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 the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
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.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.

« Archives, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193

WP:FLORA issues

The principle of the guideline is as follows:

"The guiding principle of this guideline is to follow usage in reliable sources. In the vast majority of cases, this will be the current scientific name. This is because the vast majority of plants are of academic interest only to botanists, and botanists almost invariably use scientific names in their published works. On the other hand, when a plant is of interest outside botany—for example because it has agricultural, horticultural or cultural importance—then a vernacular name may be more common.

Other principles in play here include precision and consistency. Both of these lend further support to the use of scientific names, and the latter leads to standardisation on certain orthographic points"

I have and continue to see issue with this guideline as I feel this is a case of WP:IAR. The wording "This is because the vast majority of plants are of academic interest only to botanists" is biased and as a result narrows the scope of the articles for those who are not botanists to weed though latin phrases that they may have no idea what the heck they mean but do have a common english name. For example, if I was curious on what types of trees grew in my area I might know one or two based on common name but would have no idea where to go from there due to the jargon being used in the articles. When it comes to schools, other than college studies maybe and possibly high school elementary school kids through middle school do not use latin phrases when doing science projects. This guideline also goes against WP:NOTGUIDE as Wikipedia isn't a book about plants but an encyclopedia. So in closing, are we going to narrow the scope of our articles so just a botanist can understand it, or can we make the article titles user friendly so everyone can look them up? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are talking about the article title that's why there are redirects. Plus look at some of them, Poet's daffodil or Narcissus poeticus, which is the most common of the five names? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a procedural note: I've left a notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)#Discussion at Village Pump. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The most common English name would be used then, redirects aren't enough unless you know the english plant names and only serve that purpose. My thought is an average editor looking through Wikipedia plants for a science project or the like and not knowing what the heck the latin names mean. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not quite... it's a subtle distinction, but WP:COMMONNAME does not say to use the most common "English name"... it says we should use the name most commonly used in "English Language sources". For most topics, these will be the same... but not always. In the case of plants, the name most commonly used in English Language sources is usually going to be the scientific name. The rational behind the instructions at WP:FLORA is this: while one source may use vernacular name X when referring to a plant, another may use vernacular name Y when refering to it... but both will mention scientific name Z. That means Z will actually be more common (and thus more recognizable) than either X or Y. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Im saying this is a case where we should WP:IAR so more readers can understand the titles, a more user friendly experience. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow. If English names aren't enough, how would it help if the article titles were changed? After all, vernacular names are used in species articles, and are used in redirects and disambiguation pages. Guettarda (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Im saying English names should be used whenever possible, latin ones secondary, we aren't a plant guidebook that caters to just botanists. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well... you are entitled to your opinion. But the issue has been discussed multiple times, and each time there has been a solid consensus to continue do title these articles the way we do. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I realise that you're saying that we should use vernacular names. I don't follow your reasoning as to why we should use them. As I'm sure you realise, using these names are very difficult because they aren't standardised; most plants have dozens of vernacular names, or none at all. Very often the so-called common names used in guides are just made up by the person who writes the guide, or are just a translation of the scientific name. We've discussed the utility of this for a decade now.

I understand that you're unhappy with the current system of naming. But it exists to deal with real problems with naming plants. What's the mechanics of your system, how does it deal with the problems posed by using vernacular names? Guettarda (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The use of this naming system is practical, not pedantic. Guettarda (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. For some kinds of organism – birds are a good example – there is a system of English names which has reasonable acceptance worldwide, although it does still lead to names which are not generally used in any particular country (like American robin or European robin, for example, both of which really have the common name "robin"). For plants, experience shows that there just isn't such a system. Both within and across countries the same plant has very varied names. Sycamore is a good example. In North America, this name is used for species of Platanus, which are called "plane trees" in English in Europe where "sycamore" is used for Acer pseudoplatanus. Look at all the articles in Category:Set indices on plant common names. What's "buffalo clover"? What's "mountain ash"? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Or what's ironwood?--Melburnian (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 - for me it's about conformity - for instance, Eucalyptus cladocalyx is the sugar gum, but it'd look silly at sugar gum if there are several hundred species of Eucalyptus at their scientific name pages. I prefer to see them all aligned with each other. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

One point that hasn't quite been touched on yet is that a lot of the published "common names" for species don't accurately represent the vernacular. That is, people writing field guides and floras and so forth feel compelled to provide a name other than the Latin binomial, but in many cases, there really is no regularly-used English name for the species; the authors wind up inventing them, usually by translating the species epithet. So in trying to determine the "common name", a lot of published evidence will be adduced which doesn't really reflect usage. (e.g., for more or less any sedge, Carex, the only people who can identify it will refer to it by the scientific name anyway.) Choess (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I speak as an amateur gardener, not as any sort of botanist. When I look through my garden catalogs, they're more likely to have entries under "Rosa eglanteria" than "Eglantine", more likely to have "Clivia miniata" than "Natal lily." Gardeners use Linnean names to communicate because they are precise. If I say Spanish oak, I could mean one of (at least) three different trees. If I say "Quercus coccinea", I could only mean one. Furthermore, there is no agreement on the common names of plants: Amaranthus caudatus has a colorful set of names including "love-lies-bleeding", "velvet flower", and (not on the Wiki page but my favorite) "Kiss-me-over-the-garden-gate". For most garden plants I wind up knowing both a vernacular name and the Linnean name, but if I'm trying to mail-order any but the very commonest plants, the Linnean name is my best bet. Serpyllum (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Length of day

Is Talk:Length_of_day#Proposed_material acceptable per WP policy and may it be put in the article space at Length of day? Iceblock (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are proposing that this formula is to be the sole content of the article, I'd say not. It entirely lacks context, and appears to cover the same subject as discussed in our daytime article in greater depth. I con see no logical reason why we need a separate article for a formula. Assuming it is correct, it can be added to the daytime article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

One wonders why Length of day redirects to Earth's rotation instead of Daytime. One also wonders why we need both Daylight and Daytime. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I imagine "Length of day" is a redirect to "Earth's rotation" because the editors who created and supported the redirect were thinking of the length of day measured from noon to noon (and possibly averaged over the course of a year). This is discussed in detail at "Earth's rotation". If editors think "Length of day" is just as likely to mean the duration from sunrise to sunset, they could turn "Length of day" into a disambiguation page. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! I have now also discovered Day length, which possibly is suitable for merging with Length of day, Daytime and Daylight. Iceblock (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Editors seeking consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#RfC: to amend the table layout consensus to allow rowspan in year column of filmographies. Comments welcome. Xaxafrad (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Large deletion by new user

A brand-new Wikipedian has made some significant changes to SkillPages without explanation. I don't want to start an edit war or rebuke him without pointing to an appropriate policy page, but I don't know where to look for it. See Talk: SkillPages#Deletion of material about spamming. Can someone help me out, possibly even pointing this fellow in the right direction for both policy and behavior?

--Thnidu (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That user's account has evidently been deleted. I've restored most of the material he took out. Unless it gets deleted again, I think the issue has been settled now. --Thnidu (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Accessibility of featured lists

Please see Featured list criteria: Accessibility as criterion Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A process question: misuse of flag icons

This is a question about correct process. If it would be better placed somewhere else, such as Help desk, let me know.

There seems to be widespread misuse of flag icons per WP:ICONDECORATION and WP:MOSFLAG. For example, I'd estimate that upwards of 90% of major aircraft accident articles contain a table listing the fatalities by nationality, with a flag for each country. A typical example can be found at Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Passengers and crew.

Does widespread violation of a guideline constitute a community consensus that overrides the guideline?

If so, shouldn't the guidelines be modified to reflect this consensus?

If not, what would be the best way to go about correcting the misuse? Should one just start removing the flags, citing the guidelines in each edit summary, and fighting the inevitable battles one article at a time? Or is there an easier way? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In light of the current discussion of flags at WP:VPR, I would like to narrow the scope of this thread. I'm now talking only about fatalities tables in aircraft accident articles — not about other uses of flags in such articles, or about the use of flags in general. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Appending the Manual of Style on gender-neutral language

The present text of the Manual of Style's guidelines on gender-neutral language is as follows:

Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered, or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges).

Ships may be referred to using either feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers") or neutral forms ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. See WP:Manual of Style/Military history § Pronouns.

The proposed new text is as follows. Bold print indicates a change:

Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. For example, avoid the generic he and prefer words such as "chair"/"chairperson" or "firefighter" to "chairwoman" and "fireman." This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered, or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges). Ships may be referred to using either feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers") or neutral forms ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. See WP:Manual of Style/Military history § Pronouns.

An editor at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style has proposed this new wording, and it has been introduced here so that the community can comment on whether it should be adopted. RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Support (GNL)

• Support – the added example is useful for showing what is meant by preferring gender-neutral language. Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support reference to generic he; other examples negotiable. I only included the "chair" and "firefighter" examples for balance, because they're one of the best and clearest parts of the GNL essay. The reason I suggested changing the text of the MoS is because of confusion regarding whether the MoS already bans the generic he (it does, but there are a few editors who think it doesn't). I see this as a clarification rather than an actual change in MoS rules/guidance/policy/what-the-MoS-does. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it matters if a few editors hold this view. It's obviously wrong and they are never going to win in a showdown. I wouldn't necessarily oppose just adding this clarification, though. Formerip (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support avoiding the generic he. The rest of the sentence needs work. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support An example would be useful because it can better show how thing should be done. It shows how it can be done. People will better know what it is talking about Sam.gov (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support gender neutral pronouns but oppose requiring quasi-neologisms such as chair/person. BethNaught (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose (GNL)

• I dont see any reason to add examples to the current wording most people are aware of gnl and adding examples which clearly show a non-neutral point of view that he and man applies just to males where they have been used as gender neutral terms for years if not centuries. The current wording allows discussion and the use of such terms as used by reliable references when needed so I dont see a need to expand it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  Comment: The point of view that the "he" implies that all subjects are male did not come from any Wikieditor but from the sources: Oxford Dictionaries [1], the American Heritage Dictionary [2], Purdue [3], Dictionary.com [4], the National Council of Teachers of English [5], Chicago Manual of Style [6] and others all describe the generic he as sexist, advise against using it, or both (OED was also consulted and is silent on the matter). It is not inappropriate for the MoS to reflect English as it is. The MoS has held this position for a long time. The current proposal is intended as a clarification, not a change. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think the current wording is clear enough and I don't see what value the examples would add. I also think that the guidance would benefit from more flexibility (if only a little), rather than less, because it says something that it can't possibly mean. Am I really obliged to say "monarch" in place of "king" or "queen" unless it is in a quotation or a title? I doubt anyone would take that idea seriously, but it is what the guideline seems to recommend. What about "actress"? I can't stress enough that we should enforce modern standards with regard to gender-neutral language, but we also ought to recognise that those standards are not actually absolutist. Tricky, though, because if you give them an inch they'll take the piss. Formerip (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  Former, the intention is that if you are writing about a specific person, the gendered term is fine. This is mainly discuss generic uses, if it's any king or queen, or if it's any firefighter. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  That's not what they guidance says, though, and I doubt that it is what it means. I think the community's intention is that we should use gender-neutral language wherever it is normal and reasonable, including, for example, avoiding terms like "policeman", "Jewess", "lady doctor" and so on, even where they might refer to individuals. Formerip (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the above, I do not see any reason why we need to add examples here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• The proposed examples are likely to distract from the most important part of the guideline: ...where this can be done with clarity and precision. Without additional context, there is no way to tell whether those choices would provide clarity and precision, or the opposite. Monty₈₄₅ 04:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. On some occasions, the use of the generic "he" is more fluent than the gender-neutral "they" (which is what I would normally use). I agree that, in some contexts, it is now normal to avoid the generic "he" - especially in US English. However, I am not convinced that the requirement to avoid a generic "he" is universal enough to warrant a Wikipedia-wide ban, or whether it is instead something that is essentially a local English variant, based on expectations in that locations, and would therefore be allowed to vary from page to page. Bluap (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP, WP:NOTLAW and WP:COMMONNAME. Some examples which occur to me are beauty queen and fishwife. Instead of this proposal, can we outlaw bizarre neologisms such as xe, which I see people using? This is supposed to be the English language wikipedia and it's bad enough that we have national variations to deal with. Andrew D. (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  In parts of the United States, teenagers have adopted yo as a gender neutral pronoun. How about we adopt that? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  No gender-neutral pronoun (other than “it” or “they”) is common enough that its use here would not be confusing, and we would be justifiably accused of using made-up words. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per my remarks at the MoS talk page – With rigidity, the MoS is useless. A straitjacket rule, in this case, is completely unworkable. This is especially true when the proposed examples, like "chairperson", are not supported by many RS. Usage of that term is extremely controversial. Sources such as The New York Times forbid it in their articles, and various parliamentarians are opposed to it on principle. In common usage, "chairman" is used for a variety of reasons. There is no reason that Wikipedia should proscribe a usage that is common, nor should it endorse a usage that is inherently controversial. The present wording does what it needs to do, per Monty845, and allows us the flexibility we need to make the MoS work. Usage of titles should be determined through talk page consensus and reliable sources. If someone consistently refers to themselves as an "actress", and if RS do so as well, there is no reason why we should forbid that usage. RGloucester — ☎ 19:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment which is probably best suited for this section. In addressing one of the specific examples above, chair/chairperson, there are cases where a woman has explicitly stated a preference for the term "chairman"; see for instance Esther Dyson. The problem I have is that the proposed wording makes no attempt to address these cases, and doing so will inevitably lead to even more verbiage and further convolute an overly complicated guideline on what is a rather insubstantial style point in English usage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - if gender issues still prevail in the 21st Century, the problem is bigger than modifying MOS on WP. An attempt to neutralize it here (aka hide it) is what I consider regression, not progression. We are who we are, know what I mean? Atsme☯^Consult 23:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

The RfC is, in my view, premature in this form and the text to be added needs working on. I agree with " avoid the generic he", which I think was always the intended meaning. As regards the other issues, some might think "chair/chairperson" inappropriate while agreeing with the general principle of gender-neutral language, so I would choose a different example. We should also avoid language that might be understood as advocating avoidance of the male term (prefer words such as . . . "firefighter" to "fireman") when actually referring to a person of known sex/social gender, for example "he worked as a fireman", "he was chairman of . . .", "Sandra Bullock is an American actress". I think it would also be useful to mention differences in meaning (e.g. "the first actress to . . ." may not the same person as "the first actor to . . ."). --Boson (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

But it is always the same as "the first female actor to..." Georgia guy (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and neither "female actor" nor "actress" are gender-neutral. The point is that we should avoid purportedly gender-neutral terms when they are in fact not gender-neutral. This includes especially the so-called "generic he", and it may include terms like "king" or "fireman" when used generically, i.e. in reference to a firefighter or monarch of either (or indeterminate) sex/social gender. I think the RfC in this form is premature, because the proposed text does not make this clear and therefore needs working on. --Boson (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that instead of

"For example, avoid the generic he and prefer words such as "chair"/"chairperson" or "firefighter" to "chairwoman" and "fireman."

the proposal should specify something like

"For example, when referring to persons of indeterminate social gender (i.e. who may be of of either, both, or unknown sex or social genders), avoid the use of he, him, etc. ("generic he") and generally avoid the use of generic terms that might be understood to imply a particular sex or social gender

The text still needs tweaking and should include examples where it is obvious that the noun or pronoun is being used "generically".

--Boson (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I like it, Boson, but I don't think we need to say "social gender" or "sex." In this context, the general-use "gender" should be sufficient, if we even need that. Maybe something like "Avoid referring to subjects as he, him, etc. unless it has been established that they are male." It's shorter and it accounts for non-human subjects, like bees. It might also sidestep the whole chess-context problem, which is what raised this issue in the first place Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, "actor" apparently implies someone of male gender, meaning that your proposed guidance says that we cannot use "actor". Instead, I think you should write "prefer usage of masculine-gendered terms over feminine-gendered terms", as that seems to be what you want to do. RGloucester — ☎ 02:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there's a growing feeling in the acting community that "actor" should be used as a gender-neutral term, so it seems that "actor" is becoming what "he" used to be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Therein lies the fallacy of all of your advocacy here and elsewhere. "Gender-neutral" apparently has no fixed meaning. You can determine whatever you think is gender-neutral, and say "this is gender-neutral", despite the fact that it isn't by your own definition of the term. "He" has always had two meanings, one gender-neutral and one masculine. Apparently it is now "no good" because it is "sexist" and can only refer to things of male gender. Somehow, however, the same person says that the word "actor" is now "gender-neutral", despite being a case of the same thing: a word that has both a gender-neutral meaning and a masculine meaning. Therefore, by the logic you are applying to "he", using "actor" is "sexist". This is absolute absurdity, and has no basis in language. It only has basis in politics, and politics have no place in the language. I believe that everyone should disregard all polemics by Mr Frog. His twisting of reality is so absolutely mad that it must derive from some plane of existence that I'm not privy to, despite my own acute madness. RGloucester — ☎ 05:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

RG, that's not a fallacy; that's English. It doesn't always follow fixed patterns. You can go look up the history of the word "actor" and see that it is currently undergoing a shift in meaning and usage. Actresses are slowly starting to say, "Call me an actor; 'actress' implies that my gender is more important than it is," and magazines and newspapers are altering their style guides to accommodate them. They are the ones choosing the gender-neutral term. Similarly, you can look up the generic he and see how it is also undergoing a shift, but it is much further along. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no shift. It is imaginary, and in your head, just as is this bizzare application of the term "gender-neutral" to mean anything that someone says is "gender-neutral" regardless of etymology. By that logic, I can say "actress" is gender-neutral, because I don't want to place an emphasis on the maleness of the "actors" (gasp) in question. Therefore, you, Mr Grant, are an actress. How do you plead? RGloucester — ☎ 22:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Etymology is irrelevant. What matters here is what people today imagine the words to mean. If a word choice—regardless of the entirety of the history of that word—causes a significant number of people to imagine that it’s offensively sexist, then we should avoid it; and if not, it’s acceptably gender-neutral. Also, your spelling of “bizarre” is bizarre. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel newcomers to this conversation should be advised of this: This text was proposed because of confusion/disagreement over whether the MoS ALREADY tells Wikieditors not to use the generic he. So if you write "oppose," it would be helpful if you specified whether you're opposed because 1) you think the MoS's position against the generic he is already clear enough or 2) you think it should not ban the generic he, in which case you should probably suggest new text that explicitly allows it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of the added text—avoid potential unintended sexism—but I also agree with some of the concerns posted by others here that it’s a bit too open to hypercorrection. If a less restrictive alternative can be proposed, one that allows for common sense without too much instruction creep, I’ll support that. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternate proposal… how about:

Use gender-neutral language (for instance, avoid the generic he) where this can be done with clarity and precision. This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered, or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges).

The rest stays the same. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I like it, but I'd put the "avoid the generic he" after the "clarity and precision" part. The order you've used implies "where ... precision" applies to avoiding the generic he rather than to using gender-neutral language:

Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. (For example, avoid the generic he). This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered, or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges).

We could probably keep the "firefighter" example but from the comments above, "chair" is probably not best. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course it applies to the given example of GNL, as it should to any example. Your version seems to imply that “avoid the generic he” is an example of where GNL can be used “with clarity and precision.” I disagree with this. Avoiding that use of the word is an example of GNL, but not necessarily an example of where it’s suitable. Consider the following:

• You can eat whatever you want (even double chocolate fudge brownies and a huge slice of Oreo ice cream cake) as long as you don’t overeat.
• You can eat whatever you want as long as you don’t overeat. For instance, eat double chocolate fudge brownies and a huge slice of Oreo ice cream cake.

In the first line, the example is restricted by the condition (as it should be). In the second, the example is ludicrously implied to satisfy the condition. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Are guidelines prescriptive?

Today, some editors on an article talk page told me, in effect, that guidelines are rules we must all abide by, with few exceptions. I'd always thought they were just advisory—a description of how consensus usually goes on a content or behaviour question, not a prescription—and consensus on individual article talk pages determines content (always assuming content complies with policy). But I looked a little into the history of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and see it was changed from advisory to prescriptive at the end of 2009 by several editors who thought guidelines and policies were essentially the same thing.

Is everybody cool with that?

Personally, I'd prefer that—for the kind of thing covered by guidelines such as picture placement, infoboxes, headings, etc.—article talk page consensus is given the last word. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe your understanding of it is how most people perceive the difference, as do I. RGloucester — ☎ 07:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a heading of "Are guidelines prescriptive?" might be more accurate? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mandruss. Done.

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines says the following. Should it?

• Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. [Whatever that means. I suppose it was originally "best practices".]
• ...guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards [standards explained in policies] in specific contexts. [They say what is "best."]
• Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense. [Implies we're as free to IAR with a policy as we are with a guideline.]
• Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply [like policies]. ["Best practice" again.]
• Use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; there will be occasional exceptions to these rules. ["Occasional exceptions" (like policies), "rules"]
• Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined by the community through consensus. ["Best practice" again]
• ...individual editors (including you) enforce and apply policies and guidelines. ["Enforce". I thought guidelines described common practice, and didn't prescribe best practice to be enforced.]

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

While policies seem to be regarded with more reverence and gravitas, I haven't noticed much difference in how the two are applied in practice. It's been one of the many things that baffle me about this place, so I'm glad you brought it up. I'll be watching. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• It really depends on which guideline you are talking about. Our guideline pages are usually a combination of both "rules" and "advice"... and some are more "rule" oriented while others are more "advice" oriented. That said, We are usually much more willing to invoke WP:Ignore all rules when it comes to guidelines than we are when it comes to Policy. So, if someone is trying to "enforce" a guideline rule, and you don't think that rule makes sense in the specific situation... the best thing to do is go to the talk page, and explain why you think we should make an exception to the guideline in that situation. Consensus over-rules all rules. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• My perspective has been that both are prescriptive, but differ in what justifies breaking the rule. If you are going to do something clearly contrary to a policy under WP:IAR, it should be very deliberate, and you should have a compelling reason to do so. If you are going to violate a guideline, you should still have a reason, and be willing to explain if anyone asks, but the reason doesn't need to be a particularly weighty one, as long as its not a bad reason like "I just felt like doing it". I also agree with Blueboar, some guidelines carry more weight than others. WP:GNG is basically a policy level guideline, whereas something like Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload is good advice to follow, but isn't a big deal if someone occasionally doesn't follow and still uploads a usable image. Monty₈₄₅ 14:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• Elaborating on what I said earlier, I believe policies to be core tenets of the encylopaedia that cannot and should not be overridden except in exceptional circumstances, per WP:IAR (conveniently, that is a policy). Guidelines, on the other hand, are indications of good practice (not necessarily "best practice"). They document procedures and conventions that are useful to follow in most cases. However, unlike with policy, there are many times when the application of guidelines is fluid and subject to talk page consensus. No talk page consensus can say "we don't need any citations for this article" and override WP:V. However, talk page consensus can determine whether a certain type of date style should be used in an article, or whether an event meets the event notability criteria, such as WP:LASTING or WP:PERSISTENCE. That is my interpretation of it, more or less, and it makes the most sense. In reality, no policy or guideline of ours can be prescriptive, given that IAR is a policy. Policies are really the base of the encylopaedia, the foundations. They are what hold up the roof. Guidelines are additional aid. They are not necessary for the function of the encylopaedia, but they help make it run more smoothly. Think of the difference between WP:GNG and WP:EVENT, for instance. RGloucester — ☎ 18:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• There are two things I'm sure of with regards to this subject, firstly that there are probably almost as many viewpoints on this issue as we have editors, and secondly my own opinion on the matter - and I'm not even all that sure about the second one. My current view is as follows. Firstly, it's worth to note that whether guidelines are prescriptive or not is a moot point when people agree on applying the guideline. It only becomes relevant when they disagree. At that point, my point of view is that guidelines are summaries of discussions that were held earlier. They represent consensus of the community up to that point. While consensus can change, and the particular situation where you disagree with a guideline might be something that wasn't thought of when the guideline was established, in the vast majority of cases that's not the case. If an editor wants to edit against a guideline, I believe they firstly should understand why the guideline is there in the first place, and why the former consensus doesn't apply to the situation at hand. Neither the arguments "it's just a guideline" to justify ignoring it, nor "it's in the guidelines" to justify following it holds water from my point of view. Instead, when ignoring a guideline, one should have solid arguments in hand as to whether the guideline as written doesn't apply in that instance, and be on the cautious side of the be bold but not reckless balance. Going against a guideline has a good chance of being contentious, and will more often than not require discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, guidelines are rules. If people can be punished or censured for breaking them, even if they have a good reason, then they're rules and not merely guidelines. That's how they work in practice. For example, Wikieditors are not allowed to use American punctuation even in articles otherwise written in American English because the MoS requires British style in all articles. I got brought up on AN/I for fixing some strays (I took articles that used a mixture of American and British and rendered them consistent) even though there were no edit wars. The fact that guidelines are rules doesn't have to be a bad thing; we just need to acknowledge it and keep it in mind when we write and modify them: Is this rule based on sources and functionality or is it based on arbitrary whims? This rule gets challenged once or twice a year, so do we really need it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, Darkfrog... no one gets punished for using American punctuation. They may get punished for edit warring over punctuation... they may get punished if it seems that they are on a crusade to push a preferred punctuation style... but no one gets punished for simply using a punctuation style in the normal course of article writing. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It happened to me, Blueboar. There were no edit wars in the articles I was gnoming. I got brought up on AN/I for using American punctuation in the course of ordinary gnoming (I was also using British punctuation where that was the predominant system, in addition to other edits that had nothing to do with the Am/Br split). Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You have said, twice, that you were "brought up on AN/I". You haven't said what the result of the AN/I was. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find you the link, Mandruss. It was a while ago. In the meantime, at first the Admin said, "I agree with all [Darkfrog's] changes," then the person who reported me pointed the admin to WP:LQ, then the admin said something like "Why does anyone care about this?" then the reporter and someone else said, "We ASKED Darkfrog to stop using AmE!" and I said something like, "You liar! No you didn't!" (because they hadn't). Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Found it. Archive 554. June 2009. Here's a case in which the MoS was treated as a set of rules rather than as a guideline. [7] I'm not saying that's bad, even though it worked against me in that case. I'm saying because people take the "guidelines" so seriously, we have to be very careful about what goes into them. See the discussion about the MoS and the generic he above. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. So you're citing a single incident from 2009, in which there was no sanction, and which was resolved as "Darkfrog24 said he'll stop". I don't even see an admin saying you were in the wrong, although my ADD prevents me from reading and absorbing every word. I'm sorry that happened to you, but IMO it's not terribly relevant to this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I brought it up as an example of a case in which a nominal guideline, the MoS, was treated as a set of rules rather than as a guideline. And thanks for your kind words. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Most guidelines and policies are descriptive, inasmuch as they encapsulate what we've worked out – typically through some combination of accumulated historical experience, trial and error and amendment, and acrimony – the way to deal with or handle some situation in accordance with our mission. Sometimes it's the 'best' way; sometimes it's the 'mutually acceptable' way. (For instance, WP:MEDRS is an example of the former; we've outlined the key points to consider when sourcing medical claims in our articles, in order to present the most reliable information possible. WP:ENGVAR is an example of the latter; we've got it because it doesn't matter at all which regional variant of English is used to write an encyclopedia, the guideline provides a shortcut to avoid thousands of petty edit wars by individuals who really need to get a grip.)
  That said, many guidelines (and policies) are treated as being functionally prescriptive, because we've already had all the discussions and made all the required amendments and reached acceptable compromises on all the disputes. Policies and guidelines exist in their current forms because of (in many cases) years of discussion and evolution. For an 'established' policy or guideline, it is rare to encounter a situation that is entirely 'new': a problem or edge case that hasn't been previously contemplated or discussed. In the vast majority of situations, a policy or guideline is and should be treated as prescriptive because it describes the consensus that was already established based on the outcomes of arguments that we already had.
  In other words, we generally hew closely to our policies and guidelines for two often-related reasons: they generally produce good product, and they give us a way to not have the same arguments over and over again.
  If an editor wants to do something that contradicts the written word of a policy or guideline, they can do so—but only with great care. The onus is on them to demonstrate why the particular circumstance at hand differs from the circumstances contemplated in the development and maintenance of the existing rules. They are expected to show that ignoring (or better, adapting or modifying) a rule in a particular situation results in a material improvement to the project, and they ought to show that they aren't reopening a pre-existing argument and consensus that went against them. (While these two tests aren't usually explicitly spelled out, they tend to be what the question boils down to.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• I think the way we work is a hybrid between being rule-bound and having a lot of freedom. Furthermore I think there is an understanding that there is in place a damping mechanism, preventing swings between adherence to policy and ignoring all rules. We tend to require extensive debate before making changes to the way we do things. Results of debates of all sorts are expected to fall somewhere between that which is indicated by counting votes and that which might be indicated by evaluating the quality of the arguments presented. This is just what I think I observe. I am not an administrator. Bus stop (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

is it okay to create an account for the creation of a new article only (and so I can ask to see deleted version)? Can my username reflect my agenda?

I wanted to create a redlinked article, and in point of fact it's about three founders who made a very large exit (meaning sale of company, in this case for nearly $1b), two first two wiki links had brief bios but the third was redlinked. I wanted to create this article, as I tihkn it's important that the third one is african-american and there is little representation among technical founders (3%) versus general population. My question is whether I can

1) Create an account for this purpose. I also see that there was a past deleted version, and I can only see it with an account (rather than as an IP)

2) On naming, could I name the account "fanofequality" which literally pushes an agenda? (In the sense that perhaps some people think all African-Americans should be low-paid workers and be given no capital or founder-of-startups status -- this is a straw man argument in the sense that I'm not accurately summarizing anyone's viewpoint, I am just naming a hypothetical, but I mean to say that mine is definitely an "agenda", in the same sense. Not everyone in the world has the same agenda. And I would literally be doing it so that there is a more prominent African-American founder (since a ~$1 billion exit is a very large one and quite notable). This something that was done in the past with Women founders, and now women are very well-represented among founders, but were not until there were some prominent examples. Another example would be very young founders (18-22) which is quite a different demographic than had been entrusted with millions in venture capital in decades past (50's, 60's, 70's, let's say). So that the difference, I think, was a few prominent examples (like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates), and although I don't have a founding sole-CEO who is now worth $40 billion as an example, a ~$1B exit example is a very good start. I'd like to promote this person (no relation) simply due to my agenda I've shared here.

Can I do so? Can my username reflect this?

Finally, I am not doing this for brownie points or whatever (though a poor choice or words), and don't especially want recognition, which is why I wouldn't really associate with the account, which would just create the one thing, except of course any editors with the right could look up my IP, or I think my writing style in many ways is quite easy to identify.

Please let me know if all of the above is in line with policies and so forth. You can also offer specific guidelines with regards to the specific things I've listed.

Thanks so much.

212.96.61.236 (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

1) Yes, you can create an account in order to create an article. It doesn't matter if you plan to only create one article, or many. Go ahead and create an account. 2) I don't see any problems with the username fanofequality. That's not pushing any agenda. 3) Having an account will not automatically allow you to see the deleted article. You will have to request that an admin share it with you. 4) You haven't shared the topic of the article here, but it may or may not meet our notability guidelines. You should check the deletion discussion to see why it was deleted. You would need to overcome that issue if you want to recreate the article. 5) If you need any help, let someone know! We have lots of helpful users here! Good luck!   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

[EC] Thanks!! These responses have been most helpful, and I will proceed this way :) On "If you need any help, let someone know! We have lots of helpful users here! Good luck" I actually would like your help. I don't want my efforts to go to waste.

I believe what I've just mentioned has met WP notability guidelines already. There is no way to take away notability, it can only be increased with further information. (i.e. there is a ton of other notable info about him as well.) The other two founders have brief bios, his name (now redlinked) is the tenth word on a huge article with 40+ references and 500+ edits going back to 2009, and I believe his article was deleted out of simple racism as 'no black person can be as prominent as a white person, it must be self-promotion.' (Even though being one of a few makes him MORE notable, not less.) The exit (acquisition) I mention is huge and makes him prominent on its own, wouldn't you agree? I'd like your confirmation that the description makes it prominent, and your agreement to fight for me against racism actively deleting that page once I write it neutrally, with references (guy has newspapers articles about him, half a million google hits). Could you agree it's prominent now and that you won't let racists (i.e. anyone) delete it on notability grounds? In summary:

1. Brief newspaper articles about him in highly prominent newspapers
2. Half a million Google hits
3. Tenth word, (wikified, but now redlinked) in an article going back to 2009 with 500+ edits.
4. Huge exit at nearly $1 billion
5. One of only < 3% of funded startup founders in the United States who are African-American which makes him particularly prominent for the size of exit. The size of exit itself makes him prominent. This is the amount Instagram was purchased for by Facebook, for example. Huge.
6. added repeated mentions by the Wall Street Journal. Articles only about him in prominent daily newspaper (such as USA Today).
7. Please confirm that the above makes his article ironclad prominent and that it cannot be removed on Notability grounds (by, from my perspective that I just express here and in my next username) by obvious racists (IMO, though I will not name-call them that) and that you will fight to have it reinstated if/when it happens?

Thank you for making a judgment now. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is going to make any judgement now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

+1. Unless that lists also includes "substantial coverage in multiple sources with an editorial board that has a reputation for fact checking, that are unaffiliated with the subject". Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You're conflating "notability" with "reliable source". Can I get your preemptive agreement that The USA Today is one such source (prima facie) except in editorials, and that where the prominence is in a certain field (tech) the specialized news sources there qualify as fine sources on notability grounds? I am not prepared to spend hours of my time only to get into a pointless war with 'grumps', so, yes, I would like complete consensus on notability as I add more and more information here. (Assuming the information turns out to be true, reliable and verifiable.) I am simply not prepared to waste hours of my time wiht racists and this is the only way I can think of avoiding doing so. I would like your complete preemptive agreeement to fight on my behalf based on agreement on notability based on my above numbered list. This guy is way more notable than tens of thousands of types of plants and animals we list, for example. Please agree based on my list. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the notability guideline says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." (emphasis mine). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Therefore, Martijn, can you agree that repeated mentions in the Wall Street Journal count as a reliable source and, therefore, you are on board with the consensus? Thanks so much by the way. What you've quoted is very good. 21:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, you've been falsified because you stated 'nobody is going to make any judgment now' but another user already replied "based on what you are saying he should be notable". Because you have 'grump' in your username it is false of me to assume good faith but I will still do so. Even though it sounds like you are preemptively defending a coming unjustified deletion, I will just ask you what facts can preemptively get your agreement to fight for non-deletion on "notability" grounds. Thanks. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I did say he should be notable, but no one will give you a definitive answer that he does meet notability guidelines without knowing who you are actually talking about. Will you tell us who you are talking about so we can look at the previously deleted article? -- GB fan 19:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, GB! I will write the article later, where it's up to me to justify the above claims with references. For now I'm adding you to a conensus taly at bottom. (next edit). Thank you. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If it can be demonstrated through the necessary third-party published reliable sources that this individual meets our notability criteria, the article will be accepted. If it can't, it won't. We don't make hypothetical preemptive 'agreements' regarding article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about article contents. We are discussing a notability issue. It is my impression that editors are gearing up whose POV is "no african american tech founder can ever be notable" and I would like to give you enough information to commit to the alternative side of that fight now, with the sole condition that the information turns out to be true and verifiable. This is racism on its face, and I'd like consensus here before I waste a minute of my time on Wikipedia. (Also recall this will be under a new username.) I've lost fights in the past with grumps who had nothing to do but pick a fight, and I don't have time or inclination for that. That's why we're building consensus here first. Any objections? What other notability metrics would you like me to give now? I'd like preemptive conensus here, thank you. I'm not on WP to waste my time. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on what you are saying he should be notable, but as Andy says we can't answer your question without specifics. Give me the name of the deleted article and I will look it over. -- GB fan 18:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We can't give you preemptive consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You can. I can just add info bit by bit until I have a whole article here and at some point there will be no hold-outs. Then I can actually write and prove with reliable references (such as USA Today non-specialist, Wall Street Journal specialist, and other daily newspaper mentions). If he's mentioned repeatedly by the WSJ and USA Today that makes him automatically notable, does it not? (Together with the above numbers). Unless you're trolling me Martijn I cannot imagine how you could possibly believe otherwise, since there is no space limitation on Wikipedia and thousands of articles exist that are obviously and clearly less prominent (for example things that do not have a single mention in any daily newspaper, such as highly specialized subjects.) Can you please agree that repeated Wall Street Journal mentions are enough to make someone prominent? I am starting to feel you are just trolling me, but please ask for what other tests I can give. The idea that someone who has articles in the USA Today written JUST about them could fail to be prominent is ridiculous on its face, and I'm on the verge of giving up trying to write this article. I feel like I'm being trolled. This is just a feeling and I am going to continue to assume good faith, but can you simply confirm that - OBVIOUS - repeated mentions in the Wall Street Journal as well as USA Today articles written ONLY about a person automatically make them prominent, together with the facts in my list? I would not like to give up due to a lack of consensus here, but if I do I am glad that it's after wasting 1 hour with trolls and not 10 hours.  :) So let's make me not give up. The answer is obvious to me with the information I have added here. I've now added 'repeated Wall Street Journal mentions' to my list above. Thanks for your feedback accepting the notability now. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

At this point, how about you stop wasting everyone's time and just give us the name of the subject? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I would never do that if it is not notable enough to have information on it on Wikipedia! That would be a true waste of your time, I'd never do that :-p This is, after all, Wikipedia. As you would like to read about it on Wikipedia, I'll include you on tentative consensus below. There's no space limitation of course :) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You have wasted more time here than it would have taken you to write the article. Then we can give you the definitive answer you are looking for. I think there is some trolling going on here. -- GB fan 21:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi internet user, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'll attempt to answer the questions you've asked, and also some you haven't asked, but I feel important to touch on anyway. First the technical side of things, and the completely unambitious answers. Editors without an account (like you currently) are able to edit our pages, and submit draft articles. When you are logged in to an account you can also directly create articles without going through draft. Neither can view deleted revisions (an account has to have administrator capabilities enabled to do that). Most administrators are willing to mail anyone a copy of deleted content, or possibly temporary restore it on a user page (I am one of those). It's immaterial whether the request is made by someone with or without an account (but copyright violations and attack pages will never be restored).

You can create any username you like, within reasonable limits, and the username fanofequality doesn't cross those limits in my opinion. I believe that reasonably answers the questions on what you can do. Another question is should you do that?

We are very happy with anyone who helps improve Wikipedia, and creating an article about someone who meets our criteria for inclusion for biographies certainly helps improve Wikipedia. Your post however does raise some flags. The implied common goal of all Wikipedians is to make Wikipedia a better encylopedia. Your post indicates that though making Wikipedia is probably a beneficial side effect, you are here primarily to right great wrongs, and we've historically found that that often leads to difficulties sooner or later. Then again on the other hand, many new Wikipedians joined to right great wrongs, but got in the swing of things, and decided that the most fun great wrong to right is the deplorable state of many of our articles. In the end advocacy is not particularly welcome here.

When it comes to the username you suggested, if I were you, I'd want to re-think that, for two reasons. Firstly, if you do become a general Wikipedian, do you really want to be associated with that username? It does raise flags. For any username on Wikipedia that has "truth", "facts", "real" or "neutral" in it, I'm willing to take a 10 - 1 bet they are here to push an agenda (the one being a courtesy to User:Neutralhomer, otherwise it would have been 10-0). The username you've chosen raises the same flags for me. There's a good chance that goes for others as well, and it might not be advisable to invite kneejerk reactions based on your username. Lastly, far, far behind the other two points, did you know that our usernames can contain any character, including spaces and capital letters? User:Fan of equality would be so much nicer than User:Fanofequality.

As a last stray observation, you say "except of course any editors with the right could look up my IP". There are currently 41 people who have that capability, and they may only use it when there is a reasonable suspicion of foul play. Every time such information is viewed it leaves a log item, and there is a dedicated subcomittee to check if use was justified.

Summorising: we want a better encyclopedia. If you're helping us build that, we're grateful if you do that. If you're here for advocacy, the former still holds, but it often leads to problems later on. Feel free to ask more questions if you have them! Regards, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have an explicit agenda of including information on equality in America. The information can be neutral but I would like the account to be about it. Other editors have expressed the opinion that fanofequality is fine. Can you suggest what you would use for a dedicated account created to create a single page? (For the reasons that I had pointed out)?

Secondly, could you agree on notability (as compared with tens of thousands of unnotable plants and animals that have wikipedia pages) based on the above information I gave in the numbered list above? Can you agree to fight for restoration on notability grounds?

Thank you for the other information you have given. I have read it all, and await your agreement (consensus) on the above, as well as a username you would suggest I use if my goal with that username is to include information on equality in America and make sure highly prominent and notable articles are written? (e.g. by me.) Thank you. If you can't agree based on the list, could you try to express why not? There are fewer than a few thousand founders in America in his position. It's notable on its face (in my opinion). Thanks for any thoughts. I'd really not like to waste my time here and have dealt with trolls picking fights in the past. Thank you. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Firstly, having a dedicated account for advocacy is simply not a good idea. Secondly, I can give you a resounding "yes" for notability if and only if you can give me an equally resounding assurance the subject is covered substantially in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In the context of Wikipedia I certainly won't fight for anything but what's best for Wikipedia. As for wasting your time, well, I do believe you are wasting your time if you insist on people giving some call or another on the notability of the subject without being willing to say what the subject is, or say if the subject actually meets our general notability guideline - and as unfriendly as it sounds; it's not only your time you're wasting with that. I'm always very willing to explain things about Wikipedia to those who have a genuine desire to understand them, but not so much to those who want to know how they can game the rules to abuse Wikipedia for advocacy. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel it's fair to call 'including verified notable information on a subject in an encyclopedia' 'activism' per se, but whatever. Is someone who wants to make sure calculus subjects are included a 'math activist'? It's just that nobody is antimath, there is no such term, so nobody will delete those articles, but 'racist' exists as a term because there is such a thing. I agree with another poster that it's a serious accusation and I'd never use a term like that other than here, without naming the article.

Secondly, thanks for your resounding answer :) As he has repeated mentions in the Wall Street Journal I'll accept it :). 212.96.61.236 (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel like someone needs to give a nod to our policy on assuming good faith here. I've seen the term "racist" – a serious accusation – thrown around pretty freely above. Fact is, there are many reasons the article could have been deleted that have nothing to do with racism. To wit:

• The article may have failed to demonstration the notability of the subject, despite the fact that sufficient evidence to demonstrate such notability existed.
• The article may have been created and deleted prior to the subject having established notability
• The subject of the article, while apparently being a pretty well-known and decent human being, may not actually meet our notability guidelines. The "evidence" presented above does not specifically address our notability criteria, although it seems to indicate there is a case for notability based on our criteria that could be made.

The logic that the subject appears to be a notable African-American, but his article was deleted, ergo the deleting admin was racist is one riddled with fallacies, not to mention that a deletion on such grounds would go way afoul of policy and probably get the admin de-sysopped if not blocked or banned. Since we still don't know who the deleted article was about, we don't know what the reason for deletion was, so in good faith, let's back off the nasty racism accusations, mmkay? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't back off my impression (here only) because I couldn't click his redlink despite being followed by two founders whose I could. Why would anyone delete information that could be useful, from a Wikipedia? Nobody deletes articles on anything that's in the news that much. it should have just been increased in scope and breadth. Thanks for your feedback, it's interesting that it may have been notable without this being established by the article! Thanks for the above. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@212.96, I don't doubt that you are trying to improve wikipedia, but your approach is entirely wrong. I assure you that the article was not deleted because the subject was African American. I don't say this because racism isn't a real issue we deal with here, but because I'm an editor of Stormfront (and similar articles), and have dealt with it first hand. Such a decision would be an absurd violation of our policies, as well as the general attitude from our established editors; it would have been plastered all over our noticeboards, with editing sanctions to follow quickly after. None of us are pitted against the article because of the subject's ethnicity. We need to know the subject so we can determine key facts (like his prominence in reliable sources) that a novice editor cannot reliably assess.

You will not get an assurance that the subject is notable before providing his name, and even if you got an assurance here, it would not prevent the article from being deleted by a different set of editors later. If you really don't want to waste your time, provide his name, and we'll be happy to discuss the issue with you. Anything else is a waste of time not just for you, but for all of us too.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

consensus tally

based on the above it seems the below people are on board that if the article's references establish the same information I have included, its subject is obviously notable (of course, the quality of article written should still be high):

- Martijn Hoekstra ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.", and I assume WSJ and USA Today coverage count as reliable sources, and an article just about him as significant coverage. And of course specialist sources from the tech world. )

- GB fan ("He should be notable")

- NeilN - wanted name of article to read. As wanted to read it on Wikipedia based on information in list, the information implies its subject is notable.

No opinion expressed on this subject:

- Jess

Not on board (but seems grumpy and did not respond to follow-up questions):

- AndyTheGrump

Thank you for your opinion guys!!! This is more than enough information for me to go ahead and tackle writing the article. I am still awaiting a better name suggestion by Martijn Hoekstra who seemed opposed to the 'fan of equality' name. Kindly suggest one (anyone here can). I'll try to base the article around verified sources. Thanks again for all the help. You've been most kind. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not want to read the article. I merely wanted the name of the person (as multiple editors have asked you to provide). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability criteria, military personel

WP:GNG and WP:BASIC says an individual is notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. Some folks, namely some under WP:MILHIST, seem to have developed their own view that having attained a high enough rank in a military is sufficient to make the individual notable, regardless of whether they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources (they refer to this view as WP:SOLDIER, e.g. here). Is this view really appropriate for application on Wikipedia? Why would this particular topic area (military personel) be exempt from standards like WP:V that are seen as being so fundamental in other topic areas?--Anders Feder (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: @MrX: I'd welcome your input on this. It is the general view I am asking about, not the case of the specific deletion request I linked to as example.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The subject still needs to meet the general notability requirements WP:SOLDIER just helps with some examples, it would be suprising if an individual with the level of "rank" in the milhist guideline (that is "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer") doesnt have multiple sources so they normally meet WP:GNG. MilborneOne (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We must always remember that all guidelines on Wikipedia are trumped by common sense. Nothing is set in stone. Wikipedia is not a monolithic bureaucracy. We reach agreement through discussion and opinion, not by following strict rules. And to those of us who agree with WP:SOLDIER it is simply common sense that someone who has reached general, flag or air officer rank (or the equivalent in other walks of life) is notable by virtue of that rank. Otherwise Wikipedia is in danger of degenerating into a list of minor "celebrities" who may have reams written about them on the web by fanboys/girls but who are in fact "notable" for very little beyond being lovers of media exposure and experts in getting it. An encyclopaedia that has many thousands of articles on people like this (with the justification that they have heavy web coverage and therefore "must be notable") and rejects articles on generals and senior civil servants because their achievements aren't drivelled about endlessly on blogs and fansites (and therefore "aren't notable") is no encyclopaedia at all, but just a super-fansite. Frankly, that's not the project I joined and it isn't one I wish to be a part of. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

User galleries

Are personal image galleries in userspace allowed ? WP:NOTHOST is not too clear as I read it. Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 21:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Editors have galleries of photos they've taken or related to subjects they've edited. I don't see the harm as long as these photos are not of the personal/tourist snapshot variety. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal photos is what I am concerned about, I came across a gallery on a userpage (I have not messaged the user of my concerns yet) I wanted to check, obviously, beforehand. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)