Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.

• If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals).
• If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
• If you want to ask what the policy is on something, try the Help desk or the Teahouse.
• This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.
• If you want to propose a new or amended speedy deletion criterion, use Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.

« Archives, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193

RfC: amending parts of WP:NCELECT

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Elections and referendums claims to contain guidelines as to how to title articles about such democratic exercises. However, it appears to be a guideline which is not in sync with practice and which sometimes even leads to results which are outright contrary to the WP:TITLE policy.

Thus, I propose that all relevant phrases of NCELECT be altered to reflect actual usage, i.e. elections should be at [Date] [location name or adjective] [election], with the preference being left to other considerations of the article title policy (notably WP:COMMONNAME). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey (NCELECT)

• Support as proposer. This seems to be a typical case of a guideline not exactly following actual practice, but never having been updated to match, and this leading to problems when it is incorrectly applied in a spirit violating WP:NOTBURO; not to speak of the fact that this is incoherent with the basic article title policy: a particular issue is with the guideline's call to use exclusively adjectival forms for country/place names. This is not very uniformly enforced (the vast majority of articles for sub-national level contests are, without exception, at the [Date] [Location] [election] form, ex. 2018 California elections, not "2018 Californian elections"), mostly because it's utter nonsense (2019 United Kingdom general election is a very obvious example of where using the adjectival form - "British" - would be very thoroughly inappropriate, not only because "British", while technically correct, is not used in this fashion due to specific socio-historical issues, but also because nobody refers to these as such) and because it leads to titles which are not particularly natural to a reader looking for the topic (if you can figure out where the article about the 2019 San Marino election is actually located without searching, good job), thus violating WP:COMMANNAME rather unambiguously; all in the name "but it is a guideline" - apparently, an ill-defined guideline because the only major RfC I see about it on the talk page archives is this, which makes no mention of using an ajectival form - this was altered here by Number 57, having been put in basically unquestioned in 2005 and not altered or passed up to the community for actual formal approval at any point in time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Yup, makes sense. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This would lead to even more inconsistency in election article title names. And British election articles really should be called just that. Number 57 08:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Consistency is good, but needs to be balanced with recognizability per COMMONNAME. Blind, over-consistency, can lead to readers not being able to locate articles. Redirects can help with that. Blueboar (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support allowing either adjectival or noun form. We quite reasonably prefer 2017 French presidential election to 2017 France presidential election, but 2020 United States presidential election to 2020 American presidential election and 2017 Greater Manchester mayoral election to 2017 Greater Mancunian mayoral election, while 2019 British general election would be at best informal and more likely highly contentious. NebY (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Found it! Had to search, though. JBchrch talk 13:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal as-is. If I understand this correctly, the proposal calls for indiscriminately setting all titles regarding election articles to the "[date] [location] [election]" format, setting aside a very well-established consensus in place in Wikipedia for decades and affecting hundreds if not thousands of articles, under alleged "not in sync with practice" grounds (a claim which, otherwise, has been left unsupported by actual evidence) and because it "sometimes even leads to results which are outright contrary to the WP:TITLE policy" (so, rather than addressing the particular issue(s) at hand to make it/them conform with TITLE, let's dump the whole NCELECT altogether and disrupt the vast majority of cases where it works nicely, why not?). On the one side, adjectival forms are a natural way of referring to the election in question in the article's body (thus avoiding unneeded piped links): 2019 San Marino general election or 2019 United Kingdom general election may have sense, 2016 Spain general election, 2021 Germany federal election or 2017 France presidential election are awkward when used in-text and would like require piped-links or the creation of redirects. But then, it should be noted that the current convention has been expanded locally to allow for more WP:TITLE-abiding exceptions in specific situations, i.e. 2020 United States presidential election (not 2020 American presidential election) or 2019 United Kingdom general election (not 2019 British general election), because that's how sources commonly refer to those and that's how those would be naturally referred to in any given text body. If the problem at hand pertains to specific situations (and it clearly is, by the wording of the proposal and because it seems like it is deriving from this particular discussion), then I'd favour an amendment to NCELECT introducing an additional clause under which "location" can take precedence over the adjectival form in those situations where sources do prefer the former over the latter (this is what already happens de facto in many situations, in a similar way that there is a clause providing for situations such as 2021 Scottish Parliament election or 2017 Northern Ireland Assembly election). Let's don't turn this into a WP:BROKE issue by causing havoc where it is not warranted. Impru20^talk 14:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Impru20: You appear to indeed have misunderstood. The proposal is to allow either form, depending on which makes most sense in a given context. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• @RandomCanadian: If that's the case, then yes, since that's what has been done locally for years without much trouble. Still, the formal text of the proposal is "that all relevant phrases of NCELECT be altered to reflect actual usage, i.e. elections should be at [Date] [location name or adjective] [election], with the preference being left to other considerations of the article title policy". Since I do not agree with it for the reasons exposed above and because it would leave the door too open to ambiguity, I keep my "oppose proposal as-is" !vote, favouring instead the incorporation of an additional clause (in a similar fashion as done "for elections to particular bodies or offices") which could be written as follows: "For elections in countries for which reliable sources prefer such format, default to the form "Date [country name] type election", as in: 2020 United States presidential election, 2019 United Kingdom general election, or 2020 New Brunswick general election". Impru20^talk 14:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Impru20: it sounds like you're missing the "or adjective" part of "[date] [location name or adjective] [election]" (as you did in your initial comment). There's no ambiguity. It allows both "2019 United Kingdom general election" and "2017 French presidential election" as written, in contrast to the existing guideline (which prohibits the former). It is more explicit in this than your proposed text. — Bilorv (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Article names like "2019 United Kingdom general election" and "2020 United State presidential election" exist because it can be argued that using the adjectival form is problematic and an exception is made to the more natural article title form, which is the adjectival one. My issue with the proposal is that it gives equal weight to location and adjectival forms, whereas the latter should be preferred based on their naturalness. The risk is that we end up with worse article titles or time-wasting RMs because someone thinks it's better to call an article '2021 Germany federal election' and the proposed new wording of the guideline says this is fine. Number 57 16:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Bilorv: I have missed nothing, I am explicitly against the proposed change as formulated. I am in favour of having the current scheme of using the adjective first as the default naming convention, but allowing the use of the location in specific cases where appropiate (which is what has been done in Wikipedia for years already). This is in contrast to the or proposal, which would basically allow for an indiscriminate use of either the location or the adjectival form in any case, even in elections of the same country (i.e. the proposal would technically allow for both a 2016 United States presidential election article and a 2020 American presidential election article to co-exist, with both being technically equally valid. It is a drastic example, but the point is made). My proposal would basically turn this unwritten convention into written policy, which would achieve the same as RandomCanadian's current proposal while being much more harmless. Impru20^talk 17:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Impru20: I should have pinged you below; in any case see this for further explanation as to why I don't think your drastic example would happen under my proposal as well. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: The problem is that your wording leaves it just too open to interpretation and deviates from customary Wikipedia practice for many years. Your assurances do not matter, since you can just simply control the way other people would implement such naming convention under your proposal. Considering past precedence through Wikipedia on other NCs and MOS, it will get messy. I would rather prefer a straightforward solution that does not mean any drastic change to current policy. Impru20^talk 06:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree to disagree, then, as I think the policy should not explicitly favour one form or the other (even if in practice one can expect that one or the other might be more frequent in some contexts), and also think that simply suggesting to follow the other criteria to fix any ambiguity as to which should be used will ensure that articles are overall at better, clearer titles (otherwise, as I also know from experience, people are going to argue "but the guideline favours adjectives" even in contexts where there is no reason to favour adjectives). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. We've needed a general consistency here for a long time now, and the proposed pattern already agrees with most of our relevant articles. I detect some "United Kingdom" vs. "British" dispute in the background, and I don't think this RfC addresses it; it is better taken elsewhere. WP:COMMONNAME is already effectively our guide to whether in a particular case to use an adjective or noun form, though it would not hurt for the guideline to reiterate, something like "When choosing between a noun and adjective form, use the form most frequent in reliable, independent, English-language sources."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Perhaps on this topic, we should go via local consensus. I think there'd be opposition to 2024 American presidential election, for example. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  @GoodDay: What are you opposing? If we followed the guideline as written, it should be "American". Obviously, the guideline is not in sync with actual practice, hence why I am proposing it be amended so that both forms are allowable, with the decision of which one to use for a particular country or region being left to local consensus. i.e. my proposal is basically this, but copied to the other three similar sentences too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  Just pointing out, that if we attempt an across the board implementation (either option)? It might get messy. As for myself, I will abide but whatever this RFC's decision is. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  @GoodDay: The proposal isn't to make it a free for all; I explicitly wrote what is implied by usual policy, i.e. "with the preference being left to other considerations of the article title policy" - i.e. it shouldn't merely be an arbitrary choice, it would still need to follow the usual guidelines (including naturalness [so no "Germany elections"] and recognisability/precision [so no "American elections"]). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  Changing to neutral. I'll abide by whatever the RFC decision is. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  We should go by local consensus at the country level, but not at the election level. If 51% of sources say "2016 United States presidental election" and 51% of sources say "2020 American presidental election", we shouldn't use different terms just because that's how the numbers played out; we should strive for consistency within a single class of elections. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support: needs updating as it's out of line with current practice, and the proposal will cover essentially all current practice. Even the Sanmarinese example wouldn't actually need to be changed to match this new NCELECT, though it should be. — Bilorv (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom, particularly to accurately document current practice and with the preference being left to other considerations of the article title policy. Levivich 23:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Nomination makes cogent argument to have policy follow generally accepted practice. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose but allow redirects. At minimun, the proposal and guidance should prioritize country name over adjective, as not everyone may be familiar with the adjective or the adjective may either be over- or under- inclusive. --Enos733 (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. A fair point, but note that this proposal still moves in the right direction - at least it allows the country name, while the current guidance suggests adjective-only. SnowFire (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. On Wikipedia we tend to go by actual cases rather than follow some philosophical "this is how it should be everywhere" principle. It would be wrong to call any UK-wide elections "British" because that word is ambiguous - it can mean "pertaining to the United Kingdom" or "pertaining to the island that contains most of England, Scotland and Wales, but certainly not Northern Ireland". But carrying that case over to everywhere leads to such absurdities as calling the recent election in Germany by a name that is hardly ever used in English. Let's just use the normal rules for article titles. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Guidelines should follow usage, not the other way around. As a note, the change doesn't even forbid the adjectival form, so really can't see the issue with such a change at all - although, per others, certain flagrant examples like San Marino should probably be moved sooner rather than later. SnowFire (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support: I see this as leading to titles that are stronger on the "naturalness" criterion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support: The current guideline fails Criteria #1 and #2 - and even without relevant policy, the San Marino example was extremely convincing when I first read it, and remains extremely convincing now. I'm not entirely certain we need any guideline to define this - I would think that we can come to reasonable titles on the basis of Criteria, perhaps with an explanatory essay pointing users in the right direction - but as we have one, the one we have might as well make sense. BilledMammal (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Whatever the result may be, I think there must be redirects made to allow for both forms. Have one form be where the article actually resides, while have the redirect of the other form to allow people to search using either form and also for links to be made with either form used. --boldblazer 23:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Guidelines should allow actual usage to avoid confusion and ambiguity. Sam.gov (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support - There are many cases where the adjective isn't the WP:COMMONNAME; in some cases, the adjective isn't even WP:NATURAL. (Thinking here of US states in particular... I can't imagine many people go around using the word, say, "Massachusettsian.") Amending this policy helps to ensure that NCELECT doesn't end up at cross-purposes with broader naming guidelines. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (NCELECT)

• Whatever the exact shady origins of NCELECT, or the outcome of this discussion, formalising this aspect via a proper process is likely to reduce potential for misinterpretation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• The title of this section is misleading – the proposal isn't to deprecate NCELECT, it's to amend it. Also, why wasn't this done on the guideline's talk page like usual attempts to amend guidelines? Number 57 08:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  The proposal is not at NCELECT cause that page has limited traffic. Also because as far as I see there's been an editor who's been editing the guideline without obtaining previous consensus for it; specifically on this point (diff), and that same person has been enforcing the guideline they wrote themself as though it were force of law. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  That edit was a simple correction, not a material change (as 'demonym' refers to the people of a country which wasn't appropriate for the guideline, although in practice, in most cases they are the same). And I am not the guideline's original author. Number 57 12:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• We have Year Canadian federal elections & Year United States presidential elections. We also have Year United Kingdom general elections & Year Russian presidential elections. They're all Year location election form. GoodDay (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Acoording to the guideline as written, it's supposed to be Year [Adjectival form] election (so "2019 British general elections", because "British" is indeed the demonym for "United Kingdom"). The guideline making no exception for other overriding policy concerns (such as the well known WP:CRITERIA), so should be amended to cover at least that. In addition, the guideline as written does not reflect actual practice, as demonstrated by countless cases like the California elections RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• The amendment is required. PS - I'm trying to picture 2022 Oregonian gubernatorial election, 2022 Illinosian gubernatorial election, 2021 New Jerseyite gubernatorial election, 2023 Lousianian gubernatorial election, etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of TimedText Pages

Why are requests to delete TimedText pages, which are audio, considered at MFD rather than at FFD? I think I know the answer, which is because that is what the rules say. Why do the rules send deletion requests for TimedText to MFD, which is not otherwise a forum that concerns itself with files containing analog, audio, video, image, or other such information? Why not direct those requests to FFD? That isn't really a "good fit", but it is sort of "less bad fit" than MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: probably because they are relatively rare, I expect most TT deletions are speedy (G8 when the file is deleted), and the others are rather uncontested so they just lumped in to the "everything else" that went to MfD. Venue-wise, most FFD's are about copyright issues, which could pertain to TT's - but again it is rarely a concern. Aside, if we really wanted to move something out of MfD - I've always argued that Draft's would be the best (as their deletion arguments are almost always about content or content inclusion criteria - not about miscellaneous things). — xaosflux ^Talk 10:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

For reference, I looked over the last 20000 page deletions. Of those, 27 were TimedText - all of which were G8. Additionally, Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/TimedText shows that there have only ever been 32 TT MFD's. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, TT is not audio - it is plain wikitext. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that either of these locations are completely bad, but I agree with Robert that these requests would ideally be handled at FFD, even though that means taking a little effort to update the rules (and probably Twinkle, too). WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't object to moving these from MFD to FFD, but think that the overhead of even worrying about any of the mechanics is time best spent elsewhere. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with xasoflux; it's just not worth worrying about. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that, if there have been only 32 deletion nominations for TimedText files since Day One, then it makes very very little difference where we delete them. Perhaps this is because everything having to do with TimedText files makes very little difference. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's not worth spending much time on. I can only think of three reasons for deletion: there is no associated media file, the associated media file is being deleted, or the transcription is significantly wrong and no one is volunteering to fix it, which for most cases doesn't require much discussion: an admin can watch the media file with the timed text and decide if it should be deleted. isaacl (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree, deletion of media files, sound like images, belongs at FfD, primarily because complex copyright concerns are interwoven, like with image files. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

It not being a big frequent issue is not a reason to not improve something. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Drafts

On the other hand, the deletion of drafts is a substantive matter. User:Xaosflux writes:

Aside, if we really wanted to move something out of MfD - I've always argued that Draft's would be the best (as their deletion arguments are almost always about content or content inclusion criteria - not about miscellaneous things).

Where would we move deletion of drafts to? They should not be moved to AFD, because, although drafts are proposed articles, notability is the most common reason for deletion of articles, and notability is not a reason for the deletion of drafts. What forum is there to move deletion of drafts to? Should there be a WP:Drafts for Discussion forum to discuss deletion of drafts, that could also handle appeals of rejected drafts, or complicated issues about whether to accept drafts? If drafts are not miscellaneous, what are they? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: in my general opinion, miscellany is more about things that are ancillary to the project (mechanics, presentations, and niche things that never got their own home from VFD such as TimedText above) - while drafts are more aligned with the core mission of gathering/curating of knowledge. DfD could be the answer - there hasn't been enough push to bother before - but they are certainly a larger category than TT if we are looking at splitting something out of MfD. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been one of the regular participants at MFD for several years, and my unscientific estimate would be that most of the time it has slightly more "draft-like" stuff than anything else, and next to that is WikiProject-related stuff. An exception was that in 2019, it was mostly portals, until the portal deletions resulted in an ArbCom case that didn't settle anything. (ArbCom, reasonably, said that there should be a community discussion. Community discussion fizzled out because the community was too scattered even to have a focused discussion.) However, much of what goes to MFD is either drafts or draft-like stuff, such as draft articles in user space. So a lot of what gets discussed at MFD is proposed content. (And portals are also a device for presenting content.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we can move it out, by getting rid of that process to delete drafts. After all, we already have broad allowance for what drafts are allowed to exist, even if they wouldn't have a hope of surviving an AfD (we just delete them after they've been inactive for six months), and we already handle the things that need to be deleted (copyright, BLP, illegal) through speedy deletion.

With that said, this is just brainstorming; I have minimal experience with MfD. BilledMammal (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Drafts are frequently left to languish, which might be unfortunate but which is a fact of life, but when deletion is being discussed, I would prefer to see those discussions happen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. They should be deleted (or not, as the case might be) on the same grounds as any page that is already in the mainspace, and the most straightforward way to make sure that the same standards are being applied is to have the same process handling it. There has been a tendency among AFD and NPP regulars to sometimes reject drafts and new pages on notable subjects on grounds that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions rejects. I also wouldn't object if the preferred process looked like first moving the page to the mainspace and then immediately nominating it for deletion. Leaving that log entry in the mainspace might make it easier to trace histories later.

Also, once a page has survived AFD, it should not be in draftspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, once a page has survived AFD, it should not be in draftspace. Yes. This is something I strongly support making policy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There are really only 3 reasons why a draft should ever be deleted:

1. The sole author requests it (G7)
2. It is actively harmful to the project (e.g. attack pages (G10), copyright violations (G12), and similar)
3. No human has touched them for 6 months (G13) - and I'm not fully convinced this isn't causing more harm than good in its present form.

For everything else, there needs to be a very good reason why it needs to be deleted before it is eligible for G13. Lack of notability and other reasons articles are commonly deleted at AfD are not examples of such reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The question is whether a page in the draft namespace is indeed a draft that could ever become an article. We do want to delete WP:NOTWEBHOST violations in any namespace, and draft namespace shouldn't be protected from that. (Howtos, manuals, gaming, various data dumps etc. should not be kept around based on what namespace they are in, but based on whether they have any conceivable use for the project). —Kusma (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

True. Any draft that violates any line at WP:NOT is welcome at MfD and is usually deleted there. The problem with most DraftSpace MfD nominations is that the nominator cites no WP:NOT violation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with User:Thryduulf. Very few good draftspace nominations are made at MfD. Mostly, I think it is due to enthusiastic Wikipedians trying to contribute, who don’t consider that raising unimportant issues on a formal deletion page creates more work than the original problem was worth. I.e busywork. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with User:SmokeyJoe's statement that "Very few good draftspace nominations are made at MfD." It is true that many of the draft nominations at MFD are mistaken, but proper nominations at MFD of drafts that were being tendentiously resubmitted are not uncommon. User:Thryduulf, above, says that drafts should only be deleted for three reasons, one of which is things that are actively harmful. I will agree with those categories IF it is recognized that tendentious resubmission is harmful to the project because it is a burden to the volunteer reviewers, and is often self-serving. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Very few good draftspace nominations are made at MfD.

Maybe on average one per week. That is very small for arguing for a new XforDeletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Sending all draftspace deletion to another forum would be good for mfd in removing much busywork from mfd. However, I predict that the new forum will be unattended. Most draftspace mfd nominations would have been appropriate for WP:N/N. Consider reviving that page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Drafts and Notability

User:WhatamIdoing says that drafts should be discussed for deletion on the same basis as articles. At least, that is what I understand they are saying. The most common reason for deletion of articles is lack of notability (where lack of reliable sources is a failure to establish notability verifiably). Does User:WhatamIdoing really mean that drafts should be deleted if they fail to establish notability? If not, what do they mean? Please explain. I think that I disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that drafts should be deleted (or merged) if the subject is not notable. Mind the gap between "the draft fails to establish the notability of the subject by citing a sufficient number of reliable sources" and "the subject is not notable". "Establishing" notability requires editors to invest a certain amount of time and effort in locating and citing reliable sources. Not being a notable subject is a problem that cannot be solved by any amount of effort expended by Wikipedia editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

How much editor effort should go into deleting worthless hopeless drafts? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want the least-effort deletion, then letting it rot in the draftspace until it is automatically deleted for inactivity is probably the right choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Non-Partisan Section Title

Let's talk about how "consensus" is being used to squashed dissenting opinions on articles relating to society/politics/political philosophies, through everything listed on the "pitfalls and and errors" subsection.

Undue weight to "reliable sources" is so disproportionate at this point that articles/sections/subsections look more like hit pieces than fairly weighted articles. None of the "reliable" sources are giving fair coverage to Donald Trump's conduct during the January 6th incident[1]. The title of this section is another example of how unfair weight is being given to one side, but not the other.

To say that I am pushing fringe theories would not be a fair assessment of my intentions. Neither would it be good faith to use Fox News as a straw man argument.[2][3] Considering the fact that all of the "independent" news outlets are no longer independent, Wikipedia and it's editors seriously need to consider expanding on what is considered to be a "reliable source". CosmicJacuzzi (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to politics and events, our definition of neutrality amounts to presenting whatever the mainstream media and any formal academic sources say about the subject as being the primary and most important view of the subject. Obviously, it takes a while for academics to write books and peer-reviewed journal articles, so for events within the last year or so, we rely mostly on mainstream media. Following the mainstream and academic views is the definition of neutral on Wikipedia. It is explicitly against policy to treat all sides as being equally valid. I realize that this can be frustrating when people disagree with the mainstream view, but this is how it works on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The "peer-reviewed journal articles" are a part of the mainstream media. If that wasn't the case, the examples I pointed out would exist and my point would be non-existent. It's an safe space of obvious lies, where people who disagree are labelled, yelled down, and silenced. I've seen the reprehensible behavior right here on Wikipedia. You bring it up on an Administrator's noticeboard, and a biased administrator jumps on it and just completely excuses obvious cases of outing. Followed by either of the involved administrators abusing either the sockpuppet, beating the dead horse, or fringe theories policies in order to justify a block. Want a good example of the echo chamber of lies? Take for example the "Haitian illegal immgrants 'being whipped'" incident. How that's being echoed by the White House, which is in turn being by the mainstream media. Every source that says anything to the contrary to the mainstream media is "misinformation/debunked/disputed/fake news/conspiracy theories". Whether that by journal articles by Conservative journalists, or Conservative news outlets. "Journals present the most recent research, and journal articles are written by experts, for experts."[4] All of those "experts" are leftists. If you're going to tell me I have an axe to grind, please go back to my top statement, and re-read the line about Fox news. CosmicJacuzzi (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I feel that your problem is not with our sourcing policies but with a degree of gullibility. Jorm (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The notion that peer-reviewed academic journals are part of the mainstream media is as bizarre as the notion that summarizing the mainstream media is a bad thing. Would you propose that we use fringe extremist media instead? Are you comfortable with the Revolutionary Communist Party and The Daily Stormer as sources for neutral encyclopedia articles? That's the path to madness and collapse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

oh ISIS pamflets. also really good sources ! —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I do agree with the problem sketch here. Rightwing media in the US are often fairly unreliable, leading us to exclude them and get slightly biased articles. High-quality foreign-language media may be part of the solution, as their reporting of the US is less charged. Femke (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I have pointed out similar problems here. The current idea is to blindly follow and summarize sources that are marked as "reliable" without thinking for yourself. As such, facts reported from, for example, the New York Post should not be included, since if those facts were notable, reliable sources should have mentioned them too.'Given the current climate of deep partisan divisions in the USA, that statement is hopelessly naive. It assumes that reliable sources are always reliable arbiters of truth, which is not the case, unfortunately. Moreover, as a reporter from such a reliable source put it:

[M]y job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal.

That is indeed about a degree of gullibility. See here the main reason I am not that active anymore on Wikipedia: copying a so-called reliable source that is merely copying "what the government thought" is not something I became an editor for. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Row and column spans

To quote Jeff Goldblum:

"Your editors were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should"

I received a request from an IP yesterday, asking for help to edit a table: [5]

The request in question, related to the monstrosity at this article: List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series. It took me about half an hour to remove an entry that should ideally have only taken 30 seconds to do. I am not completely opposed to row spans if they are used sparingly (for example, to group by year such as at Angelina_Jolie_filmography#As_actress) but they seem to have proliferated to the extent that they are a plague, making many tables that use them virtually unreadable, and even tougher to edit. They put up a significant barrier to newer editors.

Is this an issue the community would care to discuss? Betty Logan (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to say it's a unique case here with

• Many columns, esp. empty cells, require horizontal scrolling as it exceeds most screens
• Many rows, otherwise alternative might be to turn columns into rows

It's difficult to read because of the long rows, as it's hard to determine which cells belong to the row. Sure the syntax is a bit more complex for table spans, but tables are also more complex to edit than rows. I'd be wary of making a judgement on the presentation primarily based off of the syntax. Ideally, the question should be what serves the readers best.—Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Betty Logan, have you tried the table editor in the visual editor? Deleting a row or a column requires about three clicks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Best practices for blocking

I was looking at recent threads at WP:ANEW and noticed there is still a tendency for some admins to site block when a partial block may suffice.

As an example, consider this discussion, where there seems to be a clear lack of consensus that the administrative action was optimal. To cut a long story short, two established editors reverted each other three or four times, getting cross with each other in the process, which resulted in one editor getting a site-wide 24 hour block. In this scenario, I personally would consider a quiet word first, followed by a partial block of the page in question for a similar timeframe, and only progress to site-wide if the disruption spilled out and carried onto other pages.

I recall having discussions about the effectiveness of partial blocks before, and can't remember seeing a clear and obvious consensus for them. However, the feature's been around for a number of years now, and as far as I'm aware, most administrators are comfortable with it. The blocking policy doesn't make it clear one way or the other; perhaps it would be worth adding some sort of language along similar lines to the protection policy ie: "block at the smallest scope and duration that is necessary to stop disruption". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: eh I don't like it as a some sort of brightline policy statement. You know the type of vandals that only make NOTHERE disruptive edits for example, I'm not going to chase them around from namespace to namespace for example (because history and experience tells me that the only way to stop their disruption is with a site block). That being said, it does sound useful as some sort of guidance to consider... — xaosflux ^Talk 16:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

My take on partial blocks is they are of greatest utility in conjunction with wide IP range blocks. I'm loathe to site-block a /18 (or bigger!). If there's a small set of pages that are being vandalized by a roaming IP, the partial range block can be a good alternative to protecting the pages. For logged-in accounts, I find them less useful. If a person is misbehaving, it's the person we want to address, not the specific pages they're vandalizing. But, yes, they can be a useful tool and probably could be used to advantage more often. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree that pblocks are a good first-line control attempt for rangeblocks. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

A partial block is good way of dealing with some situations: a promotion-only SPA is one that comes to mind, where the user would thus be prevented from further inappropriate editing but left free to make useful edits elsewhere in the project. But in a situation such as this it would not be a good choice – there's no reason to believe that the same behaviour won't continue on another page, and no reason why the editor should not continue to edit that page as long as there's no further edit-warring. I don't see that any of this needs to be made policy. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Have we gathered any statistics on the effectiveness of partial vs. total blocks for registered editors? My knee-jerk reaction is that if an editor has proven untrustworthy in one area then that editor is likely to be untrustworthy in all areas, so a total block would be better. But I'm willing to be shown otherwise by hard evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I've suggested before that a killer feature would be partial blocks based on categories, i.e. "block a.b.c.d/16 from any page (transitively) in Category:Foo". Unfortunately, I suspect that would be very expensive to implement. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: phab:T190349 is about this, it was declined for a host of reasons. One of which is that it could mean that pretty much anyone (even an IP) could stop such a category p-blocked user from editing, just by adding that category to pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it's impractical, and fatally flawed, does not detract from the fact that it would be a killer feature :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the rule of thumb that a the smallest effective sanction is often best (eg. a p-block, a semi-protection). Disagree that a full-block/p-block criteria needs codifying: there's too many variables in each case for such a "bright line rule" to be of value. If any full block seems overly heavy-handed it can always be reviewed via talkpage discussion or at AN. The relative lack of such reviews (other than the single incident linked above) suggests this isn't presently an issue requiring policy change. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with most of those above, and I say that as possibly the least block-happy of all the regular admins. The main use case for partial blocks is for dealing with problematic IP ranges without the side-effect of rendering significant numbers of innocent editors, who happen to share the IP range, unable to edit Wikipedia. I find it hard to imagine the circumstance in which we trust a single, named, individual enough to allow them to edit Wikipedia, but want to prevent them from editing a particular page; if there's clear consensus that someone should stay off a particular page, they're warned to stay off that page, yet they continue to edit that page, then we should be blocking them site-wide since they're obviously untrustworthy and highly likely to cause problems elsewhere. ‑ Iridescent 19:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I've never placed a partial block that way. My canonical example is where two established editors lose their heads a bit and go over 3RR, but have been around long enough to be trustworthy. As for, "I find it hard to imagine the circumstance in which we trust a single, named, individual enough to allow them to edit Wikipedia, but want to prevent them from editing a particular page", Eric Corbett would have been an obvious example. I think you're forgetting that there are certain classes of editors who will cause a drama explosion if they get site blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't see how Eric Corbett is at all relevant to this discussion; if anything, he's an example of why partial blocks wouldn't be of any use when it comes to established editors as opposed to problematic IP ranges. When Eric was actually given a specific topic ban from a particular page he stuck to it faithfully, and if he hadn't stuck to it faithfully it would have been perfectly fair reason to block him sitewide as unwilling to follow our rules. The actual problem when it came to Eric was that he got too closely invested in articles on which he'd worked and consequently would get in arguments when people disagreed with him; as such, the only way partial blocks would have been effective in his case would have been if he'd been blocked from editing any topic in which he'd shown an interest, which would obviously have been pointless since it would have beed a de facto siteban. The existing topic ban process is one which actually works fairly well; if someone complies with their topic ban then the problem is solved, and if they can't comply with it then it's a clear indicator that they're likely to prove a problematic editor. Except in the very few cases where someone is genuinely only causing problems on a single page, partial blocks are unlikely to be much use; most POV-pushers and spammers are interested in a topic, not a single page, and absent the ability to partial-block from categories or from adding or removing keywords a partial block from a single page just means the problem behavior moves somewhere else. ‑ Iridescent 10:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"When Eric was actually given a specific topic ban from a particular page he stuck to it faithfully" Perhaps in your view, he did, but I recall two arbitration cases where there was a serious disagreement amongst administrators about a) whether or not Eric violated a Gender Gap Task Force topic ban and b) whether or not he should be site blocked for it. Two of the biggest drama time wasters on Wikipedia of all time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

How would partial blocks have helped in those cases, which were about talkpage interactions? If he'd had a partial block imposed rather than a topic ban, the partial block would have been from WP:Gender Gap Task Force, but since that wasn't the page on which the edits in question took place it would have had no impact—if anything, it would have made "This wasn't the page from which I was blocked so I was entitled to make these edits" a defense and led to even more of an argument. (I'm not sure if you're aware, but I'm fairly certain I've had more dealings with Eric than any other editor in Wikipedia's history—between his two accounts, he's made more than 1000 posts to my talk page and I've made over 700 to his—and I can say with near-certainty that most of his blocks were the result of comments made on his own talkpage. Since we obviously can't block someone from editing their own talkpage, partial blocks would have been of no help at all.) ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I used it this morning to block a user who was editing their own article and repeatedly running afoul of the COI policy and other guidelines and policies. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC, had that editor (who was editing their own article and repeatedly running afoul of COI policy) actually done significant productive editing on other topics? The issue I've seen with the vast majority of COI editors is that it's not just one topic they've got a COI with among 1000 they've edited productively. It's that all their edits are on those COI articles. —valereee (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

A valid point, they have performed exactly zero edits outside the subject of themselves. This is why I am keeping a close eye on them and am very much ready to administer a WP:NOTHERE sitewide block if they continue being disruptive. Arguably I could have jumped straight to that, but sometimes - just sometimes, they become productive in other areas. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This issue goes back to before partial blocks were available. I suggested several times over the years that in situations of isolated edit-warring or 3RR violations ("isolated" meaning good-faith editors without a long history of edit-warring), rather than block for 24h or 48h, wouldn't it be better just to warn the offending editor(s) off that page for a few days? Most editors would comply, especially if told that a site-wide block would follow if it did not, and the editor could go on to make good contributions on other pages rather than stepping away from the project altogether for however many days. I never got anywhere with these proposals; I think the most common argument against them was that the supposed deterrent effect of the bright-line 3RR rule would be lost.

Partial-blocking from the page, as opposed to giving a typed (but enforceable) warning, has the advantages that compliance is enforced, that there is no need for the admin to monitor for compliance, and that there is a written record in the event the user's edit-warring develops into a habit. It has the disadvantage of a scarlet-letter effect of an entry in the block-log, perhaps producing greater resentment. In any event, I'd still rather see either of these mechanisms favored over a site-wide block in cases involving good-faith editors who get caught up in the moment or in strength of feeling on an issue and lose track of their reverts.

I've written before that our collective "failure to take stock of dispute-resolution successes and failures has struck me for years as a project-wide myopia. In the [then] 13½ years of English Wikipedia there have been, in round numbers, a billion edit-wars, yet no one knows whether most edit-wars get resolved by civil discussion reaching a consensus on the optimal wording, or by one side's giving up and wandering away (or sometimes by everyone's ultimately losing interest and wandering away)." It's hard to figure out what the optimal sanctions approach might be without that information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

But again, cases where the issue is genuinely confined to a single page are atypical. If someone is causing problems on Cheese, then a partial block from that page will probably just mean they move on to Brie, Mozzarella etc. In the absence of any mechanism to partial-block someone from Category:Cheese, we'd have to block them individually from pages, which would make their block log very long and cause a significant scarlet letter effect. On the other hand "You are topic banned from cheese, broadly construed" not only makes it clear that it's the conduct that's the problem not the page on which that conduct happens, it means we can immediately assess whether this is someone who's willing to work collabiratively or not. Blocking—whether partial or full—should be a last resort, not a first resort.

(If I ruled Wikipedia, I'd make minor blocks—partial or full—drop off the block log after a couple of months with no further problems, to avoid the Mark of Cain effect. We have the technical ability to do this already, but it would be a significant cultural change. In the absence of being able to clean block logs, we need to recognize that what seems from the admin perspective to be a minor technical action is essentially giving the editor in question a permanent and publicly visible criminal record which will affect all their subsequent interactions with other editors.) ‑ Iridescent 08:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't move pages

I would like to pay attention to the problem with the moving of articles. Don't move pages if you are not going to update name in the lead and infobox (if exist) and Wikidata page. Don't do chaos. How many times yet they will mve articles without updating leads, infoboxes and Wikidata pages? Eurohunter (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

In the case that you link the change of name in the lead leads to it having a different meaning in that context, so I will revert you. Rather than say "don't move pages" you should think about what you are doing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eurohunter:- Hello, what exactly is the policy concern here? Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@PinkElixir: If above situation exist then it's problem with policy. Eurohunter (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Typesetters' quotation terminology

Important note: please DO NOT confuse this subject with the subject on whether TQ should be used in certain Wikipedia articles.

I think we need some discussion about how to refer to typesetters' quotation. The only article that says anything about it is Quotation marks in English. It refers to it by the common name "American style". (See WP:LQUOTE for what I'm talking about.) Georgia guy (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not clear what you're asking, and nor I suspect is anyone else. Are you asking whether we should continue to use the phrase "American style" or call it something else? If there's only one article on which the topic arises, why do we need a site-wide discussion rather than just a question on that article's talkpage? ‑ Iridescent 19:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The essay I linked to says "typesetters' quotation" (TQ) is the correct name. Georgia guy (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"Essay" being the key word there—all that demonstrates is that whoever happened to write that essay thinks "typesetters' quotation" is the correct name, not that it's some kind of immutable truth. For the second time, if this only affects a single article why does it need a site-wide discussion rather than just a question on that article's talk page? ‑ Iridescent 19:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't appear there's been any recent discussion of this at the article talk page, and I agree that's the best place to begin the conversation. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages don't get much attention if the articles are obscure. I felt like putting it here because it gets more attention. Georgia guy (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This page is not for seeking additional attention to content disputes. I recommend withdrawing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: this section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines. - what policy or guideline are referring to, and what exactly are you proposing be created or changed in such? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Xaosflux, I'm trying to propose a policy that the rule that a comma or period adjacent to a closing quotation mark must always precede the closing quotation mark must be referred to as "typesetters' quotation" and not as "American style". Georgia guy (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• So, I oppose creating a policy that would bar essay or guideline editors from using this term. This is extreme instruction creep and I don't see any project-wide problems that such a new policy would be necessary for. If there is a problem with a specific essay, go through the normal BRD and dispute resolution processes. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  And since it is also referenced, I strongly oppose any policy that would bar article editors from using such a term in encyclopedic articles - standard article content rules, including using common speech and terms from reliable sources should continue to be sufficient. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This has got to be the most pure example of painting the bicycle shed I've seen in a very long time. This is not an issue, and certainly not an issue requiring the creation of a policy mandating a particular label. Putting such a triviality here because of a desire for attention to a personal hobby-horse is not productive. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Georgia guy: Can you please articulate exactly what your concern is with referring to TQ by its American name? What is the rationale behind your proposed policy change for the naming convention? I am inclined to oppose simply because I can't think of any real need for such a specific and seemingly trivial point, but I am curious to hear what your underlying thoughts are. Particularly, if I am missing other WP policies or guidelines that support your position, please let me know. Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Calling it "American style" will make it look as if (to people familiar with Wikipedia's MOS and when to use each English variant) it make sense to use TQ in articles related specifically to the United States (such as New York City) and LQ in articles specifically related to other countries (such as London,) finding it surprising that Wikipedia's MOS says to always use LQ and never TQ. Georgia guy (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: I do hear what you're saying, and I would still oppose. I have not seen instances of people taking the term "American style" so literally, so I'm not convinced there is a pressing need here. For what it's worth, I also think you might be conflating several concerns here, given the last part of your sentence above; you seem to be in favor of using TQ over LQ, which is a different proposal, and perhaps worth a separate section/discussion if you feel so inclined. Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I support LQ in all articles. I support TQ be referred to as such whenever it is mentioned and not as "American style". Georgia guy (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Georgia guy:, regardless of what you support, you have yet to identify an issue which requires a policy change. Please read the page on what policies and guidelines are supposed to accomplish. Minor typographical inconsistencies are not generally regarded as issues that require such a directive. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Eggishorn, the problem I have is that it is always referred to as "American style" in all Wikipedia articles that mention it. Is there a reason here?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I would guess the "reason" is that it's an alternative terminology to your preferred one. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely-distributed project with (at last count) >125,000 authors and a level of consistency displayed by, say Encyclopedia Britannica is neither possible nor desired. Let me ask you a question in return: Where and how do you think the readers' comprehension of one single article in this project is negatively impacted by this issue? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The fact that only one article mentions it is only true in practice. It would be equally valid to apply this to a biographical article saying something like "Smith supports American style always be used." Georgia guy (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question, Georgia guy. I sincerely doubt that there is a single article in this project that describes the quotation punctuation preferences of any notable person with any reliable source. Again: In what main space article that currently exists is readers' comprehension limited by this? As the person proposing a new policy, you should be able to justify it on more than personal preference. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I justify it by the essay I linked to when I started this section; it taught me the term. It says that it's a misconception that it's "American style". Georgia guy (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

In other words, you can't justify it and this should be closed. An essay is just that: an essay. It is not policy, it is not a guideline, it is not controlling over anything whatsoever. It is certainly not a mainspace article and there is no way that the average reader will have anything impacted by this. I would close this but I'm obviously involved at this point. You should withdraw the request or close/collapse this section yourself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Should previously linked Wikipedia articles be separated?

I'm not sure this is the right place, but since this concerns the English Wikipedia too, I thought it was worth mentioning here: wikidata:Wikidata:Requests for comment/Should previously linked Wikipedia articles be separated?. Wikidata items names are more precise than Wikipedia articles names. So should Wikipedia articles about a subject, which were all previously linked together, be split into two different but closely related Wikidata items? The RedBurn (ϕ) 15:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't care what Wikidata does here. We can use {{interwiki extra}} if needed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

What Pppery said. Wikidata is a completely separate site; we don't care about what they do any more than we care about the policies of the Star Trek Fan Wiki. ‑ Iridescent 19:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The thing is that changing those links on Wikidata does impact Wikipedia, so we should care. Wikidata replaced interwiki article links. Using {{interwiki extra}} doesn't prevent Wikidata editors from unlinking Wikipedia articles without us noticing. The RedBurn (ϕ) 10:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

RedBurn, please explain in more detail (and avoid technical terminology if possible). What do you mean by “unlink”, and how can editing something on Wikidata unlink our articles without us noticing? Blueboar (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It's explained in Help:Interlanguage links. The links used to be inside the articles (Local links), so removing a link was visible in the article edit history. Now that those links are on Wikidata, the only way to know about a link change is to watch the Wikidata item edit history. This happens regularly because Wikidata editors seem to insist on only linking exactly identical articles, not just articles about the same subject. It seems that they consider that Wikipedia's purpose is to serve Wikidata (by providing articles about a Wikidata item), not the other way. The RedBurn (ϕ) 15:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

So, the example at Wikidata is for Blood pressure and Arterial blood pressure, two slightly different but closely related concepts which can most easily be discussed in one article, as has been done by at first glance all Wikipedia languages, plus all or nearly all sources. At enwiki, A redirects to B, and at frwiki, B redirects to A. In the pre-Wikidata days, the interwiki links joined the two (as is correct). But since Wikidata insists that 1. there should be two Wikidata items, and 2. redirects can't have Wikidata items linked, the frwiki article is no longer linked from the enwiki article, and vice versa. And the limited input at the Wikidata discussion so far insists that this is a good thing... Fram (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Wikidata does not prohibit sitelinks to redirects (although the software makes them annoyingly hard to add). The rest seems to be correct. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, if I am understanding correctly, the issue relates purely to linking in the sidebar (in desktop mode), where we note that there is an article at one of the other language WPs about the same topic. yes? Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know interwiki links were specific to desktop mode, but yes you do understand correctly. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I think Blueboar was saying that they're in the sidebar in desktop mode. The RedBurn (ϕ) 10:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes… And as far as I know, they don’t show up (at all) in mobile view. So in both modes, it isn’t something that the average reader/editor pays a lot of attention to. Because they are “off to the side”, the interlanguage links are not seen as being “part of the article” in the same way as article text or infoboxes are… so are low priority for a lot of editors. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Those links exist in the mobile site. They're at the top of the page, about a half-inch underneath the article title, under the word "Languages". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Ooooh… so THAT’S what the icon of the little man dancing around a capital letter A does. I never bothered to click on that icon before. Blueboar (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

If Wikidata editors are willing to take the time to add redirects to every single article previously linked before they move some of them to a different item, I'm probably OK with them separating them. The RedBurn (ϕ) 10:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

If wikidata insists on doing this, then its probably time to bring interwiki links back under ENWP's control and start using local links again. (Which is basically what MisterSynergy has indicated at the above discussion on wikidata). Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Or, as I suggested above, use {{interwiki extra}} to display interwiki links from two different items on the same article. I'm by no means a fan of Wikidata, but that sounds like an overreaction. For what it's worth, I did add the template to Blood pressure, which now displays the French interwiki. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

If that solution is deemed OK, maybe Wikidata editors should add that template to all the articles previously linked when they move some of them to different items? Wikipedia editors shouldn't have to clean up the mess of Wikidata editors in my opinion. And Wikipedia editors shouldn't have to keep track of those "unlinking events". I think this hurts Wikipedia as a whole by making it harder to find content in different languages (to read or translate). The RedBurn (ϕ) 10:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Each language variant of Wikipedia should be able to choose its own article topics. Wikidata should facilitate linking analogous topics, whether or not the articles are exact equivalents of each other. isaacl (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this is the same problem I asked about a while ago at which I was referred to wikidata:WD:Bonnie and Clyde. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bonnie and Clyde problem is a specific case that existed before Wikidata. Here it's about articles which were linked (one to one) before Wikidata but which got separated by Wikidata editors. The RedBurn (ϕ) 09:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Notability of Films About to Be Released

There is discussion in progress at the film notability guideline talk page about the notability criteria for films that have begun or completed production (principal photography or animation} and have not yet been released. There are two very different viewpoints as to how the future film guideline is and should be interpreted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Draftify as an Action at AFD

In Articles for Deletion discussions, editors sometimes !vote to Draftify the article, especially if the main concern is that it is too soon; and sometimes the close is Draftify. However, an editor has pointed out that the instructions for AFD do not include Draftify as one of the possible actions. So I think that my questions here are:

• 1. Is Draftify a valid action at AFD? (I think it should be.)
• 2. Should the instructions for AFD be clarified? (I think it should be added to Merge, Redirect, etc.)
• 3. Is this something that I should take to the Articles for Deletion talk page? (What is the venue to discuss this?)

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't life be so much easier if we simply did away with draft space and developed articles in main space, per the original idea of a wiki, and deleted them if their subjects were shown not to be notable by proper examination at AfD, rather than the evidence-free assertions that we see there all the time? Nearly every day I seem to see a problem or question that would simply not exist without the abomination of draft space. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason not to add drafting (either to Draft: or user space) as an option for an AFD close. I actually don't think that one should read the list of actions listed at AFD as the only possible allowed set of actions possible (per WP:BURO), just that they are the most common options for what an AFD close can be (and particularly for non-admin closures), and including drafting them would be reasonable. --Masem (t) 18:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Is removing the draftspace on the table in this discussion? All of you folks know this, but before the creation of draftspace the outcome choice was previously "Userfy" to user sandbox, which gave one editor a sort of shepherding responsibility, but was a bit harder to extinguish if misused. The draftspace system is less personal and therefore (IMHO) easier to manage if things go south. I agree "Draftify" should be considered a valid action and as part of the instructions as proposed. BusterD (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

My call… There is no single “right answer”. Sometimes Draftspace is the best option, sometimes Userspace is the best option. Both are legitimate options, and both have drawbacks. Ask; which (if either) will best result in a viable article? A lot depends on the specific editors involved. Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this would be an excellent addition. I don't think there is any reasonable possibility of draftspace going anywhere, so the next step is to figure out how to use it properly. BD2412 T 20:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding I actually don't think that one should read the list of actions listed at AFD as the only possible allowed set of actions possible, that's completely correct. In fact, WP:DISCUSSAFD says, e. g., "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", or other view.. People sometimes come up with "other" things which make a lot of sense. I've seen things like, "This is clearly not suitable for wikipedia, but it's a nice piece of writing anyway and would be very welcome at XYZ fan wiki". It's important that we leave the instruction flexible enough to allow for things like that. The question, "Is Draftify a valid action at AFD" is a little backwards. Draftify is in common use, and a page like WP:AFD is mostly there to codify common practice, so it makes sense to update the instructions to match what's actually going on. WT:AFD is a better place to discuss this, so my suggestion is to move this there (you can use {{Moved discussion to}} to leave a pointer behind) and see how people react. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Add it to the instructions, as a suggested consideration. Note that the suggested !vote terms are not to be read as limiting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Moved to AFD talk page

• • Well, I recall at one AFD, that may still be open, one editor said that Draftify was the wrong answer, because it wasn't in the list. But maybe that is because they thought that Keep was the right answer. And disagreement at AFD is more common than agreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Drafify certainly should be added as a named option - the current phrasing makes it permissable, but it's common enough that it should be named Nosebagbear (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Alternatives to Draftspace

These are questions for critics of draft space, including User:Phil Bridger. If draft space were done away with:

• 1. Where would submissions by unregistered editors go? (I know one answer, which is to stop unregistered editing, as in Brazil, but that is piling questions on.)
• 2. Where would submissions by editors who are not auto-confirmed go?
• 3. Where would submissions by paid editors go?

Just asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think the intuitive answer is that unregistered editors would just not be able to create articles, and the rest would go to userspace, or possibly project space. BD2412 T 00:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

1. Unregistered and un-auto-confirmed editors should not be helped to make new pages on new topics. This is advanced contributing, a new topic that no one has thought to create so far and proceeded in attempting, the chances are very high that it is not a good idea, and even if a good idea, it will probably be too difficult for an inexperienced editor. Newcomers should go to existing articles and improve existing content, for at least four days and ten edits.

3. All edits by COI editors, including paid editors, should be either on the talk page, or in draftspace. COI editors should not be editing mainspace, except for the defined exceptions such as reverting BLP vandalism, and that should be promptly reported to a noticeboard. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

...a new topic that no one has thought to create so far and proceeded in attempting, the chances are very high that it is not a good idea, and even if a good idea, it will probably be too difficult for an inexperienced editor. I used to think this but I don't anymore. There are hundreds of millions of people with an internet connection and good-enough English skills to write a stub, and the world is a big, big place. If you stop to consider the number of books, articles, and other RS, in every language, ever written, and consider how many GNG-notable topics all those books and articles might support, it's definitely more than 6 million, like at least an order of magnitude more and possibly several. We could probably have an article about every star, every human gene, every species or even just family or genus or whatever, every reviewed book/film/album, every national-level politician and probably many regional-level ones, and so on and so forth. So I estimate hundreds of millions of topics yet to cover and hundreds of millions of people who could click "create page," bang out a paragraph on at least one topic, and press publish. Levivich 05:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• @BD2412: if you want to push for an opposition to this change on the basis of wanting to get rid of draftspace entirely, we'd first need a pretty major dedicated RfC support that IP editors shouldn't be able to create articles through AfC Nosebagbear (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I have not proposed any such thing. Please do not try to put words in my mouth. BD2412 T 12:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Technical or specialized terms

Technical or specialized terms should be briefly explained in the body of the text as well as linked to a more complete article. Rationale - the general reader may need only a simple explanation of the term for general understanding, not the complete and lengthy explanation the article linked to the term provides. Wis2fan (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Our existing guideline already appears to say what you want it to say (Minimize jargon, or at least explain it or tag it using {{Technical}} or {{Technical-statement}} for other editors to fix. For unavoidably technical articles, a separate introductory article (like Introduction to general relativity) may be the best solution. Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence.). What change are you proposing? If you're asking us to parenthetically explain any term with which readers might be unfamiliar, I'd strongly oppose that; on a global project with readers of all ages and all levels of fluency in English, virtually every concept is going to be unfamiliar to someone. ‑ Iridescent 05:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wis2fan, there was a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Archive 15#Technical language last year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

To give an example, in the article Arminianism, I just added "(doctrine of salvation)” after the term "soteriology". Why should a general reader be forced to jump to that word's link (as I had to) when 3 words give a basic understanding? This problem is endemic in Wikipedia.Wis2fan (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"(doctrine of salvation)” as an explanation doesn't cut the mustard, as I was left nonplussed by that three word phrase and was obliged to click on the link to achieve understanding. So yes, I agree that while some terms may benefit from a brief explanation, it may not be ideal. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• I also think it's important to note that for users who have page previews turned on in their settings, hovering over a link shows a quick blurb of the page. In the Arminianism example, when I hover over the soteriology link, I see a quick 2-3 sentences without having to click and go to the page. Those 2-3 sentences are more helpful for me than the parenthetical "(doctrine of salvation)." To be clear, I don't have any problem with the parenthetical, but without the link there, too, the parenthetical would not be enough of an explanation to give me a general understanding. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Notability (cryptocurrencies)

I would like to invite feedback on a new essay entitled Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies). It is an attempt at describing the current consensus regarding the notability of cryptocurrencies and blockchain-related projects. It has received positive feedback among editors who are active in the area, but I think it would benefit from having the feedback of the broader community. It is not intended for this essay to become a subject-specific notability guideline: rather, the idea would be to add a paragraph summarizing its main points to WP:NCORP, and keep this essay as an explanatory supplement (see also talk page discussion). Thank you. JBchrch talk 03:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 Phase 2

Following a discussion with over 100 editors, 8 issues were identified with Requests for Adminship (RfA). Phase 2 is now beginning and will use the following timeline: *10/24: Editors may submit proposals for changing/modifying RfA (where we are)

• 10/31: The 30 day discussion period will begin
• 11/7: Deadline for submitting proposals to give the community adequate time to discuss any proposals
• 11/30: 30 day discussion period ends

All interested editors are invited to participate in Phase 2. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Fringe, Anti-fringe, and Turning Wikipedia's Values Upside-down

I have noticed a pattern, mostly among certain editors who have a great interest in working to keep WP:FRINGE viewpoints out of Wikipedia. This activity is supported by WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and in the case of medical viewpoints, WP:MEDRS. I commend those who work to uphold these guidelines against those who would push fringe points of view.

Wikipedia determines what fringe views are by identifying ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing, mainstream views in a given field. Consensus among scholarly experts is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view. For example, if an herbalist says that dandelions cure cancer, and cancer researchers and government health agencies determine that to be false, we go with what the researchers and agencies say, and the dandelion cure is determined to be fringe. This is all right and good.

A provocative and mostly appropriate, good, and correct essay listing what we have determined to be mainstream and fringe is User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. The essay has a great start:

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

"Wikipedia’s policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.

This Jimbo quote is a great summary of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE. Unfortunately this essay has been abused tremendously by editors trying to turn WP:FRINGE on its head.

The problem that I have observed is that, using the dandelion example again, after we have determined that the dandelion cancer cure is a disproven fringe viewpoint, some editors begin to make edits in disregard to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV in order to make absolutely sure the article says dandelions are bad and you should never use them for anything, ever. For example, if a reliable mainstream source comes along that says dandelions are edible and contain Vitamin A and potassium, an editor may decide to delete those claims from the article to make absolutely sure that Wikipedia isn't one of those dirty fringe believers in the dandelion cancer cure. Editors begin to use the status of a viewpoint as mainstream or fringe as the basis for picking sources and facts to include in the article, rather than using mainstream sources and facts to determine what views are fringe. Standards are lowered for sources that say the subject is "bad", and sources that might even hint that there might be something good about the subject are held to the highest standards possible, or sometimes, simply removed because the article was "better before", with no intent to discuss. No doubt these editors have become weary from actual fringe editors out to push their crap. But weary doesn't justify this.

This kind of editing has been going on for some years. I have heard some say this attitude began en masse around 2012. Desire to eliminate fringe views has become the sole value of these editors. Articles that have fallen under their purview have lost information about history, culture, tradition, belief, preliminary research, and well-established scientific fact because of the single-minded focus on what they want readers to believe rather than what is verifiable, well-sourced, and encyclopedic. These editors are the quintissential example of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, except that the point-of-view they are pushing is the opposite point of view of the WP:FRINGE. They edit on an ideological basis that is incompatible with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and even WP:FRINGE. They are here to WP:Right great wrongs.

I suspect WP:DUE can be clarified. I'm not certain exactly how it could be done, but one idea is a statement that our articles are based on what the mainstream, academic sources say, and not based on what we want our readers to leave the article believing, and certainly not based on some solidified concept of what things are true and what things are false. We are not the gatekeepers of information. We are not here to tell people what they should believe. We are here to select reliable mainstream sources, and describe what those sources say.

I am sorry if I have written in a repetitious or pedantic way, but because I am used to being misunderstood here, I'm trying to really make it clear where I stand when it comes to upholding Wikipedia policy. I, of course, have my own personal beliefs but when I edit Wikipedia, the only belief system I am here to uphold is WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. MarshallKe (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

There is definitely a nugget of truth to this. Stepping away from the medical example and considering the political area, I have seen editors focused on making sure a certain point-of-view is maintained in article (particularly those areas that in the extreme political views, with the POV being maintained that is critical of these extreme positions. While this may be a valid position for some cases, the majority that I've seen end up with a situation described above, where the editors that are doing most of the editing want to maintain a specific POV, ignore potentially valid minority views, and often end up with editors cherry picking sources to support what they want to say but not the bulk of all sources that are indepth about the topic. I've spoken at depth about NOTNEWS and RECENTISM in this area, and a remedy I've talked about in alignment to the above is that UNDUE should also considered with a 10-year-view factor involved ; that is, when considering what material is to be included/exclude within UNDUE, we should discount recent sources and look to what long-term sources say as guidance, even if this means we then are omitting short term analysis of a topic and stick to objective facts only. --Masem (t) 20:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely buy the idea that there are too-old sources and too-new sources. I have seen anti-fringe editors abuse this to an extreme, to the point where a two-year-old source is too new and a three-year-old source is too old. Fringe editors, on the other hand, are usually not that clever. MarshallKe (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

A couple of observations. Firstly, Wikipedia has nearly always developed better when considering concrete cases, rather than abstract principles, so which concrete case(s) are you talking about? And secondly, quoting Jimmy Wales usually detracts from the point being made, rather than supporting it. Jimmy may have (co-?)founded Wikipedia, but he has no greater knowledge of individual topics than anyone else. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes getting too specific and focusing on the individual trees distracts from the forest. Usually those who demand a list of specific examples are those who are poor at thinking in the abstract and are looking to nitpick the discussion to death. For this reason, I'm not going to compile a list. MarshallKe (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, if you don't want to provide evidence for what you say, and want to claim that people who ask for it are poor at thinking in the abstract, then don't and do. But don't be surprised if no action comes of this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I've only watched the mess from the sidelines and would need to spend time to find out where problems existed, but my read of the situation of covering the COVID-19 lab leak theory is such an area where there's a group of editors activity trying to press away fringe. Granted, that's made more difficult due to the MEDRS factor and our duty to make sure that (as current) the lab leak theory is correctly identified as not having credence by leading experts (WHO in this case), but there's factors around the history of the theory unrelated to the medical accuracy/correctness that are appropriate for an encyclopedia that have been pushed away due to the fact that included these points would appear to give weight to the theory (but again, that's my last read of the situation from the sidelines on boards like RS/N and BLP/N). I wouldn't use that as the case to discuss and figure out solutions due to how complicated it is, but it is an area that I think falls into what MarshallKe has identified where editors take a specific POV that seems to align with mainstream reliable sources and write exclusively towards that, anything else be damned. --Masem (t) 21:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Granted, that's made more difficult due to the MEDRS factor... It's worth pointing out, the consensus decision was that disease/outbreak origins were not WP:BMI to which the stricter WP:MEDRS applied. However, sourcing has mostly been preferring (though not necessarily requiring) strong secondary academic sources to determine the mainstream view, the difference is the requirement to base info on these sources. As someone who has participated in these discussions and tried to help moderate and move past these disputes, I've seen two major (but related) contributing factors. One is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and the preemptive defensiveness of longer term editors who either got burned out by or are now expecting to see persistent fringe POV-pushing. Page protection and sanctions have helped, but it was bit too late to avoid reinforcing the defensive habits. The other I've recognized is how a discussion can be difficult to get back on track once there's concern about POV-pushing. An article edit with POV language (or Talk page source suggestion accusing WP:CABAL) can spiral a discussion and delay consensus, as the discussion focuses on the original proposal's POV instead of whatever WP:NPOV info might have been present. And that definitely fits the description above. It's definitely hard work to try and avoid that, and the contentiousness and burnout make it even harder. Not a very easy fix, that I can think of unfortunately. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that part of any of these issues (even looking below) is a battleground mentality that usually starts with newer editors or IPs that insist we must include the fringe view, which rubs experienced editors the wrong way and often leads to a "circling of the wagons" around the mainstream view or view set by reliable sources, which can then make it difficult to speak to intermediate points that are otherwise valid (in the case of the lab leak, how to discuss the nature of the lab leak theory and its impact on politics/etc. related to COVID). The resistance to discuss inclusion of fringe is a human nature thing in response to this type of push for inclusion, and while I fully agree we have to be wary when there is a push for inclusion of material, we can't let that get in the way of having good faith discussions from other editors looking for more moderate solutions. --Masem (t) 15:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Definitely, and I suppose that puts the issue less as one of WP:FRINGE, and more as one of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]. Personally, I think at least part of this is a result of even administration/arbitration being difficult, with admins and arbitrators not wanting to touch the topic with a 10-foot pole due to past socking, off-wiki canvassing, etc. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The COVID-19 lab leak case came to mind as I was reading MarshallKe's writings. I think I largely agree with what you said, and the atmosphere MarshallKe describes. To be clear, I reported several editors for sanctions in that topic area for problematic (in a pro-fringe manner) editing, and I don't personally believe in the theory, but it almost goes without saying that there should be an article on the issue. It took us until July 2021 and this AfD to affirm just that, never mind the content of such an article. While there is a need to ensure fringe editing is kept under control, I do think there have been cases of editors starting with that noble goal, but then editing in a manner that is itself in violation of policy, while using the cover of keeping out pro-fringe content. In some cases, actual reliable sources have been condemned in this goal; it's closer to POV editing than it is 'defending the encyclopaedia'. I don't know if there is a policy issue here, or if it's just a case of needing to enforce this better at ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I've observed the atmosphere that MarshallKe is describing, casually in passing; enough so that I sympathize with the concern, but not recently enough or in articles I've engaged on that I could point to any specific example. And I agree with Phil Bridger that we would need specific examples to determine (a) that it is happening as described, (b) is an actual problem, (c) is affecting multiple articles/topic areas, and (d) can be addressed by changes in a particular policy or guideline. Schazjmd (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I accept that more could be done if I provided examples, but if I did, it would affect the behavior of the specific editors involved and for now, I want to give them enough rope so that when the time comes to put them up for sanction enforcement, I have a strong, extensive case to make. MarshallKe (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Huh...from your original post, I thought this was a well-intentioned attempt to clarify how the different policies and guidelines play together in the fringeish areas, and I thought the dandelion example was a good one. If this is about getting back at specific editors that you feel are Doing Wikipedia Wrong, I'm out. Schazjmd (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Obviously I am one person any my thoughts about this community have been influenced by my specific experiences here. Of course specific editors do this more than others. It's not like, three, it's a bunch. And it's not everyone. If it was everyone it would be pointless to try to change anything. MarshallKe (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

There are minority views mentioned on Wikipedia that I believe are due, and it is frustrating to see other editors misuse policy to exclude their mention or diminish their importance. I perceive this to be a an important problem to fix. That said, there is a bigger problem: proponents of unambiguously fringe views are successfully promoting them all over the encyclopedia. I would strongly oppose any policy changes that help solve the first problem by weakening the tools needed to solve the second. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

That said, there is a bigger problem: proponents of unambiguously fringe views are successfully promoting them all over the encyclopedia. Is there really, Firefangledfeathers? I do humbly beg your pardon in pointing this out, but that sounds like a classic "bogeyman" type argument that has been used in the past over nonexistant/greatly exaggerated witches, communists, etc. I will grant you that that WAS once the case here, ~15 years ago; and there are still the junk/spam/promo articles that get published and not deleted, because nobody even sees them in the first place. But I wouldn't call that "successful" if no one even sees it. Nor would I call it a huge problem, just a very aggravating annoyance. But any mainstream, high traffic topic area nowadays, fringe material is just about never successfully added. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:D54B:F70E:14CC:5F15 (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I am both a greatly exaggerated witch and a greatly exaggerated communist, and if you persist in argument-by-comparison-to-historical-travesty I'll hex you and collectivize your capital. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that User:MarshallKe has brought up a matter that has been troubling me for some time. There is a group of anti-fringe zealots who act as a tag team to remove any reference to supernatural matters on Wikipedia on the grounds of their opinion that the supernatural does not exist. I expect they would like to delete all articles on religion but find that to be a step too far at present. The supernatural is of importance in many topics like folklore, sociology, psychology, religion. The study of the supernatural is particular importance in the current culture of the world where many irrational beliefs exist, even in developed countries (need I say more). One article where I encountered the zealots was in Moberly–Jourdain incident where I added the now accepted rational explanation, which provoked a flurry of quibbles that I could not be bothered to respond to. My position on fringe material is that it may be included in Wikipedia if (a) it is notable and (b) it is clearly marked as fringe. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC).

That one's a little tougher because there isn't exactly an authority like there is with scientific topics, because it's not something that can be studied by science. So, naturally, the ideologues turn to their ideology to determine what they think counts as a mainstream point of view and use bad sources like Skeptoid that are pure self-published speculation. Due weight does allow for "non-mainstream" points of view to be described in the article (ignoring that some of these topics have no mainstream points of view because reliable sources don't care about them and the average person isn't a devout adherent to pseudoskepticism), but these editors insist that they should not be described and use various forms of dishonest argumentation to argue for their disinclusion. MarshallKe (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Per policy fringe views are to be excluded from Wikipedia unless they can be contextualized with a rational non-fringe source, and sometimes WP:PARITY means such sources are unusual. This is kind of basic NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that in many of these niche topics (and often in articles that are really obscure and don't get patrolled much) there are persistent editors who attempt to say in Wikipedia's voice that the fringe view is either the correct one, or even plausible - which we simply can't allow. I have had an article on one of UFOlogy's most notorious charlatans on my watchlist for probably ten years now, and there are regular efforts to suggest that his claims are true, despite there being physical evidence that they were fraudulent. Obviously there are going to be rare articles about incidents that are unexplained - but that is a long way from them being supernatural or the fringe explanations being the correct ones. This also applies to various pseudoscientific topics, for which we have the policy WP:PSCI, but many of the aforementioned artices don't really fit neatly into that drawer. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

That one's a little tougher because there isn't exactly an authority like there is with scientific topics, because it's not something that can be studied by science. I'd suggest these topics are in many cases tricky because the boundary around pseudo-science is fuzzy. Sometimes intentionally so, such as when adherents aim to give their view more credibility with the trappings of science (or suggest that their far-fringe views belong as part of a discussion of near-fringe). This breadth of fringe (from true pseudoscience and questionable science that WP shouldn't take seriously, through to alternate formulations that lack mainstream acceptance), and the difficulty of categorizing it correctly to discuss, is the issue I see more often. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a general solution in the big fuzzy Wikipedia system on this complex topic. A few of the concepts that are somewhat hidden in wp:finge might help. One is that it is more applicable in areas where there are known objective realities rather than areas of opinion. Second, it focuses on areas where fringe information could genuinely mislead or do harm. So it is less likely to focus on attributed coverage that describes belief that spirits dwell in that sacred mountain than lots of (even attributed) coverage of beliefs that the Covid vaccines contain tracking chips and reprogram people's DNA. There are so many variables that I think that you really do need specific examples to discuss this. Maybe you can find some where there was a friendly debate where the key parties might welcom that discussion being used as an example. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

A big part of my argument is that Wikipedia generally shouldn't be dealing in what we think is "objective reality" or with what things we judge might be misleading, because when we do that, we've already presumed to know better than our sources. We have to minimize the circularity of "X claim is good because it comes from good source A, and source A is good because it claims X". It's the circular reasoning of a Biblical dogmatist who says God exists because God said so in the Bible. Our beliefs about what is true should never factor into it. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. We exclude the vaccine microchip theory because the sources we've accepted as reliable say it's discredited, not because of our beliefs on the matter. We don't say the Earth is round because that's what we believe to be objective reality, we say the Earth is round because the sources we've accepted as reliable say it is. MarshallKe (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

But WP:TRUTHMATTERS, and reference to objective reality to determine whether claims are important, surprising or exceptional is a key part of evaluating reliability. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Without a concrete example, it's hard to tell if you have a disagreement with the application of WP:PARITY, or if there's an actual circular WP:V issue. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I think @MarshallKe: is right about this behavior, unfortunately. One recent example of this was a dispute I initiated. Here is the discussion. This statement was in Alternative Medicine:

This fact is often overlooked by media or intentionally kept hidden, with alternative practice being portrayed positively when compared to "big pharma".

So I started that discussion on the Talk Page which then led to an unofficial RfC right below it. You can see that what in the first discussion looked like a clear consensus that that statement was fine, by certain editors, once other, independent editors became involved in the RfC, it shifted the opposite way. But you can see in the first discussion the odd ways that editors (who should know better) were trying to justify this obviously problematic statement in Wikipedia's voice that the media is “intentionally hiding” something because one guy said that in the source. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

That is not a reasonable summary of the situation. The first discussion, that allegedly looked like a clear consensus that that statement was fine, by certain editors, only contains two editors other than yourself. I'm one of them, and I only make a single comment in response to a ping, in which I specify that I don't have access to the source. I was certainly skeptical of the proposal, but that was because 1) no meaningful objection to the content was given, and 2) the proposed change was presented in a deceptive manner. This was entirely separate from any merits of the content itself, which I did not comment on at all. Sunrise (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

This has been evident for a long time, I am glad you expressed it in a way that is clear and not emotive. Alternative medicine is the classic example. Many things in alt medicine are woo-woo, but some things are also legitimately studied and used by major university hospitals like Johns Hopkins, it's nuanced and complicated - Wikipedia by contrast is confident it is quackery, period. This is not to debate it here, but is one example where legitimate nuance and multi POV are not well represented. The sourcing can be cherry picked, and contrary things eliminated or not given much weight in order to maintain the central point of quackery. When you add nuance and other POV it opens the entire thing up to debate which is a lot of work and can actually lead to woo-woo leaking in, thus it's easier and safer to maintain a hard line position, for better and worse.- GreenC 17:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting that there be no debate whatsoever regarding content on Alternative Medicine topics? If not, then where would you draw the line? What you're saying sounds like something that could be interpreted to mean that all debate regarding nuance is harmful to the encyclopedia and gives license for editors to shut down any objection on those grounds. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm saying how some others approach it now how I see it myself. It's easier to maintain an article to say it's all quackery and hold that line then to introduce nuance. -- GreenC 18:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks to @MarshallKe for raising this, and for their nuanced, considered tone. I share their concern, and for years I have despaired at how the zeal of a set of anti-fringe editors has gone way beyond upholding policy. There is far too little nuance in their work, far too much determination to label non-mainstream views as "quackery" or as "pseudoscience", and far too little understanding of provisionality of much science. I think in particular of some heated discussions over the years about alchemy, where there was a widespread failure to recognise the importance of alchemy as a pseudoscience.

I am not sure what can be done about that. There seems to be a cluster of editors in this area who don't do nuance, and they aren't going to change their worldview. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• The problem is that a number of those articles are about things that have been proved to be "quackery" or "pseudoscience" (whichever epithet you prefer). There are, of course, a number that require - as you say - a more nuanced view, but ironically the topics that are most obviously not based on reality (perpetual motion machines, Flat earth theory, intelligent design and numerous alt-medicine topics) are the ones that cause the most friction, because there are many people out there that have absolute belief that they are genuine. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  That covers quite a range. The first two are in objective areas which scientific consensus says are wrong. The third is pseudoscientific arguments for unprovable untestable religious explanations for reality that don't always conflict with established science. Alt-medicine is often baseless but not-disproven claims. Through a scientific lens, most religion is fringe, but we don't see a broad war against religion in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  It does cover a range, yes - but there's quite a range of fringe topics out there, I've only covered a few. Religious issues are of course not fringe, but intelligent design is pseudoscience - in fact it's probably the poster child for the term. As regards alt-medicine, I did say "numerous" not "all" because whilst WP:MINCHIN does apply to most of the topics, there certainly are alt-med topics that need that nuance that BHG was referring to - I suppose something like chiropractic would be an example there purely because of te extent to which it is established in the Western world. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'll only comment that it's long been an important value of Wikipedia to not be a platform for the promotion of fringe views. It doesn't mean that they cannot be documented, this can be done through reliable sources that critically put them in perspective, when available (when not, it is often an indication that the notability criteria is not met). The original post seems more like a complaint that the policies are applied, rather than a specific proposal to improve policy. —PaleoNeonate – 23:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• I see no problem with the way that Wikipedia deals with outright quackery; policy there is clear. The problem arises when zealots push the boundaries of their imagined remit to advance their own POV. Another case I came across was the BLP of Brian Martin (social scientist) (see its talk archives) where tag teams of zealots impose their views contrary to WP:BLP. This BLP is not of interest to many people (I only came across it when it came up for Academics AfD once), so a tag team of a few editors are able to exert a controlling influence over it, as they can on any article that is not of wide interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC).

  From what I read, you were arguing for Martin's controversial views to be presented from his own POV and claims (WP:ABOUTSELF), when WP relies on reliable independent sources instead (not the claims of Martin, or of the editors). At least when reading the current article revision, it even appears somewhat promotional, especially the lead, although the body includes independent criticism. —PaleoNeonate – 05:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  • I have no idea why Martin comes up so often. Maybe because he writes "papers" on this topic? He is mostly upset that he doesn't get to control Wikipedia which is, interestingly, increasingly seen as a feature rather than a bug of this website. jps (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

If you don't understand why Brian Martin (social scientist) comes up so often you should read the talk page and its archives which go back a long way. Further discussion of the matter should take place there. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC).

I think you misinterpreted my question, which perhaps could have been better framed as, "Why does Brian Martin (and not, say, Brian Josephson or Gary Null or Deepak Chopra who have also been vocal in their disdain for Wikipedia's ways in these areas) always seem to come up as an exemplar in discussions like this where people are arguing that Wikipedia is dominated by pseudoskepticism?" If I didn't know any better, I would invent a conspiracy theory that Brian Martin was behind all this sturm and drang. :) jps (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow! That is a conspiracy theory. I would almost characterize it as fringe. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC).

Brian Martin is actually a really good example, both becuse it was tag teamed heavily, and because Brian Martin was vocal off-wiki in trying to document what he saw happening. (That said, what he documented was a mix of good points and ignorance of how Wikipedia worked). You have to go back to the beginning when Judith Wilyman (a student of Martin's) was awarded a PhD. Before that the article was essentially a standard glowing academic bio (which isn't good), but heavy editing turned it into a hit piece. It became a BLP nightmare, with guilt by association, false claims, cherry picking, and about everything you would fear. Whenever someone spoke out against the state they were accused of acting on behalf of Martin. Eventually an IP took the concerns to BLPN and then ANI, only to be shut down both times by one of the main authors of the article. The thing is, the IP was exactly right about the problems, but it was easy for anti-fringe voices to keep shutting them down. I want to be clear that I support a general anti-fringe viewpoint, but the problem caused by ignoring BLP in order to depict fringe actors in the worst light possible is serious and ongoing. - Bilby (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• The Snake and the Crab. "The anti-fringe they go too far when it comes to the ideas I like! But let them have at those problematic ideas that I know for a fact to be wrong." People will understandably feel attacked when their pet idea has WP:FRINGE applied to it. We all want the things we think are true to be so convincing that our idea is WP:MAINSTREAM... or as close to it as we can get. When this is not achieved, the complaint usually comes back that the editors have gone too far! I have talked to ufologists who balk at having their ideas treated similarly to global warming deniers who balk at having their ideas treated similar to creationists who balk at having their ideas treated similar to parapsychologists who balk at having their ideas treated similar to.... Not to say that there cannot be excesses, but often this is a matter of editorial consideration (WP:TONE, WP:MOS, WP:POSA, etc.) rather than a matter of WP:V, WP:NOR, or WP:NPOV. YMMV! jps (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

This is complicated with like a dozen policies and guidelines affecting it, and widely varying situations included. But perhaps there are few areas worth noting. WP:fringe is well written, including being necessarily nuanced, and necessarily not being super prescriptive. Some of the mis-actions discussed here where wp:fringe is invoked to justify them are actually not following wp:fringe. Perhaps more awareness of this in these debates can help. E.G. when a person claims that wp:fringe supports their action, ask them to get more specific on which part they are invoking. Second, putting a WP:Relevance magnifying glass to some of the situations might help. Editors normally do this naturally, but lack of significant recognition by Wikipedia makes that concept disappear in a dispute where wikilawyering has taken over. Let's say that there is a large wp:notable Holocaust denial group "xyz" The Holocaust article is about the Holocaust, it's not about the opinions of the xyz group. Such is one or two steps removed in relevance from the topic of the article. While such would not automatically preclude inclusion, it's a factor weighing in against it. It would have to meet a higher standard on "does this inform on the subject of the article?" question to get in. And "proven false" information is not informative on the topic. (a plausible minority theory might be) Quite likely the material might be suitable for the "xyz group" article but not the Holocaust article. Of course wp:fringe also applies, but this raises another possibility and says that "which article?" also matters.North8000 (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I can be defined as a supporter of organized skepticism. Regarding this topic: when Wikipedia says something is fringe, it is right 99.9% of the time. What can be improved, though, is merely describing what those fringe ideas are, i.e. what the fringe theorists actually believe. Of course, Wikipedia should not endorse their beliefs, but merely make clear to the reader what they believe. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I would agree on the statement that WP is generally right more than 90% of the time when it calls something fringe, but I would not necessarily say it is accurate to the 99.9% level. There is enough editor-created bias - preconceived notions that a topic is fringe, and thus focusing (in a cherry-picking manner) sourcing that is based on those notions at the expense of other valid sourcing - that makes it difficult on topics that may not necessarily have the test of time or scientific/academic assurance that the idea is clearly fringe, pseudoscience, or otherwise not accepted. As an example, it took a few decades for the scientific community to absolutely agree that climate change was real (that is, nearly likely caused by humans and not the fluke temperature rise seen in Earth's geologic past). If it were the case that today we were starting to talk about climate change for the first time as a new theory that had gained popularity among leading scientists but with the same doubt that other scientists had when it was first proposed, WP should not treat those doubters as fringe because of the newness of the theory (a RECENTISM factor here). Obviously, with time, climate change has been deemed real, and now those few who doubt it are considered fringe viewed by the larger scientific community, and thus its reasonable to treat those views as fringe within WP. But, I could postulate that with attitudes of WP editors today, if we were at the hypothetical situation that climate change was first being introduced today, that there would be editors that would want to treat it as the accepted theory out of the gates, treat all scepticism as fringe, and write our articles with this bias in mind, since I would also expect mainstream sources to follow that same pattern.

A lot of this comes down to the trend of WP trying to follow the trend of accountability journalism in mass media (see eg this CRJ article about it). WP editors, as part of human nature, love to include material that blames a person or entity or topic; humans love to dish negative material. Targeting fringe views, particularly when this echoes some of the voices in the mass media or other RSes, is an extension of this. But as WP editors per NPOV, we have to be better than this, and write neutrally, impartially, and dispassionately, and that requires stepping away from preconceived notions and being open to other RSes (include valid RSOPINION sources) that may offer other views within the scope of UNDUE, with a helping of RECENTISM. Its the circling-the-wagon attitudes that work against this that come into play and maintain battleground behaviors when facing IP/new editors that insist certain fringe views be included, while other editors offer good faith intermediate solutions. All this is related to behavioral expectations, less anything that can be set in policy (short adding temporal factors to UNDUE, to give more weight to sources far-removed from events than short-term ones). --Masem (t) 16:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

If climate change is the example, isn't this a topic area where Wikipedia has been soundly science-based, forever? I'm seeing a few vague worries that certain topics are improperly overly-treated as fringe. But tellingly, nobody seems to be able to point to any. It's probably time to apply Hitchen's razor. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As I tried to explain, climate change is an example that we can see in our lifetimes which started as a postulated theory that progressed over time to a scientifically accepted fact. It is not meant to be taken today as an area where we should allow challenging fringe views - though 100% we should fairly document what type of fringe and sceptic views there are of climate change w/o giving them weight of validity. --Masem (t) 17:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

So where's the issue? If only 90% of articles have fringe correctly applied that implies 1-in-10 of the articles with nominally "fringe" content are treating it improperly: that'd be many hundreds of articles. I'm sure some exist, but nobody has produced even a single example. Hypotheses, about climate or anything else, are not "fringe" except perhaps when proponents start pushing hypotheses beyond what the evidence will bear (eating sugar causes dementia!), and the Galileo gambit is, yes, often produced in the all-too-familiar WP:PROFRINGE arguments entailed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Not to give away my age too much, but I recall being very young and understanding that global warming was a scientific fact. Do you have an approximate date when you think this transition may have occurred? Because it certainly was considered scientific fact well before Wikipedia existed -- although I know more than a few people who were not (and some who still are not) convinced that this is the current situation. To be a bit clearer, we knew that global warming was a fact before we knew that the Accelerating expansion of the universe was a fact. jps (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

That Earth's average temperature was rising since the 19th century was well understood and taken as fact early on (that, there was absolutely evidence of), but I would argue from my take of the literature, while there was strong agreement in the scientific community this likely was due to humans, it was not as universal as it is today since there was still legitimate weight about the "natural warning cycle" theories. By 2010, that global warming is nearly completely tied to human activities within the 20th century had readily accepted by the whole of the scientific community as fact due to the amount of additional research put into understand it, and this is the point that we still have sceptics that doubt humans' role in global warming. --Masem (t) 18:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I was afraid of this. Your recollection/reading of the history with 2010 as the threshold does not conform to the way the history developed according to reliable sources we have on the subject. Perhaps you were/are confused because there was/is a coordinated disinformation campaign and emphasis on denial and increasingly threadbare "skepticism" financed by think tanks and the petroleum industry arguing fairly close to what you are arguing (and, really, continuing to pretend that there is no consensus on the subject). "The science is not settled" was the cry, but it very much was well before 2010. The argument that this is not the case is, I would say, actually a WP:FRINGE argument (irony of ironies) that caused a lot of grief here at Wikipedia to the tune of an arbcom case that I will not reference because it ended up treating the entire subject as though it were battle royale of some sort. In any case, you can read more about the history of what reliable sources had to say about human-caused global warming on Wikipedia where it shows that this was essentially an understood fact by climate scientists (who are the relevant experts) by the mid 1990s or so. Political movements were a bit slower, but that's not the subject of scientific consensus. Unless you were conversant with the climate science literature at that time (and I don't know how old you are), there really was not a transition in your lifetime of any sort that Wikipedia would have noticed. jps (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The timing I'm suggesting doesn't matter too much if I'm off that much, but its moreso simply the understanding that the way we (as a society) came to accept climate change was caused by humans was not a sudden change overnight, but took several years or decades of study to come to that conclusion. And you're probably right that I'm considering how the propagation to political bodies took rather than just in climate change circles. My point still comes down to that if we were in a situation today where there was a theory that may have widespread but not universal agreement by scientific or other relevant academic analysis because it is a rather novel concept, then we on WP should not be quick to necessarily support it as fact or dismiss contrary theories as fringe. Of course, there's also the need to balance with completely bad and potentially harmful information, such as all the fake COVID remedies out there which the bulk of the scientific community deem harmful if followed.--Masem (t) 22:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Pendula swinging as they do, I can recall a time when scientists editing topics where they were experts would sigh and resign themselves to the fact that topics as mundane as the speed of light or radioactivity would have to accommodate the protestations of IP/new editors who were typically not only misinformed but convinced that they were correct! It took years of work by many in these areas to get to the point where the assumed approach that Wikipedia would take would not be armchair pontificating. Along the way, I have seen some people become more hardened to this point and others dance from one side to the other. As a general principle, Wikipedia's editorial approach is whatever the people who bother to/are allowed to show up say it is. This is bound to change with the years, evolving standards, changing conditions, but I am not convinced that we are at a point right now where the situation is such that it is closed shop in a problematic fashion (like what DMOZ, for example, ended up suffering from). Now, that is my bias, but it is one I cannot see my way out of because I remember what the alternative looked like back in 2004 to 2006. jps (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• MarshallKe: I agree with the point you raise that information on WP should be based on WP:RS coverage rather than what some editors believe to be objectively "right" and "wrong." I'm not sure this is a problem with the language of WP:DUE, though. The very first sentence of WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It seems like the language of the policy is fairly clear that inclusion of information hinges on reliability. In other words, I agree with the problem you characterize but I wonder how much would actually change by rewording the policy itself. It (frustratingly so) seems like an editors' problem and not a policy wording one? Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above. Policy is sound: it is abuse by over-zealous editors that is the problem. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC).

I am a bit late to this discussion..and I apologise if anything I say has already been said, but I completely agree with MarshallKe, and I think the crux of the problem at hand can be boiled down to: Editors begin to use the status of a viewpoint as mainstream or fringe as the basis for picking sources and facts to include in the article, rather than using mainstream sources and facts to determine what views are fringe. That statement could not be more accurate, and I've seen this done here time and time again, more than I can count. Sadly, it could well be that there is nothing can be done about it, if there are enough of them to assert control, and they work as a coordinated team, which seem to be the case. All we could really do is continue with attempts to reason. The great irony is that this particular wing of editors display the exact same pattern of behaviour as their mortal foes, fringe pushers and religious fundamentalists. "Scepticism" is treated as though it were just another belief system, rather than a philosophy to be applied indiscriminately across the board; yet, any unsourced claim that gets printed in some pop-science sceptics handbook is automatically treated as gospel truth, because....it's written by one of the "righteous souls"? Come on, that ain't the way good sceptics operate, that is the way faithful adherents of religious dogma operate. Cheers, 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:D54B:F70E:14CC:5F15 (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Draftify at AFD (again)

I have published an RFC at the Articles for Deletion talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)