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.
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 frequently rejected or ignored proposals.

« Archives, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192

RFC: spelling of "organisation"/"organization" in descriptive category names

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is a close, complicated by allegations of votestacking, which might, in itself, be reason for finding "no consensus". The OP has premised this as a means to resolve conflict/disruption as a systemic/ongoing issue. They note that the guidelines (RETAIN and ENGVAR) that normally resolve these issues do not explicitly apply to categories. I have looked for a "weight" of arguement to support or oppose the proposition that the solution is to stanardiz[s]e on a particular spelling in categories (as opposed to !votes). The most compelling arguements are to embrace our differences. Perhaps this might be done in a more formal way and make this explicit to categories (CREEP to avoid CREEP - irony). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

---

 Administrator note: This RfC was closed on 17 April 2019, and reopened after editors suggested the same at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Further discussion of recent RfC on organisation vs organization. Lourdes 07:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Should all Wikipedia categories which use the word "organisation"/"organization" as part of a descriptive name per WP:NDESC be standardized to use the "Z" spelling, i.e. "organization" rather than "organisation"?

Note that this proposal does not apply to proper names, such as Category:International Labour Organization, which should use the name selected per WP:Article titles for the title of the head article. It applies only to the descriptive category titles invented by Wikipedia editors per WP:NDESC, such as Category:Agricultural organizations based in the Caribbean, Category:Organizations established in the 19th century, Category:Religious organizations by faith or belief, Category:Sports organisations of Ireland, and Category:Paramilitary organisations based in the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended explanation

This question may sound like trivial pedantry, but Category:Organizations has about ten thousand descriptively-named sub-categories. Those are inconsistently named, and therefore generate a steady stream of renaming proposals at WP:CFD.

Per WP:NCCAT, category names should "follow certain conventions", but there is no clear convention here; no single principle (or even agreed set of principles) defining which spelling to use. This makes the category system hard to use and hard to maintain, because it is difficult to predict which spelling is in use in each case

Over the years, these categories have been the subject of numerous renaming discussions, and several are open now. Several well-established principles are applied, but they are often fuzzy or conflicting, and they produce varying outcomes depending on the good faith interpretations of the experienced editors involved. Many categories have been renamed multiple times.

1. MOS:TIES recommends that for English-speaking nations, we should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation.
   However,
   • It is often hard to determine which (if any) usage is preferred in any given country
   • There is disagreement about whether the "S" spelling is actually the clearly-preferred option in any national variant of English
2. MOS:RETAIN advocates that the initial version should be retained in the absence of consensus to the contrary.
3. Geography. No policy appears to cover usage in non-English-speaking nations, so editors apply in good faith a variety of well-reasoned principles which produce different outcomes, e.g.
   A/ Countries which are geographically closer to the UK than the US should use the British spelling, and vice-versa
   B/ Commonwealth countries (i.e. the former British Empire) should follow British spelling.
   However
   • Those two principles clash for the many former British colonies in the Americas
   • There is legitimate dispute about the extent to which British usage persists 50 years after independence

These inconsistencies create clashes of principle. If MOS:RETAIN is applied, then each container category ends up with a random assortment of spellings, depending on the choice of the creator.

However, most categories for organisations are intersections of two or more category trees, e.g.* Category:Sports organisations of Iran is an intersection of Category:Organizations by type and Category:Organizations by country.

Taking that example: if we apply MOS:TIES, we get inconsistent titles in Category:Sports organizations by country, e.g. Category:Sports organisations of Mozambique/Category:Sports organizations of the Comoros.

On the other hand, if we apply consistency across Category:Sports organizations by country, that creates inconsistencies with MOS:TIES-derived names for the country categories. e.g. if Category:Sports organisations of Mozambique was renamed to use "Z", then that would clash with the grandparent Category:Organisations based in Mozambique.

In CFD discussions, the main argument for standardisation is that per American and British English spelling differences#-ise,_-ize_(-isation,_-ization), some British usage prefers the "S" spelling, bit there is no overall preference ... and that while the "S" spelling" is unacceptable in American usage, the "Z" spelling is acceptable variant in all countries.

On the other side, arguments against standardisation prioritise MOS:TIES, and assert that "S" is the standard British usage. They note how ENGVAR variations are accepted in other types of category. One example of this is Category:Association football players, whose subcategories variously use "association football players", "footballers" or "soccer players", depending on local usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Organizations: Discussion/survey

add your comments and/or !votes here

• Use "z". I'm British, and use both spellings interchangeably. In some parts of the English-speaking world only "z" is correct, but in others both "s" and "z" are correct. I don't know of anywhere where "z" is incorrect. I must add that it's very tiresome that we have to even discuss this, but there are certain editors who seem to like arguing for arguing's sake. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Couldn't category redirects solve tis without renaming anything? If the answer apears to be "no they can't" then I agree with every word of the above comment by Phil Bridger. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Categories use WP:soft redirects (see Example), unlike e.g. lists which use hard redirects; while these can reduce the problem, they require an extra click. – Fayenatic London 22:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Beeblebrox, two years ago I thought that redirects might be a partial solution (with the limitation which @Fayenatic notes), provided that there was a bot to apply them in all instances, on an ongoing basis. So I proposed the bot, at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 3, and there were so many niggles that I gave up. (The bot was approved for a trial run, but there were strong objections to making it an open-ended task, which is exactly what would be needed for the bot to solve the problem).

That's why I have come around to the view that we should fix the problem at source by abandoning the pretence that British English has such a strong preference for the "s" spelling that we shouldn't use Z in any topic relating to the former British Empire other than in the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Don't standardize. Personally, I use British English with a "z", but I don't think it is good idea to bow to the consistency zealots on this. They'd only find something more serious to worry about. Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • If there is continuing conflict without standardization, "don't standardize" is the wrong solution. There might be some reasonable middle ground toward standardization and away from conflict, but a basic non-vote definitely isn't it. --Izno (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use z. I'm British and use "s" in my personal and professional writing, but it is often inconvenient in Wikipedia that the spelling of categories for orgs is unpredictable. Using the Oxford spelling with the "z" is not un-British anyway. We already use the non-French "z" spelling for France (see CFD in 2017 closed by me) and various other countries in Europe/Commonwealth. Let's take it all the way. – Fayenatic London 22:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I am prepared to make exceptions for Australia and New Zealand. NZ apparently uses -ise; these sources are not best quality but IMHO suffice to demonstrate that point.[1][2][3] However, other former colonies are not so evidently wedded to the "s" spellings. Let's switch to "z" in UK, British Overseas Territories, Europe, Asia, S America, the Caribbean, and the remainder of Oceania. – Fayenatic London 08:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - organize was good enough for Samuel Johnson and so it is good enough for me (in the UK). The Americans have in this case adhered to correct classical English. Oculi (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use z. I agree with the observations of both Phil Bridger and Oculi. And if something is correct everywhere, it ought to take precedence over one national preference. Now the consistency folks can worry about why Category:Television shows by country rolls up to Category:Television programs where "shows" is correct wherever English is used but the spelling of program/programme may differ. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• On the point of commonality, do see MOS:COMMONALITY. --Izno (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use "z", since it is considered acceptable in British English (unless I've been doing it wrong all this time). Jc86035 (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Don't standardise. Continue to use "s" in countries that predominantly use "s" (like the UK, Australia and New Zealand). It's very rare to see "z" in the UK outside Oxford these days. We don't change other category names for consistency, so I have no idea why we'd want to here. It is clear from the media, from previous WP discussions and from usage in WP articles by British editors that "s" is now greatly preferred in the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Necrothesp, your statement that we don't change other category names for consistency is plain false. On the contrary, large numbers of category names are changed for consistency every single day. Most weeks, several hundred categories are renamed for consistency at WP:CFDS per WP:C2B, WP:C2C, or WP:C2D ... while new consistent conventions are repeatedly established at full CFD discussions.

It's also clear that you well know that statement to be false, because you yourself have made plenty of CFDS nominations on the basis of consistency. including [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. That's only a small sample, and it is very sad to see an admin asserting as fact something which they have demonstrably known for many years to be untrue.

The reason we seek consistency, as you clearly well know, is that inconsistent titling is confusing for both readers and editors. You also do huge numbers of article moves on that very basis per the policy WP:CONSISTENCY (part of WP:Article titles), and as noted above the same principle applies to categories: see WP:NCCAT.

In this case, we have policy on what to do: MOS:COMMONALITY says "For an international encyclopaedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable: Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles". In this case, the Z spelling is a universally accepted variant, even if it is not universally preferred ... whereas the "S" spelling is not acceptable in American English. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. As usual, it appears. We do not change category titles for consistency in WP:ENGVAR circumstances. We may change them for consistency in non-ENGVAR circumstances if it is uncontroversial, yes. This is a different issue. And despite claims to the contrary, this is an ENGVAR issue, as "z" is indeed very rarely used these days in British English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

No, Necrothesp, I did not misunderstand you. I correctly understood the clear meaning of what you actually wrote, which now turns out to be radically different from what you now claim you intended to say. Please do not misrepresent your change of assertion as someone else's failure to understand.

As to ENGVAR, for over a century the leading dictionary of British English has been the Oxford English Dictionary, which continues to recommend the "Z" spelling as the preferred form. Are you really, seriously, trying to claim that OED's recommendation is not an acceptable usage in British English? Really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl, FWIW the OED is now the last part of Oxford clinging on to Oxford spelling; even Oxford University itself has deprecated its use ‑ Iridescent 22:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Our present policy wastes a great deal of editors' time and effort. It doesn't produce consistent results. Consistency in country subcategories is achieved at the expense of inconsistency in all the other hierarchies. Consistency would increase our efficiency and enable us to quibble about things that are more important. There is nowhere where spelling organization with a z is wrong. The problem really is that in the UK it is seen, quite mistakenly, as American linguistic imperialism.Rathfelder (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No, it's merely seen as uncommon in the present day. An archaic usage preserved by Oxford but not much elsewhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support "z" - Barring specific cases where a proper name using "Organisation" is involved, the more inclusive "organization" should be used in all other cases. It is clear that this has been an ongoing issue that repeatedly comes up and it will save everyone's time in the long run to make this a standard convention. The fact that one spelling ("z") is acceptable (if not preferred) globally and the other is unacceptable in large parts of the world makes this change an obviously better convention over the current hodge-podge of MOS:RETAIN-based random spellings or multiple CFDs to attempt to meet MOS:TIES. I think BrownHairedGirl has made a very compelling argument and I haven't (yet?) seen any substantive argument against it. - Paul^T+/_C 14:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Don't standarise per Necrothesp. There's no reason to change the status quo here, and Oxford is not an authority for the whole of British English (and definitely isn't for Australian or New Zealand English, where -ise is strongly preferred). Iffy★Chat -- 14:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, this is NOT a commonality issue, many parts of the world primarily use 's', just as much as many areas use 'z'. This isn't the American english Wikipedia, it's the English language wikipedia for all users of the English language. Iffy★Chat -- 08:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Slightly alternate proposal: Use "z" but create a preference setting where editors who want to see the word spelled with an "s" in category names can see it that way. bd2412 T 14:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• @BD2412 I appreciate the quest for a solution which gives as many people as possible most of what they want. That's a good approach throughout life.

So I have no objection in principle to that idea, but is it technically feasible? I know that much wizardry can be achieved by AJAX, but even if some cunning code could change the displayed spelling of category titles as they appear at the bottom of an article or at the top of a category page, how would it distinguish between descriptive titles and proper names, so that it converted Category:Sports organizations of Estonia but not Category:International Labour Organization or Category:Organization of American States?

Readers might like this, but it would cause problems for editors, who would never see the actual title of the category, and be mystified why tyoing in the "S" spelling produced a redlink. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

My initial thoughts on this would be that 1) some kind of tag would need to be put on formal names to prevent them from showing up with the "s" spelling, if we care to do that, and 2) irrespective of the outcome of this discussion, there should be a category redirect pointing from the "s" spelling to the "z" spelling. When using hotcat, at least, this will change the input to the correct category. bd2412 T 15:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

So who gets the job of tagging all the relevant categories, and maintaining those tags? As the Pages per ActiveEditor ratio continues to grow, we need fewer of those maintenance tasks, not more.

As to redirects, yes I agree. As I noted above in reply to Beeblebrox, I tried two years ago to create a bot to do just that, but the BRFA got drowned in nitpicking so I gave up.

I do think that Phil Bridger's reminder of the fate of the time/date preference thing is worth remembering. It was all just seen as too much complexity for too little benefit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Before going too far with that proposal I would remind editors that we used to do something similar with dates in articles, where they were presented in dmy or mdy format in accordance with a preference. That system was done away with - here is one discussion but I'm sure there were more - for reasons that could also be applicable to this proposal. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Use 'z' except in countries where 'z' is plain wrong (perhaps Australia and New Zealand?). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support "z" I do a lot of work on organizational categories. Our present policy wastes a lot of my time and energy. It prioritises consistency by country over consistency by subject, for no obvious reason, even where English is not a native language in the country concerned. Personally I have been using s for about 55 years, even though I was brought up to revere the Oxford English Dictionary, but I think the importance of consistency should outweigh personal preference I . Rathfelder (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose standardisation z these days is a variant, not the standard modern spelling in British English with the OED and related publishing house very much fighting a losing battle on this. In other countries z is used even less. Whatever is done there will be inconsistency as there are numerous main articles and lists using s, to say nothing of other cases where different spellings and terms are in use (programmes/programs/shows has already come up) so trying to impose a global consistency just isn't going settle things. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use “z” per MOS:COMMONALITY, Z would be preferred because it is accepted intenationally and S is not. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use "z" Standardization helps, it's categorization. It is WP:COMMONSENSE to use what's more common. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 20:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Don't standardise. I don't see this as a problem, and "z" is not acceptable in Australian (or I presume NZ) English. Frickeg (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Frickeg, do you have any actual evidence that the "Z" spelling is not an acceptable variation in Australian English? Sorry to be a where's-the-WP:RS pedant, but in countless CFD discussions I have seen many confident assertions of national preferences in spelling, but there is almost never any evidence offered. Please can you fill the gap, and be the one who actually provides the sources which support your claim that "Z" spelling is never an acceptable variation in Australia? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    • The Macquarie Dictionary, the closest thing to an authority here, says (paywalled) "Current Australian usage clearly favours consistent use of -ise". Although Macquarie does list "-ize" as a variant (perhaps "not acceptable" was an overstatement, but "very rarely used" is certainly true; Macquarie also lists practically all US spellings as variants, which doesn't mean they're generally acceptable in AusEng), I have been unable to find a single Australian style guide that allows "-ize", and you will practically never see it in Australian publications. It is clearly recognised as an Americanism, and even if there is some doubt about the common British usage, there really isn't for us. I see no reason why WP:TIES would not apply, and WP:RETAIN when we are talking multi-national categories. Frickeg (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks @Frickeg. Would you be ale to quote the rest of the entry? The actual wording is important to the application of MOS:COMMONALITY, and your paraphrasing raises a few questions for me.

As to WP:RETAIN, it is a disastrous principle to apply to any category set and esp large sets, because it produces random outcomes across category trees. That makes it hard for editors to add categories, hard for readers to type them, and massively complicates all sorts of maintenance and templating functions. That's why so many categories of all types are renamed very day per WP:C2C. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• The entirety of the entry "-ise": "a suffix of verbs having the following senses: 1. intransitively, of following some line of action, practice, policy, etc., as in Atticise, apologise, economise, theorise, tyrannise, or of becoming (as indicated), as crystallise and oxidise (intr.), and 2. transitively, of acting towards or upon, treating, or affecting in a particular way, as in baptise, colonise, or of making or rendering (as indicated), as in civilise, legalise. Compare -ism, -ist. Also, -ize. [from (often directly) Greek -izein. Compare French -iser, German -isieren, etc.] Usage: -ize is the usual spelling in US English. In Britain there is some variety: some publishers standardise on -ize, but others use -ise. Attempts to distinguish -ize in words based on Greek (idolize, monopolize) from -ise in words that have come to English from or through French (realise, moralise) founder on the difficulties of knowing the precise history of many words. Current Australian usage clearly favours consistent use of -ise, a practice which has the advantage of being easy to remember." Frickeg (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks, @Frickeg. That's a clear recommendation of "ise", but not an outright deprecation of "ize". That would certainly support using "organisation" in articles ... but in category titles, which are navigational devices rather than enyclopedic content, it seems to me that MOS:COMMONALITY justifies using the non-preferred spelling. This isn't a petrol/gasoline issue, where one usage is clearly deprecated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Use "z" - Just for fun, I did a survey of usage on Belizean news sites. Belize is a Commonwealth country, but geographically close to the U.S. I expected usage to be about even, but usage of "organization" was 34 times higher than "organisation"! I would be OK with leaving a specific exception for UK-related categories, but overall it seems like "organization" is the more internationally-prominent spelling. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Alternate Proposal - use z for all categories except in the country where s is the clear choice - and I'd suggest a discrete list be created of these (UK, NZ, Australia are primary). This will at least shrink the issue - where it's an either/or, or any of these geographical proximity cases, they default to z. It won't quite resolve the issue, but I think it's an improvement that will avoid most of the likely blowback from fellow s-speakers. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Nosebagbear, I'd very much prefer simple standardisation, but I think that your proposal could provide some limited improvement if this RFC agreed an actual list of which countries fall into that category. Without that definitive list, we would effectively have no change; we would still face the same CFD debates over and over again about which if any is the preferred usage in Ruritania (see e.g. the CFR debate on Organizations based in Oman). I appreciate what you are trying to achieve by changing the default, but it still risks an ongoing saga of many dozens of case-by-case debates. So I think that proposal would have more chance of meaningful assessment if there was some actual evidence for the claimed clear preference for "S" usage in NZ+Australia, and in any other country which editors want to list. As I note above, these discussions are overwhelmingly dominated by assertions rather than evidence, but the sincere indignation which often accompanies the objections is nearly always unevidenced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Use z unless the content categorized is predominantly using s. That is, default to z which is acceptable in every ENGVAR, but retain s for local WP:CONSISTENCY if all or most articles in the category are non-North American and (not "or") are also using the s spellings in their content and (where applicable) titles. E.g., a "Category:Animal rights organisations in England" category should likely not move to the z spelling, but "Category:Animal rights organisations" certainly should be (and is) at Category:Animal rights organizations, for MOS:COMMONALITY reasons. The z spelling is preferred even in British academic writing (and an encyclopedia is basically academic writing), so z is a sensible default for multiple reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I see several problems with that:

1. It would lead to inconsistencies within the category tree for each country, which would be even worse than the current mess
2. It would make category titles unstable, because as articles are created or deleted or recategorised the balance would change
3. Assessing it would require a lot of editor time, but editor time is increasingly scarce: the ratio of articles per active editor is almost 4 time what it in 2007, and participation in CFD discussions is at ~5—15% of the levels in 2006. There is a persistent, multi-month backlog of CFD closures. However nice it might theoretically be to have such fine-grained decisions, we simply don't have the resources to sustain them.

We need a simple solution which creates stable outcomes, and where mistitled pages can be identified with the help of tools such as AWB and Petscan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see 1 as a real problem. There will always be inconsistencies, unless Oxford/Harvard spelling is made mandatory on Wikipedia for everything, which isn't going to happen (though it's a proposal I would support for the same reason I supported MOS:JR getting rid of the comma that some older Americans still prefer). Not concerned about 2, either. It's already a criterion (a speedy one, in fact) that category names are to align with article names, so it's already just a fact that they'll shift over time as the mainspace content changes; this is a dynamic site. But the rate of change of s/z stuff is barely detectable, anyway, so there's not really much potential for churn. I'm not sure how much editor time would be consumed, per point 3, but it's something we already do at CfD anyway, about lots of things. It only consumes the time of editors who choose to spend a lot of it at CfD, like you and I do, and we're pretty good at recognizing patterns and getting on with our !votes. If we had a rule like this, it should produce one outburst of category renaming activity, then remarkable stability after that: defaulting to z, unless there's a compelling and demonstrable reason to use s for a particular case. I'm "optimizing for the probable rather than the possible" here; there is no limit in the imagination to what could be possible, but we know from experience that most British topics, for example, are going to use the s spelling, so we can already predict how British-specific categories are going to be spelled. If we default to z for stuff with no national tie, then we can also predict how the majority of categories will be spelled, absent some overwhelming cluster of s-titled articles within one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Use "z" - Our categorization system should not be a endless battleground for nationalistic emotions or editorial ownership, but to serve as an internal system by which we order pages. As such, having a consistent style which makes life easier (and faster) for readers and editors, and will save time wasted in category discussions, is much better goal than any variation of the current system. Also editor supporter statements above me. --Gonnym (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use "zed" (or "zee" if you like) As a bit of a traditional Brit, I support Oxford spelling which prescribes -ize endings and hence avoids transatlantic conflict. Not sure on Australian / New Zealand / Indian usage though. Greenshed (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use "z" – Though "s" may be more common in the UK, that's like 60 million people compared to 1.5 billion English speakers. Z is more global, used either primarily or as an acceptable variant in almost all if not all English-speaking countries. Standardization is a good idea for consistency, readability, searchability, and reducing the needless category renaming. Leviv ich 22:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • India, Australia and New Zealand all use 's' primarily, and so do most English speakers in Europe and Africa, It's not just Britain. Iffy★Chat -- 08:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Iffy, do you have any actual evidence from reliable sources to support your assertion that most English speakers in Europe and Africa use 's' primarily? I don't mean some cherrypicked example, but some evidence of the claimed pattern of usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use "z". When I use HotCat to put articles in categories it is a nuisance to have two seperate alphabetical lists. And my copy of the Collins Paperback German Dictionary, 1988 edition, only lists Organization in the English side. It tells me that Organisation is the German spelling. Bigwig7 (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use only one, this is a direct presentation to readers, so having 2 content categories for a spelling variant isn't useful. I prefer the "z" option slightly, as there seem to be more sources with that variant. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This isn't about having 2 sets of categories for the 2 different spellings, it's about how the categories should be spelled. Iffy★Chat -- 08:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    • As long as we don't have competing Category:Cat organizations and Category:Cat organisations, I don't care too much so long as all of the articles about the content are in the same one, (e.g. Cats USA, Cats Canada, Cats Australia, Cats UK) should all be in only one of those, regardless of the ENGVAR used in their article. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Mostly use "z" - except for English-speaking countries where "s" is more common, use "z" everywhere. It's more intuitive, although this doesn't override the ENGVAR principle to use the local spelling. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Standardise on "z", with the exception for names involving "s". I'm normally one for letting people use whatever spelling they feel is appropriate, but this seems like a reasonable case for standardisation, and as noted, there are very few contexts in which "z" is actively wrong rather than merely not-preferred. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use "z", except in official names of organisations (sic). My initial idea was to use "z" for all non-specific categories and "s" for categories specific to regions that use that spelling, but it might be too hard to determine for non-English-speaking countries. We'd waste a lot of time arguing over individual countries, like Russia where usage can be quite split. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Z per many good !votes above, starting with Phil Bridger. Jonathunder (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use "z" When it comes to global categories like this standardization is far more important than ENGVAR. And I say that as one who has always spelled organisations with an S. Harry Boardman (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use "z", except when referring to a proper name. A convincing cost benefit case has be made for more uniform and predictable categories. A Google comparison of hits for the two spellings shows a 76% dominance for the Z spelling, and I came across a graph showing that Z is dominant in the UK by a 2-to-1 ratio and apparently increasing. Australians and some others may not be happy, but they surely are familiar with the predominate US/UK spelling. At least they will find that Wikipedia consistently has the "wrong" spelling, rather than having to deal with it being chaotically wrong. Alsee (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  Followup comment: Regarding WP:ENGVAR, there is a big difference between articles and categories. Individual articles can happily co-exist with different ENGVARs, however categories are encyclopedia-wide and a category naming must be done (as best we can) from an encyclopedia-wide perspective. WP:ENGVAR does not apply to categories, and I reject slippery slope arguments that this proposal is a threat to article content. The opposes are making a very poor argument that unpredictably and inexplicably confusing the majority is somehow preferable over predictability and minimizing the issue. I also urge the closer to take into account Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome that consensus is not determined by counting heads, and the fact that there was an abrupt surge of oppose-votes after this discussion was selectively canvassed. That surge in opposes is clearly not an accurate reflection of general community consensus, and canvassed responses should be weighted accordingly. For comparison, I closed a 20-vs-10 RFC[9] with a firm consensus for the 10, after almost entirely discounting the majority as blatantly canvassed. In this case the result is easier - I believe there is still a majority for Z even with the canvassed responses. Alsee (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Do not enforce spelling. "ize" endings are not acceptable in New Zealand English, and Wikipedia is never going to be 100% consistent (unless we throw out WP:TIES and WP:ENGVAR, which is way beyond the scope of this proposal).-gadfium 03:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Can you produce evidence that "ize" endings are not acceptable in New Zealand English? Rathfelder (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  I'll bet money the answer is "no". NZ doesn't have any NZ-specific style guides from a reputable publisher. NZ writers follow British style guides, like almost everyone in the rest of the Commonwealth, aside from Canada. Even Australia does (the government-published style guide is obsolete and generally ignored, and the Cambridge style guide for .au is simply the British one with some Australian vocabulary added, and Oxford doesn't make one for .au in particular, nor does any other publisher we'd care about).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style doesnt really help in this discussion. It's directed at articles, not categories. Rathfelder (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support a common-sense standardization that will free up editor time for more important things. MB 15:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use "z". I agree with OP arguments, and find opposing comments ineffective. Years back, the article Theater (Amer Eng) was moved to Theatre (Brit Eng) based on the fact that Americans sometimes spell it the British way, so MOS:COMMONALITY overrides RETAIN. The same argument is works here: Americans use only one spelling, but British use both, undermining any TIES argument. RETAIN is a fall-back position used when nothing else can reach consensus. Now, in all the many thousands of categories, I suspect there may be a very few specific exceptions that can be made, but I believe that for "Organization", COMMONALITY trumps RETAIN, and these should all use "z" to avoid the great majority of pointless future category spelling discussions, and let a new separate special discussion/RFC can started for the very few that somehow "must" use "s". --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• It's possible that in New Zealand, or some other part of the English-speaking world, "z" is regarded as incorrect, but is anyone really offended by its use? I, as a Brit, do not get offended when I read an Indian or American book in English that doesn't always use the same grammar or spelling that I use myself, but simply, if I notice it at all, treat it as part of life's rich tapestry. Surely we have more important things to concern ourselves about? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP, WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES. The category system is broken and needs replacing with a more sensible system of attributes which can be combined freely rather than being constrained into an arbitrary tree. A better system would provide for synonyms and that's a better way of handling such variation. I'd expect this to emerge as WikiData becomes more established and we can then discard the categories. Andrew D. (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use "z" - "z" is accepted almost everywhere. When categorizing articles, it's tiresome to guess which spelling a specific category uses. Standardization to the most common spelling is the best solution. -Zanhe (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:CREEP, WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES are pretty clear in this regard. Unless we're going to go down the same route Wikidata have taken - treating US English and UK English as different languages, and therefore setting up a whole new Wikipedia project for one or other of them, then let's continue to be inclusive and stick to the existing guidelines. WaggersTALK 11:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use Z because category names need to be predictable and standardized to serve some of their controlled-vocabulary purposes, and thus should be considered all part of a single document for the purposes of ENGVAR. EllenCT (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'm a non-native speaker and use both. I personally don't care either way, nor see the need to standardize/standardise. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use z, in deference to the wishes of England's future monarch.[10] Thincat (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Do not standardise WP:CREEP, WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES, as cited by others, are convincing and clear. We shouldn't be forcing editors to use what are considered clear misspellings in some countries. If we were to standardise then it should be to international English but I wouldn't support that as that would be considered incorrect in the US. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I though we had WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES precisely to prevent this kind of direspect to linguistic norms in other countries. It is "organisation" in Australian English. Kerry (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Do not standardise per WP:ENGVAR. Or if you really must pick one, use 's'. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• "The Manual of Style (MoS or MOS) is the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles." Categories are not articles. Oculi (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Oculi: "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of the language over any other." I don't see a need to distinguish between categories and articles here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - use "s" or "z" according to the relevant variety of English. Aoziwe (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use Z - As we are talking about categories - a Wikipedia-based navigation structure - we should simply use the spelling most often used in English as a whole. MOS:ENGVAR is an article prose guideline - it does not strictly apply to categories of Wikipedia origin. As has been pointed out, some countries use "s" predominantly, but its often inconsistent and seems to be on a decline. In fact, Google Ngrams limited to "British English" only shows a "z" dominance. The key, though, is that "z" is recognizable by almost everyone. This is a default, and exceptions may be allowed for categories with strong WP:TIES, but editors would need to demonstrate with strong evidence "S" is dominant for that category's topic area. To accomplish that, I would say we hold at least 3 sub-RFCs after this one to determine specifically the S/Z question for UK-, Australia-, and NZ-related categories - perhaps held on their respective WikiProjects. Evidence, not anecdotes must be presented. -- Netoholic @ 14:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Do not standardise per WP:CREEP, WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES. Number 57 19:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use S - This is English Wikipedia and we should be using the standard spelling in England/Britain. Z is American, and since the British have colonised almost every country in the world, we should be using the Queen's English, not American English, unless the organisation in question spells its name with a Z. To use the American spelling here would be pushing for the American spelling rather than traditional British spelling. Despite their super power status, America did not colonised the world, and most English speaking countries especially in Africa use British spelling, not American spelling. E.g. colonised (and not colonized), organised (not organized), organisation (not organization), capitalised (not capitalized), etc. The English language came from England, not America. So let's use the traditional spelling in England. Failing that, let's not standardised but leave it up to individual editors.Tamsier (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – use "s" or "z" as per relevant ties in the subject area. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC).
• Oppose -- No change Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I'm not persuaded that we need a one-off micro-exception to ENGVAR just for categories. Though ENGVAR has its rough edges, it has kept relative peace for more than a decade. Keeping category names tidy doesn't seem like enough benefit. --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support for stanardizing but don't care if it's s or z. Can we start making deals? Maybe America agrees to concede ou/o (colour) and ll/l (travelled) in exchange for s/z? Or we could hold an ENGVAR draft! :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as written: Lets not be confrontational about something that has been pretty well settled for at least a decade, if not longer. There is little to be gained by this proposal. Can't ReDirects from one spelling to another be set up rather than, as one person above alluded to, setting up two separate language wikis? I'm American, by the way, and I cannot support, per WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES. Think about it. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 21:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• comment unlike a spelling like 'color', the use of '~ize' is a regional affectation. A support vote suggested it would be "fun" to do this, the enjoyment being the reaction I assume; unnecessary, overtly divisive and disruptive 'fun'. cygnis insignis 01:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Standerdise It was the comment above that made me think to go look. We have Category:Colour and Category:Organisations both are soft redirects to Category:Color and Category:Organizations. Pick one. What does it matter which one? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Do not standardise per MOS:ENGVAR. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Do not standardise per MOS:ENGVAR, except within regional contexts. Bermicourt (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose standardis/zation, it's incorrect to say category names are inconsistent, simply on the basis they differ from the American spelling. As per most things on Wikipedia, WP:COMMONNAME should apply. If the categories are related to countries where 's' is normally preferred to 'z', then why is "organisations" not perfectly acceptable? The important thing is the category 'tree' and being able to find the correct category as easy as possible. Sionk (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Don't standardize. It's the thin end of the wedge. Deb (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• No need to standardize - ENGVAR can guide us when there is a strong national tie to the categorization... and where there is not, I see no need for over-consistency ... No one will be confused if a category using “ise” contain a sub-category using “ize” and vice-versa. Readers will still be able to navigate between related categories and articles. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – We should not be giving preference to any particular variety of English. ENGVAR is a long-standing agreement, and the precedent established by overruling that here would be a bad one. – bradv🍁 16:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose last tim ei check this was the English language Wikipedia, not the US Spelling English language Wikipedia, or for that the English spelling English Wikipedia. As so many before have link ENGVAR says acceptable to either spelling, this action stikes me that it ahs a a lot similarities to things like Infoboxes & Templates which have already altered a person understanding of a topic. Why would we as the English language Encyclopaedia want to destroy what is a beautiful language that accept variations in all its glory, whether its an s or z it doesnt matter each have their origins in difference that make English such a wonderful language where we can use the same spelling to describe so many different things in different ways, where every place adopts words from where it is.... To stay ture to being an English language Wikipedia then our priority should be to ensure the regardless of the variants in spelling or meaning we should embrace its usage to reflect its diversity. Until there is a body like that in France which defines every french word, its usage and spelling then value our differences as they are, there enough other work around here to be done that has real benefit. Gnangarra 07:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
• Z is not American usage. Its the original British usage. MOS:ENGVAR is very unhelpful when it comes to categories, because if people use Twinkle, as many do, it creates two seperate lists of categories. Nobody is suggesting changing the spelling of the names of articles. What we have at present is a system which standardises categories withing a country, but messes it up when it comes to the other heirarchies of categories. Rathfelder (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• prefer Z OED recorded -ize way earlier than -ise. I don't like etymology interfere with orthography, it just wreaks havoc. -- K (T | C) 13:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• No. Category police should not be making ise/ize decisions. Instead, categories should always reflect and defer to decisions made at the parent articles. Top level categories should always have a parent article. Categories exist to serve article navigation, little more. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Quite so: Organization and Category:Organizations in this case. Oculi (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Solution in search of a problem. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• That is not true. Per Oculi's example below, we currently have Category:Organizations based in the Czech Republic and Category:Organizations based in Czechoslovakia but Category:Organisations based in Slovakia merely because editors pick an s or z randomly and this situation makes it a pain in the ass to categorize organizations articles in the right category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t see any problem ... the Czech articles are categorized with “z” and the Slovak articles are categorized with “s”. Simple enough. different categories, different spellings. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose /Do not standardise - I asked for the debate to re-opened. A lot of groups use the -s spelling. There is no need to standardise, just use common sense. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Do not standardise: while the primary usage in Britain may be up for debate, that's not the case in Australia (admittedly I don't have access to an authoritative Australian style guide, but other Australian Wikipedians seem to agree, and I've found several sources that imply "-ise" is common in Australia (e.g. It’s time to recognize and internalize the US suffix ‘ize’) and a couple of style guides (e.g. National Museum of Australia)). The nomination mentions several unresolved disputes, regarding ise v. ize in various forms of English, that affect the application of MOS:TIES; the solution is to resolve those disputes, not this attempt to impose a standard contrary to ENGVAR. EDIT: I've just noticed Frickeg has been kind enough to quote the Macquarie Dictionary, which says "Current Australian usage clearly favours consistent use of -ise". – Teratix ₵ 13:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Just a note, I would support a version where all categories are standardised as "z" unless they are related to a country that primarily uses "s" (MOS:COMMONALITY trumping MOS:RETAIN). – Teratix ₵ 12:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Do not standardise Write some software so that it doesn't matter. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Although the goal of standardisation (nudge nudge wink wink) is a noble one, as others have said, ENGVAR exists for a reason. Here are some RS to illustrate the dominance of "-ise" in Australian English:

The Conversation article quoted above by Teratix [11]: Craving the firm foundations of the establishment, Australians have standardised ise as the correct national form. Proselytising for ize is to no avail. Text editing changes ize to ise by default.

In the Australian Journal of Linguistics in 2014 [12]: The Australian English references (columns 3–6) show complete unanimity on -ise across three decades... the consistency of the Australian references contrasts with the ultimately uncommitted treatment in the British set. Further, Looking first at the Australian frequency data in columns 2 and 3 of Table 2, we see the -ise spellings well in the majority from the 1980s on, based on the uninflected forms of the three verbs; and close to or over 90% when the -ed forms are added...

In the AJL in 2010 [13]: English in Australia starts with a clear majority of <ize> and moves to an even more pronounced majority of <ise>.

I hope that goes some way to providing the evidence being requested in this discussion.

Triptothecottage (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• I dont see a big problem in leaving S in the categorisations for Australia and New Zealand if it will let us standardize the rest of the world. But nobody is suggesting that any actual articles should be changed. The different spelling wastes a great deal of editors time. Rathfelder (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Once this change is made, the next suggestion will be changing the articles as well. My view is that "-ise" is used in more countries so perhaps go with that. This does seem like debating trivialities. Someone did mention developing a system that would translate between "-ise" and "-ize"? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Don't standardise Per WP:ENGVAR. I have to go back and forth between -ise and -ize in the work I do based on the client, and it doesn't make sense to mandate the usage of a different form of English in areas that clearly use one form or another. I would say that in the event of a conflict, -ize should win out, though. Also, thank you to the person who reopened this discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 05:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Our present policy builds in a conflict between consistency by country and consistency by topic. Rathfelder (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• I like the idea of a Preference setting--show everything not in quotation marks in US spelling or UK spelling. How does he Chinese WP decide which form of characer to display? Isn't that a user option? DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Is this a possibility? If the Chinese WP has this, could the feature be ported over and solve this issue? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
    • zhwiki uses ugly wikitext to specify alternate names that a reader might see, depending on their preferences (that link goes to zhwiki where the "Content language variant" preference can be seen). For example, "-{zh:米;zh-cn:米;zh-tw:公尺;zh-hk:米;}-" is the wikitext for the name of the m (meter/metre) unit. The feature is interesting but far too intrusive for use here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• This is a tempest in a teapot - This discussion is using a blatantly disproportionate amount of resources compared to the scope of the dispute. It should be ended in whatever way, in the closers best judgement, kills and buries this issue in the most permanent manner possible. In particular, oppose any no consensus or wishy-washy resolution, make a decision that ends this, and stick to it. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Do not standardize per ENGVAR. My second choice would be something similar to what SMcCandlish proposes above: default to "z" unless there are significant MOS:TIES to a country where "s" is preferred. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 02:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• The SMcCandlish proposal would be a great advance on the present set-up, where we have Category:Organizations based in the Czech Republic and Category:Organizations based in Czechoslovakia but Category:Organisations based in Slovakia. Oculi (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• I would agree on that as well, if standardization is beyond reach. Many editors in this discussion seem not to realize that this is not primarily about what to use for Australia or the United Kingdom, but most and for all what to use for China, Thailand, Iran, Turkey, Russia, Spain, Senegal, Angola etc etc Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• When a blanket change is created it impacts other uses. It would be better to just change those categories rather than change a policy where it has impact it to usages that are otherwise correct. One size doesnt fit all. Gnangarra 07:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• This is a pointless discussion if I ever see one. feminist (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• I dont think some of these contributors do much categorization. They dont know how much editots time and effort is wasted because of the lack of standardisation. Rathfelder (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Note Votestacking. This RFC has been subjected to blatant WP:VOTESTACKING (or more precisely Votebanking) by @Number 57. In these 12 edits[14] on 17/18 April, Number 57 notified 12 WikiProjects which have clearly been selected as likely to attract editors who prefer the "S" spelling.

The votestacking has worked; it clearly did produce the desired influx of editors who support Number 57's view.

It is surprising and very disappointing to see a long-standing and experienced admin engaging in such a clear attempt to rig the discussion. Note that for example Number 57's list of counry projects notified [15] didn't even notify the two major English-speaking countries in North America, i.e. Canada and the USA — clearly because they prefer the Z spelling

I hope that Number 57 will apologise for this, and make some amends by promptly notifying every country WikiProject ... and that this RFC's clock will be reset from the date when #57 confirms that the notifications have all been made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Notifying the WikiProjects of countries that use the "s" spelling is a perfectly reasonable thing to do when there's a proposal to stop using their preferred spelling across the whole of Wikipedia, and it's not something I'll be apologising for. Cheers, Number 57 14:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57, you know perfectly well that this is not a proposal to stop using their preferred spelling across the whole of Wikipedia, because it applies only to a limited set of categories, and not to any other pages.

As an admin for 12 years, you also know perfectly well that this sort of votebanking is a very basic form of disrupting consensus formation.

So I repeat: please promptly remedy your votestacking by posting the same message to all country pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with both of your assertions, and I won't be posting the message to WikiProjects of countries to which the spelling doesn't really matter. Number 57 15:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57: The RFC very clearly applies only to categories, so your decision to "disagree" with that fact is a simple misrepresentation of a simple reality.

The policy on votestacking is also very clear, and it seems that you "disagree" with that too.

Since you seem unwilling to engage with these realities, I will sadly have to raise this highly disruptive misconduct elsewhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It is clear canvassing. You cherry-picked the WikiProjects which would increase your POV vote tally. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I can appreciate 57's point of view here (disclosure: I participated in this discussion after viewing one of his notices). He was notifying projects which he thought would be most affected by this proposal. Example: the United States WikiProject won't be affected by this discussion, because the US usage is "z" and all US-related categories probably already use it. In contrast, the Australia WikiProject will definitely be affected because the Australian usage is "s" and so Australia-related categories would be changed as a result of this discussion.

It is important to understand the intent here. The term votestacking implies a bad-faith intent, which was not the case.

An easy solution is to notify any projects deemed relevant that weren't alerted initially. There is no need to escalate the matter. – Teratix ₵ 08:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The current usage is mixed, which is what we are seeking to standardize, if you think this is not canvassing, you should read over WP:CANVASSING again. The policies are clear and the malintent/intent is secondary to the canvassing that took place. If Number 57 will inform WikiProjects which are inclined towards 'z' usage as BHG said, that would be construed as informing, this is just blatant. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Canvassing: "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Intent is essential for an action to constitute canvassing. 57 has outlined his reasons for not informing other countries' noticeboards. This was not done with malicious intent.

Again, a simple remedy is to notify any other projects deemed relevant. It doesn't have to be 57, anyone can do it. – Teratix ₵ 09:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read the entire page, i.e. WP:VOTESTACKING as well. Intent only matters upto the point it can be construed to be a mistake. If I wanted to change all references on Wikipedia from PRC to China and I informed only PRC-related WikiProjects, that is canvassing, my intent is irrelevant. The onus is on Number 57 to make this a non-partisan notification, not me, or anyone. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I too appreciate 57's position, they notified those they deemed to be directly affected by this proposal. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC).

From WP:VOTESTACKING: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus ...". Again, intent is central. Qedk's example of PRC and China misses the mark here; for a start there is no separate PRC WikiProject (it redirects to WikiProject China). Secondly, it makes sense when changing all references to a country to inform all WikiProjects related to a country; both WP China and the hypothetical WP PRC are involved, as articles related to them would be affected. This is not the case here. US-related (and others that use "z") categories won't be affected by this discussion, as the primary usage in the US is already "z" and thus categories will already use "z". This proposal is only looking at extending the "z" usage to other countries's related categories.

@QEDK: I never said the onus was on you to notify other projects, merely that if you felt concerned, the option was available. – Teratix ₵ 01:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Teratix, the majority of countries are not English-speaking. Some of them have a consistent usage, and some do not. Those which have been standardised on one spelling have been chosen on a range of ad-hoc bases as set out in the nomination.

Those countries will be affected by the outcome. Their WikiProjects have as much right to be notified as any other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• If these notifications had been done in good faith, they would have been done transparently, i.e. with a disclosure here of which projects were notified and why. @Number 57 is a very experienced admin, and knows well how to ensure that the neutrality of notifications can be scrutinised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It is possible to assume bad faith on both sides of this proposal. For instance it could be argued that if standardisation truely is the goal, then this RFC would have been to adopt common spelling, not “only Z”, with the spelling to be determined by a separate (or a preferential) poll.

Because of the way this RFC has been worded, 57’s actions are warranted. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The solution is to identify and notify any relevant WikiProjects that haven't been already. 57 notified the WikiProjects that would most obviously be affected – countries that use the "s" spelling. – Teratix ₵ 06:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm amazed this discussion is still active, seeing that I asked for it to be re-opened. I had no idea WP:VOTESTACKING and WP:CREEP were concepts. I actually felt that the original discussion was a potential "vote stacked" effort to push through presumed consensus, and it's nice to have had a wider discussion about this policy. I re-iterate one of the problems was that once you made the change to categories, which some claim is trivial, it would eventually migrate as a policy to most wikipedia pages. What's the ideal solution? No, idea. However as my previous vote above would suggest that there is no policy on -ise or -ize. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Master Of Ninja, it is utterly bizarre to suggest that the original discussion was a potential "vote stacked" effort. The proposal was made a central venue, and listed[16] at WP:CENT.

Please either identify in what way WP:VOTESTACKING was "potentially" breached, or withdraw that allegation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• • • @BrownHairedGirl - I think what I had written was perceived in a way that I did not intend, and I am not making any allegations at all. As I mentioned I am not familiar with WP:VOTESTACKING apart from having went through the link, and the accusations made against another editor on the above thread. My feeling that such a change did not go to a wide enough forum, seeing that after re-opening the discussion there has been much more activity on this thread. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment- I was going to close this mess, but after a few hours of sifting through the discussion, and poring over the policy, I just decided that I didn't want to close this. I think it's fair to say I am fairly well-versed in category, naming convention, and cavassing policies on Wikipedia. But after I started to write up what was turning into a lengthy close, and with my sincere apologies, I just was having a hard time bringing myself to care enough to continue on, so I decided that I'd rather let someone else step in and close this if they want. Here are a few things I found, in case it should help whoever closes this: a.) To start with, clearly there was inappropriate canvassing done. The Wikiprojects notified were all regional ones. And were clearly a small subset of all regions potentially affected by this discussion (the whole English-speaking world). And what about Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics? Please see WP:CANVASS for more information on how to appropriately canvass. b.) Much of the discussion is subjective "I prefer z" or "I prefer s", rather than policy references or reliable sources. After sifting through policy (like ENGVAR and COMMONALITY), it seems that this is what is apparently being relied on, for referenced usage, in policy. As forWP:RETAIN,it would seem to not apply to this discussion because, as it states: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." - This discussion is about a page's name, not the contents of the "body" of it. And finally, International Organization for Standardization - this page's title struck me funny in light of this discussion. Happy editing : ) - jc37 09:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• It is not true that all English-speaking nations will be affected by this discussion. For example: United States-related categories will use the "z" spelling no matter the outcome of this discussion. This is true of all countries using "z". – Teratix ₵ 07:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  One of the options was "S". – Levivich 03:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  I suppose that's technically true, but I count one serious !vote in support which boils down to "English Wikipedia should be in British English only." No basis in policy (indeed, outright contradicting ENGVAR), not addressed in the nomination and no chance of passing this discussion. A non-issue. – Teratix ₵ 06:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  Creating a straw man argument and then being dismissive of it as an option, does not change that the notification was clearly done in contravention of WP:Canvassing. Make no mistake - if such disruption were to continue, any uninvolved admin, may choose to take preventative action, which could include blocking. I would rather to not see that happen. - jc37 23:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Jc37: Please explain what about my reasoning constitutes a straw man argument. You have claimed there was inappropriate canvassing; your justification was The Wikiprojects notified were all regional ones. And were clearly a small subset of all regions potentially affected by this discussion (the whole English-speaking world). In my reply, I have explained why this is not the case with a supporting example. Levivich has raised a valid objection (there was technically another option), so I have pored over the discussion and found virtually no-one taking it seriously. I summarised and examined the one serious !vote I observed, and found it to be completely lacking in policy-based reasoning. Then in your reply, you repeat your initial assertion and for some reason raise the possibility of a block. Why? – Teratix ₵ 00:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• @jc37 - this is why the whole rushed proposal was an utterly bad idea. You can see how much debate can be had on this, and I don't believe it's Wikipedia's role to standardise [;-)] English. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• @jc37 - Can you clarify why WP:RETAIN would not apply in the light of WP:AT, which advises that "…The rest of MoS […] applies also to the title."? Thanks. I'm just trying to better understand the blend of guidelines. ogenstein (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, first off this discussion concerns category titles not article titles. Secondly, I went to WP:AT for find your quote to see what context might be found there, and when I did a page search for the word "applies" (among others), I did not find anything like the sentence you quoted. But to answer generally: We follow the MoS when applicable, though, when necessary, we of course may WP:IAR, or create new exceptions to the MoS, as necessary, as well. Which I believe is the intent of this proposal, and what you all appear to be discussing the merits of. - jc37 23:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Do not standardise this is not the American Wikipedia, it is a project for all English speakers. This is why not every article is written in US English. ENGVAR is very clear on this, and many countries use the s, and they should be allowed to continue to do so. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• The idea that spelling with a z is American usage is a very widespread delusion. Please read American and British English spelling differences. Rathfelder (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• It's easy to say use British for UK/Commonwealth and US otherwise but what about the rest of the world? TBH I do think things should be standardiz/sed but how, eh? Maybe British for Europe and American for the rest of the world. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Use "z" per Phil Bridger. In my estimation, that encapsulates the argument. CThomas³ (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment So you want to force uniformity and tromp on one 'side' or the other, but "hard redirects are too hard"? Precluding a technical solution while preferring a politiciṡ̃ƶed solution seems to incline towards bias rather than away from it. "Or what's a wiki for?" Shenme (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - British spelling isn't so much a mode of spelling as it is a set of stylizations which make it different from the American or Irish English. This small set of stylizations can be listed and evaluated, and each seems like they will come up short, when put to a vote (as is here). Why use s when its vocalized z? Why use ou instead of just o, per French influence (is everything French the ideal form?). -ApexUnderground (talk) 06:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

So you believe everything should be spelt phonetically? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC).

The problem always is on which accent should you base the phonetics? Template:@ApexUnderground is that not the wrong way around? The major differences between English and American English spelling came about by Webster's concious decision. As regards s/z and or/our there are subtle differences in pronunciation. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Post closure discussion

Compassionate727 made this post at WP:ANRFC:

re Cinderella157 Having read your summary, I find myself unsure what your finding is. What does "embrace our differences in a more formal way" even mean? And is your closing rationale an actual finding of consensus, or your opinion as to what editors seemed to lean toward supporting most, but will require another RfC to action? Please clarify both of these things.

As this has been archived there, I will respond here. Please note a copy edit to my close. As QEDK observed at WP:ANRFC, there is [alleged] VOTESTACKING and multiple proposals. The former is, itself, reason to find "no consensus" as opposed to "consensus against". There are many !VOTES each way and some alternative proposals that take a middle ground (but without sufficiently clear support). There are arguements of MOS:COMMONALITY etc on the one hand and ENGVAR and RETAIN on the other. COMMONALITY does not appear to say what the title might imply.

BHG has Identified a problem, provided an appreciation of the issues and proposed a solution - to standardise on a particular spelling. Part of their appreciation is that ENGVAR and RETAIN do not explicitly apply to categories. Where they do explicitly apply (to articles and titles), they are the solution - if not a perfect solution. The general leaning is to embrace the difference (ENGVAR) and/or adopt a middle ground. Assuming there is a general perception that a solution is required, this would need to be formalised, that ENGVAR and RETAIN be broadly construed and applicable to categories; or, a middle-ground proposal achieving consensus would also need to be formalised. So yes, if there is a will to proceed, this will probably require a further RfC. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Cinderella157: just to clarify, do you believe there was indeed canvassing (i.e. do the allegations have any substance?) – Teratix ₵ 01:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I did not attempt to make a determination about the "substance" of the allegations - not my remit. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Cinderella157: why, then, did you cite them in your closing statement as a possible reason for finding no consensus? Did they affect your decision or not? If not, why mention them at all? – Teratix ₵ 08:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I concluded the allegations would "taint" any close. Your persistance on this point only serves to affirm my conclusion. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• I will support the summary that the best decision is having consensus that there is no consensus. I have no idea how this issue/non-issue can be sorted out - except saying that User:Cinderella157's thoughts that we should embrace ENGVAR are probably the right thing to do for now. Otherwise we will just get bogged down in this discussion for months. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Perhaps we could consider for each country whether there is clear evidence of local usage? I'm not convinced that membership of the Commonwealth has much influence on spelling, and it seems strange to impose ENGVAR in places where English is not a local language. Rathfelder (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please STOP - the discussion has been closed. Give it a rest. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Cinderella157 when I started closing RFCs, I set a pair of goals for myself. In my opinion crucial criteria for the job are (1) being willing and able to close against one's own preference on an issue, and (2) knowing when to close against a majority and being willing and able to do so. My most memorable close was a 20 vs 10 discussion, where I issued a firm close for the minority. I mention this because 17 of the majority-20 were blatantly Canvassed to the discussion. I gave the canvassed votes all the weight they warranted - NONE. After discarding the 17 fabricated votes it was actually a 10 vs 3 discussion. Unsurprisingly the 10 had the right answer.

• This RFC was running about 75% support before it was massively canvassed. As a closer your "remit" is to serve the community, by putting the close on this that the community as a whole would want you to put, to the best of your ability. If I create 100 accounts and cast 100 votes on an RFC, those votes are obviously not any reflection of community consensus. If I canvass 100 votes from others onto an RFC, those votes are equally not any sort of reflection of community consensus. You acknowledge above that you made no effort whatsoever to account for canvassing. You didn't attempt to assess the consensus of the community. I believe this is grounds to overturn the close. I request that you withdraw the close yourself.
• Your given rationale for the close was that you set aside any numbers, and that you closed based on the weight of arguments. While that can be a valid basis for a close, it's hollow here. A primary argument of supporters is that chaotic category names disruptively hinders the work of editors. Your closing rationale is that disruption of work is is irrelevant against the all-overriding-weight-of-argument.... to embrace our differences. I literally had to do a confused double-take trying to figure out what your rationale even meant. All I see is "empty fluffy supervote". If your going to make the core of your close an overriding weight-of-argument then you need to cite something credibly respectable. The hollow rationale here is either grounds for overturning the close, or more support for the case.
• I was disappointed but not surprised when I skimmed your usertalk. Not only did you conveniently close in favor of your personal spelling preference, it borders on statistical anomaly that this RFC would randomly be closed by someone who prefers 's' to the unusual degree that you do. You use 's' on everything, including "winterised". According to Google "winterised" is a borderline-fringe 6.8% usage. "Winterized" comes up at 93.2%. While it may well be a coincidence that you personally lean so far towards 's', it hardly gives confidence that your disregard of canvassing and the substance-free rationale are an unbiased assessment. To put a positive spin on it, maybe you just didn't notice how far out of sync your use of 's' is with the rest of the planet.

P.S. I've never been involved in this issue other than responding to the RFC. However I do care about respectable closes. Alsee (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Response:

• Commentary that considers consensus in terms of votes and percentages and weight in binary terms is fundamentally at odds with the WP concept of consensus - WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.
• If the allegations of VOTESTACKING are presumed, would it rally be possible to objectively disentangle the result and without an hue and cry ensuing? I could not see a sound objective basis.
• Casting aspersions of bias is unbecoming. Statistics should be (IMO) used with caution to define or resolve a social issue. "Winteris[z]ed" is not the subject of this discussion. The comments made have the appearance to me of polemic ad hominem. "Vilifying groups of editors" for following different spelling conventions does not foster collaboration and respect.
• Your closing rationale is that disruption of work is is irrelevant against ... This is a gross misrepresentation. As such, it is both uncivil and a strawman arguement. Please do not misconstrue my circumspection for other than what it is.
• If the problem requires resolution, move forward to a result that will achieve broad support of the community. A strong consensus has bipartisan support that everybody can live with. Unilateral decisions are generally weak.

Cinderella157 (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Close contested by Alsee at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Close review - Village Pump discussion on spelling of category names. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Guideline: Avoid Plus-One-More-Thing lists

Representative examples can be useful to aid understanding a topic but this can never include all possible examples. Nevertheless, it's easy to add the one more example that a user cares about. Each individual user is acting in good faith but the resulting article decreases in quality.

In the article on weight training is this Plus-One-More-Thing list.

Sports where strength training is central are bodybuilding, weightlifting, powerlifting, strongman, highland games, hammer throw, shot put, discus throw, and javelin throw. Many other sports use strength training as part of their training regimen, notably: American football, baseball, basketball, football, hockey, lacrosse, mixed martial arts, rowing, rugby league, rugby union, track and field, boxing and wrestling.

The examples are not wrong but they do not help the reader.

I suggest a content guideline to avoid these ad-hoc lists. --TomCerul (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• I believe there are already guidelines to this effect. There's WP:NOTDIRECTORY generally and MOS:SEEALSO and MOS:NAVLIST more specifically. However, I agree that it's a good idea in principle and would not oppose any attempt to make it a more specific section of the Manual of Style. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• In the specific example chosen, the phrase "notably" should necessitate that each of the list items be supported by a citation, either individually or collectively. I think that a guideline could include the need for individual or collective support by reliable sources. Further, a limit could be imposed (say, 5 items) with expansive lists beyond this value relegated to an article note (either in References or Notes section). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• @TomCerul: Just to clarify, are you suggesting a guideline to avoid creating lists that could grow out of control this way? Or a guideline that says If you see a list of a few representative examples like this, resist the temptation to tack on one more example just because? Colin M (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Colin M: I'd say that 2 - 3 examples can be helpful but I encourage people to limit the total number of examples in a list. If the only change being made is adding yet another item to a list, it's probably not a helpful edit. TomCerul (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• I normally cite the essay Wikipedia:Example cruft when paring example farms.—Bagumba (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah, that looks right on the money, particularly the Writing about examples of the phenomenon section: "Before adding yet another example, pause to ask whether it will help readers unravel the many facets of the concept". Colin M (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

"Bill Whitney seems to have it all....."

I have always wanted to take an axe to any and all articles whose "Plot" section consists of breathless scene-by-scene, edit-by-edit, play-by-play creative writing episode of encyclopedic content. I would delete 90% of content at a stroke. The question I ask here is, what can we do about WP:PLOT and similar policies, how can we police them properly, how can we stop, specifically, an article such as Society (film) begin its "plot" section with "Bill Whitney seems to have it all....."? That is not how "plot" sections should start. That is how a trailer starts, that's how an essay starts, that's how a commentary starts. Wikipedia is better than this, so what can we do? How do we finally take "plot" sections by the neck and shake them out of their 14,000 word description disease? doktorb _words^deeds 22:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a very informative answer, but since you asked: There's a near infinite about of work to be done, and the only magic wand is to go edit. Alsee (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I mean, writing or adding to plot descriptions of movies is something that people like to do, a lot. It's understandable. There're a lot more people who could describe the plot of a recent popular movie than can contribute to articles on high-energy-particle physics, and it's a lot easier too.

It's an artifact of how we operate. It does drive you nuts sometimes, but I wouldn't overly worry about it. It's non-excellent, but it's not terribly harmful to the project. And it's probably an entry for editors. I'd bet that a lot of editors start off by making or adding to plot sections of movies they like, and some small but non-zero number of them probably go on to be active editors. So there's that. Herostratus (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

That quote triggered my brain's copyvio detector. It's too late now that a million sites have copied Wikipedia, but if you come across text like that when it's just been added, I suggest putting it between quotes and Googling it. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: Ability to soft-block users.

If an user has good faith, but makes low-quality edits due to being a Wikipedia beginner, they could be soft-blocked, meaning that they can still submit edits, but all of their edits will be stored as pending changes instead of being published immediately. This concept already exists on the German Wikipedia (as WP:Sighting). ––Chanc20190325 (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think on English Wikipedia WP:SOFTBLOCK might have a different meaning than perhaps it does on German Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

This helps explain all of the weird colors I see when I try to edit DE-wiki or look at an article's edit history. Softlavender (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm like a "moderated" reverse-right? I personally don't find pending changes helpful when patrolling because as much work is involved to audit, versus semi-protection that prevents them (of course, the difference is that it's only visible when logged-in). In this case, it would not introduce more work when patrolling (edits would have been done anyway if not moderated and show on watchlists/recent-changes), but may if it was commonly used in situations where editors would normally be under a block... The way pending changes currently work, they have special status like higher priority on watchlists; would these moderated edits be distinguishable from normal pending changes ones? Perhaps it'd help editor retention and be a good idea? Another thing worth wondering: if this was active and working, would the next proposal to prevent IP address editing alternatively propose to have all IP address editing moderated (however, similar proposals never gained much consensus)? —PaleoNeonate – 11:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes is buggy and useless at best, and harmful because it requires more patrolling at worst. If we should be having any discussion it would be about banning the use of this feature on en.wiki, not expanding it. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The editing level is probably very different to DE-Wikipedia, too —PaleoNeonate – 11:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

And this now reminds of the possibility of article revisions (where when an article reaches a certain quality status, a particular revision can be flagged as the last official one to publicly display). If I remember the functionality exists as a module but was never enabled/accepted on EN-Wiki. —PaleoNeonate – 11:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Tony here - PC, as currently used, is close to useless - edits still need to be reverted, the interface is opaque and confusing - and it seems to be a total lottery whether an edit gets approved or not, depending on the understanding of the reviewer as to what PC is even for. ...Having said that, there are more than a few occasions where I could see putting an editor's edits "on review" might be helpful, and it's a little tempting at first glance to imagine that PC could be 'repurposed' for that - but... you'd need an entirely different set of reviewers with a different mindset and a whole new set of procedures, plus PC would need to be able to be set per-user instead of per-article, which sounds like a nightmare interface-wise, and I'm not sure how you'd go about assembling that group of people and those interface changes/'rules'. -- Begoon 11:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• This would actually make the users more powerful - their PC-edits would block any page they edited on from edits taking place until it was processed. Nosebagbear (talk)
• I attempted to get a better Pending-Change platform through on the Wishlist, but no joy there - it really doesn't work if 2 or more editors have participated, as processing them becomes extremely hard. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Some newbies actually need the time-out which allows the ones who are serious about helping to build an encyclopedia the time necessary to research and study our PAGs and learn a little more about the community. Pending changes only adds more work on top of piles of backlogs we're already dealing with - and like Tony said, it's buggy. Time out, and possible mentoring. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Without commenting about my own views, I'd like to explain how this could be partially implemented using the current pending-changes software. This would be modeled after the current enwikibooks, were users who haven't met certain criteria yet have all of their edits to pc-protected pages flagged as "pending"

Extended content

Create a new user group (referred to here as editor, but identical to the autoreview user group that comes with the FlaggedRevs extension - current, autopatrolled users are a part of the "autoreview" user group) Give the editor user group the autoreview user right, meaning that their edits are automatically patrolled when pending changes are enabled Automatically give the editor user group to users who meet the threshold for autoconfirmed using wmgAutopromoteOnceonEdit, but have it be an explicit user group like extendedconfirmed, rather than implicit like autoconfirmed Grant administrators the ability to grant and remove the editor user group using wgAddGroups and wgRemoveGroups Remove the autoreview right from the autoconfirmed user group At this point, the rights changes are done. Normal users should have seen no change, since all users that currently have the autoreview right as part of the autoconfirmed group still have the right. However, since it is given using a different user group, it can, like extendedconfirmed, removed from (and given to) editors using Special:UserRights. To "soft-block" a user, a sysop can simply revoke their membership in the editor group, which would mean that all of the user's edits to pages in ns:0 (articles) and ns:4 (Wikipedia:) would be set as pending if the page already has pending changes enabled.

An alternative could be to revisit the use of Wikipedia:Deferred changes. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• My understanding is that all new accounts are unconfirmed until they are at least four days old and have made ten edits. This means they are already limited in how they can edit any page which is protected, but can freely edit pretty much any non-protected page. It's the protection added to the page, which probably has nothing to do with these new editors, that restricts them from editing. What's not clear (at least to me) about this proposal is whether the OP wants to place some kind of restriction on all new editors or only those editors whose first few edits seem to be a problem.
  The first approach sort of sounds like a learner's permit for editing where the new accounts are allowed to edit, but only under supervision or review of some kind. I'd imagine that most people who edit for the first time expect their edits to go live when they press "Publish changes", but this would sort of be like requiring them to press "Propose changes" instead. Since Wikipedia encourages editors to be BOLD, it seems to understand and accepts that mistakes are going to be made, and hopes that these will eventually be caught and cleaned up by those more familiar with relevant policies and guidelines. This approach seems to limit BOLD to being applying to only after you've passed an entrance exam or completed an orientation of some kind.
  The second approach seems to be sort of like an "time out" or "teachable moment", where the edits are not enough of a problem to warrant perhaps a user warning or direct administrator involvement, but still require some kind of mild reprimand. The editor who made the good faith mistake gets limited access for some designated period of time or mumber of edits in the hope that they will learn from their mistake(s). This seems like it would be even harder to implement than a learner's permit approach because you're first going to have to determine how low is a "low-quality edit" (i.e. simple formatting or style errors, WP:RS error, BLP or copyright violation) and then determine who is going to explain why the edit was a problem. Are these editors going to all be required to participate in some Wikipedia re-education class where they will receive advice on how to edit properly? What if they don't want to? They might just stop editing altogether or decide to do so as an IP or different account.
  I think OP's proposal is well intended, but also seems like something which would have a hard time receiving the kind of support it would need from the community to be effectively implemented. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's worth considering something like this, at least. We should avoid hard blocks as much as possible. Benjamin (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hyphens and Dashes

Question the first

Which method of dash insertion is preferred? A raw insertion ( — ), or an HTML character code ( — )?

MOS:DASH does not make this clear. GUYWAN ( t · c ) 16:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I would have thought the raw insertion. There's even a blue link in the box at the bottom of the edit window, to enable this without finding the unicode shortcut. We don't want to be inserting HTML into pages unless necessary.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no preference. The default monospace font for most Windows users doesn't make it obvious the difference between one straight line versus the other in wikitext, so some people prefer the explicit character reference rather than the Unicode version. In fact, I am pretty sure there is an {{mdash}} for a third way. --Izno (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Question the second

Also, the MOS states:

An em dash is always unspaced (without a space on either side):
Another "planet" was detected—but it was later found to be a moon of Saturn.
An en dash is spaced (with a space on each side) when used as sentence punctuation:
Another "planet" was detected – but it was later found to be a moon of Saturn.

Greenlighting two methods is just asking for trouble. Is this an American vs. British thing? Damn, I wish we could agree on something. GUYWAN ( t · c ) 16:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Greenlighting two methods is just asking for trouble. [...] Damn, I wish we could agree on something. I agree with that, but that's called compromise. Most Wikipedia guidelines are like that, and trouble we have. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe that this is more a case of individual style rather than an American vs. British thing—at least in British English I'm not aware of any preference for one usage over the other—but others – those who are expert in such matters – may know better than I do (and, anyway, I prefer to use brackets, which you may call parentheses, where possible). Phil Bridger (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• I spent half an hour or more confused over this exact policy here. I would support changing to em dash—it's simply more readable to me—and perhaps other users. Perhaps grandfathering in en dash for current articles.--E.3 (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I see what you did there, Phil Bridger, and I am sufficiently impressed. (^^)v

Just to clarify, am I free to use whatever method I wish, as long as it's consistent within the article? I will assume this is so, until I am contradicted. GUYWAN ( t · c ) 16:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

On a minor point, "[]" are brackets, "()" are parentheses. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

When and where I was educated (a long time ago in England) "()" were certainly called brackets. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well in 1960s England they weren't. For that matter neither were they in 1880s England, though that's not from memory but from song lyrics. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I beg to differ about 1960s England, but, anyway, such nostalgia, although it would be nice to have a fight discussion somewhere, is probably irrelevant to this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Question the third

There appear to be many articles in which a hyphen ( - ) is incorrectly used in place of an em dash (or en dash). Example: Enuma Elis. A bot may be needed to convert this incorrect usage to one of the accepted usages. But which one? Perhaps this is the problem. Flip a coin, I say. GUYWAN ( t · c ) 16:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

So, regardless of how this discussion "ends" - expect hyphens to persist, as they are on keyboards.... — xaosflux ^Talk 16:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, I would be wary of deploying a bot to deal with the "problem". It might make mistakes, and render things worse than they are, or incorrect. Better to let the Gnomes and AWB handle it, as they always have. It's not a major deal if there are places where the MOS isn't fully applied.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a regular request and is usually shot down as a WP:CONTEXTBOT. --Izno (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I occasionally see this pointed out in discussions - and it's probably the MOS guideline I ignore the most. This definitely feels like a solution in search of a problem. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Guywan you may be interested in Greg's dash script, which does this. Running it is barely any more work than clicking edit, so I often just run it as part of an ordinary edit. I've only seen a couple of problems in all the times – certainly hundreds, possibly thousands – that I've run it. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: That's a fine nugget of wisdom right there. Touché, touché.

@Amakuru: The possibility of false positives; I suppose this is something that must be amended on a case-by-case basis.

@Adrian J. Hunter: I see someone has beat me to it! That tool may come in handy. Thank you, kindly. GUYWAN ( t · c ) 16:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Mission

I am worried about the strident tone of the 'banners' that are now presented insistently to users. For example 'Wiki Loves Monuments', 'Holiday Photos', prize offerings, 'Gay Pride' etc. Dammit, we are an encyclopedia, not a pressure group, not social media, not a focus group. My hope is that some big beasts in Wikipedia will realise this and stop the nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWheater (talk • contribs) 14:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

In an effort to improve the encyclopedia, the community often organizes drives/initiatives regarding particular topics. Right now it's LGBT topics. We have lots of encyclopedia articles on LGBT topics which need improvement and/or illustration. We also like to illustrate our encyclopedia articles on monuments, holidays, etc. There are events dedicated to creating articles of women, of Asian artists, of suffragists, etc. Today's article for improvement is Bookworm (insect). Sometimes we have contests on particular subjects, like military history, or general contests to improve article quality like the WikiCup. There's Wiki Loves Africa, Wiki Loves Science, Wiki Loves Love... On the sillier side, there was even an initiative (not one organized by the community) to upload pictures of pigeons. Over on Commons, this month's contests are on "geology" and "keys and keyholes." I'd like to think that the opposition to this particular drive I've seen in a few venues now is based on a misunderstanding of these initiatives (or broad objection to highlighting particular subjects) rather than thinking that encyclopedia articles on LGBT topics are a particular part of the encyclopedia unworthy of focus. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The tone of the top comment is homophobic or anti-Gay. It's not often explained, but Gays have been the backbone of the Western world, and Wikipedia is honored to let Gay activists into its community and its offices to undo the hundreds of years of damage done by Christians and other homophobic groups. -ApexUnderground (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Well that latest comment from ApexUnderground is getting offensive, unlike the OP. Those top banners do get annoying, taking up space and attention for nothing, but at least there is an x to stop that one message from popping up, until the next one comes along. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"but Gays have been the backbone of the Western world" OK, I'm about pro-LGTB activism as it get, but let's not get carried away with historical revisionism here. Gays have been the backbone of the Western World? Historically, they've been marginalized and kept out of power. You can certainly argue that Alan Turing contribution to Britain's war effort in WWII was rather important, but Turing was not the reason why the Allies won the war. Likewise, let's not hinge the very existence of Western Civilization on a minority that was historically oppressed by Western Civilisation. That's problematic for several reasons, both because it's not true, and because it whitewashes Western history of its problems. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The replacement banner has changed, making it more clear that photographs rather than support is requested. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

And ApexUnderground blocked as a sock. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Expanding Semi-Protected to be easier to use to target unregistered users

• Allowing Semi-Protected to be place if a article violates WP:FAN. The goal is to prevent over zealous fans from spreading mixed up information and placing them in articles even if 2 or 3 unregistered people doing it.
• Allowing Semi-Protected to be place before a "popular" sports event starts. This stop unregistered users from posting adware streams into articles. Regice2020 (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. This should be applied more widely than to fancruft, also to IP paid editors and POV warriors. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC).
• Oppose WP:FAN isn't a policy or even a guideline and if AFD is indicative there is a lot of room of disagreement about whether something is cruft or not. So we are going to see lots of arguments about whether something should be protected or not. Additionally, not all IP/unregistered editors make bad edits and we'd need to demonstrate that the bad edits outweigh the good ones for each article before protection - we can't just dish out locks on the basis of an assumption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose- I dislike this rhetoric of "targeting" people. Reyk _YO! 07:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, because the proposal is entirely contrary to the one of the core stated aims of the project: that 'anyone can edit'. If Wikipedia is going to create policy restricting edits solely to registered users, it should do so openly and consistently, after a community-wide discussion, rather than by picking specific topics to place such restrictions on, based on nothing more than a selective reading of a non-policy essay and a presumption of bad faith. 86.147.97.69 (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not going to try to figure out what "if a <sic> article violates WP:FAN" is supposed to mean. I disagree with the pro-active protection for articles. People who edit using an IP address are editors too, and most of them make useful contributions. Editors with a name in place of an IP can be vandals and edit war too. I've found that WP:RFPP is very responsive when problems arise. The proposed expansion isn't needed. Schazjmd (Talk) 01:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This proposal is not compatible with Wikipedia's principles (Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute) Anne drew (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Yes mostly here to keep over zealous unregistered users that do inappropriate edits to Wikipedia away. The other point mostly to allow a short term Semi Protected to be inserted before a event start to prevent unregistered users from adding malicious stream links into the sports event Wikipedia articles. Happens too much. They mostly target popular wiki articles sports event like NBA, WWE and UFC Events. Regice2020 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This suggestion seems to be motivated (solely or in large part) by a recent dispute about the Ryzen article, which Regice AfD'ed. While the AfD was working its way towards a snow keep, an IP user offered to improve the article. Regice responded to that work (accompanied by reasonable talk page activity) with two requests for semiprotection, even though there was no vandalism (either from that IP user, or the minimal other activity on the article). Regice also went after the IP user at WP:ANI. It has been suggested Regice is a "vexatious litigant" in this matter, and this honestly doesn't help matters. More generally, I don't see the big idea in going after allegedly overzealous unregistered users. Registered users have no special status compared to unregistered users, and we do encourage all users to be WP:BOLD. Keeping them away is, in my opinion, contrary to the spirit and policies of Wikipedia. Sakkura (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand you are going be on other side according to recent AFD of that page and there were specific group got upset over a must needed improvement. I had this suggestion in the thought before making "must needed" attempt to improve Ryzen article or even started the appropriate afd. I just decided post it later. Have a nice day. Regice2020 (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

There was nothing remotely appropriate about the Ryzen AfD. I suggest you learn a little more about how Wikipedia works before making further policy proposals. 86.147.97.69 (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Office actions changed from a policy page to an information page

I've changed the Wikipedia:Office actions page from a policy page to an information page. It is clear that it no longer holds local community support to be considered a policy following the update of February 2019. –xeno^talk 12:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Three questions from andrybak

1. About WP:Bureaucrats  Answered
2. About WP:Arbitration/Policy
3. About WP:Administrators  Answered

Are talk pages good places for these questions, or should I move them to this Village pump page? —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

They're not unreasonable locations - if you don't get responses in, say, a week, then moving them elsewhere would the next port of call Nosebagbear (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, thank you. —⁠andrybak (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Feature American honors and not just the British honors

Going nowhere and proposer blocked as a sock - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Its not fair that the British styles are featured prominently on the articles of famous Brits like The Corrs (sic) and unimperial nations are not featured on their celebrities. I suggest that Wikipedia feature titles from the American empire, for example in the case of Tiger Woods, AMF (American Medal of Freedom). -ApexUnderground (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC) The Corrs are Irish. DuncanHill (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Quite. And I note that The Corrs have their British honour mentioned toward the end of the lead section and that Tiger Woods had his American honor listed in a similar position until the editor who asked this question added it to the first few words. This looks very much like trolling to me. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC) It does look that way to me as well. --Izno (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC) This is not trolling, and I ask you to withdraw the accusation. This is a formal proposal which asks that Wikipedia give formal honors bestowed by the United States the same representation as British honors are given. To not do so is favoritism to the British honors system. -ApexUnderground (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC) A simple comparison of Google searches for "Sharon Helga Corr MBE" and "Tiger Woods AMF" should settle this question without further ado. In the vast expanses of the internet, Google couldn't find a single occurrence of latter aside from the Wikipedia article that you modified today. Speedy close? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC) This is the fallacy of argumentum ad Google.-ApexUnderground (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Argumentum ad WP:V. The world does not treat all awards like British styles, and neither should Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC) But that argument is favoritism toward the British styles, and against all others. Wikipedia shouldn't be beholden to British styles in a disproportionately favoring way. Plus, let's say you are a British subject, its unfair that British subjects like you should put down the honors of the United States, and at the same time promote your national styles on Wikipedia. -ApexUnderground (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia does not lead, it follows—with a handful of unfortunate exceptions where activism has been allowed to prevail. BTW, I'm an American "subject". ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Once again, before you made any edits, the article about Tiger Woods gave equal prominence to his American honor to the prominence of the British honour received by The Coors in their article. How is that in any way favoritism? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC) I believe they are referring to the individual BLPs, e.g. Andrea Corr. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Tiger Woods is an American, who has been given the highest honor in the American land. The Corrs aren't even British, they're Irish, and yet carry British honors, with what must be great stigma to them in their homeland. Wikipedia then places these foreign honors high, next to their names. -ApexUnderground (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Tyrus Raymond Cobb BHF James Maitland Stewart DFC CdG AA Bob Dylan NPL No thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Many Irish people are happy to accept British or American or French or whatever honours without there being any stigma attached. Only a minority of people harbor such ancient hatreds. Wikipedia simply reports things as they are - if post-nominals come along with honours then we use them, but if not we don't. It's pretty simple really when you look at things without nationalistic blinkers on. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC) So you say "no thank you" to American honors, but British honors you say "fine" and that includes putting British honor tags on non-Brits. And you call my lack of praise for British honors "ancient hatreds" and say I'm the one who has "nationalistic blinkers on." You put forth some inherently contradictory statements. -ApexUnderground (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC) The issue is that the British honours system confers post-nominal letters, while the American honours system does not. If you think that's unfair, take it up with the American government. We can't just invent post-nominals where they don't exist. Frickeg (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC) This is not the British Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what the British 'honours' system "confers" or doesn't. Wikipedia has no owed allegiance to the British government or its "systems." The post-nominal titles convention is something of Wikipedia's option, which it may, and sometimes does, choose to confer on non-British titles as well. -ApexUnderground (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC) No American goes around quoting their honours after their name. Seems WP:POINTy. Strongly opposed to any change. SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Americans don't use honorific titles in their naming conventions because they are modest. Brit boastfulness in their naming conventions is not something we need to respect. -ApexUnderground (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Maybe a simple solution would be to do like: Adam Clayton (titles, born 17 January 1964) Titles Titles: OLÉ OL with a "titles" label that links to a simple footnote at the bottom. -ApexUnderground (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

No topics on Village Pump? Was Citation needed?

Extended content

The Britain's role section in the 1953 Iranian coup article does not have any British media sources cited.-ApexUnderground (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC) I have put this comment back as the remover in comment stated only that its not policy related, and didn't say if he moved it to the proper WP:VP page. If you are the remover, please say where it goes in comment. -ApexUnderground (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The place to discuss this issue is Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. Rather than move this myself I would suggest that you start the discussion there, so it is attributed in the history to the right person. The other thing you might want to do to help is to cite a better variety of sources yourself, as this section seems a little over-reliant on primary sources from the US National Security Archive, but note that academic sources are usually better than media sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that Phil. It seems there needs to be a place for topical discussions outside of article talk pages and somewhere on WP:VP so that WP:VP is not just talk about policy or miscellaneous. As far as the Iran coup, I would want to bring the above issues up on a more general page, but then what page would that be? Coups in Iran? Iran military history? And then for many pages it takes a long time to get a response, just because Wikipedia is so big now. A more general place to post comment seems needed, like here on WP:VP, otherwise comments are always pidgeonholed and nearly mothballed to very specific article talks. -ApexUnderground (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Rather than expending energy on finding the proper place to complain about it, why not fix it yourself? Find some Brit media sources and cite them. If you're not sure how to do that, help is available at Help:Referencing for beginners. Matt Deres (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If you want broader input on a particular article, sometimes the talkpages of associated wikiprojects can be helpful: in the case of 1953 Iranian coup d'état, there's WT:MILHIST (fairly active) and WT:IRAN (looks like not particularly active). You are more likely to find interested editors there than on WP:VP. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Recommended articles

How do articles get to be on the recommended articles list? The current content seems to be very POV/random/restricted. If this is something coming out of Wikidata added by any old drive-by editor without going through any kind of process, then I don't think we should be advertising those pages as "recommended" on Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 14:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If an article with a Wikidata item is marked as "recommended article" on a Wikipedia and this status is added to the Wikidata item, it appears there. "Recommended article" is a quality rating similar to "good article" or "featured article" that is used on some projects. Compare a page from the corresponding list for "featured article". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

So... are you saying that this is indeed yet another undiscussed integration of Wikidata into Wikipedia? (Not good)... Or was it fully discussed and approved by the Wikipedia community? (If so, please link the discussion). Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

(after ec) Well that still hasn't answered my question of how the page gets so marked. The Wikidata page for "recommended article", Wikidata:Q17559452, shows Wikipedia having zero entries. The Wikidata page, Wikidata:Q22002916 for the first entry on the list at our Special pages, Bailey May, is not tagged with this property. In any case, the essential question here is what is the process for such tagging? It should be based on Wikipedia's own quality processes, such as the quality scale assessment, or Wikipedia:Vital articles. SpinningSpark 15:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If the article isn't a "recommended article" in any language then it shouldn't be marked as such on Wikidata, similar to how one shouldn't tag an article here as "featured" if it hasn't passed FA(R)C. I don't know if there was any discussion. Wikidata:Q22002916 has a marker at the Portuguese Wikipedia entry, but you need to click on the badge icon to see it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: please give me an idiot's guide of how to find the badge icon, I'm not seeing it. So are you saying that articles marked as recommended on Portuguese Wikipedia are showing up as recommended on English Wikipedia? I don't think that's how it works for FAs or other badges, and it shouldn't work that way here. SpinningSpark 15:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

On Wikidata:Q22002916, go to the bottom of the page where there is a box titled "Wikipedia". There you can see a badge icon next to the "pt" entry. Turns out, when Myara K. updated the item in March they also changed the badge for enwiki even though it is not a recommended article here; I've rectified this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It sounds to me then, that enwiki does not use this system and that all the entries on the list are spurious and should be terminated with extreme prejudice. SpinningSpark 18:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the others. Job queue will take care of the rest. --Izno (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

They are still visible to me two days later. SpinningSpark 10:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Null editing the pages will correct the issue. --Izno (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• I am totally confused... not only do I not understand how a page gets added to this list of “recommended articles” (is there some sort of nomination process?)... I can’t figure out how to challenge or remove an article from the list. Blueboar (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Blueboar: I'm guessing this is a server purging issue, but Bailey May did disappear from the list as soon as it was unchecked from the badge dropdown. Strange that the others haven't gone. SpinningSpark 15:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  The more I look into this, the more I get confused... so let’s go back to basics. Could someone please explain what the hell a “recommended article” actually IS? Is there any process for adding/removing an article to the list? Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  If an article with a Wikidata item is marked as "recommended article" on a Wikipedia and this status is added to the Wikidata item, it appears there. "Recommended article" is a quality rating similar to "good article" or "featured article" that is used on some projects. Compare a page from the corresponding list for "featured article". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Right above. We don't use it so there should never be a page marked as "recommended article" on Wikidata for the English Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  So this is a rating that is used on some of the other language Wikipedias? Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  Other projects possibly. I do not know which projects. --Izno (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

“Recommended article” status - misuse for promotional purposes?

And something else concerns me... currently, the "recommended articles" list has seven entries:

• The Settlers: Rise of an Empire
• The Settlers: Heritage of Kings
• The Settlers IV
• The Settlers II
• The Settlers III
• The Settlers (video game)
• LaGuardia Airport

Hmmm... anyone else notice a pattern here? Seriously, this is a red flag to me... I strongly suspect that someone connected to these games is trying to use the "recommended article" tag to promote their game. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Bertaut is the editor who added the tags to Wikidata, for what it's worth. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks... Looking at the editor’s history, I think it’s a fan rather than an employee. Nevertheless, I hope you can see why I was concerned about the potential for promotional editing with this. Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, this struck me as typical of a fan as soon as I saw the names of the articles. --Izno (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I had notiiced. That's what pushed me into bringing this up in the first place, although I did not say so. A bigger question is why is Wikidata allowing their editors to manually assign badges that only the local Wiki can award? This data should be taken by bot from the badges or lists here on WP where the info is monitored. It makes me wonder if there is not a much more widespread problem. RA was easy to spot as we do not have that badge on enwiki, but the lists for FA and GA might be utterly corrupted for all anyone knows. Could someone skilled with AWB do a comparison for GA, FA, FL etc to highlight any problems? SpinningSpark 15:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

There are actually bots which do this. I don't know if such bots can also unflag items, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah... so it may be used in sister projects like Wictionary or Wikivoyage (or whatever). Got it. Thanks for explaining. Sounds like we need to ask the folks over at WD to remove WP as an option for this. Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. Yeah, holding my hands up, I'm guilty of using the recommended badge. But just to assuage your initial suspicions Blueboar, I have no connection whatsoever to Blue Byte or the games, as my history on here should attest. I can't even remember how I came to use the badge in the first place; I think it may already have been used on one of the titles, and I just thought it was a kind of "if you want more info, the best place is...". Never actually occurred to me that it was an equivalent of the GA/FA rating system we use on here, and thus required proper vetting. Although I'm fairly new to Wikidata, that's still my bad, and I'm glad you caught it. If I can answer any further questions, I'd recommend you...sorry, couldn't resist. Seriously though, just ping me or leave me a note on my talk. Cheers. Bertaut (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Shortcut prefixes and namespaces

Can I please have more eyes on Wikipedia talk:Shortcut#Shortcut prefixes and namespaces? That is, are there any restrictions (not expressed on the WP:SHORTCUT page) on shortcut creation? Thx CapnZapp (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Censoring talk page comments, pov editing of talk pages

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

---

My comments at Talk:Vaginoplasty#Clarification were censored, and the editor applies labels as to the reasons why. This is a kind of censorship from a pov, where he censors because he disagrees with my comments, which were on point and editorial about clarifying the language in the article. The article calls them "vaginas" when they are not actual vaginas.-ApexUnderground (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• This isn't the right place to discuss this. Furthermore, I agree with the user who hatted your comments. You haven't even made any edits to the article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The comment is about the innacurate terminology in use in the article, and goes on to bring up a problem where the field is pseudoscientific but isn't described that way. That's two glaring problems with the article. Where is a central place to talk about this? -ApexUnderground (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Censorship involves omission or removal. Nothing has been omitted or removed.
• If you wanted to make an issue of it, you could try filing a complaint at WP:ANI. Good luck with that. But this is not the venue for resolution of such disputes.
• It's not like editors never read collapsed comments, and there is no strict prohibition against replying to them. If anything the Streisand effect comes into play, as it's human nature to wonder what's behind a closed door that says DO NOT ENTER. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• The collapsing of a comment is a kind of removal of the comment short of deleting it from the current version, or wiping it from the history. If there is a reason for doing so, it needs to be well-formed. In this case it isn't, and so it may be a matter for ANI, but that doesn't deal with the problem that a comment was collapsed for pov reasons.
• Where is the proper place for discussion. The collapsing of the comment has interfered with the discussion of the article issues raised in article talk space. -ApexUnderground (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• There is no place for you to discuss this that will arrive at a conclusion that pleases you, since the collapsing of your comment was appropriate in the first place. And that's because it doesn't matter how ApexUnderground interprets words. That will have no effect on the article. All that matters is the terminology used by reliable sources. So unless you are presenting new sources that use different terminology, arguing that the existing sources are not being followed accurately, or at least arguing that existing sources are bad for some reason (NPOV, RS, etc), there is nothing to discuss. If you want to just ask for the purpose of learning, "why are these terms used?", well, you could try at the reference desk. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Someguy said: "There is no place for you to discuss this that will arrive at a conclusion that pleases you, since the collapsing of your comment was appropriate in the first place."

1. There should be a place to discuss the topics I raised
2. The collapsing of my comment was not "appropriate" as it was a kind of pov censorship.

The removal of comments needs to be done only when appropriate, and so there needs to be a review in this case. The question of whether there is system creep where pov individuals use comment removal as a tool of censorship has to be discussed. -ApexUnderground (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The topics you raised were being raised without mention to specific sources or in regards to improving the encyclopaedia and were clearly WP:FORUM. You don't have a right to just talk about the topics on the talk pages, particularly the line: In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Your absolute best bet is to drop this and move forward with improving the encyclopaedia, your next best bet is probably WP:ANI, but as others here have noted, it's unlikely to go well for you. SportingFlyer T·C 03:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, some points. Two common and valid reasons for collapsing talk page comments are if the comment is very long, or if it's an off-topic digression from the main thrust of a thread. Neither apply here. Collapsing is not supposed to be done to indicate one's personal disagreement with the other editor's points. Hope we're clear on that.

Comments that are vandalism, trolling, unrelated to the article subject, unintelligable, etc. are not collapsed but removed; that also doesn't apply here in my opinion. If you want to remove the comments on the grounds that they are vdalism, trolling, unrelated to the article subject, unintelligable, etc., I suppose you could, or try anyway. I wouldn't recommend that, since they're not. They are objections to the lede sentences, with intelligible (if dubious) reasons given.

It's not usual to edit another person's talk page comments (which collapsing is a form of) except under particular circumstances, and since the editor objected, I undid the collapsing. I'd recommend either addessing the editors complaints on the merits -- shouldn't be hard, since they're pretty weak -- or just ignoring them, rather than more drama. Herostratus (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Rename "Articles for Deletion" to "Articles for depublication"

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

---

This proposal is related to the perennial proposal to rename Articles for Deletion, however it is not a procedural change.
The usual reason for the perennial proposal is in order to seem less confrontational, especially to newcomers, and to align with forums such as redirects for discussion. The perennial proposal received widespread support in 2009 but not implemented due to inertia and procedural issues.
Wikipedia is a publisher, as reminded by the Foundation's legal department that every time we create an edit, we are publishing. I propose that the AfD process remains the same, and it is renamed "Articles for depublication". I suspect that this will bring down the tone of deletion debates, especially for newcomers. This will have the same effect as shown in the perennial proposal - namely "Users should be made aware of the very real possibility that the article will in fact be depublished at the end of the discussion (the result for perhaps three-quarters of nominated articles)".
Similarly articles for speedy deletion could be renamed Articles for speedy depublication. I have requested comment from the Article Rescue Squadron here.--E.3 (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Is there any evidence of this causing an actual problem? Triptothecottage (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• I have long thought that "articles for discussion" (in line with TFD and FFD) is vastly preferable to "articles for deletion". It is more accurate, more consistent, and less intimidating. However, this has repeatedly failed to gain consensus. I believe I was personally the last one to formally propose it, sometime in the past year or two, though I'd be hard pressed to find the actual thread. GMG^talk 13:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• @GreenMeansGo: I agree that "articles for discussion" is an option, but previous consensus was "Users should be made aware of the very real possibility that the article will in fact be depublished or deleted at the end of the discussion (the result for perhaps three-quarters of nominated articles)".
• I am happy to use myself as an example here in 2009, article kept but I didn't continue contributing. In 2018 when I restarted my article was first nominated for speedy deletion and then nominated for deletion here. The resulting article is now GA aiming for FA but needed improvement, but this discussion resulted in me requesting an enforced wiki break here.
• There is an off wiki blog here about some reasons for women not contributing here which we are all aware of, noting deletion as a concern.
• However, the consensus as far as I understand in 2009 was to consider rename I am simply proposing "depublication", as a less confrontational term. I have previously noted that deletion IMHO is a very strong word, and unnecessary when there is a more "grown-up" alternative as wikipedia becomes more respected a publication. --E.3 (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Just going to point out the "FFD" used to be "Files for deletion" because there was basically just two outcomes: "delete" or "keep" when it came to the files discussed there. However, after WP:NFCR and WP:PUF were incorporated into FFD a few years back, the "D" was changed to "discussion" because now there were more possibilities since NFCR and PUF didn't really deal with file deletions, but rather file removal or relicensing. Anything involving deletion was usually sent to the old FFD for review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I am proposing that Articles for depublication comments be named Keep or Depublish with the same effect. --E.3 (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think language is the problem with AFD being confrontational, it's structural. So long as we have a compulsory process that presumes a binary outcome, whatever you call that (keep/keep published, delete/depublish), it will function the same way. What we need more than euphemisms is more effective enforcement of WP:BEFORE or WP:ATD to hopefully discourage AFD from being a first stop for resolving issues. All too often I see that there has been a complete failure to even attempt talk page discussion prior to a nomination, which is really poor practice not only when it's a page by a brand new editor, but also in the many AFDs where the issue really is how best to organize content, or requires subject-matter familiarity to resolve. postdlf (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I see your point @Postdlf:. I think since 2009 however, "technical difficulties and inertia prevented the change". This is why I am proposing an incremental, lingustic rather than structural change. As an expert editor in medicine, psychologically "depublication" for me at least would mean a far less charged discussion. If it is a small proposal, we can see how that goes, before attempting structural change. --E.3 (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think "depublish" would just cause confusion because it doesn't have a clear meaning to most people. Even for those who are familiar with the term in an academic or legal context, it doesn't mean to "remove from view and make publicly inaccessible" in the way that deletion of an article functionally does. postdlf (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Is there anything inheritly wrong with simply: "articles for discussion" similar to other discussions? Depublication would mean draftify, soft delete, hard delete, userfy, but I've also seen AfD end with "stubify" and "redirect" which aren't really depublications. The only issue as far as I can see, is that technically something like a move discussion is also similar to this, so it would need to be noted that moves and discussion aren't at the same platform. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Lee Vilenski: I do not see anything inherently wrong with "articles for discussion" at all. However consensus previously was that new users need to be aware that a very real outcome could be deletion/depublication. However, this could be addressed in the template to the author. Something like "Possible outcomes for this discussion could be: 1. Depublication and/or moving to your user space 2. Stubify 3. Redirect or 4. Keeping the article etc. This would require a lot of back end structural changes, perhaps with the tone of enwiki at the present moment, it might be time! I support either option. --E.3 (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close this is a non-issue. AfD is for deletion. We have processes that work better for other types of discussions. “Depublication” is a clunky word that sounds silly and I’m not even sure what it entails. In short, there is zero reason for a name change and no reasonable alternates have been proposed anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• "Discussion" seems much more appropriate to me; "Depublication" is just a euphemism. "Discussion" is simply more accurate: articles on AfD are not "for deletion", because no decision has been taken that they should be deleted. At the point they are in AfD, they have simply been nominated for a discussion on whether they should remain on Wikipedia. Yes, messages relating to the process should be clear that deletion is a possible outcome, but "Articles for deletion" or "for depublication" unfairly implies that the article is currently designated to be deleted, which is not the case. Words aren't everything, but they do help set the tone of debate. TSP (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose; I don't think the change would help. I would agree that "articles for discussion" would be better, and I think the TfD approach of holding mergers at the same venue might also be useful here (as far as I'm aware, participation in article merger discussions is usually very low and they can be left open for years). Jc86035 (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• OK since several editors and myself having been swayed by this discussion prefer "articles for discussion" can we have that as a potential consensus option for this proposal? Or should myself or a more experienced editor open a new proposal? Thanks for everyones thoughts! --E.3 (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• No. It’s a perennial proposal that’s voted down at least once a year. The odds of it getting through this time are slim to none as well. If you want to rename it that, you should start a proposal a new proposal, likely at WT:AFD. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• OK I'll do research on all the previous discussions, and put it in a new proposal here, as it seems @Jc86035:, @Lee Vilenski:, @Marchjuly:, @GreenMeansGo: @TSP: and myself seem favourably disposed to articles for discussion in this short proposal, as consensus was in 2009. Hopefully we can push through the inertia and technical issues this time, consensus doesn't seem strongly against, just inertia for the status quo to me! --E.3 (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• This isn’t just a 2009 thing. It’s a constant proposal that never achieves consensus. The reason for that is because it’s completely pointless make work that confuses processes and would cause significantly more disruption to the project for no added benefit. It is usually snow opposed. The reason it hasn’t been yet is that you included a weird title, not the standard change title. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah, I mean, I am strongly in favor of a rename, but I don't have any illusions that such a proposal would gain consensus. Even if it did, it would require an immense amount of work to implement, and I doubt either you or I really understand how much would need to be done . There's nothing stopping you from opening a new discussion of course, but you shouldn't be disappointed if it is quickly closed. All in all, it'd probably be more productive if we just did something else with our day entirely. GMG^talk 17:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose pointless euphemism. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not voting for anything that's not the old proposal "Articles to yell at each other over." In seriousness, this is pointless. SportingFlyer T·C 17:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose It ain't broke. MarnetteD|Talk 18:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Pointless semantics. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm all for making the process less confrontational, but I'm not convinced that moving to a euphemistic name whilst keeping the same deletion focussed process would take us in the right direction. ϢereSpielChequers 18:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as it needs to be made clear that an article could be deleted, also changing to discussion is wishy washy and would resultt in a time sink of nominations that want to discuss issues that belong on the article's talk page imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Kudos for trying to remove some of the nastiness but oppose I think that title wording is a minor aspect. The standard conversation is rough at an AFD, plus there is a general attitude that the author is somehow a beneficiary of the article being allowed to exist and has to fight for it accordingly rather than it being treated as a contribution to Wikipedia. Of course some of this comes from the fact that many articles are promotional or due to paid editing. Plus "de-publication" sounds confusing. Maybe "Articles for status discussion" ? North8000 (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Petition to allow Fram to defend themself

Please join in asking the Wikipedia Arbitration committee to allow editors with advanced permissions the opportunity to participate in their own defense when accused of harassment. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal Guidelines

Some of you may be aware that there is discussion in progress about the status of the Portal Guidelines. The current guidelines, or something similar, have at least appeared to be in effect since 2006. However, as User:SmokeyJoe has observed at the portal guideline talk page, they were never approved. They have been used as if they were approved portal guidelines for more than a decade, and so an argument can be made that they have been grandfathered into place. However, about two months ago, some of the advocates of portals proposed that the guidelines be suspended, or at least that some provisions of the guidelines be suspended, because they were ”weaponizing” portal deletion. The key sentence in the guideline (or proposed guideline, or failed guideline, or whatever) says that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract readers and portal maintainers. Portal advocates have traditionally claimed that particular subjects, such as countries, or states of countries, or popular TV shows or performers, are broad subject areas, but more recently other editors have been using quantitative techniques to argue that some portals are not satisfying that criterion, because they are not attracting readers and maintainers. Okay. So we now don’t know whether we have any real portal guidelines.

I think that a Request for Comments with centralized discussion is needed to establish or re-establish accepted portal guidelines. I will be discussing here unless I am advised that there is a better venue for the discussion.

I propose that the community be asked to choose between perhaps three or four alternate portal guidelines. The first is simply to re-affirm the existing guidelines. At least one editor has proposed downgrading or archiving all portals except those linked from the Main Page. It appears that there is significant disagreement on regional portals. Some editors think that portals should be standard for countries and for first-level national subdivisions (states or provinces). I would like to identify two or three alternative sets of portal guidelines within the next week and start a Request for Comments that will run for 30 days and be binding on the community. This will not necessarily change the rate at which portals are being nominated for deletion, but a consensus establishing portal guidelines in 2019 should rationalize what is now a chaotic process.

Comments?

Proposals for alternate portal guidelines?

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

In 2018 there were about 1500 portals. WP:ENDPORTALS, whilst it did not exempt every single portal from deletion, found a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time. Many more portals were created, many on narrow topics and containing errors, but almost all of those were soon deleted and need no longer figure in our deliberations. The deletion process then turned to existing portals. Although the rate has slowed, we are now down to 919 portals and losing about eight more each day. WikiProject Portals is dominated by editors who !voted to remove the entire namespace, a situation which one commentator likened to a Republican running a Democrats' conference. Their proposals include reducing the number of portals to eight, and unlinking all portals to make them orphan pages. I agree that it is time to seek the community's views on these developments. Certes (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It is quite extraordinary that after all this time, Certes and a few other editors continue to wilfully misrepresent the WP:ENDPORTALS RFC.

The decision there was very simple. Editors were asked a single crude binary question: whether they supported the immediate deletion of all portals. The answer was was no: do not delete all portals now.

That in no way amounts to a consensus to keep all or even most portals. It was simply a rejection of compete and indiscriminate abolition. It does not preclude a case-by-examination of portals, even if the outcome of that case-by-case review was to reduce the total to zero. (Note: I would oppose zero. I just not that it is not precluded by ENDPORTALS).

This is such a basic matter of logic that I believe that editors like Certes who keep trotting it out are either

1. being deeply and brazenly and repeatedly dishonest, or
2. have spectacularly poor comprehension abilities.

Either way, it's long past time for them to stop wasting the community's time with this utter nonsense.

As the Certes's moan that WikiProject Portals is dominated by editors who !voted to remove the entire namespace, lord help us. If there is any policy anywhere that only editors with a particular point of view are allowed to participate in a WikiProject, then please identify it. It would be a new one to me, so I'd welcome the revelation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• [ec] Portal guidelines must reflect the purpose of portals, which is currently poorly defined and open to conflicting interpretations, which are the cause of most of the drama. If we (the community) had a common understanding of what portals are for, we could work together to describe how to do it. That common understanding does not exist. Creating portal guidelines should follow deciding on a useful and clearly delineated function for portals. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – Extensive ongoing discussion has been occurring at Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines regarding the Portal guidelines. In my view, opinions and views there should also be fully considered. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter Southwood. I agree that a discussion of the purpose of portals is appropriate. I am trying to get that discussion in progress. As Northamerica1000 says, there is discussion going on at the portal guideline talk page, although it isn't productive. If there is agreement that the discussion should take place there, I am fine with that, but it should get to the purpose and objectives of portals rather than just restating the same complaints, and should focus on developing an RFC with a few options for portal guidelines to reflect some idea of the purpose and rationale for portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that Robert McClenon raises some important issues, but misses the fundamental question posed by Peter Southwood: what is the purpose of portals?

So far as I can see, the main purpose of portals has for years been very simple: to entertain the small group of editors who like making portals.

Nearly all of the existing portals are shunned by readers: see the viewing figures for the month of June 2019, when only 51 out of 904 portals averaged 100 or more pageviews per day. A further 94 portals received between 50 and 99 daily views. The remaining 759 portals received less than 50 views per day. In nearly every case, the head article for the topic received between 100 times as many views to 2000 times as many views a the portal.

The lesson is clear: the vast majority of portals serve no significant purpose for readers. Discussion at WT:WPPORT has for years been focused on the supply-side: how to create portals, how maintain them, and how to oppose deletion. These discussions almost entirely omit the very simple fact that readers do not use them.

This has been reflected at MFD, where objections to deletion overwhelmingly come from the editors who create or edit portals, rather than from editors who have identified a use for them. I have almost never seen any such discussion joined by an IP who says something like "hey, I'm a reader and I use this portal".

The dominant model of portal in current used consists of sets of content-forked subpages, with one item from each set displayed at any one time. Alternatives are available only through the unbelievably crude mechanism of purging the page.

This model of portal is absurd, in multiple ways:

1. These forked subpages are nearly always unreferenced, contrary to WP:V.
2. The content forks are mostly unmaintained. I have encountered many sets of them which have not been touched for over ten years, so they will a'most always represent an outdated view of the topic.
3. These content forks are largely unwatched, do they are a vector for vandalism. I have encountered several cases where these subpages have been edited to display wholly irrelevant topics; they could just as easily be used as attack vectors.
4. It offers readers no overview of the list of topics available. Either take what you are given, or do a lucky dip. Rinse and repeat without even any indication of how many pages are included in the cycle.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).

1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Mumbai topics, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Mumbai, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow

Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.

Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader.

So far, the only one of the portal fans who has even tried to address the issues raised by these technical developments is @Bermicourt, who has been adapting from de.wiki portals such as Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern which use a "mega-navbox" style. But most of the other portal fans are still busy creating content-forks and/or subpage farms, most of which are unread.

So looking at this stage to create guidelines is putting the cart before the horse. Guidelines are mostly about the "how" question. Befre we can answer that, we need to answer the the more fundamental questions of "why"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, BrownHairedGirl, your initial premise to me is nonsense so not sure where do we go from there. So what if only 50 people look at something in a week or 500 read something in a year - they might well have learned something, and they are readers served. It seems like it should be a cause for celebration, if just one person say every 500 days, is inspired by knowledge or their curiosity peeked. We don't delete articles based on page views, so it makes no sense to do it with portals. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker, that reply makes me despair. You are making the fundamental logical error of confusing portals with articles, so no wonder you mistake the rest for nonsense. This is what is called a category error.

The content of Wikipedia is in its articles. We don't delete stub articles because that stub is all the content we have on that topic, and we hope that some day it will developed into a decent article. We don't also delete unviewed articles, because our test for including article sin notability, not how many readers view it.

Portals are nor content. They are a way of showcasing and/or navigating content. If we deleted every single portal right now, we wouldn't lose a single item of Wikipedia content, because the portals are not content.

The utility of portals lies solely in how well they do that job of showcasing and/or navigating content. And we have a very clear answer from our readers: portals don't help.

Here's an example. Take the list of pageviews by partl from June 2016. It lists 954 portals, and splat in the middle of that, at #452, is Portal:Louisiana, which got a pathetic 15 pageviews per day. Now compare that with the head article Louisiana, which got 2,734 daily views. Or to put it more simple, for very view of the portal, there were 179.48 views of the head article.

That portal simply isn't fulfilling its intended purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not why I said your argument does not make sense. So, I am despairing that you should despair. It does not make sense because: 1) an article (you say, great, wonderful); 2) group of related articles, images, ideas (suddenly it's terrible). Your disdain for grouping just does not make sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker, you appear to have a serous comprehension problem. Which part of "deleting the grouping does not remove any content" do you dispute or not understand?

The content is in the articles, which therefore have intrinsic value. For presentational purposes they can be grouped in many different ways by many different technologies, and the value of each grouping is simply in whether it helps readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I comprehend perfectly. You don't like these groupings of articles, images and ideas in portals, for reasons that make little sense. (Your question can only suggest that it is you that is having a difficult time understanding, as it has nothing to do with what I said). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

No, @Alanscottwalker, you demonstrate zero comprehension of the difference between the content (in articles), and groupings.

This is simple and it is fundamental.

Let me give you a physical analogy. In my larder, there are about food containers of various sizes, with various characteristics. I could group arrange them in many different ways: by size, by weight, by expiry date, by use type, by price, by how much I like them, by packaging type etc. And I can abolish any or all of those groups without binning a single food container.

However, what you are arguing is that I cease to organise some of them in a group called "tinned food", that is the same as throwing all my tinned food in the bin. Which is utter nonsense; I can just rearrange these items on the shelves, or I can jumble them around.

And for the millionth time, it's not that I don't like these groupings of articles, images and ideas in portals. This is not some sort of personal aversion. I regard most of of them as deficient because they offer a risibly small and arbitrary selection of topics, presented through outdated forks of text, and made available to the reader only one at a time. You may have reasons to disagree with that, but if it doesn't make sense to your, then your comprehension skills are even more abysmal than I had thought. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Your larder story is silly, as silly as your claim to saying anything "fundamental", which cannot be anything but risible given the paltry things under discussion. If you want a physical analogy, go with a shop window, but no need to smash the windows. And it is still completely a mystery why this this topic makes you so angry that you feel the need to lash out. At any rate, I now see I was right at the beginning, when I said, 'well, BrownHairedGirl, your initial premise to me is nonsense so not sure where do we go from there.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker, I am here to build an encyclopedia. So I get fed up with editors who repeatedly spout falsehoods.

Wikipedia is a wonderful project, but its downside is that doesn't evict or mute people with such shockingly and persistently low comprehension skills that they not only can they not distinguish the fundamental difference between an an article and a device for navigating or showcasing articles, but that they repeatedly shout nonsnese when the distinction is pointed out to them.

An enyclopedia needs to be built by adults with above-average adult skills of literacy, comprehension, and reasoning. There is something about portals which has a sad tendency to attract the passionate support of editors like Alan who persistently display none of those qualities. There are some lovely and intelligent editors who work on portals, but when it comes to portals, the proportion of outraged reality-deniers like Alan and Moxy is depressinghy high. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I think the important question is whether portals are accomplishing their purpose and whether something else could do it better. One idea I've thought about is replacing the current portal system with Outlines. Both serve as an introduction to the major topics of an area as well as a tool for navigating the encyclopedia. Consider Portal:Contents/Mathematics and logic, it serves as an outline of the topic, presented in a visually appealing way, and effectively directs readers to content they might be interested in by providing short descriptions of a subtopic's scope. For many portals, however, this is done by just listing the contents of a category which is not particularly useful and does not provide readers with much information on how it relates to the topic beyond the title---it's only useful if you know what you're looking for. Take Portal:Television in the United Kingdom as an example. The BBC, one of the most important topics in British Television, is not linked until near the bottom of the page, and unless you know about the BBC, you won't know that it's important or what it does. Compare that portal with our articles like Television in the United Kingdom and Outline of television broadcasting and it's obvious that the portal does not do a good job of introducing readers to a topic or directing them to important and related information. Perhaps merging or replacing the current design standard of portals with the outline system, to produce something like Portal:Contents/Mathematics and logic, would make the portal system a better browsing tool for readers while also drastically simplifying the necessary maintenance. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 18:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• I have been reading the above, and no one seems to actually answer BHG’s basic question... so let me ask it: what is the PURPOSE of portals? Blueboar (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems as obvious, as perhaps, it is unambitious: 'Here is a subject, here are articles, images, ideas related to that subject -- explore, enjoy, learn, make connections, etc.' People have differences, they explore and connect with things in different ways, with different presentations. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• All very lovely as an abstract theory, @Alanscottwalker, but in practice that's not what happens.

The practical reality is that most portals are complete crap, and don't make those connections as well as articles do.

The result is that reality that readers do not use portals. Just look at the abysmal pageviews.

The problem is quite simple. Powerful search and massive cross linking have already supplanted the early-90s concept of portals across the web, and wikipedia is no exception. On Wiki, navboxes add another powerful navigational aid, again supplanting portals.

The only Wikipedia portal which thrives is the main page, partly because it's the default landing page, and partly because it is the product of a huge amount of ongoing work every day by several large teams of editors. No topic portal gets that anywhere with in several orders of magnitude of that sort of attention.

What will it take to persuade portal fans to stop waffling about dreams, and engage with those realities? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not at all an abstract theory. If I go to most portals I bet 9 out of 10, I can make an interesting connection, I never thought of before. People can do all kinds of things with different presentations. (By the by, since I have told you already the page view thing does not impress, why would you repeat it to me.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Alan, you can go to any article other than a sub-stub and make an interesting connection, so that observation amounts to nothing more than "portals have links".

I repeat the pageviews thing not in any hope of educating you, because that is clearly an impossible task. I repeat it in order to remind other editors reading this of the depth and determination of the reality-denial in which you engage while constructing your parallel universe in which you believe that there is no distinction between deletion of content and deletion of pages which are just groupings.

In this parallel universe of Planet Portalfan, it matters not a jot that most portals are outdated, have limited scope, poor display and selection techniques, inadequate watching, and are almost unused. Planet Portalfan is sustained by faith, to the exclusion of reason and of evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• • [ec] That question has been asked many times in many places. It is fundamental to the problem, and no-one seems to be willing to attempt an answer. I will have a go, but it is only my personal opinion. To me, a portal is another navigation tool, formatted to be more entertaining and decorative than a navbox or an outline list, but serving a similar function, possibly with suggestions to the user of how to navigate a topic in entertaining or educational ways, and illustrating the full scope of the topic available on Wikipedia. Ideally it should be low maintenance, so as much automation of maintenance as technically possible should be used. The breadth of topic should not be critical for this application, but there should be enough articles to be worthwhile, and they should be a logically coherent group, like the scope of a WikiProject. Others opinions will no doubt vary, but this is a start. Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern style is a possible way to go, but other formats may be as good or better. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Peter Southwood, at a theoretical level, that's a good answer.

But on a practical level, the answer is very clear: nobody has yet devised a model of portal which readers actually want. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

On a practical level, a portal of the type I have described would be of value to editors of the associated project whether or not any users ever use it or want it, and who knows what the users want? Do we assume that if they do not ask for something they don't want it? Do we assume that if they cannot find something that exists they don't want it? It is a tricky question. sometimes we try something and it turns out to be a good idea. Like Wikipedia. If no-one had tried it who would have thought it could be successful? Other times things that look like a good idea at first turn out to be non-workable, or work in a way but are truly horrible in other unexpected ways. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 20:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Peter Southwood, that argument would have been very persuasive in 2005, when the portal namespace was being created.

However, after 14 years of trying this idea, your argument it looks more denial of the evidence that readers do not use portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)