Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

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

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.

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

« Archives, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196

Distinguishing abstract concept from same-named publication in which it was introduced (WP:D)

Consider a situation where a sufficiently notable abstract concept, theory, methodology, etc., is commonly referred to by the same name as a particular publication (usually a book) in which it was first introduced or made widely known. It seems to me that we should distinguish the concept from the publication in such cases, but it appears that this is not being done consistently at present. Consider these examples:

Abstract concept	Seminal publication	Related Wikipedia article(s)
Behavioral theory of the firm	A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (book)	Behavioral theory of the firm; Theory of the firm
GTD methodology	Getting Things Done (book by David Allen)	Getting Things Done
Tragedy of the commons	"The Tragedy of the Commons" (article by Garrett Hardin)	Tragedy of the commons

According to the WP:Disambiguation guideline, we should ask: When sources (or Wikipedia readers in general) use the name in question, which are they most likely to have in mind? If the answer is clearly one or the other, the article should be written, structured and titled accordingly; if the answer is unclear, an appropriate disambiguation technique should be applied, possibly including the creation of separate articles for each. Yet among the examples noted in the table above, both the "Behavioral theory of the firm" and "Getting Things Done" articles are currently treated as being primarily about a book, rather than a concept, even though (I would argue) the concept is clearly the "primary topic". (Note that both articles prominently feature "Book" infoboxes, and the titles of both articles are currently displayed in italics.)

I would like to invite some discussion as to the proper way to handle cases such as these, with the related editing guidelines to be clarified as deemed appropriate. — Jaydiem (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• The abstract concept would be at Getting things done, and the question then is whether one of the books or the methodology are "Primary Topic" for Getting Things Done. At the moment Getting things done redirects to Getting Things Done, it should probably go to the disambiguation page, until and unless we have an article on the general topic.

• To clarify, what I meant by "abstract concept" in reference to "Getting Things Done" was specifically the methodology that was introduced in Allen's book of that title—not the generic phrase getting things done (as synonymous with accomplishing things, "completion of tasks", etc.). — Jaydiem (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Behavioral theory of the firm discusses the theory which seems to be based firmly on the 1963 book. It is not, though, about the book, or not primarily.

• And yet the article contains a "Book" infobox, the template for which includes wikicode that causes the article title to be italicized, based on the assumption that the article title is a book title. If the primary topic of the article is the concept, rather than the book per se, then this treatment is erroneous. — Jaydiem (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, we have tended to wrap {{Italic title}} in infoboxes. Funnily enough in the case of taxa, which was the first to do so, we now tend, I believe, to make it explicit (since higher level taxa aren't italiciɀed). When the MOS for titles was changed to allow other italic titles, I suspect fear of the amount of work required to implement the change article-by-article prompted this approach. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC).

Similarly Tragedy of the commons, while talking about Hardin's essay, discourses upon later development application and refinement of the principle.

So I would say these particular examples are not far removed from your ideal, which, broadly, I share. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC).

• Those were just three examples I came across or could think of; I suspect there are many more. Hence the apparent need for clearer guidelines on how to handle such cases in general. This goes beyond just the titling of articles; it involves formatting as well. — Jaydiem (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• It should be clear what the article is about, I doubt we need an extra guideline for that. There are some (relatively rare)pages which are effectively half-way between disambiguation and articles, having a paragraph about each of several more or less disparate subjects. These I am inclined to leave alone, forcing them into separate articles, when there's not yet sufficient material, seems officious and likely to provoke mistaken deletion. As for the formatting, it is not critical and individual examples should be simply fixed as they are found. It is important that we are accepting of contributions that are useful to the encyclopaedia. I'll have a quick look at the italicisɀation issue. Done All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC).
  

• It occurred to me that the question I originally posed about concepts and the works in which they were introduced, when both share the same name, could just as well be applied to products and the people or companies that produce them, again when both share a name. I don't have a set of examples coming to mind at this moment, but I know there are plenty of them out there, particularly in the realm of computer software.

Still another parallel, useful for comparison, is when a band publishes an eponymous music album or song. Again, there are innumerable examples, just one of which is Bad Company (band), Bad Company (album), and Bad Company (song). We seem to have no problem creating separate articles about creator and product in that context, yet I get the impression that this is not true with similarly eponymous abstract concepts, software applications, etc. — Jaydiem (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This is actually not true ("We ... have no problem"). Thousands of album articles have been deleted (some of them merged back to their artist page, some just ..poof!). In worse cases we have deleted the albums of an artist, then deleted the artist, as his albums aren't notable! So there are procedural risks and existential risks to splits of this sort. Generally we will split eponymous songs and albums if they are notable, but if the artist is a "one hit wonder" (or WP:BLP1E applies things it may be better to have a single article. I think you are correct that we have clear instructions about disambiguation, but no clear instructions about "non-disambiguation". There is no reason that we cannot have an article covering a troika of such concepts, and indeed sometimes it's the only way to do it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC).

Change to wording: Delete by redirect

This change was reverted. I believe it's needed and common sense. There is no reason to restrict consensus building to article talk pages only. Consensus can be created through any number of ways eg. RfC, AfD, any many other consensus building tools which editors have a right to use at any time. This policy, as currently written, can be used by rules lawyers to try and shut down any consensus discussion that is not an article talk page. There is an ongoing example of this. -- GreenC 15:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the advice there is about the action on a single page, it makes the most sense that discussion should take place there rather than, say, here on VPP. There are common sense exceptions but we want to encourage editors to keep issues involving a single article on the talk page for that article. If an RFC is needed, that talk section can be tagged with an RFC tag and will be advertized in the usual places then. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone nominated a 'delete by redirection' at AfD (they nominated an article for deletion by redirection) and now someone else is saying the AfD should be procedurally closed because there was no talk page discussion. Do you see the problem? Or do you agree the AfD should be closed as an invalid nom? -- GreenC 15:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

What is "delete by redirection"? Does this mean an AFD where the goal is to redirect the article to a different one? That's something we don't allow as a nomination result - that's something that should be done on the talk page of the article (since the action of redirection can be done by a non-admin). --MASEM (t) 02:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"Deletion by redirection" is what sometimes happens at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Masem is referring to WP:Speedy keep #1: "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion". The AfD in question is WP:Articles for deletion/Hawaiian cuisine, specifically this comment by User:Purplebackpack89. On a somewhat related note, I think that the WP:Deletion by redirection essay muddles things by equating redirection with deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If there is content on the page, and it is proposed that the entire content of the page be eliminated so that a redirect can be put there in its place, this is the equivalent of deleting the page. In that case, I think that it should be addressed as a deletion discussion. bd2412 T 14:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't though, because the content still exists in the history, and can be brought back by literally anyone. Deletion takes out the history as well, which is why it is different. --Jayron32 03:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Don't people already vote "redirect and delete" or "delete and redirect" to express this nuance? pbp 14:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Voting (not nominating) to delete and redirect is okay, since that is expressing an option that the original nom may have not considered. And nominating that the content should be deleted and replaced by a redirect is also reasonable. But do consider that making a page a redirect without admin-based deletion sometimes gets called out by inclusionists as "deleting content" (even though all the content remains under the history). If the only goal is replace (not delete) the content with a redirect, that's not a topic for AFD but one that should be on an article talk page. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The reverted language referenced in the original post seems to suggest replacing a speedy deletion case with a redirect. If something is a clear speedy case, then obviously no AfD is required. However, if an editor decides for example that Thomas Lincoln is not sufficiently notable, and should instead redirect to Abraham Lincoln, I think a full AfD is required to effect that. A talk page discussion is not sufficient to turn a sufficiently established content page into a redirect. bd2412 T 15:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that's a formal merge proposal which belongs on article talk pages. There is no administrative action called for there, it is an editorial decision. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a merge proposal if there is no intention to merge any content. Suppose there's an article on a notable person named "John Joseph Jenkins, Jr."; an editor comes along and makes a separate article at "John Joe Jenkins, Jr." about a completely separate and unrelated person, who appears to be non-notable. If research reveals that the notable "John Joseph Jenkins, Jr." was also sometimes referred to as "John Joe Jenkins, Jr.", do I need to initiate a merge discussion to get the information on the possibly non-notable figure removed, and the title redirected to that of the notable person? How about this, if the article "John Joe Jenkins, Jr." is about the same person as the article "John Joseph Jenkins, Jr.", but is purely a POV content-fork containing nothing but unsourced and unsupported statements that would have no place in any Wikipedia article, should I really be asking to merge them together? bd2412 T 17:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If your intent is to delete the history (of licensed contributions) than it is a deletion, if its not, its not a deletion, and no admin action is required to get it done (just ordinary editing consensus). - Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the merge is uncontroversial, then you follow the directions for bold merges, which do not require discussion.

In performing a merge, you retain all of the appropriate, encyclopedic, non-duplicative (compared to the target article) information in whichever page is receiving the redirect tag. If, using your best judgment, "all" happens to be "zero", then you have properly performed the merge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There are some very good reasons to have a centralized process for discussions involving content proposed to be deleted. They attract editors who regularly deal with issues relating to the deletion of content (notability, redundancy, syth, etc.) and expose the discussion to a larger swath of the community than those who are focused on a particular article. bd2412 T 18:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, which is why we have "a centralized process" for these discussions right over there at WP:Proposed mergers. (It's a bit confusing for you to keep saying the content is being "deleted", when actually the content is being "hidden in the history" or "removed" or "blanked", just like any other text that some editor doesn't think belongs on that page, without any actual WP:Deletion happening.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• • • The policy shouldn't say that talk pages are the only method for resolving a redirection dispute. Editors can AfD nom to redirect. It happens all the time. -- GreenC 15:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
      • If you are making an AFD nomination with the intent to simply replace the contents with a redirect (not delete the contents and recreate as a redirect), that is an improper AFD nomination, since the actual action of making something a redirect is a non-admin action and thus a waste of AFD's time. (Note, however, that a redirection result from an AFD that started as a deletion nomination is fine). Such discussions are supposed to be held on talk pages of the article to be redirected. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
        • The policy should say that: consensus should happen on talk pages if article history is to be retained, and AfD if article history is to be deleted. It's a distinction of redirect "types" (for lack of better term) that results in a different procedures and methods of consensus making. -- GreenC 23:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
          • I don't think that the average editor is going to understand that very easily. It's true, but it's not going to make sense to people who don't fully understand the back-end processes involved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
            • That's a justification to keep policy unwritten, sort of a secret that only the experts know about. It's not fair and leads to problems, like this discussion. -- GreenC 13:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
      • If the proposal is to replace a page's contents with a redirect, and this seems likely to be contentious, then what's needed is "a full WP:Proposed merger", not "deciding what someone with admin buttons should do to the page". AFD is not intended to cover things that editors can do, by consensus and discussion, without any admin pushing special buttons. Merges don't (normally) require any special admin buttons, so neither you nor your fellow admins get any special role in deciding for or against them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Delete is to delete licencing history and requires major admin action (always). If you don't want to delete history, you merge. Two different processes, for two different things, one (delete) generally requiring admin action, the other (merge) editorial action (and perhaps a slight mopping around the edges). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing at WP:AFD says anything about that process having anything to do with licensing history or the need for admin action. bd2412 T 18:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's under WP:BEFORE, and this is also the reason that the suggestion of renaming "Articles for Deletion" to "Articles for Discussion" to consider merging, redirects, etc., is always rejected as a perennial proposal. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability plants and animals

I have yet to see, not that I look all the time, a plant or animal (genus level or above) up for Afd. (I saw a species once at Afd, but that was probably a hoax article.) Yet when I look for a guideline on the notability of plants I do not find one. Many plants do not have the extent of coverage that seems to be required for individual people or books. Do plants and animals at the genus level and above have inherent notability, once there existence is properly verified in a reliable source? --Bejnar (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Werieth (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Have in mind that notability is a presumption, it's a concept we have coined inside wikipedia. If we can't find any sources talking about a garage band, we can't know in advance if there will ever be such sources, and so we delete the article if it lacks them. An animal or vegetal species is something that we can be sure, without any reasonable doubt, that it has or will have sources talking about it, simply because of its mere existence. Cambalachero (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is "inherently notable"; the community entirely rejects the idea that anything could be included if there is no possibility of meeting the inclusion requirements (roughly, notability = existence of sources × compliance with WP:NOT × editorial judgment). However, the bar for "sources" and "judgment" is unusually low for species and inhabited geoographical places. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

the community entirely rejects - Speak for yourself. I do not reject the notion at all, even if I am perhaps in a minority and it appears the community doesn't either (see NeilN below). Anyway, species have to be described in academic reliable sources, thus the problem does not really exist. If not enough sources exist for an article, a merge to the genus is usually uncontroversial. --cyclopia^speak! 16:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cyclopia: This is actually documented: WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I edited the above comment. --cyclopia^speak! 00:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, and next to that routinely disputed essay, see the many archives of WP:N, in which proposals to declare something to be inherently notable have all failed and see WP:ITSA, in which "All examples of foo are inherently notable" is given as an example of poor reasoning. If the community really did accept the idea that anything is inherently notable—that is, anything should be included even if exactly zero reliable sources had ever been published on that subject, in any language or at any point in time—then you would think that someone would have, at some point, managed to get the community to agree to it.
The fact is that species aren't "inherently" notable; they're notable in the same way that US presidents are: there are exactly zero recognized species that happen to have no published, reliable sources about them (due to the way that species recognition works in the scientific world, namely by publishing a reliable source about it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I know such proposals have failed. I disagree that the community entirely rejects it. It's not an unanimous rejection. Anyway, a subject with zero published sources about it would fail WP:V and WP:OR before than notability, so it is a non-problem, it would not enter the encyclopedia anyway. But there are instances where the two concepts clash. For example I have serious issues with WP:NASTRO. There are a lot of astronomical object whose overall coverage would easily allow articles to exist, with no OR or SYNTH, but since each individual piece of coverage in sources is an entry in a table/database or a very brief mention in a larger academic paper, it cannot meet the guideline. I understands this is fine to many people but to me it is absolutely insane. Allowing astronomical objects to be intrinsically notable would fix the situation. --cyclopia^speak! 17:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"Inherently notable" actually means that the subject deserves an article here even if it fails WP:V. That's what the word inherent means: "involved in the constitution or essential character of something; belonging by nature or habit; intrinsic"[1]. "Inherently notable" means that it "belongs in the encyclopedia just because of the nature of the subject". And as you've just pointed out, the community really does reject this claim that anything unverifiable should get an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

actually means that the subject deserves an article here even if it fails WP:V. - Well no, it doesn't. There are other conditions to have an article apart from notability. The requirements for WP:V are much less stringent than our default notability guideline. For example, a single source would be enough for an intrinsically notable subject (and indeed for species, the species description academic article can suffice). --cyclopia^speak! 18:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really: The very first sentence of the guideline says, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." Notability is "the condition to have an article". (There are many other conditions on what can be put inside the article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Bejnar, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homo sapiens. The first is a joke, calling for deletion because there are no independent sources, while the second was real, an attempt to get rid of what the nominator perceived to be a content fork. Nyttend (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have participated in a couple species AFDs (hoaxes: Blue Beaked Cockatoo, Dinocaeruleus smithii; actual species: Decantha borkhausenii, Banksia stenoprion). The actual species were keeps. There is a failed proposal at Wikipedia:Notability (natural sciences) that states that all species are notable. Chris857 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• I believe that I saw recommendations for species which have not been written about extensively to redirect to the genus, but I can't remember where. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Quite possibly monotypical genera, where there is no real distinction between the genus and the species. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC).
    

Deletion of category redirects

I recently participated in a deletion discussion for a category redirect, Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines, which is being held at WP:RFD. Is this the right venue, or should category redirects be discussed at WP:CFD? Redirects from all other namespaces are discussed at RFD, but the technically different nature of categories means that their "redirects" (which work differently and, from the software's perspective, aren't redirects) might warrant discussion at CFD instead. I decided to see what we currently said on the subject, but I can't find anything relevant at WP:CFD, WP:RFD, or WP:XFD. I don't remember ever seeing a category redirect up for deletion before (I'm sure it's happened, but I've not seen it), so I can't rely on doing-like-we've-always-done.

With all this in mind, I'm proposing that we add the following sentence to WP:XFD: "Category redirects should be discussed at _____", and a comparable passage to be added to WP:CFD and WP:RFD. I don't care whether we fill the blank with "RFD" or "CFD" or "either CFD or RFD", but we ought to address the issue somewhere. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I don't see anything special about category redirects, particularily no difference from template redirects. Neither I see any need in any mention in WP:RFD and WP:XFD. Warning against nominating redirects may be helpful at WP:CFD though. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 04:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of permissions for inactive indef blocked users

A proposal to update the permissions process for inactive, indefinably blocked users has begun at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_permissions_for_inactive_indef_blocked_users_.282014.29. Please join the discussion there if you are interested. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 16:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

is Wikipedia dying?

Posted at three locations; please discuss at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
just few years ago I could find artciles about everything new, but now I can't: King's Bounty: Warrior of North is just still redirection Ironclad: Battle for Blood - no article yet what happen to Wikipedia? deleters are clailm that "wikipedia already has articles about evering and now new articles are needed", but I see IT'S A LIE! why they become so POWERLFUL? why metapedists who do nothing just delete are more equal the thouse who write articles? why noone see the AGONY of Wikipedia? why noone tryies to save it? (Idot (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)) Assuming you are actually serious, policies and priorities change. As to Ironclad, see WP:FUTURE for why articles about intended sequels (with no real details) aren't being created. For King's Bounty, maybe it's not really a notable video game. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding categories

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Question_regarding_categories

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

---

82.8.252.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) tried to create Category:Western (genre) television actors with this edit. They then began adding it to several articles. Since some (though not all) did not meet the guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles where it states A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession. I then noticed that it was also a red cat and began removing more of the edits. At that point an SPA made this edit and the red cats turned blue. Since then the cat has been restored to numerous articles where IMO it does not belong. I came here to get input on whether these edits violate the guidelines for categories on the articles where there is no sourcing or when the genre is not a defining characteristic for the person. Also, if this question belongs on a different page please let me know and I will move it there. MarnetteD|Talk 17:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

MD is ignoring "Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article." How is Category: Soap opera actors any more important than this category? The Estern genre was massive, there were hundreds of series', thousands of actors (regular cast members) and they spanned several decades. IMO the editor has been abusing policy by demanding "reliable sources" when virtually every series and actor in question is linked to IMDB (which has not been classed "reliable" not "unreliable" but in many cases in the best we have as books on these series are not going to be easy accessible or affordable. In short: a category verifiable via IMDB is better than no category at all, and men actors have been involved in many genres what exactly is "defining"? Indexing isn't about POV as much as about making articles accessible to readers, as it creates a list through which they can reach a list of names of the many actors in a genre, whether it be soaps, westerns some music genre or other. Fussing over petty trivialities as MD is is missing the point as to why we're building this encyc. and adding unnecessary disputes. His/her reverts were poorly managed, POV-based and lack, not only good faith, but an understanding of who categories are for. Not us editors, but the millions of readers who we never see: indexing for accessibility not just POV notability. But Westerns are a notable genre, all these series are created, the actors names are present in them so they are notable for that fact already. Just as lesser-actors are "notable" for appearing in soaps where there is far less recognition for them. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

None of this displays any understanding of the basic posiciy regarding cats as italicized on your talk page and above. There needs to be reliably sourced info showing that the genre is a defining characteristic of the person whose article the cat is added to. MarnetteD|Talk 18:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

And once agin you ignore the question: what is the "defining" characteristic of an actor who has had roles in several genres, when the Western genre is in itself a defining genre with a huge array of articles? Also, could you show me any editor who reads and verifies an entire article before categorising it just to be sure it meets your persona expectations? I see editors bulk-adding dozens of articles per seconds with HotCat and AWB, many are stubs 3-5 lines long with no sources at all. Do you revert and harass them also, for their good faith contributions to wikipedia? Do you abuse policy and choose to remove dozens of cats as "red cat" rather than simple add a TOC to the cat in question to confirm it? There is good faith and there is side-stepping policy to your own advantage, and it is clear for all to see that you choose the war-path instead of the honest alternative. Oh, but "you don't work for me" you say. I wasn't aware anyone did... WP:VOLUNTEER. If I don't work for you either, I suggest you tone down your critical opinions, you would have got further without mis-representing policy and making false accusations towards me in a WP:BITE-like fashion. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I would propose to move this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion (and close it here) and put a request for comment at the end for it to see what others have to say about it. If response is to low after 4 days days move the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories and try again. Cheers Mion (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea Mion. The reason I didn't go to CFD first is that I wasn't proposing that the category be deleted. I know that page is titled "Categories for Discussion" but the discussions are about deletion, renaming or merging and I was not proposing any of these. Please feel free to move this to wherever you see fit. MarnetteD|Talk 18:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems the newly created category is a doublure as many of the actors also appear in Category:Western (genre) film actresses and Category:Male Western (genre) film actors (maybe i'm wrong in this), the newly created cat lacks the category nesting at the bottom of the page, 'ill move the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion for more input. Mion (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

RFC for Template:Geographic reference

I started an RfC at Template:Geographic reference. Template:Geographic reference is a very extensively used template that, in my opinion, does nothing more than provide a hard-coded instance of ten separate and very loosely connected sources. The RfC merely asks if we should split the references out into separate templates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Terms of use and relation to Wikipedia policy

In response to the new Terms of Use which now require disclosure of being a paid editor as well as disclosure of your financier discussion has begun on WP:COI as to how this relates to us. Although their current wording on the paid editor addition specifically states that it doesn't supercede the policies of current Wikiprojects, this is problematic because WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy, and stands in contradiction with their new terms of use. This is concerning to me because our policies and guidelines have always been held to be the result of community consensus, except in areas where legal concerns were important. This line in particular bothered me:

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees releases official policies from time to time. Some of these policies may be mandatory for a particular Project or Project edition, and, when they are, you agree to abide by them as applicable.

So what the WMF is saying is that at any time they can pass any policy and we would all be required to follow it. I believe the WMF is overstepping its purpose by trying to micromanage editing behaviors that pose no legal threats to the projects. I'd like to hear others opinions, but I believe we should communicate the following to the WMF:

1. The Terms of Use should be restricted to topics that are legal liabilities to the projects as well as those that directly concern the WMF office actions, and should not discuss the general content and editing behaviors of the projects beyond that
2. The Terms of Use should instruct users to respect the policies and guidelines of the project that they are on, and avoid trying to supercede any particular project's policies or guidelines.

AioftheStorm (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• An office action may be taken by the WMF as they feel fit. Terms of service is something that they decide, and does not appear to be a matter of consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• WP:Terms of use is English Wikipedia policy. Terms of use are just that. English Wikipedia is in community with the WMF, appropriately, legally, financially, and operationally. Part of that English Wikipedia Policy is "if you do not agree with our Terms of Use, you cannot use our services." (WP:TOU, section 16). Questions of "legal" and "not legal" and "what concerns the WMF" are within the WMF's judgement -- we already consented to the TOU (and its changes) and the Foundation's role in it, when we used this site. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ty Mark for the term "office actions" which I had seemingly forgotten about. @Alanscottwalker, I just want to clarify that I make no claim that the WMF is overreaching its authority, I am arguing that they are overreaching their purpose and should reconsider this change to the TOU and future changes like it that infringe upon and override previous community consensus.AioftheStorm (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

About use of season

It had been told that in English Wikipedia there is a policy saying because we have northern and southern Hemisphere, thus we should not use winter/summer to refer to a date range, and instead we should use Q1/2/3/4. But I have some confusion over how to convert summer/etc. into Q2/etc. For example, a video game called Sword Art Online: Hollow Fragment is set to be release in North America on Summer 2014, and the 'summer' is treated as Q3 2014. But then we got Playstation TV which is going to North America/Europe by Autumn/Fall 2014. But then it is also described on the page as the release date is Q3 2014. so is the Q1/2/3/4 cannot fully carry the meaning of spring/summer/autumn/winter, or there are some mis-conversion, or something else is wrong with it thus causing potential inaccuracy/blurriness?C933103 (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@C933103:Because there are different definitions of when seasons start and end, I use the following as a rough guide: Spring = Q1/Q2, Summer = Q2/Q3, Autumn = Q3/Q4 and Winter as Q4 2014/Q1 2015. Also feel free to use phrases like "End of 2014". So your "Summer 2014" I would change to "Q2/Q3 2014". Remember, when they announce dates like Summer 2014, it's just their best guess so you don't need to worry about being exact, because they're just giving a general window, allow yourself the same leeway, you'll be able to get a more accurate date nearer the release, and you can always quote the person in the prose Fred Bloggs said it would be released during "Summer 2014" - X201 (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

How to cite origins of an ancient idea

Template:Over-quotation links to the Wikipedia:QUOTE essay. Can we please add clarification to that essay regarding how one should handle discussion of ideas like the golden rule which seem to have originated in various forms across many religious traditions? The golden rule article includes about one hundred citations of the rule in various forms from notable sources. This strikes me as valuable because it

1. establishes the notability/universality of the idea
2. demonstrates the evolution of the idea
3. contextualizes controversy over the origins of the idea
4. allows readers to appreciate controversy over whether the sources really do reference the same idea

I find it hard to imagine the the golden rule article being of high quality without containing a large number of quotations, but the Wikipedia:QUOTE essay currently does not explain what makes the large number of quotes appropriate in that article. Can we please add some clarification to prevent overuse of Template:Over-quotation?

This request has also been posted at Wikipedia_talk:Quotations#How_to_cite_examples_of_an_idea.2Fargument Langchri (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

mobile editing and community values

Hello. Currently, the wikipedia mobile website (m.wikipedia.org) does not allow you to edit anything, including talk space, without logging in. Now, you can go to the desktop site (which is what I've done), but this seems to be an arbitrary restriction of usability based on platform rather than content. By my understanding, wikipedia and the foundation still consider the input of IP users to be more valuable than the increased effort required to police their vandalism, so why does the mobile website not allow editing? The argument that mobile users make fewer legitimate and more vandalistic edits seems at least truthy, if not true, but it feels a bit uncomfortable to me. Changing access (and yes, I do consider editing one aspect of wikipedia access; like it or not, wikipedia serves as both an encyclopedia but also a kind of crosscultural forum for expression) based on broad groupings that arent directly related to edit quality is unnerving to me. You could probably make an argumwnt that users using gentoo are less likely that most IPs to be malicious, and therefore they should be given autoconfirmed privileges, but it would be a bad road to go down in my opinion. I think the chrrent state of the mobile website is a similarly bad precedent. Thank you for your time, and sorry if this should be in technical. 97.94.188.47 (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)