Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

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

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

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

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

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

« Archives, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195

RfC - change to Wikipedia's five pillars - WP:5P

Which version of the first pillar of WP:5P1 is better?

• Option A would be to maintain the status quo and restore the longstanding phrase "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" to WP:5P.
• Option B would be to retain the new wording "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias and other reference works." SportingFlyer T·C 15:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Reasoning - 5P RFC

Recently, a short talk page discussion (four participants) led to the replacement of the phrase "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" with the phrase "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias and other reference works." This has been the result of a long campaign by a small number of users to try to deprecate the premise that Wikipedia functions like a gazetteer. Though the rule that geographic features can be included as long as they are verifiable and can be discussed pre-dates the addition of the word gazetteer to the five pillars, a quick search of the pump's archives shows that the gazetteer function has been a firm pillar of Wikipedia for over a decade, and I believe this change requires more community input, considering the change would likely have the effect deprecating the idea Wikipedia functions like a gazetteer.. SportingFlyer T·C 15:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

dlthewave supports Option B and provides this reasoning in support: *Editors supporting the change (Option B) argue that "gazetteer" and "almanac" do not reflect Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia and have led to harmful editing practices including mass stub creation from GNIS and GEOnet which require massive cleanup efforts. There is also concern that the page has no formal standing, yet is being used to override actual policies and guidelines." SportingFlyer T·C 18:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Responses - 5P RFC

• Option A Wikipedia is not a literal gazetteer and nothing in the removed phrase supports that, but it does contain elements of a gazetteer, namely lower notability standards for geographic features than for any general article, with the intent of providing information about the world's natural features and populated places. While I understand this was done to try to reduce confusion, specifically relegating this to "other reference works" is a major change to Wikipedia's functions and implies Wikipedia doesn't function as a place where geographic knowledge is retained, especially considering the change is already being used to AfD geography articles. SportingFlyer T·C 12:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A. There is a deletionist agenda here which is not generally supported and will enable some editors who don't like them to propose umpteen geographical articles for deletion. It's worked perfectly well up until now. It doesn't need changing. I have restored the phrasing, as the discussion on the talkpage clearly wasn't wide enough to change something so fundamental. We should obviously keep the longstanding phrasing until we have a consensus to change it, not retain the change until we have a consensus to change it back. That's doing it backwards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B - I think the new language better reflects what Wikipedia is (and should be). I don’t agree that this language significantly changes how we should interpret policy, nor should it be taken as “deprecating” gazette type articles. (These can be included under “… and other reference works”). If the new language is accepted, any “mass” deletion nominations based on the change should be deemed disruptive. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A. Change seems at odds with our practice, especially in the sports and geo areas. See also the pageviews for Deaths in 2021. JBchrch talk 15:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Bad RFC - Non-neutrally-worded RFC question for the reasons given below (and additionally noting that the change has been up for more than a month without any of the doom-laden predictions above occurring). Option B if it is changed to a neutrally-worded one without the POV that this necessarily has an effect on Wikipedia being (or not being) a gazetteer (i.e., something other than an encyclopaedia). The reasoning for this is that the term "gazetteer" (which was added to 5P in a BOLD edit) being recited at 5P leads to people trying to wave it around at AFD as an argument that Wikipedia necessarily is a gazetteer, and is confusing for something that is supposed to be a very general summary. FOARP (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Newimpartial (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A. While a gazetteer is a reference work, Wikipedia does WP:NOT function as a dictionary, directory, or manual which are also reference works. Therefore I think it's useful to explicitly list almanacs and gazetteers as functions of Wikipedia. – Anne drew 16:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A That wording has been in place since 2008, influencing the direction of the project. It should not have been removed without a project-wide RFC that found consensus to change the wording. Edited to add: I've reviewed the talk page discussion mentioned by Masem below, and it doesn't change my position that I'd want to see a wider consensus than four editors on a talk page.(end addition) Schazjmd (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Schazjmd: Regardless of what took place before, this is the project-wide RfC that you and others have asked for. Would you care to share your opinion on the proposed text or is there some other process that we should be going through first? –dlthewave ☎ 17:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  On the original discussion that triggered this RfC, Masem said WP is clearly more than just an encyclopedia (including what you may consider as the sum of generalist and specialist encyclopedias), and its hard to explain what those additional functions are without mentioning the concepts around gazetteers and almanacs., which I agree with. I don't see that his suggestion to instead say "other reference works" solves anything, as it is even more imprecise. After considering all of the arguments here for each option, I'm reaffirming my support for Option A. Schazjmd (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option B I encourage editors to review the talk page discussion at WT:5P of why having "inclusive" language related to gazetteers and almanacs had become problematic. 5P is not a policy page but it was being cited as a policy in notability and related page retention discussions. While the new wording does not change any policy , it is more reflective of it, and specifically that WP:NOT outlines where we don't go. Eg NOT outlines we aren't a dictionary, though we do include definitions on topics that are then expanded on more (eg like En banc). While the wording at 5P had been in place for years, it does not reflect changes in relevant policy that has been made since, and the change simply removes specific terms that are misused and inconsistent with today's policy. --Masem (t) 18:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A - the problems likely to be caused by the new wording seem on present showing to be likely to be far greater than the problems caused by the wording as it stands. In any case this should not have been decided by a little group of four. Ingratis (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B We are an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias obviously can cover geographic topics, so there is not a point to say we have features of a different type of book that also covers geographic topics in a different way. Gazetteers may list every item that appears on the map as a sort of index, which is not really how Wikipedia operates and removal would be more consistent with actual usage. I think the mention of almanacs should also be removed because "It includes information like weather forecasts, farmers' planting dates, tide tables, and other tabular data often arranged according to the calendar." is not what Wikipedia includes either. There are other types of references called almanacs that covers sports or politics or whatever, but typically as statistical listings rather than holistic articles or lists. Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A for purely procedural reasons, without prejudice towards holding a new discussion for any future changes. The discussion was not sufficient to change long-standing guidance. I'm fine with changing it if the community decides it needs to be changed, but the discussion cannot be said to represent "the community" in any meaningful way. Return it to the way it was, hold a more proper discussion with wider participation, let it run longer, and see where it goes. --Jayron32 19:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A I'm the editor who added "gazetteer" those many years ago (ah, the good old days, when a sensible edit would not be immediately reverted. But I digress). The current wording reflected Wikipedia practice then, and reflects Wikipedia practice now: populated places and other geographic features do not need significant coverage in reliable sources in order to have a Wikipedia article (though many of course do have such coverage); the source cited only needs to show the place or feature exists. We can debate whether that is a good thing (the current consensus) or a bad thing (which would be a change in consensus), but the way to seek such a change in consensus is to discuss it explicitly, not to propose changing the wording of an essay. And I would point out such a change in consensus would justify the deletion of many thousands of articles. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Except it's only legally recognized communities that are exempt from significant coverage. Physical features have a flexible requirement, but it's downright false to suggest we have articles merely if a source "shows the place or feature exists". I see no reason why a single component of GEOLAND would be embedded – very vaguely, mind you – into 5P. This would have no impact on "many thousands of articles" since NGEO controls, not 5P, but yes, there are in fact many articles that do not meet that guideline. Reywas92^Talk 20:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Reywas92: you miss my point: it is precisely that language in NGOE that gives Wikipedia "many features of . . . gazetteers", so to remove the word from 5P without changing NGEO would create a contradiction between the two and is likely to cause confusion (because of how many articles are affected) that we have avoided for 13 years. And while writing that something is "downright false," I suggest you indicate you have looked at a sufficient number of non-populated place articles; I'll give you just two of many thousands of examples, Stoner Peak and Mount Kerr (Antarctica), that support my assertion that the presence of so many non-encyclopedic geographical features articles give Wikipedia "many features of . . . gazetteers" UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  Both blatant failures of WP:GEOLAND. Just because it's hard to address the mass-production of articles that were imported from GNIS in bulk does not mean they are notability-compliant. We are not in fact a repository of every place name in existence merely because they exist. Reywas92^Talk 19:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  Also, the change of language does not eliminate the ability for us to function as a gazetteer within the context of NGEO, as that is still "other reference works". --Masem (t) 05:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  but referenced work contain, and j quote from its own article: Reference works include encyclopedias, almanacs, atlases, bibliographies, biographical sources, catalogs such as library catalogs and art catalogs, concordances, dictionaries, directories such as business directories and telephone directories, discographies, filmographies, gazetteers, glossaries, handbooks, indices such as bibliographic indices and citation indices, manuals, research guides, thesauruses, and yearbooks. So does other referenced works include all of these? If so should we have sn option C that defines what we are?Davidstewartharvey (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option B While I only mildly prefer this option (and supported it when it was proposed) I am strongly opposed to the wording of the RFC which goes beyond non-neutral and into abusive of the people who proposed it. I do like "bias" towards geographic places and features regarding wp:notability because they are more enclyclopedic than a lot of common wiki topics. But this is firmly entrenched in the SNG and common outcomes listings and doesn't need the double-down of an explicit mention in the 5 pillars. Also, if it isn't covered under Wikipedia being an enclopedia, why would we want it, and if it IS covered under being an encyclopedia, why would it need an explicit separate mention.?North8000 (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A A consensus that has existed for 13 years, changed at a discussion of 4? Come one let's get real. Wikipedia is a gazetteer for geo articles. Everything else has to meet notability rules (still think that we need to rename that to help new users).Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  "A consensus that has existed for 13 years" False, this was added by one user unilaterally, that just didn't happen to be formally challenged for 13 years. "Wikipedia is a gazetteer for geo articles. Everything else has to meet notability rules" No, there are notability rules for geographic articles: WP:NGEO/WP:GEOLAND. Under these rules legally recognized populated places are generally exempt from significant coverage, but this is not the same as Wikipedia being a gazetteer, nor does this apply to everything under the concept of "geography". Reywas92^Talk 20:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  The gazetteer text has been in NGEO since before it became a guideline from 2012 and was accepted by the community when the guideline was adopted in 2014. If there were any problems or issues with it, they would have been pointed out long before now. (There's even a comment from the 2014 guideline acceptance opposing saying all NGEO does is document a long-standing exception to all notability requirements taken from the "gazetteer" function.) SportingFlyer T·C 21:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  It is absolutely true that a long standing, unopposed edit has implicit consensus through editing and this fact is codified in policy form. What is sad is that so many editors remain ignorant of this provision or, even worse, unwilling to accept its remit.--John Cline (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option A it's bad idea to introduce increasing vagueness to this ". . . and other. . . ?" What? Really? (Also see, WP:NOTDICT for policy problems with this vague wording). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A Given that the A clause was WP:BOLDly introduced by UnitedStatesian on November 17, 2008 it may be considered a result of WP:SILENT consensus, which is weak and warrants attention. I also note that in the VP history there were several discussion referring to 5 pillars in the context of gazetteer issue. Even though not a policy, I support clarification efforts in full accordance with (presumably dead) WP:POLICY#Content policy and per opinions in the discussion below. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A for procedural reasons. I think the discussion to change was entirely in good faith and may have some valid arguments, but the idea that a change to the five pillars could be implemented on the consensus of four editors is absurd. Frickeg (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A per Frickeg mostly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B the new wording is more inclusive, not less, as "other reference works" clearly includes gazetteers, as well as other works not previously cited such as atlases and discographies. I also agree with FOARP and North8000 that there is an unnecessary amount of WP:ABF in the "reasoning". --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 23:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A, and it is not a question of which is more or less inclusive, but rather accurate: the option B wording is unduly vague, and IMO opens up the door to endless litigation with BOTH sides each citing and arguing over their own interpretation of it. As to all of the various features of almanacs and gazetteers that we do not include, the longstanding wording does not say that we include every single aspect of those publications; and it is not necessary to specify that (it is, rather, common sense). Lastly, while I have no doubt those editors were acting in good faith, like others have said, a core policy based on established consensus cannot be changed per a discussion of four editors. I think the not-uncommon misunderstanding is that BOLD editing by A SINGLE EDITOR - even to core policies - is expressly permitted; however, as soon as there is a discussion between two or more editors, then any change based on such discussion is no longer a BOLD edit, and does require a discussion involving the wider community at large. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:39AF:8AB2:A850:B03D (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A as the best descriptive summary of Wikipedia as it exists, where geographic stubs abound :) Leijurv (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A—restore the status quo ante, which is a position that has had support, implicit or otherwise, for well over a decade. Imzadi 1979 → 02:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A interim, rediscuss, and a caution to the raiser - obviously, a pillar change should be CENT noticed, and possibly even watchlist noticed. I make no specific comment at this point as to whether the actual change is warranted. This RfC is also somewhat dubious in a neutrality sense. I should note that the original changing editors would appear to be acting in GF, and I do not believe represent a malign attempt to advance an agenda. And I assume my inclusionist credentials are sufficient to show I'm not part of this illusionary plot. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  Nosebagbear, Added to WP:CENT. Curbon7 (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option A Ain't broke, don't fix. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A per Jayron32, Leijruv and others. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B since the term "gazetteer" has led to numerous violations of WP:NOTNEWS as well as other related and explicit policy instructions. This is sneaking reportage through the back door. The definition "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias and other reference works" is as precise as can be: An encyclopaedia is neither a gazetteer nor an almanac, unless we go Humpty Dumpty on the English language. -The Gnome (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B The Five Pilllars play an interesting role: As explained in the talk page FAQ they were originally a descriptive summary of our core P&G but have gradually become a prescriptive set of guiding principles that are sometimes seen as taking precedence over actual guidelines despite having no formal standing, adoption or review by the community.
  The odd thing about the "encyclopedias, almanacs and gazetteers" sentence is that unlike the rest of the pillars, it does not link to a policy/guideline that further explains its meaning. None of the pillars were meant to stand alone: Could you imagine if we left "Wikipedia is free content" open to interpretation and a group of editors decided that this meant we had to remove all paywall sources? Or if folks insisted that "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" meant that we had to give all opinions equal weight on controversial topics? When folks come along with ideas like these, we can point them to WP:C or WP:NPOV which explain in detail what these pillars actually mean. Unfortunately there is no page that formally explains Wikipedia's role as an almanac or gazetteer, so editors are left to make their own interpretations which often conflict with our actual guidelines. Although I disagree with it, I understand the point of view that we should have articles for all populated places, but too often "Wikipedia is a gazetteer" is used to shut down discussion before we've actually verified that a place is/was actually a distinct settlement. This causes actual problems when we maintain "unincorporated community" articles that are copied to various corners of the Internet before we realize that they were just rail junctions or crossroads. Although we did function as an exhaustive gazetteer at one time, the community adopted a more selective guideline for populated places in 2012 which has been strongly enforced for the past few years. I don't believe that "gazetteer" is an accurate description of what our current coverage aims to be.
  A question worth asking is "what are some features of almanacs and gazetteers that one would find in Wikipedia but not in an encyclopedia?" My answer is "None": Our minor geography articles are similar to what one might find in a regional geographic encyclopedia, and our coverage of countries is not indifferent from Britannica. There's virtually nothing in the tables of, say, Old Farmer's Almanac that would belong in Wikipedia; when we compare ourselves to The World Almanac and Book of Facts, the only resemblance is found in the Book of Facts portion. Nobody ever discusses our role as an almanac, it's just something we keep because it's been there a long time. To remove all ambiguity, I would suggest "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias." –dlthewave ☎ 16:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  • This causes actual problems when we maintain "unincorporated community" articles that are copied to various corners of the Internet before we realize that they were just rail junctions or crossroads. Who cares? So a mirror site will have an article about a rail junction or crossroad; how is this an "actual problem"? Mlb96 (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B per Dlthewave, The Gnome, and others. WP:5P says they are "fundamental principles" which has a connotation of supreme policy. I've seen "WP is a gazetteer" used as a notability argument without regard to actual guidelines. MB 17:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B per MB, above. The gazetteer language only adds confusion. Yilloslime (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B per above: the gazetteer language only adds confusion, and is misused to argue notability. We gain nothing by having this language included. Maybe in 2008 it made sense but not today. I also agree with dl's suggestion to remove "and other reference works". Wikipedia is (and should be) an encyclopedia, and not any other type of reference work. That's what WP:NOT, our oldest policy, is all about. Levivich 18:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem is that we do include features of other reference works - for example, you go to any athlete in a professional league, and you'll see sports almanac-type stats, which have no place in a traditional encyclopedia. It's why it is important that we point to WP:NOT when we say "other reference works" as NOT sets those bounds. --Masem (t) 23:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Mild preference to Option B I think the language in option B is more inclusive. --Enos733 (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - In response to those editors asking whether any changes are needed here, it is worth reviewing the recent cases with GEO articles written based on gazetteer or gazetteer-like sources, collectively involving the deletion/redirecting of tens of thousands of stub articles. These are:
  • The Iranian census articles,
  • Azerbaijan GNS articles,
  • California (and many other US states GNIS articles), and
  • Turkish rural location articles.
• All of these involved importing gazetteer-type information from a database en masse directly into Wikipedia in prose form. All of them were defended at one point or another by references to the mentioning of gazetteers in WP:5P.
  Some people seem to be under the misimpression that gazetteers are just encyclopaedias for geographical locations. They are not. The most commonly-used gazetteers on Wikipedia are GNS and GNIS, which consist of nothing more than statistical database entries, some of the fields of which (particularly whether a place was ever populated) can often be highly inaccurate. A gazetteer is, as our article explains, "a geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map or atlas", that is, it is literally an example of two things that Wikipedia explicitly isn't per WP:NOT.
  Option B corrects this problem by throwing the question of whether (and to what extent) Wikipedia is a gazetteer back to the community to decide. FOARP (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A The existing text is well-established while the proposed alternative seems vaguer and more confusing. The proposed change would therefore generate more argument rather than less. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B. I was also really irritated by the way this change was made. It was a totally inadequate level of consensus for a change to our fundamental principles. And generally speaking, the editors involved really need to knock it off with this tactic of tipping established policies in their favour with under-advertised (if I weren't assuming good faith, I might even say "sneaky") discussions on under-watched talk pages. Policy pages document long-term consensus and conventions, they don't create them. That said, the end result is actually reads better and doesn't contradict the old understanding that Wikipedia has elements of a gazetteer (as I have tried to explain in more depth at WP:GAZETTEER) and an almanac (WP:ALMANAC needs work!) – Joe (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Joe. I’ve got to say I actually like what you did with WP:Gazetteer and don’t think there’s ultimately a fundamental contradiction between it and WP:NOTGAZETTEER - the difference is one of emphasis. FOARP (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option A because Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers and so is described succinctly. Thincat (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B, per Blueboar and Masem. And I agree with Joe Roe that the way the changes were introduced were somewhat less than ideal, but overall removing the explicit language that leads some to the implication that Wikipedia IS a gazeteer and not merely combines some features of is an improvement. There have been many cases of editors creating stubs about a place named in some government database regardless of any considerations of notability (or of English language usage). Mere existence (and often fleeting in many cases) is not a basis for a standalone encyclopedia article. older ≠ wiser 14:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B - There is broad consensus that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", and that Wikipedia includes elements of a variety of other reference works, so it has always seemed surprising and counterintuitive that we single out just two of those reference works to put on equal footing with encyclopedias in the wording of this pillar. I mean we include almanac but not dictionary? Strange. Reference works is more inclusive, and helps to account for the extremely blurry lines between the domains and formats of the many kinds of reference works one might see in Wikipedia: dictionaries, encyclopedic dictionaries, handbooks, guidebooks, almanacs, gazetteers, epitomes, specula, compendia, annals, summa, geographic atlases, scientific atlases, taxonomies.... It just makes more sense to talk about encyclopedias and other reference works, and I think that best reflects the broadest consensus about what we're doing here. No reason to name certain reference works and no reason to exclude. Unfortunately, there is a lot of heated disagreement about the extent to which Wikipedia should function as a gazetteer, closely related to issues of deletion and systemic bias, and I suspect this whole discussion won't go anywhere because of how the "sides" of that debate view the importance of gazetteer having made it into this language and what it would mean to remove it. Nothing should be kept or deleted based on which reference works appear on 5P, and 5P should just reflect the broadest possible consensus. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • For the record, I support Wikipedia having elements of a gazetteer and haven't been involved in any of the debates over changes to that fact. The big point is this page should summarize big picture ideas, not set the policy. Regardless of A or B, it shouldn't be the basis of keeping or deleting anything. It's a quick overview of key ideas. If the word "gazetteer" appearing at 5P is key to a particular deletion/notability argument, that argument should carry no weight (this applies to the presence of gazetteer as well as its replacement by "reference works"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A: The vagueness introduced by Option B appears to contradict WP:NOT, and we need a clearer description of the kinds of other reference works we mean. That doesn’t mean I love the current wording, as there is clear disagreement still, but if we incorporate some aspects of gazetteers and almanacs not otherwise included in most encyclopaedias, that deserves mention. Given that this change is being used to justify the deletion of articles, we cannot simply rely on “other” doing the job. Theknightwho (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Specifying gazetteer and almanac is more in line with WP:NOT -- a page which doesn't mention either of those words even once? Even if it were true that Wikipedia includes exclusively elements of encyclopedias, gazetteers, and almanacs, "encyclopedias and other reference works" is still true. The big issue is, it's not actually exclusive. I would argue it's a greater contradiction to WP:NOT (the page which explains that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia") to give the misleading impression that it's not primarily an encyclopedia with elements of other stuff (primacy of the encyclopedia) but rather a combination of encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers (which WP:NOT doesn't mention, as I said) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Why would they be mentioned on a page which explains what Wikipedia is not? And I agree that Wikipedia is not exclusively those things, but if the choice is between these two, and “other reference works” includes plenty of things that definitely are on WP:NOT as exclusions, we run into a problem. The fact is that this change is being used to justify making Wikipedia more exclusive, not less, so the idea that the status quo for 13 years is suddenly a problem for not being broad enough is a little confusing. Theknightwho (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

      Gazetteers are "a geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map or atlas" (that's two things that Wikipedia is explicitly not) and Almanacs are ""a book published every year which contains information about the movements of the planets, the changes of the moon and the tides, and the dates of important anniversaries"", which is another thing that Wikipedia is explicitly not. It is not clear to me why saying "here's two types of reference works we're going to explicitly call out that we include elements of" is better than just using a more general term that embraces more types of reference work that we also borrow elements of (discographies, bibliographies, filmographies, yearbooks etc.). FOARP (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

    As someone who does a lot of geography cleanup, I don't anticipate this making Wikipedia any more or less inclusive. WP:NGEO would still be the relevant SNG just as it has been since 2012. However this would eliminate the confusion which arises when editors interpret "combines features of gazetteers" as "covers all verifiable geographic entities as standalone articles" as if this somehow trumps the actual guideline. –dlthewave ☎ 20:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option A This is much more clear wording and in addition to the fact that Wikipedia does indeed serve as a gazetteer, this also includes the implicit assumption that all places (geographical locations, not any smaller organizations than that) will have significant coverage of them in local and regional sources. And that assumption is just basic common sense. Anyone arguing otherwise is being purposefully disingenuous. Silverseren^C 20:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A. We're not running up against our paper and printing budget. As the project goes forward, we would expect to add more material (as we do), not remove material. If we didn't have a gazeteer mission, now would be a time to add it. To increase the areas of knowlege which we are saving from obscurity. As always, a good solution for this stuff is "Don't like gazetter articles? Don't read them, but don't interfere with people who aren't like you". Better would be Option C, which would expand the text. "specialized encyclopedias" is too short and vague to have much power, and its ignored often enough.

  Someone wants to know about say Senteg. Granted, only 18 people have in the last three months. Possibly because it's in Nowhere, Russia and the population is 51. Still, 18 people. They're real. They count. What is the value of telling these people "Sorry, we had this information, with a ref, categorized with it's sisters in Category:Rural localities in Udmurtia, but we decided we don't want you people to have too much information. Sucks to be you, but good luck and maybe you can find the info somewhere else -- you never know!" Assekrem, Bogomerom Archipelago, etc. What's the upside.

  Given the number of mirror sites, I would expect that most (all?) of these 18 visitors were actually just bots coming to scrape any updates to the page. The upside is not hosting non-notable (and often hoax/promo) information and not enabling/encouraging WP:MEATBOT style editing. FOARP (talk) 10:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  So delete them if they're hoaxes, but don't motte and bailey to argue for deleting articles that are otherwise fine. Benjamin (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  It's just bullshit, people should go write some articles or do other constructive work rather than trying to make Wikipedia smaller, weaker, and less iformative. I'm tired of it. Herostratus (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option A to restore the status quo. The text is already open-ended and does not mandate that we include every feature of those works. --Rschen7754 01:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A Combo of status quo and a few reasons given in earlier votes Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A One of Wikipedia's strengths is that the concept of an encyclopedia, gazetteer, etc. is not novel, most people already understand it (just the method of collaboration is novel). This makes it easy for people to understand what they're getting into and I prefer the original wording on that basis. Legoktm (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A I think we're really ignoring a lot of stubs existed before the 2012 change to WP:NGEO. I mean there are other ways to go about this. – The Grid (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The issue is that some editors are using the original wording (option A) of 5P to try to argue against the changes of NGEO in 2012. The site shifted away from wide acceptance of geographical articles then, and while we still have gazetteer functions, they are not as wide as we used to have them. 5P should have been updated with the 2012 NGEO change to reflect that. --Masem (t) 05:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

    Sorry, but I'm not inclined to trust those sort of things, particularly after the SCHOOLOUTCOMES fiasco. I've seen it other times too: a few people push thru some rule, and that becomes the basis for a campaign for everybody to "follow the rule". It's politics, in the bad sense. I don't know what happened back in 2012, but I'll tell you what: if it was so defining, why are most people supporting Option A here, mnmh? Herostratus (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option A. A change to such a long-established and central piece of policy should not have been made without gaining a very wide consensus. I have found the recent trend to nominate for deletion large numbers of geographical entities extremely worrying, especially what looks like a lot like bullying in AfDs where editors disagree. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I have also noticed that AfDs are often aggressive and unpleasant as well. No idea why there’s this trend at the moment. Theknightwho (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

    The problem is caused when editors go through every single item in a database creating articles about every entry, regardless of whether there is anything to actually write about them, and regardless of whether the database is in fact a reliable source for what it is being used for. This creates a massive backlog of poorly sourced or even hoax articles, the creators of which are heavily invested in them not being deleted. In my experience the problem at AFD comes from an insistence that “there must be sources” for these places and the assumption that anyone who fails to find sources is simply acting in bad faith. Of course, this behaviour is defended by references to 5P. FOARP (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

    I have no problem with deleting articles solely based on inaccurate databases. The problem I have observed in AfD repeatedly recently looks to me like tag-teaming between a group of editors where all sources presented are negated and all non-delete arguments are responded to aggressively. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

    Tag teaming implies off-wiki co-ordination. Instead, it’s just the same group of people (pro-deletion and pro-inclusion both) looking at the articles popping up on the geographical AFD notice board. The issue with sources is that so many bad sources exist because of algorithm-generated content and bad databases (primarily GNIS and GNS) but also personal blogs, personal websites, maps, wiki-mirrors etc. FOARP (talk) 06:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

    For clarity, I did not mean to imply any off-wiki coordination. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

    The strengths of the arguments are not relevant to questions of bullying. I have repeatedly observed bullying behaviour being outright justified in AfDs - even on this noticeboard - because of the perceived weakness of the arguments. That is unacceptable. Theknightwho (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

    This sounds like something that should be addressed, probably at ANI. Do you have any diffs of the bullying? –dlthewave ☎ 05:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

    • Sadly this has characterised AfDs for some time. Certain editors, usually those who wish to delete, cannot accept any difference from their opinion and therefore insult, sneer at and call into question the integrity and motives of any editor who disagrees with them. Because, of course, they are the only ones who truly understand or care about the project (even if they're relative newcomers). This is a very sad state of affairs and needs to stop now. It's completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. You can disagree without the unpleasantness. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
      • On that note, this recent conversation on my user talk page is depressing reading. It may be that community consensus about the notability of places is starting to shift, but unless and until that shift happens, it is unacceptable that we have new editors being aggressively criticised for creating articles that up until now have been seen as perfectly fine, just because they are not plugged into wikipolitics deeply enough to know that what was utterly unremarkable last year is now controversial. – Joe (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Absolutely. Some editors increasingly seem to see Wikipedia as an extension of social media, where users hiding behind anonymity can spout as much vitriol as they choose and not be pulled up over it. We've always had some soapboxers who've done that, but usually they got the message that this wasn't the place for it, got bored and drifted away. Unfortunately, now some editors who seem to genuinely be involved in the project are doing it to other genuine editors just because they disagree with them, especially on AfD. I do not see what is wrong with civilised discussion without it degenerating into aggression, name-calling and allegations of lying. It's very disappointing and it shouldn't happen. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
          • It seems to have become almost expected, but the recent two-pronged wave of GEO AfDs is particularly distasteful in tone. This AfD on Makhtumkala is an example - the belittling tone used against the Turkmen editor is really not acceptable. Ingratis (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
            • WP:AFD/GEO is currently a complete trainwreck, where the same handful of users seem to be nominating AFDs en masse and then voting “Redirect All”, with any and all comments by other users simply being ignored. I cannot see how this is a remotely positive direction for WP to be going in, when it is patently jumping the gun. Theknightwho (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  WP:5P is not policy, it's a summary. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 23:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option B. Many aspects of Gazetteers and Almanacs fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and thus it is inappropriate and misleading to state that Wikipedia holds these characteristics. To address the argument that "geographic features can be included as long as they are verifiable" and thus Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer; this is not true. WP:GEOLAND requires information beyond statistics and coordinates to exist, and articles are consistently deleted at AFD for failing this criteria. Incidentally, the inclusion of a "reasoning" section, in which this argument is contained, appears inappropriate with the potential to bias the RFC - it should be collapsed into either "discussion" or into the posters !vote, so that editors can directly respond to it and it doesn't take up an unduly prominent location.

  I would also object to the current wording of the RFC; leading option "A" with would be to maintain the status quo and restore the longstanding phrase comes across as suggestive towards it, and has already resulted in editors focusing on the process by which the change was implemented rather than the change itself. These should be changed to presenting the options, rather than providing such commentary. BilledMammal (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option A, but... Are the participants in this RfC, or indeed this underlying dispute, aware WP:5P isn't a PAG? It's not marked as an essay on the page itself, but it is not and never has been a PAG. It's categorized under Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essays, its FAQ starts with It is none of [policies or guidelines]. It is a non-binding description of some of the fundamental principles, it appears on the essay impact list alongside other essays. 5P being a non-binding essay that ultimately says what people want it to say is the subject of regular discussion. There's an interesting discussion to have somewhere about essays that are popular enough people mistake them for PAGs but have never actually been vetted and are the subject of significant criticism in ways not generally held by equivalent guidelines; WP:ATA is another, plus a politics-related essay I'm sure no one needs me to name. I'm unconvinced we need an RfC for the text of a non-binding essay, but as long as we're here, I guess I'm leaning towards option A per "if people take it seriously enough for now we should probably err on the side of caution with changes that reflect current hot-button disputes". Vaticidalprophet 09:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, it has been mentioned several times, both in the original discussion and here, and was the subject of a parallel disputed edit.[1] – Joe (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  SOME people are aware of this. Others basically characterise 5P as the constitution of Wikipedia. Guess which argument gets more play at AFD? FOARP (talk) 10:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  It's true that the five pillars page is not a policy, a guideline, or a constitution, but I would avoid putting it in the same category as other essays, even one like WP:ATA. Given how often it is referenced (e.g. in welcome messages to new editors), I would not be surprised if virtually every active editor on the project has read through the five pillars at least once. While it's true that many essays in project space have never actually been vetted and may not accurately reflect the views of the broader community, the five pillars is a unique exception to that. If there is an inconsistency or disagreement over its accuracy, then because of the page's high visibility, I do think it is important that we have a full discussion and get the content right. If that requires an RfC, then let's have an RfC. Mz7 (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  WP:5P is also cited on most core vetted high-profile project pages such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOT ("Articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars."), etc., is the first thing on the policies and guidelines template, and is in the first graf of WP:POLICY (and has been since 2006). It is "popular" because Wikipedia policy surfaces and endorses it time and time again, and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise. Gnomingstuff (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option A, per UnitedStatesian and others. Benjamin (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B, mainly per Ahecht and Rhododendrites, while I echo the sentiment that the reasoning for this RfC is unnecessarily poisoning the well. (I am also of the opinion that the adjoining issue of "should every geographic place have an article" is not really dependent on the gazetteer-ness of WP, given that many gazetteers just have info that could be adequately written in list format, as opposed to having 50 articles with just the exact same one sentence while notable geographic features will still have SIGCOV and be notable, but that's tangential.) eviolite (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A I stand in opposition to these changes and support the status quo ante. Wikipedia does function as a gazetteer. Something like 20% of articles are geographic in nature - historic places, rivers, provinces, mountains, cities, etc. That is sufficient to explicitly call this usage out here. A change to remove a large portion of those articles from Wikipedia would not help the project or the Internet; furthermore this would be a backdoor approach to try to change the long-standing site policy of having articles on so many historic places, rivers, provinces, mountains, cities, etc. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A + Add and other reference works including e.g. before "almanacs" to broaden then notion a bit as opposed to potentially limiting it. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B, but strictly per Blueboar et al. This is more concise wording that I just think is better. I don't want this to be a trojan horse for any sort of mass deletions. --BDD (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost and we should not be putting any other roles on the same level as that - we are not an almanac, and certainly do not function as a "gazetteer", nor have we ever made any effort to function as one, nor do any of our policies support the idea that we are or could ever attempt to be one. The inclusion of those two terms also feels like it is trying to resolve thorny policy disputes over when to exclude or include geographic features by a false fiat assertion that Wikipedia is a gazetteer, which is not really the intent of WP:5P - it covers the most utterly central aspects of our identity, purpose, and methodology. "Be an encyclopedia" is that. "Be a gazetteer" or "be an almanac" absolutely is not - they are strange, idiosyncratic, and obviously controversial. --Aquillion (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A This is nothing more than an attempt by a small group of deletionist editors to create a trump card in geostub deletion discussions. The status quo has worked perfectly fine for over a decade and there is no good justifiction for changing it aside from opposition to geostubs in general. Mlb96 (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Could you explain how some editors would use the replacement of "almanacs, and gazetteers" with "other reference works" as a trump card, because I cannot see it? BilledMammal (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    • "There was consensus to remove 'almanacs and gazetteers', so that means that there was consensus to tighten our requirements for geostubs." Something like that. Mlb96 (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Any AfD argument based on close reading of a non-policy/summary page is a terrible argument rather than a trump card. Referencing 5P is shorthand for talking about the actual policies, and anyone who's closing discussions based on what is or is not mentioned here rather than in an actual policy/guideline should not be closing discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

        It was used to immediately change policy in relation to geostubs, such as here. This is where much of the concern has come from. Theknightwho (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

        Which begs the questions of 1) Whether this actually changed anything about NGEO? 2) Why NGEO was referencing an essay in the first place? FOARP (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

        It doesn’t matter why it was referencing it, if that is what had consensus. You seem to be holding the simultaneous views that this change is both important enough to need to happen, while dismissing objections on the basis that the change doesn’t matter. How does that make any sense? Theknightwho (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

There’s nothing contradictory in saying “this is a minor change to an essay, it improves things”. Since the rules that had consensus at NGEO weren’t changed nothing more than that was needed. FOARP (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It removes the very basis for why geographical features are "presumed" notable, which had consensus by being part of the policy, and given that AfDs seem to be filed almost routinely for new GEOLAND articles this is clearly a contentious question. Theknightwho (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Since 2012, legally recognized populated are the only geographic features which have had presumed notability, and that's supported by the community consensus which was reached when the guideline was formally adopted. –dlthewave ☎ 03:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• • • • That doesn't seem to be a functional change of policy? BilledMammal (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option A I understand why this is an issue, and how it relates to WP:GEO. I'm also one of those who views 5P as a constitution of en.wiki and I think non-trivial changes here need a lot larger discussion than has been had until now. Hobit (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • To be clearer, I believe a goal should be to be an almanac and gazetteer in addition to an encyclopedia. And we should say so. Hobit (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B The 'almanac' and 'gazetteer' portions bring no benefit whatsoever to the project: if a topic merits an article, this will already be self-evident from the available sources and wikipedia policies, not from a few words in an unofficial essay such as this. The added wording only casts unnecessary confusion on what Wikipedia is or is not, and encourages the gaming of its policies and guidelines: the exact opposite of what a summary is supposed to accomplish. Avilich (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A - oppose the backdoor attempt to alter longstanding Wikipedia practice. Altamel (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

In your opinion, what would be the "front door" way to propose a change in practice? –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option "start a new RfC on the topic of the original RfC" rather than contorting this discussion on undoing the original RfC into something it is not. JoelleJay (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A per UnitedStatesian and Frickeg. I consider sneaking in edits to Wikipedia's underpinning philosophy as a way to backdoor in a new AfD precedent to be infinitely more "harmful" (per revised wording below) than the existence of a, let's be real, inobtrusive and low-traffic stub could ever be. (At least they're not the thousands of tourist-guide geo articles that actually do harm the project's credibility.) There are so many better places to direct all this effort. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B: so far as I can tell, there is no dispute that almanacs and gazetteers are reference works, so at face value option B is no more deletionist than A. There is a change in connotation, sure, but I am surprised to find almanacs and gazetteers specifically mentioned at WP:5P1 in the first place. I see people describe Wikipedia as an encyclopedia everywhere I look—I know it's my go-to—but it's very rarely called an almanac or gazetteer. Of course, there's no issue with some coverage that resembles such works, but again I do not think that anyone disputes the problems with mass creation of geo stubs based on unreliable databases or other WP:IINFO behaviour. It's all a bit of a mountain from a molehill and initial talk page discussion was good enough for this simple change. — Bilorv (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I dispute that problem. From a standpoint of project credibility, I would rather have 10,000,000 objective, verifiable, NPOV stubs than no stubs but plenty of "The people in this village are ugly and thieves" and such -- not an exaggeration in the slightest, I've removed enough of it to know -- and I find the latter to be a much more pressing and embarrassing "massive cleanup project." I am also not impressed with the vilification of actual good-faith work being done toward the former ("Obviously he believes Wikipedia is some geeky RPG where he's out to win Game High Score," just a grotesque thing to say about another editor) and the attempt here to end-run that into Wikipedia's core principles. Gnomingstuff (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm a little bit confused about your comment, Gnomingstuff. Is it a reply to me? The quote Obviously he believes Wikipedia is some geeky RPG where he's out to win Game High Score is not something I have said, and appears to come from an unrelated ANI comment by a different editor. — Bilorv (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
      • I was replying to "I do not think anyone disputes that...". The ANI in question is relevant to this broader discussion, though, because it and similar ones are the real reason this change was made, and do not reflect well upon the contingent making it. I find it ironic that the change involves the page reading "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" given the appalling comments leading up to it. (See also the treatment of the Turkmen editor mentioned above, although in my opinion the tone of this ANI is even worse.) To be clear, I would not find the existence of stubs to be a problem even if everyone were polite about it and think the extent of "cleanup project" is wildly overstated compared to just about every other cleanup project Wikipedia has. But the context makes this whole thing especially distasteful, and should be pointed out. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B, if only because few people will know what an almanac or gazetteer even are (and it does not help that this RfC does not link the terms). Words not understood by most readers are not helpful to define what Wikipedia is. The wording of option B, "reference works", is much more readily understood. Sandstein 17:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A - It's perfectly reasonable that Wikipedia has articles about geographical topics even if these aren't considered notable by the default criteria. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, but isn't that why we have the SNG which clearly defines those specific exceptions without the vague "functions of a gazetteer" language? –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option A - Per the argument of Anne drew Andrew and Drew, it is better to be specific about the kind of reference works that we consider ourselves encompassing, since we specifically do not encompass the role of dictionary. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Charles Stewart - A gazetteer is "a geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map or atlas", so aren't we aleady engaging in exactly the kind of contradiction you describe here? FOARP (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• I do not regard the core, scope-defining pages (i.e., the relevant part of 5P together with WP:NOT) as particularly coherent, indeed my user page has a link to a discussion in which I discuss a contradiction in how we apply WP:NOT in relation to galleries. But the abuse of these scope-defining pages at AfD is more often deletionist abuse (i.e. deletion of perfectly good reference material that complements the obviously encyclopedic articles) than inclusionist abuse (esp. having articles that we would better transwiki) so I am very cautious about changes here that would strengthen it as a weapon in the service of bad deletionist arguments. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The term "almanac" is not specific, as it can refer to anything from Old Farmer's Almanac (which Wikipedia definitely is not) to a Nautical almanac (which Wikipedia probably is not) to World Almanac (which Wikipedia is). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Option B I'm with Sandstein: how many people even know what an almanac or gazetteer even is? For notability, we have specific notability policies and guidelines which should be used for judging the notability of articles at AfD. (t · c) buidhe 13:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A: While honestly option B sounds better on first read, it's less clear, since while we absolutely do encompass some of the functions of an almanac and gazeteer in addition to being an encyclopedia, we are specifically not a dictionary, even though all three of those are "reference works". Loki (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

A gazetteer is a geographical dictionary. Avilich (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option B Is more inclusive and understandable to the average person trying to understand what Wikipedia is about. Instead of communicating accurately, the words "almanac" and "gazetteer" (which are completely foreign to most people) serve to confuse and demand research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popoki35 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B, but not for the original reason proposed in the RfC. I feel that the Option B wording describes better that Wikipedia hosts a wide variety of content, without needing to go into too much specific detail. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 19:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option A, and perhaps add "atlas" to the list. Abductive (reasoning) 19:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option C: "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, gazetteers, and other reference works". BD2412 T 01:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option A "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" could be modified to stress that it only combines some features of these works and not all (particularly for the latter two). I'd be worried that by making it vague we'd have people pushing for dictionary entries. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Meh. A bit navel-gazey for my liking. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option B at the absolute very least, because it is shorter and clearer, and 5P is a place where concision and clarity are absolutely warranted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Responders to this RfC, as well as other interested parties, should bear in mind that almanacs and gazetteers are acceptable reference works. But Wikipedia itelf is explicitly not an acceptable reference work! In academic papers and similar works, we may use the sources found in Wikipedia articles, which is why we use as Wikipedia sources almanacs, gazetteers, directories, catalogs, newspapers, and other such items. But we are not supposed to refer to a Wikipedia article per se! And if we do, we commit a citational error. This whole RfC has turned into a call to arms to stave off some imaginary assault by the Dreaded Deletionists - while we ignore the harm caused by introducing terms that invite confusion and friction. -The Gnome (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• I have long thought that we could resolve this perennial issue by creating a Wikialmanac sister project… thus separating the encyclopedic side of what we do from the gazetteer side. Wikipedia would focus on articles written in sentence/paragraph format, while Wikialmanac would focus on presenting information in a more listified format etc. Blueboar (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option A per UnitedStatesian and Espresso Addict. I'd also support adding "atlas" as suggested by Abductive.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion - 5P RFC

• Undo a related change pending discussion. Not only is this change with limited-participation being used in AFD, but that discussion on a talkpage of what is apparently just a WP:ESSAY is now being used as blanket application to make the same change to Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), which is a WP:GUIDELINE. I don't think that is a reasonable broadening of the level of consensus or notice of discussion to change. Discussions at that guideline's talkpage still seem to support that gazzateer is explicitly included and there does not appear to be significant or any opposition when it's stated as a still-valid detail. Ping User:Yilloslime and User:FOARP who were involved in removal from NGEO. DMacks (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Should an admin who is WP:INVOLVED in the discussion really be doing this? FOARP (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  A wider discussion on the subject has been initiated. The wider discussion should determine whether the edit should be made, not whether it should be reverted to its longstanding wording. It should have been very obvious that the change should not have been made after such a brief discussion and then used to change a guideline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  • FWIW, my revert was based solely on the fact that the edit restored the text "Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia includes features of a gazetteer" which--at the time of my revert--was not true. Yilloslime (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  @DMacks Where has this been cited at AFD? --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 23:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  That's a detail User:SportingFlyer mentioned in the first comment in this discusison.[2] DMacks (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  The one that I found most concerning from a policy point of view was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agbau, Democratic Republic of the Congo (2nd nomination) - I can't fault the argument that it shouldn't be a stand-alone article, but that nomination is based on a complete mis-read of GEOLAND, as are the arguments being made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirpichli, Turkmenistan (2nd nomination), and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millburne, Wyoming (where I'm involved). SportingFlyer T·C 12:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'm probably missing something, but I don't see any reference to WP:5P in either of those discussions, just a link to WP:Wikipedia is not a gazetteer. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 21:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Is it even worth pursuing? Is it going to have any practical effects on the wikipedia's policies application or users' behavior? The WP:5P is no more than a guading summary… It's like an essay. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Alexander Davronov: Yes, it's potentially a fairly major change. The premise that some types of geographical articles don't need to meet GNG but rather just WP:V in order to be kept pre-dates 2008, but the debate (on the village pump and elsewhere) demonstrates that the reason for the addition of the gazetteer line to the five pillars was to help explain Wikipedia's role in functioning like a gazetteer - not as a gazetteer, since those go deeper into geographic minutia, but still enabling verifiable stubs on geographic features. Since this change was made, the principle that Wikipedia includes elements of a gazetteer was removed from NGEO completely since it referred back to the Five Pillars page, and NGEO is a policy. It may not matter at all, but the gazetteer line gets quoted often, and removing it from the five pillars would necessarily remove it from NGEO, which cites it. SportingFlyer T·C 20:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Alright thanks for clarification. You should have put this explanation into your Motivation subsection above IMHO. I will opine that excessive vagueness is unwelcome regardless of the rules status. Just in line of what I said in the case above on 3RR clause. Regards. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Notified: [[centralized discussion]]. Curbon7 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• So much text in this RfC but I fail to see the significance. First, the page in question is basically an essay. Second, the change doesn't make Wikipedia a gazetteer or stop making it a gazetteer. Seems like much ado about nothing. Am I missing something? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that the very status of 5P is also unclear, with some people treating it as a kind of constitution of Wikipedia. The mention of gazetteer within it is then treated as an unquestionable and unchangeable endorsement of the idea that Wikipedia should have separate articles on every single geographic location regardless of notability. FOARP (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia combines many features.. Exactly which are those "many features" ? deserves a linked article describing those specific 'many features'.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Bad RFC

• Please replace the RFC question with a neutrally-worded statement. Particularly no change to 5P could "officially would deprecate the idea Wikipedia functions like a gazetteer" because 5P is not a guideline/policy, or source of guidelines and policies, but instead "a non-binding description of some of the fundamental principles" per the WP:5P talk page. Even if it could the change does not do this (and does not not do this) because a) gazetteers are an example of reference works and b) there was never any consensus that Wikipedia has a "gazetteer function". FOARP (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that a neutral statement is needed. It also needs to be briefer, and ended with the filer's signature. Right now, legobot is unable to copy anything over to central listings due to the length of text before the first signature. @SportingFlyer:, how about just

  Which version of the beginning of WP:5P1 is better?

  • Option A would be to maintain the status quo and restore the longstanding phrase "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" to WP:5P.
  • Option B would be to retain the new wording "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias and other reference works."

and then your signature at the end? Firefangledfeathers 15:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The option B wording is not "new" (it's more than a month old). Preferred wording is:

• Option A WP:5P1 should be changed back to the pre-11 November 2021‎ wording: "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers".
• Option B would be to retain the post-11 November 2021‎ wording "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias and other reference works."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: fixed per your edit. The wording is absolutely new - one month versus 13 years of consensus... SportingFlyer T·C 15:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I would still encourage you to remove ", which officially would deprecate the idea Wikipedia functions like a gazetteer". Removal would add some neutrality and I've also had a recent experience of differing understandings of 'deprecate' leading to confusion in an RfC. Firefangledfeathers 16:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I obviously dispute whether there ever was a consensus for the BOLD edit that included the term “gazetteer” in 5p. FOARP (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, done. FOARP Text that's spent over 13 years on a well-regarded page among lots of discussion is a pretty clear consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 16:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And adding to what SportingFlyer said above, an editor is not required to get consensus before he makes a BOLD edit; if their edit is undone, THEN they need consensus to restore it. But if multiple editors are discussing a change, they are expected to open the discussion up to the wider community. I don't think that's codified anywhere, and any such changes made out of process tend to be viewed as illegitimate. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:907D:4451:8F72:3CE1 (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The wording is worse than non-neutral, it attributes false motives to the people who proposed and supported the change.North8000 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It does no such thing. We are all human, and groups of humans can make mistakes just as readily as individuals. Regarding the neutrality of the RFC wording...my own opinion on that matter (and this ain't directed at any of you, or anyone else in particular, because it gets thrown around at RFCs constantly) is that it is an entirely pedantic and dogmatic thing to fuss over: because in EnWikiland, these discussions must be proposed neutrally, but then the proposer gets to immediately give their own response, which on the one hand nullifies the neutral forming but on the other hand provides transparency..then those other kinds of discussions dont need to be worded neutrally, and the proposer still gets to vote upon posting. It all seems very arbitrary and IMO has very little bearing on the results. (Note, I'm not referring to RFCs that are set up in such a way as to game the outcome) 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:907D:4451:8F72:3CE1 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree about the need for total neutrality on the proposal text. This is an extraordinarily important RfC: It's about the very definition of what Wikipedia is. And, SportingFlyer, when more than one editor protests about a non-neutral wording, perhaps you should take heed and take out any potentially controversial phrasing. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The Reasoning section needs to be rewritten. We have editors !voting based on process concerns related to the original change instead of giving their opinion on the proposed text, and I think the framing has a lot to do with it. –dlthewave ☎ 17:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• I propose the following rewrite to the Reasoning section, preserving Sportingflyer's version as a collapsed archive. This doesn't change the question being asked in any way. –dlthewave ☎ 18:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

See prior discussion here.

• Editors supporting the change (Option B) argue that "gazetteer" and "almanac" do not reflect Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia and have led to harmful editing practices including mass stub creation from GNIS and GEOnet which require massive cleanup efforts. There is also concern that the page has no formal standing, yet is being used to override actual policies and guidelines.
• Editors opposing the change argue that Wikipedia has functioned as a gazetteer for many years, that the current language has long-standing implied consensus and is widely cited, and that the proposed change would lead to improper deletion of verified geographic features. There is also concern that changes to 5P require broader community consensus, which led to the opening of this RfC.

Collapsing non-neutral notice. See rewrite above.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Recently, a short talk page discussion (four participants) led to the replacement of the phrase "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" with the phrase "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias and other reference works." This has been the result of a long campaign by a small number of users to try to deprecate the premise that Wikipedia functions like a gazetteer. Though the rule that geographic features can be included as long as they are verifiable and can be discussed pre-dates the addition of the word gazetteer to the five pillars, a quick search of the pump's archives shows that the gazetteer function has been a firm pillar of Wikipedia for over a decade, and I believe this change requires more community input, considering the change would likely have the effect deprecating the idea Wikipedia functions like a gazetteer.. SportingFlyer T·C 15:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support placing this in the RFC per Dlthewave's proposal. Let's do it soon. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Second. We need a neutrally-worded RFC statement. Reverting changes as it is undesirable to change the RFC mid-flow would be understandable if it had not already been changed multiple times. FOARP (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Why would we spell out what the arguments for and against are before the RfC? That's what the RfC is for. This reads like a closing statement – written before the RfC is closed, by editors deeply involved in the dispute. SportingFlyer's "reasoning" section describes their reasoning for starting the RfC and in that sense it is fine. If people want to oppose because process was not followed, that's their call. I mean, honestly, the three of you taking issue with this have had plenty of input into this discussion already, can you please just step aside and let others form an opinion about it on their own? – Joe (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It is normal to have a brief, neutral summary of the discussion that led to an RfC, which is what I have written. It is not normal to have a statement like "This has been the result of a long campaign by a small number of users" which effectively poisons the well. The question here is whether we should change the wording, not whether or not the proper process was followed prior, and I think that the closer would be well justified if they chose to throw out !votes based on that premise. –dlthewave ☎ 20:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• SF's and Dl's reasoning paragraphs should be moved to under their respective !votes in the survey section. The RfC should have a neutrally worded question (which it currently does), followed by the survey section, where everyone writes their reasoning. This is our way and there's no reason for there to be a reasoning section containing non-neutral arguments in between the neutral statement and the part where everyone makes their arguments. Levivich 21:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Both options problematic

Having come back to this after some time, I see the same issue with both options. Both tend to imply that WP goes beyond being an encyclopedia, because otherwise those similarities would be properties of encyclopedias in general. And general encyclopedias of the past have not tried to also be almanacs, nor gazetteers. If anything, the proposed rewording is worse, because it leaves open-ended the scope of the project. I would rather see the phrase in question replaced with a succinct definition of "encyclopedia". Mangoe (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned in my !vote that it may be better to leave it at "general and specialized encyclopedias" since Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia, and any other roles that we fill aren't significant enough to go in a summary of our fundamental principles. This is also the only sentence in the Five Pillars that doesn't link to any sort of policy or guideline for clarification, which means that it's going to be open-ended no matter how we word it. One solution would be to write a "What Wikipedia Is" page that could be linked to. –dlthewave ☎ 17:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Support: "..write a "What Wikipedia Is"..

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:About Dege31 (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Please close

This has been open for more than 30 days with large participation. Can somebody close this? North8000 (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Racial slurs?

I'm sure most of you know about Wikipedia's no censor policy, but I had a question when it comes to racial slurs on Wikipedia. Recently, as part of a quote, I was going to type n****r uncensored, but I had a bit of an internal debate - one one hand - Wikipedia is anti-censorship, but, I am white and I didn't feel comfortable typing n****r uncensored. Can someone help me with this? ReaIdiot (Call ReaIdiot hotline) (Get a "cool" signature) 05:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Quotes in general should be used very sparingly. If the quote is topical and germaine to the topic, reproduce it in its full uncensored form. If it is not topical, or germaine to the topic, leave it out. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm white too and I've definitely typed or copied it during content creation, as I remember discomfort at doing so, though it's certainly not the most uncomfortable I've felt at writing something. The context of any use of the word will almost certainly be unpleasant. But bowdlerisation in an article is never right, and if the quote is encyclopedic and would otherwise follow best practice then it needs to be in the article. Something like Lee Atwater's Southern strategy quote is not properly historically documented without the slur. It is not an endorsement of Atwater to reproduce it (in a way, I think censoring it would unintentionally downplay his racism). — Bilorv (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello @ReaIdiot: I can certainly empathize with your discomfort here! According to WP:BOWDLERIZE, "in original Wikipedia content, a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be minced by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols." This Wikipedia page on ethnic slurs lists them all in their full form. I also agree with Bilorv here that expurgation in a way can diminish the impact of the offensiveness of a word; using the words as they originally appeared can help underscore the obscenity. As uncomfortable as it is, I would recommend you type the word out fully as part of the quote to preserve the original. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed that link. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• There is a preliminary question that needs to be asked… is it actually necessary to include the quotation in the article? Sometimes it will be, often it won’t. That said, in those situations when it is necessary, then quote it accurately (with the slur). Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• In the context of hanging out and shooting the bull, it certainly makes sense to avoid foul or offensive language, but in an encyclopedia it's important to document the reality of a situation or event or concept. In Cohen v. California, for example, a man was arrested for wearing a jacket that said "Fuck the Draft" on it -- he was not arrested for wearing a jacket that said "Screw the Draft" or "F*** the Draft". Understanding what happened in the case (and what people were disagreeing about in the discourse related to it) requires you to understand that the guy had "fuck" written on his jacket. Similarly, an extremely racist poem from 1901 was not described as "indecent, obscene doggerel" because it said "n*****s", so we should not claim to readers that it did. Of course, if you feel uncomfortable typing out the word yourself, I imagine you could submit an edit request or something. jp×g 05:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  {{g-d}} exists to enable those with religious beliefs that prohibit them from typing "god", and I would not be opposed to similar templates for racial slurs if multiple people would benefit from their existence. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  'Tis not the same - those that will not type the word 'God' refrain from doing so because they literally believe they will receive eternal damnation (or if not that, perhaps some extra time in Purgatory) for doing so. That's why accommodations are made for folks who hold religious beliefs that prescribe or proscribed certain things that would otherwise be expected of them. And religious beliefs are not open for discussion, i.e., it doesn't matter how illogical a belief is, or whether or not a religion's scripture actually forbids such and such, if enough people believe that it does then they should be respected.

  Usage or nonusage - or, more correctly, mention or nonmention - of slurs holds no such status. The concern over whether to type the word "nigger" is not that doing so will result in them burning in hell for all eternity. Better would be to educate these (well-intentioned) white editors, who, as well-intentioned as they are (and through no fault of their own), seem to have no clueb as to how and why and wherefore the word 'nigger' conjures up such strong emotions, even when its use by white folk is through unattached callousness and not vehement hatred. First, all editors need to be mindful and aware of the concept of Use-mention distinction (if you don't know what it is, click the link).

  At the present time in our society, there are only two slur words that are commonly-enough used (sadly) in the most vilest of such manner as to have such strong feelings attach to the words themselves: nigger and faggot. Black men and gay men are not, of course, the only targets of hate crimes, but they are the only ones that have uniquitous hateful elithets attached to what they are, and are hunted down like vermin and tortured and killed by mobs for what they are, the last words they hear being 'F-ing n-/f-' (note: the censorship here is only because I don't want to set off the edit filter, if what I haven't written so far isn't enough to do, I'm sure that that would, for an IP-user)).

  Now, mentioning these words in academic contexts when the situation calls for them to be discussed is NOT the same as using these words! And what's more, if you have an interest in combating racism and bigotry (which you obviously do if you're fussing over whether you need a bot to type the word for you because it would be wrong if your white fingers did so), then I say you have a DUTY to do so; just, if you are white, do so with the utmost of care - is its mention encyclopaedically valuable, does the article benefit from its inclusion, would it suffer from its exclusion. If the word be mentioned in prose not part of a quote, use italics or quotation marks and text that makes it unambiguously clear that the word is being mentioned rather than used. Keep in mind that if those like you will not do this, then the only people that will be will be the racists and murderers, and everyone else who isn't black will just blow it off as one more 'bad word' that you aren't allowed to say, but they won't understand why if no one has the stomach to teach them why, and good luck breaking the state of affairs, then. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:10BA:9558:7F4:32F (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Secular religion may be relevant reading. Anomie⚔ 14:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I recently read a news item about the offense caused by a word that someone in a university environment used. I could not find in most major outlets of media the exact word that caused offense. I eventually found it in a blog. The public discourse, in general, has a very erroneous direction in my very humble opinion. As it happens, for instance, I'm opposed to all forms of fascism but I'd oppose any effort to prevent me from reading Mein Kampf, watching Triumph of the Will, or checking out Goebbels Diaries. This is a world where projects such as Wikipedia will be forced to navigate too carefully, to the point that they'll be losing a lot of their encyclopaedic attributes and, on top, preventing us from learning, especially History. Pity. -The Gnome (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  We're good here on Wikipedia, we got WP:NOTCENSORED. Curbon7 (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a new essay

I have a first draft of an essay which is at User:Sennalen/sandbox/essay3. I was working on a different essay (unfinished) when I realized one of the points I was making stood on its own in other areas too. The sentiment is similar to WP:SFOD but the presentation is hopefully clearer. I'd appreciate feedback about the content, as well as suggestions for a pithy title and shortcut. Thanks! Sennalen (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The role of the source's sources

I add a discussion in Talk:Cannabis_(drug)#Added_sentence. The context is that recent reviews say that there are deaths due to cannabis (with and without overdose). However, an older 2018 review affirmed that there has been no reported cases of cannabis overdose, but the actual study referred in the review is a 2010 study. The review also refer to a 2016 book of the World Health Organization, but this book also refers to this 2010 study. My position was that the source's sources are relevant and the fact that the only actual study is 12 years old is a relevant information that can be seen as a part of what the review says. On the other hand, mentioning this part, sound like implying a criticism of the review in Wikipedia's voice and thus against neutrality. Does Neutrality imply here that we cannot mention in the article that the only actual study referred in the 2018 review to support its position is 12 years old? Can we at the least consider this information in the talk page to evaluate the weight and the relevance of the review's position? In my view, the 2018 review's position should have little weight, even as a four years old review, but even less weight given the fact that the only actual study is 12 years old. However, one might counter argue that it's not our job to evaluate the position of the 2018 review and the sources that it uses. I am not interested in resolving the specific case for the cannabis drug here. I am interested in the general principles. In fact, what I would like is to be referred to specific parts of essays, guidelines or policies that shed light on the general issue of considering the source's sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:V is the relevant policy, in particular the requirement that sources must directly support material cited to them. Summarize what the source secondary says and do not bring your own thoughts about the source's sources to the table in order to state something different. That would be prohibited by policy. Quite often discussion of a source's sources might, however, be pertinent to a discussion of that source on Talk. Alexbrn (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

You see things in a way that is pejorative toward the Wikipedia's editors that are concerned about the source's sources. The Wikipedia editors might not have their "own thoughts" about the subject, but only an intention to be as accurate as possible regarding the actual content of the source. Your conclusion might still be correct, but your arguments are besides the point, negative and invite a polemic that is not needed. In other words, mentioning the source's sources could be a way to make sure that the point of view of the authors is well understood, which is the opposite of trying to say something different. After all, normally, knowing the source's sources should only help to understand what the source actually says. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn, on that matter you're entirely wrong, and I do wonder if you misunderstood what you were responding to, cos that's not something I would have thought I'd see you say. Verifiability - and I'm pretty sure it says this in the policy itself somewhere, I'll check in a minute - and the sourcing that goes along with it, extends as far back into the sources of the sources of the sources as are traceable! Material originating from a bad source doesn't magically become reliable if an otherwise good source reprints it. Also, on verifiability matters, if say a source says the sky is pink polka dotted, and it cites a source, but that source doesn't say anything of the sort, then the claim that the sky is pink polka dots, despite having a source, still fails verifiability. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:2C87:843A:838C:1CE9 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Questions about the interpretation of existing policies should preferably be asked at noticeboards, in this case WP:RSN. JBchrch talk 15:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Here might not be the right place, but the reliability of the source is not the issue. Also, I have considered moving it to a noticeboard, but when I look at the description of the notice boards, they want a specific article, whereas I want the discussion to be more general, not attached to a specific article. After all, the notion of source's sources is very general. It's good to have the broad perspective. I do not want to discuss the specific article. I prefer to abandon the issue than to start a discussion that is centred on Cannabis (drug). Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

source's sources are relevant - it can be. We frequently delete articles on PROMO grounds because the sources sources are largely derived from press releases, not press releases themselves but churnalism. There has to be a compelling reason to question the underlying source used. It's pretty context sensitive. I can't answer your question about written guideline or policy. -- GreenC 16:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Concrete examples of how they have been applied is as good the "written guideline or policy". There seems to a strong consensus that source's sources are relevant in talk page. The question that remains is what about somehow mentioning the source's sources in the most neutral manner possible in the article itself, something like "Referring to sources Y, Z, source A said..." I am sure that it's context sensitive, but is there a fundamental reason to oppose this. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason why you cannot cite the source's source directly if that's what you want to do. I don't see that the source's sources are relevant unless you want to bring an argument that the source is unreliable for some statement.Selfstudier (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the question is not whether we can cite directly the source's sources, but whether we can mention that the source referred to these sources (see my example above). I see your point that the source's sources seem only relevant to criticize the source. I even mentioned it at the start of this discussion. To be more accurate, they seem only relevant to make a judgment on the source, which in some case could be a clarification, not criticism. I tend to agree that this extra judgment, no matter its nature, seem a violation of neutrality, because it's done in the voice of Wikipedia. I am surprise that this is not explicitly discussed in guidelines and policy, I mean by explicitly referring to the use of source's sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

So, it seems that it's appropriate to consider the source's sources in the talk page as a way used by the editors to judge the source's reliability, relevance, etc. However, in the article itself, Wikipedia does not imply a judgment in its own voice by referring to the source's sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say so, the source (author) having already rendered an opinion of his source, no need for any further investigation without some good reason.Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with "no need to present further investigation in the article". It's important to distinguish what can be presented in the article from what can be done in the talk page. In the talk page, it's fine to consider the source's sources to make a judgment to determine the relevancy and perhaps even to make sure we understand what the source says, why not. However, in the article, you present simply the point of view of the source and there is no need to refer to the source's sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

In this topic area, it seems completely fair to say "In a 20XX study,..." ahead of any results made by the study as to indicate its age and helps to futureproof the article. It can encourage readers/editors to find a more up to date source if one exists. --Masem (t) 18:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

You might misunderstand the issue. The review is a 2018 review. However, only a 2010 study exists to support a claim made by the review. The 2018 review also cite a 2016 book, but that book is not a study and it also refers to the 2010 study. I believe the conclusion here is that one can consider these facts to judge whether the claim is relevant, etc., but (the conclusion here seems to be that) this important and necessary encyclopedic work must be done in the talk page. It cannot be presented in the article by referring to the source's sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

If the 2010 is the most recent study and the two sources referring to it are reliable, and it is the type of study that would otherwise be revalant to the topic, then you can still say "In a 2010 study..." --Masem (t) 18:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Except that would not be what the secondary source says. In a review, the assumption is the authors review the literature. If they say "there is no evidence strawberries cure cancer" and cite a 1950 study, we must not say "there was no evidence strawberries could cure cancer as of 1950" because it's not what the reliable source says and, worse, implies the reviewers are wrong or haven't been diligent in searching sources. They cannot cite a source to prove a negative. WP:V requires direct support support from sources, not indirect support garnered by digging around in the underlying material. Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

If it is 100% clear that the statement in this "first" source is referencing the older study (eg like an inline reference immediately after such a statement), there's no interpretation to say the year of the older study. If it is not crystal clear that a statement in the first is pulling the info from the older study, then I would agree that would be a problem for us. And there's ways to word things to not sound non-neutral. eg assuming the 1950 study can be mentioned, then instead of "there was no evidence strawberries could cure cancer as of 1950", you can say "there was no evidence strawberries could cure cancer as reported in 1950 study." That's not implying anything wrong. --Masem (t) 18:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Alexbrn: You might have misunderstood Masem's point. He does not suggest that Wikipedia says that "A 2018 review says that a 2010 study says...". No, he suggests that Wikipedia simply says that "A 2010 study says..." and the 2018 review and the 2016 books can be used to show the notability of the 2010 study. There is nothing wrong with that. Wikipedia's editors can make a choice about what is most relevant and informative to the readers. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

It's expanding on the source not summarizing it, and in a way the authors of the source did not do. Putting a date on things in this way is a common tactic by POV-pushers wanting to imply the knowledge expressed in sources is dated. Stick to the sources and all shall be well. Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

There is always a possibility of wikilawyering to push a point of view no matter which policy we discuss. It may as well be you that is wikilawyering to push your view. It's polemical to bring this very real aspect in the discussion. It does not help. Please don't do that. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I will stress my point was "here's how you can acknowledge a report that likely seems out of date but still mentioned in more recent ones". Whether that's used for POV pushing or other problems, I agree there's potential, but that's a whole separate issue. Eg if there's a problem with using an old report, you can bring up UNDUE. If the report wasn't from a MEDRS, you can point that out. I was only speaking to a generic case of "old study referenced in newer work" --Masem (t) 19:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

It is, because citing primary sources is usually bad, and for medical topics such sources are generally not reliable per WP:MEDRS. Articles must be based on secondary sources - we are meant to be reflecting the analysis and synthesis ("knowledge") contained in them. Alexbrn (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Unless the source said it, then I don't think you can say "A 2010 study says (something)..." If you want to say that something, you need another secondary source to say it.Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The basic principle of attribution is that if X says P in a reliable source, Wikipedia can say in its own voice "X says P". There is no need for another source that says "X says P". That's the basic idea of attribution. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I wrote "Unless the source said it" ie X. But that's not what you asked, you asked if X has source Y that says Z etc. Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I will repeat, if what you are trying to do is somehow reference a sources source, then cite it (or in the alternative, whatever the source said about it's own source). Selfstudier (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood that you had the same position as Masem, which I also did not understand at first. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: There is nothing wrong in citing primary sources as long as it is done in the light of secondary sources. However, we must separate this issue from the issue of whether it is relevant to cite the 2018 review's claim directly. This can be discussed in the talk page in view of the source's sources. I understand that your talk's page position is that the 2018 review's claim is a well supported claim that extends over the 2010 study, even though it only provides this study and a book, which is not a study, as a reference immediately at the end of the claim. I agree that it is something to debate in the talk page, but here we discuss the general principles. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "in the light of", using primary sources to modify/undercut the claims of secondary sources is bad. Basically what you're saying is that you don't think the source cites adequate sources for its claims. But it's simply not our job to perform that kind of detailed peer review. Alexbrn (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

We are turning into a cycle. If there is a consensus that the 2018 claim is considered relevant in view of the source's sources, then it becomes pointless to mention directly the 2010 study. If you are suggesting that editors should not be allowed to consider source's sources to evaluate the source, then you are contradicting yourself (in the first comment you made here) and what seems to be a consensus here, which is that source's sources are relevant. It could be that the source's sources are much better than what it appears first. This is what you are saying when you say that the 2018 claim was not only based on the 2010 study. It should not be too difficult to read the review and figure that out. If you are saying that editors should not be allowed to actually read the review to make a judgment about what are the source's sources for a particular claim, then I think you are a bit fanatical, because, of course, a good encyclopedic work requires to actually read the source and understand it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above. Okay to discuss on Talk. Not okay to use this kind of ersatz "peer review" to originate novel content that the source doesn't have. Alexbrn (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Investigating prior to making a case for unreliability is of course allowed but OR on its own won't be enough to establish that.Selfstudier (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree if you suggest that understanding a source implies OR. This is not what OR is. Conflating discussing a source with OR is sad. It can only reduce the quality of the encyclopedic work that we must do. The only way I can make sense of the negativity toward discussing the source is that you understand the source and you have the impression that anyone who wants to discuss the source wants to say something different. This is negative. You should instead positively assume that a discussion would lead to a consensus about the source, the source's sources, etc. and this will help creating a better verified article and actually avoid original research, which indirectly exists, even if we don't realize it, when the source is not understood. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me, there is nothing wrong with OR as part of establishing source reliability, that's not the same thing as introducing OR into the article. Within limits OR is allowed on talk pages anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think merely seeing the letters OR causes a reaction for many editors, and not necessarily without good reason (editors castigating other editors for OR in contexts that NOR policy doesnt apply to is rampant here, even by people that know better but are hoping their opponents won't). I don't know, maybe it be best to avoid mentioning 'OR' at all when WP:NOR policy doesnt attach - even if that's what it is', just the fact that 'OR' also refers to a policy might be a recipe for misunderstanding. As to your point, I don't agree that it could never be enough; I'll grant it more likely than not wouldn't be, but I'm sure there could turn up some fruit of said OR that coukd be enough to do the job :D 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:2C87:843A:838C:1CE9 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course, OR has a very specific meaning in Wikipedia. It refers to the content of the article and it's always pejorative. Strictly speaking, discussions in the talk page cannot be OR by themselves. @Selfstudier: I interpreted your use of OR to mean that the outcome of the discussions will be OR (in the article being implicit) and I disagreed with that, especially when the purpose of the discussions is to understand the source, because then it's not even OR in any reasonable sense of the term. In fact, it's the other way around. Clearly, not understanding the source is almost a guarantee that OR will result in the article. OR is not a subjective thing. It's not because you stop thinking and blindly put what you feel the source says that you are not doing OR. So, a discussion about the source can only help remove OR. It seems that you worries are in the wrong direction. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The source, a review article published in 2018, says, "there are no known cases of fatal overdose from cannabis use in the epidemiologic literature". If there had been any reliable study from before it was written (which was probably, although that is only my OR guesswork, in 2017) we can assume that the authors would have said something different. The statement was not just that no cases were found in the particular studies cited but that none could be found in the literature. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I start to be convinced by this argument. It's still ambiguous because the review should have provided the methodology used to cover the literature in support of the claim. Instead, it only provides the 2010 study, which I guess must itself must be a review, and a book as references. It needs further debate, but this is not the place for that. It should be done in the talk page of the article. Here we discuss the general principles. This is not a noticeboard to address issues in specific article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger, I think this is an interesting source because of its own citation format. It says There are no known cases of fatal overdose from cannabis use in the epidemiologic literature (Calabria et al, 2010; Hall et al, 2016). I am wondering whether "As of 2010, there are no known cases" would have felt redundant in that situation, because the dates are obvious from the note at the end of the sentence.

Also, since multiple newer sources have started to disagree (pop news story here, but see the article's talk page for proper MEDRS sources), this might be the kind of situation in which editors should be cautious about making absolute claims even if we weren't looking at a source whose statement is based on a 12-year-old paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

While there are exceptions (such as in provable cases of citogenesis), in general the source's sources are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not usually in the business of second-guessing the sourcing of reliable sources. A reliable source may sometimes be clear about its own sources, but just as likely it's relying on hidden sources or the expertise of the author in addition to whatever sources it specifically cites, and this is often an important part of *why* it's reliable. A subject-matter expect who gives their professional opinion without citing specific sources is often a more reliable source than a random person who cites a single study, for example. Loki (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Well put. For good reasons we do not allow original research in Wikipedia articles, but the sources that we rely on to write them often do contain original research, and we have, and can have without creating an infinite regression, no prohibition against that. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an a priori "reliable source". Every reference to a source must be judged in its context and according to its merits. A "usually" reliable source is an unreliable source. If any source uses wrong or unreliable information in a particular instance, it disqualifies the particular source, the reference, therefore the wikitext claim supported by the reference, and therefore the article, and therefore the encyclopedia. In this instance, one can say "according to such-and-such report ..." which allows the reader to accept that information, or not. If the information is time-sensitive, in the sense that a certain study conducted at a certain time supports it, then this is a pertinent fact should be made known in the article, and it properly frames the issue time wise. Otherwise, readers verifying the wikitext claims by looking up the citation may easily discover that the so-called "source" is actually a mouthpiece of the original. They may wonder why that information was not included, in an article about a subject where research is ongoing. The wikitext could claim "according to a 2010 report ... . This was republished in a 2018 report." Or, "according to a 2018 report based on a previous (2010) report ...". 65.88.88.201 (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that people who started editing in the last couple of years have the same idea about WP:RSCONTEXT as those of us who've been around for a decade or more. The idea that a particular source could be reliable for "Based on data from 2010, there had been no overdoses" but not reliable for "There have never been any overdoses" can require deep knowledge of the subject and a lot of experience.

The next sentence in that source, by the way, starts a summary of non-overdose deaths from cannabis. I don't think that it's fair to cherrypick a statement about dying through a specific method while ignoring all the other ways people die from or with cannabis use according to that paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, the thrust of the previous comment narrowly concerned the wikitext the citation is supposed to support. If the citation in effect presents historical data, that should be made clear in wikitext. If the historical data is still valid, that should also be made clear, especially in cases where scholarship is fluid/developing. Cherrypicking, a valid concern, has to do with the article's overall balance, NPOV, and completeness. Depending on such review, the wikitext in question (and its attendant citations) may have to be edited or removed. But that is not the issue here I think. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Following on from the IP editor, with whom I agree, wording such as "A 2018 review of a 2010 study said..." would be acceptable wording. The dates of sources are not always going to be relevant but I can't think of an occasion where including them where they aren't would be detrimental, so if there is a chance they could be pertinent information then its worth including. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The review in question is meant to be an up-to-date survey (as of 2017/2018) of the US epidemiology of cannabis use and associated problems. The authors cite what they can. What they are stating is their view of what is current at the time of review based on the underlying literature, so by putting some old date there Wikipedia would be changing the meaning and intent of the source (and giving a nudge/wink that the source is out of date, right?) Stick to the source, is what I say, and don't risk original research. Alexbrn (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

That's where I am at as well. What is the reason to add "...based on a previous (2010) report..."? Do we know it as a fact that the source has based their judgement only on the 2010 study? Are we to do the same for all the sources' sources? Unless there is some valid reason to doubt the reliability of the source, then go with it, else leave it out and find another. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

If the review in question is supposed to be an up-to-date survey, then the as-of date has semantic importance, and omitting it may slant the article. This has nothing to do with any source's reliability, but with properly presenting facts. If the review itself is based on historical (non-contemporaneous) data, then that is also important. If research is ongoing, this should be pointed out, with the caveat that further studies may or may not support the review. If parts of the review are currently accepted as fundamental and not likely to change, that should be pointed out too - don't say "they are fundamental", say "they are currently accepted as fundamental". These are facts. After all, the view of the universe (including the medical universe) that science has today is radically different from the one it had just 100 years ago. So don't presume anything is written in stone. This is especially so in a general-purpose encyclopedia geared to non-experts, who may have a tendency to accept expert opinion unthinkingly. Assuming all pertinent facts are included and they are presented neutrally relative to their currently accepted weight. And then anyone reading the article may spin the facts any way they are inclined to. 74.64.150.19 (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

In terms of the general question about a source's sources, I think it is useful to distinguish between primary and secondary sources:

• A primary source has, by definition, no direct sources of its own. It may (and in a scientific field usually will) build on earlier work, but in assessing the reliability we have to look to things like peer review, the reputation of the author and the reputation of the venue in which it is published.
• A secondary source does have its own sources, and these are relevant. If they are specified then we can assess their reliability and use that to inform our judgement about the secondary source. If they are not specified then we have to judge matters on the basis of the secondary source alone, but we can be influenced by the nature of the claims (e.g. is it an extraordinary claim, who else is reporting them, whether there are any shared agendas, biases, etc). If a source with a reputation for fact checking is reporting something that is generally in accordance with the prevailing consensus view in all but one aspect, and that difference seems plausible given the contents of the article then it is probably correct. However if that same source reports something that seems way out of line, few details of sources are shared or seem vague then we need to tread lighter.

However, in the overall case it is important to remember that no source is reliable for everything. For example, if The Telegraph, a generally reliable source but one with a noted conservative stance on social issues, said that a new study showed that cannabis was more harmful than previously thought then I would be looking to see where this study came from, who its authors are, etc. If that detail was not available I would definitely not want to see the claim included in Wikipedia's voice. If the source turns out to be a review published and/or funded by an anti-cannabis lobby group that cherry-picked the data then being published in The Telegraph doesn't make it reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Outside of a source classification as primary, which can be tricky: a published court opinion, for eg, is a primary source but is also an authoritative one, and by definition a reliable one regarding the related case. One does not need to cite a secondary source referring to the outcome of a case, or to the rationale of the decision. They can cite the expert opinion (the court's decision) itself.

However, there are issues with some of the comments above. What is a "generally" reliable source? The term is foggy where exactness is required. How is "general" reliability arrived at? Is it reputation? Reputation literally is a subjective quality - it is something "reputed", not something factual, and can never guarantee the reliability of a source for a specific citation. But let's suppose a source, the Telegraph for instance, has been proven reliable after the fact in numerous cases when reporting on social issues. Their reports depicted facts accurately and timely, and the newspaper's declared bias as socially conservative was disclaimed where and when appropriate. Should one blindly trust them as reliable from now on? Of course not. Any more than one should blindly trust The Guardian on social issues. These entities have opinions, or stances, or positions. Encyclopedias are supposed to deal in facts. A citation is an independent event that cares nothing about the prior history of a source's reliability or reputation. Show me the money, every single time. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting a recent thread

Hi! About a month ago or so there was a discussion here (see archived thread) on the need to clarify closing guidelines for RfCs. I was wondering if any changes to the guidelines have been made, and if not which ones should be made. I think there was some agreement on the past thread the guidelines could be improved and I just wanted to make sure they have been.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Notifying editors who participated in the last thread: @JBchrch, Colonestarrice, The Gnome, GoodDay, Giraffedata, Mathglot, and WhatamIdoing. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if the guidelines were improved or not. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to make any changes to the advice we give editors. I also don't think it would be helpful in the particular situation that triggered the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

A._C._Santacruz, after reading that archived thread (though not the discussions that prompted it, which I am not going to do), I'm not entirely clear what exactly it is you were confused about, but I think it was about whether or not it was proper for you to close that discussion (and withdraw the RFC proposal?)? It seems to me there is general consensus that under those circumstances you CAN, with a significant minority dissenting to that view. Most of that discussion seemed academic to me, i.e., the things they were discussing didn't seem to be material to any actual controversy. I agree with WhatIAmDoing. If you happen to find yourself in a position where you've opened a discussion with some kind of proposal, and it quickly becomes abundantly clear that there is no support for what you proposed and leaving it open would be destructive, by all means, close the bastard! And if you get guff for it, just tell them there's nothing in the PaG that prohibit it.

Remember, the policies and guidelines (most of them) are primarily to tell you what you CAN'T do, not what you CAN do. What you CAN do is (mostly) everything else that they don't mention 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:BD9C:7484:82F9:9D21 (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Permission for the person who started an RFC to snow-close it early is literally item #1 at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Number 1 should probably be worded more clearly; it certainly does not say that the OP may snow-close (or any-close) it early, or at any time. What #1 actually says, is that the OP may *withdraw* (not "close") an Rfc whose result is clear. That is to stay, the tag is removed, the Rfc stops, and is not assessed by an independent closer. This doesn't give the OP the right to close an Rfc that appears to be going their way in the initial votes one or two days into the normal running period of an Rfc, although it does give them the opportunity to save everyone else the wasted time of having to weigh in for another 29 days just to change the vote from 6 – 1 to 39 – 3, and perhaps also to avoid the spectacle of having to endure public rejection for another four weeks. Mathglot (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot, it sounds like the box in RFCEND is relevant here: "Some editors make a distinction between "closing" a discussion (discouraging further discussion, usually with the {{closed rfc top}} template pair) and "summarizing" a discussion (naming outcomes)."

I think it's fine to "close" RFCs when your question has been answered. When asked, I never advise editors to summarize contentious discussions that they are "winning". That carries a risk of unnecessary and futile drama. And in this case, the drama would have been entirely futile: the question had already been answered approximately 20 to 1, and the alternative first sentence is still not in the article. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance, and I think that this was certainly an instance in which even any editors who considered themselves to be "losing" should have been able to agree what the result of the discussion was. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"Manned" and related issues

Looking at the prior discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 168#Are we now banning the word "manned"?, there are some cases where using gender neutral language, however appropriate that may be for articles on something involving both men and women, produces extremely difficult problems for an article. The example I have in mind is anything to do with propulsion by oars. In non-technical language, we all call this rowing. However, in any article that goes into any technical detail on the subject, we have the problem that "rowing" has a precise meaning (which, frustratingly, varies with context). In some cases the correct word to use is "pulling". In explaining technical details it is easiest to say, e.g., "...each oarsman pulling one oar". In the context of the affected articles, it would be jarringly wrong to say "...each rower pulling one oar" as rowing and pulling are separate and different activities. Neither can one substitute "crewmember", because some members of the crew are not using an oar - and this can be relevant to the article content. After a lot of thought, I have come to the conclusion that the word "oarsman" has to be used if the articles affected are going to be at all comprehensible.

It appears that the solution to the problem is to have a template that states, in much the way that many legal documents do, that use of "man" should be read as either gender. As a precedent I quote the widely respected yachting author Tom Cunliffe
"In this respect, I fear that English is proving inadequate for the times, and any masculine pronouns should be read as referring to either the male, or the female of our species." (Hand, Reef and Steer 2nd edition (p. 11))
Is such a template available?

We are talking about a small number of articles where the English language is insufficient to deal with the problems of modern usage. I am reluctant to name articles on which I have been working where this has caused difficulty, for fear of alerting single-issue enthusiasts to them, but anyone can search for, e.g., the word "oarsmen" or "oarsman" occurring within articles and see what they find. Note that such a search will produce situations where "men" does mean the male of the species because of the historical role separation that is being described in historical situations - but that is another part of the subject. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

In the context you use as an example, "oarspeople" is a word (albeit not a massively common one) that seems to fit perfectly. In most other contexts there will be other words or the possibility of reprhasing to avoid gendered language. In a few contexts, the "-man" word is used for people of any gender, e.g. fireman (steam engine)#Railways and so no changes are needed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• While I commend TIR's work and logical process (and they're undoubtedly right), I disagree that a template indicating such is necessary. Its presence, (and potentially others if we are going to start defining words where the ready default of interpretation is going to be "it means both men and women" anyway) will just make articles more clunky unnecessarily. As crew, a rower, a sculler, a blade, an oarsman, a bowman, and more, the status quo (now better justified) seems sufficient without further article-side explanation. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe the English language is insufficient. But first, is there really a problem here, and if so, what is it? If the boat is crewed by men, just say, "each oarsmen pulling one oar". If it is crewed by women, say, "each oarswoman pulling one oar". Is the situation about generalities, and not about a particular boat? Then say, "boats can be crewed by men or women, each pulling one oar [, except for the coxswain, who...]". Are there mixed crews? If so, talking about this in the abstract is too difficult; one is being asked to solve a problem that hasn't been fully defined. Please present an actual, real-world situation where you find the difficulty exists, preferably in the form of a long quotation setting up the context (or a link to it), along with the troublesome sentence, and I'm sure we can find a felicitous wording that solves the problem without sounding maladroit. Mathglot (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Mathglot's assessment here. I'd additionally appreciate some indication that relevant RS are diverging from the standard "-men"/"-women" to some other alternatives, both because I believe we should follow the terms the RS use in these fields and it might provide suitable alternatives. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC on WP: SPS and WP: BLPSPS

There is a current discrepancy between how WP: V covers self published sources for BLP's and how WP: BLP covers self published sources for BLP's.

The current text on WP:V (at WP:SPS) is Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

The current text on WP:BLP (at WP:BLPSPS) is Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

The key difference being WP: V says "as third-party sources" and WP: BLP saying "as sources of material".

The question is should we change the text of one to match the other, and if so which one.

Option A No change to either policy text

Option B Change WP: BLP to match WP: V

Option C Change WP: V to match WP: BLP

Option D Some other change

--Kyohyi (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Withdraw/close. Why are we having this RfC? Where is the WP:RFCBEFORE? This appears to be an obvious fix (self-published sources by an article subject are routinely used for non-contentious information about themselves) and KoA fixed it.[3] There are no counter-arguments - indeed no discussion at all I can see. Thus, this looks like a purely bureaucratic RfC. Alexbrn (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Current BLP policy explicitly forbids self-published sources on BLP's unless they are from the BLP. The change you just made on BLP implicitly allows self published sources as long as they are not used as a third-party source. That is a policy change and should get consensus first. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

So the problem is what? Third-party use is excluded so ... ? Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The change is that non-third party use of self published sources on BLP's is going from being explicitly forbidden to implicitly allowed. That's a change and should get consensus first. Since this is something that affects policy that has discretionary sanctions tied to it, local consensus shouldn't be enough. Hence the RFC. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

How's it a change? Third-party sources are prohibited in BLP, just with different wording. Could you give an actual concrete example of something you think would now be allowed that wasn't before? Alexbrn (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't say third-party sources are prohibited in BLP. In all actuality third-party sources are the preferred type of source. What do you think it means to use a source as a third-party source? Is it a Voice issue? The general policies that surround Third-party sources say that articles must be based upon them. Not that we can't use non-third party sources. There is no general prohibition to using non-third party sources, so this change now allows self-published non-third party sources. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't say third-party sources are prohibited in BLP. ← third-party SPS, since this is what we're discussing. It says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people". I repeat: could you give an actual concrete example of something you think would now be allowed that wasn't before? Alexbrn (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Just about any self-published source. Again, what does it mean to use a source as a third-party source? Non-third party sources are not forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. The text doesn't say "never use Third-party self-published sources". Third-party self-published source would be a description of the source, "never use self-published source as a third-party source" is a description of the source, and a description of how it can't be used. Which implies there is a way it can be used. So how do we use third-party sources vs. non-third party sources? The only policy is that we can't base our articles on non-third party sources. This change no longer forbids use of self-published non-third party sources on BLP's. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Just about any self-published source" ← no, only non third-party usages are allowed. I'm trying to understand what you think has changed by asking for an example. For the third time, please, just an example of a source/claim that you think would now be allowed that wasn't before. Alexbrn (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, over at BLPN the Thacker discussion. What text in policy now forbids the useage of the Novella sources. I again ask the question, what does it mean to use a source as a non-third party? --Kyohyi (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"What text in policy now forbids the useage of the Novella sources." As Paul Thacker is a living person, and the 'Novella' sources are by Steven Novella, from Steven Novella's blog, hosted by NESS - an organisation Steven Novella is president of, both the text of WP:V and WP:BLP which you have quoted above prevents their use. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've identified a self-published source as a self-published source. Now get to the part where we talk about what does it mean to use a self-published source as a third-party source. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'm out on this. This is either deliberate trolling or a failure to understand on a basic level, and I am uninterested in finding out which. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• (after edit conflict) Kyohyi, as Alexbrn's question seems to be worded in a way that you do not understand, let me ask it in a different way. Is there any difference between a third-party source and one that is not written or published by the subject of the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kyohyi: Novella's is an SPS and it's usage wrt Thacker would be third-party. So, contrary to policy exactly as now. Alexbrn (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If Novella is in dispute with Thacker about something, Novella and Thacker become first and second party to each other with respect to the dispute. Novella is not a third-party in that instance. They are potentially a person with an axe to grind. In this case with Thacker. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

How's that relevant? This is about sourcing, not imagined legal disputes with their distinct terminology. I put it to you, you simply cannot produce an example of what the wording change, would change. This RfC should be withdrawn or closed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not a source is third-party is now relevant because you've added it as a usage requirement to the policy text. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Third party and self-published are not the same thing. See WP: IS and WP: USESPS. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that, but it is not the question. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A source from a person who is in conflict, or put another way whom has an axe to grind with the article subject would not be third-party. Especially if they are writing about the the topic in which they are in conflict. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"A source from a person who is in conflict, or put another way whom has an axe to grind with the article subject would not be third-party" ← yes it would. And if self-published would not be allowed for biographical content about a living person. Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

No it woulnd't because they are both parties to the dispute. A third party could be someone else commenting on it, but the two parties themselves are not third-party to each-other with respect to the dispute. The text in WP: V would allow that, the Original text in BLP would not. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

In a (legal) dispute there may be "second parties". But this is about sources. The concept of a textual "second party source" does not exist on the English Wikipedia or in writing generally. If somebody is unaffiliated with a source it is a third-party source in respect to them. This is explained at WP:Third-party sources. Alexbrn (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm am more than willing to drop this if you can provide a single argument which can be linked to that would refute this argument here: [[4]]. (Specifically that SPS can be used) I say this because I know this is going to be argued on BLP's and the BLP version is explicit in what it forbids. Whereas the WP: V version needs interpretation and reasoning. Mind you, I don't agree with the argument I linked. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense. But anybody arguing that you can use a SPS as a third-party source for biographical content about living people, is wrong on every front. Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It might not make sense, but can you disprove it. Changing the text to match WP: V would mean we would have to rely on the interpretation of third-party in WP:Third-party sources to have the same effect as the original text WP: BLP. Third-party sources is an explanatory supplement, which has all the same weight as an Essay. So we go from relying on the text of a policy to having to rely on the text of the policy and the text of an essay. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Nonsensical things are not amenable to proof or disproof. If "third-party" is too difficult for some readers there may be merit in having the BLP text at WP:V too. Alexbrn (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed this too about Kyohyi's lines of comments and others trying to insist there are issues with V and R policy language on SPS sources in BLPs. It comes across as hand-waving that something is going to drastically change if we follow existing policy language the community has always been following, yet with no concrete examples provided (instead shifting the burden to others). It seems so odd that there's such a hard push against policy, yet when pushed actual issues that would justify C votes, nothing. KoA (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Kyohyi, maybe it would help if you made it clear who made that comment you just linked, or maybe even asked them what they were talking about instead of insinuating things and running with it so far as to start an RfC? There's a reason why Alexbrn said it didn't make sense, because you were taking me way out of context.

The niche use I was alluding to in that case is described in WP:BLPPRIMARY: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions . . . That language is in part why the community uses the independent/third-party language because it stresses the need for those kinds of sources, especially when an SPS is going to be mentioned significantly in a BLP in terms of WP:DUE. There are plenty of examples of that in articles when outside sources deemed an SPS said something noteworthy for the subject. KoA (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for getting the exception you were going for wrong. However, under current wording on BLP, primary self-published sources would not be allowed. BLPPRIMARY says may, so sources which are primary but not self-published could be allowed under current BLP. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

BLPPRIMARY is policy and explicit that primary sources are possible to be used regardless of SPS or not when there is another accompanying appropriate source. Again, you're missing what our guidance is actually saying overall and kind of tilting at windmills as a result. That confusion could have been addressed at the policy page itself instead of launching a premature RfC. All other guidance in this subject is linked to focus on independent/third-party sources because we do have that very limited use where SPS can be cited according to policy and in long-standing practice. KoA (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Since BLPRIMARY subjects itself to BLPSPS (note "subject to the restrictions in this policy" BLPSPS is a restriction in BLP) I find it hard to believe that it allows something that BLPSPS forbids. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Option A. A dictionary definition of third party e.g. "a person or group besides the two primarily involved in a situation, especially a dispute" appears to suggest that a person in a dispute with the BLP subject is not a third party. I thank Kyohyi for bringing this up. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Option C: Originally I read those two sentences as meaning the same thing, under the interpretation that a third-party source was simply one not published by the subject, and was consequently going to vote for Option A. However, upon closer reading of WP:INDY, it seems like the wording in WP:V would technically also allow us to use self-published sources if they are engaged in a dispute with a BLP, which is obviously dumb and not intended. The wording in WP:BLP avoids this and so we should change the wording in WP:V to match it. Loki (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• C per Loki. The two intend to say the same thing but BLP says it better than V. We should avoid the use of the confusing jargon "third party", which means different things in different contexts. Levivich 16:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • While I think C is better than B (meaning, BLP's language is better than V), I would also be OK with D something else that said the same thing in a simpler way, such as "Don't use WP:SPS for WP:BLP content unless it's WP:ABOUTSELF." Levivich 19:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

    ^ This. That's basically what we mean. (Only, for clarity, that's "content about a BLP", not "content that happens to be in a BLP article but which isn't itself about a BLP". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

    Shouldn't pretty much all content in a BLP article be about the BLP? And if we've broadened what we can have in a particle BLP to be beyond the BLP itself should we allow self published sources that aren't by the BLP? --Kyohyi (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

    "BLP content", which (WAID is right) is better said "content about a living person", doesn't only appear in a BLP article. There are non-BLP articles that still have "BLP content". Hence, WP:BLP applying on all pages, not just biographies. I think it's conceivable but rare that a BLP article might properly use some EXPERTSPS source for some fact that is not about any living person. (In these situations I always remind myself that the breadth of Wikipedia's topical coverage is far wider than my imagination, so it's nearly impossible for me to conceive of all possible situations.) Levivich 15:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

    My concern is running into guilt by association and coatrack issues. Generally per WP: OR we have to include sources that are related to the topic of the article. In this case we're talking about a biography of a living person, so do we really want to include self-published content not about the biography on that biography? The opposite end would be if the article is not a biography, but has biographical information of people related to the article. I suppose it depends on how much of an article is a BLP, and how much is not, but I think if we present it primarily as a BLP we should keep to BLP sourcing. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

    There are two potential holes in the policy wording:

    • Content in a BLP article that isn't (directly) about the subject of the article
    • Content in a non-BLP article that is about a living person.

    Both of these happen frequently, when we write about events, organizations, scientific research, products, etc.

    The second is easily handled: whenever you are writing about a living person, then you follow BLP standards no matter what the rest of the page is about. "Alice Expert discovered the genetic mutation" in an article about a disease – BLP standards for that sentence. "Paul Politician condemned the state of the world" in an article about a social problem – BLP standards for that sentence. Experienced editors already know this and do this.

    The first is not actually that difficult, but it might be harder to notice. Imagine an article about a famous politician or business person. The article will mostly be about the person (e.g., early life, education, personal life, things they said or did). However, some parts of the article might need to include relevant context, so that the reader can understand what's going on. An article about a senior politician, for example, might need to say something about the state of the country's economy, which isn't BLP content, so that particular bit needn't meet BLP standards. An article on a university professor might need to say something about how well the academic's theories were received, which isn't BLP content. An article about someone who invented a product might need to say something about whether the product is any good, or whether the company was successful, which isn't BLP content.

    It is not really unusual to have an article that is approximately half about a person and half about the band/company/book/thing they created. That's okay. Coatracks are a problem when the content that is hanging on to the ostensible subject obscures the real subject. We're happy to have an article that is about both Fiona Famous and her Famous Foundation; we are less happy to have an article titled Famous Foundation that is 90% about food insecurity. We've got an article about Food insecurity; we don't need a dumbed-down version of that information under another title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• D - I have long felt that these clauses are both written - and, more importantly, interpreted - too broadly. I would support them if they were limited to sourcing controversial BLP material, or if they were limited to sources in dispute with a (BLP) subject. But currently these clauses prevent us from directly citing in memoriam blog posts about colleagues, and even ban self-published expert analyses of living authors' professional contributions (the latter may or may not be an intended reading of WP policy, but it is definitely used that way). So I would like to see both passages reined in, rather than setting one the same as the other. Newimpartial (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Am I missing something It looks as though we are discussing changes in at least one if not two of our major policies. Without mentioning it at either policy's talk page or WP:CENT. Am I right? Doug Weller talk 16:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  My apologies, I have added RFC notices to both policy pages. However I have no idea how the CENT template is supposed to work. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  I listed it at WP:CENT. Levivich 19:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Option C The clauses are intended to mean the same thing, but I agree with Loki and Levivich that C is clearer. If it's ever proposed, I would support (D) changing both to an imperative, such as "Self-published sources can only be used as a source of material about the person who wrote the source" (obv. word-smithing needed, of course). Schazjmd (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• This RFC and the related situation has a lot of issues and should probably be terminated. Maybe start by opening a discussion at WP:VER about adopting the BLP wording (Option C) North8000 (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I made the original edit that triggered this, and I'll agree with others that this should probably be withdrawn/closed due to failing WP:RFCBEFORE. I won't have much time if any to respond to this more in-depth until the weekend. It honestly comes across more as steamrolling between blanket reverting already accepted clarifying language in policy even if they only disagreed with a small part of it in addition to jumping to a premature RfC. I do especially find it odd how even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer policy was reverted without any mention of it since, which is a pretty strong indication Kyohyi is rushing too much and glossing over a lot in the rush to make an RfC before there could be any input on its formation.

When I was making the edit over at BLP, that was just intended as basic clarifying language that had already been adopted as policy on SPS's for years. Nothing to significantly change either policy, and if anything, strengthening the policy through clarification the community had accepted as policy. The whole point of the language at WP:SPS policy is answering why self-published sources don't have the standing to be used as independent or third-party sources, so it's unclear why editors would want to weaken BLP policy when both WP:SPS and WP:RS/SPS policies are already clear and stronger by using that language. WP:INDY (a high-quality supplement that is practically cited as a guideline) is clear on why we need to rely on good independent/third-party sources, as well as the nuances of that language. KoA (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

As an afterthought, let's play devil's advocate for a bit though and assume that the text clarification at BLP actually was altering policy on the page. In that case, reverting the change would be violating established policy at both WP:R and WP:V on SPS's in BLPs. If two different policies disagree with you about including the third-party/independent language, that's a major issue in trying to claim any sort of consensus, much less the extremely high bar of proof needed of actual issues two change two other policies that's lacking here. KoA (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Option C/D. I would remove this wording: "unless written or published by the subject of the article". It is very common that someone publish highly promotional materials about himself; some of that can be even a misleading information. Let's say the current place of work can be incorrect, etc. One needs strong 3rd party RS for BLP. That is the idea. While using self-published views by an expert on the subject of their expertise can be OK in many cases, I do not think that using self-published self-promotional materials is OK. My very best wishes (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option C/D. I think that the BLP wording may be a little clearer, especially for people who aren't sure how to go about Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. However, I think that BLP's "unless written or published by the subject of the article" wording is overly restrictive. Imagine an article about a crime, e.g., Theft of Alice's sandwich from the office refrigerator. We would normally include a statement from any accused, e.g., "Bob denied stealing Alice's lunch", even if that denial is cited only to a social media post. The current BLP language technically says that you cannot use a self-published denial from Bob, about Bob, because "the subject of the article" is an event, not a person. That does not align with actual practice. The language should be changed to something like "unless written or published by the subject of the material". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option C/D: I take Newimpartial's view here, more or less; absent that, I'm sympathetic to WAID's. It's fairly absurd that we can't cite memorials on a university blog, to give one of the former's examples. (It's a lot worse a BLP violation to list a dead person as living for years, at the top of their search results, in the most prominent forum about their life, than to cite the SPS of someone who knew them well and can confirm their passing.) Vaticidalprophet 19:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Can you give examples of BLP subjects who are notable, who died, and for whom we had no sources about their death except an SPS source? I didn't realize this was something that happened. Levivich 19:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    • "As far as we can tell someone is dead, but the RSes are absent" happens often enough to have come up barely a month ago, with reference to other cases as well. Both referenced cases there are just ones involving Wikipedians and their friends, so unusually likely to make it to high-profile backstage areas. It's a perennially tricky subject that tends to get wrapped up in both SPS issues and BLPPRIMARY issues. Vaticidalprophet 19:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Does this just happen with the death of BLP subjects or does it happen with other key facts, too? I'm wondering what kind of "D" language would cover this issue. Levivich 20:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

One caveat with university "blogs" is that they often aren't actually blogs in the traditional sense. The third sentence of WP:BLPSPS covers this in the context of news orgs using blog in a slightly different sense (for better or worse), and the same model applies to many universities even if it's lesser known. It would really depend if it's a personal blog vs. the university owned one that would generally have oversight. KoA (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

University "blogs" might not be blogs in the traditional sense, but they are not the same as blogs by a news org. A university blog might be best classified as a press release. You can {{cite press release}}, and you can {{cite blog}}, but you can cite them only for information about living people who could be considered "themselves". For organizations (everything from the most storied of academic organizations down to the scummiest of snake-oil sellers, and encompassing every kind of for-profit and non-profit organization in between), we normally interpret "themselves" as including anyone who works for them. Thus you can cite a self-published, self-interested source that says "Big University is delighted to announce that Prof. I.M. Portant has discovered that water is wet" about the living person, I.M. Portant, but you cannot cite such a source about people not belonging to the organization (e.g., "thus proving once and for all that his rival, Author Itative of Little University, is all wet").

Back to the example here, one could cite an official university source (whether that's a blog managed by the publicity department or a press release, but perhaps not a social media post by a fellow colleague) to report the death. I wouldn't recommend using such a source for glowing information.

If you are interested in this subject, then do please read Obituary and make a mental note about the difference between "a news article" and "a paid advertisement". Everything at, e.g., Legacy.com and its competitor falls into the second category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This is probably going on a tangent at this point for this RfC, not I'm not referring to university press release style blogs, but actual news (typically science news or educational material) they put out. Usually that's through extension.[5] Often times they'll also mention retirements, deaths, etc. of researchers at the university, though that can vary. That's a very different setup than say a researcher's personal lab blog that really is often more of a personal blog. KoA (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This is still information written by the university and that the university makes available to the public. It is still self-published by the university. Fortunately, we interpret instances of an employer writing about the employer's own employees (e.g., a university self-publishing a message about an employee's retirement or death) as an instance of ABOUTSELF. Those sources are just plain old self-published blogs and are acceptable sources for any BLPs who are part of the organization that is writing and publishing the material about themselves.

A WP:NEWSBLOG is not a blog that contains news. A NEWSBLOG is a publication by a normal news media organization that happens to use a blog format (or at least that they prefer to market as a type of blog). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the type of university news blog posts I am describing are what you just described for news organizations. Still mostly a tangent for this specific topic though, so maybe something best discussed on talk elsewhere if it interests you. KoA (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• B followed by A and D. Insisting on C across all other policies instead of changing the single line at BLP is just WP:NOTBUREAU as others have mentioned, and weakens or ignores BLP policy itself. I didn't consider it a big deal, but still helpful, when I made that edit at BLP originally, and opposition to it (C), seems to be glossing over our inter-related policies and missing key details. Tl;dr at the bottom for skimmers.

Here's what is added to the BLP page (italics) + the IS wikilink when it matches the language at all other policy pages that say what we do with SPS sources at BLPs: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer, unless written or published by the subject of the article.[6]

There's nothing wrong with the long-standing accepted language at WP:V and WP:R policies, and it only strengthens the single line at BLP that doesn't use it. Withdraw/close is really my first choice above for being so out-of-process with WP:RFCBEFORE at the BLP page and attempts to avoid even starting discussion, but it doesn't hurt to clarify what policy actually says here instead of the skimming past what the actual history was.

Functionally, it doesn't change anything in policy implementation by adding it to BLP for those that actually read through the web of connected policies, but it gives clarification behind the why of how SPS are an issue, and adds stronger language about it not mattering who the SPS was written by. I'm also amazed people have been trying to remove the expert, professional researcher, etc. bit from BLP when it was added too. Here's actually what the policies say:

• V policy at WP:SPS: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. Noting that V is a core content policy, and is generally considered stronger than other non-core policies and can't be overridden so readily.

• R policy at WP:RS/SPS uses the same language except it says independent sources instead of third-party. WP:IS is one of our main policy supplements (really surprised no one has bumped it up to guideline yet) making it clear we generally treat third-party/independent as interchangeable on Wikipedia. The take home message there instead of someone hyper focusing on the language is we want sources that are independent and distanced from events or primary sources, regardless of BLP or not.

No one should be opposed to stressing why third-party/independent sources are so important. What that language stresses is that SPS sources don't have the standing to be considered distant or independent enough, so they are functionally treated like primary sources. Anyone who's worked in WP:MEDRS areas would know what kind of aversion I have to primary sources, so the wild claims that already existing policy is going to allow widespread SPS's across BLPs is pretty unsubstantiated. As other's have said responding to those claims, since you can't use an SPS source as a third-party source, then what exactly are you going to use it as? Hint, you're not going to be able to just plop an SPS in to a BLP so easily, and that's why functionally nothing changes aside from strengthening against possible wikilawyering by having more explanation the community has already approved in policy.

What existing policy does is essentially reduce SPS's to primary sources we already can't use carte blanche in any plain meaning. The reason why V and R policy use the independent/third-party language though is both because SPS don't meet that, but also because BLP policy does have a carveout that the community regularly uses, WP:BLPPRIMARY: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. If something mentioned by an SPS, and another reliable source mentions it in a WP:DUE manner, the SPS can be cited alongside the secondary source as verification/supplement in that limited fashion. This is already how the community approaches this issue.

That's why C would be a dead-stop no because it would conflict with other policies, including parts of BLP. That's how the independent/third-party language links into to many other core parts of our editing policy and creates a solid web of strong BLP policy instead of having a single line of BLP that some people may focus on while ignoring the other parts of policy that discuss it.

Tl;dr for B.

1. Multiple policies use stronger language than BLP (including core content policies that have higher standing), and the single line in part of BLP is largely the lone wolf of policies commenting on BLP SPS's.
2. It's longstanding approved policy language that only adds clarification to BLP and shouldn't be controversial.
3. Third-party/independent only strengthens why SPS use is restricted.
4. If someone disagrees with B's language (though I'm open to things like D), that means they're disagreeing with what practically every other policy on BLP SPS's have to say and is an extremely high bar to overcome.
5. BLP policy itself actually does allow SPS citation in very limited instances when secondary sources are involved, so technically current BLP language isn't technically correct in that one line. B fixes that while adding stronger language.
6. B has already been policy for years and hasn't caused the widespread SPS use some C !votes are claiming since it doesn't change what we functionally already do.
7. This RfC's formation really isn't suited for tackling what lead to this or focused enough to manage widespread D options. KoA (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• B, largely per KoA. I will note that I believe that this RFC is proper and doesn't need to be withdrawn. BilledMammal (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• No change required because both sentences already say the same thing. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. [i.e. independently written ['third-party'] SPS are not acceptable sources for BLPs] vs. Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. [i.e. SPS are not acceptable sources for BLPs, unless they are written by the subject of the BLP themself (and, one would hope, to avoid issues with WP:PRIMARY, also mentioned in an independent secondary source as well) - i.e. if they are not "independently written"]. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales has an RFC

Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

On the importance of proper documentation, or lack thereof

Look at my recent contribution and see how I edited an archived lock request, because the super editor who fulfilled it didn't comment, and another one came and saw it was protected and asked to archive my request. It bothers me, because, if you do document things, and have this very nifty bureaucracy with all these rules... why bother with them if you only do it properly 50% of the time?. In the end it doesn't really matter, to me at least, but if you bother, and have archive of requests dating back 10 years... The least you can do is maintain it properly. And, if it's not obvious, I ask for it to be protected after it was vandalized 79 times since Norm's death! So my "little" contribution of asking for it to be protected, is kind of a big deal, to me at least. I feel I earned feeling good about this contribution. But then comes some random editor and robs of me of this little triumph, and of course this awesome icon . I suggest, you decide that the person who does the lock needs to comment. If he doesn't the least that needs to be done is for the one who archives it, to detail the protection type and period. What do you say? Am I right or I'm just being a jackass? I know that if it was my organization, I'd be very upset about the inconsistent documentation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benderbr (talk • contribs) 20:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

lol sorry forgot to sign as usual Benderbr (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You asked for a page to be protected and it has been protected. What's the problem? Nobody should care who was the first person to spot that it needed protection, and I would suggest that anyone who does care about such things does not have the right temperament for editing Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

WP is a crowd-sourced, decentralized, half-regimented and half-chaotic mess that has somehow created the best encyclopedia in the world. Expecting every single i to be dotted and t to be crossed to your liking is going to lead to nothing but frustration and heartache. I understand your point. I understand TBF's point. At the end of the day, you have to let go of little stuff like this. How much time have you spent now, worrying about something that no one, literally, will ever, ever look at again. How much of TBF's time? I had an example of me getting annoyed at something similar in my early days here, but it got eaten when I clicked the wrong button and I don't have the heart to retype it. So you'll have to trust me that I really do understand, but I also really do think you need to let stuff like this go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm perfectly fine with adding the awesome green plus icon to the archive. Some like barnstars, some like green plus icons, some like a high edit count, some like cookies. Receiving something logged/persistent for a volunteer contribution isn't a completely crazy desire. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry I used my personal history with TBF as the example. In my mind, it was easier than explaining. I don't really care about it, it's just that coming to ask for the lock, I couldn't submit my request at first, as It didn't follow the format, was too long, IDK? So I figured this is a very bureaucratic place. But then it's more like "Whatever goes", which is fine yeah? I was just under the (what appears to be, false) impression that you really dig all this formality and rules. I'm really asking, how things are? Is how things are (which I actually don't really mind as a user) is how it's supposed to be, or at least the power users vision? Is there any chance for automation of the process, so TBF doesn't waste his time with weirdos like me? Just so it's clear, I really don't care, it's just confusing. Are all edits meaningfull, or this green icon is like a gold star sticker for a small child? I think you might just stop with describing what was done altogether, as the lock icon on the article has the lock period on the tooltip. TL;DR - I think documentation should be 100% or 0%. Maybe it doesn't actually matter that every lock request is archived? IDK. I'm just asking questions. And I do want to publicly apologize to TBF, I did came off agressive and weird, I was trying to be funny and it's obviously didn't work. I appreciate all of you power users who help keep this place in one piece. It's a great wiki and I didn't mean to offend anyone or suggest I was wronged or anyone did anything wrong. I'm just asking - does it matter? maybe this interaction can lead to policy changes of what needs to be done, what's important (like you said, no one will look at the archives, right?). Anyhow I have nothing to add but I wanted to clarify, it's not about my personal thing, I tried to ask "in general" but everyone here took it as if I'm dissing TBF great work, which is not at all what I meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benderbr (talk • contribs) 22:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

There are really no worries from my side. And as I pushed relatively strongly in favor of the creation of WP:RFPP/A, I obviously share the desire for proper documentation. I just thought that had happened. As there has been a disagreement about whether it happened, I have also already fixed it in a way that seems to address the concerns. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to read the screed above, it would be a waste of time (our most previous resource). You asked for the page to be protected, quite rightly, and it was protected - the job that needed doing was done. Worrying about exactly how the archives should look is beurocracy for its own sake. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It does contain an apology, though, Girth Summit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmph. Maybe I should have read it. Really though - this is a lot of words, about very little. Colour me grumpy. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Nah totally my fault. It's multifaceted question, and I tend to write long scrolls. If anything, this is critical of you (oops). Think of it like code, you need to save the proper comments. It's not about this anecdotal example, I was trying to exaggerate it to show how it might rub off wrong on some editors. I'm very thankful for the great work all of you are doing, and I try to bring to your attention, that I think it can be done automatically, and you mods being virtual janitors is kinda weird to me. Maybe posting this in policy discussion wasn't the right place, and me not trying to condense it and simplify it... well I just can't I guess? See I can't help it. Maybe the contributors are happy with the repeating administrative actions? To me it seems like a waste of your time. If you don't agree, I totally understand. I'm just a tiny editor, fix here fix there. TL;DR - I'm just trying to be helpful, I'm not good at draftsmanship. I do apologize deeply for any grievances, didn't intend for it, all of you keep with the awesome work. --Benderbr (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to adjust the TFA re-running period

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article § Adjusting the TFA re-running period. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Abolish the current version of NSPORTS

Abolish the current version of NSPORTS. This page, far from being rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article, does not help the decision process, but actively hampers it. Examples are countless of one group of editors (whether it be football, olympics, or plenty of others) arguing that an article should be kept because (correctly or not) its subject "passes N[some random sport]" or that "sportsperson from long time ago, there WP:MUSTBESOURCES"; and others correctly arguing that the existing coverage is not sufficient to write an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a database entry). This leads to needless conflict, pointless AfDs and DRVs, and above all bureaucratic waste of time. Abolishing this guideline and falling back directly to GNG would also help in reducing issues of WP:BIAS and the disproportionate amount of (usually white, male, European) sports figures that are included, as well as make policy more understandable to newer and more experienced editors alike by avoiding issues of WP:CREEP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (NSPORTS)

• Support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  N.B. This is without prejudice to rewriting it from scratch RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Update. I agree that the current text is very woolly, but it is better to stipulate for sports, very much like academics is tough and specific. Sports need a proper and rigorous guideline.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Davidstewartharvey: The problem is that even updating the guidelines takes unreasonable effort and time (see, for example, this massive RfC which dealt just with Olympics). While more rigourous guidelines might be desirable and even necessary (although, in the end, GNG is a reasonable fall back), I think NSPORTS is currently so disappointing that it might be better to kick the whole rotten structure down and start with a blank slate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• The time saved is, by definition, on-wiki activity that is absent: it guides many quiet article creators in not creating articles for the large numbers of sports people who are less likely to meet English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. When a subject-specific criterion is written with a high level of accuracy regarding the ability for the subject to meet Wikipedia's standards, it also helps filter deletion discussions to those that are closest to the border line. For this to work in practice, though, the criteria must be refined as needed, and the underlying consensus that supported the establishsment of the criteria must be taken into account during deletion discussions, rather than each one trying to establish that consensus again from scratch. In particular, each deletion discussion shouldn't have to re-establish the consensus view that the entire set of subject-specific criteria has support, including any deference to the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Conversely, the time "not saved" is also that of seemingly experienced editors ([well known editor with over 90k created articles] as the prime example, but surely not the only one) creating hundreds and even thousands of articles on people who meet subject-specific criteria which are actually too generous (which often happen to be the ones from the most popular sports...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Consider what would happen if there were no additional guidance: articles on sports figures playing/coaching in local leagues with local game coverage would get created on top of the ones that are being created now, exacerbating the issue of screening all of them. isaacl (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Local coverage (which frequently is not truly independent either) is already not usually considered enough for most topics (Wikipedia:LOCALCOVERAGE redirects to NCORP, but in practice local newspapers are usually not enough, whether it be for corporations or sports figures). If absolutely needed, it would in any case be far easier to start anew and simply have a sentence like Routine coverage of local league games in local newspapers is not a reliable indicator of notability. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, as you know, I've discussed many times how local promotional coverage is not suitable for determining if a subject should have an article. But regarding your point about time spent discussing whether or not an article would be deleted, even more time would get spent if the sports-specific notability criteria for certain popular sports were eliminated. isaacl (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree with the premise that local coverage "frequently is not truly independent" -- such a statement is broad, unsupported, and potentially biased.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  It does not make sense to say that deletion would loosen the criteria. WP:Notability says that if it meets GNG, it does not need to meet the SNG. So the SNG is only capable of bypassing GNG, not toughening it. North8000 (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Well, I didn't say that the criteria would become loosened. The point is that more articles that are candidates for deletion would get created, thus more time would need to be spent on them. isaacl (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Update I agree with Davidstewartharvey's point above. I see deleting the guideline wholesale will do much more short-term harm than good, so I'd rather even a short 3-4 paragraph replacement be added and then the community can build on that. A good, well-written list of concerns with the current version that can gain consensus and then be added to that talk page could help prevent it becoming the mess it is now, as well. Additionally, I know most of these sports have WikiProjects, so I wonder if some of the information on the page is better suited to be placed within the WikiProjects.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  If an updated version is to be rewritten and deletion opposed, where should this happen? Would a subpage of the talk page of NSPORTS be the proper location to draft the new guideline in? I'd be interested in helping improve the guideline once I'm more free in February. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I definitely think we have a problem with our coverage of sports and especially individual athletes. The SNGs, though, aren't really rules so much as peace treaties that exist between the forces that want certain content deleted and the same content kept and the attempt to simply abolish SNGs is (i) likely not to work, (ii) if successful increases IAR voting at AfD, creative interpretation of guidelines, and general resistance to follow policy, and (iii) lowering of trust between the sides. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, but significantly rewrite - There remains a need for a guideline… but the current version isn’t it. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose All notability criteria work both ways, as isaacl explains above. Articles that fail the criteria are quickly deleted, yet the deletionists ignore these in their efforts to get rid of the SNGs they don't like because they like the current result for those articles. The reason there are a ton of sports articles on Wikipedia is because sports are one of the most popular things on the planet, and sports generates a ton of coverage (primarily at the top tier of sports). Also, the point about bias is just plain wrong, having objective criteria reduces bias. If GNG was the only thing we looked at, the only articles that would get written are those covered in English language sources, which would disproportionally be about primarily white, male, European/North American, modern and wealthy sports. Iffy★Chat -- 17:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Plain wrong. The number of white, male, European sportspersons which are included because of overly loose SNGs is far larger than the amount of non-white non-male sportspersons which are also included because of it. And the fact is, there are far more non-GNG meeting examples of the former (the countless early 20th-century footballers) than of the latter (not that both kinds shouldn't be deleted, since this is an encyclopedia and not a database], and as it stands the former are far less likely to actually be deleted because, guess what, they "meet N[SPORT] and there are likely offline sources". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think you're underestimating how much football and cricket is played in non-European countries when considering how many athletes are filtered out by rules of thumb. isaacl (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The "needless conflict" is often WP:WIKILAWYERING around Wikipedia:Notability clearly stating (emphasis added): A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right... Fear not, NSPORTS allows that meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. It's up to !voters to decide what is appropriate for a given case and for closers to respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants (WP:DGFA)—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That's an (interestingly partial) schema for the "meets NSPORT, doesn't need to meet GNG, keep" line of argument. Another (some would say more natural, given an express proviso of NSPORT I imagine you're familiar with) reading is "doesn't meet GNG, delete". If you want less wikilawyering, have clearer rules. As it stands, we might as well remove the guideline, and just have "IAR, keep", "IAR, delete", and "I counted the !votes, and we decided to delete/keep accordingly". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

    If you want less wikilawyering, have clearer rules. It goes without saying.—Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

    This is a serious misconception. Attempting to make rules more specific will (without exception) lead to more arguments. Theknightwho (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

    As it stands, we might as well remove the guideline, and just have "IAR, keep", "IAR, delete" Without getting into WP:BEANS, I'd wait to see if a new pattern forms. As currently written, the top of WP:N and WP:SNG clearly allow citing SNGs to establish notability.—Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Of course NSPORTS also says In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. and A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject., so we wouldn't be here if editors actually respected that part and ensured that articles they wrote or voted on actually had substantive coverage. Reywas92^Talk 05:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

    It reads (emphasis added) ...articles should should meet the General Notability Guideline. Those that want it tightened should get consensus to change to "shouldmust meet the General Notability Guideline." As an aside, I generally cite ~3 sources of significant coverage when creating bios.—Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support NSPORTS has been used as an excuse to create vast number of articles for non-notable sports people. The excuse given is that the person "passes" NSPORTS, even though the article created does not show notability. OK, the article can go to AfD but the effort required to delete an article is vastly more than that needed to create it. In the time taken to delete one article though AfD, Countless 100s of new non-notable articles have been created. If the article does go to AfD there's often "votes" along the lines of "KEEP Passes NSPORTS" (substitute the sport of your choice here), as if satisfying NSPORTS was relevant at this stage, when the purpose of the AfD is to determine whether it passes WP:N. Many attempts have been made to tighten specific NSPORTS. Nearly all have failed (although WP:NOLY is the one notable exception), with members of the relevant WikiProject almost always opposing along the lines of "we're happy as it is, leave it alone." Many here will say that it just need a bit of fine tuning. I'm afraid that's a million miles from the truth. The only sensible way forward is to delete NSPORTS completely. Nigej (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I suspect the community's frustration is with a few specific sports, who blindly assume that because sport X gets sufficient coverage in one English-speaking country, it must get the same amount of coverage for any countries' top league. Because there's Google hits (from a site most here aren't fluent in and wouldn't know if it's reliable either) Many other sport criteria are more restrictive and true to the 95-99% "truly notable" rate that SNGs should strive for.—Bagumba (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I suspect a lot of the problem is that everyone suspects the problem is some other sport than their own area of editing! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support deletion (but allow more thoughtful re-creation from scratch.) This SNG has become the bane of the entire wp:notability universe. An example of a serious problem is the "did it for a living for one day" criteria; meeting that criteria allows an article to bypass all notability sourcing criteria. Since that criteria applied elsewhere would mean billions of Wikipedia articles bypassing wp:GNG, it makes a laughingstock of the more credible wp:notability requirements. And, per a study I did, these have numerically flooded Wikipedia even to the point of significantly affecting the low percentage of articles on females vs. males. And then the individual items given notability (only) by the SNG ripples through into endless articles that are compendiums of them, ones like "players who scored more than 20 points in the 2013 season playoffs" The "did it for a living for one day" criteria alone is embedded in many many places in the SNG, and add in the other significant problems embedded in may places that it would take at least dozens of changes in the SNG to fix it, which is never going to happen, and doubly so by the sports fans who run the sports SNG. So the only way to fix it is delete it, but allow it to more thoughtfully start over. Each addition should meet the "is it good to bypass WP:GNG and sourcing requirements with this?" test. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I did my own study about a year ago: User:Nigej/sandbox. I compared the number of articles were have for different sports with this list: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5, which has no status but is a carefully thought out list of 50,000 vital articles. In that "50,000" list there are 1,200 sports people out of 15,000 people (8%, although it was only 7% when I produced these numbers). In contrast over 30% of all biographical articles are sports people and its not far off 50% for living people. Some sports are even more stark than this. There are 110 Association football players in the "50,000" list, 0.7% of the 15,000 biographies in that list. However they make up nearly 10% of all Wikipedia biographies and 15% of those for living people. 0.7% or 15%, quite a difference. Nigej (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  My study was on 1,000 random articles. 31% of all biographies in the entire Wikipedia were sports people, and 86% of all sports bios were on males. North8000 (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Remarkably my numbers 580000/1870000 work out at 31.01% Nigej (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  This is a meaningless comparison, as the number of biographies from Level 1 to Level 5 increases from 0% to 30% (and sport-specific from 0% to 8%), and we should also expect the reasonable percentage of sport-specific biographies to differ from Level 5 to Wikipedia's entire scope. This is because some fields will be more suited than others to large numbers of bios on the lower end of notability (while still comfortably over the line). — Bilorv (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose but only because ... this should be "Delete all SNGs". You can't deprecate one and not others, especially as there are far worse ones than NSPORTS. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Nearly all other SNGs have criteria based on merit or recognition by the topic, whuch are things that one can presume discussion about that merit or recognition (eg secondary sourcing). Most of NSPORTs criteria are less about merit and more simply defining by stats, which do not necessarily show evidence of possible secondary sources. That leaves us which articles that are simple career profiles but do not explain why the athlete is notable. --Masem (t) 18:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • "Merit" is not how I would describe SNGs/GNG/notability. It's not about success, but coverage of any form. For instance, in WP:NFO#1, we see that two major reviews is a good standard for a widely released film being notable—whether those are raves or tear the film to shreds. (See Notability is not a meritocracy.) In contrast, I would say that NSPORTS is almost uniquely about merit, as it requires successful performance at lower leagues to be recruited to a team where one game played will grant you a pass on an NSPORTS criterion. — Bilorv (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you could view doing it to the most problematic SNG as a step towards that. For the others the issue is less serious and would require a bigger fix. Which would be to evolve wp:notability the to point where SNG's are no longer needed. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see the evidence for such a nuclear option, so would appreciate more clarification on why SNGs are inherently problematic. Hope this doesn't sound passive-aggressive A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  @A. C. Santacruz: I wouldn't use as strong of a word as "problematic" for the others. More like "it would solve and tidy up a lot of smaller issues". Happy to expound but that is a huge topic not directly relevant here.North8000 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  North8000 I'd love to hear you out at my talk page at some point :). Always good to learn more about the effects/issues of PAGs.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Well, take WP:NWEB. "High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller websites can also be notable". Well, thanks for that ... and don't get me started on WP:BAND. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • The fact that nearly 50% of all biographies of living people are sports competitors convinces me that the problem is with NSPORTS and not with the other SNGs. Nigej (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• I don't particularly like NSPORTS, especially the guidelines where a single game in a certain league is viewed as evidence of notability, while a whole career in another league is dismissed. It fails both when used to include people and to exclude people. Generally, I'd like us to develop better ways of merging / listifying the information we have about athletes: we could still keep most of the information, but only write individual articles when there is something to write about. Just dropping NSPORTS now would probably result in a bit of chaos. —Kusma (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Supporting per some people below and experience with deprecating other SNGs, but I still suggest to attempt some mergist way forward to combine database-sourced entries in a useful way. —Kusma (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I don't believe that the SNGs quietly guide article creators to help them make articles about notable subjects and avoid making topics about non-notable subjects. If that were true, we wouldn't have so many non-notable articles. In fact, I think it does the opposite: it gives license to mass-article-creators to create thousands of articles about non-notable subjects simply because those subjects meet an SNG.
  I also really disagree with BK's stance above, that we should not delete NSPORTS unless we also delete all the other SNGs. People said we can't delete wp:PORNBIO unless we delete other SNGs, too, but it just wasn't true. Deleting PORNBIO was a good idea in retrospect; none of the negative outcomes that some predicted have come to pass. We have problems with lots of SNGs, and we should tackle these SNGs one by one; NSPORTS is a pretty good place to start (actually, PORNBIO was the place the start, and NSPORTS is a good follow-up).
  Articles about sports (especially athlete bios) should be governed by WP:GNG. Some make the argument that SNGs restrict article creation because more athletes would be notable under GNG than under NSPORTS, due to the ubiquity of media coverage of modern athletes. I don't believe this is true, based on my deep dive into footballer BLPs in 2019. As long as the GNG requirements of independence, secondary, and in-depth, are properly followed, there are far more footballers that meet NSPORTS than GNG.
  Overall, I think removing the NSPORTS SNG will require all sports topics to meet GNG, and that will lead to more notable articles and fewer non-notable articles, which is a good thing. I don't think it'll cause too much chaos, I think it'll be much like what happened with porn bios after the deprecation of PORNBIO, which is that a lot of them were deleted, and that's a good thing.
  As a compromise measure, I would also support taking the lesser step of deleting the "Professional sports people" and "Amateur sports persons" sections of NSPORTS, as I think biographies are the biggest problem of NSPORTS. Levivich 19:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment (EC). Rather than abolish it wholesale, I think it would be easier to formally redefine it as 1) a collection of rules-of-thumb to guide which subjects might be worthwhile for an article creator to look into creating and which ones are probably not worth their time; 2) a reference for the kind of sourcing considered "routine" and "not-SIGCOV" in sports; and 3) an easy shortcut for editors to find sports projects. This would involve very clearly mandating GNG coverage from the start for all new articles, and eliminating all instances of "presumed notable" etc. from the guideline text. It would probably also require an explicit note in WP:N clarifying its status (while still keeping a link to it). We would also want to discourage immediately nominating lots of previously-created non-borderline cases from historical periods or non-English locations and instead encourage individual sports wikiprojects to adopt the most vulnerable subjects and find refs on them. JoelleJay (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • As astutely, if perversely, argued by one editor (while ironically scolding unspecified others for bureaucratic wikilawyering!), at present by a strict reading of policy, one is entitled to say "Keep/delete per WP:GUIDELINEILIKE, ignore WP:GUIDELINEIDISLIKE, it's only a guideline", expect the closing admin to count your '!'vote, cut up rough at DRV if it isn't, and so on. Even without the need for recourse to IAR as such. Even deleting the 'rogue' (or commonly misapplied or cherrypicked) guideline doesn't formally fix that. What would do was to elevate WP:N, or some core part of it, to policy status. However, keeping WP:N as a guideline, and making NSPORT an essay or more clearly subsidiary guideline would likely have a broadly similar effect, such wrangling aside. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bagumba but not per Black Kite. The criteria, as others have pointed out, is poorly worded. WP:NAFOOT, for example, presumes that a subject is notable so long as they've participated in at least one game during the regular season or post-season. That said, the current wording also attempts to articulate that these guidelines are to exist on top of WP:GNG, not as an alternative to WP:GNG. Or at least, that's what the first sentences of its "Applicable policies and guidelines" would lead one to believe. The following sentence "subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline" could give readers the false impression that it's possible to have a sports-related article without passing GNG. It needs a lot of work, it may even need to be blown up and recreated from scratch, but I'm not entirely convinced that there's no utility in having a sports-specific criteria. I guess I wouldn't mind too much if it was deleted without prejudice under the assumption that a better criteria will be developed, but I'm opposed to deleting with prejudice or opening the door to abolishing SNGs.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn`t be opposed to starting over from scratch. However, in its current form, that`s about the best fate that could be envisaged for it. Abolishing the current version of NSPORTS would not prevent starting a new one in the future, but doing this one step at a time is more likely to achieve a clearer consensus and to allow more thorough discussion on each individual point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose outright removal. A lot of the OP's arguments are against subject-specific notability guidelines in general, rather than this particular one. The major problem with NSPORTS is that many of the criteria are extremely broad. Particular offenders are the sports where you just have to play for any length of time in any high-level match e.g. cricket or (association) football. This can be addressed by tightening the criteria to ensure that passing NSPORTS is more likely to correspond to a GNG pass. Hut 8.5 20:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Hut 8.5: It took a nearly two-month long RfC with hundreds of participants just to tighten one of them. It is not productive (due to the effort required) or desirable (due to the obvious potential such a process would have to generate animosity) to have to repeat that kind of exercise needlessly. It's well past time for the nuclear option. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  My study (User:Nigej/sandbox see comments above) shows (to me, at least) that the worst "offenders" are (for the major sports) association football, American football and rugby football and (for minor sports) Australian rules football. Nigej (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose While usually I like dynamite, there are salvageable parts including Olympic. Fully support a radical rewrite of the "professional sports" section as the concept that sitting on the bench for one game makes someone notable is insane. We should be covering the best of the best and most athletes do not merit an article when compared against their peers. Compare to WP:NCORP where existence and routine coverage will get you nowhere.20:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  For better or worse, "best of the best" is not a standard used in any of the other fields covered in English Wikipedia. It's a perfectly fine goal, if the community agrees upon it, but I suspect it's not a standard that the community is willing to apply across the board. I do not believe it should be applied in just one topic area. isaacl (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Except that the "best of the best" athletes are far more likely to be notable than, say, the "best of the best" potato farmers or bank tellers. That's why we don't have WP:NPOTATOFARMER or WP:BANKTELLER. Keep in mind virtually any athlete competing at the highest level is the "best of the best" just by virtue of getting there, and on the extremely rare occasion they're not, such as David Ayres, they would generally meet GNG from that oddity alone. Smartyllama (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  When most people hear "best of the best", they aren't thinking of every NHL hockey player, for example, but Wayne Gretzky. (This is alluded to in the original comment by saying that "most athletes do not merit an article when compared against their peers.") Every field has those who have been most influential on that field, or on society generally. isaacl (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'm in a very similar position to JoelleJay. It needs radically overhauling; but it's useful as a collection of rules-of-thumb to guide which subjects might be worthwhile for an article creator to look into creating and which ones are probably not worth their time. There is clearly a need to mandate GNG coverage from the start for all new articles and to eliminate "presumed notable" - presumed is too easy to argue about its meaning. It always puzzles me that WP:N says meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline. I've never understood the rationale behind that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Re: “presumption of notability”… I have long thought that this phrasing should be changed to “a likelihood of notability”. The idea behind the “presumption” is that usually sources will exist to demonstrate notability… if you look hard enough. The problem is that it is not a guarantee. Sometimes, those sources don’t exist. “Likelihood” better takes the both “usually” and “but sometimes not” into account. Blueboar (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Personally, I think it would be better if, right from the start, all articles contained adequate sources to demonstrate that the general notability guideline is met. As far as I can tell, though, creating stub articles still has community support. (Some of that support is from editors trying to address systemic bias that has created shortages in Wikipedia coverage.) isaacl (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Jesus H. Christ, OP really has got a bee in their bonnet about this AfD decision not going their way haven't they?! A sport-by-sport re-write is sensible, with input from the relevant WikiProjects, of course. Complete removal of this SNG (and none of the others) is ridiculous. GiantSnowman 22:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and there will be far more 'pointless AFDs' and arguments if the SNG was scrapped, as people will continue to create articles on topics! GiantSnowman 22:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If other SNGs are also problematic, then what is ridiculous is using that as an excuse to keep the most problematic of all of them. Gotta start somewhere. Your other arguments have already been rebutted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are problematic, that's the point. Why are you focussing on NSPORTS? GiantSnowman 22:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

One more thing before I log off for the next 18+ hours - abolishing SNGs, in particular NSPORTS, will result in fewer articles about non-"white, male, European" people, not more. For example, under current NFOOTBALL guidelines I can create an article easily about international players from any country in Africa or Asia. With only GNG, due to language/sourcing issues, that would become so much more difficult. GiantSnowman 22:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

By creating tens or hundreds of thousands of effectively unsourced stubs, are we really addressing the issue of disparity in coverage, or are we just hiding the issue? BilledMammal (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

As if a database-sourced microstub on an African woman football player that no one ever expands is anything more than an unintentional byproduct of personal mass-creation campaigns. Proudly gesturing at 45 seconds of work--that only happened because someone wanted to complete the rosters of all 2014 National League teams beginning with C, or whatever--as if it's some empowering gift to underserved minorities who would never receive Wikipedia's attention without the help of NSPORT is insulting and harmful. It is not a good thing for Wikipedia's coverage of Africa to be dominated by thoughtless permastubs of modern athletes, particularly when they're drowned out by all the modern white male athlete bios produced at the same time. Maybe eliminating the ability of stats-driven editors to autocreate dozens of entries per hour would encourage them to instead expand existing articles (yeah right), or maybe it would mean profiles of particular athletes would only be created by people who specifically wanted to make them and would put effort into the process. JoelleJay (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The point you've failed to address is how can it be that other SNGs are problematic too, when NSPORTS covers pretty much 50% of all biographies of living people. Clearly there can't be any other SNG with anything like 50%. Nigej (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 22:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Notifying all the various sport related projects doesn't seem like the best idea, for various reasons that I am sure will be discussed extensively if such notifications are issued. Best to list it at CENT and leave it at that. BilledMammal (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• It is standard for WP:FOOTBALL, we keep a list of all relevant discussions at WP:FOOTYDEL - and how many 'on the ground' editors actually read CENT? I certainly don't. The more people know about this RfC the better. GiantSnowman 22:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• The more the better, yes, but the trouble is that the "more" is not necessarily nonpartisan if we engage in these notifications. BilledMammal (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Notified: centralized discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. NSPORTS is intended to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and in the process reduce the amount of time we spend determining whether these people or organizations are notable, but it does the opposite, through a bloated guideline that is not effective in determining whether someone or something is likely to meet GNG.

I will note that I agree that some sections are functional, but these are a minority, and the effort to reimplement them will be far less than the effort to remove or correct from the status quo the sections that are not, and so to avoid tens of thousands of editor hours being wasted WP:TNT needs to applied. BilledMammal (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too radical. Erasing years of codified notability consensus in the blink of an eye doesn't seem appropriate. WP:TRAINWRECK normally applies to deletion discussions, but I think the spirit of it may also apply here: that issues with this particular SNG guideline should be addressed one issue at a time or one sport at a time rather than in a bundled nomination. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strategic support as a radical corrective to overly lenient sports notability guidelines. I might reevaluate my position if this seemed on track to pass with no available replacement and mass-deletions of probably-notable-but-unsourced biographies queued up ready to go. But we're not at that point, nor is it inevitable, so for now I'm happy to support this. I believe that the community should be applying pressure to tighten sports notability guidelines lest more radical action like this become necessary. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• I would note that if this passes I would support delaying its implementation to give time for a replacement to be developed. BilledMammal (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Are there too many biographies of non-notable sportspeople? Very probably. Is this a fault of the NSPORTS or is it a fault of GNG? That may be more of the issue. In the big US sports, or other major professional sports like (association) football or cricket, the amount of press coverage is so intense that you could probably find GNG-passing mainstream non-routine coverage of pretty much any player, even if they've only played a couple of games in the higher leagues. It's an inevitable function of how mainstream sports news works. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  It's a lot of one, and a bit of the other. NSPORT is largely to blame for permitting creation, and supporting retention, of any athlete bio as long as it has one source showing the subject meets a participation-based sport-specific guideline. The issue isn't so much the contemporary tippy-top pro leagues as it is the hundreds of lower-tier divisions with high turnover and low actual coverage whose players particular projects have decided meet their definition of SIGCOV. Now that more editors are mentioning the GNG>NSPORT relationship in AfDs and closers are openly giving less weight to "keep meets NFOOTY" !votes, some in the sports projects have pivoted to instead declaring almost anything published is "SIGCOV in secondary IRS" in order to keep their articles. If editors can't successfully challenge claims that 3-sentence refactored press releases contribute to GNG, then perhaps there is something that needs to be changed with that guideline as well. JoelleJay (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose it's a guideline to assist, not an absolute rule, and clearly states that people shoild pass GNG too. If you want to fix the problem, then deal with the places using it as an absolute rule, not by removing the generally decent guidance. For most of the sporrs, most of the people who attain that standard are notable, so having the guidance for this is useful. NSPORTS doesn't trump GNG, and so doesn't need to be exterminated to make people use GNG, because people should be using GNG anyway. Sledgehammer solution..... Joseph2302 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Would you agree that there is enough confusion from editors reading only the bolded second sentence of NSPORT that perhaps the guideline could be made much more explicit about its relationship with GNG? What if we changed it to require two pieces of SIGCOV in secondary IRS from the start like almost every other subject? JoelleJay (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose but make fundamental changes Basically in agreeance with what Bagumba and JoelleJay said above. As pointed above the three with fundamental issues are WP:NFOOTY, WP:GRIDIRON, and WP:RUGBY (occasionally WP:NBASEBALL causes issues as well). Instead of blowing up the entire system, it would be better to tighten these problem criteria as needed, as well as fix any issues with NSPORTS as a whole. The criteria is vague and this makes it very easy to litigate into eternity. This is quite reactionary to the deletion review, and while I agree that that DRV has become a shitshow, that doesn't mean we should shoot the hostage. Curbon7 (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • How is NGRIDIRON a "fundamental issue"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Having 2% of our biographies on people from a single sport that is played in just two countries suggests that there is a fundamental issue, though whether it is a WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS issue or a SNG issue could be debated - and I could see an argument that the issue is at the intersection of the two, but that is a discussion for elsewhere. BilledMammal (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I don't find it an issue at all, considering that nearly every player passing it meets GNG; where it's played is irrelevant (and it's not just played in "two countries," as you say it is). BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I've looked into several of the stubs, and I'm not sure that nearly every player does. BilledMammal (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
          • • Can you show me some of those non-notable NGRIDIRON-passing "stubs" you're talking about? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

              If you take a category such as Category:American football linebacker, pre-1930s birth stubs, which the exception of a few Pro-Bowlers, most just played a handful of games and got 0 non-routine coverage. --Ahecht (TALK
              PAGE) 17:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

          • The NGRIDIRON criterion only covers the leagues based in those two countries, and I think it's a fairly safe assumption that the vast majority of that 2% correspond to those (and one of them rather more than the other). It certainly strikes me as a little far-fetched to argue that the NSPORT problem lies with other, genuinely international sports (football, cricket). And that it's conversely completely fine to bootstrap some idea of the NFL's "inherent notability" on the basis of some highly limited participation, from some often sketchy sports-site coverage of them. "Played a few downs in one game of significance only in that it was actively in their team's interests to lose it, in a sport with unlimited substitution and the ability to field players employed on short-term contracts, verified by idle discussion of this fact in a couple of articles. Strong speedy keep." 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment If kept (and I'm in two (or more) minds on that) I feel the idea of it being a "presumption" of notability badly needs to be fleshed out in a clearer and more procedural manner. Some editors clearly seem to feel that NSPORT and GNG should be "balanced" in such a way that the GNG can safely be ignored. (Notwithstanding that NSPORT explicitly invokes GNG in addition to the sport-participation part.) Or indeed that this a "notability floor", at least for their preferred sport, and that they should keep digging further below it. Conversely, some say: we presumed until we looked a little, now it has to meet GNG, simple as. So what is the intended relationship between the two? Presumption enough to keep it off speedy deletion? For some other time horizon? To shift what constitutes WP:SIGCOV to the benefit of such subjects? (We've a dozen trivial mentions and those flesh the article out to a couple of paragraphs, good enough.) Is the presumption open-ended: can't prove a negative (or are very unlikely to be able to), so the participation itself grants an indefinite stay. I don't have a strong view on which of these (or some other at least some slightly more explicit scheme) should prevail, but the clarity itself would be a boon. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Update conservatively Like other SNGs, it prevents countless AfDs on notable topics from deletionists caught up in WP:NOEFFORT and WP:RECENCY while making plenty of AfD discussions straightforward. Sure, those routinely involved in sports AfDs have a right to be frustrated, but AfDs often come about precisely because their subject's notability is debate-worthy. There are articles for plenty of non-notable sportspeople, and there are certainly improvements to be made to NSPORTS to decrease that number. But like many lesser-known GNG-passing topics, sports stubs often require a local fanatic willing to dig into archives in order to generate quality articles. The inherently hidden and non-collaborative (and generally short-term) nature of draft space make SNGs a necessary tool to incubate pages until those local fanatics (or particularly determined editors) come along. Star Garnet (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

But why should this exemption exist only for athletes? Why do sport stubs get to bypass draft/user/projectspace and wait for a local fanatic to come along in mainspace? JoelleJay (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It's hardly unique to sports. Entertainers, academics, politicians, locations, and creative works (so, the vast majority of articles) do as well. Star Garnet (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Those are decidedly different sorts of guideline, however. To take the AVPROF one, on the one hand it's an alternative to GNG, rather than an "in addition" presumption, and on the other, it's a lot tighter. So we don't get into this sort of "passes one but doesn't pass the other, so !vote keep/delete according to personal preconception" situation. At least, not in quite the same way. If NSPORT (or any of its component parts) were to spell out "this modifies GNG, and here's how" I think -- OK, anxiously hope! -- we wouldn't see quite such sharply divergent takes on how to apply it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

While true to an extent, I was referring to their shared feature of setting base-level standards where GNG doesn't need to be demonstrated while the article is a stub. Sure, academics and locations have deeper non-GNG protections than the rest, but even AfDs there devolve quickly. "'Name on page for whom no biographical details are available' has been cited a few dozen times, so you can't prove they didn't have a significant impact." But I digress. Star Garnet (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Some of the subparts need rewriting, but abolition is simply an invitation to chaos. Cbl62 (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • What degree of entropy would you say the status quo exhibits? "Passes NSPORT but not GNG, so delete." "Doesn't pass GNG, but does NSPORT, so keep." 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

    Sports-specific guidance should be calibrated to GNG, and if properly calibrated, that is the best solution IMO. But simply dumping the entirety of NSPORTS is the worst possible outcome. It strikes me more of a temper tantrum than a serious policy proposal. Cbl62 (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

    • I intend to WP:AGF regarding the motivations of the proposal. And if you feel additional "proper calibration" is indicated -- and it seems you do, given you've argued for ignoring it in one area, in favour of more liberal inclusion, while implying it's too lax in others -- this seems like an excellent venue for airing such, as others have done, rather than just blanket opposition. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

      A blanket proposal to throw out the whole thing is not the right venue for fine-tuning. The right venue for such fine-tuning is Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). In that venue, I did recently propose eliminating Arena Football League from NGRIDIRON (accepted) and raising the bar on NGRIDIRON to a minimum of two games (not accepted). That's the proper way to address any kinks in the system. Cbl62 (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I would be ok with getting rid of all SSGs but if we are going to zero in on sports then just make serious changes to the problem areas instead of eliminating the whole group. Each sport has different criteria, some of which pass muster and others which don’t in my opinion. Also, if admins are accepting “passes SNG but not GNG” as reasoning to keep articles, they aren’t doing their jobs. Fair to ask them to tighten up their oversight on AfDs Rikster2 (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – I am in favor of making improvements, and strongly opposed to throwing everything out. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose... Getting rid of the guidelines would create a free for all where thousands of minor league and semi-professional players see articles created and equally hundreds of thousands of professional players will be dumped into afd which will lead to all sorts of contentous debates with whatever people show up to those arguments. It is good to have straight forward guidelines so it can easily be pointed out if someone is notable or not. If you have specific arguments with certain of the guidelines then take it up there and debate it.. but this RFC is the wrong approach. Spanneraol (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I never imagined that I would come to the defense of sportball etc. today, but SNGs serve a legitimate purpose. No prejudice to updating and editing through consensus, but I am vehemently against the abolition of this guideline. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose in the strongest possible terms. Misguided deletionism and the rationale of the trending of the articles is misinformed and also misguided. Removing this would only perpetuate the domination of athletes that are most frequently covered by wide sources. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 04:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support NSPORTS and its progeny are fundamentally broken. Their practical effect is to make notable subjects which otherwise would not be. We cover far more sportspersons than an encyclopedia should. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Says who? You not liking sports is your personal opinion. We cover "sportspersons" because sports are popular and have large fan bases looking for information on even the most obscure player. Spanneraol (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

We also have large fan bases for anime and Hindi soap operas who want detailed information on obscure characters etc. We have fandom wikis for those, and hundreds of statistical database sites for athletes that are helpfully linked to in lists of players/seasons/teams. There is no reason this material needs to appear as standalone pages in an encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Anyone can be interested in any arbitrary obscure topic, but that does not mean Wikipedia must have blanket inclusion for separate articles for all concepts or individuals in it. We have requirements for significant sources for a reason and sports should not be exempt from that. We are not a copy-paste of datebases like baseball-reference or whatnot, where such large fan bases are also welcome to find obscure statistics. Reywas92^Talk 05:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support The concept that sportspeople are automatically notable for playing a single game is such an astonishing mistake, and we need to be clearer that they need to meet the same standards as other people: with multiple significant sources. It is simply false that mere participation in a game or a few perhaps a hundred years ago or in some minor league results in notability or a presumption thereof. Of course the sports editors are already here to oppose this or to argue procedurally that we can't address the broad variety of sports at once, but when 40% of our biographies are footballers, there is something fundamentally broken. Reywas92^Talk 05:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • In practice, it amounts to an assertion that they're automatically notable for playing a tiny part of a single game, in certain sports with unlimited substitution. And a near-automatic presumption that non-playing players working for the same organisation are too, because they get the same sort of low-grade coverage as the one-game, one-play players do. "Hingle McCringleberry hired to the Smallville Supers practice squad, having been released from his contract to not play for the Metropolis Mayors either." "GNG, keep!" 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and start from scratch. As others have said, there is great value in providing clear guidance to editors about what is likely to be notable. Clear lines are a useful starting place, and the expectation for each SNG is that there are reliable, independent, and significant sources about the subject. Looking at the current version of WP:NSPORT there are internal inconsistencies across sports and many assumptions that are made that there are reliable, independent, and significant sources for all categories presumed notable. --Enos733 (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. If people want NSPORTS (and this applies to most other SNGs), it should solely exist as a way of tightening GNG, not as some very dubious indicators of perhaps meeting GNG which allows the creation of thousands upon thousands of articles which then have to be individually challenged and will still be defended tooth-and-nail by some people who misuse the unclear language of NSPORTS and its relation to the GNG. The whataboutism and predictions of impending doom if NSPORTS is abolished or some of its worst excesses curtailed are tiring. A sports SNG which indicated that for sportspeople, you need more than databases, competition reports, and local coverage to even think about creating an article, could be useful. Fram (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  It currently states that routine game coverage and coverage in databases with wide-sweeping, generic standards of inclusion are insufficient, and emphasizes that local coverage must be independent. isaacl (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, but these are both insufficient. Any database listing should be discounted (for notability discussions, not for referencing information), not just the "too broad" ones,as that only leads to more pointless discussions without providing actual indepth coverage. And all local coverage should be dismissed: your town newspaper writing about 14 year old John Smith winning the town 2km run for the second year in a row, with some background information about where he goes to school and that his father was a good local runner in his days - is no better than them writing about the local bakery which has reopened after renovation, and is now already twenty years old and the son starts working there as well. We shouldn't allow such sources for any topic (for notability). Fram (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  As I said elsewhere, I think articles should, from the start, include sources demonstrating that the general notability guideline has been met, so I don't have an issue with disregarding databases. For better or worse, though, it's not uncommon for editors to go through lists of people in a given field and create stubs for ones they feel meet English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. So I think this has to be addressed more broadly. Regarding local coverage, most coverage is local to somewhere. The key is to determine the promotional nature of the coverage (local papers, for example, cover things like local primary school kids and bakeries because that's what its audidence wants, not because of any long-term signficance). I've discussed this multiple times in the past so won't go into more details here. isaacl (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm neutral on the proposal, because while I agree with the nom that NSPORTS is too inclusive, the real nuclear option is to blow up EVERY notability guideline and rely solely on the GNG. (Yeah, PROF as well.)

  As far as "tightening" NSPORTS goes, while I agree there's a lot of that which could be done, you can't get around the bright-line rule that underpins just about all of the NSPORTS criteria: that participating in a single big league/top-flight match constitutes presumptive notability, period, full stop. That's an objective criterion, and ANYthing that replaces it will be entirely subjective. Three matches? Five matches? Subjective. Does league play count for more (or less) than international play? Subjective. Five matches, that's a large percentage of an American football season, but a tiny fraction of a baseball season: subjective. Top-flight soccer in England vs top-flight archery in Bhutan? (Never mind top-flight soccer in Malawi or Sri Lanka.) Subjective. Because the whole reason NATHLETE devolved into separate criteria for individual sports is that one-size-fits-all doesn't, actually, fit sports. Ravenswing 09:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I've a lot of sympathy for a lot of what you say here, but to inevitably quibble... Different numbers of matches aren't different in their (lack of) objectivity. Obviously there's a clarity about "some" versus "none". I agree that a number of games across the board would be very apples-and-oranges, but even as presently structured, while a whole lot of them use "one match", that's textually individual to each sport. So it'd be perfectly possible to say "3 gridiron games" but "7 English premiership" (which would even be vaguely proportionate, if we ignore the various still other differences). Incidentally three NFL games just happens to distinguish between people on an "active roster" contract and "flexed practice squad" ones, but that could change again at the drop of a hat, and is wildly overspecific here anyway. Obviously the fatal flaw in this is that each sport will inevitably want to bid "their" number down, and everyone else's up. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

    In my experience there's plenty of association football players that play entire seasons but are only notable for having played the entire season (a statistic), so I'd imagine those are the kinds of stats-based articles that are created based on NSPORT more than GNG. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

    But of course a change to 'default notability if they've played the equivalent of at least one season at x level, while playing less does not mean they can't meet GNG' would weed out the vast majority of iffy cases. That would necessarily require new, subjective standards for pitchers, goalies, etc., but I don't find that overly troublesome. I do like that that would avoid emphasizing recency too heavily. Rather than simply deleting the material for the less notable players, I'd suggest List of Watford F.C. players (1–49 appearances) etc. include sourced 3-5 sentence bios and minimalist team-specific statboxes for players that don't meet GNG or the redefined NSPORT. (But then for multi-team athletes, you'd need to forego standard redirects in favor of [List of team X players#Player|Player] and/or use a transclusion process.) Star Garnet (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I agree with IP user. I don't get the objective/subjective stuff. Surely NSPORTS got created because GNG is so terribly vague and a clearly defined set of rules was seen as a way of getting round that. Personally I think that NSPORTS could work for individual sports where coverage is generally related to success (ie winning something). The problem is with the team events where a player's notability is much less closely related to winning things. Hence, the notability for walking on the pitch sort of criteria. What I found interesting about the recent discussion about increasing this to walking on the pitch 3 times (Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RfC on WP:NFOOTY criteria being changed was that although the proposer started off with "Context: At many recent AfDs, there have been articles deleted despite meeting WP:NFOOTY by playing in one or two games." the discussion turned into the usual why 3? sort of argument. In the whole discussion there was no serious attempt to look at the actual issue at hand, are those who pass NFOOTY by playing one or two games actually notable or not. I'm afraid NSPORTS has turned into a sort of mad house and it needs to go. Nigej (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment'. GNG is not a ridiculously high bar so why do we need NSPORTS? It mainly results in the creation of massive amount of articles about non-notable athletes who have nothing to their name except some database listing. Alvaldi (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose abolition until and unless the nominator wishes to propose a replacement. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Because while its feasible a re-write could fix the current issues around SNGs, the reality is there is no way in hell each little walled garden of sports editors (or in fact, any other SNG group) is going to weaken their guidelines to the point where they would prohibit articles on people who once played a game and have no sources available on which to write more than a one-line stub. Which leaves us with three options, the status quo of endless SNG arguments at AFD (issue still unresolved), nuke the SNG's that are overly broad (resolves the issue), or alter AFD closure guidelines to explicitly state that regardless of SNG, if an article isnt brought up to the level where it satisfies GNG during a deletion discussion, it gets deleted (regardless of the closure of this discussion, that should be done anyway). Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose OTT form, sympathise with concept, will propose alternate - So I was involved in the AfD that most recently bought this to the fore, and am in the DRV as well, albeit non-!voting. Currently NSPORTS is wildly over-generous for inclusion, and attempts to narrow it in the form of raising the presumptive standards have all failed. So I get where nom is coming from. That said, despite being on the anti-NSPORTS wing., I am an inclusionist and do think that SNGs (even those with neither de jure exceptions to GNG or de facto exceptions) have value. So. Until this DRV I had always felt that the timeline for challenged NSPORTS articles that met SNG to prove they met GNG also was an AfD-length. Since this is apparently not a shared position, we should write it in post-haste. And yes, of course I understand the issue that "well, if someone challenged every article, the SNG would have no effect" - I raised it in my RfA. But so what? That's not really a negative in actual practical terms. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd be pleasantly surprised if we can agree that timeline's anywhere south of a year, much less a week. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per the OP's racist, sexist, effort to erase "(usually white, male, European) sports figures". If we suggested changing an SNG specifically to remove subjects of a particular race, sex, or national origin the OP would already be topic banned if not indeffed and the media would be publishing pieces on Wikipedia's targeting of specific groups. I am sorry the OP is motivated in this manner but we, as a community, cannot let this stand regardless of our feelings about the coverage of athletes (not to mention bulls and horses). full disclosure: I spent high school in marching band, not as an athlete. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Not sure why this specific SNG is being targeted - it seems perfectly reasonable. If a criterion needs fixing, it can be revised. But short of abolishing all SNGs, I don't know why we need to get rid of this specific one. Smartyllama (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Two particulars to this one. We have a lot of sportsbios. A ratio of those to others that seems decidedly unencyclopedic by any plausible precedent for what that might mean. And because it creates a "presumption" of notability, short of saying "yes, we definitely consider this person notable". We seem very conflicted about what should happen in that gap. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - Is this a quota based on 'race', 'gender', etc for notability, that's being requested? GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  @GoodDay: No, it's a request that people who write sports article kindly oblige with the GNG like everybody else, and that we don't have a "guideline" which is interpreted by way too many as having the force of law and which is so frequently misused that it fails to accomplish its purpose, which is to facilitate discussion, by actively accomplishing the opposite, actually hampering them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I feel like we do this quarterly. If individual sport SNGs need to be tightened then they can be tightened and if you think that those WikiProjects are not going to change their consensus then participate in those discussions. Plus, it's not uncommon for AfDs to delete athletes that fail GNG but pass an SNG (particularly WP:NFOOTY-which I do believe needs to be both tightened to specific leagues/tiers of professional ladders and also be adjusted to include more top-flight women's leagues). But unless you want to throw out all SNGs at once I don't think that this is a fair or reasonable proposal. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I can't comment on how common it is, but evidently some editors feel this very definitely should not happen, especially on a sport-by-sport basis, hence a lot of the annoyance if it does, or is even proposed. "What happened to our presumption??" I don't know if tightening the individual guidelines by amount or type of sport-participation would help this as a confusion of expectation, granting that it would presumably reduce the number of articles it happens with. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I could support an overhaul, but abolishing what we currently have is a step backwards. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Could you comment on what sort of overhaul you feel might be supportable, or indeed necessary? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support A bullet that unfortunately needs to be bitten. NSPORTS is far out of step with other notability policies, and the "presumption of notability" clause has sparked an unending battle at AfD. Editors have attempt to reform the guideline but the attempts always seem to become bogged down in minutae. We're better off getting rid of NSPORTS and starting again from first principles. --RaiderAspect (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it really that far out of step from other SNGs though? For instance, WP:NPOL presumes that members of US State Legislatures are notable despite some having the same lack of significant coverage/reliance on similar sources (government website election results, generic reports such as "x wins primary" with little in between in terms of SIGCOV, there being over 7,300 of them (there are 1,696 NFL roster spots by comparison), only having to have served in office regardless of time served, and less than 20% of Americans not being able to name their own representatives. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Since when is another criteria being also bad a reason to keep a worse one as is? At least NPOL has a plausible public interest reason behind it (hey, WP:BIAS aside, if 20% of americans can't name them, the more reason to educate the public) which could half justify it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If we go by topics that fewer than 20% of Americans know about as a metric for notability, then all footballers (as in soccer) and teams should be kept to 'educate the public'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much all SNGs have the same holes you can poke in them, whether you like it or not, and either they all have to go at once or they all have to stay and be worked out individually until new standards are reached via consensus. We're justifying notability standards, not what you consider is most beneficial to people, so unless you want to throw out WP:PROF, WP:NPOL, and all the rest then I don't see why this specific SNG should targeted. GPL93 (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

NPROF and NPOL are absolutely essential for completion of the encyclopedia, so this is why even if a person does not necessarily meet GNG, they still get a notability pass. On the other hand, NSPORTS is very explicitly subservient to GNG.

I would disagree that both, as written, are essential to the encyclopedia. I would disagree that state level politicians or editors of academic journals are inherently notable, but I think this is where biases creep in. Rikster2 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Says who? What makes the "X endowed chair of Y university" more essential than someone under NSPORTS? Why should these SNGs not be subservient as well? I'll bet more people at the University of Texas came name the members of their starting defense than their endowed department chairs. Dak Prescott is viewed on average 3x more than Greg Abbott, reserve Dallas Cowboys linebacker Jabril Cox gets 4x more a day than Texas Senate president Donna Campbell. As many people come here to learn about NSPORTS passes as the people that pass the other guidelines. GPL93 (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

To quote Bearcat from this AfD, if he's served in the legislature at all, then he's notable, because state legislators are one of those fields where it's extremely important, verging on mission critical, for us to be a complete and comprehensive reference for all of them. Also dang I forgot to sign my reply above, that's embarrassing lol. Curbon7 (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(Also relevant to @Star Garnet's comment) One of the biggest differences in my opinion is how much easier it is to create thousands of stubs on athletes than it is for any other topic. Power-users concerned with boosting personal creation counts will obviously flock to an SNG that has a) clear-cut inclusion criteria; b) abundant, reliable database/stats sites to template off for rapid creation; c) constant new subjects meeting a criterion; d) entire wikiprojects that will worship them for running through, e.g., all 2020 Olympic sport shooters. Even if 90% of sports editors are focused on creating particular biographies and rarely make stubs, it only takes a couple power-editors to completely skew topic coverage. This is much less of an issue in other SNGs where notability is less "presumed" (like in NMUSIC, where the language used is "may be notable") and where an accomplishment of a group does not confer notability to all members of the group individually (whereas playing a few minutes as part of a team that participates in a non-notable football match is enough to meet NFOOTY). Is it the "fault" of NSPORT that it has such easy methods for validating e.g. a pro appearance, or that all statistics that would appear on a subject's page can essentially be copied over directly from a database, or that each major sport has active wikiprojects participating in AfDs and locally shaping notability criteria? No. But these are substantial differences from other SNGs, and these differences allow much quicker methodical creation of ultimately non-notable stubs than in any other topic besides GEOLAND, as well as far more successful lobbying in deletion discussions and in RfCs on changing criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Then why not propose a ban on this type of editing behavior? Violators can be prohibited from creating articles in the main space and be forced to submit everything through AfC and its not like the pattern of rapid-fire, database regurgitating article creations isn't incredibly obvious. If they are using the crutch of NSPORTS to mass-create, what's to say that they won't move on to doing the same using college directories and and creating stubs on every department chair of every school? Then we'll be right back here arguing whether or not a school in a prominent enough university or that a certain department is not prestigious enough to meet the SNG requirement. GPL93 (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

NPROF and NSPORTS guidelines are both about 15 years old. One of them has been (mis)used to machine create articles en masse, to the point that footballers alone make up 40% of our biographies. The other has not. I'm not a huge fan of NPROF, but its issues are very different to those of NSPORTS. --RaiderAspect (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, some subsections may need to be re-written, but getting rid of it entirely is just going to cause chaos, in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support I said I would support deleting NSPORTS and I meant it. There is absolutely no reason for an SNG which does not serve as an alternative to GNG to exist, as there are no instances in which it actually serves a purpose; it is always subservient to another guideline. As it stands, NSPORTS’s primary role is to cause confusion. I’m an inclusionist, but I value sensible rules more than rules which favor inclusion. My first preference would be to make NSPORTS an alternative to GNG, but this is the next best option. Mlb96 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to point out that another option may be to demote NSPORTS from SNG status. If NSPORTS cannot establish notability, then we shouldn't call it an SNG. It should be downgraded to an essay, and a line should be included which unequivocally states that the page should never ever be used to establish notability, rather than the wishy-washy language included in the page currently. Something like, "This page is not a notability guideline. If an individual who does not have an article meets these criteria, it may be worthwhile to look for sources so that an article can be started. However, meeting these criteria does not conclusively establish notability, and athletes must meet the general notability guideline to qualify for an article. This page should never be cited in deletion discussions." This would solve every problem. Mlb96 (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Essayfying (that looks even worse than I thought it might) was what I thought the OP entailed, as opposed to literally pressing the "delete page" button. In a way saying it's an essay might just give us a (hopefully better-tempered? -- one can dream) version of the status quo, as it's been argued that "just a guideline" implies "I can ignore this in whole or in part at AfD, even outside of IAR, and you're still obliged to count my !vote" -- at least unless the closer does employ IAR. I think another approach would be to say "here's what the presumption actually looks like". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as written, support in principle I'm not sure that deleting it and having nothing to replace it with is a good idea. I think it does need to be scrapped and replaced with a more coherent guidance for how and why to create good sports-related encyclopedia articles, but without something to replace it with, I don't like just trashing it. Too much of NSPORT guides editors to create articles which have no useful reference material to support the text in them. That's the key problem. I would be more in favor of replacing NSPORT with guidance that was more in-line with WP:GNG or WP:42 rather than deleting it with nothing else. What is there now is trash. Let's have something to replace it with before getting rid of it, however. --Jayron32 17:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support NSPORTS is abused so much it does more harm than good to the encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 18:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Abolish and defenestrate altogether. This would not only rid us of AfD fodder but restore some balance within the encyclopaedia in how notability is treated across subjects and fields. It is a case where clearly a group of people interested in a specific project want to see in Wikipedia as many articles related to the project as possible. Clobber it up and start anew! I'm in favor of having for sports something beyond WP:GNG, as it happens, but the abuse has gone on long enough. -The Gnome (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I particularly disagree with the idea that to reduce WP:BIAS we must reduce the number of articles on white male Europeans. A better idea would be to create more articles on other people. I disagree with the OP in that abolishing NSPORTS would make it easier for articles to be nominated for deletion leading to increased numbers of AfDs and resulting conflict. NemesisAT (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'd much sooner have 1 well written page on any sportsperson (be they white, male and European, or anything else) than have 100 database-entry equivalents (even if 50 of those are about underrepresented groups: permastubs do not, in any way, help fix the BIAS issues). Simple statistics will show you that most sport biographies (which are already an out of proportion percentage of biographies overall) are about male (and, presumably, from the US or Europe) athletes. As for your disagreement about deletion, there are plenty of articles which fail GNG but meet NSPORTS which are routinely deleted. Removing NSPORTS wouldn't change this, and likely won't produce an immediate flood (the tightening of NOLY, something which opponents of course said that it would have such consequences, didn't, either). However, it would certainly discourage both the needless creation of statistical database entries, generate more thorough AfFDs discussions (by having people actually look for sources instead of using NSPORTS as an indefinite and increasingly frustrating delaying tactic), as well as prevent concerted efforts to disregard GNG by some sports editors cliques. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Cbl62. The practical reality of this proposal would be increased AfD activity and decreased article creation for people from the pre-internet era, and people from non-English speaking countries. Whether people like it or not, sportspeople from the modern era of leagues like the U.S. Big 4 or major European soccer are always going to meet WP:GNG. Individual guidelines that are problematic can (and should) be refined, if necessary, but to abolish the whole thing strikes me as throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Why is it better to have a microstub on a non-Anglophone athlete hang around for a couple years before being deleted due to not meeting GNG than to just not create it in the first place? JoelleJay (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  And the fact is, that for every such microstub on a non-Anglophone athlete, there are multiple microstubs on Anglophone athletes... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree that some of the guidelines that make up NSPORTS need serious reform (particularly NFOOTY and its fully professional leagues), and I also agree that there's a problem with editors treating notability guidelines as a green light to create stubs on the least-notable subjects that technically meet those guidelines. However, scrapping every sports-related SNG as a result isn't the right fix. For a topic as broad-ranging, popular, and frequently contentious as sports can be, it's incredibly useful to have some guidance as to what's notable and what isn't. If you can just say that athletes who meet guideline X are usually notable and athletes who don't usually aren't based on past experience, you can skip over a lot of extremely similar arguments about the same sorts of athletes. (This of course becomes a problem if the guideline stops reflecting source coverage or community standards, but even then it makes more sense to have a debate about changing the guideline than a lot of smaller debates about individual topics - imagine if the recent tightening of WP:NOLYMPICS had to be rehashed over thousands of individual AfDs.) I also disagree with the notion that removing SNGs will counter systemic bias, because it's a lot more likely to just shift the systemic bias elsewhere. GNG leaves enough room for interpetation that it's easy to debate what counts as significant coverage or multiple sources at AfD, and editors can set those bars higher for subjects they're biased against, consciously or not. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose is it true that a number of increasingly vocal editors are dissatisfied with the prevalence of sports coverage on Wikipedia? Yes. Does that mean we should blow it all up and hope for the best? No. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - there are certainly problems with the present creation of sports articles, especially American college sports IMO, but to delete NSPORTS, with no replacement, will create more problems than it solves. Also, as per User:TheCatalyst31 and others, I simply don't believe that destroying it will do anything except make systemic bias worse, for the usual reason, i.e, the variable existence/accessibility of GNG-acceptable sources. Ingratis (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Ingratis: Do you sincerely believe that having thousands of database-entry microstubs reduces systematic bias issues, or that it really does justice to a subject from [insert minority group here] if the only thing that can be said about them is "Foo played X sport for Y team between 19AA and 19BB"? Again, for every example from a minority group, there are probably a few if not a dozen or more examples from non-minority groups... (as pure statistics will show you) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  RandomCanadian, I think you're really overblowing the the systemic bias aspect here. It's true that since we're all in the Anglosphere, thus we're going to have a systemic bias towards primarily creating Anglosphere articles; however, I think focusing a critical aspect of depreciating an SNG on lowering this via nuking a bunch of articles is creeping into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory (I'm not disagreeing that those articles shouldn't be nuked as a lot should, just not for this particular reason). Curbon7 (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  RandomCanadian I don't think that your example "does justice" to the subject - no stub does - but it does a great deal more justice than nothing at all: even your example contains 4-5 pieces of information of use to an enquirer. How it is less patronising or denigrating to remove all coverage instead escapes me. Ingratis (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – If NSPORTS is being misused in AfD discussions, that's not a problem with NSPORTS, that's a problem that the people in the discussion and the admin closing the discussion need to pick up on. These are guidelines, not policies. If they are not being treated as such, then that's not an inherent problem with the guidelines but instead a problem with the way discussions are being conducted. Amongst motorsports editors, WP:NMOTORSPORT has been recently updated and it is used appropriately (in both directions) in deletion discussions (I follow or participate in virtually all AfDs sorted as motorsports-related, so I feel qualified to make this judgement). There is no inherent issue with SNGs. There may be an issue with their current iterations or use, but those are not inherent and this proposal is a massive overreaction. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't really see what we gain by removing the SNG. There are certainly ones that need fixing, but the arguments that it takes too long to fix them isn't a great one to delete the whole guideline. They are, remember, guidelines. There are certainly ones that do a good job of explaining what sorts of people should meet GNG, and that's what is important. Ones that are overly broad, such as WP:NFOOTY should be closed. The process of using SNGs at AfD to say "meets NWHATEVER so notable" needs to change to "meets NWHATEVER, so we should find suitable sourcing". If something doesn't meet an SNG, then the article itself needs to make a really good claim for notability or be quickly deleted in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Don't really see the point in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Something may well be wrong at AfD with sports-related articles, but that doesn't mean we scrap a well-written SNG. Maybe we need to make changes to WP:N, maybe we need to permit closers to have more discretion, or maybe we need to figure out how to make individual AfDs less suspectible to the extremes. Maybe we need to start enforcing WP:MEATBOT/WP:MASSCREATE or add explicit guidance into WP:N to that effect to handle database-like creation. Maybe some of the NSPORTS criteria needs to be tightened. But I don't think getting rid of SNGs is the solution. We have maybe 100 guidelines in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions for example -- the concept of SNGs or guidelines in general is not a problem, it's good and ensures consistency at a large scale. The problem is the wikilawyering at times used in their application. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: throwing out the baby with the bathwater will just leave a lot of confusion and time-wasting with no place to easily refer newcomers to and much more random fluctuation based on the opinions of the few people that will turn up at individual AFDs. I know people don't like admitting this, but GNG has almost no detail, and tells you very little by itself. Okay, so a book-length source entirely about a topic is "significant", and passing mention is not, but what about almost all sources, which lie imbetween? It is only community norms and SNG which let us apply a consistent interpretation of GNG.
  I gather that trying to tighten various NSPORTS criteria has failed—if this really is a bug and not a feature (it'd be a feature if the deletionists are out of step with community consensus), then how about more explicit guidance on when notable sportspeople should not have standalone articles? Recall, from WP:N, [GNG and being within scope] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. — Bilorv (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Obviously deletion discussions are generally not just 'deletionists vs the community'. In fact, if you wanted to make a very crude first approximation, a better one might be 'subject-area editors vs random other people who just happen to turn up'. In this very discussion and others like it, you'll see strong hints that there's people who acknowledge there's too many sportscrufty bios... except in their preferred sport, which had the most wonderfully exacting standards. The more useful SNGs have exactly the point of firming up on the necessary vagueness of the GNG. Academic? Then this is what notability should look like in that capacity. And so on. But with the sportsbios we have to deal with the vagueness of the GNG and with the bizarre -- and frankly, bizarrely low -- participation thresholds. And with how those two things relate to each other, which could stand to be clearer, could usefully be more procedurally defined, and which some editors evidently reject, while wanting to cherrypick parts they like. 109.255.211.6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've been mulling this one over for several days. As a card-carrying sport agnostic, I find it sad that such a high proportion of bios are sportspeople. I've joked that put any common anglophone masculine name into Wikipedia and you'll come up with a disambiguation page of 10 footballers, 5 baseball players, 4 US politicians & one other; I don't think this is healthy. However, I don't think abolishing the sports notability guidelines will result in an orderly consolidation of sportspeople's bios into lists, where appropriate. There will instead be a chaotic period where those who are interested in sports create articles on people previously deemed to fall below the threshold, and deletion-minded editors put up thousands of bios lacking multiple strong sources for AfD, or even just prod them if the creator has retired. It would be preferable to tighten overly lax individual guidelines, and make more effort to find sources where notability is questioned. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - this seems to be (yet another) attempt to make a one-size-fits-all policy, that feels designed to make the lives of a particular sub-set of editors easier at the expense of the quality of the project. Whether or not NSPORTS requires improving does not justify getting rid of it entirely, simply on the basis that the proposer doesn't like that contributors to AfD might be able to point to specific policies that the proposer hadn't considered. It's nothing more than an argument that nuance is annoying. Theknightwho (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose While there may be issues with individual sports notabilty guidance, this should not equate to ditching the whole thing. If X sport's notability levels are causing concern, then they should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Yes, this can take a long time, but becomes more meaningful instead of ditching the lot. I believe WP:NFOOTY is the current guide under the spotlight, so maybe put together a case for tightening that, or whichever sport is the falvour of the month right now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support putting NSPORTS to sleep. It is a ridiculous (and ridiculously unprofessional) state of affairs when we allow—even encourage—a crappy little guideline outweigh fundamental policies such as WP:BLP and WP:ANYBIO (yes, naturally SNGs applied to the living are of far more concern than to the dead, notwithstanding the hydra of 19th-century cricketing, etc, permastubs which someone was kind enough to saddle us with). An editor above even argued that we shouldn't deprecate this SNG because it would enforce stricter sourcing on these petty-bios. D'OH! But that's where our laxity in the post has brought us to today, people. SN54129 15:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. A ludicrous proposal. Better to get rid of the ill-thought out, arbitrary, and frequently used disruptively GNG instead. --Michig (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Complete removal of this SNGs is not solution if there are issues be addressed on a case-by-case basis.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd rather spend my time editing and improving articles rather than endlessly debating individual deletion discussions. The guidelines are helpful and reduce needless debate. They can be scrutinised and modified if need be, to remove them would instigate bureaucratic anarchy.--EchetusXe 19:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose NSPORT has been a bedrock of wikipedia for a long long time and it has helped with keeping edit wars to a minimum. There can always be tweeks in what is presumed notable, but to eliminate it or even eliminate it to start from scratch is hurtful to this encyclopedia building process. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

BEFORERFC Discussion (NSPORT)

What aspects of NSPORT do people what to remove? Some of these are interrelated or may mootify each other. "Removal" can mean deletion or replacement. Feel free to add additional options (preferably w/ a timestamp if others have already !voted).
A. The presumption of notability (as used in AfD arguments)
B. The presumption of notability (as used in article creation--athlete bios need only 1 RS showing they meet a criterion rather than 2+ GNG-meeting sources)
C. Confusing guidance (e.g. the second sentence)
D. The language granting some indefinite amount of time for editors to find SIGCOV
E. Criteria that are not backed with empirical evidence they correctly predict GNG coverage 90+% of the time

1. All of it
2. None of it
JoelleJay (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I've changed this into a discussion. Please revert if you believe that was inappropriate, but I think this question is too broad, and too vague (for example, what are the "confusing guidance" sentences?) to be anything other than a WP:TRAINWRECK as a !vote, but as a discussion it will give us guidance for where future RFC's should focus. BilledMammal (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• F) The murky relationship between NSPORTS/GNG in theory and in practice (how to avoid the stereotypical "passes NSPORTS/fails GNG" AfDs, and how to deal with cases where even the criteria of NSPORTS are sometimes ignored in practice) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  So to address this we have at least these options:

  a) remove the presumption of notability and replace it with an explicit, unambiguous statement that all subjects must demonstrate GNG when challenged by a PROD or AfD (but you can still create articles sourced to RS showing the subject meets an SSG)

  b) Require multiple GNG-compliant sources for all articles from the start (removing the presumption of notability entirely and relegating NSPORT to the "collection of rules-of-thumb" I described in my bolded comment in the earlier discussion)

  α) remove the presumption of notability and replace it with an explicit, unambiguous statement that a subject meeting a sport-specific criterion is automatically notable, no GNG sourcing required JoelleJay (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• I would change “a presumption of notability” to “a likelihood of notability”. It is true that if a topic meets the SNG it is likely that sources will exist that would allow the topic to also pass GNG… however, it is not a guarantee. This simple change would should shift us from (perhaps incorrectly) assuming notability to encouraging the demonstration of actual notability. Combine this with an admonition to do a thorough WP:BEFORE search before nominating at AFD, and the SNG would be much less problematic. Blueboar (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Suggestions. The key is to reform NSPORTS so that it is more closely calibrated as a predictor of GNG. We have taken some good steps in that direction in the past year, including major reforms of NOLYMPICS (now limited to medalists -- further modification needed for team sports) and partial reform of NGRIDIRON (eliminating Arena Football League). Here are my suggestions:

• Other subparts are in serious need of reform: I supported Fram's proposal last year to eliminate NCRICKET unless/until the cricketeers can agree on a stricter and more predictive guideline.
• Another reform I would support: eliminate across the board and for all sports the presumption that playing in a single game is sufficient to establish notability. Raise the bar to two (or even three) games.
• Mandate that new articles cannot be based solely on database entries but must include from the get-go at least one example of SIGCOV. (Frankly, this mandate should apply across the board and not just to sports.) Cbl62 (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I find three games is very attractive for the NFL (for at least very temporarily significant reasons, as I mentioned before), but to be at all comparably predictive or objectively similar, you'd want that to be a lot higher for soccer, and lower for five-day games of test cricket, and so on. (Which isn't to say there might not be an issue with cricket at present counting too many games and types of games, of course.) And of course, in most sports there's several different types of competition, of varying significance, and combining those into some bulk metric is... tricky. It gets very complex and messy very quickly, which in practice it's going to make it tremendously hard to get agreement to anything beyond the most obvious some/none binary. The SIGCOV requirement I very much agree with. If there's some need to create articles (or draft-articles) that lack this, it needs some sort of monitoring or process beyond the present 'languish indefinitely' concept. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Why do we need a "predictor" of GNG? Why not just look at GNG itself? If it does nothing except "predict" whether GNG will be met, then it shouldn't be given official status. It's just an essay at that point, not an SNG. Mlb96 (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Quite. I'm decidedly skeptical on this too. But I think the rationale is one (or some combo of two things): build it and they'll come, and collateral or 'inherent' notability. Insofar as it's the former, I think what we need is process and management. Facilitation of creation and development in draft, or conversely of provisionally having articles in mainspace but with a view to revisit their presence after a while, or periodically if needed. If it's the latter, I'm far from convinced, but I suspect it's a big factor in people's thinking. "If people from this [category of competition] are mostly notable, it'd be a terrible shame to have just a few gaps: gorra catch 'em all. So good enough, declare them all notable 'on average'." To put it less than charitably, perhaps, but I detect periodic traces of this at least. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Re: A Removing presumption of notability would be counter to the top of Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N) emphasis added: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right... If that is the consensus (no opinion), effectively SNGs become obsolete, and WP:N should reflect that and remove SNGs also.—Bagumba (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...

  And if a subject-specific notability guideline explicitly defers to GNG, then that "or" becomes moot, because meeting NSPORT ultimately = meeting GNG. This wouldn't (and doesn't, as this is how it's already interpreted) affect any other SNG, some of which specifically do bypass GNG (NPROF). JoelleJay (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think the intent was for NSPORTS to "defer" to GNG in the strong sense that it was interpreted in that recent AfD. IIRC, it was a compromise to say that NSPORTS should be written so that passing subjects will meet GNG with 95+% liklihood. It was not intended to be a permanent pass to avoid demonstrating GNG, but nor was it generally expected that NSPORTS would not be sufficient in an intial AfD. Perhaps that was just an extraordinary exception. However, the current wording now seems open to accusations of WP:WIKILAWYERING by both sides.—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  A well-attended RfC in 2017 found a clear consensus that NSPORT does not supersede GNG and Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. This is reflected in the hundreds of AfDs where athletes meeting an NSPORT subguideline but not GNG are deleted for that reason. That some editors are unaware of this consensus or just ignore it indicates it should have resulted in explicit changes in the NSPORT language rather than assuming users would abide by this result. JoelleJay (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  It was always intended from the start that the sports notability guidelines did not replace the general notability guideline. From the RfC that established the sports notability guidelines: Echoing many of the participants' concerns though, consensus can not be considered in favor unless the new guideline clarifies that it does not replace WP:GNG but supplements it and that articles that do not meet this guideline may still be included if they satisfy WP:GNG. When you read the discussion (both for the RfC and leading up to it), it's stated several times that the proposed guideline would not enable articles to be created for subjects that did not meet the general notability guideline. This has been affirmed repeatedly in subsequent discussions. isaacl (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endless notable leagues Target the specific sport SNGs that blindly assume that because sport X gets sufficient coverage in one English-speaking country, it must get the same amount of coverage for any country's top league(s). Because there's Google hits (from a site in a language most here aren't fluent in and wouldn't know if it's reliable either) Many other sport criteria are more restrictive and true to the 95-99% "truly notable" rate that SNGs should strive for.—Bagumba (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Re: D "granting some indefinite amount of time" is a bit overstated. That was from NSPORTS's FAQ, which was more describing a rough practice, not so much a firm guideline. I'm not sure when it got transcluded on the main page, and not just the talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• "A" is an issue. There needs to be a short section in NSPORTS which says that NSPORTS must not be used in AfDs as an argument for keeping/deleting. Clearly it's of interest whether the person passes NSPORTS or not, but this should be stated once (unless there is some disagreement about the fact), preferably by the proposer and then never mentioned again (e.g. "Note: This person passes NFOOTY because they played one game for Rochdale A.F.C. in 1921"). I would suggest some standardized wording that people can cut and paste, to be used when someone breaks this rule, eg reply with "per WP:NSPORTSinAfD, NSPORTS must be not be used in AfDs as an argument for keeping/deleting." So if someone said "KEEP Passes NFOOTY" that reply would be posted immediately after. Clearly someone might say "KEEP Because he did play one game for Rochdale A.F.C. in 1921" instead, but in a sense that's a valid argument, albeit a excessively weak one, and hopefully the closer would take due note. Nigej (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't agree that sports should be an exception to SNGs. If the current NSPORTS is unacceptable, fix or remove the portions that are problematic. I could see if the concern is with SNGs in general, in which case academics or politicians, for example, would be held to the same standard.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've never really understood this "we must all suffer together" sort of argument. If someone's abusing the system it's them that should be punished. I don't see why those who are doing the right thing should need to do anything. The fact that nearly half of all Wikipedia biographies of living people are sports competitors (ie covered by NSPORTS) shows that the problem is with NSPORTS not with the others. Clearly there can't be other biographical SNGs with nearly half, otherwise there wouldn't be anything left for all the others. Nigej (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I was under the impression the vast majority of these were from NFOOTY, but I haven't got the statistics to hand (willing to be told). There are lots of professional footballers, purely by the nature of a length of the sport having been played back to the 1800s and the sheer depths of money and worldwide appeal. It's clearly too broad, as, while being a professional athlete might be notable in certain sports, it simply isn't the case this widespread. The fix is to look at each SNG individually and tighten up the criteria, so that we know certain people are going to be more or less notable. Then, any that are (per the Rochdale example, it's possible someone was notable for playing in that game, being particularly bad/good, or otherwise) notable but don't meet the SNG can be shown via sourcing that they are so. I do agree that we should have less "passes SNG so notable" arguments at AfD. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  The issue mainly relates to living people. Outside sports, 40% of biographies are for living people but for sports its 77%. Less than 20% of biographies for dead people are sports people but its nearly half for those still living. NFOOTY makes up a third of the sports biographies, so it is a high proportion, but American football comes second which seems odds for a sport that's basically only played in two countries. There's other oddities: Australian rules football (basically played in one country) has 14,000 while tennis (a massive worldwide sport) has 8,700. And are there really 10,000 notable racing drivers? Seems crazy to me. (NB all data about a year old) Nigej (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Stats from 2019 - more association football BLPs than all other sports combined. Levivich 14:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Couldn't find "all sports" in that link, only a selection. My numbers were Footy 153,000, All sports 450,000 (from Category:Sports competitors by sport), All BLPs 970,000. Nigej (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  What's the point of these counting numbers? Is there some quota as to how many articles athletes can have? Sports are more popular than academia so of course there would be significantly more athletes represented than mathematicians or whatever. Pointing that out doesn't help advance any argument. Spanneraol (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  There's no quota. However my own view is that knowing a few numbers helps people gauge how loose or tight the criteria are in certain areas. Obviously it's not an exact science, people make their own judgments about the merits of these numbers. In my analysis I compared the number of biographical articles with the number of "vital" ones (per Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5) - people we've heard of or perhaps should have heard of, again nothing precise here, just peoples judgment. For all non-sports combined, there's an average of 90 biographies for every "vital" one (living and dead). Fair enough, we can afford to have lots of articles about people we've never heard of. For soccer there's 1600 articles for every "vital" one. Some might think that indicates that the criteria for inclusion are too loose for soccer, some might not. For soccer to get down to the 90 level from 1600, we'd have to delete about 95% of all soccer biographies (or increase their quota of "vital" articles by the same factor). Anyway it's all food for thought, nothing more. Nigej (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  What's the point of these counting numbers? Is there some quota as to how many articles athletes can have? Yes, there is, when it comes to WP:BLPs. We are doing active harm whenever we publish a substandard BLP. I quote Tamzin, who wrote:

  But we are now the world's first-choice reference work, and we need to accept the ethical duties that come with that. Which include a duty to the people we write about. Some editors just need to accept that some names are going to be unlinked in their tables or football players and daytime screenwriting Emmy winners.

  Tamzin's entire comment is worth reading (as are her thoughts on her userpage), because she explains the actual harm resulting from poor-quality BLPs, particularly BLPs of marginally-notable people. The rule needs to be that Wikipedia is never the first publication to publish a biography of anyone, and so all Wikipedia biographies must be sourced to other biographies... not strung together from statistics and game reports (which are primary sources), but a tertiary-source biography built upon multiple secondary-source biographies. That's the only way we can be sure we're writing a proper encyclopedia biography and not just a dossier. Levivich 17:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've never really understood this "we must all suffer together" sort of argument: Similairly, I suspect the problems are with a few select sports, and not all of NSPORTS.—Bagumba (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)'m n

  That's true to a certain extent. As I noted above, it primarily relates to team sports, but its certainly not just soccer. Nigej (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• A and B are both issues. A - Something being thought to be notable at AfD is bad, when the range is particularly wide. Even if someone makes the argument "Passes SNG so notable", you should be able to challenge them for sourcing. B - This is almost the exact reason for having an SNG in the first place, but if the articles are sourced to meet GNG when they are created, then there is no issue. Perhaps we should be a bit stricter on sourcing, so when an article is created we need to at least give a good account that the subject meets GNG (this does happen at AfC). Expecting at least three sources isn't much that's needed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Sigh - each sport-specific entry needs to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Treating all sports the same simply won't work. GiantSnowman 18:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• I think the better way to approach this problem is with stricter BLP notability rules... for any BLP, any sport, or non-sport. Start there. Modify BLPPROD to allow the prodding of any BLP that doesn't have two GNG sources. Amend N to require consensus that there are two GNG sources at AFD in order for a BLP to not be deleted at AFD. Consider whether to retain the exception for NPROF (which is, AFAIK, the only type of BLP that has a formal GNG exception). This will avoid all the accusations/feelings that one particular sport, or sports altogether, are being "singled out". We have over a million BLPs and yes, this change would result in the deletion of a significant number of them. Levivich 18:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest an unusual RFC statement, and that would be:

"The community has decided that NSPORTS is too inclusive and asks that it be tightened within the next year. Amongst other possible changes, please remove provisions where NSPORTS passes an athlete in essence solely because they participated professionally."

Two notes on this. One is that is it is a general finding and request. Trying to make the large amount of changes needed by a specific community RFC is impossible, but the push needs to come from the community, not just the people active at the SNG, and this is a way to resolve that quandary. The other is that it does not specify "predictor of GNG". This leaves open the possibility that this is a unique field because much in it "coverage" is often created primarily as a form of entertainment and so needs a higher standard to be an equal gauge of notability. A higher coverage-type bar such as at NCorp might be required. As with ncorp, this could also vaguely/informally also calibrate GNG for sports. North8000 (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree that we need input from the whole community. I'm not sure we'll ever get agreement to delete large number of articles. My own preference would be some sort of "from now on, BLPs cannot be created unless ..." Nigej (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it would help to differentiate between "getting a biography" and "being mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia." A criteria that said something like:

• Played for at least two seconds and editors have located at least one article in an independent news source that contains at least 200 consecutive words about the player: separate article
• Played for at least two seconds and editors are unable to locate any qualifying articles containing at least 200 consecutive words about the player: add paragraph to the Wikipedia article about the team/season/roster, with suitable redirects.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This was essentially what happened in this 2017 RfC, which found There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. Since this didn't result in a specific change to the guideline that AfD participants could point to, it was basically ignored by the usual offenders and here we are. I think for this discussion to have any impact whatsoever it needs to be codified in the guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That RFC close also stated that there was a rough consensus that sources on older athletes are concentrated in print media. Because it is impossible to prove the negative that the sources do not exist to support an article, some intermediate standard is required for determining when an article on these athletes should be deleted due to lack of notability. Seems the entire community has dropped the ball on formulating this "intermediate standard", not the exclusive fault of any specific "usual offenders".—Bagumba (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 1 (NSPORT)

All subjects must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD. This could be added to, e.g., clarify the second sentence. Amendments to/additional guidance on this statement could include:

1. SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources would have to be produced during the course of an AfD.
2. Articles could still be created and exist in mainspace with only one RS verifying the subject meets a sport-specific guideline (SSG) criterion, but meeting a criterion would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion.
3. Editors would be discouraged from nominating very new SSG-meeting articles for deletion (barring non-notability issues).

JoelleJay (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support, with support of 1, and support of 2 iff a stronger change (e.g. GNG sourcing required from the start) does not gain consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Suggestion I would like to see elements of WP:FAILN being prerequisites when nominating a subject that meets an SNG. Say, article been tagged for notability for over a month. Even better, evidence that related WikiProject was contacted, asking for subject-matter experts to improve.—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I think if we're going to make such a sharp criteria difference between the 'creation' threshold and the 'deletion' one, I think it might be useful to be a little more explicit about what the expected time horizon is. Article creators might feel that AfD-timeline+not-very-new is a signal they have very little time, and be deterred from going about that business. Or conversely, they might find it sounds very slack and easy-going, and then be enraged if it ends up deleted within a month. Or else to be a little be more explicit about what process might handle making that determination, case-by-case. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Another possibility is if the article does not meet GNG within a month's time to draftify it. It wouldn't be completely deleted so no work is really lost, but would prevent articles that do not meet GNG for staying on mainspace for too long. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support in line with JoelleJay. BilledMammal (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support sounds like a good way to clean up non-notable topic articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support in line with JoelleJay as well. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I think this misses the point of why the SNG exists. It's not just for articles to be created easier. We absolutely should not be suggesting to editors that we want them to have a single reference on a new article. We really want to have an article that demonstrates GNG on the outset. The issues are when we are talking about items that are either foreign language, or where the sourcing would likely be offline (or otherwise difficult to locate). The point of SNG is to point to a specific group of people, and comment that they should be notable, as similar articles we've already proven do meet the guidelines. Here's an example:

So, say a Japanese player from 1960 has a database entry and nothing else, a similar Japanese player from the same time period already has some offline sources. Would we really want to take the other article to AfD and have the article deleted simply because those reading the AfD don't have access to those sources and/or not speak Japanese?

I don't think we gain anything by saying the second bit at all, we should really promote articles being well created in the first place. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, but I think requiring GNG from the outset would a) be a much stronger and more contentious proposal, and b) the outcome would be functionally identical to this proposal (athletes not meeting GNG do not get articles on Wikipedia), with the only difference being some articles are created first before being deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, as this seems to be a way to functionally relegating SNGs to granting only a probationary status. I don’t see how this could be compatible with WP:GEOLAND with respect to legal recognition, for example, where only a primary source may be available, or WP:NASTCRIT with respect to objects visible to the naked eye. Theknightwho (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I believe this will only affect WP:NSPORT - it will not have any impact on WP:GEOLAND WP:NASTCRIT. BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  The proposal begins with “All subjects”, which feels like it’s intended to be wider, given that we were inherently already talking about all subjects in NSPORT anyway. Would it please be possible to get some clarification on this @JoelleJay? Theknightwho (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Heck, this should be routine for ANY SNG. My response to Theknightwho is that yes, this would mean that article creators would need to do a good bit more digging to source their sub-stubs, but I consider this a feature of the proposal, not a bug. Ravenswing 12:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Pragmatically, is this likely to result in mass AfDs for articles where reliable sources are primarily not in the English language and therefore difficult to locate? The existence of a RS and the ability to check that source are not the same thing, and it is the first that matters here. It feels like the current SNGs offer some level of protection against this problem at the moment, which wouldn’t be there without some objective criterion for presumption of notability. Theknightwho (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support as also a good step to help ensure article topics are notable and articles meet core policies. Levivich 14:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose on multiple and different grounds:

Procedural oppose This is an entirely new and different RfC that would dramatically change NSPORTS. For it to be considered, it should be opened as a new RfC, complying with RfC requirements, including notice to the impacted projects.

Summary: For those who don't see this for what it is, it's yet another attempt to crush NSPORTS -- after the last effort to do so failed -- and to impose a strong anti-sports bias on wikipedia by imposing new restrictions that do not apply to academics, entertainers, politicians, businessmen, or any other group or category. Appallingly bad proposal.

Oppose 1. One week (the duration of an AfD) is simply not a sufficient timeline in the case of pre-Internet topics. A topic should have at least a year after the article is created for editors to search for SIGCOV in libraries, paper archives, etc. Also, it's inappropriate for this requirement to be directed only at sports articles. If such a requirement is to be implemented, it should be across-the-board and not targeted at one group of articles.

Strong oppose 2. A rule stating that passing NSPORTS would have zero effect in AfD discussions would render meaningless the "presumption of notability" created by the SNG. It is really a back-door way to completely gut and neuter NSPORTS -- the very thing that was strongly opposed by the majority in the RfC above. As written, this continues to encourage creation of sub-stubs based solely on database entries. I favor imposing a requirement of including one example of SIGCOV (above and beyond a database) as a better solution.

Oppose 3. Hopelessly vague as to "very new" -- does that mean one week, a month, a year? It's also drafted to be completely toothless -- "discouraged", really?

The real solution: Don't gut NSPORTS. Instead, tighten the standards that are too loose, and impose a requirement to have at least one example of SIGCOV for all new articles (not just sports articles). Cbl62 (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that I would oppose notification of wikiprojects, as this would cause WP:CANVAS issues specifically related to the partisan nature of the audience. If wide input it needed, it is better to widely advertise it in high traffic, relevant noticeboards.

As for "Oppose 2", shouldn't that be done by the creator of the article, before moving it to mainspace? BilledMammal (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

So you think it's appropriate to fundamentally change (more accurately, "gut") NSPORTS without providing a neutral notice to NSPORTS and its constituents? Unbelievable. Notices have been given. Cbl62 (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cbl62: This is extremely inappropriate; not only is the audience partisan, the message is biased - meaning that you have managed to violate WP:CANVAS in two ways. I would ask that you rescind the notices, and publish neutral ones is nonpartisan forums - or at least hold a discussion here about which forums to notify before unilaterally doing so. BilledMammal (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. This is a proposal which you admit is targeted at NSPORTS ("I believe this will only affect WP:NSPORT".) Yet, you oppose letting NSPORTS and its constituents know about this proposal -- a proposal that would render meaningless the presumption of notability for NSPORTS and no other guideline. If this change is to be properly considered, NSPORTS should be notified. Changes like this should not be made in the dark, but in the light of day. My notice (which you have now reverted twice) was neutrally worded and invited participants to weigh in one way or the other. Your substitute is meaningless and doesn't even say that the proposal has to do with sports!!!! In what way do you think my notice was not neutral or accurate? Cbl62 (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Moving this to your talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Nothing is being done in the dark here. WP:VPP is an open, community noticeboard; not a back room talk page.Tvx1 19:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is abolishing SNGs through the back door. GiantSnowman 14:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unfairly targeted towards sports figures when other categories (particularly political office holders) have some of the same issues. Spanneraol (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I'd support the automatic striking of any AfD vote which only made an argument along the lines of "keep meets N:BASE" (to pick the last example where I saw this employed) or "delete, fails N:BASE". I'm sympathetic to the idea of requiring GNG sourcing - but the issue here is that WP:N says that articles either have to meet GNG or an SNG. Decouple that - for all articles - and I'd be happier. The SNG (and that'd be all SNG and not just SPORTS) then exist as exemplars of the sorts of articles we should be considering rather than an excuse to create an article about someone that we have no hope of ever finding sources for. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I agree there are players who have articles that probably shouldn't, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the solution. Tightening up criteria is much simpler and more sensible. There must be a set of clear rules to follow regarding which players get an article and which ones don't. Remember, Wikipedia ain't paper. Masterhatch (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The crux of the argument is attacking all WP:SNGs. I don't see why sports is being singled out. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Poor argument for opposing, start a RFC for other SNG's if you think there are some that need to be dealt with as well.Tvx1 15:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  That is not what I am saying. I don't think any SNGs need to be dealt with, at least not to the extent that they should be effectively gotten rid of. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support In reality, this is already the case. However, AFD closers seem to be generally not aware of that. So let's finally spell this out so that this can no longer be a source of dispute.Tvx1 15:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose What exactly would be the purpose of an SNG if this rule were in place? #1 is the abolish proposal by another name, #2 expressly permits the creation of articles that can be deleted at AFD, which is just silly and #3 is completely unenforcable as it only takes 1 editor to start an AFD. Iffy★Chat -- 15:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As said above this is essentially removing SNGs without offically removing them. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a transparent backdoor attempt to abolish the sports SNG (and SNGs in general, if the proposer intends to be consistent). I don't see how the passage of this proposal and the resultant flood of contentious AfDs is likely to be beneficial for the 'pedia, but then again I don't have an ax to grind against sports articles. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lepricavark makes a very good point, this stinks of an underhand attempt to get rid of SNGs. SNGs are an important part in assessing a subjects notability within a project. They enhance GNG and ensure that subjects being added have relevance to a topic and are encyclopedic. I'd argue GNG is too lax with what it allows in, whereas GNGs sieve content to ensure it is high quality and adds to the knowledge base. Inherently, people within a project know a great deal more about their subject area than most and this is where SNG really have great merits. StickyWicket (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is removing SNGs without actually saying so.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The GNG is a deeply flawed guideline that is often used as an excuse for deleting encyclopedic topics and keeping crap. Any suggestion that any guideline, flawed or otherwise, must be followed is a non-starter. --Michig (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Under this proposal, in essence the sports notability guidelines would become a non-exclusive list of criteria for a credible claim to notability, and thus prevent speedy deletion, but not deletion at a deletion discussion. Perhaps there's a middle ground: prevent speedy deletion if the sports notability guidelines are met, but allow for deletion discussions to be more flexible regarding weighing all relevant factors, thus allowing participants to agree to allow for more time to find suitable sources? isaacl (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  That flexibility already exists - there are plenty of articles covered by WP:FOOTBALL where the GNG is failed but SNG is met. Some articles are deleted, some are kept, depending on the circumstances. GiantSnowman 16:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, as you know from previous discussions, I am aware of this. I am suggesting that a modification of this proposal could preserve this flexibility and thus be a middle ground. isaacl (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Cbl62's and StickyWicket's rationale. MSport1005 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is removal of all SNGs by the back door, as others have pointed out, and it would affect SNGs which are explicitly set out as alternatives to the GNG (such as WP:PROF). It also essentially elevates the GNG to a non-negotiable policy, rather than a guideline, and changes the burden of proof in deletion discussions from those who want content be deleted to those who want content to be kept. The GNG is useful but it's far from perfect and it's easy to misapply it. "Subject fails the GNG" is usually code for "I, an English speaker from a Western country, Googled the subject and didn't find much". Sometimes that's an appropriate way to determine the significance of the subject, but it isn't always. Hut 8.5 17:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lepricavark, et al. This is an attempt to remove the SNG by the back door. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cbl62's rationale; this seems particularly targeted at sports and sports alone, and to disallow notices to impacted WikiProjects seems particularly absurd given that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support and rebuttal of the dubious opposes: Cbl provides the only oppose argument which is not an undignified complaint that this is "an attempt to remove the SNG". However, most of those arguments don't make any sense. The first claims that "one week is not enough time". But that has never been an issue for any other kind of AfD, so this seems like special pleading. On top of that, articles in an encyclopedia should most likely not be based on archival documents or other primary sources: if one finds some other form of content which is an acceptable secondary source, and which could reasonably meet GNG, there is nothing in the world preventing the AfD from being relisted. So that argument is dubious fearmongering.
• The second argument brought forward by Cbl is that the proposed addition would somehow be in opposition to NSPORTS as it stands. That is entirely unconvincing, as NSPORTS already states that subjects should meet GNG (despite lots of people ignoring that in practice, and their votes being naturally disregarded at AfDs). The proposal is thus simply an attempt to clarify the existing language and to prevent further useless AfD shenanigans (one of the current problems with NSPORTS identified by many people). I do not see any evidence or reason why sport figures should be exempt from GNG: all articles should meet the basics of WP:V and WP:NOR, and if the only sources available for some sports figures are only primary sources or routine databases or local newspapers match reports, they probably do not belong in an encyclopedia. If anything, given how many sports coverage there is, there should probably be even tighter guidelines (lest Wikipedia itself become a sports database).
• In short, the proposed language is convincing and unambiguous manner, which is likely to reduce wikilawyering and special pleading. Both of these are clear and good reasons to accept this improvement, and the defensive and irrational opposition (including by the most prolific sub-stub-database-entries creator of all of them, just above) does not provide any compelling, logically sound (not fallacies) and policy-based argument to the contrary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  As for the "real solution": that has been attempted, but only ever leads to the same stonewalling as every other one... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reason I opposed the original. Either include all SNGs or none. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cbl62. Beyond the myriad of reasons provided, MMA is one of those sports where coverage is almost entirely in niche media not apt to get general consensus at RSN. If you want an encyclopedia written you need to leave it to WikiProject MMA to decide the allowable citations and the "top tier" promotions, which they've done a good job at these many years. If you want to purge pages like Rob McCullough from this encyclopedia that's ok but you're not only going to eliminate decent articles but you'll also alienate those editors. Maybe you don't care about either of them. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - We need to have harmony between SNGs and what happens at AfDs. This creates a gap between what the SNG suggests will be acceptable in an article and what it says should happen at AfD. Experienced editors would be able to read between the lines as to the significance of this change, but newer editors risk being misled. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose' NSPORTS isn't the issue in my opinion here. Certain sport specific guidelines are the issue. The Olympic and cricket guidelines have been tightened recently to align them better with GNG to an extent that consensus could be reached for them, and other sports related guidelines could be tightened. Removing NSPORTS entirely (which this proposal is basically doing) seems like a drastic measure to a problem that seems to currently be AfD related and related to certain editors activity rather that the guidelines as a whole. I agree with many of the other oppose commenters on the fact that it seems to be an attack on sports as well, and have previously stated my views that GNG shouldn't be the be-all and end-all of guidelines anyway due to the flaws that it has in English and recency bias. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is certainly a backdoor way of removing SNGs which are essential to order and encyclopedia building. How many more editors do we want to drive away? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment. This would not eliminate the purpose of NSPORT, as the proposed change is in line with what is already ultimately required by NSPORT: all athlete notability is directly dependent on and requires meeting GNG. Per the 2017 RfC:

There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion.

Per the first sentence

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.

Per the Applicable policies and guidelines section of NSPORT:

In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline.

Per the Basic criteria section of NSPORT:

A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have participated in or achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level.

Per NSPORT FAQ1:

Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it.[1][2][3][4] Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.

FAQ2:

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)

and FAQ5

Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
A5:No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

The intended purpose of the second sentence would also not be affected whatsoever, as it applies strictly to what refs are required for the creation of articles. WP:N can continue to reference those SNGs that do supersede GNG (NPROF, GEOLAND, NCORP) and the ones that don't (if N says a subject can be notable if it meets GNG or an SNG, and the relevant SNG itself defers to GNG, then the "or" is irrelevant).

This is also in line with the consensus noted in administrative close summaries of AfDs where subjects who pass an SNG but have been shown not to pass GNG and "keep" and "delete" !votes are numerically similar: Edvin Dahlqvist, Wei Changsheng, Raphael Noway, Francis English, Rafael Dias, Tony Frias, Lambert Golightly, Atul Raghav, Prateek Sinha, Salman Saeed (The result was delete. Whether or not the subject passes NCRIC becomes moot when notability is challenged. SNGs serve as shortcuts to determine which subjects are likely to pass GNG, but once challenged, sources have to show that GNG actually is met.), John Ford, Shahid Ilyas, Mohammad Laeeq, Obaidullah Sarwar (The result was delete. As pointed out by a number of editors, passing an SNG is irrelevant if an article doesn't pass GNG.), and Qaiser Iqbal.

I will be leaving neutral notifications on the Talk Pages of closers involved in contentious athlete AfDs, including the few who closed contrary to the wording of NSPORT.

The articles that easily pass an NSPORT sport-specific guideline (SSG) should also easily turn up GNG-compatible references and therefore never need to be brought to AfD in the first place if BEFORE is done, with the only possible exceptions being subjects in non-Anglophone countries or from non-internet time periods. This proposal acknowledges time-based amendments could be made for these exceptions, and participants here are encouraged to submit suggestions. The article subjects that barely pass an SSG are also the ones for whom a BEFORE search may not turn up GNG sourcing and would thus be vulnerable to AfD nomination and deletion anyway based on the current wording of NSPORT.

I'm therefore asking ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ oppose !voters to demonstrate how this proposal would materially affect the intended purpose of NSPORT, as written and in practice. JoelleJay (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 2 (NSPORT)

Change NSPORT so that game becomes season in organized sports and nutshell explicitly state articles can not use database, personal, or team pages as basis of creation.

Diffs of suggested changes (from a copy of NSPORT, others are welcome to use my sandbox or move to a more generally available area): nutshell, American Football, Association Football

WP:GNG covers the exceptional, but brief careers.Slywriter (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• For American football, what does, "have regularly appeared in at least one game" mean? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what this proposal means. Does it mean that an NFL player would have to play in every game in a 17-game season? That a baseball player would have to play in every game in a 162-game season? In the majority of games in a season? This is quite vague. I would support a proposal doubling all "one game" provisos to "two games" or even "three games". However, and in fairness, I should note that I made such a proposal with respect to NGRIDIRON last year, and it was rejected. A similar proposal was also overwhelmingly rejected with respect with respect to NFOOTBALL. Also, I believe that such detailed proposals to tweak NSPORTS are more appropriately presented at NSPORTS (and not here as a subproposal). Cbl62 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Don't entirely disagree on placement, though not sure a fragmented conversation is to the benefit of wikipedia which is why its here. On the substance the SNG should be a high and obvious bar since the idea is "high likelihood of survival" at AfD if these conditions are met. Season may be excessive but its also a clear barometer that eliminates those who sat on the bench for a few games without meaningful participation.Slywriter (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Every game of a season would be clearly excessive. A majority of games would be exacting, but not wildly unreasonable. Maybe some sort of 'significant proportion' sort of standard? Two or three games of the English County Championship or of the NFL is quite a lot, but two or three out of top-level soccer season, not so much. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • See comment above for more but I'd support any standard above "wore a uniform on the bench" and the closer to likelihood of a lasting and impactful career the better. SNG should be an obvious bar, GNG handles the rest.Slywriter (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 3 (NSPORT)

Remove all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events. This would eliminate several sections on specific sports where this is the only type of criteria give (such as for NGRIDIRON), while merit-based ones, like several in NTRACK, would be left.

The fundamental problem with NSPORT is the idea that participating in 1 or more games means the person is notable, but there's nothing about this criteria that assures more sources will come. On the other hand, holding a record, winning an individual championship, or awarded a well-recognized award, are things that are generally assured that more coverage about the person will come in time. Otherwise, we'd just expect individuals to meet the GNG to have an article. There should also be some type of grandfathering so that if passed, there is not a sudden rush for AFD. --Masem (t) 21:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - What you see as a fundamental problem many others see as a way to have easy to follow rules to stop edit warring and let new editors have something to follow. When new editors can be pointed to a set of criteria where 99% of participants meet GNG, they are much more likely to understand and create good articles rather than being pointed to GNG. It may not be perfect and some always slip through the cracks, but overall it works well and keeps arguing down to a minimum. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It's a claim that 99% of those people may meet the GNG but the way NSPORT is set up, editors don't have to do any work to show conformance towards the GNG or the key content policies like V and NOT. (Keep in mind a key NOT tenet is that we're not a Who's Who, which these "participation" criteria work against that. That doesn't mean less-than-star-players can't get articles with this due to no more participation, just that they should be based on what makes them notable. --Masem (t) 21:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS issue

A large number of notifications have been issued; one to WP:NSPORTS and the rest to a large number of wikiprojects focused on sports covered by NSPORTS.

The message originally had issues in that it was biased towards a certain viewpoint, and there was also an issue with the targeted audience being partisan. The message has now been fixed, but the partisan audience remains - the average view amongst members of the selected wikiprojects appears to differ significantly from the average view among the broader editing community.

At this point, I am not certain what can be done, as it appears a large number of editors have already been directed to this discussion by those messages, but I feel the issue needs to be noted. BilledMammal (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

In one sense, I see your point that it’s likely to attract editors biased towards one point of view… but the alternative was to just not notify WP:NSPORTS that it’s up for deletion, which is obviously not fair. Theknightwho (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:APPNOTE covers acceptable notifications, including those to "the talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion", which is clearly the case here. GiantSnowman 16:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

APPNOTE also allows editors to place notifications on user talk pages. It's a list of locations that may be appropriate to notify, not a list of locations that are always appropriate to notify. BilledMammal (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no objection to notifying WP:NSPORTS. My issue is with the notification of the various wikiprojects. :BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Why? Many editors will watchlist only their specific WikiProjects, not NSPORTS. GiantSnowman 16:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would say your desire to keep sports editors in the dark regarding this conversation is a much bigger problem. You want to change the rules to make it easier to delete sports articles, but you don't want the people who work on those articles to know about it. Sure, it would be much easier to get this proposal passed if the people most heavily-impacted by it didn't know about it, but that hardly seems ethical. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• I provided the notices and believe they were neutral to begin with. Even so, after a good discussion with Billed Mammal at my Talk page, I substantially modified the notice to the point where Billed Mammal agreed it was entirely neutral. As for the audience issue, RfC rules expressly authorize (even encourage) notice to relevant Wikiprojects. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC: "To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations: ... Talk pages of relevant WikiProjects." The wikiprojects where I posted are precisely that, "relevant WikiProjects." The proviso for notice to relevant Wikiprojects is intended to ensure that there is fundamental fairness in making significant changes to policy/guidelines. A key element of such fundamental fairness is that constituencies directly impacted by a rule change receive notice (and an opportunity to comment) before the change is adopted and implemented. Such procedural fairness is of paramount importance in any democratic/consensus-based system. Cbl62 (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Not "entirely neutral", but close enough that I didn't think it was worth discussing further. And I'll repeat what I said on your talk page; WP:RFC is an information page, and cannot overrule a behavioural guideline like WP:CANVAS. Further, WP:RFC warns against canvassing, stating Take care to adhere to the canvassing guideline, which prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased - it would appear to be directly speaking about this sort of situation. BilledMammal (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree with your view that it is improper to leave a neutrally-worded notice to relevant WikiProjects about an RfC that directly impacts the scope of their work. Indeed, such notice is essential to ensure that true consensus and procedural due process are satisfied. We shouldn't be adopting significant rule changes targeted at specific WikiProjects without giving those WikiProjects notice and an opportunity to be heard. This is pretty fundamental. Cbl62 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  It's not contentiously "notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased", it's quite simply notifying the subject of the proposal and its specific WikiProjects, which I believe should be a fundamental step in all RfC's. MSport1005 (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• WP:INAPPNOTE: Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking. That's how every SNG reform effort is stopped: just notify the WikiProject related to the SNG and you know you'll get a flood of "oppose" !votes. It happens in every single notability reform RfC. Levivich 17:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Alternatively, it's a lot easier to get rid of the SNG if the editors who edit in that topic area don't know about what are trying to do. But if you're in favor of getting rid of it, then I suppose that bit of unfairness won't bother you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  A "consensus" reached in the dark without notice to the impacted parties is not a real "consensus". Sunshine is essential for a fair process. Cbl62 (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  And where are you notices to other WikiProjects outside of sports? That’s why you’re actions were canvassing. You only notified those you knew would be opposed. There are many neutral noticeboards available to notify the community (including the sports segment) of RFC’s.Tvx1 18:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  The guidance at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC suggests giving notice to "relevant WikiProjects". Since this RfC is directed at changing NSPORTS and no other SNGs, sports projects appear to me to be the "relevant WikiProjects." I am not sure what other projects you think should be notified. If there are other "relevant WikiProjects", I don't object to your leaving a neutrally-worded notice. Alternatively, if you leave a list of such relevant WikiProjects, I would be willing to give the notice. Cbl62 (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Every SNG reform RFC ends up being posted to WikiProjects and then members of those WikiProjects come and !vote oppose, and the RFC ends up not gaining consensus. Does anyone dispute that this, in fact, is how it always goes? (Does anyone have a counterexample?) In which case, we might as well let WikiProjects determine SNGs, since they already do. Levivich 18:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think that WP:PORNBIO is a counterexample. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Touché! Levivich 18:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NOLYMPICS is another example where major reform was adopted by consensus in the past year. The narrowing of WP:NGRIDIRON to eliminate Arena Football League (something I proposed) is another. Cbl62 (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm.. NPORN and NOLY have really small constituencies compared to other sports wikiprojects, and NOLY took a pretty "brave" close IMO. Arena football is disfavored by WP:FOOTY, I don't really see that one as a counterexample. I'm awarding 2.5 counterexamples in total for these three. Levivich 19:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  So what? None of this changes the fact that the relevant WikiProjects should be notified when someone puts an SNG in the crosshairs. The bottom line is that these notifications were not canvassing. This subthread has been a complete waste of time. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'll tell you so what, Lep: Chris Lucas, no GNG coverage at all, played for like 9 minutes in one pro game, and his bio survives AFD. But Gary Chambers, who's got GNG coverage out the wazoo, gets a notability tag within five hours of article creation. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Levivich 19:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm well aware that some editors are resentful of the prevalence of sports coverage on the 'pedia. But no matter what you or the OP or anyone else tries to say, it simply is not canvassing to notify sports WikiProjects of proposed changes to NSPORTS. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Why choose the word "resentful" as opposed to something like, "concerned"? Levivich 20:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Because of the lengths to which certain editors have gone to try and keep sports editors out of the discussion. Not to mention the condescending dismissal of our comments. Also, because it's true. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think some editors are resentful, not of the prevalence of sports coverage, but of the reaction to any suggestion that the prevalence of sports coverage be reduced. For example, in this discussion, we have comments like Oppose - Jesus H. Christ, OP really has got a bee in their bonnet about this AfD decision not going their way haven't they?! I'd be resentful of that sort of a response, but not of the prevalence of sports coverage. When someone writes that, and then proceeds to notify a WikiProject, and then members of that WikiProject arrive and all !vote the same way, it does seem like the notification is intended to bring people of a certain viewpoint to the discussion. Of course notifying WikiProjects in and of itself isn't canvassing, but there is something real to the canvassing concerns raised here. Levivich 20:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  As I see it, those editors who want to change/eliminate the SNG are operating under the belief that those of us who disagree with them are wrong. As such, it would be ideal to prevent us from ever finding out about this discussion. And once we do show up, the next step is to poison the well by throwing around accusations of canvassing and dismissing our comments as undignified. You'll have to excuse me for having run out of patience. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  The ice hockey WikiProject has, on multiple occasions, proposed and gotten consensus approval of changes to the notability guidelines to narrow the criteria for ice hockey players. Regarding the most interested editors in an area creating subject-specific notability guidelines, that's to be expected, since they have the domain-specific knowledge to understand how to best apply the general notability guideline, or to come up with a different standard if desired. Editors with broader knowledge of other areas can weigh in to provide greater context in order to avoid criteria that are too inclusive or too exclusive. We need participation from both perspectives to build a strong consensus. isaacl (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Every WikiProject should be notified. This a discussion that applies to the whole community. Otherwise you’re canvassing.Tvx1 18:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  That's ridiculous. This proposal seeks to change NSPORTS. It is necessary to notify WikiProjects that would be directly effected by this proposal. Most WikiProjects would not be effected, so there is no reason to notify them. This is not complicated. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Tvx1: The guidance refers to notifying "relevant WikiProjects". It does not say "every WikiProject". That said, I have no objection to leaving neutral notices to additional relevant WikiProjects. Can you tell me which ones you had in mind? Cbl62 (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  As I said before, ALL of them. This is a discussion for the entire community, so in this case all WikiProjects are relevant.Tvx1 19:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  So do you think that every WikiProject should be notified about every proposal that might be of interest to the entire community? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment We have entire Projects that work on the basis of canvassing, so I'm not entirely convinced that notifying Projects that actually affect them is canvassing. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  And under Tvx1's suggestion, we'd have to notify WP:ARS as well! Cbl62 (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Noting this discussion is taking place on one of the central noticeboards for wide-reaching RFCs, a page we generally expect all editors to monitor, there is little reason to notify anyone else beyond the page of discussion, NSPORT. --Masem (t) 19:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  As GiantSnowman noted above, "Many editors will watchlist only their specific WikiProjects, not NSPORTS." A neutral notification to each of the "relevant WikiProjcts" is a more effective way to ensure that the impacted projects are aware of the discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  But this is still a problem per WP:RFC. It only needs to be advertised on minimally one of those pages of which VPP is one, and while talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects can be used, WP:RFC also says "Take care to adhere to the canvassing guideline, which prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased." Except for NSPORTS which is clearly a page that should be alerted, it is very clear posting the notice to any Wikiproject is going to draw editors that will not want NSPORT deleted.--Masem (t) 20:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Look, I'm in favor of further reforms to NSPORTS, including tightening one-game provisos, requiring at least one example of SIGCOV at the time of creation, and tightening overbroad subparts like NFOOTY and NCRICKET. But this is an all-encompassing proposal that impacts each of the sports WikiProjects. If such an all-encompassing proposal is to be considered, it is only fair (and procedurally just) that the "relevant WikiProjects" (the language used in the RfC guidelines) should be notified so that they can weigh in before this is imposed from above. Cbl62 (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  And you're giving good reason to expect that any editor coming from those Wikiprojects are going to be biased. Yes, so will those from NSPORTS but that page is 100% critical to this discussion. Editors in sports Wikiprojects that aren't watching NSPORTS likely care little on notability aspects. --Masem (t) 20:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• It would of course be easier to make decisions with fewer editors than more, but that's an issue with English Wikipedia's consensus-based decision-making traditions. Until there is a change in those, though, at present it's conventional to let editors most affected by a proposal to know about them. To build a true consensus with everyone as happy (or with the least amount of dissatisfaction) as possible, we need to hear the perspecttive of the active editors in the area. isaacl (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC on the use of dash-separated titles for sports events

Please see the subject RfC that addresses inconsistencies between current practice (eg 2014 US Open – Men's Singles) and parts of WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Allow new edits to talk page archives

Archived discussions on Wikipedia talk pages and centralized discussion boards come with the boilerplate advisement urging editors not to add new replies to archived discussions. This is not a policy or a guideline (at least not one mentioned here), but is still a rigorously enforced community norm.

I believe this advice no longer holds. I believe the original purpose of this advice was intended to avoid the possibility of newbies inadvertently posting replies where they have little possibility of being read. However, this is less of a problem now. Logged in users have had the ability to @mention editors since 2014. Also Discussion Tools, a beta feature (Preferences → Beta features), allows logged in users to subscribe to replies (This even works on archived discussions. I checked.). There are times where it would be entirely appropriate to keep a thread open without unarchiving; for example, when an editor is informing participants in a certain WP:TECHPUMP discussion that a bug has been resolved. I suggest that the wording on talk page banners be softened to advise that archives are not regularly monitored, that edits to archives should be reserved to those of a housekeeping nature, and that new queries would be better addressed in a new thread. Schierbecker (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Not necessary. The reason old threads are archived is because usually, the discussion has run its course (and many of the editors might simply not be interested in the topic anymore, or, if its from quite a while ago, they might not even be interested in Wikipedia anymore). In almost all cases, it is more helpful to start a new thread than to comment on an archived one (and if need be, reference can always be made to the old one). Threads being too rapidly archived on high activity pages can be solved with either an adjustment of the archiving time, or the well-placed use of {{dnau}} if this only applies to rare cases. Note that, in practice, none of this prevents the usual non-controversial minor fixes to archived threats, and a change on that ground would be unnecessary, either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Occasionally it is appropriate to restore a discussion from the archive if it was still ongoing when the archiving happened, or it would benefit from formal closure (e.g. to know what follow-up action needs to be done). See WP:VPPRO#RFC: New PDF icon for a discussion where I did that - consensus was clearly for some action but it got archived before that happened so I restored it from the archive, requested formal closure and then proceeded to start the next step. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• No. Discussions that drag on and on drive away good editors because only the truly invested care enough to argue forever. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section has an RFC.

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --Spekkios (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

No consensus RfC in final development

Wikipedia:Consensus/No consensus RfC 2022 is in its final stages of development. Editors are welcome to review the RfC draft and, if interested, to participate in its before-RfC discussion on the talk page. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC involved closures

I have a question about involved closures of RFCs. Sprung from a recent debate I had with Tewdar (I hope you don't mind the ping).

From Wikipedia:Closure_requests: Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion.

But from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs: Any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion.

These seem to contracdict. Which one is correct? Are involved closures of RFCs allowed? Mvbaron (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Grr... who dares awaken me from my... oh, hello Mvbaron! My understanding is that if consensus is obvious (even unanimous, in this case), even involved editors can close an RfC. Is this interpretation correct?  Tewdar (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, consistent with WP:NOBURO. But the basic underlying proposition is that anyone would close it that way, so sometimes participant closures raise controversy, but then again sometimes closures raise controversy, participant or not. The main issue though should be substance (is the substance of the close wrong) not 'who' procedure, although procedure problems joined with substance problems will more likely lead to overturn. That being said, closers should always be willing to consider in good faith reversing their own close as a matter of collegiality, if nothing else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction. An RfC can be closed by an involved editor if it's clear enough. What you're quoting from WP:RFCEND is just one of several ways to close an RfC (uninvolved close), not the only way. RFCEND goes on to say:

If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance.

Involved closures are not only permitted, they should be the norm. This is how it's always been (afaik) and how it always must be (because there are too many content disputes across our 6 million articles to have an uninvolved close for every RfC). Levivich 14:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I see, then it seems I was simply wrong. Apologies to all involved (ha!) parties. I thought the ways listed at RFCEND were the only ways to end an RFC... I didn't understand what formal closure corresponded to as it only is mentioned once on the page (in the sentence above). Mvbaron (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Then again if an editor is often opening RfC's on things in which there is basically no dispute, they are likely going to be taken to task, and it may eventually be seen as disruptive. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all, this can be closed I guess, I plainly read the page incorrectly. I copied the sentence from WP:CR over to WP:RFCEND - maybe it helps someone in the future. diff: [7] --Mvbaron (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked from the Spanish language Wikipedia: questions

Hello. I hope this is the appropriate place to ask this. I mostly edit and have edited here in the English language Wikipedia but occasionally also make edits on the Spanish, Hebrew, and French language sites (much more rarely, in a narrower range of areas, and for not as long). But I recently found that I had been blocked from the Spanish language page for 8 months for "long term abuse", here: https://es.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:UsuariosBloqueados&wpTarget=%23644778

This is to me shocking and confusing because I have never engaged in that and also never seem to have gotten a notification when it happened or saw any kind of investigation mentioning me there (I'm not sure what the policy is on that). Does it mean they think I am a sock puppet or sock master? (I am not.) I do not know but it is very distressing. I have been editing, mainly here on the English language site (I am a native English speaker living in and from the US) for longer and on a wider range of topics, and I believe I could be described as being in good standing. I am don't understand what I could have done on the Spanish site to cause this. I just now submitted an unblock request there. One question I have is whether this might cause me to be blocked on this (the English) site or others (such as the French) where I am not currently blocked (or affect my ability to edit on those/these sites). I am quite worried and not sure what to think about this. Any help is appreciated. Thank you Skllagyook (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)