move-move redir for the log message. In r96847, it was changed to use MediaWiki:logentry-move-move / MediaWiki:logentry-move-move redir for both. And it doesn't seem that we can remove the username from that without also removing it from Special:Log. So it looks like the only solution is to file a bug requesting the messages be re-separated. Anomie ⚔ 13:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Alredy done: bugzilla:34961. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflicts not being detected

I've experienced two incidents in which an edit conflict occurred, but the second user was not alerted to the conflict and wrote over the first change. This seems to happen when the one user is editing the whole page and the other is editing just one section. The first incident involved a series of edits to Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks between 15:38 and 17:00 on 1 March -- I was editing a section of the article and the other user was editing the whole article, but for some time we weren't aware that we were edit-conflicting. In the second instance, my edit was to the whole page and the subsequent user's edit was to one section of the page. Ironically, in that second instance, the other user and I also conflicted on a talk page discussion of the item, but on the talk page we were both editing the same section, and I (as the second user) was alerted to the conflict. --Orlady (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 11922

I have updated an ancient Bugzilla report (interestingly, one originally submitted by me) to include this new issue. --Orlady (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Diff size differences in user contributions

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 34981

I'm confident that this edit did not add 51,802 character and likewise I'm confident that this edit did not add 1,646 characters, both of which are currently being reported by my contributions (bottom of list). Either there's something counter-intuitive about what these numbers mean or there's a bug. Dpmuk (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, the diff sizes for your contributions towards the bottom are totally borked. For this edit where you removed text, the diff size is +9,183! If you look at the diff from the history view, by itself, the size is still +9,183, but with a few other entries, the size is correct (-242). Someone should file a bug for this. Goodvac (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Never reported a bug before but now I've confirmed it's not me being an idiot I'm happy to do so. Would I be right in thinking mediawiki as the product and history/diffs as the component is the best place for this? Dpmuk (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've never filed a bug either, so I wouldn't know the process. ;) After reading mw:Bugzilla#Reporting a bug, I think you're right about the product and component.
Also noting here that these inaccurate diff changes are occurring on older edits. The same phenomenon is visible at my earliest contributions. For example, this was a +4,250. Goodvac (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Reported. Hope I've done it right. Dpmuk (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what dates produce this behavior, but my earliest edits circa August 2010 seem correct. These ones appear ~2007. Chris857 (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked at some from early 2008: +23,509, +2,054, etc. But 12 April 2008 and after look alright. And it looks like somewhere in April 2008 is where the diff sizes become correct. This theory holds up after looking at Dpmuk's contributions: the 27 March 2008 edit has a wrong diff count, but by 20 April 2008, they're correct. Goodvac (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looking at this, it seems that all borked values are positive, and they appear to match closely or identically to page size. Using User:Imzadi1979's history (as mine doesn't go back long enough), bounds of dates seem to be October 5, 2007 - April 7, 2008. It isn't absolute, as this edit on October 18, which is in that range, is negative and correct. Chris857 (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think that in the borked range, not all of the diff sizes will be incorrect, just some of them. Goodvac (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Diff size differences when filtering by tag

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 34978

Check the recent history of Milton Keynes. In the usual history listing you can see an edit 30 minutes ago that removed 63,490 bytes and is tagged as "possible vandalism". OK so far. Now copy that tag into the "Tag filter" field and redisplay. The filtered history listing claims that the same edit added 6,881 bytes. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added this to the bug about page diffs. Basically it's not looking back to find the previous revision, but simply assuming there wasn't one, and it is a page creation. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 23:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

And moved into a separate bug. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 01:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Script issue

I sporadically get a pop-up that says (I'm paraphrasing) that a script may have (or has) stopped running, and it asks me if I want to stop the script. Only happens on Wikipedia, and just since the rollout. I use Windows XP and my browser is Firefox 3.6.27 Maile66 (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I also use XP and FF 3.6.27. The message is from Firefox, and is not necessarily related to Wikipedia: in Tools → Options → Privacy, I have "Remember my browsing history for at least" set to 91 days. The history does get very long, so periodically I open it (Ctrl+H), select View → by site, and zap those sites which I'm not interested in going back to (right click, select "Delete"). If I had visited a lot of pages in that site, then while zapping, it might throw the error "Warning: Unresponsive script A script on this page may be busy, or it may have stopped responding. You can stop the script now, or you can continue to see if the script will complete." which I believe is the one that you describe. I always go for "Continue", and it seems to complete OK. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's the exact message, all right. Except I have my browsing history set to only 10 days. I'll try cleaning out my history.Maile66 (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup category population

Can someone explain why Category:All articles with trivia sections is empty, but there are over 200 articles in the by-month subcats of Category:Articles with trivia sections? Shouldn't the former include all of the articles in the latter? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should. In {{trivia}}, the code {{DMCA|Articles with trivia sections|from|{{{date|}}}}} should be changed to {{DMCA|Articles with trivia sections|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles with trivia sections}}. The bolded part is parameter 4 of {{DMCA}}. Goodvac (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It was added back when the category was created, and was removed at the beginning of the year. — Bility (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've notified Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) of this thread. Goodvac (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I reverted Drilnoth's bold adding of the category. We have enough of these categories as it is, they clutter the hidden category list, see picture. Rich Farmbrough, 09:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC).

...in some extreme cases, but most articles have only two or four of these (and they are hidden for a reason). Removing some of the excessive tagging from such pages is more helpful than removing the cat from all of them. Fram (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, do you patrol problematic categories? Do you even have the display of hidden categories turned on? Working with these categories day in, day out, the multiplication of categories is a problem, and the reasons for having "all" categories are largely or entirely obsolete. Rich Farmbrough, 13:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC).

Yes I do, and yes I have. That you don't have a use for these "all" categories doesn't mean that they are not needed or useful for other people. Fram (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've undone the removal of the "all" category, until there is actual consensus that it isn't wanted. Fram (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Likewise I undid the addition of the "all" category until there was consensus that it was wanted. It's supposed to be BRD, not BRRD. Rich Farmbrough, 13:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC).

BRD hardly applies anymore when you revert a change that's over two years old (from October 2009) ... I presume you somehow missed this one when you removed the same type of "all" cat from many other maintenance categories in October 2010, and got swiftly reverted then? If you want some precedent to show that there is no consensus for your actions, you can check two CfD's you participated in, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 12#Category:All articles with unsourced statements and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 13#Category:All articles to be expanded. You've had the "D" part of BRD already, and it didn't turn out in your favor. Fram (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You can presume what you like, and doubtless will. The reasons you gave for keeping them then are as wrong now (or more so). Rich Farmbrough, 20:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC).

These still don't add up - 102 pages in the "all" category, but the by-months add up to 173. I've tried purging the cache and the numbers stay the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

File Subpages

Just wondering, is there a reason why the File namespace doesn't allow subpages?--Octify27 (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The developers probably saw no reason for them to have subpages. They are files, after all, not pages of content. This subsequently allows files to have slashes in their names if necessary; I don't know exactly how common that is, though. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, maybe there's a way to override it then?--Octify27 (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's set with mw:Manual:$wgNamespacesWithSubpages. Wikipedia's setting is in http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php. It requires a system administrator (not the same as a Wikipedia administrator) to change. File talk allows subpages. Change requests can be made at bugzilla: but I see no reason to allow it for File. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, cool, I was just wondering why that wouldn't work, but it's no big deal. :P Thank you!--Octify27 (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Slashes cannot be part of a filename because they separate directories from filenames. So, if an image were named File:Foo/bar.jpg this would actually be a file named bar.jpg residing in a directory named Foo. You can see how Mediawiki uses directories to manage files by right-clicking on any exposed image and selecting "Copy Image Location". Then paste that into any plain text editor (such as a Wikipedia edit window). You might get something like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Kate_Webster_filtered.jpg/77px-Kate_Webster_filtered.jpg - here, 77px-Kate_Webster_filtered.jpg is the filename, http://upload.wikimedia.org/ is the base URL, and wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Kate_Webster_filtered.jpg/ is a chain of six directories, the path through the directory structure. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Removing a page from the search box

Is it possible to remove a page from the search box? For example, when you type something into the search box several options are shown to the page that you may be looking for, is it possible for a page to be 'invisible' per se? Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 02:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I really doubt it. What's the point of making secret pages? Sounds like something that could be easily abused. Gary King (talk · scripts) 03:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There's the behavior switch "magic word" __NOINDEX__, intended to prevent search engines from indexing a page. But I don't know whether it affects Wiki's own search results. — Richardguk (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with __NOINDEX__. I'm just asking because users have pages like twinkleoptions.js and huggle.css and people could mess up the code by searching it up in the search box. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 18:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how that could happen? You can't edit another person's .js and .css pages, only your own. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? Okay. Thanks :) Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

How Are Non-Logged-In Users Able to Make Any Edits

How in the world can users that aren't logged in able to make any edits? When I'm not logged in, I don't see any way to make any kind of edits (read "View source"). Thanks! Allen (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You are only supposed to see "View source" on the relatively few protected pages. Here is a random unprotected article: Jashwant Singh. I see "Edit" when I log out. There once was a bug where unregistered users sometimes saw "View source" on unprotected pages. They could click it and edit the page anyway, but I haven't seen reports of this bug in a long time. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you be editing from a softblocked IP (i.e. school)? — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What no redirect button?

The redirect button appears to have disappeard from the list of buttons above the edit window. Can we have it back please? Mjroots (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's there for me, are you using the new, or the 'old' edit toolbar ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Click Advanced and then the right-pointing arrow. It's also among the options when you select Wiki markup in the drop down box below Save page. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I use the old toolbar, and the redirect button indeed disappeared after the upgrade to 1.19. But just a few hours ago, it reappeared. Goodvac (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

When I've got the edit window open, there is no "advanced" feature that I can see. Where should I be looking. My browser is Firefox, BTW. I've not changed any settings, so I don't know which toolbar I'm using. *sigh* If it ain't broken... Mjroots (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Then you must be using the old toolbar, which looks like this.
When I enter the editing mode, the redirect button does not appear; when I hard-reload the page, then it appears. To see the redirect button, I have to hard-reload every time I go to an edit window, so there is something broken, but I don't know what. Goodvac (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's the toolbar I'm familiar with, but I've lost everything after the horizontal line button. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is Bug 31511? Helder 11:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be related to #Missing toolbar buttons? further up among the MW 1.19 bug list. Anyway, the straight row of 23 buttons is RefToolbar 1.0, which doesn't have the "Advanced" thing. That is in refToolbar 2.0: you can see which you have, and see how to switch between them, by checking these features. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've now turned on the 2.0 version, and got the redirect button back. That doesn't mean that the original issue raised has been fixed though, Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Über slow deletion

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 34717

Currently hitting the delete key on the image does not return anything for over 20-30 seconds, often resulting in "wikimedia foundation error..." The tech details are oft similar to "Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_FEPLP.jpg&action=delete, from 208.80.154.8 via cp1007.eqiad.wmnet (squid/2.7.STABLE9) to 10.64.0.140 (10.64.0.140) Error: ERR_READ_TIMEOUT, errno [No Error] at Fri, 02 Mar 2012 06:09:30 GMT". The 208.80 is familiar, but the 10.64 isn't (Durham, NC?). A ping from me to 208.80 is consistently 99ms, so it doesn't seem to be a timeout from this end. Skier Dude (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like that one has already been reported by a commons admin. Adding your comment there. -- ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 18:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Visited external links are not changing to purple

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 34901

Would someone find out what's going on at Wikipedia:Help desk#HOW TO CHANGE WIKIPEDIA'S FONT COLOR SETTING? Section 2? Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem, what skin are you using ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah wait, you want to change it yourself. The advice on Wikipedia:Link_color#Making_links_appear_a_different_color_just_for_you is no longer up to date. The stylesheet includes a more specific definition now, so you now need to add ".mw-body" for all the statements with a: or a. otherwise they won't take affect. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said (just a moment ago, after you said this), I'm trying to change it for myself because it seems that the default for clicked and unclicked has now become the same color. See the "Color doesn't change for links when I visit them; is this an update-related problem?" section above, which I posted recently; I went to the Help Desk because that other thread has been completely ignored here. Skin is Monobook. Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm using Monobook, but the default CSS already has .mw-body a.external:visited{color:#636; }, which should take care of it. The problem is it isn't working, even if I add the same code to my monobook.css. Goodvac (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, maybe the problem is specific to Monobook. If I go on Meta, where I use Monobook, clicked external links do not change color. On other wikis, such as French, where I have the default Vector, the links do change. Goodvac (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed a monobook issue. Investigating and reporting. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Goodvac (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"Jump to" accessibility links have vanished from the "Chick" skin?

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 34893

I am using the ‘Chick’ skin, and with this skin every Wikipedia page used to have two links ‘Jump to: navigation, search’ at the top. I don't see these links anymore, and I cannot make them to appear even by explicitly setting the option ‘Enable "jump to" accessibility links’ in my preferences. (For a description of this option see meta:Help:Preferences#Advanced_options.) I have tried this with Firefox 10.0.2 and Internet Explorer 9. I have cleared the browser cache, with no change. Is this something that was removed with the recent rollout of MediaWiki 1.19? — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem that was intended. Filed a bug about it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

As a workaround one can use some custom CSS to make the links show again, e.g. by adding #jump-to-nav { height: auto; } to Special:Mypage/common.css or Special:Mypage/chick.css. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Counting infobox transclusions

I'm after a list of our infoboxes, sorted by number of transclusions; specifically the low end, so I'd settle for a list of those with, say, fewer than 250 instances. Do I need to ask on BOTREQ, or find someone with toolserver account, or is there a better method? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a Toolserver request. If you drop a note on my talk page, I can probably help you out. It's a fairly simple query. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are some with under 100 transclusions: User:Bility/Infoboxes. — Bility (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Internal link being rendered as external link

On MediaWiki:Moodbar-feedback-description the Learn more link is written up as an internal link; however, it is displayed at Special:FeedbackDashboard as an external link. Any ideas? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 19:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks fine for me. See screenshot. Goodvac (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I just realised it was a language localisation issue. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 19:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

User talk page apparently borked

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 34903

I was trying to leaving a welcome message on User talk:Kerev HaEmet via Twinkle. After a fair amount of time, it ended up at the techical error page. Now, every edit I try on the talk page is resulting in an edit conflict (including adding a new section), yet there's nothing in the history for the page. I suspect something's messed up (database?), but it's beyond me. Any ideas on this? Ravensfire (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the page, so it should be editable now. It must have been some kind of glitch, since there was no history for the page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, appreciate the help! Ravensfire (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There was some downtime a few minutes ago. I have a slight suspicion that the create+edit trough the API as issued by Twinkle was not atomic, causing the api to do the create, but not the edit and then not rolling back. That would be a bug in the API of MediaWiki. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting ... when I'm mentoring new developers at work, transactional boundaries are one of the first things I hammer into them as far too many schools skip on that and it's really easy to miss something. (Especially with an older app that's still using EJB 2.1 ...) Dealing with boundaries with web services / api's can be a nightmare though - I've spent enough of the past 2 months dealing with those (rolled out the first major service at my company) to feel some empathy. Ravensfire (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Heavy load time for deleting files

For the past month or so, Mediawiki has been so slow in deleting files. What happens is the file will be deleted immediately, but the confirmation isn't returned form the server for a very long time. Sometimes it just takes a long time and it works; sometimes it will fail altogether. This is a huge pain for me because I do Twinkle deletes of NowCommons files by the hundred, and it can take a half hour or longer now for a set of images.

Asking around IRC, it appears the issue doesn't exist with regular pages, just files. Anyone with administrator privileges can verify this by deleting an image in CAT:NCT.

Example error code for reference below.

Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Matchtosample.png&action=delete, from *REDACTED* via cp1005.eqiad.wmnet (squid/2.7.STABLE9) to 10.64.0.138 (10.64.0.138)
Error: ERR_READ_TIMEOUT, errno [No Error] at Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:27:48 GMT

Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Most likely related to the report a bit higher Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#.C3.9Cber_slow_deletion and the bugzilla ticket mentioned there. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Double redirect templates

I just redirected {{Infobox Asiad}} and {{Infobox Universiade}} to {{Infobox games}}. Unfortunately, this has left some double-redirects, which of course fail. Do we have a bot that cleans them up, and if not can I get some help from someone with AWB or suchlike? (I cant run AWB on my netbook). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

See Special:DoubleRedirects: "It is usually not necessary to fix these by hand. Bots will go through the entire list periodically and fix all of the double redirects, except for protected pages." One bot that fixes double redirects is タチコマ robot (talk · contribs). Goodvac (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a relief, Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There aren't that many redirects involved, and when I first went to that list only one was a double redirect, which I have fixed without any fancy tools. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

CSS pages not loading

Resolved

This is a strange problem I've just been having now (on Monobook). Some parts of the page fail to load completely. The top bar is on the side, the big globe doesn't show up, and the page looks strangely stripped. This used to just happen in the article space (Main Page and VPT were OK), but nwo it's happening on the "new section" VPT page. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, nothings happening with me in monobook. Have you tried removing all the scripts in your script files and adding them back in one-by-one to see if it is one (or the combination) of them causing the problem, as script files have caused several things not to display properly for me in the past.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Got it. It worked fine in Firefox, so I cleared the cookies and cache in Opera, and now it renders correctly. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage

Hey guys! Just a note to say we've put the first bits of material about New Page Triage, the new patrolling interface, live. This includes a dedicated plan for engaging the community; if you have questions, suggestions or ideas, please get involved :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Accolades ??

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Accolades ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyMrNinja (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Templates for Displaying Military Ribbons/Medals as Worn?

Are there any templates for displaying a user's military ribbons and medals as worn on his uniform? If not, how can I do it? User:Gadget850 said that he uses the template "Quote box" to place ribbons into. Is that good, or is there a better way? Thank you. Allen (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Aggregate pageviews for 10 different articles

I'm trying to compile a small dataset of the total pageviews articles I've created have received. I know I can use stats.grok.se, but it only pulls individual months (or 60/90 day periods) at a time. Is there a way to get more comprehensive data that doesn't involve querying the entire database? I'm not a coder. Thanks! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Does this help? Try changing the URL. No data is available before December 2007, unfortunately. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Look at the URL for a monthly stats page — you can see both the year and the month number. Simply delete the month number from the URL and it will give you stats for the whole year, as long as the servers were working without hiccups. Nyttend backup (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean on Grok? Shouldn't this work then? I've never managed to get the whole year in one go, hence the creation of the script I linked to above. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, folks. The 'removing the month' from the url trick doesn't work; it returns a 404 error. Jarry, I'm checking out your script. I think it could save me a lot of time. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Interlanguage links

fr:Personne physique seems to have correct interlanguage links, but the linked articles (including English and German until I fixed them) link back to fr:Personne morale. These wrong links seemed to have been inserted by a bot. Is there a way to get a bot to fix all of them instead of making them wrong? —teb728 t c 21:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

See a relevant entry in this FAQ. Graham87 09:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Based on that the change I made might work by itself. However, the toolserver account for the linked tool has expired. —teb728 t c 10:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Just me or is Commons really slow right now?

Is it just me or is the Commons and all media on it really slow right now? And it looks like images not on Commons but on Wikipedia are slow as well? And when I Google "commons" the first result is this? Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Google results are weird. Can't figure out why that particular file is first... Reh man 06:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Disabling Javascript

Is there code I can enter into User:All Hallow's Wraith/monobook.css in order to disable Javascript on Wikipedia? (without having to to so for my whole computer). I have a sinking feeling Javascript is behind why Wikipedia turned into a soul-suckingly slow monstrosity around roughly February 2011. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

CSS won't be able to do that. If you use Firefox, however, you can install YesScript or change your prefs.js (harder). There are probably extensions that can accomplish what you want for other browsers as well. Goodvac (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Opera has a toggle for turning on and off js in its quick preferences menu, and chrome was, last I checked, less annoying than firefox when it comes to its preferences (probably has addons too, but I dunno about that stuff), if you use either of those or are shopping around for browsers. — Isarra (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Only half image in en:Wikipedia

Hi,

in en:WP/Falklands War appears only the half of the image File:Stanley.falklands.war.svg (search for "The road to Stanley"). Is it only my browser?. Can you see why isn't working?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, should be fixed now if you refresh. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 12:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

S u p e r !! It's working. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Cannot view some edit filter triggering events

It seems that some of Special:AbuseLog's entries are no longer visible to everyone, because some simply say "<IP or user> triggered an edit filter on <page>", without the "details" or "examine" links. It makes it a hassle for me to review reports at WP:Edit filter/False positives/Reports.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm an admin and don't see entries like that in the last 5000 entries at Special:AbuseLog. If I log out then I see it for some entries, for example the most recent at [6] but not the 4 others. The hidden entry is for a filter which enables "Hide details of this filter from public view". This feature is for example enabled in Special:AbuseFilter/384 and disabled in Special:AbuseFilter/432. I don't know whether non-admins used to be able see more in log entries for non-public filters. Wikipedia:Edit filter has said for a long time: "Log entries are viewable by all users, and while filters are by default publicly viewable, others are set to be private. For all filters, including those hidden from public view, a brief, general summary of what the rule targets will be available, and displayed in the log, the list of active filters, and in any error messages generated by the filter." PrimeHunter (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that I can't see filter triggering; should I just apply to be an edit filter manager to be able to view those entries?Jasper Deng (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

May be related to this. Sole Soul (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Remember password - 180 days from 30 days?

I'm sure this used to be flagged at 30 days, but now it's 180 days. Why? Lugnuts (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was one of the changes in MediaWiki 1.19, as noted in the release notes under the section Configuration changes in 1.19. Looks like the reason for the change was Bumped $wgCookieExpiration to 180 days, we were one of the sites with shortest cookie lifetime for too long. This was discussed at lengths about a year ago on wikitech-l, however nobody cared to implement the suggested alternative solutions. Probably because they were overcomplicated and solved only parts of the problem[7] - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks KP. Lugnuts (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikitable class

I've created my User:Sameboat/vector.css to change the look of the wikitable class table. But no matter how many times I purge and refresh, the look of the wikitable just won't change. Is there something wrong with my css? I'm using Vector skin really. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried !important? Ruslik_Zero 12:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see you're trying to change the color of the borders. The rule for changing the border of the <table> element is correct, but has no effect since the borders are set to 'collapse' which causes the border colors set on the individual cells override it. The rule changing the color of the border for the cells is not working because the selector for the cells, table.wikitable td, table.wikitable th, has a lower "specificity" than the rule in the site CSS, table.wikitable > tr > th, table.wikitable > tr > td, table.wikitable > * > tr > th, table.wikitable > * > tr > td. Your best bet would be to copy that selector. Anomie ⚔ 12:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thx you guys. The !important works which I didn't know it before. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

!important is also something to be avoided however; it is a last resort. The proper way is to use the proper selector to target the part of the layout that needs to be targeted. For instance, your definition might also override certain inline CSS styling in articles which you would like to see and normally expect to be applied, even with your changes. It will target more parts of the layout than wikitable would otherwise target. The reason the selector of wikitable is so specific is exactly to avoid such unwanted behavior. just so you know.... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thx for the knowledge. I tried the selector and works for me too. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Strange HotCat bug

I reported this several months ago, but do not recall receiving a response. After making an edit, saving it, and then removing a category using HotCat, the previous edit I made is reversed, as can be seen in this diff. Does anyone have any idea why this happens, and, more importantly, how it can be corrected? Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 19:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to help test the new MediaWiki extension for the Education Program

Our developers have been working hard to integrate certain elements of the Wikipedia Education Program into MediaWiki. If anyone is interested in helping test the new extension, click here to get started.

Thanks, Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we get talk archives to point to the main?

Check out this archive page. Note that the "Article" link in the upper left does not point to the main article page. Is this fixable? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree - when on an archive page and wanting to check back to what the article currently says it leads to an article creation page for Subject:Archive. I cannot envisage any instance where we would want an article page solely relating to the archive - archive pages should link back to the actual article to facilitate checking archives against the current version. - Arjayay (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Technically, there currently is no such thing as an archive page. Technically, there is only a talk page that functions as an archive of discussion that took place on another talk page, which might or might not be bound to a specific "non-talk" page. Which is why you observe the behavior you describe. Options; Status quo, Javascript hack, Liquid threads or changes into the core software (of which most developers will probably say: "better wait for LQT-nextgen"). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

How crazy is the JS option? I've never personally considered LT to be a solution for anything. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

How about just using a bot to create a "nonprintworthy" redirect to the actual article, for each missing mainspace page that corresponds to a talkspace subpage? — Richardguk (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that cause the search box to autosuggest non-articles likeCANDU reactor/Archive 1? That's not desirable at all. Reach Out to the Truth 02:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

JS would be something like this:

if(mw.config.get('wgNamespaceNumber') == 1) {
  if($('#ca-nstab-main').hasClass('new')) {
    $('#ca-nstab-main').children('a').attr('href', '//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/' + mw.config.get('wgPageName').split('/')[0].replace('Talk:', ''));
    $('#ca-nstab-main').children('a').css('color','#002bb8');
  }
}

but I'm a JS novice and this is rather verbose, so there's probably a better way to do it. Goodvac (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And where does the link go when you're on Talk:Article/sandbox? This isn't something that needs to be fixed, because it's not broken—just follow the breadcrumb links back to the main talk page. — Bility (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is. A non-expert user clicking the button will be left in a blank editor, with no "breadcrumbs". Only those with some a posteriori knowledge of the layout will be able to know what to do. After all, it confused me, and that's saying something. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If we really wanted to deploy a JS hack, it would have to be a bit smarter that this. I'd propose loading on all talk pages. I'd add a recognizable classname to all archive page headers and then conditionally upon that change the link. The below code is untested, and not working, but it's an adequate representation of the idea I have. There are probably some JS functions in the new RL core to better deal with these page titles, and the talk -> nontalk page switch. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

if((mw.config.get('wgNamespaceNumber')%2) == 1) {
  if($('#ca-nstab-main').hasClass('new') && $('.mbox .archiveheader').length > 0) {
    $('#ca-nstab-main').children('a').attr('href', mw.config.get('wgArticlePath').replace('$1', encodeURI( mw.config.get('wgPageName').split('/')[0].replace('_talk:', '').replace('Talk:', '')) ));
    $('#ca-nstab-main').removeClass('new');
  }
}

Or the user will hit the back button in their browser, follow the breadcrumbs and realize how talk pages work. If it's a gadget or userscript that's fine with me, I just wouldn't personally want to add to Wikipedia's already bloated JS. — Bility (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox public organisation

I've made {{Infobox public organisation}} into a wrapper for {{Infobox organization}}, but they handle images differently (see Historic Scotland). Is there a fix, or is the only solution to edit the markup on each article transcluding it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There's only 49 to fix, shouldn't take you long. Or you could add code similar to that in {{Infobox military person}} into Infobox organization to handle both image formats. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Problems with display of titles

A very strange problems has arose for me on Wikipedia. On every page the title displays as Page Title, where page title is the title of that page. It has been going on for about a week and a half now. I didn't bother coming here until now, because it hadn't annoyed me enough. This problem occurs on every page, including my watchlist, preferences, and contributions pages. I checked on article pages and there is no span tags around any titles at the top of the page or the bottom. Don't know how to fix it or what is going on, and looking for a little help.--NavyBlue84 14:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

See the section #Odd article headers, further up. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This has come up several times before, so I've added an entry to the FAQ. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sent a tweet about this to StumbleUpon. Might help, you never know these days. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, an actual answer: "@dj_hartman Hello, this is a known issue and we are working on a fix. Thanks for writing to us." —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

embedded blank

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 35016

There is a problem with an embedded blank showing up where there should be none. Look to the 2nd paragraph beyond the one you are reading, then back up one paragraph to learn how I arrived there.

I didn't think I should use the "Talk -- Main Page" for this, but there is no place I can comment about a format problem turning up when I go to a "Special Page". When I enter "groer" (no quotation marks) in the search prompt on the main page, I get taken to a special page which says there is no page called "groer" (that's OK), and provides some possible entries, including the one about the now-deceased Cardinal from Austria which is included below (at bottom of message you are reading) with some line breaks lost when I copied and pasted.

THE REASON I AM WRITING is that I have been noticing an embedded blank (in the example included here, it turned up in the word "Austrian") on such Special Pages. Why is that embedded blank showing up? Here is the output I am asking about:

Hans Hermann Groër Hans Hermann Wilhelm Groër, OSB (1919-2003) was an Austria n Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church . He served as Archbishop of Vienna ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a typo. Feel free to correct it in the article. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. I hope you like it and decide to stay! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a typo. It's related to the way wiki links can be made. If you look at the wikitext of the article in question you'll notice that the relevant bit of text is [[Austria]]n which displays in a page fine like so: Austrian. It would appear that search strips the square brackets and adds a space. As such I suspect this is a minor bug in search. Dpmuk (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

To clarify where the space shows, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ticket filed in bugzilla. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Suffix gaps in Search are a feature not a bug: Wait a minute, I like seeing Wikisearch results show "Austria n" for "[[Austria]]n", and an editor could write "[[Austria|Austrian]]" to avoid the suffix gap at "n". One's man's bug is another man's special feature. I worry that changes to Wikisearch will also hide "abbr=on" in searches to detect "{{convert|2|km|mi|abbr=on}}" where a new "bugfix" would prevent searching for "abbr=on" in that manner. Be sure to consider a new option such as "Classic Wikisearch" to retain the old "features" because too many things have gone wrong in efforts to drop support for old browsers, or jump-start new gadgets that few editors use. I wish Wikipedia still worked like it did back in January 2011, and BTW, I do not need autocompletion of words entered for Wikisearch. However, if the developers are bored, I would like them to write a WP:Parser function to insert a real &minus sign in "-50.0400" or "-5,000,200,000,000" and retain the trailing zeroes and not reformat as scientific notation, -5.0002E+12 and such. Also, everyone knows we need "{{set:xk|45}}" to set a parameter "xk" to have value "45" during the evaluation of a transcluded template. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

At this writing, I have gone back to the article itself (about Hans Hermann Gro:er), where I see "Austrian", with the cursor showing that it contains a pointer to "Austria" article. When I go into edit mode in that article (with no plans to change anything), I am seeing "Austrian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct, see Help:Link#Wikilinks (third example), also the comment above by Dpmuk 18:17, 6 March 2012. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Collapsible Sections

Hi. Is there a way to have collapsible sections without using the navbar? i.e. be able to collapse the text underneath == Heading 1 == so only the heading is visible unless you click the [Show] link. Thanks, Jhfireboy Talk 01:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure, but isn't it Template:Collapse you're referring to? Reh man 06:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you intend to use collapsible sections on an article page, please observe MOS:COLLAPSE. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You can also try the "new" plugin jQuery.makeCollapsible from MediaWiki 1.18. See:

Helder 01:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Template help

Please assist There are a variety of English variant templates (e.g. {{British English editnotice}}, which links most, if not all of them at the bottom) and they are themselves composed of templates within templates and transcluded documentation pages. The problem is that the doc pages produce text of the sort (e.g.) "Placing this template will also add the page to Category:Articles which use British English", when in reality, the proper categories are of the sort Category:Wikipedia articles that use British English. I can't figure out the byzantine architecture of these templates to fix this. Help? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Also fixed some link errors in your post. Goodvac (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Burrington, Herefordshire

Can somebody fix the infobox?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for implementation of search=yes in Template:Talkheader (consensus support apparently achieved)

Could someone please take a quick look at Template talk:Talk header#RE: New feature for Template:Talkheader? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:UK SI list/sublist

Hi. I can't seem to get the references working on this template. I have set up an #if decision where is there is no reference written then it won't show the reference at all. That works, but the reference is blank when you view it on an article. Many thanks, Jhfireboy Talk 20:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed You can't use variables in parser tags. You can use #tag:ref, or more simply {{refn}} which implements it more easily. You really need to use a group name, else you risk mixing the table references with the main references. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

How many of these weird little "I can't figure out <ref> or {{#tag:ref}}" templates do we have now? {{r}}, {{refn}}, {{sfn}}, {{sfnm}}, {{sfnp}}, {{efn}} etc.? And they all break scripts and bots that deal with refs in wikitext, and are liable to confuse editors who have managed to figure out that references are in <ref> but aren't familiar with these myriad templates. Anomie ⚔ 23:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

See the categories at Category:Citation templates, especially Category:Footnote templates. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

How is wiki markup stripped from search results?

I've noticed that in Wikipedia search results, most wikitext markup is stripped in the text that provides context for the search hit. For example, if I'm searching for "Dog", on the entry for Dog in the search results I'll see something like "The domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris is a subspecies of the gray wolf" in the search results, but the wiki text says something like "The '''domestic dog''', '''''Canis lupus familiaris''''',<ref>{{Cite|...}}...</ref> is a subspecies of the [[gray wolf]]". How do all those templates, tags, brackets for links, etc. get removed? When I search on many other MediaWiki wikis, I tend to see a lot of that markup in the search results, but in Wikipedia most of the markup is removed (I occasionally see some template parameters, but that's about it). Is there an extension or hook or something else that cleans up the search results? Or is there a way to configure MWSearch to return cleaner results? --Llarq (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The lucene backend does that, but I'm not sure how. It's 'somewhere in here' http://svn.wikimedia.org/svnroot/mediawiki/trunk/lucene-search-2/ —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem with Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken redirects

Can anybody work out why the bot keeps listing Hexxen, Hexen, and File:Star.jpg as being broken redirects (redirects to red links), despite all three appearing to be perfectly functional? It's been doing it for a few days, so I suppose it's not impossible that it's related to the 1.19 rollout. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your best bet is probably to ask User:MZMcBride, since the entire DBR thing is pretty much his baby--Jac16888 ^Talk 02:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, kept getting distracted on my way over here. I've just posted to toolserver-l about this. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I posted again: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/toolserver-l/2012-March/004795.html>. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As for Hexen, those things redirect to Hexen: Beyond Heretic, which has pageid 13612. But on Toolserver, I get this:

mysql> select page_title from page where page_id = 13612;
+-----------------------+
| page_title            |
+-----------------------+
| HeXen:_Beyond_Heretic |
+-----------------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)

I'll try to fix it by moving the page to the form with X capitalized and back. Ucucha (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, that seems to have fixed it, at least in the Toolserver database. Ucucha (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What's up with the "Special:Export" links?

I looked at the Top Ten list at Wikipedia:Reader (source [8]) which is bizarrely topped by two rather obscure people, Robert L. Bradley, Jr. and William Kurtz Wimsatt, in a "Special:Export" mode. The pages themselves are viewed 337 times/30 days and 6 times/30 days. Was this some kind of DDOS attack with a random target, or can the export feature be otherwise abused by specific people? Wnt (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what happened there. Not that this addresses what those guys are doing on the list at all, but from the content it looks like a December 2010 list, rather than May 2011 as Wikipedia:Reader says. --SubSeven (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Page width in browser

Until recently I used to have an old 4:3 aspect ratio laptop. I permanently ran IE in a maximised window; and I think in about ten years I needed to resize it about three times. Now I have one of these 16:9 ratio screens, which are stupidly unergonomic for anything other than watching videos, and I seem to spend half my life fiddling around with window size and zoom adjustments just to get something I can read comfortably. Some websites seem to need a big width to avoid the need to scroll horizontally (which is horrible and to be avoided), and yet when a Wikipedia page is displayed in the same window, the lines are ridiculously long and very hard to read. Which brings me to my point about Wikipedia. Given the ubiquity of these stupid 16:9 screens, should we have a preset maximum width of a Wikipedia page, so that you can maximise the browser window and have an article displayed, perhaps centred, at a reasonable size, with suitably-sized blank margins either side? [9] is an example of what I mean. IMO this is a better idea than letting line lengths extend indefinitely. 86.146.109.211 (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Search for extension?

I want to clean up some timelines, but I need to learn how to use the legend attribute. I thought it would be easiest to look at some existing examples. I tried searching for <timeline>, but search will look for the rendered text, not the code. Is there a way to search for articles using the WP:TIMELINE extension?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It also searches the code but timeline and legend are common words. Search legend in combination with a special term used in timelines, for example ScaleMajor: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=legend+ScaleMajor+&fulltext=Search. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that was quick, I see some examples which will help.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

AWB screen-size bug

Do we have any coders who might be able to assist in resolving this frustrating AWB bug, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Unicode font access

Does anyone know (or know how to find out) what proportion of users have access to Unicode fonts built into their operating system? Such users would, for example, be able to see this: ფირცხალაიშვილი as Georgian script without doing anything special. Wikimedia has access statistics for 2011, including breakdown by operating system, but I don't know which of those will be able to display the script, so I can't produce an overall figure. Thanks, Rd232 ^talk 21:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not an expert, but isn't "access to Unicode fonts" too vague to be useful? I have "access to Unicode fonts" in the sense that most scripts (including the Georgian above) display OK, but I still sometimes see square boxes because the fonts do not have that particular character. In fact, I think few fonts would support every single character defined by Unicode. 86.146.109.211 (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There are varying combinations too. For example, Chinese, Japanese and several other Asian fonts render just fine for me; but a frequent contributor to this page has ⚔ as their talk page link, and for me that's a square containing the numbers 25 and 94. My mother's laptop, on the other hand, cannot produce Chinese or Japanese script, but renders Anomie's talk page link just as it's supposed to look. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, the background to this is that there is an issue on Commons on whether there are circumstances (if so, what) where text in image form can be kept because it's useful for some people. Generally, it's assumed that people can see (most?) Unicode text, and that therefore text in image form is completely unnecessary, and it's subject to deletion. I'm just trying to get a bit more information about how widely that assumption holds. Rd232 ^talk 16:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage

Hey guys :). As previously mentioned in a few places, the Foundation has started work on our new patrolling software: New Page Triage. I'm posting updated specifications in a few hours, and I'd really advise everyone who is interested in page patrolling to head over to the talkpage, comment on the suggestions on the page already and the additional ideas the community has come up with.

We've also got an office hours session next Tuesday, the 13th, at 19:00 UTC (that's 12:00 PST, for the west-coast Americans around ;p). If you can make it, it's on IRC in #wikimedia-office. If you can't, drop me a line on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs once we're done :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki logo missing

It seems like ages since I've last seen it at the bottom of a Wikipedia page. The Wikimedia logo is there, and an invisible rectangle of the same size linking to the MediaWiki website is right next to it, but the logo itself is nowhere to be seen. At first I thought it was a glitch, but it's been months since then—probably more than a year, in fact. It could date back to the switch to Vector, but my memory isn't of much help here. (I use version 10.0.2 of Firefox, though the specific version seems irrelevant given the nature of the problem.)

A little warning: although I appreciate any replies which this may receive, I may be off-line for a few days and therefore fail to acknowledge them in a timely fashion. Waltham, The Duke of 12:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It's showing for me, both in Monobook and Vector. I wonder if you have some sort of ad blocker on your computer that is blocking the image. Anomie ⚔ 13:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It's also showing for me. Can you see it at http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.19/common/images/poweredby_mediawiki_88x31.png? Try to clear your entire cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already tried looking at the image file on my own, and could not. (And I've also looked at a page in Monobook, and the logo was still invisible.) I have now cleared my entire cache, and also added an explicit exception rule for Adblock Plus (though I couldn't see why it would block it). Problem's still there... Waltham, The Duke of 23:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What exactly happens when you click on http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.19/common/images/poweredby_mediawiki_88x31.png compared to http://bits.wikimedia.org/images/wikimedia-button.png? Can you try another browser? Can you see the copy at File:Poweredby mediawiki 88x31.png or displayed to the right in this section? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

While the latter image appears properly, the former does not appear at all; when I try to select it, I only see a tiny dot of a shade (which shows the absence of an image rather than, say, a white box). I can't see the copy either, and I didn't realise you had transcluded it here until I read about it. I've tried Internet Explorer 7 and the image remains invisible. This is utterly perplexing, especially considering that I am apparently the only one facing this problem (although I suppose it makes sense, because the issue would have been fixed a while ago if more people experienced it). Waltham, The Duke of 13:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps some image software used in your browsers is unable to display this particular png image. Can you download the image file to your computer by right clicking http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.19/common/images/poweredby_mediawiki_88x31.png or http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Poweredby_mediawiki_88x31.png? They should be identical. It's 3605 bytes. If you get it to your hard disk then try to right click it and open it with different programs (not just browsers) to see if any of them can display it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I ruined a userbox

	This user assumes good faith.

It used to say "This user assumes good faith" but then I decided to add "inside and outside of Wikipedia". I worked, but the wikicode got all messed up. I'm hoping I'll get a message about someone reverting it. Any help?

30xelawalex03 (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted it for you. In general, you shouldn't really change existing userboxes that are already used by lots of people, as you might be changing them to something unexpected that the people using them do not want. If you want a variation on a userbox, it's better to create an entirely new one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

List of The Annoying Orange episodes

I talked on the talk page a bit, and I noticed I pointed out this to another editor there. The conversation can be seen here. He saw my point, and if there are third-party reliable sources, then that age me the green light to go ahead and divide the episodes into seasons. So I made myself a preview, but it didn't work smoothly. If you clicked the link that said "here" you would even see I noted I couldn't work up the wikicode to do it. Any help?

30xelawalex03 (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

NewDiff gadget updated

The NewDiff gadget has been updated and is now based on r133098, designed by Trevor Parscal, which is currently in trunk, with some minor adjustments. Comments welcome. — Edokter (talk) — 14:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed it this morning. So far, I like it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Converting Spreadsheets Into Tables

Is there any way to convert a Microsoft Excel or OpenOffice.org Calc spreadsheets into Wikipedia tables? Allen (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

See Help:Table#Converting_spreadsheet_to_wikitable_format

I use Helferlein's macro regularly. (See first entry in external links). It works fine, but if someone has better options, I'm listening.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have an OpenOffice.org Calc spreadsheet, and I want to convert it into a table that I can put on Wikipedia. However, I want to preserve as much of the formatting (font family, font size, text color, etc.) as possible. If not, I would like to know the wiki code for the formatting. If you know how to do what I would like, I would appreciate it. Allen (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Weird thumbnail errors

at Old Finch Avenue Bailey Bridge, the image thumbnail in the infobox seems to be only half loading for me and several others. The full size image loads fine, as does the File: page... It's just the thumbnail. A similar problem occurs for me at Ontario Highway 420, where the image on the right directly below the infobox appears slanted. I uploaded a rotated correrction to this image several months ago, but the image won't update. Any insights? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I purged both images, so the entire image should show. I think this is related to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 97#How to regenerate an image thumbnail?. Goodvac (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

According to Signpost the thumbnail stuff is being futzed with even now. Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC).

Adding a confirmation dialog to the watchlist rollback link

One too many times I've accidently misclicked a rollback link in my watchlist, either on my narrow mobile phone which makes each entry on my watchlist occupy several lines and can lead to misclicks, or because I am meaning to hit one of the links immediately next to it. Stopping your browser after clicking the link makes no difference if you have any decent-speed internet service. When viewing a diff, I believe twinkle or some other add-on introduces three rollback links (AGF and vandalism are two of these rollback links), and these all bring up a dialog box that makes you confirm that you want to rollback and allow you to enter a reason in one instance. Can this be added to the watchlist link to prevent misclicks? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Suitable as a js gadget if someone writes it. Prodego ^talk 02:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There are several scripts listed at Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools#Rollback tools. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Dealy in updating Search Index

Yet again, the search index has failed to update for at least three days.
Help:Searching#Delay_in_updating_the_search_index says this should be reported here. These backlogs frustrate us WikiGnomes in our tidying up, and we get a huge backlog of spelling, grammar and other mistakes to correct when it is eventually updated. Any idea when it might be updated?
Arjayay (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting the bug! I have submitted it as bug 35160. --rainman (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

References Search

Is there any way of search Wikipedias references/citations for particular authors, journals, publications etc. as references seem currently to be excluded from the "everything" search option.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 21:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

References are written in the main namespace which is searched by default, but if you put quotes around an author name then you may miss citation templates which separate the first and last name in the page source. I don't know a way to search only the references in the mainspace and not the normal article text. "Everything" means all namespaces so it will give you more "false" hits than the default search. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Changing font

How do you change font in a table? I am trying to import an OpenOffice.org Calc spreadsheet to use in Wikipedia. I want it to look the most like the spreadsheet as possible. Allen (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

[www.w3schools.com/css/css_font.asp CSS Font], at w3schools. Apply as "style="font: foo"" to the table element of the table. --Izno (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You have already received advice at Wikipedia:Help desk#Changing font. If you go ahead and add a mainspace table with various fonts for no other reason than to make the text look different from normal articles then other editors may remove the fonts. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

First, what does the "www.w3schools.com" thing do?

Second, yes, I have asked this on the Help desk, but they haven't really given me any decent advice.

Third, you misunderstood me. The table is not in the mainspace. It is one of my user pages (User:Morriswa/Highways). The reason I use different fonts is to more easily identify each kind of highway in the list. I could upload a copy of it so you could see what I mean. Allen (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Izno posted an incomplete link to http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_font.asp. My help desk reply included the link <font> which isn't about Wikipedia and is deprecated as mentioned, but it currently works at Wikipedia for readers whose browser support it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm still no closer to getting this done. I'm trying to go through the table manually, but that will take forever. Also, I don't know how to format some things, such as changing fonts. Allen (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning to move or copy User:Morriswa/Highways to a mainspace article? If no then why do you care so much about the fonts? If yes then have you read the guidelines I linked which are against changing the font? Here is the deprecated <font>: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. 0123456789. Here is code going against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Font family: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. 0123456789, The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. 0123456789. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

Allow watchlisting of Special:Contributions/[User] pages

	Please consider joining the Feedback Request Service.

An editor has requested comment from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the Wikipedia technical issues and templates list. When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I have added an RfC tag at this timestamp: 01:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC). Because this RfC proposes a significant change to watchlists, I have listed this at Template:Centralized discussion. Please allow for sufficient time for editors who watchlist that page to comment here before closing this discussion. Cunard (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit=Quintucket (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)]
I notice that every objection centers around the idea that it would make it easier to stalk users. So I'd like to point out two counter-points which have been brought up in the comments:

It's easy to wikistalk a single user. What this proposal would do is allow the watchlisting of a lot of users, which isn't a tool wikistalkers need. They already have what they need, which
There's no need to allow watchlisting of registered users. Logged-in vandals are generally dealt with in a timely manner; it's mostly the IP vandals who slip under the radar. [/edit]

I'm surprised this isn't on perennial proposals, but the upside is it means I get to suggest it without (I hope) looking like a total ignorant. I've noticed that the vast majority of anti-vandalism efforts are given either by Cluebot, or with an automated tool like Huggle or Twinkle, which apparently allow first-level warnings. This means that persistent vandals will get a lot of warnings, and often get "final" warnings followed a month later by more first-level automated warnings only. But the users with earlier final warnings in the last year or so I can at least report at AIV. Even more problematic are the users who rack up a large number of first, second, and occasionally third-level warnings, but never get to a final edit. (I generally give users who fit this criteria a third or fourth level warning in line with the total warnings they've accumulated in the past year. I'm not sure this is fully Kosher, but I feel it's completely warranted.)

So I try to check recent changes manually and find these persistent users, and watchlist any pages they've vandalized. This isn't exactly the best way to go about it, and I rarely catch new changes by these vandals, but I don't know if it's because they stop (unlikely in many cases), or because they move on to other pages. But if I could watchlist Special:Contributions pages directly, it would let me follow those persistent vandals without keeping them in a text file (which I've thought about, but I'm lazy, and I've already got quite a large non-vandal to-do list in another file).

While I know this would require software updates, I'm hoping that enough people would appreciate this feature that it can gain the consensus to suggest at Bugzilla. --Quintucket (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:STALK. I don't think I can agree that this would be beneficial, however useful. --Izno (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: While I acknowledge the advantage of watchlisting vandals but this will have much adverse affects on the constructive contributors who regularly get hounded or stalked. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, with what Izno points out, and the substantial changes needed to software (I think) to "subscribe" to specific versions of what is a virtual "Special" page, I can't see this gaining much traction. There are so many "stalking" concerns it would be bound to open up, and truly, I share some of them. I think you're stuck with another way of doing this if you need to do it legitimately. Begoon ^talk 13:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose (reluctantly) Whilst I've often experienced the very same frustration as Quintucket, and have regularly (daily, even) thought how useful this feature would be, stalking vandals' edits shows a failure to assume good faith. We have to assume that they won't reoffend once warned - even if they almost invariably do. Yunshui 雲‍水
- I don't think I follow the reasoning here. By this logic, we also shouldn't watchlist or protect any commonly vandalised articles, AGF they won't be vandalized again. That's really the exact reason why we would want to watchlist recurring vandals, for the very likely case they will again. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  - We can also remember something that Jimbo pointed out: "our social policies are not a suicide pact." I always try to assume good faith whenever there's any doubt, even with users who add anti-Semitic comments to articles (this is a real example, I tried to reach out to the user). But some vandalism is pretty damn obvious, like adding nonsense or spam. When you see a user who has a long history of vandalism, it's pretty clear that the vandalism will continue until the IP is reassigned or the user grow up.

On the other hand, if a user has a history of non-constructive edits, even if they seems to be in good faith, it runs up against competence is required. I've seen many users who persistently add biased or verifiably inaccurate information despite warnings to stop, and I assume that they genuinely believe they're improving the encyclopedia. When I see these users, I try to add text to whatever template I'm using (this is another reason I refuse to use scripts). These users in particular it makes sense to monitor, because they can become genuine Wikipedians. (I'm a minor case-in-point; my 2004-2005 contribs tended to reflect an anti-Boston bias that I've now outgrown.) Is it better to have Huggle users templating them until a non-script-using user gets fed up and reports them, resulting in a block, or users who can monitor them and attempt to talk to them? --Quintucket (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

~~Weak oppose~~. There are very many vandals from different IPs/usernames and some recurring individuals could use an oversight. But I don't think the ability to follow their edits arbitrarily outweighs the enabled misuse of the feature for WP:STALKing. I might consider this if users/IPs were "watchlist-tagged" by sysops. But this does sounds a little WP:SHEDy. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support after reading other arguments. Stalking is probably not as big of a deal, and stalkers already stalk contributions, this will only make it marginally easier. On the other hand, this is very useful for rarely-editing users/IPs so every one doesn't need to be checked manually. Although I'd like for there to be a way to be excluded from this in cases of obvious stalking. Or some other kind of restriction. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We can implement this feature for IP contributions only to indeed avoid stalking. Then it will make sense for static IP with recurring vandalism issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Really? I think you first need to establish that an IP editor is less entitled to protection from "stalking" than a registered (still possibly anonymous) username. Begoon ^talk 14:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  
  Well, this is obviously an issue for discussion, but did not the community decide to have higher level of protection from IPs by for instance restricting them to be unable to create new articles? I am not sure the community would support the idea, but I do not think it should be outright rejected as being in contradiction to the five pillars.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

How about sysops being able to tag only the vandals who can then be watchlisted or monitored through RSS feeds? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If they are vandals, why aren't they already blocked? --Jayron32 15:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Because we are talking about recurring IPs. They may be blocked for 6 months, then return after two more months and start vandalizing articles until caught and re-blocked. This could facilitate catching them on time.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Aren't we getting a bit close to being back in HELLKNOWZ's WP:SHED, by now, though? Begoon ^talk 16:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Without regard to the supposed moral hazard this presents, I'm not sure that this is technically feasible using the way that watchlists work. Actual "pages" in Wikipedia consist of text which is only changed when someone changes it; the text itself is stored in the database, which is why it can be watchlisted. "Special" pages do NOT consist of existing text, the "special" pages simply pull info from a database and the page is generated on the fly; there's nothing for one to "watchlist" because the things the watchlist looks for (changes to stored text) don't exist in "special" pages. I don't think this is implementable easily. I suppose it could be kludged by the devs, but it isn't something as easy as flipping a switch. --Jayron32 14:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's why I observed that it might be difficult. However page-protection already shows up in watchlists, and then there's the watchlist itself. It would seem to be a relatively simple matter of transcluding (not the right word, I know), any new user contributions to the Special:Watchlist page, as they would appear on the Special:Contributions page. --Quintucket (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I support the principle here, and know of times myself it would have been useful, but also am worried about the potential for abuse in the form of stalking and hounding. Maybe it could say only work on newbies with >50/25 edits, or something along those lines. Could also be useful for adopters and mentorers to track their adoptee/mentoree easily. I'm not sure if this could be technically implemented though. Acather96 (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to some of the comments I've seen above: I think I agree that if created, this should only apply to IPs. One thing I've noticed is that admins seem to apply a lower standard to blocking usernames than blocking IPs (usually on the pretext of WP:EDITWAR, whether the 3RR is violated or not), presumably on the principle that it could affect more people than just the vandal. And it seems to me that the vast majority of persistent registered vandals are spammers, who can be safely indef-blocked, while most IP vandals seem to have no such external agenda.

The other point I'd like to make is that I've seen a number of cases where problematic IP edits have gone unnoticed for months or even years, and I'm sure there's more we've all missed. All it takes is for a bot or user to revert vandalism by one IP but not the one that preceded it, or for a user to make another edit that hides the edit from most watchlists. (I doubt that the vast majority of recent changes get patrolled by a human user, even one using a script.) Usually these are blatantly POV statements or factual inaccuracies (often inserted in front of an already cited source), which while not technically vandalism, though these users will often have edit histories that contain genuine vandalism. Presumably if users who reverted the obvious vandalism were able these users, these seemingly valid edits would be subject to stricter scrutiny. --Quintucket (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I am more than a little puzzled by the fears expressed here about people misusing the capability proposed. On the one hand, there is nothing to prevent anyone from looking at the contributions of a given Wikipedia user at any time so this will hardly be opening up some kind of Pandora's box. On the other hand, I recall that there is some javascript that can be added to a userpage to do exactly this (a search of common tools would probably find it, although I can't be bothered). (On a slightly different note, "stalking" is a serious form of personal harassment which is often criminal - looking at what someone edits on Wikipedia is not stalking by any reasonable definition and the overuse of the word does a disservice to victims of real-life stalking.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Support the idea, although its implementation might not be doable inside the current Special:Watchlist functionality. I don't find arguments about the dangers of stalking to be at all compelling. Stalkers already have a single page where they can see all of their target's contributions, so it's merely a matter of convenience. Stalkers are obsessive and they're already stalking without this tool, so this proposal would only change things for actual vandal fighters who don't watch vandals as closely as they might if it were easier to do so. — Bility (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have thought of this too, and here is a perfect example of an IP where this would be needed: User:173.168.93.7. This editor has put in guerilla vandalism across dozens of articles before getting noticed and having the vandalism removed. The editor was blocked 5 times, and as soon as the block is over, the exact same type of vandalism starts again. Now, if we had this tool, I would easily see when this person started editing again, and check to see if they were up the same same shenagins, and perhaps nip the issue in the bud before too many articles were disrupted. Currently, I'd literally have to mark a calender to check the IP once the block is lifted. Angryapathy (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment I watchlist the user pages of some vandal IPs, and when I see Cluebot, et al., leave additional warnings I'll double check to see if they have committed enough vandalism to warrant a block. Will Beback talk 20:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I can appreciate where the nominator is coming from, but suspect that this will create problems - particularly an increase in unconstructive wikistalking - more than it will bring benefit.--JayJasper (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As another user noted above, stalking users is already possible through the Special:Contributions page. It's also possible to watch vandals the same way, of course. The difference is that fighting vandals effectively requires the monitoring of many pages, while stalking a user requires the monitoring of only one or two. Also, as noted, there's no reason to allow watchlisting of logged-in users. The actions of logged-in users already tend to be subject to stricter scrutiny, I think in part because they're easier to recognize than an IP number, and in part because blocking a user will only affect that user, whereas blocking a vandal may affect other users. --Quintucket (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Support as a userright - Mentors may find it useful, but its potential for abuse requires it to be a restricted function. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I actually made a userscript that did this years ago - it would take any user pages on your watchlist, then put those names into the wikipedia api, get out their recent contributions then display the results in a formatted list. Unfortunately the api then changed significantly and I haven't had the chance to rewrite the script accordingly. I understand the concerns that people could get stalked - I don't know how big a problem it is but surely the solution to that would be to either restrict access to contributions pages (which is never going to happen) or to just make people more aware that anything they post on here is public, and hence to avoid posting anything they later regret. Even if people here aren't keen on a feature like this, it's perfectly possible for third party websites to implement this sort of thing. Tra (Talk) 17:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I like the idea, but am concerned that it might be abused for WP:HOUNDing. On the other hand, I've done it myself on occasion with nothing more complicated than a simple bookmark. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
That's my workaround as well -- I make bunches of bookmarks of potential problem-user contribs (typically new user names that remind me of banned users, or historically troublesome IPs, things like that) and then periodically open them all in tabs. Easy to do, requires no software update. Antandrus (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
User contributions can be pseudo-watchlisted through RSS feeds - eg this. It's slightly clumsy (you have to use an RSS reader) but it does work (and it can scale as a long-term solution for mostly-inactive users). Shimgray | talk | 12:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Support the idea although I don't think it will be implemented any time soon: devs discussed this since 2004 in mediazilla:470. In another project I'm currently using my userscript similar to Tra's above but utilizing browser localStorage. — AlexSm 22:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Strong support – Enough with the "stalking" crap. Stalkers don't need extra tools to stalk—they are already stalking just fine. (By the way has anyone actually looked at WP:STALK recently?) This is a feature that I have wished for for a long time, and it would be extremely useful. Currently I have a list of a few users and IPs that I try and check up on every so often, but it's pretty difficult without a feature such as this. It seems more like something that would be on the toolserver at least initially, since the toolserver is where most hacked up tools like this go, but this would be a very useful feature to be integrated into MediaWiki. It also fits with the ideology here of openness and usability. I was just thinking of this recently and how it would be similar to the concept of Linux filesystems, where everything, including devices, act as a file and can be addressed as such (procfs, device files, etc.) The watchlist is not a "page" in and of itself; it's more of a "virtual page", so any action performed with/on it that treats it like a "regular" page will involve some type of abstraction layer. We already have crosswiki contributions tools (here is one) on the toolserver which compile contributions from multiple wikis into a single page. I'm a little surprised that watchlisting of contributions has not already been implemented, as it is simply one of the next logical steps in the ideology of how improvements to the usefulness and usability of Wikipedia/MediaWiki are made, and it also fits very well with the open source software mindset as a whole. The idea of having such a feature be limited to being used by or used on specific users is preposterous. Everyone's contributions are already public; it does not make an ounce of sense to make a feature with takes public information and makes it more useful in a way that anyone could do themselves manually or with a script and then make that feature a restricted or private feature. There is no reason to add extra complication to a feature just because it is new when every other similar feature is publicly available and unrestricted. —danhash (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Support. The benefits of being able to watch for frequent vandals far outweigh any supposed danger of facilitating Wikistalking, and if we really want to prevent users from abusing this feature, why not give it only to autoconfirmed users in good standing? ZZArch ^{talk to me} 22:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - It's not good to trace a user's edits. I think it will be approach more to Wikihounding than patroling. ●Mehran ^Debate● 09:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- The contributions feature has been and will be available. Your opposition is to the entire idea of tracking contributions, which the community and the software already support. Your comment is not about the proposed feature and is therefore not relevant. —danhash (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Support for both IPs and registered users. It's not uncommon for warned users to "lay low" after receiving a warning, and return to vandalizing a few months later. There are several occasions on which I've failed to follow up on users after giving them a "I will block you if this behavior continues" warning because it's too much trouble. In the past I tried adding links to users' contributions to my user page for my own convenience - I'm not sure if making the list of watched users public encourages or discourages hounding, is this a good idea? If the devs aren't amenable to it, I might consider implementing a Toolserver tool for this, which would be quite simple and probably isn't against the privacy policy. Dcoetzee 22:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I would use this for the students in the classes for which I am an online ambassador. Then I can provide more timely assistance when they actually edit. There already is somthing for this on the tool server, but it is pretty locked down so that it takes a while to get new stuff in. I don't mind if it is a userright or available to everyone, the information is there already, it makes it quicker to access. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Support - it's already possible to follow a user's contributions, this proposal would only make it slightly easier to do so. I think the concerns about 'wikistalking' are outweighed by the potential benefits of keeping an eye on vandals and other problematic users. Robofish (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose It will nearly be flooding a user's watchlist if the user whose contributions are being looked upon edits too frequently. Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 15:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- The proposal as I understand it was to show only the most recent edit of each of the watched users, which would obviate this problem. Dcoetzee 13:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Support' I'd certainly find this useful in fighting vandalism. We can deal with stalkers, that's not a good reason not to make this tool available, particularly if it is a userright that we can grant or withdraw rather than a default. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Not that I think this tool would enable more stalking, but perhaps if its implementation were very transparent it would help assuage some of these concerns. If the users/IPs being watched were visible on one of the monitoring user's subpages, anyone could see who they're watching and stalking can be easily identified. Likewise the addition of a "Who is watching me" link in the toolbox would be helpful for quickly finding everyone who has you watchlisted. Since it hasn't been created yet we can make a wishlist for the development of the tool, right? — Bility (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that such a tool would likely improve collaboration? WikiProject members, for example, would probably like to know "what everyone else is up to", because it might be fun to join in and help out. Wikipedia is all about collaboration, right?! Mlm42 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Support The marginal increase in convenience to wiki-stalkers–nothing unless they are stalking multiple users–is worth the potential for fostering collaboration, as Mlm42 points out, and for adoptors and mentors monitoring the edits of their charges. I wish this sort of option had been easily available when I did more adopting. Danger ^{High voltage!} 01:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, and I didn't even think of the wonders of being able to watchlist the contributions of corporate/institutional accounts that appear to be abandoned to make sure that they stay abandoned. That would be super for work at WP:UAA. Danger ^{High voltage!} 07:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. This would come in very handy in several ways. One common scenario is a newly-created account that vandalizes a couple of articles, is warned, then stops... for a while. Being able to add their contributions to your watchlist and getting a heads up when and if they resume editing would be extremely helpful. Another case is for long-term IP blocks; it'd be nice to see, when the block expires, whether it served its purpose or another block is needed. The advantages of such a feature far outweigh any downsides, in my view. 28bytes (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Support My initial concerns are minor compared to the good reasons given for support. Begoon ^talk 02:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. I've often wished we had this. Would be really useful keeping an eye on persistent spammers, whose edits are often not spotted for long periods. ~~I agree that it might be best as a userright that could be withdrawn if an editor is found guilty of hounding/stalking.~~ Not necessary to be a userright, wouldn't be as useful for stalkers as standard Special:Contributions is already. ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 02:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Support - I have wished for this feature and think it would significantly improve our ability to locate and control vandalism. Some ideas for addressing concerns of abuse, if we need that to achieve consensus, (my support is not contingent on any of these):
- make it an assigned userright (per Jasper Deng),
- automatically expire watches after N (30?) days,
- restrict watching to a limited subset of accounts, e.g. accounts with recent level 4 warnings and recently expired blocks.

Joja lozzo 03:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, we already allow contributions to be tracked via RSS/atom (e.g., [10]). So there is a precedent for methods to more easily "track" edits. /ƒETCH COMMS / 06:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: From Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, I selected the 10 most prolific named users and made a link to each one's contribution page. Together the 10 links constitute the following list.

Any Wikipedian wishing to make such a list can easily do so. (Here is a link to Special:Contributions/Wavelength.)

—Wavelength (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC) and 19:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Support. I think that this has become a very interesting discussion. My first reaction had been to oppose out of concerns about hounding, but I've been won over by how useful this could be, both for monitoring problem users and for collaborative projects. I like the ideas of making it a user-right assigned, on request, by administrators, and of having a "who watches here" link available, as two ways of combating misuse. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Yes, I agree it would assist in tracking problem users. With that said, what about the editors in good standing. Why should they be subject to unnecessary stalking? The potential negativity of this greatly outweighs the potential benefits. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's been my observation that stalky types tend to focus on a small handful of editors, often just one or two. They can easily do that now by bookmarking the contributions pages of their targets; are you concerned that these people will expand their stalking to more editors with this feature? 28bytes (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  - I believe it could be possible such a feature would increase stalking problems. Right now, in order to stalk an editor, you have to look up their contributions page. Most editors don't constantly stalk another user's contributions. Additionally, you really can only stalk one person at a time. Even if you used multiple tabs, you wouldn't be able to look through several editor's contributions at once. Adding a feature to the watchlist, allowing someone to bulk watch editors, makes stalking extremely convenient. While it might be useful for watching vandals, it would be highly prone to abuse. Particularly during heated content disputes, making it more likely for a dispute to spill out into multiple articles. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    - It could be abused, I agree. I'd hate to lose a useful feature just because people might abuse it, though; there's a case on AN/I right now where action is being tabled because the editor has stopped editing (for now, at least). I would be really helpful to know (without having to remember to check their contribs manually every few days) when they're resumed editing so the issues with their editing can be addressed. 28bytes (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
      - I often track multiple users in multiple tabs, while doing other things totally unrelated to Wikipedia, without breaking a sweat. It is already not at all hard to "stalk" multiple people, and this feature would have many very useful legitimate uses. —danhash (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Support per 28bytes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Support as a useful tool to monitor for trouble; suggestions for restriction to IPs are misguided, as plenty of vandalism comes from user accounts, and spammers, COIs, SPAs use accounts too. An ability to only show all fresh edits would be very helpful. Extending this convenience to all editors will have a dramatic net good. Josh Parris 03:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I already use externals tools to do this, not least to follow what people I collaborate with on certain projects are doing, so I can assist, and avoid duplication of effort; the proposal would make life much easier. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Support; a tool like this could be quite useful. Personally, a lot of the areas I work in involve editors who aren't outright vandals or perfect editors, but somewhere in the grey area inbeweeen, and a tool like this would be helpful (though I already use a certain offsite tool, that's not a perfect solution). For instance, dealing with educational projects (lots of new student editors).
Support I really don't see the stalking concerns. I've seen a few vandals start editing dozens of pages as soon as they are off their block before being blocked again. If this tool was available, anybody who reported that user could immediately see when the edits start and check if they are indeed vandalism. At worst, it would prevent editors from having to check dozens of edits in this case. At best, it could prevent guerilla vandalism from staying on pages when no one notices it. Angryapathy (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Support. Increases effective openness and accountability within WP. Vague concerns about "wiki-stalking" are unconvincing--editing here is not a private act, and any abuses should be handled after the fact, in the normal WP fashion. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for Toolserver prototype

One way to try out this feature before asking the devs to do it, and get much earlier feedback on how useful it is and how to refine it, is to implement a Toolserver tool where you log in (with TUSC or a separate account) and add users to your user watchlist. For the sake of transparency these user watchlists would be public, and you would be able to easily check who is watching a particular user. Just like the normal article watchlist, edits would be shown in reverse order by date/time, and only the most recent edit by each user would be shown (with a link to their full contributions on-wiki). To make it easier to use, a custom Javascript tool could be built to add to user pages a link reading "add this user to my watchlist". I plan to do this and it shouldn't take very long, but would like to get feedback about the design and features. Dcoetzee 19:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be great, although I see no need for watchlists to be public. Users could take offense thinking that they are being accused of vandalism or sockpuppetry. But really it's just not necessary. As has been stated, a tool such as this would not add any new information, simply make available information more usable. No use to make lists of watched users public for people to complain about and start asking to be removed from. —danhash (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, a number of the supporters above noted it could also be used for collaboration, for Wikipedia in the classroom, for helping newbies, or even a mentor who they follow to learn from, so I think it would be erroneous for people to infer anything from being on someone's list. A notice to that effect could be included. However, such a feature would have actual uses beyond mere transparency (for example, checking whether someone is already watching a vandal, so you can avoid cluttering your own watchlist with them). Dcoetzee 20:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This does seem like something best done off-wiki, at least for now. But if it ever does come on-wiki, it should be done "by permission only," sort of like "Friends" on social networking sites. Privileged users such as administrators would be able to bypass this provided it was logged. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is no benefit of the extra complexity and overhead it would take to implement and support such a permission system. People who want to abuse Wikipedia will do so with or without this feature. Even if this tool was used for stalking/harassment it would likely just make it easier to find such users (their contributions could obviously also be watched). —danhash (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Added note: I've been considering renaming this to "Followed users" and allow you to "Follow/unfollow" a user. The intention is to make it sound a bit less sinister (e.g. "we are watching you") and suggest a similarity with other websites where following just lets you check out what other people are up to (as in "following your progress"). I know this is a small detail but let me know if you disagree. Dcoetzee 00:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Follow/Unfollow is a bit facebooky. Watch/unwatch is probably the most neutral. Another possibility would be stalk/unstalk, but that brings a negative connotation. "Track" might also work. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I already went ahead with followed users, but on reflection tracked is probably a bit better. I think current name is okay though. Dcoetzee 00:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Shared watchlists and collaboration

Perhaps more useful for collaboration would be to allow multiple watchlists per account and allow watchlists to be public rather than private. If I could create a public Special:Watchlist/User:Davidwr/WikiProjectPoland then transclude it into Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Watchlist, that would be useful. Even better if watchlists weren't owned by a particular user and could be created directly in WikiProject space. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You can do the public collaborative watchlist thing now, using Special:RecentChangesLinked. For example, if you want to watch the pages for the letters of the alphabet, you could just go to Special:RecentChangesLinked/Template:Latin alphabet navbox (because that template links to them all). Anomie ⚔ 21:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Prototype tool now available

See http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/followedusers/. It requires a TUSC login, but provides a link to set one up if you don't already have one. Please try it out and let me know what you think! There is also now a Javascript extension at User:Dcoetzee/Followed_users.js you can add to place "Follow user/Unfollow user" in your toolbox and add "Followed users" to the upper-right. Please help spread the word about the tool so lots of people can try it out and help test it out! Dcoetzee 12:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Any reason why the tool doesn't allow the following of IPs? ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 03:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I just forgot to implement that. :-) I've updated it and it now allows following of IPs. Dcoetzee 03:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Upon request only

To avoid abuse, access should only be granted upon a request that will have to be approved by an administrator.

Support as nom. Paolo Napolitano 20:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Ideas of the feature being abused are pure speculation at this point. If someone wants to harass a particular user by following their contributions, it's straightforward to do that today using Special:Contributions. Anyone could reproduce the tool in a couple hours using the public Mediawiki API, and they will if they're denied access to it (and give it to all their friends). The proposal would require a request and approval process that would involve considerable overhead. Any barrier to using it will result in less people using it, and it producing less benefit. I think a better strategy in the short-term is to simply ask me to ban users who are abusing the tool. Since the lists of followed users are public, you can tell if this is happening. Dcoetzee 02:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Liam98 7 16:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Strong oppose as nonsense. Not a single credible argument has been made demonstrating the need for this feature to be limited any more than Special:Contributions is limited (which it isn't). There is no way to keep anyone from making an external tool to do this either, since the entirety of this feature request is based on totally public information. So adding this as a MediaWiki feature and then limiting it will not have the intended effect anyway. Also, it would add completely unneeded complexity and overhead to make it a per-user permission and have a request process. It's simply a bad idea. —danhash (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Support as I was earlier going to make the same point. Glad to see that there's a section. Aslbsl (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment – People should give actual reasons why they think the added complexity of a user right is warranted. The number of votes is irrelevant; it's the quality of the arguments that matters. So far I have not seen a single good argument for making this a user right, and furthermore it doesn't much matter at this point since it is not currently an available feature of the software. Therefore, what would be helpful is a discussion based on reason and argument, not simply on the number of supporters. —danhash (talk) 17:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I believe people didn't flesh out their rationale here because it synthesizes discussions already made above, i.e. administrator approval is the remedy for avoiding abuse people mention above. Aslbsl (talk) 18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My point, though, is that nobody has given any real argument for the necessity of an admin approval process. Everyone just cries "potential for abuse", like that in itself is any kind of worthy argument at all. Look at rollback: there is an admin approval process for getting rollback, but Twinkle, which anybody can use, has a rollback feature as well. Any user losing his rollback priveleges can still rollback i.e. the approval process is more or less useless. Is regular rollback easier than Twinkle rollback? Slightly, yes. But there is no way to stop someone from using rollback or undo or opening a previous version of a page, clicking edit, then clicking save. The point being that there are numerous ways to do what is essentially rollback without going through the approval process, or even if one loses their approval. The same is true for this feature. It is already possible to do exactly what this tool just makes it a little easier to do. I have pointed this out more than once and as yet nobody has given any actual counter-argument, which gives even more credence to the viewpoint that the "potential for abuse" arguments given so far are not well founded. —danhash (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. My response, though, would be to point out, that despite rollback being accessible in other forms to non-admins, there is still an idea that rollback itself should be an admin privilege. So to here, just because there are ways to accomplish the same task without privileges, doesn't automatically mean that limiting it to sysops is moot. It may be debatable whether any admin rights that are mirrored by other functions need be privileges only granted to some, but that's a different question. Aslbsl (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Adminship, generally, is not a big deal anyway. I know that may be a contentious issue, but people wanting to weigh in on this particular discussion need to give actual reasons, not just "support" or "oppose". Votes of opposition mean nothing without actual arguments behind them; I don't know how many times that needs to be said. There are still, as far as I can tell, no good, actual reasons given so far for making this proposed feature limited by a user right. —danhash (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I strongly recommend trying out Dcoetzee's prototype tool. From my use of it, I conclude that a similar on-wiki tool would be a pretty poor tool for stalkers. Only showing editors' last edits cannot be as useful to stalkers as Special:Contributions already is as it shows all edits by their target. I have already found the prototype tool very useful (caught the first edit/vandalism from a vandal just released from a block. Reverted and reported to AIV, result is an extended block, probably saving lots of further warnings before reblocking. ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 04:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Solutions for controlling abuse

Because I realise many participants are concerned about the possibility of the followed users tool being abused, as demonstrated by the discussion above, I'd like to open a broader discussion on solutions to this problem. I've spoken to many people about this and collected a number of very different solutions with different advantages and disadvantages. I'd like to get additional suggestions and preferences. I believe a careful discussion of the issue, and gathering of evidence, should precede a straw poll (per meta:Polls are evil).

Proposal: An administrator must first approve any user before they can use the tool.
- Advantages: Low potential for abuse.
- Disadvantages: High overhead; barrier to use leading to less use; unclear evaluation criteria.
Proposal: Users who abuse the tool are banned from using it; any administrator can be given the ability to do so; misuse can be detected because followed user lists are public.
- Advantages: Addresses a problem only where one exists.
- Disadvantages: The damage may already be done before the abuse is discovered; users may stop following others to cover their tracks. (should log and publicise all follow/unfollow actions?)
Proposal: Permission-only system: non-administrators may only follow other users with their permission.
- Advantages: Effectively prevents abuse in most cases.
- Disadvantages: Prevents non-admins from using the tool in anti-vandal activities. Giving permission may confuse newbies in mentor relationships. Adds overhead and delays.
Proposal: Allow following of IPs only, or users with very few edits only.
- Advantages: Would prevent abusive following of most long-term users.
- Disadvantages: Prevents collaborative uses such as mentor/mentee, or following collaborators on Wikiprojects.
Proposal: Give only to users with rollback.
- Advantages: Users with rollback already have some degree of community trust.
- Disadvantages: Rollback is evaluated according to different criteria, and may not be given to users who don't participate in antivandal but want followed users for collaboration.
Proposal: Create a new user right for it, which is not given initially but then given by an admin.
- Advantages: Low potential for abuse; can be given based on criteria specific to this tool; easy to add/remove on-wiki.
- Disadvantages: Requires config changes to Wikipedia; high process overhead; barrier to use leading to low use; unclear evaluation criteria.
Proposal: A delay is built in where new edits are not made visible for some number of hours.
- Advantages: Prevents "pouncing" on new edits made by established users.
- Disadvantages: Prevents rapid response to vandal activity, or prompt replies to discussion.

Various combinations of these may also be appropriate. Thoughts? Dcoetzee 23:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no good reason for any of these proposals. Not a single person has given a single good reason on this page for why this shouldn't be a fully available built-in feature if it is implemented. I can respond point-by-point to each one of these proposals, but this shouldn't really be necessary as nobody has given any reasonable, substantive argument for the limiting of this feature, and I have already responded so several of these proposals elsewhere in this discussion. I do not understand what people are afraid of. There are already so many processes in place for dealing with abuse. The "potential for abuse" arguments given so far are useless as they demonstrate no more potential for abuse than other long-accepted core features. There is no need for any of these proposals and not a single person has demonstrated otherwise. —danhash (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that - in fact I'm not sure exactly what abuse people have in mind other than a vague uneasiness about "stalking". I'm hoping that this set of proposed solutions will at least provoke thought about exactly what the issue is so we can get a clearer explanation. I do believe certain measures - such as logging all follow/unfollow actions, and allowing any admin to block/unblock a user from using the tool - are perfectly reasonable. Dcoetzee 19:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Every action on Wikipedia is already logged, and admins are already able to block/unblock users based on their actions. If a user is abusing Wikipedia (any part of Wikipedia) for harassment purposes, they are already able to be blocked. Why add more complexity? If a user cannot keep themselves from abusing this or any other tool or feature of Wikipedia for harassment or other policy-breaching purposes, they can be blocked. There is nothing wrong with any user following any other users' contributions. The problem comes in what that users' actions are; if a user harasses another user based on stalking their contributions (using this or any other tool), they can be blocked for harassment without any extra complexity of permissions needing to be added to this tool. Why not log every time a user checks a contributions page and give admins the ability to block users from viewing contributions pages? Contributions are public for a reason, and logs of viewed contributions pages are private for a reason. There is no need to add extra complexity simply because it may be easy from a technological perspective. —danhash (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

UID interface to Wikipedia

This is a proposal to come up with a systematic means by which members of subsets of Wikipedia articles (chemicals, protiens, railway stations, etc etc) can be accessed by means of Universal IDs.

The subjects of many wikipedia article have unique IDs assigned to them. Chemicals are identified by their CAS registry number, for instance; protein sequences are identified by a range of UIDs such as UniProt; nucleotide sequences and their protein translations by GenBank ... UK railway stations by NaPTAN, etc. As you'd expect, UIDs are used to provide access to all sort of database repositories. Techniques include web service interfaces, APIs, etc. UIDs make information available on a systematic basis.

UID are already widely used on wikipedia, notably in infoboxes of articles. But right now, any info wikipedia has about a subject is (as far as I know) mostly inaccessible by the UID. Searching for the Ensembl UID for Rhodopsin, ENSG00000163914, brings a pretty useless result.

Equally, right now, any number of software products exist to search third party databases for information by UID. Other than by article name, wikipedia will tend not to feature as a source.

The proposal, then, is make such changes as are sensible to make wikipedia articles accessible by UID through the normal web interface. There are a number of ways this could be done; I come here for thoughts and direction both about the general idea and also the specific implementation. A low-tech example implementation is to create a redirect for each UID - e.g. Ensembl-ENSG00000163914 - and expect it to redirect to the article, Rhodopsin. A better approach would be to reuse the data already in infoboxes to seed the interface, so that we're not double entering data.

If it needs answering, the "why do this", "what use will be made of this" questions resolve to "because we can", "who knows", "until we do we'll not find out" and "if we don't, then we prevent these things from being realised". Those seem good enough reasons to me. Grateful for proposal and implementation detail feedback. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely endorse this proposal - I'd be happy to be considered a co-proponent - which accords with moves to increase Wikipedia's metadata and machine readability; as well as interoperability with other websites and apps. Alternative formats (and there will be others) would be Ensembl:ENSG00000163914 or to set up a UID namespace, for example: UID/Ensembl/ENSG00000163914. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Support redirect system. Redirects are cheap, and I can't see how the it would interfere. If other commenters have a negative outcome in mind, then I may need to re-evaluate. At the moment I can't see it. Not sure what "A better approach would be to reuse the data already in infoboxes to seed the interface, so that we're not double entering data." means. Automatically creating (or even maintaining) redirects based on infoboxes could be suitably trialled and implemented, I would think, if that's the sort of thing you meant. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that "who knows" is a sufficient reason to spend the time & resources of the WikiMedia on fixing a problem which does not yet exist, when they could be used to fix problems that we do know exist. If I've just not fully understood the proposal (which may well be the case), just let me know. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to say, ItsZippy. Who knows what's in your head? What I know is this: right now anyone who has an app which uses UIDs finds wikipedia inaccessible. If we re-use UIDs to enable access to article text, it becomes utterly trivial for any third party dealing in UIDs to access our content. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know a great deal about UIDs. If you think it's beneficial, then I won't be opposed. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than onwiki namespaces, it might be possible to do something using a simple lookup database - toolserver.org/UID/Ensembl/ENSG00000163914 spits out the relevant article, with the option of adding /en or /de to the URL to select the desired language, etc. I do like the idea very much - I can see an obvious application involving LCSH headings resolving to specific Wikipedia articles, for one thing! Please let me know if you go ahead with this...

One other approach would be to increase our use of hidden infobox fields, and make sure they search properly. It's not much help to prominently display relatively technical identifiers in an article, but if we used something like persondata - a hidden metadata template - this would be a great use for it. Including this alongside the referrer database or redirect would also help ensure we don't get errors creeping in due to page moves (which is likely if we start using geographical or personal identifiers); we can have a script patrolling for mismatches and flagging them. Shimgray | talk | 22:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would we put something on the toolserver, when Wikipedia itself can host it adequately? Also, I'm not in favour of hidden fields. We should be displaying UIDs in infoboxes; but that's a separate issue and should not be conflated with this one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly not wedded to the idea of an off-wiki solution (and toolserver was just an arbitrary suggestion), but I think it's worth considering the benefits. The model I'm thinking of here is the very successful QRpedia, which does a similar trick of going through an intermediate layer before resolving a specific Wikipedia article, rather than leaping straight to an enwiki address.

Firstly, in the short term, it's simpler. We can set up a test database of these links elsewhere as a demo without approval, since it doesn't have to tie directly into the wiki; going straight for onwiki namespaces involves getting consensus before being able to do a practical demonstration, which risks becoming a vicious circle... (Transferring a proof-of-concept database to the wiki should be relatively simple, if the namespaces are later enabled - it'd be a matter of running a script to populate the redirects. The converse is true, as well, of course!)

Secondly, it has greater potential for future development. Using an intermediate layer makes it a lot easier to expand the functionality with things like:

adding alternate-language capacity via the same URL, without having to seperately query xx.wp and xy.wp and xz.wp to see if there are entries in the preferred languages. (I can imagine a case where a database would say "We need results in Polish, alternatively falling back to German or Russian, and if all else fails use English.")
more versatility in what we send back - some users might want microformat metadata, some might want full articles, some might want mobile ones, some might want us to spit out a copy of just the lead or the infobox image, etc.

...to take a couple of examples. Shimgray | talk | 12:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems desirable, but probably needs a project page somewhere so ideas can be worked through. Is it wanted that a Google search for "ENSG00000163914" would include Wikipedia in its results? And/or a normal (article namespace) Wikipedia search? (Currently, a Wikipedia search finds nothing unless searching in the template namespace.) Roughly how many articles might end up with a UID? How would they be maintained? While a bot might happily create thousands of redirects, there should be some planning for how the results could be maintained. For example, there could be a master list somewhere, and a bot would make the redirects from that list, and would periodically report any changes to the redirects that disagree with what is in the list. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes; a project would be a good idea. Google searching would be one benefit, but the primary purpose would be so that other websites (online databases) and apps could programmatically create URLs like, say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UID/Ensembl/Foo, where "Foo" is a UID, and be redirected to the relevant article. Hopefully, this would also, eventually, be possible through the API, too. The use of categories would serve to provide lists of such articles. A bot could create the redirects, by scanning, for example, sub-templates of {{PBB}}; like {{PBB/6010}} for Rhodopsin. I like your ideas of a bot reporting suspicious changes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, POTW, ... will you please stop having good ideas before I have them! .... :-) I'm currently talking to Library catalogue folks in Sheffield. I think we have an agenda! (ItsZippy - our resources are volunteers - the resource is infinite! We just need discussions about where the value and the enthusiasm best match. This might be one of them Victuallers (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have created WikiProject Unique Identifiers for discussion and coordination of all UID related matters. Please join! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A google search for ENSG00000163914 within the en.wikipedia.org domain gives {{PBB/6010}} and Rhodopsin as the top two hits. It is also worth noting that at least one external database can be search for ENSG00000163914 (see for example GeneCards) that leads to a link that points back the the Wikipedia Rhodopsin article. I don't see any harm in adding these types of redirects, but at the same time I do not see any particular advantages either, especially considering that search engines can rapidly locate the desired article. For the rhodopsin article alone, there would be an almost endless list of possible redirects starting the rhodopsin ensemble accession numbers for a half dozen additional species, the refseq RNA and protein IDs, UniProt IDs, etc. Boghog (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The particular claimed advantage is that a third party database using UIDs can link to wikipedia articles at something like nil marginal cost. Given that we have UIDs in articles, leveraging them to create redirects is also pretty much nil marginal cost. There may be many redirects to a single article, agreed, but I don't see that as a problem. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't see any cost to adding millions of redirects? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's why bots were invented. When we have large numbers of articles with specific unique identifiers, a bot will not have difficulty figuring out the one that's applicable to each article. This is a simple enough task that I doubt we'll see false positives except for occasional vandalism and typos. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am still confused as to why we would want all this in the first place? Could someone explain the idea in simple language. (Don't assume people understand what you are talking about). Start with explaining what a "Unique Identifier" is and does. Then go on to explain why and how you think Wikipedia would benefit from having these "Unique identifiers". Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

THere are standard codes for train stations. THere are standard codes for Proteins. I run a web site or database dealing with train stations. And another dealing with proteins. I use these standard codes in my website. Right now, I cannot use these codes to link to wikipedia.

Wikipedia has standard codes for train stations in its train station articles. Wikipedia has standard codes for proteins in its protein articles.

If wikipedia uses the codes it already has, to crate redirects to the appropriate train station or protein page, then by making one simple change in my website code, I can link all of my train station entries to wikipedia: my users can navigate from my website record to the apropriate wikipedia record. Ditto proteins.

That's it in a nutshell. And yes, there are a number of train station and protein web services out there; and ditto the very many other database systems dealing in entities which have UIDs. Does that help? --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"My contributions" link for anonymous IP editors

	Please consider joining the Feedback Request Service.

An editor has requested comment from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the Wikipedia proposals list. When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There should be a "my contributions" link visible somewhere to anonymous IP editors, like there is for registered users. It should probably be called "contributions from this IP" or something similar, though, because the contributions may not be those of the current user of the address.

It has always bothered me that I have to jump through some hoops to see the contributions from this address, either by going to Special:Contributions and then having to figure out the IP address to type in, or to look at the history of an article I know I've edited, find one of my edits, and click on my address to see the contribution history. If there's an easier way, I don't know what it is. 66.159.220.134 (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to see your own contributions quickly, just use Special:MyContributions. Due to dynamic IP-addresses, I'm not sure how useful the link would be. --He to Hecuba (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, I amend this suggestion to ask that Special:MyContributions appear on the list at Special:SpecialPages. Currently it doesn't.

Some IP addresses are static, and some dynamic ones persist with the same customer for months, depending on the ISP. Such is the case with me. It wouldn't be useful for AOL users, who get a different address on each HTTP request. 66.159.220.134 (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

For an easier way to see your contributions, simply click edit on any unprotected Wikipedia page, type four tildes (~~~~), which can be done automatically using the

edit pane button, click on show preview, and then click your linked IP address.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose: there is already a mechanism for watching one's contributions: create an account. The my contributions thing is guaranteed to be abused by bad-faith dynamic IP users, who would only add select contributions to their lists and then pretend that this is all they did. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- What would stop them from doing this right now, consider several easy workarounds are available? Why would they suddenly start doing so with this change? Yoenit (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Nothing. They do this, and I see no reason why we should facilitate such behaviour. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Czarkoff, I have rarely seen a more blatant example of disregarding WP:AGF. There is NO requirement to create an account on Wikipedia to participate here.
  Going to a page and typing four tildes to see my IP address, or hunting for one of my contributions in an article history, or looking up my own IP address to type it into Special:Contributions, are all unnecessary hoops to jump through.
  
  There is no valid reason I can see to make the anonymous IP experience deliberately more difficult. Anons don't get a watchlist, and that makes sense from a technical standpoint. However, an anon who wants to perform maintenance to some articles should have a way to see past articles of involvement. Special:MyContributions is the way to do that, but currently there is NO way for that link to be found. All I'm asking is that Special:MyContributions appear on the big list of other special pages at Special:SpecialPages, which is supposed to be a comprehensive list. 66.159.220.134 (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Er, I'm not following. Yes, there's no requirement to EDIT Wikipedia, and there never will be. But people ARE "strongly encouraged" to get an account. I'm not opposed per se to making it easier for IPs to see their contributions, but to say that "There is no valid reason I can see to make the anonymous IP experience deliberately more difficult" is silly. There's a VERY valid reason -- the whole POINT of making an account is to make things easier, on everyone. You might have a static IP but for even so it's not your account. If you ever move, you'll change your IP and someone else will potentially use it. It's not "you" any more. Not to mention editing from elsewhere. So yes, if you want an easy way to find all your contribs, register an account. If you refuse, well there's other ways of keeping track what pages you edited -- your broswer's bookmarks for instance. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    - Pardon, but where is the argument to exclude Special:MyContributions from Special:SpecialPages? Where is the argument that a comprehensive list of special pages must omit this particular link? 66.159.220.134 (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
      - There seems absolutely no reason why it should be omitted from the list. I'll post a request on the administrator's noticeboard asking for it to be done. --He to Hecuba (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
        
        The only way to do this is to change the MediaWiki software, as these special pages are marked in the code as "unlisted" and this cannot be overridden; to request such a change, file a request on Wikimedia's bugzilla. Anomie ⚔ 19:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Your reading of WP:AGF is plain wrong: nobody is supposed to assume the good faith of each and every human being. This policy is the editing policy, it is applicable on individual talk pages. Still, anonymous IP edits are not difficult at all, and there was a good way provided to facilitate tuning of the editors' experience: registering the account. You are not obliged to state your personal details if you don't want to, but re-inventing accounts just to save the ability to indicate your IP instead of random word just doesn't make sense at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    - - I believe what 66.159.220.134 is proposing the implementation of a link to Special:Contributions. Accounts already have it through a button called "my contributions" in the top right corner. It is technically feasible to add such a link to an IP editor. For example, if 66.159.220.134 clicked the link, it would lead to Special:Contributions/66.159.220.134. I don't see how that could be abused, it would merely be adding a helpful feature that accounts currently enjoy. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have the Firefox search pulldown set to Wikipedia and generally just type "special:my" into it, so it auto-finds MyTalk and MyContributions, and that's how I usually get to my contributions page. Browsers also have a feature called "bookmarks", so overall I think the proposed new feature is of minor benefit as best. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppopse: This would remove a big reason to create an account and could be as a tool for sockpuppetry: just hop to a new IP and there's all the articles edited by the last one. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reason to create an account, but it is technically possible to add an IP editor as well. With that said, the second part of your comment is plain wrong. IP editors already have a Special:Contributions page, it is just hard to find because it isn't in a prominent location. Sockpuppets already know the process, and they know how to get to IP contribution pages. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, some socks already know the process. I get where you're coming from, but I still feel there's no reason to make it easier. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There aren't any serial sockpuppeteers that don't know how to get to a contributions page. This change will only make it easier for IP editors to find out what edits came from their IP. How on earth is that a bad thing. The page is already generated, it can't be abused, so what is the problem here? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Support it is quite sensible to have a tab for IPs to see their contributions. Although they don't have an account, they may want to check back on a page they previously edited. Before creating an account, I edited as an IP, and it was very annoying trying to check back on edits I previously made. There is no requirement whatsoever for users to create accounts. Providing a link to an IP's contributions page would be extremely beneficial for IP editors. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Support - None of the oppose rationales seem to make sense. Yes, it would be possible for an IP user to abuse this feature, but that is already possible. If a committed vandal or sock-puppeteer is going to abuse the fact that they can see their IP's contributions, they will do so regardless of whether there is an easy link for them to use. Preventing such a link will not deter those who actually want to abuse it. Despite what people have said, there is not requirement to create an account; users only encouraged to create an account insofar as some pages describe the benefits. Nowhere does it say that IP users ought to create an account, just that they can and that there are benefits to it. IPs are human too expresses most of my feelings nicely. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Wikipedia:Role accounts. Where is the page showing the Foundation supports such a feature?.Switched to Conditional support below. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This oppose doesn't make any sense. IP editors are not role accounts. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking they are not. Yet no editor owns a specific IP address and there is nothing prohibiting another user from making edits under the same IP (see WP:SHARE). Furthermore anyone wishing to have the benefit of having all their contributions shown in one place should simply register an account. I don't see the net benefit of this proposal. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

IP editors are already capable of editing. They already have a contributions page. This proposal is about making it easier for IP editors to actually find their contributions page. Presently, they have to figure out what their IP address is, visit Special:Contributions, and enter their IP. Either that, or they have to edit a page and use the contributions link on the history tab. There are many, many IP editors that are more active than some logged in users. For example, User:220.101.28.25, an IP editor has almost 12,000 edit. Account registration isn't required. It is an option open to allow IP editors extra tools (i.e. rollback, adminship, scripts, edit protected pages, etc.). What is the harm in adding a link to their contributions page in the top right corner near the login button. The page already exists, so how can a simple link be abused. All it will do is make it easier for IPs to find their contributions page. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You say "Account registration isn't required.", but neither is editing under an IP. It seems reasonable to me to require anyone wishing to have the benefits of an account to register an account. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Conditional support under the caveat that it is called All contributions from this IP or something similar and with a note saying something like This is the contribution page listing the edits performed from this IP address. Please note that the edits might be attributable to several distinct individuals. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per Alpha Quadrant. None of the opposes make sense to me, how can one abuse a Special:Contributions page? It's a page no one has control over and it already exists since it is dynamically generated; linking it would be useful for many unregistered contributors just like it is useful for registered contributors. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I can't give a better rationale than CharlieEchoTango or Alpha Quadrant, so this support is per their comments. I too, fail to understand what "abuse" this virtual, dynamic list of contributions is likely to cause. There are many very productive IP editors to whom this would be a boon, and I can't see any reason to deny them what appears to be merely a convenience link to a page that already exists, unless there are technical issues. Begoon ^talk 04:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Support at Special:SpecialPages but oppose on every page. Most unregistered visitors are only readers and many would be confused by a link for edits made by "their" IP address. In most cases there will be no edits anyway, but checking this and only displaying the link if there are edits would probably be too expensive. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Logout and type Special:MyContributions into the search bar. IPs already have this page. I don't think it would be that difficult for the devs to work something out so that it only displays for IPs with actual edits. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, to make the link visible only if the IP has edits. Another idea would be to have Special:Contributions default to have the username field pre-filled with the username or IP address as appropriate. 66.159.220.134 (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt devs will add any "conditional" link because of caching issues, for the same reason mw:Manual:$wgShowIPinHeader is disabled here (I think you can see the result of that option here: http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Main_Page in the right top corner). — AlexSm 02:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Strong support. This is a simple matter of making an existing, useful feature more accessible to users who edit while logged out. Being able to review their own edits allows new users to reflect on their work, learn from their experiences, and grow as an editor. Even registered users usually have some edits they made before registration that they would like to review, but if they can't figure out how, they won't be able to learn from it. It shouldn't be interpreted as endorsing editing while logged out. Dcoetzee 20:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. It seems pretty uncontroversial to make a link that's already available from the search bar a little more accessible. 28bytes (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The easiest way to find your "My contributions" link is to get this warning. Sole Soul (talk) 05:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Support per Alpha Quadrant Nobody Ent 11:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Just add to Special:SpecialPages, no need for any new UI features such as a tab, since the UI is cluttered enough already (or at most, "meh"). Adding to Special:SpecialPages seems to satisfy the original proposer who first asked for the feature. I've been editing from IP addresses for ages and have never had trouble using Special:MyContributions and I don't see any comments from anyone in this thread saying they have ever personally had such a problem. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Support I revert a lot of vandalism, and a lot of this is from unregistered IPs (and lets drop the "anon" part - IPs make more identity visible than disposable accounts). I would find it enormously useful to have this link, and having it would allow me one-click access to a page that I need to read, rather than the current hoopla through intermediate pages to find it. In fact I needed this so much that I wrote some JavaScript to provide it as a hack, just for myself (this is only a hack - I'm not going to release or maintain it). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- As an IP address contributor, I support this idea. Perhaps, on the side toolbox instead, "User contributions", rather than uptop and an obstruction to non-contributive IPs. 184.146.126.165 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. I often edit via IP when on public PCs and I must agree, this can be quite helpful by easing the way to keep track of what's done. At the same time, for those who have occasional cashe issues like myself; it would help to keep track of what edits have accidentally been saved as IP, when you get automatically signed off. All these are little issues, but would overall increase the editing experience. I don't suggest placing those links where the signed-in user's links are (that would confuse a lot of folks), but instead in one of those dropdowns, or a new one all together. Reh man 08:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Support: should be made accessible ... more preferably alongside the "login/create account" option. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Persondata backlog done by bot

Roaming around Wikipedia, I found Wikipedia's biggest backlog. Category:Persondata templates without short description parameter has 620,000 pages in need of a description parameter. Basically what this is, for those who are new to this category, is a few words that summarizes what a person did for a living for statistical purposes. Now, the few words, like "rock musician" for example, can be predicted through a number of ways. One example is by infobox. An article can only have one infobox, obviously. So, that infobox would describe the thing the person was most famous for. An idea that 1ForTheMoney developed in the idea lab was that a bot lists articles with infoboxes and missing short description. Then, the bot suggests a short description and all an editor has to do is to click an "okay" button which would trigger the bot to ammend the persondata. Other ideas thrown around at the idea lab were using stubs, titles, WikiProjects, and categories.
Vote below with Support or Oppose or suggest using something instead of infoboxes. Thank you, BCS (Talk) 02:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Persondata#Short_description, disambiguation text should trump infobox text, or both could be used. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I could possibly write this up if there's consensus. My initial thought was a user script, but my second thought was a Web page that just rotates through articles, shows the article title, lead, maybe an infobox if there is one, some automatically-suggested short descriptions, then lets the user enter one and press Enter to move on. If two or three people agree on the short description, it's removed from the rotation and assigned to the bot. — madman 03:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The remainder of the first sentence after the Forename, surname (19xx-19yy) is another likely contender. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I would guess that this is too difficult for a bot to do accurately. See Wikipedia:Persondata-o-matic for a tool to assist human editors. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I've seen articles with multiple infoboxes, for example both Aussie Rules and NFL players. Categories might work. Josh Parris 11:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I think what makes more sense is to develop a script that can make a good guess at what the short description should be, then incorporate it into Persondata-o-matic, so that a human can view it and approve it very quickly. I already do this for names, and doing it for short descriptions is an obvious next feature. Dcoetzee 19:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest starting with the big win categories, Actors, Athletes, politicians and military persons. Depending on how detailed you want the description (can you say American politician or does it need to be Arizona governor) could depend on how easy or difficult the logic need be. Frankly I don't think it would be that hard to kock them out and it should be rather easy to write a script that could be done by a bot. --Kumioko (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Both examples would be okay according WP:DATA. I like your idea. Would you like to volunteer to program the bot? Or will you leave soon? (I saw your userpage) BCS (Talk) 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not really interested in doing any bot work. There are plenty of other folks that can do that though if you take it to the Bot requests page someone may volunteer to do it. --Kumioko (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a small snip-it of AWB code that will add Footballer if the SHORT DESCRIPTION field is blank. This will probably be all you need if you are getting a list of articles based off of a category. I agree with Kumioko, that the big ones should be knocked out first and sportspeople is the #1 big one. I could run this as a bot or if somebody else wants to have some fun, go for it.Bgwhite (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have the code ready, then by all means use it. Knock a big one out. WikiProject Football has 37,000 articles missing the short description. Infobox footballer could be a football player or manager if you use that, by the way. So, sometimes a manager who has never played football will have Infobox footballer. @Kumioko It's okay, I wasn't forcing you to make a bot. BCS (Talk) 04:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I would do it by category and not infobox. I can do those that have both footballer and manager categories and then do just the individual categories. The same procedure can then be done for other sports. I think things would be more complicated for politicians, arts and the other groups. Bgwhite (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. BCS (Talk) 16:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

BCS refers to my idea of adding descriptions based on infoboxes/categories/project banners, and requesting human confirmation (using Madman's idea on the Toolserver or somewhere else) on the ones it doesn't like. Though I was just jotting ideas down at the time, it was made to address the problem of articles with no defining features, and those with multiple infoboxes. (In fact I remember participating in a similar thing with interlanguage links a few year ago, where editors compared articles in different languages and pressed a button to say if the articles were about the same subject or not. If enough people agreed a bot automatically added the links, and if they disagreed that pairing was taken off the database.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI. Rcsprinter (orate) (Contribs)
(Not Rcs) 20:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

What about using PersonData from interwikis? We could just steal the values from other wikis. Josh Parris 11:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

German wiki is the only other wiki to use persondata. Persondata actually started there. How do you steal German language words to put in the short description parameter? Bgwhite (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Two bot tasks have had BRFAs raised, and they look likely to fail due to unacceptable error rates. I now believe that crowdsourcing is the only viable solution, and encourage development in that area. Josh Parris 11:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they shot it down because any bot would produce an error, therefore a bot can't work on it. It sounded like they didn't even like "normal" people working on it because of the errors a normal human would produce. As the number of articles missing the description parameter has gone up every year since persondata was started, this categroy will never be empty. Bgwhite (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a reasonable summation. A crowdsourced solution ought to address both problems, by waiting until enough humans agree on what the short description ought to be. I think someone pointed out earlier that the backlog was getting smaller, but I haven't sighted any data one way or the other. Josh Parris 02:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel compelled to point out that a crowdsourced solution might seem like a good idea in theory but in reality Wikipedia is the modal of crowdsourcing and these entries have been empty for years (and apparently will be empty for years to come) so if you have a good idea then please present it. You are both very good programmers so I imagine you both have some really good ideas about how to solve this problem other than writing it off to crowdsourcing that you know won't work. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

@Josh: That would be me. I keep a record of the number of templates missing descriptions that I update once a week, though I admit it's more for my own purposes than anything else. And no, I don't think that bots are the best answer to this one - slightly ironically, persondata was made so that biographies could be made accessible to machines, and bots are in fact the cause of this backlog thanks to mass automated additions that should have been reined in before they started. At the moment, the best move is for more people to get involved with the backlog - tools such as Persondata-o-matic allow for semi-automatic additions but with human intervention. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What about this? Could that be replicated? -- BCS (t · c · !) 19:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Getting people to pay more attention to talk pages

This is only a suggestion, and arguably, it might have been better in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab),but I guess that more people look at this page of Wikipedia. My proposal is as follows. It is sometimes said that people will get more out of Wikipedia if they did not merely read the article, but the talk pages (indeed, I am sure I once read a magazine which said that). Can we therefore have a template at the top of at least some articles, encouraging readers to read the talk pages of articles? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. If we did this then some talk pages would be considered quasi-articles by many readers – and by some editors who would start speculating in spreading their crap on talk pages when it's kept out of articles. All sorts of unverifiable nonsense and rude discussions are already on talk pages. If people want to learn more about the subject than the article and they aren't studying Wikipedia culture then they are better off searching elsewhere on the Internet. Talk pages are also treated less strictly than articles concerning legal issues like BLP violations and copyvios - especially when it's discussed whether something in the article is exactly that. We shouldn't give the impression that we want readers to read talk pages. They are for editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with PrimeHunter. I will note, however, that many of the article cleanup templates that flag content disputes or biased articles (e.g. {{POV}}) already link to a given article's talk page. While these template messages are principally aimed at editors, other readers are certainly able to discern the presence of a dispute and view any related discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Its just more clutter theres a tab at the top of the page already for the talk page, adding a template at the top is just going to detract from a persons ability to read the article Gnan garra 01:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Hi ACEOREVIVED, it goes without saying that talk is used to settle disputes, improve the article, etc. However, sometimes it goes... well, way beyond. Please check out talk:Gustave Whitehead... is that what you're trying to engender? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Yes, readers should read more deeply. I meet people and brag about being a Wikipedia editor, one of millions, and tell them it's one of those iceberg things, 90% underwater. I advise them to use the tabs at the top of the page, and the "About Wikipedia" on the left edge, and the "Help" also on the left, all of which lead them to read the highly informative underwater parts. It's all there; just have to point, click and read though perhaps "Help" ought to be made more immediately helpful to readers and less focused on editors. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Support - if we encourage users to actually go on talk pages, there would be a more social and collaborative aspect to the encyclopedia. By encouraging people to use the talk pages, we encourage new WikiProjects to actively improve a certain subject on Wikipedia, and improve the existing and mostly moribund ones. This will also aid in editor retention (our number 1 priority now), as it will allow a forum for discussion of articles. I understand that Wikipedia is not a forum or message board, but discussion on articles does contribute to their quality. Wer900 (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to all the people who responded to this proposal. The comments in response are well taken. I should also say that I was very impressed with how polite and civil people who responded to this discussion were, even if the general consensus appeared to be oppose the original proposal. It goes without saying that that is exactly the good manners that, one hopes, will characterise Wikipedia discussions. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What I wouldn't mind seeing is a count on the 'Talk' tab of the number of recent discussion sections added or updated. (For example: '| Talk (2 updates) |'.) That way I can tell at a glance whether discussions are taking place. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

RJH's idea sounds interesting, but I would think like the above proposal, it doesn't totally jive with WP as an encyclopedia. All of the behind-the-scenes work should be accessible, but probably shouldn't be to prominent. Aslbsl (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Make it possible to have several watchlists

It would be really helpful to be able to create several separate watchlists. I watch pages where my interest is the article itself but I also often watch pages where I only do wikignoming and only need to check whether someone else undoes those edits. It would be cool to be able to maintain separate watchlists for those two types of pages. Therefore I propose to give all editors the ability to maintain more than one watchlist. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I had a similar idea, but I did not mention it outside my talk page (User talk:Wavelength/Archive 1#Watchlist folders).

—Wavelength (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Try Special:RecentChangesLinked - it lists changes to any page linked to from a given page. You populate a page with the pages you want to watchlist, and tada you're done. Josh Parris 20:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure this works for me. What I need would be the following watchlist categories:

Articles I am interested in
Village pumps and help desk
Specific policy pages
User talk pages
Pages where I perform NFCC enforcement

This is only a rough outline to get an idea of what I have in mind. Additional options for "fine tuning" your watchlist might be desirable. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 October 30#Multiple personal watchlists.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Try User:UncleDouggie/smart watchlist.js. --Yair rand (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This one is excellent, been using it since quite some time.. but it saves its settings to your browser, so you won't have the same settings on another computer. Some thing like this should be rolled out in general instead. There was also a consensus for recent watchlist changes... what ever happened to that? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Special:EditCount

I've come up with a idea: Why not create a special page called Special:EditCount? I agree that luxo's, X!'s, tparis's ; etc are not bad, but when replication lag is high, problems occur. There is a sample here. It is used in Wikia, also run by MediaWiki, so it's technically possible. There is a consensus for creating this at TestWiki. Dipankan ^{Meet me here!} 14:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What benefit would such a page bring to this encyclopedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It is as accurate as your preferences. Dipankan ^{Meet me here!} 05:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask whether it was accurate, but what benefit it would bring to an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That consensus is on another website. Historically, the consensus at en.wiki has been that too much attention to one's number of edits may lead to editcountitis, the symptoms of which make for a very unhappy editing environment. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
What would be the benefit of letting everyone see everyone else's edit counts so easily? This should stay in preferences where it is not being broadcast. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The example that you linked to uses the Editcount extension. I agree with Huntster, though, that in order to enable it here you would need to show a good reason and how it would be used to improve the encyclopedia, to overcome the concerns described. Incidentally, if you want to see Users' edit counts while browsing talk and contribution pages, Navigation Popups includes that functionality (using the API) when you hover a user name. Begoon ^talk 06:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
OK. I have developed my own script which adds a Edit Count link in your personal toolbar. That is of X!'s, but that will help. Dipankan ^{Meet me here!} 09:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that may be useful for some people, thanks for sharing it. You can list scripts like that which you've created at WikiProject User scripts, to make them easier for other users to find. There are already a couple listed there which do something similar, like User tabs. As I mentioned, the API result from WP:NAVPOP is enough for me. Begoon ^talk 09:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for giving the feedback. I will continue to develop simple tools using JavaScript when I get time...! Dipankan says.. ^{("Edit count do not matter")} 05:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

People who have contributed to this discussion may be interested in the Wikipedia article Wikipedia: Editcountitis, although since I just saw a quote "Edit count (sic) do not matter" perhaps some of them will not! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I've always thought it doesn't make any sense why our edit count is under "my preferences" instead of "my contributions". Jason Quinn (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It is under "my contributions". If you click on "My contributions", you can go to "Edit count" at the bottom of the screen. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering if it is possible to have an EdiCount that has, as an additional argumen,t a minimum contribution size (eg. 1000 bytes) , either fixed or entered by the user. I know editcountitis is spread among some of the top contributors and that all contributions and contributors matter, however it is be good to recognize who the top contributors are. But, in my opinion, we shall not recognize ones that have thousand of contributions only adding lines between paragraphs, brackets in dates and adding unnecessary categories. Perhaps some filter (eg. contribution size) would help. Lgtrapp (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Eponymous categories

Category:Eponymous categories and all other cats beginning with "Category:Categories named after" , have been nominated for being turned into hidden categories. On the Categories for Discussion page there has been a debate about the appropriate venue for this discussion so I am linking it here to try and establish a censensus on venue. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at these categories' entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Note there is a complementary request to rename such categories to "Category:Wikipedia categories named after...". SFB 17:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Citation Style templates- centralizing talk pages

See Help talk:Citation Style 1#Centralized talk page.

A week ago, I made a proposal to centralize the talk pages of the Citation Style 1 templates, making an announcement on all 25 talk pages. The response has been minimal, which rather proves my point that these pages are underwatched. Since these templates are so well-used, I thought it best to open this to a broader audience. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Go be bold, imo. --Izno (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance Category Reorganization

	Please consider joining the Feedback Request Service.

An editor has requested comment from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the Wikipedia proposals list. When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The maintenance categories on Wikipedia are poorly organized, and as a result, users are turned off by the massive walls of text which link to them. Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month says it all. This is especially damaging to the base of new editors, which will be at best confused and will not be able to target their efforts on where the encyclopedia requires the most work, and at worst will be turned off by the large number of categories and simply become inactive or leave, feeling that there is no way they can help. For anyone, the place is visually unappealing in addition, and difficult to navigate. It is for this reason that I propose organizing the numerous categories into various categories superior to them but inferior to the category of all articles requiring maintenance, which shall give the general area of what must be done with these articles:

Cleanup and Grammar - this should deal with various aspects such as the prose of the pages, its grammar and spelling, the formatting of its contents, whether they use neologisms, etc.
Accuracy - this category should specifically deal with pages which have accuracy issues, or have some issue with regard to the style and placement of their references.
Comprehensiveness - self-explanatory. This category should deal with pages which have issues in the amount of content they have, if articles are stubs, and whether the article explains in depth and with many examples the topic that it covers. This section will also deal with whether lists comprehensively cover what they are supposed to and have basic properties of all of their subjects
Suitability for Inclusion - this includes articles that are cruft of any kind, non-encyclopedic, example farms, promotional, tl;dr self-shrines, libelous, etc.

In addition, within these categories, the dates they are sorted by should also be subcategorized by year, again so that new users are more invited to edit them and navigation is easier generally. I am not proposing the demolition of any existing category, merely that they be moved into the appropriate supercategory listed above so that the page is more elegant and easier to navigate for new users and old alike. Nothing else will change with regard to the categorical structure.

Also, in order to ensure that the backlog of bad articles is eliminated in the quickest fashion possible, a link should be placed to the maintenance categories sorted by month in a prominent place, perhaps on the left sidebar, or to the left of the "feedback about editing" link. This will ensure that a larger percentage of new and experienced editors alike notice the existence of a backlog, and that more resources will consequently be available to the related WikiProjects to help clear up this backlog, as opposed to merely a small dedicated group (though this group is not in any way harmful, just too small to clear up the backlog without serious firepower). That way, more editors will feel a purpose of being on Wikipedia, more new editors will be retained, and the community can grow back.

Wer900 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The new, redundant automatic edit summary on page moves should be reverted

Apparently as of about March 1, 2012, the automatic edit summary on page moves became the stunningly redundant "User name (without the user: prefix) moved page X to page Y". In an article's edit history what is thus seen is a person linked username, followed by their name again, listed as making the move. Here's a screenshot from the article history of a move I made last night to illustrate:

When looking at a person's contributions, or your own watchlist, a person's username is not linked and listed, but since you're looking at that person's contributions or your own watchlist, you know whose contributions you're looking at, so it's just as redundant to see this edit summary. I also imagine this now shortens the number of characters one can add to a page move summary in the Reason: field, which was already pretty short because of the automatic move text (a person with a long name might find any reason they add just gets swallowed when they save because of the character limit). I have no idea where this change was discussed at all, or what would need to be done to change it back but I'm sure responders will illuminate me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. As you say, it's redundant and it bloats diffs, logs, contribs, etc. Jenks24 (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Support, redundant. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment See WP:VPT#Moving saves username in edit summary for technical details. In short, it will require a code change which will require filing a bug. This comment isn't intended to discourage discussion, as gaining consensus here may help in convincing the devs to make this change. Anomie ⚔ 18:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Support; blatantly redundant. Does anyone know what happens if the user changes name? Could we end up with lists displaying two different names? Favonian (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Support - You can vote for the bug fix here. Joja lozzo 20:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this information. I have voted and apparently a developer has been "assigned" the bug (I assume that means the fix has been greenlighted and put in a queue for that person to take care of?)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Support, I have voted there as well, and left some comments for the very defensive (and incorrect) developer. Let's hope they leave their rather entrenched position and actually listen to what we are suggesting, or that they at least provide some good examples of where this change is beneficial. Fram (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Support the removal of this redundancy. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Support overly redundant, and there was no consensus for the change in the first place. While we are at it, the two periods around the page size should also be removed. For example
00:00, March 9, 2012 Alpha Quadrant (talk · contribs) . . 2,000 bytes (+200) . . (Edit summary) would take up much less space as
00:00, March 9, 2012 Alpha Quadrant (talk · contribs) 2,000 bytes (+200) (Edit summary). I have no idea why the devs added the extra periods, but I can't thing of any reason for having those four extra periods on either side of the page size count. It just takes up extra page space. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, they add some much needed breathing room. We don't need to design for 640x480 anymore. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Support - Marcus Qwertyus supports the removal of this redundancy. Marcus Qwertyus 03:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment: Adoption of new unblock appeals tool

Hello, all; an RFC has been opened at Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Adoption_of_new_unblock_appeals_tool to seek input regarding the implementation of the Unblock Ticket Request System as a replacement for the unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org mailing list. Comments from all users, especially those who have experience in reviewing blocks, would be greatly appreciated. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding another disclaimer page about Accessibility

In Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer#For or not for dyslexic and blind people?, I requested an addition about dyslexic and blind people. However, the user suggested that adding a disclaimer about people with difficult accessibility is too good for WP:General disclaimer. There is already WP:WikiProject Accessibility, but it is not itself a disclaimer, I'm afraid. I don't know if WP:NOT addresses accessibility for handicapped people. Should there be another Disclaimer page about Accessibility for people with difficult diagnosis, such as deafness, blindness, dyslexia, and other diagnosis? --George Ho (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I was suggesting. I didn't mean another disclaimer page, because I don't think this is something to be "disclaimed" rather something along the lines of a page with advice on using Wikipedia for the differently-abled, much like Microsoft Windows has an accessibility section with things such as page zoom and speech etc--Jac16888 ^Talk 02:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Shortcomings in the medium are not things to be disclaimed. Note how no other site has disclaimers for these. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes government organizations have to put in some sort of disclaimer where they have not been able to cater properly for people with a disability because of requirements on them to deal with such problems. However the only requirement on Wikipedia is a moral one so no disclaimer is needed just an effort to deal with such problems. Dmcq (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you elaborate a "moral one", please? --George Ho (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As in the very first definition in athe first dictionary I googled 'of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules ofright conduct or the distinction between right and wrong;ethical: moral attitudes.' Dmcq (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As a totally blind person (who happens to have Wikipedia:General disclaimer on their watchlist), I don't understand why a new disclaimer page is needed at all. It'd be very difficult to write a page about using Wikipedia for people with disabilities because users' needs vary enormously. The closest we have is Wikipedia:Using JAWS. Graham87 15:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)action=historysubmit/font>]] (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes government organizations have to put in some sort of disclaimer where they have not been able to cater properly for people with a disability because of requirements on them to deal with such problems. However the only requirement on Wikipedia is a moral one so no disclaimer is needed just an effort to deal with such problems. Dmcq (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you elaborate a "moral one", please? --George Ho (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As in the very first definition in athe first dictionary I googled 'of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules ofright conduct or the distinction between right and wrong;ethical: moral attitudes.' Dmcq (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As a totally blind person (who happens to have Wikipedia:General disclaimer on their watchlist), I don't understand why a new disclaimer page is needed at all. It'd be very difficult to write a page about using Wikipedia for people with disabilities because users' needs vary enormously. The closest we have is Wikipedia:Using JAWS. Graham

Village pump official irc channel

Hello

can we create an official irc channel to discuss the proposals each other ?

I think it's useful. What do you think ? --Tegra3 (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

With the creation of any new IRC channel there is the danger it will remain underpopulated and die due to lack of interest. I think it's better to discuss proposals in existing channels like #wikipedia-en. Dcoetzee 22:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

General discussion of occupational categorization

Please Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#On the categorization of biographies by (perhaps) incidental occupation. Mangoe (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

editing references

Moved from WP:VPP (Policy) because of letter "P" mistake. [11] -DePiep (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I propose to add a link to every cite template, added to the reference content and so to be shown in the reference section. The link shows "[Edit]" on the page, and when opened it allows editing the reference (template), as entered on that page. Much like one can edit a Section now. -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

^{[further explanation needed]}. Can you explain what are the benefits of this change? Diego (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It isolates, for editing, the single reference code input (template usage on the page) from other code. Especially since the code is in line, it is complex when editing the full page. -DePiep (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

{{Cite doi}} has that feature, but it only works because each reference is a subtemplate. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Spot on. We could limit it to cite templates, I have cast the net a bit wide. -DePiep (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried ProveIt? You can activate it in your Preferences->Gadgets. It doesn't work exactly as you describe, but it's somewhat similar, I think, and worth a look if you've never tried it. Begoon ^talk 10:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I just tried the demo. Very, very good. But hey, I do AWB once a month. I really need to learn HotCat, to use it once a month. Maybe I am a TWinkle-editor, once a month. You get my point? I am a serious editor, with many edits, but having to (learn to) use an App is not good. Just give me an [Edit] click, please. -DePiep (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

1) Wouldn't WP:Citing sources (or such) be a more appropriate place to discuss this?

2) The proposal is unclear as to where this edit link is to appear. You mention a "reference" section: does this mean specifically a section titled "References"? Or some other section? Or is the edit link to follow the citation (reference) wherever it is displayed? Or do you propose that these edit links be collected in some special section?

3) If the core problem is the difficulty of template coding being mixed in with article text (and I agree that is a problem), then there is a much easier solution: gather all the templates together in one section (e.g., "References") and link to them using Harv.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone like Harvard referencing. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

re JJ: 1) Indeed, "(or such)" is where I ended up. 2) As for where the [edit] is to appear: I think I described that in the first sentence. A more exact location can be decided later, and is not essential for the proposal. {{cite doi}} is a good example. 3) Reducing cite options to just harv is no way forward, and not "easier" (more simple it is, as in "choose any black color for your T-Ford"). ~~I must say,~~ you got the issue right when acknowledging it. -DePiep (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Struck my arrogance -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You have not explained why this venue is more appropriate than (say) Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. I think that exactly where this edit tab is to appear is a key part of the proposal, and not something that can be "decided later"; the lack of that detail suggests that the proposal has not been adequately worked out. (Could you provide us with a mockup?)

And I find it quite inexplicable how you find "Reducing cite options to just harv is no way forward". I certainly have not suggested "reducing cite options" – I suggested an available option that is likely more useful, and certainly easier, than what you are proposing. That many editors are prejudiced against it is unfortunate, as it does not suffer from the problem you apparently want to address. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Latest ep of a TV series

My proposal is that at the top of the page of a tv series, such as glee, or family, or house etc, it has one those those italicised sentences that says something like "for the latest episode of _____, which is currently in season _____, see _________." It will save a heck of a lot of time in finding the latest aired episode on a series instead of typing in the name of the series, then scrolling down to click on the latest season article, then scroll down and clock on the latest ep article.--Coin945 (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Those italicised sentences are called Wikipedia:Hatnote but this isn't really what they are for. It would also require frequent updates and often be out of date. And many countries air foreign shows with a delay of weeks or months. I don't support going down this road but if we do then I think it should be a field in Template:Infobox television with both episode name and original air date. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What's the view against going down this road? It seems like a logical, helpful thing to do from my perspective...--Coin945 (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Opposing view would be something like... wikipedia is an encyclopedia? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

.....I've thought about this quite a lot and I've come to the conclusion that we can't actually use that as an excuse anymore. Wikipedia is not an "encyclopedia". It is a hub for all knowledge. When people want to know something, they will always to go Wikipedia - not to Wiktionary, or to Wikinews, or Wikicommons etc. Wikipedia is the be all and end all. That's the same reason why I oppose transwikiing. By all means have a wiktionary article as well, but keep the Wikipedia article as if its not on Wikipedia, it doesn't exist [at least that's the way many people see it]. And it naturally follows that I'm starting to think that just as Urban Dictionary is creating new memes and popular culture that even the media haven't picked up on, maybe it is our job to document them.... screw notability!!! [rant over :P] My point is that people go onto Wikipedia to have easy access to things they find interesting. Yes, the info they get can often be sub-quality, but I for one sure as hell love it when the Wikipedia article is a Simple-English style article that has all the basic facts in simple sentences/paragraphs instead of massive articles that i have to skim through to find what I'm looking for.... and I'm sure for others it's the same. In the same way, making life slightly easier for our readers will be of such great use to them. I don't see how fear of skewing from the "encyclopedic" format is a valid argument. All I am saying is that this might be a very useful little shortcut for people.--Coin945 (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

To put it simply: Just because people may use a resource for something doesn't mean that's what the resource is for. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get much traction for trying to revoke WP:N. I really don't want Wikipedia to become haven for all the fancruft that would allow, as well as minor bands, trivial locations, etc. Just because you can do a thing, it does not follow you should do it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrators should be restricted in what they can get away with

I propose that administrators ought not to be allowed to block established editors until they have themselves made at least 25 per cent of the edits that their victim has. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"edits" defined as "edit-count"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me IMO. Reh man 01:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Strong Oppose I'm not getting the point you are giving. But I don't think this is a good idea. For example, a sysop with only 5000 edits is free to block a user who has around 50000 edits who is revealed to be a sockpuppet of a banned user, as long as he/she has a very good understanding of Wikipedia policies. Also, wouldn't this be instruction creep, a solution in search of a problem? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, I get your point now. Neutral because established users are trusted. However, occasional exceptions might apply in emergency cases. Still, this remains a solution in search of a problem. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I don't think this will be a good idea. Experience is not by number, it is by quality. Also, there will times for emergency cases, like the Bot example I gave, that could go out of control. How can we block a bot with over a million edits? I think only a few people, if ever, will have the technical capability to do so. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You kind of elaborate on my point. Any so-called sockpuppet that makes 50,000 edits clearly isn't a problem. The problem is the wanky administrator that wades in without thinking. Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I can think of several administrators with less than 10000 edits who have a good understanding of Wikipedia policy. Also, it's not about the quantity of edits a sysop does, but the quality of the work he does. I think there is an essay about that, but I can't remember. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

/yawn at silly timewasting. --Onorem ♠Dil 01:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, my point is, it's not the quantity of Wiki-work, but the quality of it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Support, but the word "established" in the proposal is either superfluous, or needs defining. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think what he means is established, as in prolific users like TenPoundHammer or WhisperToMe. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I did, yes. Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems an unnecessary grey area - if an administrator can block someone and then justify their ignoring this rule by saying "in my opinion they were not established in the same way as prolific users like TenPoundHammer or WhisperToMe are", isn't that a huge loophole? Wouldn't it be better to leave out "established" entirely, just on the assumption that the number of operational admins with less than (say) 2500 edits is going to be near-zero? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a basically good idea, I tend to think that only experienced admins should be blocking experienced users. One potential problem, there is one user with almost a million edits, but there are very few admins with 250,000 edits that could block him (not saying he needs blocking, this is purely hypothetical). Also, would this rule be waived if admins are blocking fellow admins? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose I will Support this as a guideline, noting that exceptions may apply in extreme cases. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Support: Make sense—someone with four times the edit count of an admin (considering it's hard to become an admin with less that 5,000 edits) without already being indeffed or banned isn't likely here to be a nuisance. It would be respectful of that editor's large contribution to Wikipedia that someone with a likewise vestment in the project make the determination on a block. — Bility (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Support: In general, Admins have too much power and long-term Editors have too little, this goes towards evening out the balance a bit, although ultimately I think the cure is to require Admins to re-run for Adminship periodically. Until then, we can expect Admins to continue to treat Editors with a lack of respect. StuRat (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. If an established user gets blocked, they're free to appeal the block via an unblock request. That will get wider consideration of the block. If a block is to be reviewed, I'd rather it be on the merits of the block (editor's history, was the block preventative rather than punitive, is there an agenda with the block/is the blocking admin non-independent) rather than doing math on edit counts. Besides, edit count numbers can be deceiving due to deleted edits. —C.Fred (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

No self-respecting editor would ever appeal a block. Malleus Fatuorum 02:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of whether self-respect is necessary to edit Wikipedia; C.Fred, would you then also agree that (if this proposal were successful) if an administrator's block were procedurally overturned on the basis of this rule, without discussion, by another administrator, then that would be acceptable since the blocking administrator could appeal for the reinstatement of their block at WP:ANI or a similar venue? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I never suggested that self respect was necessary to edit Wikipedia, simply that noone with any would ever appeal a block. Malleus Fatuorum 04:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This is false. Many users have successfully appealed incorrect blocks, many of which were simple misunderstandings. Dcoetzee 05:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. What I said was that no user would any self-respect would appeal a block, not that no editor would. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Question But what if prolific bots like ClueBot NG malfunction? There would be a shortage of admins to do the emergency block. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I'm surprised that Malleus Fatuorum hasn't shown up to address this proposal; He can usually be relied upon to argue stridently against the power of privileged, elite editors who are not governed by the same standards of conduct as the newer, less-experienced, or less-connected. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the fact that I initiated this proposal? Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, "victim" is WP:BATTLEGROUND language. And that would make it pretty darned difficult to block, for example, Kumioko (talk · contribs)... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

it should be difficult to block, not the knee-jerk reaction. Malleus Fatuorum 04:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

...my point here being that to make yourself unblockable, all you would need to do would be to perform many automated edits, which would lead to gaming in the worst way. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

So you make it so that it has to be done at ANI or something and discussed rather than just leave it to one admin to do a "knee jerk reaction". I don't know whats worse in that statement Sarek. The inferance that Kumioko was just some vandal or that an editor that makes a lot of edits, automated or otherwise, is somehow reduced to the notion they are gaming the system. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I see what you did there. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Utterly silly. Makes it nearly impossible to block accounts with many edits (no matter how minor), even in the case of a grave offense like (say) uploading child pornography, and does nothing to protect established users from abuse, since sometimes the abusive admins happen to be the ones who also have a lot of edits. Moreover, it would provide an incentive for all users to make more edits at the expense of quality - enshrining editcountitis in policy in any manner is a terrible idea. The correct solution is to provide: 1. a good solution for appealing blocks; 2. desysoping of admins who abuse blocks consistently; 3. a policy which would allow (in certain situations) temporary reversal of a block for the purpose of having a consensus discussion regarding it in which the blocked user can participate. Dcoetzee 04:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - edit count is not supposed to be a direct metric of user experience.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you suggest a better one? Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Try the number of FAs, GAs and DYKs a person has contributed to. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Judgment by an uninvolved human who can weigh criteria too numerous to list and come to a rationalized decision. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Sounds like a way for an established editor with many edits to gain immunity from a percentage of administrators. If you're pissing people off, no admin that has been entrusted by the community should be prevented from blocking you based on arbitrary edit counts. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Malleus still hasn't replied to my question. Assuming that this proposal is accepted, how can prolific bots be blocked if they malfunction? What do you think Floydian? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Fatuorum's proposal was likely not intended to target bots, so it's reasonable to assume they would be exempted from the eventual guideline. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Question. This isn't a completely bad idea, as it would be a good way of preventing admin overreaching or abuse, but I think it would be extremely difficult to maintain as a guideline or policy. So, my question is this: what if an "established editor" repeatedly disrupts an article, a process, or blatantly and knowingly violates policy to the point where a block is necessary? And what if the admin who's the most available has less edits than the object of the block? dci | TALK 06:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, the good judgement and/or (in)competence of administrators cannot be measured in the number of edits, and even if it could, it has little to do with the ethics of an administrator when it comes to blocking established editors. As for judgement, it can only be evaluated after the fact, through the proper procedure. Blanket restrictions are not the answer. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - This would effectively mean that a few long term editors could do what ever they want without any chnace of repremand. Editors should expect to to treated equally.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Both CharlieEchoTango and Nigel Ish have pointed out some obvious problems. And it's hardly appropriate for someone with as many edits as the proposer (who is currently 93rd) in the list at WP:MOSTEDITS to make a proposal that would leave only a handful of Admins available to block him). And as we know, any editor can suddenly develop problems that can only be stopped by blocking them. By the way, do we really have a system of edit counts that is 100% reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose reinforces vested contributors. Furthermore, does not account for minor contributions and AWB runs and page move warriors, so the metric is useless anyway. (For the record, I have 55,000+ edits and am an admin anyway, so there's only a small handful of editors that I could theoretically not block under this proposal; but ideologically, I disagree with it). --Rs chen 7754 11:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
There are not different levels of administrators. The RFA process is the time to worry about whether an editor has enough edits to be an admin. Once the editor becomes an admin, the issue of whether they have enough experience is settled. Moreover, the proposed system might give a way for some editors to avoid perfectly appropriate scrutiny. So I would oppose this sort of proposal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Edit count is not a valid measure. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. I think this is sound in principle, but flawed in application/proposal. So an established user blatantly edit warring couldn't be blocked by a new-ish admin if that admin is the only one who happens to have come across the warring? Perhaps a compromise solution is reachable; such as requiring a noticeboard block discussion (although I can see that any admin who would 'meet' any criteria could just take one look at the issue and block). If the issue is about admins with less than a certain number of edits then that needs to be dealt with separately. Instituting an arbitrary percentage cut-off is unnecessary. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - The motive behind this proposal seems to be Malleus' belief that administrators should abide by the same rules as everyone else and should not be given any special treatment just because of their position. I completely agree. I would also extent that to any editor. All editors should abide by the same rules as everyone else and should not be given any special treatment just because of their position - that is regardless of userrights, length of tenure or edit count. I agree that admins shouldn't be given privileged status; neither should anyone else, including those with a high edit count. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Support: per nominator's idea and Mark Arsten. The obvious exemptions would be intentional unambiguous, repeated vandalism, per consensus or bot accounts. On any other reasons when an experienced admin isn't available, community consensus should be sought. Some one with four times the experience of an admin would have a rather better judgement than him. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: A solution looking for a problem. If a particular callow new admin is in the habit of thoughtlessly banning experienced editors, or if one or two of my fellow old-timers is a frequent victim, then it's a particular problem not calling for a new general rule. My habit of making fiddly little changes (picture layouts, geographical coordinates, etc) give me a larger edit count than many admins who tend to larger issues but that's not a reason for exempting me from their power, reasonably applied. And if unreasonably applied, sanctions exist which again have little do do with edit count. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Oppose as completely unfeasible. Are we seriously going to make a situation where an admin goes, "oh, I only have 24% as many edits as this person, I can't block them for violating WP:NLT." Malleus, I get that you don't like the current admin culture, but this isn't helping. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Edit counts have no relationship to knowledge or wisdom. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Would not a reasonable move be to require all blocks of editors with over (say) 8,000 article and article talk page edits to be vetted by at least two admins at the start? For socks etc. I doubt this would be exceedingly onerous a requirement, but it might stop "quick finger blocks" which have a fair likelihood of being overturned later. Collect (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Fails to take account of security issues. Sometimes accounts of long-established contributors get hacked and the person goes on a campaign of vandalism. It's perfectly reasonable to block those however many edits they've got. Also, some of our most long-standing admins have few edits, because way back when, it was a lot easier to pass RfA than it is now, when you basically need 10,000 edits minimum. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Tagging articles for wikiprojects can inflate edit counts quickly... one could just get around the idea by spending a little time doing that. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Constant reversions of others edits also does that Mark with no real improvement to the project. Its obvious your referring to Kumioko but I should remind you that the majority of Kumioko's edits where not in adding WikiProject banners but in mainspace? 71.163.243.232 (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko (your edit history gives you away, btw), this is no place for personal attacks. You've already gone after everyone else you feel has wronged you, and have now finally gotten around to posting again on my talk page. Please stop hiding behind an IP while sniping at me. My vote has nothing to do with you. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to hide. I closed out the Kumioko account, removed the password and scrambled it so its unrecoverable so any edits I make from this point will be by IP. Thanks to you and a few others User:Kumioko is dead and not coming back. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Silly proposal. Obvious incentive for vandals to do millions of edits. Why are people wasting their tie on proposals like this? Dmcq (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to their cravat do you mean? Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. If there's some statistic that objectively indicates a person's skill and judgment with some degree of accuracy, this might be a good idea. That statistic is certainly not edit count (and if such a thing were discovered, I think it would be a major scientific achievement). PS. This proposal looks pretty pointed to me. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:44, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I think you may wish to retract that accusation. Or at least you would if you had even a scrap of honesty. Malleus Fatuorum 03:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't wish. This proposal had no shot, and whoever brought it is either stupid and inexperienced enough to think it did, or is just trying to stir the pot. And I know you're not stupid or inexperienced. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:31, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)

It's quite clear that you on the other hand have done no thinking at all. Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Bad metric, even worse idea. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a case of "I know what you mean but..." The fact is that the dynamic of WP administration, especially admin on admin and established editor on established editor abuse is far more complex than that. Many admins start off all starry eyed and AGFy, and "Blocks aren't punitive" and "Leets make this work" and gradually become jaded. Similarly those with specialist knowledge or skills get tired of explaining the same thing to J. Random editor, especially if they have the social graces of a water buffalo in free-fall. But I do wonder if some kind of "hang on - are you really going to block this editor?" intervention would be a good idea sometimes. Especially with what Jon Vandenberg calls the "First mover advantage" (I.E. some action is drawn to the attention of n admins, where n is a large number - if any one blocks, the n-1 will be reluctant to wheel war). Rich Farmbrough, 02:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC).
Support - I also agree that too many administrators have too much power and too frequently don't use it correctly. They frequently take the easiest possible solution without reviewing the whole problem. In general I support eliminating the role of administrator and replace that role by granting the tasks in sets (like rollbacker, File mover, etc.). 71.163.243.232 (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - "Support in theory" not practical to implement. Edit history of editors should be taken into account and explanations pursued before action is taken by an admin anyways.Moxy (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Edit count is no measure of edit quality, it is not even a fair measure of edit quantity. It is quite possible to do 10000 legitimate and uncontested edits with no noticeable quality improvement whatsoever, it is also possible to do only one edit, which nevertheless has significant and lasting value, and which could be quite large. Edit counts per se should be considered almost irrelevant, and not only for this application. If there was a way of measuring actual useful contribution, there might be some value in the proposal. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I find it rather ironic and hypocritical that so many editors are saying that edit count is almost irrelevant and yet its required in order to submit an RFA (not written in the rules but try and get it without a large amount), get access to AWB (500 main space) and a whole variety of other things. If edit count was truly irrelevant then it wouldn't be required for those things. I also find it a little argumentative to say things like (if they just get millions of edits) well if they do then they probably should be an admin and there probably should be some pause before they are blocked. Lets not forget that even using tools like Twinkle and AWB it takes a very long time to hit a million edits. As far as I can tell no editor has even done yet after ten years. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Lack of a decent edit count is a pretty good indicator that one doesn't have enough experience, sure. But that doesn't mean the converse should be true (that a high edit count means one does necessarily have any sort of qualification), which is the claim being made with this proposal. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:51, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Any metric that involves edit count can be gamed in multiple ways. If the intent of the proposal is to give established users "mulligans" or "Get out of trouble free" cards, then that can be done in other ways. What the proposal says, essentially, is that established users get to breach policies at will, if there's the slightest veil of justification. So if I find an edit war, what do I do? Block the newer user and slap the established editor on the wrist? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not at all the intention, and I find it quite telling that your response to coming across an edit war is to issue blocks. Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, clearly we don't block for edit warring. Ever. But the point stands - all other things being equal, the decision to block comes down to how many edits the editor has, yes? If you don't trust the administrator to exercise judgement, then get them desysop'ed. Bad judgement is bad judgement - and established users can screw up just as easily as new ones. Any policy that would exempt editors from compliance with policy due to any form of "tenure" is unwise, inequitable, and not in the best interests of the project. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 02:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Strongest possible oppose. Wikipedia:No vested contributors (an essay, but should be policy, frankly). Robofish (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much one of the daftest essays ever written. Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, per my comments above. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 02:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - This proposal seems to suggest that: All Wikipedians are equal, but some Wikipedians are more equal than others... Um, no, per many well-explained examples/reasons above. As for edit counting, Peter (Southwood) (and others) said it well and clear enough. - jc37

Exporting table data as CSV file

Just a small suggestion for added utility on pages containing table structured data.

The short version: Data contained in table format should have an option of exporting in various formats such as: CSV, XLS, XLSX, Tab Delimited, etc... This would allow for a quick way to manipulate and/or translate the data and the respective format of that data.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The longer version/explanation and example use case: I'm a programmer working on a project that requires the storage of SMS/MMS gateways in order to formulate cell phone "email" addresses depending on the carrier the program is sending messages to.

I found the data I was looking for on this "List of SMS gateways" page on your site. The relevant data is contained in an ordered table on this page, but there is no way to export that data in a structured way. The print/export link in the margin of the website allows for PDF exports, but to extract data from a PDF file programatically requires a separate layer of case-specific coding that usually isn't worth the time invested.

My workaround was to use Microsoft Excel's Web Query feature in order to obtain this data in a structured way so that it can be easily manipulated and exported for various purposes.

In my specific case, the table data found on the list of SMS/MMS gateways page needed to be translated into a format compatible for importing into a database table. If the tables on Wikipedia had the option to export the data in various formats, I feel that many people would benefit from this utility.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I imagine there might already be an API available for accessing & obtaining information from Wikipedia. If this is the case, my suggestion shouldn't be ignored completely, because using an API to obtain information requires special knowledge that I presume most visitors of this site do not possess. On the other hand, if my suggestion can be implemented, it would allow for a wider audience to participate in bulk data exports of table data.

Also, if by any small chance, there isn't an API established for Wikipedia yet, you should really look into developing one!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks for your time reading this... and thanks for providing an excellent means of providing and sharing knowledge to the general public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheeseConQueso (talk • contribs)

Of course there's an API. It's available at <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php>. :-)

This is a very good feature request. I completely agree that having a little widget next to every table allowing easy export would be great. You should file a bug at Bugzilla. (Or I will shortly.) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not just copy the table data and paste it into MS Excel or any other spreadsheet, then save it in whatever format you want? That's worked for the last decade... Franamax (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Subtle notification of Article Talk page changes

As a user and editor, I would like to be able to easily distinguish whether an articles talk page has been changed since my last visit and or edit to it. Some of us have a lot on our watch list, and the chances of me missing an updated talk page is high. I don't think a big banner with flashing lights is necessary, but something subtle yet noticable, such as bolding the 'talk' button, or changing the font color could be useful. Mr.weedle (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Just above the actual content of the watchlist is a dropbox that says "Namespace". If you select "Talk" from that and click the "Go" button, it will show you only the recent changes to talk pages. Slightly less convenient that having them highlighted amongst all the others, yes, but it should help a little. Keep in mind you'll have to switch back to "all" to get the non-Talk pages to show back up. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Gentry

I think that the Gentry article needs a major Gallery cleanup. For each country there is a gallery with people that are examples of its gentry. The people from each gallery are COMPLETELY RANDOMLY CHOSEN and this leads to two things:

1)The article becomes ridiculous and

2)Some old computers cannot afford such a large amount of images.--188.4.233.216 (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It is kind of odd, especially given the fact that every section has been split to subarticles. The galleries should either be moved to the subarticles or removed completely.

That said, this isn't the place to bring it up. Talk:Gentry would have been more appropriate. :) --Izno (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

No one looks at talk pages. Especially in this talk page there is a proposal that has not been answered sonce March 2010...--188.4.233.216 (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're getting no responses at the article's talk page, try Rfc. Per Izno, this isn't the appropriate venue. Thanks. --JayJasper (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried what you said

So what if I try it the other way? It seems like I wouldn't get the same results... Thanks though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.230.251.33 (talk)

Your comment has no context. What is it you are talking about? --Onorem ♠Dil 17:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot to notify admins of backlogs

We have 1500+ admins (several hundred of which are pretty active), yet we still incur large backlogs, especially at WP:RPP. Does this mean that we should have a bot to notify admins at AN (or, possibly, ANI) about backlogs?Jasper Deng (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Idea lab

Just a thought

I was just thinking that, as great as the English Wikipedia is and as successful as it's been, it could be far more efficient if a greater system of coordination between various branches could be created. For example, an admin who hangs out around AfD, an inexperienced but knowledgeable content editor working here or there, and someone who works a lot at the Mediation Cabal might not share a lot of collaborative ideas. Instead, how about this?

The Wiki could be divided into ten very loose sectors:
- Materials for deletion, discussion, and creation
- Content disputes
- Inter-user disputes
- Anti-vandalism tasks
- Multilingual coordination
- Technical areas
- Societal encyclopedic content
- Mathematical and scientific encyclopedic content
- Popular culture encyclopedic content
- Religious and philosophical encyclopedic content.

Each one of these groups would be assigned something of a "noticeboard." Editors who found themselves frequently at one of these encyclopedia areas could participate in a polling that would take place on each noticeboard. The polling would select two representatives. In the end, the twenty representatives could form an editorial collaboration council (click for more details).

The members of this editorial collaboration council would meet in a conference once every two months, and would discuss new, problematic, and positive things occurring in their respective necks of the wikiwoods. They would discuss the state of Wikipedia, especially regarding new editors, IP editors, and noticed trends occurring on the webpage.

I'm not sure if it's possible, but, to make council meetings more efficient, could a userright be given to councilors, allowing only them to access the conference page? A discussion page could be set up on which other editors could voice their opinions or make statements.

Just a thought ... dci | TALK 03:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is too much bureaucracy. We already have mostly working processes for these. The people interested in the meta-stuff (e.g. deletion or anti-vandalism) already know where to go for each issue. For the actual encyclopedia, WikiProjects in general do a great job of coordinating topic-specific issues; improvements can be made, but I don't think organizational categories as broad as "Popular culture encyclopedic content" are needed. I also disagree with the idea of creating a new private group or council. I support transparency, except for issues that really need to be private (e.g. CheckUser). Superm401 - Talk 05:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, people know where to go, but do different groups with different interests always coordinate with one another and share information? I feel that this would be a way to have representatives from different interest groups come together and discuss exactly where we're at and where we're going, and I think it might be worth a try someday. As for transparency, the conference would be visible to everyone – the only thing that non-representatives couldn't do was edit the page. dci | TALK 05:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a good idea. Specialists already know where they can go to discuss matters with people from the same specialty. There's no reason to artificially break up the project like this. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe this is indeed a bad idea. However, do you think it might be possible to have a temporary, one-week discussion forum sometime where any number of users could post a reply to a fairly standard question, or one that could help to gauge where Wikipedia is at or heading? dci | TALK 17:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in WP:COUNCIL, where cross-discipline issues are occasionally posted. (Most of them are listed at the WP:RFC pages, of course.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check that out. dci | TALK 19:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the current WikiProject system is a good way to organise this kind of thing. I do agree that some WikiProjects are co-ordinated better than others, but that seems to be based on who is willing to take part in it. Also, I agree that cross-project collaboration may be lacking, and could be improved. DCI, I think that a decent idea could be worked out to solve these issues; however, I think it needs to be within our current WikiProject system. Perhaps you could look at ideas for improving and helping the less active WikiProject, improving the co-ordination of active but disorganised projects, and improving cross-project collaboration. I would be interested in supporting and working with something which attempted to solve these problems with the current system. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We could go that way. WikiProject Council could potentially start up an initiative to coordinate far-flung WikiProjects and could perhaps have a forum on its talk page where editors could post concerns and the other things I proposed could be mentioned in a conference (the link is above). dci | TALK 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Council should establish the areas listed in this suggestion as broader areas under which WikiProjects can be grouped, and create relatively autonomous "working groups" for each area which will be able to act on the Council's auspices. The working groups will focus more on the specific subject matter of the areas they are assigned as well as low-level coordination, while the Council can focus on higher-level co-ordination between more prominent groups on WikiProjects and areas of general concern for the encyclopedia, such as dispute arbitration, compilation of statistics, scrutiny of the working groups, and some interpretation of policy. Although I am observant of the fact that Wikipedia is not to be a bureaucratic system, it is also my understanding that the encyclopedia needs some sort of overall co-ordination if it is to survive, rather than fall apart into a thousand tiny pieces. By the way, I think that now that we have developed the topic this far, it seems more like a policy than a specific feature for implementation, and therefore should be moved to the policy section of the Village Pump with an appropriate link to this discussion. Wer900 (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Remind everyone about WP:BACKLOG and WP:Dashboard: Users who like joining long discussions can pick-a-topic from WP:Dashboard. However, perhaps the single greatest cross-subject "dose of reality" which can wake-up editors to the broad spectrum of Wikipedia concerns is, of course: WP:BACKLOG, with over 70 lists of problem areas which have needed help for months (or rather, years). For example, WP:BACKLOG notes "5,620" pages need editing by subject-matter experts, another "7,728" articles seem slanted (need NPOV), or "14,297" pages have promotional wording to remove (might be adverts or sound like it), and "9,751" images/files should be moved to Wikimedia Commons for cross-linking in German, Italian or any other-language Wikipedias. From working last year with WP:GOCE (Guild of Copy Editors), I can estimate the "4,078" articles which need copy-editing have from 50-450 grammar, awkward wording, or spelling errors, plus need hyphens/commas, and those 4,078 pages require an average of 1-hour sessions of intense editing, often adding 1-3 sources each. Remind more people about the need to meditate and absorb the impact of WP:BACKLOG, to really gain a wider perspective on some of those 70 major aspects of English Wikipedia. Meanwhile, remember to scan some of the major WP:Dashboard areas, especially for questions at WP:Help_desk, WP:RfC and WP:PUMPTECH to gain more perspective on issues discussed there, as well. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There has to be some large-scale collaboration on issues, and with the declining editorship on Wikipedia WikiProjects are too small and constrained to do much for the wiki as a whole. I wholeheartedly support this idea.

There are, though, some additions I would like to make - the council should be expanded to forty, maybe fifty members. I will discuss more later. Wer900 (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Properly speaking, the council does not have members. Anyone who wants to participate is welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Positions of trust

I have recently been notified that I must identify to WMF or be removed from a position of trust I hold. It is reasonable to me and I will shortly accede the demand. It occurs to me that administrators should be no less required, for the same reasons expressed to me. In fact it is remiss to require me, an account creator to identify while exempting the larger group of admins who have the same right bundled. My76Strat (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note for clarification from WMF

The identification was required of those with access to the account creation tool, not the right. That tool gave access to data that was covered under the access to non-public data policy, which is a Foundation-wiki Board codified policy. Administrators do not have access to the same private information, and are not, therefore, required to identify to the Foundation. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally I have no problem identifying to the WMF, but the obvious concern is whether a significant number of the admins doing the heavy lifting at AIV and elsewhere might just say "no thanks" and we'd be out some valuable volunteers for no appreciable benefit. 28bytes (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

May I ask why you believe it is needed? What problems would it solve? jonkerz ♠talk 05:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Notified by whom? Someone with an official WMF account? Nyttend (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I first saw the message when I logged on to toolserve and there was a red message stating that after 1 week if I hadn't identified I would lose the permission. I asked in the irc channel for ACC when the week expired and was told Monday. As I stated I have no problem meeting the request. It does however strike me as odd that administrators who are more exposed to personal information than me would be exempt. Additionally the mandate requires that I be at least 18 years old. Fine, that is reasonable, but again, perhaps our admins should also be at least 18~~, though I would propose 25~~. I understand this concept wouldn't be well received, but hey, I can see some benefits too. So I proposed the idea here. I suspect it will be shot down and that is also fine, I'm use to that. Meanwhile I'll simply do what I am being required to do while consensus forms to explain how wrong a notion it is. Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That would exclude me from the admin corps for a long time, and so far I'd like to think I've done a decent job.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Aside from deleting two of my articles, of course. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are a good administrator and see your character as rather strong. Your example serves a persuasive argument against. I have stricken the portion where I suggested 25 years old because it is stretching reason. I truly do however believe 18 is a reasonable threshold, but consensus may be clearly against this. My76Strat (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally have no problem identifying to the Foundation – I actually already have. However, as members of the account creation team, we have access to non-public information about editors (e-mail and IP addresses), to which we, as admins, have no access whatsoever. We can discuss whether or not having access to articles deleted per G10 is more sensitive than seeing an IP, but under the current Privacy Policy, admins have no access to data that would require them to identify to the Foundation. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Salvio, that is a very good point. In fact I better understand the situation myself as it was explained to me after my last post that in fact it is the toolserver access I would lose not the AC permission. Consequently an admin who does have the AC flag, does not inherently have with it, toolserver access. So I am glad to see this point corrected for perspective. Nevertheless, as it did occur to me that it seemed reasonable for admins to identify for similar reasons of trust. I hope conversation will continue regarding this idea, in case it does emerge as a supported notion. And thanks to those offering comments thus far. My76Strat (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@My76Strat - My understanding is that the requirement to identify for ACC was due to the nature of the ACC tool rather than the nature of MediaWiki accountcreator right. Users of the tool itself have to identify. Can you clarify?--v/r - T P 14:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is the case. This isn't because it is a position of trust, but rather because they have access to non-public data under the WMF's policy. They want to make sure that only people over 18 and who have known identity are able to see people's IP addresses, which is what ACC on TS can do. Admins can't see non-public information (by definition of what the right includes) and therefore don't need to be identified. MBisanz ^talk 14:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW they check your identity and age, then delete that data. Being "identified" makes no comment about your age, and your name is not stored. I suppose with permission the foundation could pass on this age detail to the ACC admins. But really identification is a "meh" thing, security theatre. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should institutionalize age discrimination, already a problem at RfA, by making identification mandatory for adminship. As for upping the age to 25, that's a terrible idea, it cuts off a large group of users (college students), and offers no benefit to the project. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't believe that to require all admins to be at least 18 is age discrimination... Actually, I would consider it a very sensible idea, as admins have access to material which was deleted and can block other editors: maturity should be mandatory. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, one could argue that maturity is not always proportional to age, but requiring admins to be above 18 isn't a very bad idea after all. Admins frequently have to view offensive and sometimes sexually explicit material; something which may not be legal in their country of residence. Lynch 7 15:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not our job to hold viewers hands and coddle them and prevent them from seeing "bad things". This should apply even less for users. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but I consider it our job to make sure that admins are mature and professional. And a 14-year-old generally is not; he's just a kid and should not have access to the admin toolset. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, but a 14-year-old wouldn't possibly have the maturity or "capability" (that isn't the correct word, but for my life I can't think of the correct one to use!) to pass RFA anyway. You can tell just by reading the requests at WP:RFPERM the approximate age of each user. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is unlikely a 14 year old could pass RfA, but not impossible. One positive thing that would automatically ensue involves the allegations that "kids are in charge" which I have seen levied. A requirement to identify would allow that kind of innuendo to be dismissed out of hand. My76Strat (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually we do have quite a few young admins, even young 'crats. You just don't know because they're highly professional, or as some people like to say "mature". Sven Manguard Wha? 16:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose placing an age requirement for administrators. There are many teenagers out there who are incredibly responsible, and are highly-trusted by families, schools, and communities. I see no reason why we cannot extend this same amount of trust to responsible editors on Wikipedia who would like to receive additional abilities so that they can help keep Wikipedia moving along efficiently. Some say that teenagers aren't mature and may be faced with inappropriate material that they cannot handle. This may be true in some instances, but it is equally likely that a disruptive adult editor could have a less-than-desired reaction or post an inappropriate item on this website. Wikipedia should be proud that young people would like to help keep it clean and moving along, and should not be trying to restrict them from doing good work. dci | TALK 17:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What we should be proud of and how we should build infrastructure are two different things. My76Strat (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What I do as an admin really has no requirement for me to identify to the Foundation; period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Although admins are a position of trust, we don't really have any secret special access that requires identification. We're way closer to users with additional privileges than traditional network or system administrators. We're closer to "moderators" in that sense on a traditional forum software. The traditional administrator would be closer to someone who wore all hats (checkuser, sysop, steward, crat and oversight) and even then that falls short of the traditional administrator role on a website.--v/r - T P 14:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the current criteria for admins should remain in place for some time, with no new additions like age requirements. For admins who act terribly immature or in bad faith, I'd go with the plan linked below, in the next section. I think it's on the Proposals page now. dci | TALK 21:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how would this affect an admin under the age of 18 now who has already passed RFA? Would he be required to step down? And if so, would he be required to re-run through RFA after reaching 18 and identifying? Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

While particulars would require development, I believe there would be strong support to not require a second RfA. More than likely, once a deadline was set, any who remain unidentified on the deadline would be suspended, and the tool reinstated when they did identify. Honestly I don't anticipate it happening but then again, last week I had no idea it would be required of me. So it is worth considering. My76Strat (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

- If we must have an age requirement, I would be fine with it being for bureaucrats, as their userright involves even more abilities. I will still strongly oppose any age requirement for administrators that advances to a further stage. dci | TALK 02:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs a training ground

One of the most pressing problems facing Wikipedia at the moment is declining editorship. This is largely due to the fact that Wikipedia has become an unwelcoming place for new editors unfamiliar with the rules and mores we've developed over the years. The "Article feedback tool" was one method tried to remedy this, but it has proven largely a joke, at least for the articles I edit. A better idea, I think, would simply be to make Wikipedia more welcoming to visitors. Right now, the "how to" sections on Wikipedia are faceless, intimidating blocks of text, hidden behind tiny search icons on the side of the page. What is needed is a user-friendly interactive website, complete with audio, video and its own cadre of dedicated users who will handhold new editors through their first attempts. I would also suggest a "training ground" be set up consisting of ~1000 duplicate articles on which new editors can be politely led through the dos and don'ts without getting their heads bitten off by irate editors. Serendi ^pod ous 08:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree - Wikipedia has become quite old-fashioned in how it runs - it is not obvious how it works. Many successful website now make it incredibly easy to do something (consider Facebook's removal of the send button in favour or just pressing Enter, or Google Instant). I think large steps will be taken to the effect with the development of the visual editor, and I am really hoping that it will be intuitive and obvious to use. I believe that, if Wikipedia wants to attract people beyond those who would edit Wikipedia anyway, it needs to become simple to use and move away from the culture of expecting people to read pages of instructions. We seem to expect new editors to read and understand out 5 pillars, our policies on notability, reliable sources, copyright, and original research and to read all the guidance on editing.

Creating a new page is now very difficult. There is no button which says "CREATE A NEW PAGE BY CLICKING THIS", and there should be. We have the Article Wizard and Articles for Creation but, for a new user, they are almost impossible to find. Unless you somehow know to type "Article Wizard" into the search bar, you'll never get there. We use Wikimarkup because it is much simpler than HTML; despite this, unless you've had prior experience with wikis, clicking the edit buttons can present a page full of complex coding at the top, which can be difficult to navigate if you don't know what is happening.

There needs to be something where new users immediately go to when the register, which they can find again without having to type something into the search box. Our problem is that some of the very useful pages we have cannot be found unless you know to search for them (and, if you don't understand the Wikipedia namespace, even that is confusing). I certainly agree that there needs to be an overhaul of Wikipedia's editing guidance, especially for new users, placing big unmissable buttons to the important guides and not relying on a user's ability to navigate our complex web of policy. This needs to be built into the existing systems we have for editing, as well as used as a principle for writing guides for new users. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection in principle to a "training ground"; indeed, it would be nice to have a way to identify and get in touch with newbies who are interested in good faith article creation, and help them learn to do it right. Not to be a hidebound reactionary, but I oppose the call to "move away from the culture of expecting people to read pages of instructions." This is an encyclopedia, not Twitter. In order to write articles correctly you have to read, and read a lot. How can someone who is unable/unwilling to read a volume of material ever get through the reliable sources required to create their article? There is no royal road. Ntsimp (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The notion that new editors should have to digest reams of wikispeak and acronyms before they can share their knowledge and expertise seems somewhat distant from the original conception of Wikipedia. There's a lot to be said for intuitive beginners' guides which are quick and easy to consult. — MistyMorn (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no way that I can disagree with this: as a newish editor myself, Wikipedia was at first an intimidating place to navigate. While it is much simpler now, Wikipedia is well behind the bell curve in terms of how many prospective editors stay and contribute to the community got a long period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If you think that Wikipedia has become an unwelcoming place for new editors, please read Wikipedia: Please do not bite the newcomers, and try to get more people to read the article there. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Allow any logged in editor to delete their own U1 and G7 cases

Some of our least contentious speedy deletions could be "unbundled" so that the any user can delete their own U1 and G7 pages. This would take a bit of work off our admins, and more importantly it would empower all editors to get rid of their own mistakes and clutter. For G7 I'd suggest that any logged in editor be enabled to delete any page where they are the sole author, you could also broaden that to pages where the only other edits are from bots or were marked as minor. ~~For U1 I'd suggest that we~~ In either case we need to exclude pages that have moved, otherwise we risk vandals moving articles into their userspace and then deleting them. Otherwise per U1 editors should be free to delete pages in their userspace - though not their usertalk space. This would still leave a proportion of U1 and G7 tags for admins to deal with, but hopefully only ones where something needs checking. I haven't fully quantified the number of articles involved, but from my experience it would be many articles per day so thousands of articles per year. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Update per Nyttend's comment, I'm adding the restriction - "Other than in userspace, this would only apply to pages created in the previous 7 days". Ϣere SpielChequers 20:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea, and the qualifications you've added would solve any potential problems. It would have to be limited, but I think you've covered that. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)`

Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Grant non-admins admin functions within their user space touches on this. Is there some huge backlog of U1 or G7 deletions that there is any actual need for this? Also, BTW, you'd have to exclude moved pages from your G7 deletion deal too, or a vandal could move a page to a random title and then delete the redirect left behind. Anomie ⚔ 19:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There is not a large backlog, but I don't think that should prevent the implementation of such an idea unless there is reason not to implement the idea. The page you linked to mentioned possible security issues; I would be interested to hear more regarding that. Restricting moved pages for G7 sounds like a good idea. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Would this be given out as a user flag to prevent abuse? If so, perhaps -suppressredirect could also be added to the flag. Such a flag would definitely allow more non-admins to help out with non-controversial requested moves i.e. deleting the redirect left behind to do a multi requested move. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting this as a separate userright - more that all logged in editors could be allowed to do such uncontentious deletions. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the spirit of this proposal. My singular concern is that I prefer a system which incorporates adequate checks and balances. Because every saved edit is an "irrevocable release" of that contribution, I am generally opposed to abilities that could contravene the spirit of that intent. I would rather support a flag that allowed non administrators to accomplish these non controversial deletions, but not where the contributions are their own. I cringe at the prevailing practice where administrators routinely delete their own pages. I just believe deletions should have the endorsement of an additional editor to ensure propriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My76Strat (talk • contribs) 20:37 19 February 2012

As it has already been mentioned, there is one more potentially dangerous way to use such abilities: when a page is moved, the user who performed the move is the only author of the resulting redirect... But it doesn't feel right to let the same user delete such redirects - there is a separate user right for that...

And there might be some other potential dangers. Furthermore, unless we are going to allow the same users to undo such deletions (and I don't think we can, since that would require to let them view the deleted versions), it might lead to some, er, embarrassing situations (when user deletes something after, er, getting carried away with testing the interface). Thus no, I don't think it is a good idea. It is not very hard to add the template and that lets an administrator to check if the tagged page really should be deleted (there might be some reason not to). There is nothing wrong with such deletions taking some time - that just gives some time for the user to think it over. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point about moves and redirects - I've tweaked the proposal to exclude any page that has moved. Not just the G7s. I appreciate that it will lead to the occasional request for a restore. But they won't be as much work for the admins as the deletes currently are. As for checks and balances, this is for a very restricted group of pages where checks and balances are not needed due to their being in one users userspace or the sole work of one author. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"I appreciate that it will lead to the occasional request for a restore. But they won't be as much work for the admins as the deletes currently are." - I'm afraid you misunderstood me. The problem is not the work for administrators, but the embarrassment for non-administrators. Will all of them really get to asking "Um, could you please restore the page that I have deleted, er, by accident..?"? Or will many decide "It isn't worth it..."? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think WSC has summed up what I would have said in response to the above post, bar one thing. Perhaps with restoring deleted pages, a user would be able to see deleted versions of pages that they have themselves deleted. This would have none of the problems that allowing users to see deleted contributions usually entails. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess it might be so. Still, it doesn't mean that no other problems are possible. For example, what about the pages that would otherwise be deleted for some other reason? Maybe in worst cases (when, let's say, the user creates an attack page, deletes it and publishes his password so that everyone would be able to see that page) the page could be simply undeleted and redeleted by some administrator. But still, in such case deletion might end up deterring creation of undesirable pages less effectively.

Also, all that slowly starts to look somewhat technically difficult: we need to check if the page has been moved, or if it is the result of a move, and for deleted revisions - if the user is the one who deleted the versions (by the way, would "desysopped" administrators be able to view all versions they deleted too?)... Are all those checks really worth it?

Finally, there is a "philosophical" problem. The need to go to an administrator for any deletion slightly emphasises the fact that nothing we write in Wikipedia really belongs to us and we cannot take our contributions back without some sort of permission of Community (or Foundation). And that does seem worth emphasising (as noted in "Perennial proposals")...

In short, this proposal is in "Perennial proposals" for a reason (like many others)... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection at all to the spirit of this proposal, but I can't say I see any real gain from implementing it either. I am generally opposed to unbundling the tools, but this would just apply to pages a user created in their own userspace so it just shortcuts the process we already have. The thing is, that process is already very simple and almost never controversial, and does not experience significant backlogs, so the benefits seem rather minimal. If the fix were simpler than the problem, I would be all for it, but at the moment it appears this would add a bunch of new rules that users would have to understand before using it. At present all they have to understand is how to slap {{db-user}} on it. So, the current approach seems more practical to me. Beeblebrox (talk)
- Hi Beeblebrox, the editors wouldn't need to understand the rules as the idea is to get the devs to code this into the system. If you are entitled to delete a page you would be able to do so. If you aren't entitled to delete it you won't be able to. So for editors the fix would be simple, and it would to some extent empower non-admins. As for backlogs, well my guestimate is that this would automate many thousands of uncontentious and routine admin actions per year. I don't know how long the typical admin spends on each of those deletes, but it would clearly save many hours of time and leave people time to focus on more contentious deletions. With RFA broken we have to start thinking how we function with fewer admins, and this would make a contribution to that. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Good idea, but I have to oppose it for licensing reasons. Like Beeblebrox, I agree with the spirit of the proposal, but I'm afraid that this could be used by people who are attempting to revoke irrevokable licenses — especially on images, since people more often try to revoke those and they're far less commonly edited by people other than the uploader. Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    - I'm assuming that you are just opposing the G7 bit not the U1 part? If so you've made a good point about revoking licenses that are being used. As my intention was only to unbundle the uncontentious deletions, would your concerns be resolved if we narrowed the G7 part to "pages created in the last 7 days"? In my view that would enable people to resolve typos in image names and similar but require admins to rule on other stuff. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Our license is irrevocable, and there is great benefit to the encyclopedia in maintaining that part of it. People want to withdraw what they have written for all sort of reasons--if,for example, they find an article more difficult than they intended, yet someone may want to work on it in the future. I interpret the current criterion as discretionary, and if it does not seem reasonable to me, I decline the speedy. Letting people delete at pleasure is OWNership. We need the criterion to allow for rapid action when it is clear there will never be a usable article, , but I do not think it extends beyond that. It's for mistakes, not second thoughts. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/7SeriesBOT and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/7SeriesBOT 2 Josh Parris 21:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- I remembered there'd been a bot discussion and I thought that we'd got consensus but never found a bot writer. Yes that bot has so far done 6,327 uncontentious deletions and would be redundant if this went ahead - but I think it would be more empowering for our editors if they could do these directly rather than use an admin even if that admin was a bot. Also this includes some instances that the bot doesn't yet cover. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I missed it, but with the proper restrictions, aren't G7s for pagemoves over redirects something that could ease up on admin workload? Aslbsl (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
G7 and U1 deletions are amongst the easiest to do, so there is seldom a backlog, unlike for copyvios and A7's. I think this is a solution looking for a problem. It makes the interface more complicated for those that would never use the feature. The G6's for page moves can be delayed, but that can be because the move is contentious or unclear or wrong. The undo move seems to be the only addition that might have some benefit, but the extra complexity would negate that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Automatically updating "As Of (date)" template

Hi, I've always thought that instead of using Template:as of, there should be an "as of" template that properly updates the date of an item when required (Example: "As of 2011, Jimmy Hoffa's body has not been found." would change to "As of 2012, Jimmy..." automatically). What the current As Of template is intended to do is to categorize an article as "will be outdated eventually" after inserting a date manually. Wouldn't it be more convenient if there was a date template that updated itself instead of simply tagging the article as "soon outdated"?

I've been told that one of the reasons for forcing manual update is that in some cases there is a need for manual checking, as in "As of 2012, Obama is president". Obviously you wouldn't want the template to continue updating indefinitely "As of 2020, ..." but for those cases one would simply remove the template when it's no longer applicable. Are there any other reasons to not consider this type of template that anyone can think of? -Kreachure (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The main argument against such a template would be that (one hopes) the "As of 2011" is sourced. If the source says "as of 2011", it should stay that way until a new source comes along with updated information. An unsolved math problem, for example, might be unsolved as of 2008, but more investigation is needed to determine if it's still unsolved in 2012. 28bytes (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. I am talking, though, about instances where only a "precedent" is required to confirm it to the future, and until a new precedent is established. Jimmy Hoffa's body is not the best example, but it illustrates my point. You wouldn't need new sources every year to keep establishing that Hoffa's body hasn't been found yet, right? You would simply need the proper sources to tell you that Jimmy Hoffa's body wasn't found, an is "still" missing. Maybe I need more examples to illustrate: as of 2012, there are 8 planets in the solar system and five objects considered dwarf planets. Until a new planet is discovered (if at all), this will be a fact as of 2013, 2014 etc. You don't need new sources every year to tell you this, you would only need a new source when and if the fact changes (i.e. a new planet is discovered). Last example: As of 2012, Emma Thompson is the only person who has won an Oscar as both a writer and an actor. This fact will be true for all future time except if and when someone else accomplishes this (and only then would you need a new source). Do you agree? -Kreachure (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

But how would the automatic process know that the fact now needs an update? It would just continue refreshing the date until a human comes by and fixed it. Given Wikipedia is on a WP:NODEADLINE, that might be a long time during which the article will be wrong. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, many articles are wrong and outdated until an editor fixes it. That's how Wikipedia works. But there are many articles right now that are wrong because they still say "as of 2011", "as of 2009", etc. The template would at least fix those errors. Of course it wouldn't know when it "starts" being wrong, the same way an article about a person can't "know" it is now wrong because the person died and it still says he's alive. Of course the template would manually need to be removed when it is time, even if it becomes "wrong" for some time. IMO it would help articles stay "right" for longer than they would begin to be "wrong". The idea is that articles remain "right" as time passes instead of remaining outdated. -Kreachure (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that "as of 2009" is "wrong" in an article; outdated, yes, but until someone checks to see if what was true in 2009 is still true in 2012 (many things will be, but some things will not be), having it automatically increment as the years go by is a violation of WP:V. It would essentially be telling the reader "yes, we checked, and this is still accurate" when we haven't checked. 28bytes (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Kreachure, to do this automatically will cause too many problems, but what do you think about using "Obama is president{{Please update me|date=20 January 2013}}" for statements that we know needs to be updated at a specific date? jonkerz ♠talk 22:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We have {{Update after}} for that (and we don't know your example). PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the date updates itself then that means it will always stay the most current, in which case you can just use a template with current date. If it will at some point expire, then you cannot have it update automatically, because eventually it will make an error. So unless I'm missing something here, I don't see what this would achieve. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I guess my point is that there are instances where the fact remains year after year, and that's when this template would be most useful. For cases with a time limit, it would also be useful, and you would simply remove it when it no longer is. If the Obama article has the phrase "as of 20XX" referring to his presidential term, you need to change it manually every year. It's easier to have a template that does this automatically, and then simply remove it by the end of his term. You would have to edit out the "as of 20XX" manually at the end anyway, template or no template. So at least it prevents edits concerning dates, which I often find on obscure articles, and hence the proposal. -Kreachure (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. WP:BOTPOL does not allow any automated processes to make errors when we are aware that those errors will happen. Be it 10 years or 100 years in the future, eventually it will make the article wrong. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

But what if there are only 8 planets? My76Strat (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That's funny. Not helpful, but funny. Error fixed. -Kreachure (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

First off, you should propose to create a new template, because {{As of}} is already used for something else, namely to mark potentially dated statements. Adding your suggestion to the template would defeat its purpose. Also, there are a few magic words to insert the current year and so on, but using these in articles could cause trouble.

"As of 2011, Jimmy Hoffa's body has not been found." This should be used when there is a source for the statement, it also gives a hint that it may be found later.
"As of {{CURRENTYEAR}}, Jimmy..." should not be used, because it could be false, and we never need to point out to our readers what year it is. Instead, just write "Jimmy Hoffa's body has not been found". jonkerz ♠talk 21:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This goes against the whole idea of Template:as of which is exactly to say when it was known to be true. Some articles are not edited for years, and even then they may not be updated with current information. Barack Obama will presumably be updated quickly when he is no longer president, but his presidency is mentioned in many articles which receive less attention. And articles likely to be updated can still cause problems. Wikipedia has many legitimate reusers. Some of them copy articles and never update their copy. If we say as of {{CURRENTYEAR}} and a reuser has software to display {{CURRENTYEAR}} correctly then in 10 years their version of Barack Obama may say "As of 2022, Obama is president". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ {{ec}} ever since my last comment, and here is the follow-on:

The proposal has merit, you proposed it well, and I'm sure it seemed a no-brainier. Just remember, sometimes you have to deal with people who have no brains; like me. Don't be discouraged, extract the good parts, and "soldier on". Now here's the irony; I proposed the same idea over a year ago, right here. (although my idea was not nearly as well presented as yours) In the end there were to many reasons to not do it.

I apologize if my comment about 8 planets seemed callous. I actually got a chuckle out of the deal, and I thank you for that measure of good cheer. Because it so perfectly illustrates a down side. We absolutely wouldn't want it said; "in 2012 there were 9 planets", because no one had updated the information.

In my proposal we discussed things like live feeds, automatically updating statistics like population, holders of public office and so on. We even discussed reverse updating, that would be perpetually accurate, when relating prose to the event. For example: "10 years ago the towers fell" would become "11 years ago" on 09/11/2012.

Since I've set time for the above; I'll share some insight I've gleaned along the way: There is an institutional nemesis; that prevails at stifling every automated form of editing ever tried! The few that are used, (begrudgingly tolerated) are to be "used at your own risk". And the mere prospect; that Δ lays bare; is at minimum, cautionary! Wiki-love to all - My76Strat (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write this. It seems you considered ideas I wouldn't have thought of, they all sound intriguing. I guess that talking about ideas like these every now and again, even if they're shot down or not, is a in the end good thing in the collective struggle to improve WP. Soldiering on indeed! Cheers! -Kreachure (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that most of the objections stem from the (quite possible) future problem of presenting inaccurate (or just plain wrong) information, thus making Wikipedia look something like a fool, for instance: "George Washington was U.S. president as of 27 Jun 2012", a statement which couldn't possibly be true. So, let's flat out say that the information may be incorrect and invite users to edit the page to fix the statement, so that the veracity of the information presented is always in question (after all, it may have been true at the time of the last edit, but is it still true now?). So, I've gone and created an {{as of currently}} template that does just this. For instance: [[Jimmy Hoffa]] disappeared at, or sometime after, 2:45 pm on July 30, 1975. His body has not been discovered {{as of currently}}. would give: Jimmy Hoffa disappeared at, or sometime after, 2:45 pm on July 30, 1975. His body has not been discovered as of 12 March 2012^{[still correct?]}. Banaticus (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Any admins live near East Lansing, MI?

Greetings,

Some of you may be familiar with THIS CLASS at MSU this semester where we're exploring and studying the concept of the Wikipedia administrator. One of the class projects is to create a model of an admin portal that organizes admin tools, discussions, etc. These portal proposals are being developed in student sandboxes. Many admins have generously agreed to volunteer their time to speak with our students as noted HERE. These conversations will help students to complete their assignments and better understand what Wikipedia admins do (and why they do what they do). Anyhow, one group would like to add some video to their admin portal project and were wondering if any admins live near East Lansing, MI. Of course, you would have to be willing to be interviewed, and to have video of your answers put up online. If you're interested, please leave a note on my talk page. Thanks so much. Best, --Jaobar (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jaobar. CatScan says there are two admins in Michigan, though a) that list might not be complete or up-to-date and b) that doesn't specify where in Michigan. You might also try using a geonotice, as not everyone checks this page. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to Add Editorial/Opinion Section to Current Events Pages... to Get Well Defined Arguments from Various Sides

All,

I would like to suggest that an editorial/opinion section be added to Wikipedia for current events. It is always a struggle to fully understand all sides of an argument through the popular media or through Wikipedia. Most often, the user comments sections of current events articles are most enlightening.

As Wikipedia is viewed as a trusted hub of information, delineating an editorial/opinion section, or a way for various sides of an argument to be understood more clearly would be a helpful addition to the site.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pko1219 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - this is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia is for. Personal opinion has absolutely zero place in any article here. → ROUX ₪ 17:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - per Roux. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, yes, idea lab isn't a place where support and oppose votes are usually placed, however for this, an exception is more than warranted. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Alas, Wikipedia is not a social media site, nor is it a place for personal opinion. This proposal flies in the face of WP:POV, WP:OR and several parts of WP:NOT. Reso lute 15:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Sides of an argument that are mentioned in reputable sources should be mentioned anyway in a Wikipedia article, in a neutral fashion. dci | TALK 21:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe the reason that the creator of this idea wishes for such an editorial section is in order to better cover all of the major points of view on a subject and therefore ensure that they are covered on Wikipedia. This does advance neutrality on the encyclopedia, in my opinion. The editor only wants a place where these opinions can be presented for later incorporation into articles. This is indeed a legitimate suggestion and does not fall into the category of what Wikipedia is not. Wer900 (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- So, for example, an article on the Syrian insurrection might discuss the viewpoints of several rebel groups, that of the government, and that of specific world governments? Or, an article on same-sex marriage would discuss pro, anti, and more intermediate viewpoints? If that's what is being suggested, this might be something worth considering. dci | TALK 19:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Reform

I'm afraid that this might get shot down as soon as I post it, but I'd like to say a few things about the role of polling and voting in our online community.

First, I'll make it clear that I strongly support the use of polling and voting on Wikipedia, and I believe that it is a useful way to establish a recognized consensus. Polling and voting may not be ideal substitutes for general consensus, but they are far more efficient and representative than certain ways currently in place on our community when it comes to selecting editors to serve as administrators, bureaucrats, and when determining the course we should take in the future.

There are often complaints about administrative overreaching or inappropriate behavior that flouts the guidelines we as a community expect of our highly-trusted delegates to these positions. An administrator is a person selected by fellow editors to perform highly important and occassionally sensitive maintenance tasks on the website. As such, the process of delegating editors to serve in this role can be rather tricky. Currently, administrators are appointed by bureaucrats, who take into consideration a quasi-election/discussion that hopes to establish consensus. However, a bureaucrat is not bound by the discussion; if the minority viewpoints are seen to be valid, the bureaucrat may support the editors falling into that category.

I believe that we must reform the administrative selection process to include a pure voting system, a smaller-scaled version of our Wikimedia Steward Elections that could take place in lieu of an RfA for a given candidate. This, I believe, would be a more efficient way of selecting these highly-trusted delegates because an editor supported by a great deal of the community, despite valid opposition, is more representative and likely to be trusted by larger amounts of editors. Some will say that voters might not be of an appropriate caliber to choose administrators, and they might be inclined to say that editors who oppose RfA candidates because of their lack of experience in certain fields are correct in their views. Sometimes, the current system shoots down editors who could be outstanding administrators just because they haven't been active in certain battlegrounds of our website. On a website that devotes pages to information for "wannabe" administrators, it seems unnecessary to voice objections to candidacies because of the respective candidate's record in a particular area. Yes, an editor needs some experience to become an administrator, but I believe that editors voting in election-RfAs would be experienced enough themselves to select a qualified and worthy candidate. Let's not judge a high-quality vehicle by the tire-marks it makes.

Secondly, I think that polling when it comes to community decisions would be a good substitute for the often heated discussions that often arise about controversial issues and then get mired down in the muck of angry, misled vitriol. Take for example the once-never-abating proposals to rename our article on the Libyan Civil War. This led to high amounts of tension on that article's talk page, tension that is unhealthy in any encyclopedic community or in any community, for that matter. When it comes to debates like this, largely content-inspired, voting could show how the majority of community members feel on the subject, and then bureaucrats or trusted administrators thought of as representatives of the community could make a decision as to how this result compares with the depiction of the debated item in reputable sources.

Finally, voting would be a good substitute for some policy-making decisions. Policies should not be in place if a majority of editors involved in discussing the said policy do not agree on the status quo or the issue in question. A good argument should not be the basis for a policy, for a policy change, or for a proposal, no matter how our administrative and bureaucratic elements feel about those arguments. Instead, a majority of editors involved in discussing the topic should make the final call when it comes to determining policy on Wikipedia. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, and we don't want to get too far from our main goal, but no online effort like this can survive without an active and heard commmunity. We must rely on knowledgeable and diligent majorities, and not always eloquent minorities. dci | TALK 02:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that voter participation in RfA tends to be low and/or insular, so I'd be wary of making it a pure vote. "knowledgeable and diligent majorities, and not always eloquent minorities" — False dilemma. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that my statement about "eloquent minorities" was probably distracting; what I really meant is that decision-making should be made by the majority or by the delegates of the majority of interested/active editors. dci | TALK 20:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Take it from someone who has the same problem, your block of text is massive and almost no one is going to read it. Let me try and break down your argument:

1. You want to do pure voting instead of discussions for RfA.

2. You want to do pure voting instead of discussions for contentions RfCs.

3. You want to do pure voting instead of discussions for policy decisions.

I'm pretty sure that you're going to get very little support for any of those tings. For one thing, the consensus model does work, except in a small minority of particularly dramatic cases, and let's be honest here, no system is going to solve the truly dramatic cases. Secondly, often enough discussion leads to new options not originally put on the table, pure voting would deprive us of those options. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that any support will be forthcoming, actually, but I wanted to voice these opinions here, to see what others thought of them and to see if anyone thought voting/polling could be adapted successfully anywhere on the website. Out of the three summaries you created, I'd have to say I feel that the third is most important. Policy discussions like these aren't very common, from what I've seen, and I think that our policies need to reflect the views of the majority of interested/active editors. My striking above should show this more clearly. dci | TALK 20:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert it, but striking out other people's comments, even if they're comments on your comments, is considered grossly inappropriate. Since you're clearly acting in good faith, I'm not going to make deal of it. In the future though, avoid what you just did. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I was only doing it to emphasize a point, not to contradict or oppose anything you posted (all of which was true). I am extremely sorry. dci | TALK 21:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you should change this proposal into an essay and tag it with {{essay}} because this reflects mainly your ideas and opinions. However, I'd like to say kudos to writing this out. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try that. I have one copy in my userspace; I can copy the content into a new article into a WP-namespace essay. dci | TALK 15:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally, consensus is established by an administrator or bureaucrat determining which side has the strongest arguments, with the best interpretation of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. The reason that this works so well is that a strong argument based in policy does not just have the support of the people involved in the discussion, but the support of the community as a whole. Policies are determined by community consensus, with a much larger discussion, which is why consensus rather that voting usually works. If you replace consensus with voting, everyone's vote is equal, regardless of whether it is based in solid understanding of policy or just made on a whim. Once voting replaces consensus, each decision really is only made by the small group of people involved in the discussion at that time, rather than the wider community who have lain down our policies and guidelines. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Having myself run a contentious RfC, I can say that the discussion was very fruitful in refining the ideas. The final version was much closer to something the community as a whole might have endorsed. Likewise, although RfA is a bit of a battleground, there are good oppose votes at RfA that give the candidate constructive criticism on what to do before reapplying - not something we want to eliminate! Dcoetzee 17:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I prefer to say "effective opposes" rather than "good opposes". I've seen several RFAs where the whole debate turned and the RFA tanked because of something that came up in the discussion, in a straight vote such RFAs would conclude with a success followed by high drama. I doubt if any RFA !voters check everything that a candidate has done, some I suspect check very little. But a large proportion of the Supporters will switch if they see a civil, diff supported oppose that gives good reason why a particular candidate should not become an admin (I've also seen spectacularly incivil opposes be ignored by the community despite them hiding a solid oppose reason beneath the rhetoric). Ϣere SpielChequers 14:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Endorsed edit" flag

To me a nice feature to have would be a way for one or more registered editors to flag a history-page edit as "endorsed". That way, when I look at the history of a page, I can see what edits have already been examined, rather than having 20 different people all checking the same edits. If the endorsement is from an editor whom I have already developed a respect for, then I can simply assume the change was okay.

Does this seem like it would be useful as a productivity gain? Regards, RJH (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We currently have no real consensus on pending changes, which is what you appear to be suggesting. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well no, I wasn't referring to that. I mean a qualified editor could go to the history page for an article and find that beside each edit entry there would be, say, a check box with a message that says something like "Endorse edit". Once that is checked by one or more editors, anybody else viewing the history page would see a statement next to the edit entry saying something like "(Edit currently endorsed by ABC, DEF, GHI)".

Does that make it clearer? It would mean tracking which editors endorse what edits, of course, so there would be a greater load on the database to track endorsements as an active control. But hopefully the editor's work load would be reduced as a consequence. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be something of the like of flagged revisions, or maybe I'm just slow to understand this. →Σ τ c. 18:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it seems like it. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This proposal relies on trust towards the editors. Thus, unless the ability to endorse edits is somehow limited to a small community of "trusted" users, it want work. But even if we create a gruop of endorsers, it will be either too small to have noticeable effect or too large to maintain mutual trust. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a need to create such a constrained group, other than to limit it to experienced editors. The number of editors who regularly watch a particular page is almost always limited, and the aliases of the editors are often familiar to others watching the page. Each edit requires all of said watchers to perform a check. I'm proposing to shortcut that cycle a little. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a good idea, I think that there should be a minimum requirement for endorsement by two (auto)confirmed editors in order for an edit to be endorsed. This eliminates many problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The flagged revisions plan had two more-or-less independent parts. The first was trialled (to much acrimony, as we all remember) as pending changes. The second part - patrolled revisions - is pretty much exactly what you're describing here, except slightly simpler - it's just a flag saying, in effect, "checked and clean". It should be substantially less controversial to implement, especially since it doesn't impact in any way on what any reader actually sees (the main criticism of PC), but I fear the memories of last time might make it a hard sell! Shimgray | talk | 13:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio test in the editfilter

A large proportion of newbies are from the copypaste generation and need to be taught that writing your own words is not the same as copying from other websites. Currently we do this laboriously and painfully by bots checking after the event, and people sweeping up after the bots. But that is a design from a different internet era. What we should have today is an edit filter that incorporates the search that corensearchbot does, so if someone clicks save on a paragraph of new text the system can spot that this is a straight copy of foo.com and explain to them why we don't do that. I think that would be less bitey for the newbies who need to be taught about Copyvio, and less work for the rest of us. If there is a serious processing overhead then you could leave certain edits unchecked, rollback for example. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No idea if it's possible, but it seems like a good idea. We could start with new articles, and with a high certainty bar. That way we can see to any problems and easily expand it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible, since MediaWiki and specifically the filter system can't "search" the general Internet, which is why a bot does it. Further, I suspect that would be a massive overhead. --Izno (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It is impossible with the currently available MediaWiki software. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the wonderful things about Moore's Law is that a massive overhead one year is pretty serious number crunching a couple of years later and relatively trivial on a slightly longer timescale. One of the cool things about this idea is that it would still be useful even if we first had to throttle it to a random paragraph from a random subset of new articles. Even better target a few high risk ones such as those by newbies or by students in the Academic outreach program. As the cost of processing falls so the proportion screened can be stepped up. As for Reaper's comment, OK so this requires a change to the mediawiki software, that isn't impossible, I suspect we even have the source-code. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you can try suggesting this at: Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've raised it there, but they would need changes made to the mediawiki software before they could do this. So I'd like to see if we can get consensus here that it would be a good idea if it were possible to implement, and if people like the idea I'll file a bugzilla request to change the mediawiki software to allow this to be done. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

At this point in time it should not be in the edit filter as it should have a bit of human intelligence behind it to weed out wikipedia mirrors and copying of free material. However I do support the idea of an automatic bot run or toolserver util that would detect this soon after the material is added. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

In A Nutshell

I am Robert a college student offering Wikipedia a business proposition. Although it may seem odd to accept an offer from such a young mind, I think some of the best ideas often come from the unlikeliest of places. This email may be ignored, and deleted but hopefully someone out there will read it through.

First of all, I think that Wikipedia is a great source for people and I hope that the website never stops running. I do, however, feel as though it could be enhanced to obtain more success. My idea is to develop an App (on the IPhone etc.) called "Nutshell" that is based off the old saying "in a nutshell." People could enter what they are looking for into the search bar (a nut) and it would crack open with their brief results (that could be drawn from Wikipedia sites). They could then possibly send their "nut" to friends, have it put directly into their bibliography, and more. This would be a simple and, I think, catchy way of people gaining and sharing information. It could revitalize Wikipedia and also make research a little more enjoyable.

I think it would work really well with Wikipedia though, as it has always been my first choice when it comes to research!

Thank you for your time,

Robert Peterpaul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.100.224.95 (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea. However, wouldn't this have to be done through the Wikimedia Foundation, not through the English Wikipedia? dci | TALK 04:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Depending on the method used, it could be something that Robert could do entirely on his own. Wikipedia's text is available under a free license, after all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Implement an incentive mechanism for prolific editors

I think Wikipedia should implement an incentive mechanism for prolific editors. Human nature is selfish, and human beings invest labor for the purpose of getting incentives. A lot of Wikipedians invest a large amount of time to build world's largest encyclopedia. But there are never remembered, they don't get any recognition outside the Wikipedia administration pages.

Wikipedia has a tremendous impact on popular culture, on the education system of the entire world. Wikipedia is in news everyday throughout the world. It is time to acknowledge the contributions of the largest encyclopedia's architects. How? Implement an incentive mechanism. I'm not sure how this can be implemented, but off-wiki recognition (we already have on-wiki rewards like barnstars etc) such as a certificate will give justice to those who have worked hard here.

Benefits of issuing certificates to prolific editors: This will encourage more people to register and contribute, particularly students who can use those certificate to increase their CV value by showing their extra-curricular activity in associated with world's largest encyclopedia. By issuing certificates to prolific editors, given that they meet a specific set of criteria, will encourage them to contribute more and constructively, and they will not view their contributions in Wikipedia as a waste of time. Thoughts? Contributing to Wikipedia will be a status symbol. Editors will proudly describe themselves as Wikipedia Editor. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think incentives would be very counter productive. Less hassle with trolls vandals POV pushers and eejits in general would help most. A bit of automated appreciation could help but anything too official or prominent is I think liable to the law of unintended consequences and will turn many good contributors off. Your basic premise is wrong and totally inappropriate for the editors here. Dmcq (talk) 13:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why will giving certificates to prolific editors turn other prolific contributors away? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you on Wikipedia in the first place? To get certificates which are an equivalent to money in helping you get a job? If you give a person money they are far less likely to work cooperatively and only do what is directly in their own self interest. Dmcq (talk) 13:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you turning the discussion about an idea to personal level? When a person gets incentive only when their activities benefits the project, the person's self-interest will not be in conflict with the interest of the project. For example, if a person gets a certificate for helping to promote 20 articles to FA status, then the person's self-interest (i.e. developing the articles and getting certificates) will ultimately benefit the project. I don't see any conflict of interest here. Or take another example, if a person gets a certificate for taking and uploading a specific number of Featured Picture-quality photographs, will that harm the project or benefit the project? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping you might be able to look inside yourself and examine why you are here to get an insight into why money or money equivalents are not in general a good idea for something like this. We don't want to get into the situation with doctors where they are paid the full amount if 50% iof their patients hav some test - and later on find practically all doctors have almost precisely 50% and no more tested. Unintended consequences Dmcq (talk) 13:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Your counter-argument is argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy. What you are saying may happen in the current system also. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying we should do something despite the probable consequences being bad for Wikipedia? Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is getting tiresome, let other editors input their thoughts. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be likely to increase the number of poor submissions to WP:GAN and WP:FAC by editors looking for the next shiny badge, without increasing the number of quality contributions from the real content writers. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a first draft of a proposal for something quite similar at meta:Badges, drawing on a system Mozilla are working on. Shimgray | talk | 13:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a good "selfish" reason to edit Wikipedia: "I want to have access to an encyclopedia that is as good, as it can be.". That reason should be sufficient. And even if it is not, there is another good "selfish" reason: "I want to learn something, thus I will write an article about it, for I know that the best way to learn anything is teaching others (and maybe someone will criticise the article and thus point out the things I have misunderstood).".

Also, the "incentive mechanisms" can encourage things that we shouldn't encourage and attract the editors we should actually discourage from editing. For example, making 20 featured articles for "certificates" can be achieved both by making 20 good articles and by somehow trying to promote articles that are, well, less good...

Thus, adding additional incentives doesn't seem to be a very good idea... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we ought to be rewarding people for pissing away their lives in cyberspace but that aside, it should be the quality, not quantity of edits that is recognised.--Ykraps (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to post here to say that I agree with OP that there need to be more incentives for editors. This opinion seems to be quite unpopular unfortunately. A few weeks ago, I proposed User ratings. But you may be interested in the following currently-existing "selfish" incentives (a little in my opinion):

Wikipedia:Contests (Wikipedia:WikiCup seems to be the only active one)
Wikipedia:Barnstars
Wikipedia:Awards

Leonxlin (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"Passive" links

I had an idea about links that I'd like to gauge interest in. WP:Overlinking gives the guidance that common/major nations, religions, etc. shouldn't be linked unless they're particularly relevant to the article's topic. But if a reader happens to see the name of a country and want to read our article on it, it seems silly to make them type it in the search bar instead of just click the word.

My idea is a new style of link that only appears to be a link if you mouse over it.

For example, in the Mustard seed article, there is this sentence: "Major producers of mustard seeds include Canada (90%), Hungary, Great Britain, India, Pakistan and the United States."

None of the countries are linked. Making them all into normal [[links]] would be too distracting, and against the guidance of WP:overlinking. But what if we were to make them into passive links, that only appear to be a link if the reader mouses over them? This way, it would be easier to navigate to other articles, without the visual clutter of overlinking.

The wiki syntax for passive links could be quite simple: perhaps three brackets instead of two, [[[like this]]]. Regular links would continue to be displayed normally.

I'd love to hear some feedback on this. 28bytes (talk) 17:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea, though I found that if I have Firefox's search bar set to enwiki, then when I right click on a highlighted section, there is an option to "Search Wikipedia (en) for '[selection]'". Adding new markup to wikicode may be prohibitively complicated, considering there are already little things like this in the browser. —Akrabbim^talk 19:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Firefox might do this, but do other browsers? Sven Manguard Wha? 22:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't hate the idea, but the addition of so much markup may make text nearly uneditable. It may become viable when we switch to a WYSIWYG editor. Josh Parris 22:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Having hidden links like this might be confusing to the reader. Do they drag their mouse over every term that they want to look up? If this was implemented, maybe it should be done in a standard manner on every page based on a list of key words that are commonly used and have a rich context. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a dreadful idea. If I'm interested in mustard seeds what does following a link to Great Britain or India add to my understanding? A link to mustard seed production in India yes, but not the country. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Depends on whether you're looking for specific information or just browsing; back in the "olden days" when overlinking was more prevalent I'd often click over to India or shrub or hectare or what have you. 28bytes (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I support the desire, but agree that the additional markup is a major negative. I'd prefer the following: double-click on any word to select it, then right-click and the menu (which currently, for me, includes the ability to look up the word in Yahoo or a dictionary) would include an option to go to a Wikipedia article, if one exists. I don't know how to build such functionality, but obviously, it can be done, and it would not add additional markup to the article.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Improvement

Currently, there is no active location where one can simply search and find all articles which need improvement in some way or another. Yes, the Article Improvement Drive did exist at one time, but it is now deprecated and no longer serves any useful function. Furthermore, that was merely a one-off "shock drive" to improve a large volume of articles in a short period of time, not a sustained effort which would give Wikipedia a permanent way to correct itself and improve in areas of style, clarity, and its width and depth of knowledge. It is to these ends that I propose a new Wikipedia system of identifying Articles for Improvement.

This system should be organized based on subject matter (Astronomy, Religion, etc.) and should also be divided into subsections which identify the specific improvements which need to be made to the page:

Format and Conventions - this section will identify pages where the formatting of the page is bad, where data on the page can be better presented through such a change, the quality of the use of English on the page, et cetera.
Clarity - this section will contain articles which require an improvement in their style of writing, their verbosity/brevity, the way they are split into sections and subsections, et cetera.
Width of Knowledge - just that. This section will deal with all areas where articles have not given much information on the topic at hand.
Depth of Knowledge - this page will have all articles where a large amount of information is presented, but not explained well
Completeness of Lists - this section will deal with whether lists have all of the data which they intend to cover
Facts and Sources - this section will identify articles without inline citations, where facts appear dubious, where facts are outdated, and all pages with over two (or whatever number is most appropriate) ^{[citation needed]} tags.

In order to better integrate with the existing Wikipedia interface - the widespead tags such as the cleanup tag and others - all such templates could be modified in order to make a listing, on a remote Wikipedia page, of links to all articles that hold them. Each tag's output will be placed in a subsection of the Articles for Improvement page most relevant to its contents. While this would doubtless be an arduous task, it would be much simpler than creating an entirely new infrastructure of tags, which would have to be placed on all pages with the same tags, a task which could never be done.

It is my hope that this brings to the attention of the broader community the massive number of pages which have these problems but go unnoticed. Currently, there are several hotspots of editing with excess activity resulting in edit wars, separated by netherworld articles which have little and transient activity outside of that of a few dedicated users. As time wears on, these articles are seen as increasingly irrelevant and obsolete, and indeed, in all of the errors which they accumulate and keep, unfixed, as time goes on, this becomes increasingly true. If we had a mechanism - easily noticable, easily accessed, and centralized - then article improvements could go where they are needed most, improving the quality of Wikipedia as a whole and ensuring that some subjects are not ignored entirely.

Wer900 (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You may find the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia maintenance helpful, particularly the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month. Anomie ⚔ 03:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Doubtless that page has many resources, however, it does not seem to be terribly inviting and it would be easier to navigate if it were broken up into some broad categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Would something like this be what you are looking for? It is sorted by Wikiproject, so you could focus on topics that interest you most. The complete list of enrolled projects is here. Reso lute 04:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

While it is an excellent tool, make no mistake, the listings there are a bit too specific. Listing by WikiProject is a good idea, but many of them are extremely specific and need to be established as sub-groups under a larger umbrella. As for the specific errors in the articles, their identification seems to be good but the sheer number and complexity of all of the ways in which the page could be improved would be extremely intimidating to new users. New users are the lifeline of this community, and anything we can do to obtain and keep them would be an improvement.

This has come pretty far. All that remains to be done, now, is to group the many categories of errors as subcategories under larger umbrella areas, and to link up the template messages with placement in these categories. This will make it more accessible to all users beyond a few specialist, experienced and inexperienced. Wer900 (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Separate definitions from counterarguments

One thing that would help on Wikipedia (given it's goal of providing a neutral point of view) would be a policy to separate description/definition from counterarguments. If neutral descriptions on any subject came first and counterarguments / refutations were segregated into their own separate non-defining sections, that would help. But what actually happens is Wikipedia editors trip over each other to break up sentences describing ideas they don't like with contradictory sources so that the actual meaning of what is being refuted is almost completely if not totally obscured.

What Wikipedia says now is something like this:

"Controversial -ism A means X [source] but X is not true [source][source][source] and Y [source] but Y is not true [source][source][source][source] and Z [source] although Z is not true. [source][source][source][source][source]"

That's no way to write an encyclopedia. A readable format would be something like this:

"Controversial -ism A means X, [source] Y [source] and Z. [source] It has been promoted by so-and-so [source] and such-and-such. [source]

According to [source] and [source], X is not true.

According to [source] and [source], Y is not true.

According to [source] and [source], Z is not true."

This has long been a problem on all the articles dealing with the controversy over evolution, Creationism, intelligent design and various concepts in psuedoscience, politics, religion and philosophy. If Wikipedia is meant to say what academia thinks is true that's fine, but not inserted into the middle of sentences meant to provide definitions of alternative views! --BenMcLean (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There are already interesting Wikipedia policies on fringe theories but nothing which protects definitions so that they remain grammatically intact such as I propose as far as I know. The practical upshot of my suggestion would probably be either a new policy that would be something like "Wikipedia:Keep definitions intact" or a new section in Wikipedia:Be neutral in form which states something like, "All definitions should remain grammatically intact and not be broken up with contrary information for the sake of neutrality and readability." --BenMcLean (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you presented your thought to the people who might be chief culprits of what you disapprove of, i.e. Wikipedians who zealously police WP:FRINGE? Wikipedia:SKEPTICISM would be another venue to get some unsentimental feedback on your proposal. Alternatively you could notify them of the present section. __meco (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a fundamental issue on some mathematics pages?

On a great portion of the wikipedia mathematics pages it involves terms and jargons for users above the level of someone who needs to know whats actually on the page. And if one follows the links on these jargons, one gets a page full of more jargons(with links), one then follows one of those links, to a page full of complex jargon, and so on, and sometimes you go full circle back to the first article you where on none the wiser. It seems to be a network of complex texts and to explain each complex text, it refers to another complex text which refers to another and another and so on. Even one who knows their math, might be mystified at the large role some math articles place on complex terms, that they may have forgoten by now. Plus, its very unfriendly to one new to the subject matter. Editor0000001 (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)editor0000001

Being specific about the particular articles that worry you on the talk page or the maths project page would help more. I get the feeling you are looking for elementary maths from the point of view of teaching people, is this correct? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and doesn't provide a learning package for subjects, it is supposed to be more for looking up and reading about particular topics. So for addition it doesn't teach people how to add, it describes the history etc and methods used and how it can be applied to objects and lengths and these were considered differently, that sort of thing. Dmcq (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you find some tags for your predicament at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Mathematics or User:Gregbard/Mathematosis which are two pages I recently visited... __meco (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Grehgbard's mathematosis has bee deleted where he tried sticking it round the project as being offensive and silly. Please don't go pointing new editors at it. I see that other thing you referred to was also written initially by Gregbard. Just avoid that sort of thing. Dmcq (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There is an essay about making technical articles more accessible at WP:TECHNICAL. WP:LEAD also has a bit about it and WP:MOSMATH some specifically about maths. Dmcq (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We do have a problem with editors showing off their knowledge by using the most obscure terms rather than explaining material in plain English, but that problem exists in basically all subject areas that have any technical component, not just maths. Additionally, some editors honestly find it easier to write in their field's jargon. Explaining things well is a rare talent. That's why there are more good mathematicians than there are good teachers of mathematics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Improving accessibility of math articles is important. That said, there are always going to be highly technical topics that require substantial background to understand, and we don't want to give all necessary background in the article. Perhaps a solution is to clearly indicate which articles to consult for more background, emphasising the ones that are more accessible. Dcoetzee 22:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Though, it seems to me their are some very good mathematicians(or whatever subject), out their that need to look up something in an encyclopedia as a refresher. But, it seems to me that all the jargon spirals into confusion to one who has a very good knowledge of math, but has not been to college/highschool in the last decade. Is there any wikipedia project devoted to making articles more comprehensible(please)? Editor0000001 (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)editor0000001

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35#Easy as pi? (subsectioned and sub-subsectioned).

—Wavelength (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Special:Unwatchedpages

Special:Unwatchedpages is currently available only to admins. My understanding is that this is to prevent vandals from targeting these pages and getting away with large-scale vandalism that would go unnoticed. However, I can imagine the benefits of established users being able to access this page, such as those who enjoy NPP, those heavily involved in Wikiprojects (to find pages that would fit within a project scope) and those who like to do cleanup, among others.

I'm thinking that some kind of a user right, similar to rollback but with perhaps more stringent requirements would take care of the vandal issue.

Are there any other problems that could arise from allowing established users access to this page? Good idea? Boring idea? Terrible idea :)? N^oformation ^Talk 00:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I like it. Good idea.AerobicFox (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO "boring idea" since the special page is basically useless. The list contains only 1000 pages, and currently it consists entirely of articles beginning with certain punctuation characters and the numbers 0 and 1; it doesn't even get into the A's. Yes, we apparently really do have that many unwatched articles. And even were that to be somehow fixed, how much good would it really do when a page watched only by a user who hasn't logged in since 2007 would still not be included in the list? Anomie ⚔ 02:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea, but considering the information which Anomie provides, it may not be as good as it looks at first glance. __meco (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In principle, it's an interesting idea, perhaps if the unwatched pages list was improved. It might be worth extending the scope of the list to include pages not watched by an active editor (we can define that later). If that were to happen, I think that the idea has merit and could be potentially useful. I'm sure more improvements could be made, but I like it in principle. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed feedback, Anomie. Itzippy, I like your thinking. I was going to propose something similar, maybe a list of pages watched by less than one or two editors. Is it possible there are a decent amount of pages that were created earlier on in WP's history that only ended up being watched by the creator? Kind of like a deep web version of WP. N^oformation ^Talk 21:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Back in the days of the great unsourced BLP madness, the issue of unwatched BLPs came up. I suggested then to have a bot track changes at Special:Unwatchedpages and produce a list so that the people of the mindset it takes to monitor NPP and recent changes could check on these articles. It still strikes me as a potentially good idea. Reso lute 01:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

well if any established editor here wants to add the first 1000 pages on Special:Unwatched they can ask me or an an adminstrator get them emailed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And to add to the possibilities apparently the toolserver can give this information. This would be the way to procede beyond the first 1000. But currently releasing this information is not permitted. Just think how pages get on watch lists and you will get the idea of how many are unwatched or watched by only the creator. Prolific gnomes probably do not add every page they touch to a watchlist. So a report on pages that have been substantially edited by only one person will likely show those with only have one watcher. And if the report goes on to show those pages where the creator is no longer active then you have a list of pages at risk. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A clearing house for information mining of external media

I would like to see Wikipedians organize a clearing house for bits of information harvested from various types of media, indexing the finds by topic and where possible by names of articles for which the discovered information could possibly be of interest. This effort could be organized under the auspices of a dedicated WikiProject that would devise and set up the various mechanisms and protocols by which this enterprise would operate. __meco (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have notified that project and suggested the discussion (hopefully there will be one) should take place primarily here. Eventually, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council may also be a venue for inclusion in this proposal. __meco (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Indications of relevant reference books, specifically encyclopedias and dictionaries, to individual projects (permanent link here).

—Wavelength (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

New users discouraged by loss of work

One thing I've noticed after clerking WP:HD for a few weeks is that about once a week we get a post like this: "I made an article and can't find it. Where is it?" Inevitably, the asker's only contribution is the question. This is disturbing to me because I think it is discouraging users from contributing ("Well, I tried to make an article, but it vanished!"). Obviously some portion of these users are actually making their contributions while logged out; I don't see much we can do about those. But we can deal with people failing to click "Save page". The average user does not read modal dialog boxes saying things like "This page is asking you to confirm that you want to leave...". If a dialog appears, the average user will just click through it [12]. The problem is that the average user doesn't realize which button is "cancel" so half the time, they miss! And the rest of the time, they correctly pick "stay on page" only to find themselves staring at the edit box, wondering how to save their stuff without committing to it. Eventually, they give up. I think Wikipedia ought to automatically back up entered text if the user leaves without saving, much like Gmail's drafts feature [13]. Basically, it would create yet another "My whatever" link along the top of the screen ("My drafts") which would store the wikitext and (original) oldid for drafts (so that an edit conflict would be correctly generated if necessary). Thoughts? --N Y Kevin @170, i.e. 03:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

+1 like Josh Parris 05:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. Wonderful idea, and not useful just for them! I frequently make large edits to low-edit-traffic articles and find myself periodically having to save the work-in-progress in a file. I could create a sandbox for the purpose, but that's such a hassle, as it requires either a disruptive move or a history merge later. Saving draft edits on-wiki would be immensely useful. However, on any high-edit-traffic article they would rapidly go "stale" as new edits come in, but at least the new content could be merged into the latest revision manually. The draft saves can be done in the background by Javascript so they don't disrupt editing. Frankly, I can't see any downside to this idea. Dcoetzee 08:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment - At the risk of coming over as a cold-hearted bastard, competence is required and I do not believe that a new editor incapable of figuring out how to save a page would be likely to read and understand our (numerous) policies and guidelines. Therefore, I'm content for them to be discouraged and for them to not contribute material that will probably need deleting. The link given above ([14]) gives some prime examples of people I would hate to see ruining our hard work. [/cynicism] ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- All users are new at one time. They learn by participating. Users who cannot save edits cannot receive feedback from other editors on their edits and learn to be productive contributors. Also, as I noted above, the proposed feature is also useful for experienced editors. Dcoetzee 17:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  - Also, experts may be highly competent in their own field but have little time "to read and understand our (numerous) policies and guidelines"—I guess that tends to happen quite a lot. Although no expert, as a new user I remember worrying about the possibility of losing my work (before realising that it could often be recovered by using the back button). As a Gmail user, I find the autosave feature very helpful. I know nothing about feasibility considerations here though. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    - Furthermore, this sort of action seems to be in keeping with the spirit of not biting the newcomers. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment IMO, this would be better done as a gadget using Web storage, rather than storing random potential edits on Wikipedia's servers. Either way, it would also need some logic to avoid making bad changes if the page has changed between when the draft was stored and when it was reloaded (i.e. either throw away the draft, try to do some sort of diff-and-merge if wgCurRevisionId has changed, or reset the hidden fields in the edit form such that an edit conflict will be thrown if necessary when submitted). Anomie⚔ 12:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I could implement a prototype of something like this myself using database storage on Toolserver and a Javascript extension. I think the last option you suggested, forcing an edit conflict, is the ideal way to deal with the case where there are intervening changes, since it already gives them all the info they need to do a manual merge, although I'm not entirely sure the best way to actually do this. Dcoetzee 17:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment It already exists as mw:Extension:Drafts and writing by foundation a employee. — Dispenser 21:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, there is a Firefox add-on called "Lazarus" ([15]) that is supposed to do just that... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Commonly, however, when users are saying, "I made an article and now I can't find it," the article has usually just been deleted so only admins can see their real first contribution. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't admins usually notify the author when they do that? --N Y Kevin @036, i.e. 23:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, many just zap it and never say a word. (Many also commonly assume the tagger has alerted the author.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Surprising redirections

I've often had the experience of using Wikipedia's search box, say typing in "apple sauce" and finding myself deposited on an article entitled "lubricating agents." This leaves me wondering, "What's going on? Am I to conclude that some people use apple sauce as a lubricant? Or maybe the relationship between the two concepts is that machinery used in fabricating apple sauce requires lubrication? Or, of course, maybe the redirect was just a mistake?"

It's my sense that if people are going to create redirects, then it's their responsibility to have pity on those poor surfers who may find themselves confronted with a very startling article and having to perform a combination of detective work and guess work to figure out just why they've been dumped where they have. Here's an explicit example of the problem and what I think ought to be required of editors.

I've not been able to find any existing policies that address this. But I do believe it poses a serious problem for Wikipedia's quality. Anybody have any ideas about good ways to tackle this in the community?—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Often, as I think might be the case here, poor redirects are just vandalism - someone probably thought it would be funny. If you ever see something like this, please revert it. Sometimes it is not vandalism and the redirects are unclear, which is a problem. Sometimes it is the quality of the article - the redirect may make perfect sense but the article may not be up to the standard. In these cases, it is best to get the article improved. Sometimes the redirect could be improved - either pointing to a different page or pointing to a specific part of the page. I think this encompasses any possible redirect trouble; it is usually just a case of something that just needs to be fixed, which people will get round to doing. If you notice anything, you can do it yourself or let another editor know. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

See, now my view is that it'd be good to have a policy along the lines of "If you're going to create a redirect, then you need to ensure that it's reasonably easy for those who find themselves redirected to understand why. Yes, of course, doing it myself is in the nature of Wikipedia; what exasperates me is those disorienting redirects I encounter when I'd been trying to use Wikipedia as a reference from which to learn something. In those cases—on those subjects—I'm too inexpert to fix it myself. So is there any better way to "let another editor know" than to plant a grouse on the talk page?—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Check out, for instance, WP:Redirect's citation of the principle of least astonishment. Maybe that's about the best I can hope for.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that WP:REDIRECT is pretty comprehensive in terms of policy. I do understand your position with articles that you are unsure about, though - of course, not everyone has sufficient knowledge to accurately fix every redirect. I think that this could be better done on a case by case basis. Any centralised place (a noticeboard, for example) would have the same problems: the regulars at the noticeboard would not necessarily have the right expertise. Instead, I would suggest that editors leave a note on the talk page of the redirect's target, asking for someone to make the link clearer or, failing that, to ask people at the most relevant WikiProject. That way, those who are most likely to know how best to fix the problem will be the ones who see it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Civility, Editor Retention, Hostility, and Burnout-- summed up

Some people think Wikipedia is all the same team. A newbie passes the ball towards the goal and counts on more experienced teammates to keep it going.
A minority see Wikipedia is as a battleground of two teams-- Visitors vs the Home Team. They don't want to help "keep the ball going", they want to "spike the ball back towards the opponents".

This is an unending source of frustration for all parties and we all know it. "Anyone Can Edit" is a mockery right now. We need ideas. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There are more sources of frustration on Wikipedia than the two you describe. I'll give a couple of other perspectives: Some newbies are generators of mass quantities of rubbish and need to be, well, redirected (or retired). Some experienced editors are tired of plebish or ignorant edits constantly being made to articles that have undergone months or years of intensive development.

It all depends on your perspective. I think it's important to maintain a good balance here. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary suggestion

A simple suggestion: in the text above the "Edit summary" box, the addition of a friendly reminder would be appreciated:

Please be civil.

Regards, RJH (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I do like the idea; I wonder how effective it really would be, though. Perhaps it would, I'm not sure, but I get the feeling that people will not be swayed to change an uncivil post just be reading that. Still, I wouldn't object to it; I'm all for civility. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that. I too doubt its effectiveness, but it shouldn't do any harm. It's likely to be ignored for the most part, but if even a handful of summaries are more civil because of it, it's worth it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't support this, just because the Edit summary box is already preceded by a bunch of text (Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.) Adding more text will make it less likely that they will read any of the text, and a reminder to be nice is not going to have any effect on people leaving angry comments in the heat of the moment (or trolling). Dcoetzee 22:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

As Dcoetzee says, nobody reads that stuff anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And some users just use custom css to hide the text above the edit summary box altogether. I doubt it would have any affect on uncivil comments. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Why that particular policy? It could also say "Please keep a neutral point of view" or one of the countless other "rules" that one should be mindful of when editing. If it were up to me it would say "don't be a dick" but I know that would never fly :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikiheresy

I have translated an essay from Lithuanian Wikipedia (translation is Wikipedia:Wikiheresy)... Would anyone, by any chance, have some suggestions on how to improve it, or criticism..? It does seem to have some support in Lithuanian Wikipedia, perhaps in some way it would be useful here too (at least it is my pretext for writing about it here)..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs more of what you label as Wiki heretics, not less. As George Bernard Shaw once said, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That is definitely a criticism, but, unfortunately, it looks a little too similar to something answered in the essay's section "Groupthink"...

Still, it seems to be fitting that Shaw is discussed in Chesterton's book that is called "Heretics" (s:Heretics/4)... I guess this part might be worth citing: "Having come to doubt whether humanity can be combined with progress, most people, easily pleased, would have elected to abandon progress and remain with humanity. Mr. Shaw, not being easily pleased, decides to throw over humanity with all its limitations and go in for progress for its own sake."... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks nothing like it all. Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikiheresy? Wikitics? Well, contorting to think positive at least it stops short of an Auto da fé. But then again, no...! —MistyMorn (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disclaimer: no offence intended. —MistyMorn (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, among other reasons, I did choose such name for the essay to encourage such jokes... I wonder if anyone will think of a way to mention Warhammer 40,000 here... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from but I don't know... Might it be unnecessarily divisive? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I feel the doctrinaire perception of WP to which many, whether consciously or not, probably subscribe is more a hindrance than a help at a community level (inevitably, think groupthink...). Imo, pillars and policies etc are better perceived as aids and tools rather than doctrine or writ. My 2c —MistyMorn (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Help settle the Calton Hill dispute

If you are or have been a resident of Edinburgh, Scotland and are familiar with the Calton Hill, you might like to contribute to a current editorial dispute on its Discussion page. Your views would be greatly appreciated to help resolve a stand-off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Traynor (talk • contribs)

Could anyone have an eye on Jim101?

He repeatedly claim that I must "buy a brain" and always tries to assume me to be a troll. I think he may be suffer from elitism. --222.35.185.149 (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like there is a notable controversy. The Chinese source you provided looks to me like a reliable source by Wikipedia standards even if it does spew a load of propaganda. What I believe in this case should be done is for the news item to be summarized but 'According to Chinese news sources...' or something like that put at the beginning. It isn't right for something like that to just be removed on the basis that it it is all propaganda because all news is controlled by the state. What should be done also is show the evidence from otehr sources that the claim that the US decided to just go in and bomb some cotton factory at random is a load of rubbish. Propaganda at the start of a war is important. Dmcq (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not notable. The only sources that carries this information are government sanctioned news agencies, while no scholars with Chinese archive access ever even bothered to discuss the topic, so presenting the claim in equal weight (and in the infobox no less) constitutes as WP:FRINGE. Furthermore, the book Zhang, Hong (2002), The Making of Urban Chinese Images of the United States, 1945-1953, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, ISBN 0313310017 goes into detail the amount of efforts the Chinese government used to manufacture hate against Americans before decided to join the Korean War, so this constitutes as WP:REDFLAG. Then, the IP used the Chinese equivalent of Why We Fight as sources to support his edit, so this is against WP:RS. Finally, the IP didn't even bother to translate his source from Chinese to English to show the credibility of his source, so this is just plain deception. Let's not devolve this into the moon is made out of cheese non-sense shall we? Jim101 (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As for my stance on propaganda, propaganda as notable opinion is an unfortunately daily reality. But in this case, the IP tries to present propaganda as fact, which is utterly unacceptable. Jim101 (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Who writes Wikipedia

User:Polentario just mentioned Aaron Swartz's 2006 essay, Who Writes Wikipedia on Jimbo's talk page. In it, Swarz contradicts Jimbo's opinion at the time that the encyclopedia is written by “a community … a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers” where “I know all of them and they all know each other”. Jimbo based this on the fact that "the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done 73.4% of all the edits,” and assumed that the remaining 25% of edits were from “people who [are] contributing … a minor change of a fact or a minor spelling fix … or something like that.”

Swartz analysed a few articles to see who contributed the most letters that survived in the articles, and drew an opposite conclusion:

When you put it all together, the story become clear: an outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of information, then insiders make several edits tweaking and reformatting it. In addition, insiders rack up thousands of edits doing things like changing the name of a category across the entire site — the kind of thing only insiders deeply care about. As a result, insiders account for the vast majority of the edits. But it’s the outsiders who provide nearly all of the content.

Swarz's conclusion rings true to me, but his sample was tiny. Has a more rigorous analysis of the question "Who writes Wikipedia" been done in the intervening six years? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the Wikimedia Foundation has more recent data, not sure where it is though. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If I get no joy here, I'll ask someone there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you track words by who added them, you still end up with a tiny fraction writing the majority of important content. A study published in GROUP 2007 called Creating, Destroying and Restoring Value in Wikipedia(PDF) used a metric called "Persistent Word Views" as a measure of value that an editor contributed to an article (based on non-trivial words contributed and the number of times they are viewed). They found that 1/10th of 1% of editors contribute nearly 50% of the value in Wikipedia. --EpochFail^(talk|work) 01:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll lay good odds on it resembling a Pareto distribution. Yes there are a small number who do much of the heavy lifting. But credit should still go to the little guy. Almost every day on my watch list I see some anonymous editor with no prior history making a quite sensible improvement. Those contributions add up over time. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe the real truth is somewhere in the middle. Some established/frequent contributors are highly effective content contributors, while others focus on maintenance, policy, and style. And occasional contributors contribute in both these areas as well (they make many small fixes as well as add content). Dcoetzee 09:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

When does an actor, singer, musician, artist become notable to be listed here?

At what point does one qualify to be listed here as being a notable artist, musician, singer or actor? I see several people from my state listed here as notable. Who submits them to Wikipedia? When will I be listed? Thank you, Eddie Napolillo. Actor from RI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rifilmmaker (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:Notability. The short answer is a person is sufficiently notable for WP when sufficient information about the person to write an article (not just a few passing mentions) has been published by reliable sources (this excludes user edited sites such as IMDb, Youtube, Facebook, blogs, etc.) Roger (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A more specific set of rules for biographies can be found here: wp:bio, musicians here: WP:NMG, and actors here: WP:NF, I think... Ottawahitech (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In my view, the decision about who/what is considered notable is highly subjective. When articles are proposed for deletion at Wikipedia, their fate depends on who started the article (well respected wikipedian or newbie/unknown), how well they are written (and what is included to pass the wiki-benchmarks), what citations can be located at the time of deletion proposal, who happens to see and participate in the deletion process, and more.... Ottawahitech (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the deletion process is imperfect and quite subjective. Occasionally it will appear to reach a completely bone-headed consensus. But I do think it is necessary. How would you go about improving it without further bogging things down? Regards, RJH (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Good question! and one that I cannot answer in one sentence. However I would like to add that the current mechanism does not work in my opinion and is way too time comsuming for everyone invloved. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Accolades ??

Why use the unfamiliar term Accolades on films? (se Avatar) Why don't use good old english term Awards.--Ezzex (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The place to discuss that is at the article's talk page. Since you asked here, however, I'll point out that the word "accolade" entered the English language around 500 years ago, which certainly makes it old (though not necessarily good). Its meaning is broader than that of "award". Rivertorch (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed this too, and found it somewhat amusing that we don't just call the section "Awards," as that's usually what's in it, with other "accolades" being entered under sections entitled "Reception." dci | TALK 05:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

... and then there is Honors/ Honours :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

using template infobox company

I am trying to include the owner of the company in the infobox, but cannot get it to display. See: Entrust. What am I doing wrong? Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed - unlike page titles, the case of the first letter of a parameter name must match the template definition. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Question, Where should I start?

I am a new kid on the block, and trying to improve Wikipedia. Where do I start, how do I find articles to edit. Can somebody tell me please, about day in the life of an average wikipedian? Editor0000001 (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)editor0000001

Welcome! I don't think there is really such a thing as an average Wikipedian. Everyone contributes in whatever way they want to. You could pick a subject that nobody has written about and write an article from scratch (just be careful that it is sufficiently notable - make sure it has been the subject of several independent publications or it might get deleted). You could pick one of the many stubs (very short articles) and expand it. You could have a go at tackling one of the backlogs of tasks that have been flagged up as needing doing but haven't been done yet. There are so many different ways you can contribute - find something you think you might enjoy doing and give it a go! Remember, one of our fundamental principles is Be Bold! - don't worry about doing things wrong, just give it a go and trust that someone else will come along later and fix it if what you do isn't quite perfect. --Tango (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Editor0000001 (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)editor0000001

Roger Vercel

I noticed that many passages of this article, like "Dinan extinguished it in 1957." make no sense at all. It looks to me like it has been machine-translated and nobody seems to have noticed although it has been edited many times since its creation. Président (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have placed a copyedit template on it - I hope this is the right thing to do? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Survey invitation

The Wikimedia Foundation would like to invite you to take part in a brief survey.

With this survey, the Foundation hopes to figure out which resources Wikimedians want and need (some may require funding), and how to prioritize them. Not all Foundation programs will be on here (core operations are specifically excluded) – just resources that individual contributors or Wikimedia-affiliated organizations such as chapters might ask for.

The goal here is to identify what YOU (or groups, such as chapters or clubs) might be interested in, ranking the options by preference. We have not included on this list things like “keep the servers running”, because they’re not a responsibility of individual contributors or volunteer organizations. This survey is intended to tell us what funding priorities contributors agree and disagree on.

To read more about the survey, and to take part, please visit the survey page. You may select the language in which to take the survey with the pull-down menu at the top.

This invitation is being sent only to those projects where the survey has been translated in full or in majority into your language. It is, however, open to any contributor from any project. Please feel free to share the link with other Wikimedians and to invite their participation.

If you have any questions for me, please address them to my talk page, since I won’t be able to keep an eye at every point where I place the notice.

Thank you! - Stephen LaPorte (WMF) 22:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Templates for Displaying Military Ribbons/Medals as Worn?

Are there any templates for displaying a user's military ribbons and medals as worn on his uniform? If not, how can I do it? User:Gadget850 said that he uses the template "Quote box" to place ribbons into. Is that good, or is there a better way? Thank you. Allen (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The folks at WP:MILHIST will know more than I do about these things, but my general rule of thumb is that when it comes to templates, following Gadget's lead is a good choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I'd get ye to MILHIST. I recall, but cannot find, discussion on whether or not it is appropriate to post such displays of ribbons. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There's currently a RfC on whether displaying medal ribbons is a good idea at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC: The use of medal ribbon pictograms in articles. All editors are very welcome to comment, even (perhaps especially!) if you have no experience with writing biographies of military people. Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Allen/Morriswa's interest is apparently his own userspace at User:Morriswa/My userboxes#Military Ribbons I've Earned. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I missed the bit about 'a user's' in his post! Still, all editors are welcome to comment on the RfC ;) Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my interest is on my subpage. I am trying to display my military ribbons as they are on my uniform. There are only 2 issues: 1. I want to add the Operational Distinguishing Device to the Coast Guard's Meritorious Unit Commendation ribbon. 2. I need to verify what is the 4th award of the Navy's Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. Is it 4 bronze stars or 1 silver star? Also, is it service or award stars? Any other help you can provide will be appreciated. Allen (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Terms of Use will be updated

There was a note posted over at Meta by the Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel that says the revised meta:Terms of use have been unanimously approved by the Board of Trustees. (See meta:Resolution:Terms of use.)

There will be some delay before the change is announced and becomes effective. (Hopelessly cynical editors may want to re-read WP:You don't own Wikipedia to prepare for the usual whingeing about changes made by the WMF to the WMF's websites.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the wiki-alert, WhatamIdoing. Just wondering if anyone can tell us in three sentences or less, what it is all about? Thanks in advance, 14:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It's really hard to sum up a legal document in three sentences or less. :) But there's a "human readable" summary, created by community request, which comes close. Reproducing it here (see meta:Terms of use-Summary for attribution) with a few modifications for form:

Part of our mission is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and either publish it under a free license or dedicate it to the public domain and to disseminate this content effectively and globally, free of charge. You are free to read and print our articles and other media free of charge; share and reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses; and contribute to and edit our various sites or projects. You do so under the following conditions: (a) responsibility - you take responsibility for your edits (since we only host your content); (b) civility - you support a civil environment and do not harass other users; (c) lawful behavior — you do not violate copyright or other laws; (d) no harm - you do not harm our technology infrastructure; and (e) terms of use and policies — You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities. You understand that you generally must license your contributions and edits to our sites or Projects under a free and open license (unless your contribution is in the public domain) and that the content of articles and other projects is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice.

The Summary as written is visible there, above the full document. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

DOI cleanup

I've (well technically Redrose64, since I'm not an admin) added some parsing on various Digital Object Identifiers used in citation templates, such as {{doi}}, {{cite journal}} and {{cite doi}}, amongst others. All doi should start with '10.Foobar/Barfoo', but there are rather common mistakes of copy-pasting stuff from websites, meaning that very often, you get stuff like

{{cite doi|doi:10.Foobar/Barfoo}} instead of {{cite doi|10.Foobar/Barfoo}}
{{cite journal|doi=doi:10.Foobar/Barfoo}} instead of {{cite journal|doi=10.Foobar/Barfoo}}

Category:Pages with DOI errors is populating very rapidly, so it seems we need some AWBites to get on the task. Most errors are of the following two types.

doi:(space?)10.Foobar instead of 10.Foobar
0.Foobar instead of 10.Foobar

So they should be fixed with these simple regexes (untested)

Find

\|(\s*)doi(\s*)=(\s*)doi:(\s*)

Replace

|$1doi$2=$3

Find

\|(\s*)doi(\s*)=(\s*)0\.

Replace

|$1doi$2= 10.

Find

\{\{(\s*)(cite )?doi(\s*)\|(\s*)doi:(\s*)

Replace

{{$1$2doi$3|$4

Find

\{\{(\s*)(cite )?doi(\s*)\|(\s*)0\.

Replace

{{$1$2doi$3= 10.

Many thanks to those who help. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Medal templates as a pseudo-infobox

How should we deal with instances of the medal templates, used as a pseudo-infobox? Your comments would be welcome at Template talk:MedalTop#Name, redux. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Google ads

Did we start having google ads in Wikipedia? Why?--188.4.233.216 (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

We did not. Why do you ask? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I use Google Chrome and now in all but the main pages, there is a Google Ad. What can I do?--188.4.233.216 (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Use another browser, or perhaps take your question to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing where someone might have a clue about what's going on in your Chrome. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried explorer too. I'll ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing.--188.4.233.216 (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like Adware. I recommend running a tool like Ad-Aware to scan your system. Dcoetzee 09:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Replacing one reference with another

In most cases when another reference in support of material included in an article is found, another reference is simply added. However, on rare occassions I see someone actually replacing one reference with another. Is there an official policy? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've occasionally replaced a weak, transitional or poorly sourced tertiary source with a solid and reliable secondary source. I've also replaced sources that have become inaccessible with ones that have more staying power and/or can be freely accessed. It depends on the references and the circumstances. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The reference I saw replaced was one from USA Today. It was replaced with one from the BBC. Both are good sources, I believe? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Article on David de Gea apparently missing from Google

No matter how I search for it, I can't get the entry on David de Gea to be returned as a result on Google. Normally our entries for football players are among the very top results. Is it possible to fix this? I've looked through the page's code but can't see anything on there which might prevent it from being indexed. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Very odd. https://www.google.com/search?q=David+de+Gea+site:en.wikipedia.org suggests it's just not in their index. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be working now, but curiously now I can't get the page for Gilbert & George (two British artists) to be returned. Originally I thought that the de Gea article might have been removed from Google because there were BLP issues with it, or something like that, but the fact that it's appearing again would probably suggest some sort of technical issue at Google, which is not really a concern of ours. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 call for participation banners

FYI. We will be running banners [16] for the Wikimania 2012 call for participation, March 8 - 18. Initially, these will be for logged in and anon users, but we maybe switch it to logged-in only in a few days (depending how it goes).

I hope the banners aren't too large and if there are any problems, let me know and we'll see what we can do.

And for anyone interested, the CFP deadline is March 18 and can be done here: wm2012:Submissions. --Aude (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

interessting user-sub-pages

Is there any bigger colletion of interessting user-sub-pages? - 78.51.47.78 (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Contacting Jimmy Wales?

"Although you can contact founder Jimmy Wales, he is not responsible for individual articles or the daily operations." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us

I've looked for a great while now without finding any way of actually contacting him. --Yellowpigeon (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Posting at User talk:Jimbo Wales should work, at least I think so. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alternatively, if the matter was confidential, you could send him an email by clicking on the link in the "Toolbox" section in the menu to the left hand side of his Talk Page. Hope that answers your question, —MistyMorn (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry... I don't see any e-mail link in the "Toolbox" section on that page. I don't understand what you mean.--Yellowpigeon (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You may have to expand the toolbox menu by clicking on the little arrowhead beside "Toolbox". You also have to be logged in to your registered account (as I presume you are). Hope this helps, —MistyMorn (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, try this link: http://en.wikipedia[dot]org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Jimbo_W@les (just replace [dot] and @ with . and a, ie "Wales"). —MistyMorn (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No need to obscure the link. Use: Special:EmailUser/Jimbo_Wales. Dcoetzee 09:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason this user does not see an "email this user" link is that they have not provided an email address in their preferences (Special:EmailUser requires the sender to have provided an email address). See User:Jimbo Wales for how to contact Jimmy. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - now I know... Should have left the reply to somebody better informed than I am. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the help page.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Wikipedia:Village pump (all)

Contents

Policy

Secondary schools should meet WP:GNG or are they exempt?

Straw poll to test consensus

Support

Oppose

Should schools have to meet GNG

Straw poll discussion

Suggestions

Summary

Full Stop

Guidelines

The next step

Strawpoll 2

A different approach

Obscured sigs

Talk page

Time for a policy on tagging?

Using tags as battle-standards on policy/guideline pages

Guideline truly needed!

is there a place where disillusioned and tired editors can "hang out" - like the waste bucket of WP ?

Relevance

Addition to WP:NOT

Wikipedia:Editing environment has been marked as a guideline

What is the procedure for elevating the status of a guidance essay?

What is an arena's name?

Remove prognostication from WP:BLP1E, to conform with WP:1E and WP:CRYSTAL

WP:NOT Automobiles

Minor Edit War

How to handle name changes?

The Ukraine > Ukraine

"Refimprove"

editing references

Composers

please check out this link and advise on what is happening

Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian no longer marked as a guideline

Link to noticeboard in article talk page

What if Jimbo goes nuts?

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions has been marked as a guideline

Technical

Problem displaying wikipedia content in iPad application

Issues arising from rollout of mediawiki 1.19

Any way to get the green back in diffs?

HistoryNumDiff problem...

Function akeytt disappeared

Edit section for old revisions

HTML validation

Watchlist time (in the box area) shows UTC

Broken script

Any way to remove characters added / removed from Contributions pages?

Missing toolbar buttons?

Revert button on move page feature doesn't work

Contributions lists for truncated IP addresses don't work anymore

Incredible slowness

Edit conflicts: Not the new text at all

Editing old revisions: Wrong "changes"

Short Pages report's talk page link

Large template not transcluding

Moving saves username in edit summary

Edit conflicts not being detected

Diff size differences in user contributions

Diff size differences when filtering by tag

Script issue

Cleanup category population

File Subpages

Removing a page from the search box

How Are Non-Logged-In Users Able to Make Any Edits

What no redirect button?

Über slow deletion

Visited external links are not changing to purple

"Jump to" accessibility links have vanished from the "Chick" skin?

Counting infobox transclusions

Internal link being rendered as external link

User talk page apparently borked

Heavy load time for deleting files

Double redirect templates

CSS pages not loading

New Page Triage

Accolades ??