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 one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals.

« Archives, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194

RfC on secondary school notability

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

Summary of the close, added 13:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC):

---

The question asked in this RFC was whether extant secondary schools should be presumed to be notable. Numerically, the respondents to this RFC were about evenly divided between supporting and opposing that statement. However, this is a discussion, and not a vote, and what truly matters is the strength of each side's argument. The opposers have a strong policy-based argument. Requiring the GNG to be satisfied in all cases is a perfectly sensible position, and one that is consistent with all applicable policies. The arguments of the supporters were more mixed. Some arguments, such as "Schools are important to their communities", "Automatic notability of schools are how Wikipedia has always done it, and this has historically served us well", and "School articles are valuable as a recruitment tool for new editors" do not make much sense and were discounted. Another common argument was that removing the protections secondary schools have historically enjoyed at AfD would lead to a flood of mass AfDing. This is a concern to be addressed in a hypothetical implementation, but is not germane to the question of whether those protections should exist. These opinions were partially or fully discounted in our evaluation. The supporters did have some very good arguments mixed in with the poor ones. The argument that sources for secondary schools are more difficult to find than they are for typical topics because they are likely to be concentrated in local and/or print media is very valid. Additionally, the argument that removing the presumption of notability from schools would increase systematic bias is very strong.

Based on the discussion, we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this stops short of a rough consensus. Whether or not the community has actually formed a consensus to reject the statement posed in the RFC is a distinction without a difference - Either way the proposed change will not be adopted.

Over the course of the discussion, the conversation expanded to include the proper role of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument "We should keep this school because we always keep schools". This argument has been rejected by the community. Therefore, while SO remains perfectly valid as a statement of what usually happens to extant secondary schools at AFD, SO should be added to arguments to avoid in AFD discussions. Rationales that cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES are discouraged, and may be discounted when the AFD is closed.

Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them. If a normal-depth search fails to find any evidence that the school exists, the article on the school should be deleted without the need for a deeper search.

It's worth noting that this discussion does imply that schools are special. We would expect an RFC asking "Should artists whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?" would be closed quickly and with snowballs. The fact that this was not the case for schools is telling.

It's further worth noting that a flood of AfDs following the addition of SO to the "arguments to avoid in AfDs" list is undesirable. Editors are asked to refrain from making indiscriminate or excessive nominations.

Signed

• Tazerdadog (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• Primefac (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• The Wordsmith (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• Someguy1221 (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

---

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools, commonly referred to by its abbreviated link WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists". However, a number of recent AfDs on secondary schools have closed either with no consensus or with consensus to delete. The closing summaries of two of these AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden English School Btl and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bal Vikash Secondary School, have included recommendations that an RfC be held on the notability of secondary schools. Following discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Need for an RfC on schools' notability, there is agreement to hold this RfC, with the following question:

Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. I am in favor of keeping and improving articles about accredited, degree awarding secondary schools as long as that information is verifiable through reliable sources. This has been standard practice during my 7-1/2 years of editing. These schools are important institutions within their communities and biographies of notable people often discuss their educational backgrounds including their attendance at secondary schools. An encyclopedia with well over five million articles certainly has room for such articles. If the existence of any given school cannot be verified, then I support deletion of such an article. One of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is that it "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Providing articles about degrees awarding educational institutions is entirely in line with that goal, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support keeping status quo. Generally, high schools are important enough that there is almost always significant coverage in reliable sources, which may not necessarily be easily found on the Internet. A high school in the developing world could be widely covered in papers that have no online presence, and most AfD participants are Western and native speakers of English who would have difficulty locating those sources, causing systematic bias as US high schools are much easier to defend against deletion even though they are no more notable than their counterparts elsewhere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Everything should be subject to GNG. GNG exceptions should be narrowly focused if made at all. If there are no reliable sources then there is nothing we can responsibly write about the subject. This is a particular problem with the thousands upon thousands of schools, academies etc in India but can be as bad with US schools as well. These articles are magnets for vandalism, promotionalism and BLP violations. Jbh^Talk 19:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Government websites and publications can be a source of reliable information on government-created entities despite not being independent, something which is not true for private organizations. That's why a town with a population of 3 in Wyoming is notable despite perhaps having only trivial mentions in reliable sources (e.g. a list of cities in Wyoming). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  The problem which arises is with private and for profit educational institutions. At a minimum these should be subject to WP:NORG. For what are considered 'public' schools in the US they can be mentioned in the article about the locality. One of the defining points of Wikipedia is that we are a tertiary source. Making exceptions to this may increase the number of articles we have but it does nothing to help the quality. I do not generally like GEOLAND since I think there is a qualitative difference between an encyclopedia and a gazetteer but geographic places generally do not pose the same problems with NPOV etc that schools do. Jbh^Talk 20:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  I would not be opposed to excluding private schools from this criterion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  This s not quite quite accurate JB. We have G11 and G12 which are rigorously applied to promotional school articles. Other CSD criteria too whenever appropriate. It would be incorrect to say, for example, that all high schools are notable irrespective of any deletion criteria that can be applied. They are not immune from PROD either. I also live in Asia and I can safely say that only a tiny a minority of schools here are for profit, although the situation might possibly be slightly different in the very rich micro-states of Singapore and Hong Kong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  While Verifiability is a core content policy, the GNG is a guideline which does not apply in all cases. The exception that comes immediately to mind is WP:ACADEMIC. We often decide that an an academic is notable based on how often their work is cited by other scholars as opposed to the sort of coverage required for a singer or a fashion designer. Similarly, we keep articles about 19th century state or provincial legislators per WP:POLITICIAN even if the only readily available source is a mention in the legislature's own records. The GNG is important, but not all-important. If it were, it would be a policy rather than a guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  I can see a GNG exception to public i.e. government run secondary schools but not for private/for profit schools. This RfC would allow a GNG exception for what are essentially diploma mills and businesses. I could support something which is more narrowly focused but GNG exceptions need to serve some articulable purpose which is a net benefit to the project. I do not see the net benefit here. Jbh^Talk 20:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Can someone please define "secondary school". Some of the explanation in the RfC opening comments and in the linked AfDs seem to be very US-centric. Eg: UK secondary schools never award degrees. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I am sympathetic to the "GNG or bust" argument here, but I do think that keeping the presumption of notability for high schools is the best way to go here. Simply put: even if this RfC agrees on a consensus that schools must be shown to meet GNG, I have zero hope that this principle will be applied to secondary schools in the Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, or the United States. There will be arguments over whether or not the extensive local coverage counts, but it will likely be resolved in favour of the high school. The consensus of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES will likely still be the de facto consensus for schools in these countries. This RfC was largely started because of outcomes of no consensus or delete for schools in South Asia. As has already been pointed out, it is likely that there is already coverage at the level that would be acceptable for secondary schools in any of the countries mentioned, it just isn't easy to find via a Google search. What you often find instead is proof of its existence on a government website, and that website might not even be the education ministry, it could be the agency in charge of elections because the school is a polling site. You also find sources about NGOs using these schools for events to immunize, teach reading, etc. These souces while scare confirm that the schools in question play the same role in their communities as secondary schools in nations where sources are more Googleable play in theirs, but they are hard to find. Making the standard be proof of existence and accreditation makes sense to me in order to prevent systemic bias, which undermine Wikipedia's credibility. I would happily !vote delete for a home school academy high school that has five students or something similar, but if the school is accredited, we should presume that it is notable and that the sources exist to expand it, even if they are not available online. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Schools in South Asia are generally all for profit institutions and we have to deal with promotionalism, NPOV etc. Making them de jure notable would take away even the limited ability we have now to fight the promotionalism. As for commercial institutions these schools should pass NORG. Jbh^Talk 20:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  I would be fine with a higher standard for for-profit schools in general, though I do think the locality matters (if the only school for 100 miles is for-profit, I would presume it notable.) That being said, I think there needs to be a distinction between private secondary schools and for-profit secondary schools. They are really two separate beasts. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Yes. And once we start getting into locality, we start making too many edge cases, until it no longer serves as a useful guideline. So I think it would be best to require evaluating private schools individually based on GNG. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed that for-profit should be evaluated individually based on GNG, where I think the edge cases would likely go no consensus. Private schools I am fine with a broad exception. I don't really consider a boarding school set up by nuns to be in the same boat as a diploma mill designed to make a proprietor a profit. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, however the 'boarding school set up by nuns' is not necessarily the typical private institution and making the distinction between what is a private school and what is a diploma mill or business can be difficult - Sister Mary's School for Deserving Wayward Orphans and Puppies may be run by Scammers 'R Us. It is just too hard to tell without independent reliable sources. Aslo, without reliable sources Wikipedia can be and has been used to legitimize such schools. See the whole mess related to WifiOne. Jbh^Talk 21:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 21:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  And if Sister Mary's school can be verified to be a legitimate institution that is what it claims to be, then it should be kept. If it cannot be verified to be this through reliable sources, then it should not be. The question being commented on here is about schools with reliable sources, not schools that lack them. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  The issue in your statement is "...verified to be a legitimate institution that is what it claims to be." There is a a huge difference between an independent reliable sources that verifies that and the massively low bar of proof of existance which is what this RfC wants to make the standard. You typically need independent RS for the former while we often accept self published sources like school websites for the later. Jbh^Talk 22:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  The RfC is specifically addressing if Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?. On the discussion about holding this RfC verifiability standards were brought up by at least a few editors, and I'm assuming part of the reason that Cordless Larry suggested this wording was because of that. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Hopefully I have worded the question neutrally, Jbhunley, and the RfC doesn't want to make anything the standard. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Cordless Larry: I should have said - 'should this RfC be closed in the affirmative' - I have no issue with the neutrality of the wording. Jbh^Talk 22:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  If there's a "massively low bar", then that is set by the current WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES essay. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Having a 'massively low bar' supported by an essay one thing. Promoting that to a formally community endorsed guideline, which this will effectivly do, is something else entirely. It removes flexibility and will codify a huge hole for commercial promotion. Jbh^Talk 22:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  I think the essay is treated like a guideline by many editors as it is, and debate about that is part of what led up to this RfC. Anyway, thanks for the clarification above. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Except that it's being used to justify creation of articles on secondary schools, rather than only used to prevent deletion of existing ones. While mechanically the process is the same, it is the case in point that it encourages editors to develop poorly sourced (read: primary, SPS, or locally-sourced only) articles on schools just because we tolerate them. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unlike some other items that we presume to be notable, such as senior politicians, there is little reason to believe that secondary schools are normally covered in depth in reliable sources that go beyond routine reporting in local media. The vast majority of such schools are WP:MILL organizations; there are thousands of them, they are distinguished only by such trivia as age or number of pupils, and are generally not of interest to people other than those educated there. Such articles are also often a magnet for WP:BLP problems and vandalism ("Johnny sucks!!!") because many pupils will want to "creatively" edit them; and we do not need another area of additional maintenance overhead with little benefit. Such schools should therefore not be presumed notable. The solution to the systemic bias problem identified by TonyBallioni should be addressed by deleting the many non-notable Western school articles instead of adding more non-notable non-Western school articles.  Sandstein  20:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Although schools are not covered often, they are important. The information just needs to be verified through reliable sources. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Notability is a valuable guideline "to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies" (WP:WHYN). On what do we base the content of an article if all we have is verification of existence? On what do we base an article if we have only primary sources? We inevitably become a directory of school facts and figures. A whole lot of schools are notable, and we should have articles about them, but there should be no inherent notability based on verifiable existence for any subject. I've seen a distinction made between "inherent notability" and "presumed notability", but they're functionally the same. If everybody goes into a deletion discussion presuming [that there's significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject], the burden is shifted from arguing for notability to arguing a negative position -- that such coverage does not exist (an impossible task, when the presumption is that the sources do exist, even if they cannot be identified). Guidelines that provide shortcuts via indications of notability are helpful, but in the end an article needs to go by core content policies (again, effectively outlined in WP:WHYN). To say something is notable is to say it's received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise, we don't have anything to base an article on that complies with NPOV, V, RS, NOT, etc. An editor simply saying "it's important; significant coverage in reliable sources doesn't matter" wouldn't fly if we were talking about an internet meme, delicatessen, or philosophical concept, so why is it ok to simply say "they're important; significant coverage in reliable soruces doesn't matter" for this subject? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The claim that there are always sources for secondary sources omits the fact that the bulk of those will be local, showing little relevance to the broader world. And as a symptom of systematic bias, the only type of coverage that I've seen routinely that's non-local about these sources are in relationship to sports (specifically only American football and basketball), which really is more about the athlete than the school. There are undoubtably notable secondary schools, but we should not be working that these are notable by default for just existing. That said, in most cases, coverage of these schools can at least be mentioned in the readily-accepted city/town article that the school is a part of, and redirects can be used to avoid disruption. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Status quo. Going in a different direction now will be just too disruptive (besides which, multiple (every?) high profile biography has link to the subject's upper schools as do some (probably not high profile) locations, so look at it as adjunct (or multiple split) encyclopedic information if nothing else). My rank speculation is this was, back in the mists of time, partly done precisely to get upper students interested in editing, which may are may not be bad, but it is long since done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this is one of these walled garden notability things that has gotten out of hand and are turning some parts of Wikipedia into mere directories. But WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The other thing to keep in mind here is with the privatization of education there are more and more private or public/private charter schools and Wikipedia is (as always) something people abuse for promotional purposes. If a school fails GNG it fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support current status quo (NOTE this is not actually fully supporting the proposal, since it requires that the schools also be verifiably independently accredited). Now, we need to emphasize that this does not mean that high schools are automatically in as some people seem to think, but instead that it's a case by case basis which actually requires research to determine. ansh666 22:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: That Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability is the very reason we have notability guidelines in the first place. The most important one of these is WP:GNG, and for the vast majority of topics it is indicative of notability. Some good, carefully crafted, exceptions to GNG apply. But as Jbh points out, they should "serve some articulable purpose which is a net benefit to the project". No accepted exception to GNG sets the bar as low as this proposal would, in a manner which defeates the purpose of notability criteria: if it exists, there can be an article on it. That is the antithesis of notability, the purpose of which is to keep information on Wikipedia from being indiscriminate and in violation of various WP:NOT. We are not an encyclopedia when it comes to most topics but the WP:YELLOWPAGES when it comes to high-schools; we are an encyclopedia all around. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support notability for verified accredited high schools, whether public or private, to avoid bias in favor of US high schools, as opposed to private high schools in developing countries. There is no assumption of notability for unaccredited high schools.secondary schools, such as someone's home schooling operation for their own children. No presumed notability for schools which stop short of the US 12th grade or foreign equivalents, but in some cases one might find sources to satisfy GNG or WP:ORG for schools which stop short of grade 12. I have seen many hours wasted in fights about some county high school, but in the end sourcing could be found. But coverage of major newspapers in some states is limited in online free databases, and it is unreasonable to demand that within a 7 day AFD period editors have to drive to the state a school is in and search the state's major newspapers on microfilm in some college library to find the significant coverage which is inevitably there. And this is in an encyclopedia where projects argue successfully that every dinky railroad station, every tiny section of numbered highway, every person who played professionally in one game of a sport, and every hamlet with 2 families deserves an article. A public high school today typically is a major cultural institution serving a significant population area, at huge expense, and for a long span of years, and has a big formative influence on perhaps generations of students. Edison (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I really see no case for changing the current status quo. This has all been gone into many times before, and the situation on the ground has not changed. -- Alarics (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• I beg to differ on your final point, Alarics. A number of recent AfDs have resulted in no consensus, and at least one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arya Kanya Girls Inter College, Hardoi, was closed as a delete. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• It strikes me as rather desperate when the opponents of the status quo point to a single, solitary deletion as "evidence" that the consensus no longer exists. "It's in tatters" as one well-known school deletionist hopefully described it. Er, no! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've not described it as "in tatters" myself, and admittedly there haven't been many deletions, but there does seem to have been an uptick in the number of no-consensus closes. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Existence does not prove notability, Wikipedia is not a directory, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of secondary schools many of which have nothing notable about them. I'm sympathetic to the arguments about how this reduces bias against non-Western schools, but I believe that can be better achieved without claiming every school is notable. Further, these pages of schools that are not notable or barely notable are not really of interest to anyone except students and faculty. There will be few page watchers and since they're prone to vandalism, it will likely stay there longer. High schools that are notable for alumni activities, outreach efforts, or superior skill in academic or athletic achievement are far more useful and more likely to be seen and maintained because of the attention they receive because of it (thus satisfying the GNG). We don't need thousands of permanent stubs. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't agree with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Every article should be judged on a case-by-case basis, as per the most fundamental notability guideline, WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sandstein. The support crowd seems to think we dare not challenge the status quo lest the braying masses attack us for deleting the article about their high school. That's not an argument for notability but a sad plea for a political carve-out. Let the notable schools pass GNG or NCORP. All the others can go. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. SCHOOLOUTCOMES has been a thorn in the English Wikipedia's side for too long. It, or at least the common interpretation of it, is wholly out of line with our notability guidelines, namely WP:GNG and WP:ORGSIG, the latter of which says:

  "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists."

  Per that guideline, verifiable information about non-notable schools should be included in articles about the municipality or district within which they exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, there's a longstanding precedent (of sorts) against nominating schools at AFD, but this should not be made hard policy. Apparently we're starting to see articles on schools of such profound obscurity that little to nothing beyond mere existence can be verified (and in some cases not even that). If we can't verify anything, then an encyclopedia article on the subject cannot exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I think the current status quo works very well. It sets a very good threshold for assumed notability and it negates any systemic bias inherent in only including schools with strong references. The latter will tend to be biased towards fee-paying institutions which can't afford not to market themselves through the press. State schools generally won't have the luxury of paying someone or some entity to do PR for them, whereas fee-paying institutions will be strongly focussed on it. And it's not just schools where we do that. WP:FOOTY has strong inherent notability rules about football club articles. And they make sense. We also need to remember that school articles are often a first vehicle from young wikipedians. Deleting huge tranches of them as non-notable will only encourage vandalism and conflict in dealing with this future editors. No great reason to change. It's doing fine as is. CalzGuy (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I've been considering opening an RfC on this for some time. I find the use of this essay infuriating when presented by itself to argue for keeping articles on which no one can find any reliable sources. It's bizarre to me that we use the circular logic of 'schools are often kept therefore schools should always be kept' in these cases. Either "Secondary schools are always notable" should be enshrined in guideline/policy, or we need to stop using this essay argument at AfD. Sam Walton (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Jbh, Masem, and Sandstein. (I have to admit that typing that list of names together is a bit surreal...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support, with emphasis on the whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources. Secondary Schools are a special kind of institution, found in every major settlement around the planet, and play a key role in lives of communities and individuals. They can give beginning editors or readers of Wikipedia a familiar topic to read or edit to get the feel of the place. They are special enough to merit their own "notability" rule, so we should codify what has has been de facto pretty much the case until now (editors citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, even though that's only an essay). PamD 16:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are no exceptions for a lack of sourcing. Whether or not you call it the GNG, what we need is better phrased as "whether there is an overabundance of coverage in reliable, secondary sources to cover the topic in depth without resorting to unreliable, affiliated, or primary sources". I've seen very few cases in which high schools are independently notable from their parent grouping (the school district or town article) by way of sourcing. And even if they have coverage, those sources tend to be local papers—not wider interest. The standard for similar subtopics is to merge into the parent (the school district or town): a place where the article can be covered in whatever depth warranted by secondary sources. (And it can always split out summary style if an overabundance of sources on the school upsets the balance of the article.)

As for what this discussion is really about—as I understand it—the precedent of keeping all secondary school articles comes from earlier in WP history where some basic categories of articles were presumed notable just to save some time and nonsense at AfD (a decade ago... when it was a free-for-all of new editors, especially high school boys writing about their high schools). But AfD works differently now, and all AfD discussions are essentially about whether the sourcing exists to support an independent article—apart from some specific topic areas, mostly sports biographies and, e.g., "school outcomes".

This discussion is also about our article quality. When a topic is a valid search term—as all established secondary schools are—we merge its sourced contents to a parent article so that readers can find sourced information on it. But we do little good for our readers by serving secondary school articles absent of the Wikipedia sourcing standards that we apply to the rest of the encyclopedia. Unsourced articles invite cruft (an empirically true broken references theory), and set lower expectations for the standard of acceptable writing on Wikipedia. It's time to extend our universal sourcing standards to secondary schools, and accordingly, to cover more unsourced topics in their parent articles (merging as appropriate).  czar 18:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I never understood why schools got a free pass at AFD. GNG and to a lesser extent SNG's work well for other articles and they will be fine in this situation as well. Many school articles I come across are nothing short of promotion as the only source of information comes from their own websites. AIRcorn (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Information that meets policy requirements should be kept. If there's not much, consider merging, but if the amount is too much for the merge target then split. They should only be deleted if nothing is verifiable to our standards. I'm not sure if this is a support or oppose - as articles may be merged whether notable or not. For many of these articles this probably means keeping the article but removing anything that lacks references. Peter James (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support until a viable alternative becomes available. The trouble with SCHOOLOUTCOMES as stated is that we're talking about different sorts of secondary schools as if they're all on the same level; some classes of schools, such as American public high schools, will pretty much always be notable as important community institutions, while other classes, such as some of the for-profit schools mentioned above, need to be evaluated on their own merits. Unfortunately, public vs. private isn't quite enough to separate these; in certain parts of America, private schools (and Catholic schools in particular) are held in a similar regard as public schools, while in other parts they aren't, and that's just the situation in one country.

The reason I can't support just getting rid of SCHOOLOUTCOMES without an alternative, though, is it would make a lot of vulnerable articles subject to deletion due to the current situation at AfD. The point of presuming notability for certain topics is to correct an imbalance between what GNG is supposed to mean (multiple, reliable secondary sources) and what it usually turns into at AfD (multiple, reliable secondary sources that will probably only be looked for online, by a handful of people who are probably from North America and Europe, possibly only within Google results unless someone with access to a paywalled database stumbles across the AfD, with a seven-day time limit at best, and subject to people arguing that "multiple" means a higher number than what you found or that local or even regional sources don't count despite that not being part of the GNG). Given how many high schools are in rural areas, making it more likely that archived print sources won't be easily accessible, or in countries that don't have the same internet presence as English-speaking countries in the West, these are particularly relevant concerns, and I'm uncomfortable throwing existing articles on schools into that mess with no precautions to avoid deletion on account of sloppy research. I've pulled too many articles from the brink of deletion on account of nominators, and subsequent !voters, who did a poor job of WP:BEFORE to trust the process to work for these articles, and if AfD gets flooded with school stubs after a change to SCHOOLOUTCOMES there may not be enough editors able to do the research to prove all the notable ones really are notable within a week. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of your point is that, because AfD has problems, we should ignore the GNG for schools. I'm sympathetic to your point about how this will impact the bias of our coverage, but I don't think we should be going around the GNG just to have thousands of permanent stubs. If anything, that's what the GNG is meant to prevent. It may well be the case that there are thousands of reliable sources on Example High School in Ruraltown, Statesota locked away in my grandmother's attic, but if no one knows that, we can't use the possibility that sources may possibly maybe exist somewhere but we just haven't looked hard enough to justify subverting the GNG. If sources can't be found to satisfy the GNG, it doesn't satisfy the GNG. Full stop. If sources are eventually found, it can be recreated. We shouldn't doom ourselves to eternal searching for sources because maybe we just didn't look hard enough. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

In secondary school AfDs, a common argument is that while sources are hard to find online, they must exist offline and at some point, someone with the necessary language skills could find them and use them to expand and improve the article. I'm sympathetic to that argument, but do we actually have any examples of school articles where that has happened? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: On the Spanish Wikipedia (which lacks Schooloutcomes) I started es:Liceo Mexicano Japonés and got an AFD: es:Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Liceo Mexicano Japonés - it took a lot of effort to keep the article. While it was a Spanish-language article, many of the editors could understand English, but several were doubting possible notability until I got someone at University of Southern California to scan parts of a master's degree thesis which talked about the school. One of the other articles was in Japanese but had an English title/abstract. I have been a longtime editor since 2003 and knew the "process" on how to keep articles; a novice I think would have had much more difficulty, even if he/she spoke Spanish. Also, there was one editor who was trying to force a delete even after I presented source after source after source, and I really, really grew to resent that (and I wasn't the only one who felt that way). I think having SCHOOLOUTCOMES prevents these kinds of scenarios from happening. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Sandstein and SamWalton. Merely existing should not make a school presumably notable. Blackmane (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional support - I would be in favour if the wording included "government accredited secondary schools". It doesn't matter if they are public or private. A stub with the school's name, location, private/public status, and grades accredited sourced to a government website, and an external link to the school's website if any, should be fine. Any promotional stuff or unsourced information can always be removed. About the academic example above: peer-reviewed journal articles have editorial oversight and also are reviewed by several independent experts, so if many of them cite a professor or researcher, that's a very large number of independent writers who agree that his or her ideas are important. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a good-faith and plausible suggestion, except that in some countries it is not the government that accredits schools. In the United States there are six regional accrediting commissions which evaluate and accredit schools and colleges. Example: the Western Association of Schools and Colleges[1] is the accrediting agency for schools in California, Hawaii, and Guam, as well as foreign schools. I favor saying "accredited" but not "government accredited". --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

In general I do agree that secondary schools should be considered notable - but there has to be a limit; if I, as a certified teacher, tutor three secondary students from the local high school in my home in the evenings, is my home a school which should have an article? I'd say it was more of a small business. Many people home-school their own children. Are they notable? "Accredited" doesn't mean anything if it doesn't say by whom; "with government-recognized accreditation" or some similar phrase would be more specific. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support, Considering only those schools taking pupils aged 11+ then the current situation seems to be accepted by most editors if one considers the total number of positive edits to such articles over time. As long as suitable references are available and listed correctly in an article then I prefer to maintain the status quo. I would be particularly concerned if the vote goes to the 'oppose' side that we suddenly find a huge number of deletions occurring. I appreciate that others have discussed this but it is still of concern as most editors will not be aware of this discussion. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - While I'm normally in favor of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, there's something that's bothered me for years, and as of now I'm not going to give an opinion on this discussion, I have to let this out of my chest. While it's fairly easy for schools in the United States and other Anglophone countries to receive coverage, the same isn't the case in developing countries. For example, in my country (the Philippines), only schools in the major cities tend to get any form of coverage, reliable or otherwise. In the provinces, maybe outside of Facebook, there may be little-to-no online presence for private or even public schools. I think this tends to be the case for schools in other countries as well. This made me think something like "is WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES too Western-centric as its standards are based on Western educational systems?" Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• The supporters of SCHOOLOUTCOMES often argue that it helps counter that bias, Narutolovehinata5, because it means that schools in developing countries are kept even if few online sources exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose And forbid SCHOOLOUTCOMES from being used in AFD discussions while we are about it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. The current standard is reasonably efficient, and removing it would result in an inordinate amount of time, energy, and resulting rancor as we debate (likely) hundreds if not thousands of resulting AFDs. This is not to say that carefully tailored exceptions could be carved out of the existing standard. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Please note that the concerns of massive timesinks of AFD noms is a point I tried to address in the section below, namely that we actually should avoid encouraging mass rushes of AFDs of secondary schools and use other processes. It is a very valid concern but we do have policy via WP:FAITACCOMPLI that would prevent that, and we should have a plan going forward if its removed. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support as this counters the systematic bias that results in non-English speaking areas or developing countries that don't have online sources that can be read by people here. The sources are still likely to exist, even if they are not easily available. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• That's ridiculous. If we do that then we may as well abandon GNG entirely for vast parts of the world, and not merely in the schools topic area. That systemic bias exists may be true but we have to accept that some things (most things!) can't be fixed by WP alone. - Sitush (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support although to be liguistically correct, my answer to this excellently neutrally made RfC question Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable? should be Yes. Not only through the already tacit consensus as evidenced by thousands of AfD closures resulting in keep but also based on the arguments above in favour of maintaining the status quo, while pointing out for those providing inaccurate reasons to oppose, that OUTCOMES is neither a policy, nor a guideline, nor technically even an essay or opinion piece - it simply accurately documents a set of clearly evident long-time Wikipedia behaviours, and as such is indeed an acceptable a short cut to the rationale it represents without voters at AfD having to post a list of several hundred or a thousand examples. Not without reason either did the community reach a well established consensus that school articles may not be tagged for deletion per A7, and it was a Wikipedia founder's express opinion that high schools should be considered notable. Naturally G11 and G12 and other criteria remain valid in appropriate cases and should generally be rigorously applied if editing cannot resolve the issues. School articles are not exempt from PROD and where most school articles are made by SPA, deletion by PROD makes AfD unnecessary.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware that Jimbo set policy or guidelines, and his opinion is of no more weight than mine or yours. Times change, and that OUTCOMES has become a self-fulfilling essay is all the more reason why we need to revisit it and address the underlying shortcomings that are now apparent and which make it problematic. - Sitush (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comment about the "support" versus "yes" wording, Kudpung. I see this as more about yes/no than support/oppose too. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• It shoudl be noted that Jimmy Wales' comment about schools was in the very early days of the project, after which we have actually developed the notability guidelines that hold us to higher standards, so resting too much on Wales' comment doesn't reflect the changing consensus. Comparing schools to Pokemon characters is definitely apples-to-oranges, but at one point we did have articles for each Pokemon but since have developed a WP:POKEMON test to follow notability practices. There is no reason we could now do the same with schools. (And I would expect that if SCHOOLOUTCOMES is nixed, that we would have to re-examine CSD criteria for schools) --MASEM (t) 23:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Just like every other institution, a school-article should prove their notability, not their existence. And it should prove it with sources IN the article, not by assuming/gambling that sources exist. Schooloutcomes is one of the many locally (i.e. WikiProjects) invented excuses to circumvent the common rules for notability. The Banner talk 23:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Following Graeme Bartlett line of thinking. I am though uncomfortable with making a definite statement on whether all schools in the 11 to 18 bracket should be considered notable but the alternative is far worse. Firstly, the current obsession with just testing against online sources, skews the debate in favour of a small number of geographic areas, and secondly while my personal POVs against non-state funded 'dame schools', crammers and grooming parlours does not mean that we should exclude coverage. But thirdly, the thought of nights of detailed arguments about whether a vanity funded academy is merely commercial placement or does have some notability.. doesn't bare thinking. --ClemRutter (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I have always supported this tradition for multiple reasons, most of which have been articulated already. It recognizes that high schools and colleges virtually always receive coverage (and if it's purely local, what's wrong with that?). It saves enormous amounts of quibbling over what sources are acceptable and what aren't (if most of the coverage is about the football team, does that count?). It avoids systemic bias, as noted already by many (sure, American schools can always cite online references in English, but how many other countries can say the same?). To me it is like the SPORTS notability guidelines: if a person has played in a fully professional league, they get an article, no quibbling, no agonizing - because such players have virtually always received coverage, and with the guideline it isn't a matter of debate in each and every instance. BTW my understanding is that this guideline applies to "diploma-granting and degree-granting institutions", not just schools for ages 11 and up - thus ruling out middle schools, trade schools, etc. I would support adding "accredited" to the guideline, although it may not always be possible to provide a link to the accrediting agency and I would not require that. --MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support status quo Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support If people would really like to double the amount of work at AfD, then a good way of doing it is to remove the practice of treating secondary schools as if they were notable. The practice that we do so is not an attack on the fundamental principle of WP:N or the GNG, but a question of convenience. In that connection, I have to mention the other half of the compromise : not usually treating elementary schools as notable. Before we had the compromise, I and others were quite willing to argue for their inclusion. Some of the arguments were successful, and I have a few hundred US primary schools in mind for which I could realistically try to write articles. The results will, as usual at AfD, depend on who shows up to discuss, as much as on the merits of the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I'm a long-term supporter of this rule for the reasons elucidated here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support this seems to be the way the community generally regards the notability of schools so it it is appropriate to confirm the situation. Thincat (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose schools shouldn't get an automatic free pass at AFD, and merely being mentioned in secondary sources isn't good enough to warrant an article. Actual depth to coverage in such sources is also a must. We shouldn't ignore any instance were WP:GNG isn't met. In all honesty, this is why the mentioned bit above from WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is fucking bullshit. I also concur with Sandstein, Masem, The Banner, Jonesey95, and Czar. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support with hesitation, because I've sounded off in the past about the lamentable quality of many school articles, which are often the last ones we would pick as models or training grounds for budding new editors. So I'm more bothered about what's in these articles than whether they exist at all. I hear those who are unwilling to make further exceptions to the GNG, but the fact is that with schools that bird has flown, long ago, and I can swallow a special status for schools similar to that for villages or pro footballers. The hope would be that once this special status is recognised and regularised, editors would be more willing to bring the articles up to standard. This means: trim promotion and non-neutral prose, trim excessive, trivial and evanescent detail, look for whatever useful information can be found in independent reliable sources, and watch out for those vandals: Noyster (talk), 01:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any form of "inherent notability" for anything. Notability comes from being noted, no more, no less. Schools are long overdue for a cleanup, and in practice, many of them are not notable. There are certain cases where we really can presume every single example of something to be notable (US presidents, chemical elements), but it doesn't hold true with schools. Some are notable, some not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - not wanting to repeat what's already been said: briefly, I think the trade-off here between WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and GNG is acceptable. Eustachiusz (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The GNG would be a much better tool for determining secondary school notability. I really never understood why secondary schools were given a free notability pass to begin with. If they can't meet the GNG, I don't understand how we could hope to write a balanced, encyclopedic article about the school. Wikipedia isn't a simple directory, after all. Kaldari (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support maintaining the status quo. We have had a compromise here for years: verified public and sizeable private and parochial high schools are routinely kept, while primary schools are routinely redirected to their school district or city unless solid evidence is provided to warrant keeping a standalone article. This has worked well for years, while saving us from many endless re-debates about the arcane subtleties of Wikipedian terms of art. "Notability" is not a goal in itself but a linguistic device for discussing whether something will improve the encyclopedia. I acknowledge that the boundaries have been tested and stressed by promotional, COI-driven articles about for-profit schools and a more focused discussion about best practices for handling those promotional articles may be in order. The rest are something we should keep and cultivate. The encyclopedia would certainly not be improved by delegitimizing the high school articles we have. This large category of existing articles is a positive not only for the readily-organized information the articles provide to readers and contributors, but also for its developmental benefits to the project: they are a strong component of the deep, worldwide, gazeteer-like coverage that is one of Wikipedia's best features and aspirations, and as PamD noted above they also provide a means of entry and connection to the project for many new editors. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support the status quo. In its absence we will be flooded with malicious AfDs, and waste far, far more of editors time. We need more "automatic" notability decisions not less. Every silly fight that can be avoided makes the community look less .... silly. Jacona (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support keeping all secondary school articles for now. We might need to figure out a more nuanced solution for certain parts of the world where very limited verifiable information about schools is available. But I would certainly oppose a change to this rule, at least for developed Anglophone countries, where there is usually plenty of verifiable information about schools. I think further discussion about how to handle the different scenarios in different countries, culminating in an agreed subject-specific notability guideline, would be more productive than an all-or-nothing !vote. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support the status quo - While in theory WP:GNG should be applied to most subjects, User:TheCatalyst31 brings up a great point in how AFDs get difficult. Many people are not so educated, and they may not have time/money to comb through sources all the time. People get grudges if their content is deleted; nobody likes to work hard on something and see their work vanish. Even if the content is not well sourced or not notable, people feel that Wikipedia's not living up to the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit". Of course we shouldn't allow blatant promotionalism (especially from for-profit companies) and some subjects are just not encyclopedic. However as stated on the AFD of the British International School Lagos it often is possible to get info on schools, especially state-run ones. Maybe a better idea is to publish a guide on how to source info for schools in X country, how to find libraries, etc. Make a guide for high school students (the people who we need to recruit as editors, and in fact much of my editing is done for this purpose!) on how to write about their school: How to get sources, what style they should use, etc. I'm happy to start it myself, and for North American students, add how to use boundary maps to determine which communities serve their public schools. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Undecided – Of note is that per WP:FIVEPILLARS, Wikipedia functions in part as a gazetteer, and some gazetteers have historically included content about schools in them, such as in Chinese, Indian and Korean ones, among others (see the Wikipedia gazetteer article for more information and sources). For example, the Gazetteer of the Nellore District published by the Government of Madras in 1942 includes content about secondary schools and middle schools (see Google Books preview example, scroll down on page). The World-wide Encyclopedia and Gazetteer published by the Christian Herald in 1899 contains content about secondary schools (see example, pp. 1042–1043). Another example is the Alexandria Digital Library Gazetteer Content Standard (link), which includes schools in its formulation. More examples in addition to these are available in online searches.

Per the five pillars and Wikipedia's partial functionality as a gazetteer, it would be aligned with Wikipedia's core purposes to consider developing a guideline for secondary schools that are verifiable but otherwise not correspondent with notability guidelines to be merged into articles about the school district authorities that manage the schools, or to the city/town/village articles where they are located. Another idea is to merge such articles into lists of schools per geographical region, such as by county. Such recommendation could be added to WP:NSCHOOL if a consensus to do so were to occur. This would serve to improve the encyclopedia, and is also functionally correspondent with WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I am aware that primary and middle schools that don't meet WP:GNG already are supposed to redirect to their school district and/or a daughter article listing schools in that school district (for U.S. and Canada public schools), or to the locality (for schools outside of the U.S. and Canada and private schools) WhisperToMe (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem with using the Gazetteer aspect is that this is only being applied to schools, and secondary schools at that. The argument if you want to got the gazeteer route is then we should be doing not only secondary schools, but also primary schools, government buildings (town halls, police + fire departments), parks and other similar areas, and potentially other features like churches. That line of logic gets very hairy very fast, for an encyclopedia. (If we were just indexing places and coordinates, as it what a gazetteer primarily does, this wouldn't be a problem, but we want more content than just name and coordinates). Practically, our implementation of being a gazetteer gets to the resolution of towns and villages and geographical landmarks recognized by an appropriate governing agency; anything more detailed than that falls outside of what we consider to be our gazetteer function. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

My proposal above is only based upon secondary schools, not all those other topics. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

And my counterpoint is that while the logic works for secondary schools, there are buildings/facilities that are as equally important if not moreso than schools that would also fall under the gazetteer logic that we should track, but we don't. --MASEM (t) 18:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose SCHOOLOUTCOMES must die! It may have been usefull way back in the infancy of WP, but the way it is commonly applied these days has several negative consequences:
  • It privileges first-world, and more specifically American, high schools. This is a consequence of the (practically) unique obsession with school sport in American society. The smallest "Anytown High" is practically guaranteed regular coverage in the "Anytown Gazette" reporting on the appointment of the new basketball coach or the progress of the school baseball team in the state championship (even if they are ranked 236 out of 242). Contrast that with the situation in many other countries where even the barest hint of proof of existence can be hard to find - and then often only in the local language in a list on an obscure government website or a mention in a report or policy document. Thus it actually exacerbates the systemic bias of en.WP.
  • It is used as a weapon to summarily shut down anyone daring to question the existence of any high school article, regardless of the quality of the article or the merits of the argument. This is often counter to WP:BITE and WP:RETENTION of editors, particularly the scarce ones from underrepresented countries and demographics.
  • An SNG creates a presumption of notability, not the fact of notability. Any presumption that is not suceptible to testing and consequent possibility of rebuttal is not really a presumption at all. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is often used to basically forbid any testing of the presumption. Countless speedy deletions are rejected and AFDs are summarily closed citing it - a rather bizarre argument from authority. SCHOOLOUTCOMES thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - "high schools are notable because high schools are notable". Educational institutions currently protected by SCHOOLOUTCOMES should actually be subject to the much fairer (and testable) WP:ORG standard. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

SCHOOLOUTCOMES isn't a policy or guideline. It's a representation of fact. It won't die until the facts change and more editors !vote to delete or merge. CalzGuy (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You're missing the point that it is used to actually prevent such !votes from happening, it has effectively shut down the debate. Like a dictator who was properly elected 20 years ago, who abuses his incumbency to prevent any subsequent elections that may unseat him. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

An essay has no power to prevent an AfD taking place. In fact, if you want an AfD to take place no one can stop you. What SCHOOLOUTCOMES does is to suggest beforehand that actually it's a pointless exercise. But if you want to plough that pointless furrow, no one here can stop you. But a lot of us may just step in and !vote to keep, and in doing so will sort of prove the point. So how would SCHOOLOUTCOMES "die" in any case? CalzGuy (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You are proving the point about the problem of SCHOOLOUTCOMES with regards to secondary schools. It cannot be used to say "an AFD on a secondary school will be useless" and thus prevent anyone from filing an AFD. It cannot be used in an AFD to say "well, SCHOOLOUTCOMES says we don't delete schools, so this can't be deleted" (which happens all too much). The problem of SCHOOLOUTCOMES is that it is a leftover of pre-notability periods on WP. If it was being used properly, then at AFD on a secondary school, people would !vote keep by showing there are some secondary sources about the school (even if not perfectly at GNG-type levels, enough to give presumption of notability), or otherwise delete/merge/etc. Then, if it was the case that the near majority of such AFDs that "keep" was the most common result, then SCHOOLOUTCOMES would make sense. But that's not how it is developed or used anymore - its the catch-22 self-fulfilling cycle that is getting worse. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Continuing the above thread: It is trivial to find concrete examples of SCHOOLOUTCOMES being used to shut down discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benicia High School, for example. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is specifically cited as the reason to keep the nominated article, completely shutting down discussion and effectively preventing secondary schools from being nominated for deletion. That is why this RFC is happening. More examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carman-Ainsworth High School, where there are many links to guidelines and policies, and all discussion is preempted by SCHOOLOUTCOMES; another good discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenby International School, Penang (2nd nomination). I suggest that regardless of the outcome of this discussion, we should create or change a guideline around notability of secondary schools. The current situation is not tenable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

CalzGuy, your first point has it exactly backwards. If we repeal SCHOOLOUTCOMES and return to a pure GNG standard, the systemic bias here will become much worse. As you point out, schools in America and other English-speaking countries do tend to have easily-findable coverage and are thus much more likely to have articles. Schools in less-developed or non-English speaking countries are much less likely to have such coverage and will get deleted or never accepted in the first place. One of the main benefits of SCHOOLOUTCOMES is that it helps to mitigate our bias against material from less developed and non-English speaking countries. (It does not eliminate it entirely because we still need confirmation that the school exists and is a secondary school.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Except part of that systematic bias is that these secondary school articles often weigh heavily on the use of local sources to support notability, which isn't really in the spirit of notability on a global encyclopedia. Local papers covering local schools lack true independence we want for notability sourcing (these can be used to augment that, however!) If AFDs were done in absence of SCHOOLOUTCOMES and considered the type of coverage these Western schools were getting, most of these would still be deleted because of that local coverage, which is a different way to approach fixing that systematic bias while meeting the notability guidelines we expect for any other topic. We need to bite the bullet and accept this is the case though. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I intentionally add "local" content to Wikipedia because people care about their hometowns and want to introduce them to the world. It's a motive for editing Wikipedia that can be used to recruit people. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

While is one very very fragile step away from COI editing. There's a level of resolution we want to keep to avoid extremely localized topic for this reason. Articles on towns are good collectors for such information because that also fits our gazetteer function well. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: I think the public understands the natural desire for one to write about their hometown/what they like. Where COI is worrisome IMO is if it's a for-profit company (especially if they're paying you), or a BLP case, or a case where someone's sole goal is to make a topic look good. We need to give into inclinations of "I like this, so I'll write about it" without allowing it to go too far, or allowing for profit/professional PR motives/BLP issues from becoming a problem. If it's a teenager writing on Wikipedia for the first time just adding info about a hometown he cares about deeply, just give him a heads up on how to write objectively about where he's from, but if it's somebody working for a company doing PR ask them to do edit requests and not touch the article directly. @Masem: WhisperToMe (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dodger67: I think that SCHOOLOUTCOMES actually makes it easier to write articles about schools in the developing world. In the U.S. it's easier to find secondary sources about U.S., Canadian, European, etc. high schools, and it's easier to find sources on them in English. If you're writing about a Japanese high school you may encounter a language barrier. If you're writing about an Ivorian high school, you may find evidence that it exists on a government website, or on the AEFE (if a French international school) or ZaF (if a German international school), but it may be harder finding secondary source info directly on the web. SCHOOLOUTCOMES treats all senior high schools equally.

I held a Wikimedia workshop at a Chinese university where I asked students to write about their high schools. I told them "why not check the newspapers for info on them" and they said they didn't think the newspapers had any info on their high schools. In my hometown the Houston Chronicle covers high school info regularly (and I'm not including routine coverage).

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Dodger67 - You have managed to get this 100% backwards. Schools in the English-speaking industrial world are virtually 100% guaranteed to pass GNG and articles on them will not be challenged. The effect on the stubby articles dealing with schools in the developing world will be immediate and massive — and guess what: nobody is gonna come to their aid. You have just made the opposite case, you need to either flip your opinion from oppose to support or to get real about what the impact is gonna be. Carrite (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Carrite I'm not at all convinced that most English-speaking industrial world high schools could genuinely pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The articles about the vast majority of such schools depend on a combination of firstly routine coverage of the "it exists" variety, such as government reports and database-like records such as proof of accreditation, and secondly mere local coverage in the form of local news media reporting on the school's basketball team, new principal, etc. If school articles did not have this "special protection" they have enjoyed over so many years we would have far fewer articles, even about American high schools. Now take the counter-example of Indian villages. Clusters of nearby villages tend to have a shared local authority for various purposes such as a clinic, post office, police station and other government services which may also include a small high school. The cluster of villages would also contain one or more temples. An article about the temple has very little chance of getting created, but if it does get written, it invariably gets deleted fairly quickly as not notable. However the article about the school, which arguably is just as significant to the community as the temple (or clinic), and based on essentially the same sources as the temple article, is permanently exempted from deletion by SCHOOLOUTCOMES. In my country, South Africa (which has a very well developed media sector, as large and active as many "first world" countries) I guesstimate that perhaps only about one hundred schools could genuinely pass WP:CORP or WP:GNG, and IMHO that's perfectly ok, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is about what kind of information - and more pointedly, the format thereof - we collect and not about which topics are or are not covered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus If all one can properly source about a school is that it exists then the article about it is effectively a "listing", WP:NOTDIRECTORY is a better fit, you are correct. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support This is a tried-and-true rule of thumb that has worked effectively for the past decade, and works as well as the presumed notability for professional athletes and politicians. Rather than fight these battles one at a time, with the vultures trying to find a weak link to justify deletion of any all such articles, the presumption of notability allows these articles time to grow organically and have the available sources added. Alansohn (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This is not true. Athletes and politicians have subject-specific notability guidelines that say if certain aspects are met, there is a strong likelihood that secondary sources can be found and thus we can presume notability via the GNG can eventually be met. That's not what we have with schools. Secondary schools have yet to be proven that if the school is accredited that secondary sources will exist to discuss the school within the scope of the GNG. Some do, some don't, but not with the high frequency that happens with athletes and politicians meeting NSPORTS or BIO. Even those that have been shown to have some type of secondary sources is generally based only on local sources, which begs issues of true independent sourcing (another GNG requirements). --MASEM (t) 17:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Masem: according to Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Basic_criteria there is presumed notability if the athlete "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." which is what User:Alansohn is referring to WhisperToMe (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Right: the logic behind that is that if someone has played at something like the Olympics, that there will very highly likely be sourcing about that athlete - most likely in the country's regional media - highlighting their career just prior for them leaving to the event. In other words, there's a good chance of getting this secondary sources (required by the GNG) because of this bar. All other subject-specific notability guidelines work on the same principle - they offer means of presuming notability in lieu of having immediate access to the sources that would certainly follow the conditions noted in the subject-specific guideline. This is not the case for secondary schools. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
        • I think part of the reason why SCHOOLOUTCOMES was decided was that, in editing North American, Australasian, and European senior high schools, it was quite common to find non-routine independent secondary sources about them while less so for primary and junior high schools. As an editor of Houston articles I'd say it's not difficult to find secondary sources about most Houston high schools. The holy trinity of the Houston Chronicle, Houston Business Journal, and the Houston Press have given me info on Houston schools and neighborhoods. It's to the point where I could start articles on Houston schools on the Spanish Wikipedia, which does not have SCHOOLOUTCOMES (and for awhile was quite resistant to school articles). Also note most high schools in East Asia (China, Japan, Korea, etc.) are government schools too, so it's not so much of a change. Now that South Asian schools are coming in, Wikipedia's confronted with a different set of rules.
        • One other reason why I like WP:COMMOUTCOMES for schools is that I know newspapers are generally only digitized until the 80s or 90s, and that means lots of articles that could help notability just aren't online.
        • @Masem: WhisperToMe (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
          • This is where two key issues exist in this debate:
          • First, we in the west do have these plethra of sources like local papers to cover schools. That level of coverage doesn't exist in many places in Asia, Africa, and South America, which is the systematic bias that we talk about.
          • Second, where there is this type of coverage, a (otherwise reliable for anything else) Houston paper reporting on a Houston school is begging the question if that is truly an independent source required by the GNG. If it were a Dallas paper, or a New York paper, far outside the school's region, that's different and would be sufficiently independent. But at the city level, that's different. Add in that the bulk of such coverage is usually either sports-related (inter-school sports), or related to "news" items like school levies, teacher strikes, or other things that would fail NEVENT, and this type of coverage is not sufficient for an encyclopedia beyond proving the school exists. If we drew that line in the sand as to distinguish notable schools, then we also address the systematic bias issue at the same time (though we'd still likely have more Western secondary schools as notable ones than others, but we'd not be including every secondary school). --MASEM (t) 22:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
            • 1. Yes, that's right. The systemic bias issue does affect schools coming from those regions. I think the current COMMONOUTCOMES then is a sort of protection for those schools since it allows those which verifiably exist to be kept despite not having immediate access to reliable secondary sources about the said school in English. A newspaper in Lagos may not be counted on to digitize their stuff like the Houston Chronicle.
            • 2. Usually the newspapers can be counted on being "independent" as the district staff don't own the paper and can't control it. There was a case where Seguin ISD tried to buy a radio station and newspaper which criticized it (and this is in a town way smaller than Houston), and obviously it led to an outcry. Anyway I count "routine" sports events (such as typical games) as routine news, while anything about a "first" (like first head coach, first ever playoff) would not be. Some events such as scheduled elections, "so-and-so was caught with weapons" (with no lasting effect on the school's operations), etc. would be typical news, while a strike that causes people to question whether the district is performing well would not be. For example I would not treat the information on a shooting at North Forest High School as "routine" since when it happened, the school extended the hours of its metal detectors.
              • An example of a "typical" school article with "local" sources I used: Cypress Park High School or Bridgeland High School which talk about the schools' openings and establishments, while Lamar High School (Houston) has a variety of sources and source types and in-depth commentary on demographic changes. Lamar already has a Spanish version, while I hope to establish both Cypress Park and Bridgeland in Spanish soon.
            • 3. I know there are countries with smaller populations than, say, U.S. metro areas like Greater Houston (at 6 million), and one thing I dislike about the French Wikipedia's "only national sources can confer notability" is that it causes a loss of information about communities in larger countries (like the U.S. or China) while smaller countries (like Djibouti, Malta) would get a pass.
            • WhisperToMe (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
              • Independence is not always measured by financial motives, although that's the easiest way to identify a dependency problem. To apply this to another type of article, in large cities, restaurants get frequently reviewed by local publications, but we do not consider those as signs of notability for the restaurant, because this is the function of the local paper to cover a local restaurant, thus creating a dependency problem. Same thing with secondary schools. And also why the problem is less an issue with universities and colleges that rarely serve just a single city or town. The Cypress Park is a poor encyclopedic article because it does not establish any notability within the scope of a global encyclopedia that cannot be readily covered in the town's article (details about population or current athletics are absolutely unnecessary , for example), as all the sourcing is local. And unfortunately this is the typical state of most America secondary school articles. That's why this is all a problem. --MASEM (t) 02:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
                • While I am aware independence is not always measured by financial motives, being local doesn't necessarily mean that the article cannot be "independent" of the subject. Even though a newspaper is asked to review a restaurant, it doesn't mean it's going to be a good review. Seguin ISD demonstrates that local media can be adversarial and ruckmacking just like their "national"/"global" counterparts. Also, in this AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Sea of Sterile Mountains: The Chinese in British Columbia an editor made it clear that "independent of the subject" means that the people writing a review of an academic book need to be independent of the work/author(s) itself/themselves. I think a better reason why Wikipedia should not cover a "local restaurant" in most metro areas (exception may be a restaurant that gets a variety of reviews/coverage from a large number of sources, which only happens in major metro areas like New York, Tokyo, Paris, etc. - and because of, for example, the Houston area's size, there's momentum to write about "local" that wouldn't have momentum in smaller places) is "lack of non-trivial coverage" as usually the restaurants only get occasional reviews. Remember it's also the job of local newspapers to write what's going on in small incorporated places that automatically get kept as per gazeteer notability processes.
                • See Cypress Park as an example of an article that is just born... something that has the potential to grow as time passes and as things change. Lamar High has been open since the 1930s and the mass number of changes have been well documented. AFAIK it's the rule, not the exception, that inner city schools that have existed for a long time can have detailed, developed information written about them. Massive demographic changes happen to suburban schools as they age: I know Spring ISD (in particular Westfield High School and Spring High School in particular) has had massive changes, and as time passes it will become easier and easier to write well-sourced information on how those changes have affected the schools.
                • One thing I'd like to say is that being able to cover my hometown was one of the reasons why I became heavily involved on Wikipedia. Being able to write about the local cuisine, the culture (ethnic groups, religion, etc.), the neighborhoods (many sourced from the Houston Chronicle), and yes, the schools was something important to me. Once Houston topics became largely exhausted I turned to other metro areas: Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Detroit, Paris, etc. and built up their local too: schools, ethnic groups, religion, culture, etc. I also created large numbers of international school articles to encourage participation from developing countries. The idea of writing about local is something that can still pull in editors; when I talk to Chinese college students about Wikipedia, I tell them that it's a place where they can write about their hometowns: the local food, the culture, the schools, etc. A new generation of teenagers from China, India, etc. can do what North American, European, and Australasian teens, like myself, did a decade ago.
                • While Wikipedia's goal is to be global, most people really care about their local. To remain vibrant and active, Wikipedia needs to encourage people, within reason, to write about the local, but teach them how to do it right. The local is like a puzzle piece, and all the locals add up to a unified global, the sum of the whole.
                • WhisperToMe (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
                • One other thing. Re: "details about population or current athletics are absolutely unnecessary , for example" - I strongly disagree on the first count, and disagree on the second to a degree.
                • 1. As we see from Lamar High School (Houston) and Woodrow Wilson High School (Dallas) demographic changes and information can be of great interest to statewide and national publications. In a day or so I'll add info about Muslim and Arab students to Fordson High School as that topic is covered heavily by RSes.
                • 2. In the United States athletics is a considered to be an important aspect of school, especially in the rural South. There are voices who believe it's too strongly emphasized, but it's a fact of life. However what needs to happen is this: kids should avoid routine coverage and focus on what's not-so-routine. Perhaps milestones in the schools' performances in statewide competitions? Maybe see if newspapers from outside the metro area talk about the sports team.
                • WhisperToMe (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
                  • What you are showing above is the issue of the systematic bias of the West, and perhaps more to the US. The US has multi-tier administration over schooling, and everything is being tracked at national and state levels (in part of trends like No Child Left Behind). Schools are important to local communities, and covered heavily in local papers. That situation does not exist anywhere else in the world - you'll get close in places like Europe, Japan, and other highly urbanized areas. Other countries lack any formal system, and where literacy is already poor, there's little coverage of the school. It's great we can document some of these US schools to this level of detail but a lot of it still comes down to local sources and databases (primary sources). If there was clear evidence we could that nearly equally for any secondary school around the world, that would be great, but that simply can't be done, in a manner that would meet WP:V. BIAS suggests not presuming all other schools are notable, but instead not given excessive coverage to those schools where lots of information could be found. Remember: we still have articles on every town and village in the world, and the argument that editors from their towns will be drawn to WP to edit about where they live still holds true with these articles, but its much easier to verify named places rather than specific schools at those places. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
                    • @Masem: While it may be difficult/impossible for some regions/countries, I think the best way to get around "systemic bias" in this scenario is to ask editors of each language background/region how to find sources on a particular school in their language(s). I got assistance from FRwiki editors in writing Lycee Alfred Nobel (a school in the Paris area serving North African immigrant students), and Chinese sources in particular may have written info on particular high schools (though I don't know to what degree). I got help from editors of various countries to write Liceo Mexicano Japones (a private school in Mexico City serving Mexican students of Japanese heritage and Japanese nationals).
                    • Schools in urban areas of third world countries are more likely to get coverage than say in rural areas: getting info on a school in Nairobi is easier than doing so for one in the sticks. This is especially so if they are "international schools" affiliated with a foreign educational system. Some countries have formal networks/systems: AEFE of France, ZfA (I think) of Germany, and the Japanese Ministry of Education (for Japanese overseas schools). Last summer I wrote a series of "international school" templates and articles as a way of getting around systemic bias. That way every country has schools represented on Wikipedia.
                    • WhisperToMe (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
                      • France is not a problem country here; it is sufficiently urbanized to have well documented info on its schools. I'd except the same for North American or Western Europe nation where the degree of urbanization is high. It's places like China, Brazil, and India. And we've had editors from those areas try to find sources and they can't for secondary schools. That's always going to be the rub on schools in that you'll very much unlikely find significant details on schools from these regions, and thus would not be covered on WP. Since we can't make up sources to cover these, WP:BIAS suggests we should be much more discriminate on including other secondary schools. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
                        • I would be interested in reading the discussions from those cases in China, Brazil, and India. Speaking of that, I found I was able to get sources for Lekki British School from Nigerian newspapers online, but I can imagine it's because the school's in Lagos. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Partial Support There are a small number of secondary schools that quite clearly meet notability requirements due to some unusual aspect of the school, whether that be historical/architectural significance, or just simple prestige. However, most of the secondary schools with articles on Wikipedia are more ordinary. I strongly believe that many of these "ordinary" schools nonetheless deserve an article due to their strong impact on their local communities and surrounding area, and the fact that many of them have enough coverage to write a quality article. This is demonstrated by the article on Amador Valley High School (which is a featured article about a rather run of the mill American high school) as well as by many of the 18 or so good articles on high schools listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society. While I support the presumption of notability for many secondary schools, I believe that the requirements for assuming notability should be higher than simply proving that a secondary school exists. Preferably, I'd like to see a set of criteria that needs to be met before notability is assumed, sort of like what we do with athletes, songs, actors, films, ect. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support of course. All (okay, maybe 99.95%) of secondary schools in the US have plenty of coverage. I imagine the same is true in most developed nations. The main issue is when we can't find sources in less developed nations. And that provides bias issues and all sorts of other problems. Also, frankly, this is a reasonable thing for Wikipedia to cover. Finally, I really don't want to start hearing arguments that "this is just the kind of coverage any school would get" which I'm sure we'd start to see. Hobit (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any category of articles being automatically notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you explain why? Hobit (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd oppose inherent notability too, which we don't have on Wikipedia. We do have the presumption of notability, which means that for certain classes of articles, we presume them notable once certain standards are met. This can be argued against. As I have said in the past, I would very much argue against what in the US is called a homeschool group or homeschool academy that prepares kids for a high school diploma being considered notable. I'd also argue against many for-profit schools or possibly against some US charter schools depending on the nature of the organization and its role in the community. The presumption of notability just means that those !voting delete would have a heavier burden, and since notability is not a policy, its a guideline, consensus would be able to determine the cases where exceptions to the general norm do exist and where an article should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
      • @TonyBallioni: Some categories of articles do have "presumed notability" - for example if they are legally recognized, "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features) - Under current SCHOOLOUTCOMES you can still argue against, say, homeschooling groups (say "typical public high schools are protected by SCHOOLOUTCOMES but...) WhisperToMe (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
        • There is a critical difference between "inherited notability" and "presumed notability". The latter means that we are going to work on the presumption that the topic is notable enough for a standalone article but that can be challenged in the future if there is a reasonable case put forward that our presumption was wrong (in that no sourcing actually exists); this means someone would have to demonstrate their case along the lines of doing the legwork discussed in WP:BEFORE to show the presumption wrong. Inherited notability simply means that we would accept the notability of a topic due to its connection to a different topic, and that inherited notability thus can't be challenged. We don't do that at all, every topic has to stand up in its own. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure I understand. We don't use inherited notability for secondary schools do we? I think Masem misread "inherent" as "inherited". EyeTripleE (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. One of the problems with "presumed notability" is that people here on Wikipedia attach different meanings to the term. To some, it means "automatic" or "inherent" notability, for which the general notability guidelines do not come into play. To others, it is simply shorthand for "it is reasonable to presume that the subject has received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, even if no one here on Wikipedia has uncovered them yet". As I look through the many opinions that precede mine in this discussion, I see that most of them reflect one or the other of these two very different notions. As for me, I'm inclined to view this question from a more practical perspective. Consider this listing from a reliable government source here. Does this single web page really provide the basis for 260 separate stand-alone articles, each of them consisting of the single sentence "{NAME OF SCHOOL] is a higher secondary school in the Malappuram district of Kerala, India" ? And that page is merely a subpage on the site shown here. Looking through the lists for each of the districts in Kerala (scroll down the page for the lists), you'll find that there are more than 2,000 such schools in Kerala, all of them source-able to this one site. Do all 2,000 get stand-alone articles? And considering that Kerala has about one-fortieth of India's population, are we prepared for 80,000 such articles? And considering that India has about one-sixth of the world's population, are we willing to have something on the order of half a million such articles? To me, that's just too large a number, hence my "Oppose" recommendation. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Eh, that's probably less than the number of towns in the world ([2]) and those are all notable... Hobit (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I have just arrived here, and this is a lengthy discussion. Before I peruse it, I want to jot down a few initial thoughts. On the one hand, WP:ORG is exceedingly clear that No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. On the other hand, I have encountered AfDs where the participants almost blindly write "keep" comments about secondary schools, seemingly as if they were inherently notable. At some point, I remember making such !votes myself. I understand the argument that secondary schools are significant in their local communities and produce coverage that way, and I understand that this coverage can be especially difficult to find when the school is located in non-English-speaking countries (Wikipedia:Systemic bias). Nevertheless, I have tended to wish that there was more focus on evidence of coverage at these kinds of deletion discussions, rather than a blanket presumption that secondary schools are generally notable. Mz7 (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Per Masem and just about every other opposition above. Additionally, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS--notably, that of systemic bias of coverage of topics not in English. (That is not to say that we should not work to decrease it, but that it is not our purpose, which is to write an encyclopedia in English of topics which are notable.) --Izno (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose- There is not any such thing as inherent notability. It's not enough to merely verify that something exists, there has to be enough coverage to actually fill an article. Otherwise, we end up with an endless profusion of contentless microstubs. Reyk _YO! 14:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Schools in English-speaking countries such as the UK are subject to independent inspection and testing. This provides a good body of source material and so we may safely presume that there's an adequate basis for coverage here. Andrew D. (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't knoe what's situation like in the West, but here in India, I'd say 90% of all secondary schools are not notable. In fact, even Wikipedia:Points to note while debating in WikiProject India related AFDs notes that Most of Indian schools fail to satisfy the WP:ORG and WP:GNG criteria.. 103.6.159.75 (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Partly per Sandstein and partly per those who say some version of no inherent (or presumption of) notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose along with some history: In many countries, such as the United States, almost all schools that have the "highest grade" of secondary education would easily meet WP:Notability if only someone would bother to do the research. It's ridiculous to delete such articles simply because those who would have the time or interest to update the article happen to miss the AFD. However, that is not true for all schools. Some special-purpose schools, such as "special discipline" high schools or "alternative education/self-paced" high schools in the United States typically lack sports teams, bands, and other things that generate the coverage needed to meet WP:Notability. If I see an article about such a school and I can't find enough in a Google search to show that it meets WP:N, I may send it to AfD and recommend it be merged into the parent-school-district article. I would expect such an AfD to succeed. Likewise, in countries where typical "high schools" do NOT receive enough press coverage to meet WP:N, they should not have stand-alone articles. The bottom line: If a school is likely to meet WP:N due to the type of school it is (e.g. academy, comprehensive, etc.) and treatment of that type of school by the press (e.g. extensive coverage of sports teams, etc.), then it should be presumed notable until proven otherwise. If there is no special reason to think it is likely to meet WP:N (e.g. it is a type of school where schools get scant attention from the local press), then the absence of proof along with a small amount of research by an editor seeking its deletion should be grounds to not presume it is notable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - This is the consensus that has emerged and been observed for years. Overturning it will lead to an absolute onslaught of challenges by bored deletionists that will sink the AfD process beneath hundreds of lost hours fighting over sourcing to no good end. In a lot of ways I'm past giving a fuck about AfD already; it's a massive time sink. But, one more time, here is the rationale behind our wise WP:OUTCOMES on schools. High schools are centers of their local communities and should be viewed as inherently notable just like occupied places, rivers, highways, and professional athletes. The reason for this is because all of these have published histories of their construction, sports teams that are covered in the press are the site of extracurricular activities covered in the press, etc. The flip side of this is that elementary schools are presumed NON notable unless truly exceptional specimens, since there are many more of them, they are less central to their communities, and do not have the same impact in terms of published coverage of teams and events. The OUTCOMES consensus is a workable compromise between inclusionists and deletionists that has expedited AfD for YEARS. Carrite (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I want to stress on the "sink the AFD process" that the section below, we would absolutely need some type of grandfathering process and moratorium on AFDs of schools should SCHOOLOUTCOMES be nixed. In other words, the fears that AFD would be flooded by school AFDs is something that can be readily managed and thus should not be reason to keep SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that such an assurance would need to be in the original RFC proposition for contributors to take account of it. They don't seem willing to accept post-haste assurances that it won't happen. With all due respect to the original proposer, I wonder if the proposition itself is somewhat flawed, in that it doesn't provide alternative actions in case of opposition. CalzGuy (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The lack of that consideration of process is why I started the section below. It really should go hand-in-hand. And even if it was the case that we didn't have process, the AFD issue would be something covered under WP:FAITACCOMPLI, that flooding AFD with school articles would absolutely not be appropriate. It would just be better to have an explicit process statement to know how we'd go forward if SCHOOLOUTCOMES is removed. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for not including that in the question, CalzGuy, but that question was a result of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Need for an RfC on schools' notability and nobody suggested it there. I also think there's merit in keeping the question simple, and dealing with the consequences separately once consensus has emerged. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't apologise. I don't think it would have been an obvious thing to do. However, I do think that once this discussion is closed as "No consensus", as it undoubtedly will, we will then need to have another discussion on where to go next, as I think there is a consensus for some change. It's just a matter of figuring out what. CalzGuy (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Echoing Cordless Larry here that from the discussion about having the RfC, the question of process was not an obvious one at the time. As I have expressed below, I am of the view that anything short of a close in the affirmative here will require more work on drafting a process and then probably another discussion on where to go. I think the advantage in separating the discussions and keeping it simple is that it allows people to comment on the question of notability itself, which has never really been answered by a guideline, just SCHOOLOUTCOMES. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sandstein says it well, and plenty of others have added other relevant points. Consensus is not carved in stone and this project as a whole needs to improve upon the practices of its early days. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. To consider deleting articles on such significant institutions is, frankly, bizarre. Just Chilling (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Just Chilling We routinely delete churches, temples, town halls, post offices, hospitals, and many other institutions that also play a significant role in communities - high schools are the only "category" of such institutions that are specially protected. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Im just reminding you Dodger67 (and anyone else reading this, including the eventual closer) , that the RfC question is: Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable? OUTCOMES is not metioned and is therefore not the subject of this RfC. You can't ban its use. To do so would be to invite a list of several thousand AfD closures being posted on each new AfD as the documentary evidence that has produced the precedent. That said, 'churches, temples, town halls, post offices, hospitals, and many other institutions' are not, unlike schools' exempt from CSD-A7. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, I can't see a pressing need to allow articles about schools in Wikipedia that do not pass WP:GNG. Private schools, for example, are businesses, and why should a business that happens to be a school be exempt from the usual requirements? Also, school articles are often a liability, attracting BLP issues like "teh sports teacher mr smith is a pedofile he likes little girls lol" in more or less eloquent forms. —Kusma (t·c) 09:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've been following discussion for several days now. I agree with the arguments put forth by many others. If there are insufficient sources to satisfy the already extremely low bar of GNG, what basis is there for an encyclopedic article. older ≠ wiser 12:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose We should leave this to the GNG. Some high school will be notable, some won't, but there is no justification for presuming that they will. The corollary is that we shouldn't presume that primary schools are non-notable. Ultimately what matter are the sources and whether they enable us to write a good quality article. Neljack (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

And how do we do that? One at a time at AfD. Hope to see you there, wasting 5 minutes per debate or more checking sources as we wade through the flood of new articles on elementary schools... Carrite (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. For me, WP:NPOV is the crucial policy. There are plenty of schools and degree awarding institutions - some of which are even accredited - that are of dubious quality. Without robust sourcing, we cannot maintain neutral articles. A school whose article is supported only by namechecks or reports in local media, may be completely out of line with the tone of the reports - and that could work in either direction. Multiple reliable independent sources is the only way to ensure we meet our core policies. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - the GNG argument is that secondary schools are presumed to be notable if there is evidence of their existence, because that condition has held up time and time again in many deletion discussions. Pick a school that exists, and there are very nearly always reliable sources about it somewhere. In a disproportionately large number of cases with secondary schools (versus other topics) these reliable sources are local or regional newspapers which do not maintain an online archive or have an online presence at all, but they can nearly always be located if someone is around to look. So it is reasonable to assume that all accredited secondary-level schools will pass GNG. Furthermore there's little harm in allowing these articles to exist: there's little cause for concern about undue promotion as the vast majority of these schools will be public, which is typically why articles on commercial organizations are subject to additional scrutiny, and other concerns can be dealt with through routine patrols just like every other topic. Requiring that sources be located for these articles will cause the school articles that are left to be biased toward WP:RECENTISM. (Of course we should prefer that sources demonstrating notability be included, but it is reasonable to assume that they exist; that's what all the supplementary notability guidelines are about.) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ivanvector, can you please provide links to AFD discussions that demonstrate your assertion above? (Pick a school that exists, and there are very nearly always reliable sources about it somewhere.) I have provided links above that show the opposite, that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is used as a self-fulfilling prophecy to shut down discussion despite strong arguments that point to real guidelines. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - the understanding that secondary schools should be considered notable came about because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can be found for most such schools that meet WP:ORG. The alternative is to have a large series of AFDs to try to weed out the very few that don't; hardly a good use of anyone's time. One issue seems to be schools on the Indian sub-continent that tend to be poorly sourced. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in non-English speaking countries. Very few schools on the Indian sub-continent, for example, have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated in such cases. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Rubbish. We're not primarily a social experiment and all this carping about systemic bias, using it as a way to avoid our encyclopaedic requirements, is just bleeding heart stuff. How much time should we allow? Do you have any idea how many false statements are made on articles concerning the Indian sub-continent? - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - as a veteran of the old days, let me tell you, we don't want to go back. As someone who participated in school AfD's back in 2004-05, pre WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I can say unequivocally the status quo serves the project well. 1) I believe that it is an appropriate gazetteer use of wikipedia. Wikipedia is more useful for it. 2) It is a very useful training ground for young editors. 3) It is also a useful show-of-force deterrence for young vandals, who find their predictable nonsense knocked down surprisingly quickly, despite what their teachers tell them about wikipedia's unreliability. 4) It protects wikipedia from bias, both actual and apparent. It would be great if all WP:GNG decisions could be so objective. Going back to the old days will result in lots of American schools with lots of local WP:RS coverage staying in, with lots of Indian or other schools getting removed. This would be an accident of timing, plus a reflection of the different roles of these schools in different cultures. It would put well-meaning editors in the line of fire of accusations of prejudice. No one wants to spend their time here that way. 5) School deletion discussions never die. Again, this was the prior experience: when a school is deleted, its alums and students re-appear consistently to re-add it. Even if legitimately re-added, another AfD frequently re-starts. Again, we have better places to burn our calories. 6) The hope of deleting Western schools to limit bias is unrealistic. Secondary schools receive different coverage in different cultures. And our view/visibility of what is a WP:RS is skewed by internet access as well. This is just a bug in the practicality of WP:GNG. If we subjected counties and towns to WP:GNG, we would see the same bias between, say, U.S. and Indian towns; this is an ideal use of an objective, non-GNG inclusion criterion. Chris vLS (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not find SCHOOLOUTCOMES useful, in that it documents what has happened in the past, but seems to be picked up and used as an argument for the future or used in an AfD as an argument for keeping a school with no notability; because we generally keep schools is not an argument for keeping schools ~ that's circularity of argument, surely. In general, several people above ~ Sandstein, Reyk, Finnusertop, Wugapodes, Beeblebrox and others ~ have said it more clearly than i, but schools should have to prove notability to have an article, or we'll be making nothing more than a directory (OK, not "nothing more", but we'll be making WP more directory-like). Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as it seems to me to be addressing a secondary issue while not addressing a more important one, as the RfC here seems to be considering only the aspect of notability, which is not necessarily the only criterion involved. There is also the matter of whether there really is sufficient encyclopedic content for an article, which is being ignored in this question, and is probably the more important factor involved here. I have no doubt virtually every junior high school, middle school, and high school can have a good deal of somewhat crufty material added, and I myself know from current experience of looking through an old 1970's Who's Who of Religion that in that work there are a frightening number of bios listing (generally priests or nuns) as administrators or teachers at such schools. There is also the question not addressed here regarding how to structure articles on school districts. I've also seen a lot of bios indicating someone is the head of, for instance, a Catholic diocesan school committee. Coming up with a clear MOS regarding all organizations involved in secondary schools would probably be preferable. Such an MOS would also be able to deal with matters like school districts, diocesan school offices, etc., and I suppose regarding primary schools and their managing organizations (I've seen a lot of bios listing people as teaching in primary schools in the Who's Who too). John Carter (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support if for no other the reason than that the planning, building, and opening of a high school is such a significant undertaking and use of public or private funds, that there is bound to be coverage. Whether or not we can find that coverage is irrelevant. I also believe that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES saves us all a lot of time and effort at AFD that would be far better spent elsewhere. The existence of these articles also furthers our purpose as topic valid for inclusion in an almanac. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Your rationale does not necessarily apply outside the developed countries, nor does it satisfy even WP:V, which needs multiple independent sources and not, for example, town council minutes. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Support in keeping secondary schools notable - SCHOOLOUTCOMES eliminates having 30 high schools in the US with 1 in India. Schools cited by independent sources should be considered notable and my point of view is that even primary schools verified by 5+ sources should be kept and protected by SCHOOLOUTCOMES. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a longstanding policy and as stated above around a decade old. The reasons outlined in the above 'Oppose' comments do not convince me. Voting 'support' on this Rfc is not about stating that all secondary schools should be considered notable but stating that all secondary schools that are verified by sources independent of the subject should be considered notable. Overall as per my statements above I support status quo with possible slight changes in favour of more schools to be considered as notable. J947 01:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support as long-term editor, I agree with others: let us keep the status quo, which has served us well. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per the arguments given above by other users. The simple fact that a school exists does not make it notable. The notability of some subject must be proved by multiple reliable sources, and most of schools will certainly fail this. The current situation when schools are considered by default notable is illogical, and some users are 'abusing' WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES by creating some kind of articles (e.g. about schools with some 100 students) which are inadmissible in an encyclopedia, IMO. Wikipedia is not a directory. XXN, 18:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Informal Support for African Secondary schools, Oppose for other territories: Secondary schools are essentially not news-worthy in many climes. They also lack competitive drive due to thier non-profit nature, as least from my side of the world. Most of what makes other institutions get reguslar coverage in relaible sources doesn't really apply to secondary schools. I'm not saying all educational topics must have this special treatment on wiki but I am of the opinion that an exception should be created for universities and secondary schools, which are part of the standardized mechanism in formulating the educational being of any individual. We don't expect to find multiple significant coverage for Nigerian secondary schools before accomodating them here.

One of my projects in my second coming on Wikipedia was to increase the number of notable and popular secondary schools on Wiki. I noticed that out of about 10,000 sec schools in Lagos/Ogun axis, where I'm based, there were only about ten with wiki articles. This isn't too surprising when you note that less than 100 of this 10k can boast of an existing website. The way these schools operate and are structured, there will always be limited coverage. Nonetheless, I started creating articles on the most popular and notable, especially the public ones. I have created Lagos State Model College Badore,Federal Government Girls College, Ipetumodu, Lagos State Model College Kankon, Lagos State Junior Model College Kankon, Lagos State Model College Igbonla, Lagos State Model College Badore, Landmark University Secondary School, Lagos State Junior Model College Badore, Covenant University Secondary School, etc. One of my secondary school schools even got speedied twice and a COI tag wrongly placed on it. It was funny to me because the school in question is one that all Nigerians are familiar with, because it was used to act a national series of immense popularity some decades ago. You can verify my statement yourself, if you know any Nigerian who's less than 40 years, just ask him/her if he has heard of Binta International School, I'm 98% sure that his response will be yes. Or better-still, ask any Nigerian editor on Wikipedia, the response will be the same. I really got angry by the COI tag that was placed on the article. I think we need to be soft on African secondary schools as long as the information is verifiable.

I went through many of the oppose votes and I think the fear is that they don't want Wikipedia to get clumped up with thousands of poorly written articles, which is an understandable position. This is why I will only support for African articles, because I know that will never be the case for them. The Nigerian secondary schools with minimal online coverage are essentially notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I'm voting for this to be an informal policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darreg (talk • contribs) 14:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – Nothing has inherent notability, as it says in the WP:N guideline, and there is no good reason why secondary schools should be excepted from the usual practice. RGloucester — ☎ 19:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support in the sense that the default should be to keep if the sourcing is thin but otherwise valid and that the proper response to a stub-like article on a high school should be to search for ways to improve the article before assuming that the subject is non-notable. My reasoning is that rival online encyclopedias, such as the Norwegian SNL has articles on the various high schools in Norway. Hence at least one competing encyclopedia considers this class of subject worthy of comprehensive coverage, and we should strive to be at least as comprehensive as that. Of course, if the sourcing is nonexistent and directory type-information is all that's verifiable, then an independent article would be too short to be useful. The school's existence would be better covered in the article on the town that the school is in. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional support I am generally a supporter of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The problem with SCHOOLOUTCOMES in my opinion is that editors at an AFD simply quote it with a rational such as Keep per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. or Keep due to longstanding consensus that secondary schools are notable. This is actually incorrect because schooloutcomes says that an article about a school is generally kept if 1. It is an independently accredited degree-awarding institution and 2. at least one independent source has been found to show that the school actually exists. Both these are important and the burden of proof (that the school exists and is accredited) lies on the editors arguing keep. Yet somehow this is often ignored at AFDs, which ultimately creates resentment. I personally am fine with SCHOOLOUTCOMES as I think that unlike companies, schools do not send out press releases and get them published in some churnalistic media. It is also one of the first articles often edited by students (and often serves as the defacto sandbox) and I would rather have them editing these school articles, than going around messing with other articles. Many secondary schools also have alumni associations and it is helpful to keep a list of notable people who have graduated from the school. As schools can also be considered a building with cultural significance, they may be notable if we apply WP:GEOFEAT. As such, I am in favour of the criteria in SCHOOLOUTCOMES, provided it is strictly followed. (The burden of proof needs to be on the editors arguing keep). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, and tighten the restriction to exclude reporting on school athletics as indicators of notability. Why? Because it fails WP:INDY. Due to the popularity of schools sports (especially in the US but also some other places), local newspapers have a very strong fiduciary interest in a thick stream of coverage of school sports for local entertianment purposes, and this coverage tell us precisely nothing about why the school, as an institution, might be notable in some way. Also exclude local reportage on faculty changes as indicators of notability of the institution or the faculty member. Maybe even just exclude local coverage, period. Very, very few high schools are actually notable; when they are it is usually for something incidental (a particular tragedy or scandal that happened there), not because of anything intrinsic about the institution. The vast majority of the articles on these things should be pruned to the essentials and merged into the parent articles about their school districts, just like we do with junior high and middle schools, and elementary schools.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support First, the collective wisdom of many years of WP editors, along with long-standing common practice, supports turning this into a policy or established practice. Second, in the real world, secondary schools in the U.S. are no more notable than those in Nigeria, Syria, India, or Egypt. Some flexibility is needed here in order to deal with the reality on the ground. First Light (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support We don't need gray areas. There is a certain crowd here who gets a thrill our of exploiting any weakness (usually an inexperienced editor) and in the darkness of AfD, fecklessly remove content that affects a lot of ordinary readers. If there is a source reporting the existence of a secondary school; then the discussion should end. I will also put in a reminder of WP:BEFORE. If there are no sources and it doesn't google, then have at it. Trackinfo (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• I Support that schools which are at least secondary and senior secondary should have at least one mention in some third party reliable website. If such school has no mention anywhere then, it must be recognised by the government of that country and must be 25 years old. Nowadays school articles which have no third party independent sources and established in less than 4 years ago are kept as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. However dance schools, play schools, day schools, kindergarten schools, cooking schools, handicrafts schools, martial arts schools, should pass WP:GNG, if they are not established by the government. Marvellous Spider-Man 11:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per WP:EXISTENCE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:GNG. This has been a sore subject with me for a while. There are far too many schools that would never pass notability that have stub articles we can't get rid of because of this idiocy. My experience has failed to provide any evidence that secondary schools all have enough RS coverage to justify an automatic presumption of WP:N. The one and only support I have read above that does carry some weight is DGG's which is essentially an IAR argument based on convenience. I concede that if we scrap the presumptive notability there will be an uptick at AfD which already suffers from chronic lack of participation. However, a lot of the articles I am thinking of could be dispatched via CSD A7, though we would have to remove the prohibition on educational institutions from the template. Further I strongly support prohibiting WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES from being cited in school related AfD's. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Ad Orientem, who pretty much said everything I was thinking. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I've already registered my opposition above; I'm now simply looking to share two observations. First, I was curious as to how our opinions on this issue have evolved over the years. The earliest extant survey of community opinion appears to be the old "What's in; what's out" page. Prior to early 2006, this page collected comments on secondary schools and, immediately before being removed in May 2006, it had collected comments from 36 editors (as seen here). 16 of those editors called for the inclusion of all secondary schools, most by simply stating "In", but with a few who gave rationales that we today would recognize as assertions of "inherent notability". As for the other 20 editors, a few simply said "Out", but the majority were more nuanced. Their responses took the form of either "In, but only if ... " or "Out, unless ... ". The conditions specified by these nuanced comments sometimes were objective, but more often were not. The general notability guidelines did not yet exist back then, so nobody was citing them. But most of the nuanced votes were setting conditions that were consistent with WP:GNG, with some making arguments that today would be recognized as falling under WP:ROUTINE or WP:STANDALONE. To me, the most striking aspect of this old survey is that, after more than ten years of debate, we remain divided -- roughly 50/50 -- on the question.

I also looked at the evolution of the Outcomes page itself. After some minor adjustments in wording, the initial statement regarding schools was the one found here. This was expanded a bit in late 2007, to give detail regarding different types of schools (i.e., primary vs. secondary), as shown here. The big change took place in May 2009, with its changing of "in most cases being kept" to "being kept". The edit that made this change is here. Its edit summary cited this sparsely-attended discussion as the basis for making the change. That discussion was not the subject of an RfC and I could find no evidence that it was publicized anywhere other than on that Talk page. In early 2011, there was a brief attempt to declare "per se notability" for high schools, but there was an immediate objection and, in that day's flurry of edits (see here), something looking quite like the current version came into being.

These two observations show that there has never been a consensus on the treatment of secondary schools. At the very least, the Outcomes essay should be amended to reflect this fact. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The standard should be the demonstrated existence of sources showing the subject meets WP:GNG. No sources = no notability = no article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC).

• Enough – this survey makes it very clear that support and oppose are not very different in number, and that there is no consensus. Close the survey and change modes to collecting ideas for how to move forward, if at all. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAVOTE. Looking over this discussion it is abundantly clear that the Oppose arguments are heavily based on policy and guidelines while the Supports are largely silent on that subject. The reviewing Admin is going to have to weigh the respective arguments and determine if the various retentionist arguments outweigh our guidelines and policy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support, because the alternatives are far worse. Secondary schools are the backbone of many smaller cities, and thus primarily generate interest in their local community. They are unique among local organizations in that they receive far more coverage locally than any neighborhood shop or municipal governmental department, yet they rarely receive regional or national coverage. If we repeal the existing guidelines for school notability, I predict that editors favoring deletion will use WP:AUD to bar all the local sources from consideration and use WP:ORGDEPTH to discredit any of the national coverage, since any national coverage is likely only in response to a transient event. Proving the notability of a secondary school will become absurdly difficult. Given that our readers have a clear interest in secondary school articles, I do not support the massive timesink that will be needed to defend these articles from deletion. Altamel (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for many reasons all listed above in previous Opposes. I see no reason to override normal notability standards for schools. MB 19:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, pretty much entirely because of WP:EXIST. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose There's no reason why WP:ORG shouldn't apply to schools. The argument that secondary schools are automatically notable seems to be advanced largely by people from countries such as the US where those schools are typically very large. In other countries, such as Australia, the size varies a lot and many high schools (such as the one I attended) aren't even well known in their own city much less the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support our policies and guidelines, oppose changes to our policies and guidelines based on this RfC  This is not a clear RfC.  Is this supposed to be a massive rebellion of GNG-centrism, or is this an intent to require two sources rather than one for OUTCOMES?  GNG is in such disrepute that an admin looking at a list of ninety references recently said that those were not enough to pass GNG.  DRV routinely protects "not notable", meaning "I don't like it", as a valid policy argument.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• oppose and confusing wording Secondary schools should be deemed non-notable unless notability is proven by GNG and other ways. Merely proving that the school exists is not enough. Otherwise, we could be having a school that was closed a century ago and never very notable when it was around claim a WP article. Don't laugh, some 400 year old British members of Parliament who never did anything documented have WP articles. Automatic notability should not be around. If something is very important, it will be notable. Lakeshook (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Striking blocked sock !vote. Gluons12 ^☢|☕ 20:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC).
• Oppose. Sources should be reviewed and evaluated for notability. Systemic bias concerns can be alleviated either through an amended process specific to regions of concern (if that's actually necessary), or simply within a proper reasoned discussion of the article at hand. As per many above, I see no compelling arguments for exemptions for schools that are not process related. Scribolt (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support status quo per Cullen. High schools are regular magnets of media coverage no matter where you go. And from the sense of providing an almanac, high schools are obvious community centers of interest. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support, as better than the alternative. High schools are a great magnet for attracting new editors, and that's a good (Wikipedia-public) policy reason to support retaining the status quo. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Process to consider

Working on the presumption that this may close in opposition, there is clearly a concern about the status quo of school articles. As part of the consideration here, I would suggest that if this does close this way, that all existing secondary school articles should at least be kept and there should not be a rush of mass deletions per WP:FAITACCOMPLI to remove them. However, fair AFD challenges can be held, recognizing that OUTCOMES no longer is supported here. Where possible, editors should be encouraged to merge info about secondary schools into articles on the notable city/town/school system and redirects left behind, avoiding the AFD process and keeping past contributions. This avoids any aggressive, disruptive approach if this should as suggested and alleviate fears that thousands of articles will suddenly be sent to the void. It will take a case-by-case review of each to determine what should be done, in such cases, and that will take many man-months of evaluation. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Given that the current 'vote' is 13:11 in favour of oppose, I would have to say I would hope that would be closed as "No consensus" rather than oppose, if it was closed just now. Having said that, I do agree that any change to consensus here, should not result in mass deletions. Rather, it should result in the development of a guideline, which may or may not result in deletions. CalzGuy (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not saying it will close "oppose", but I think we do need to broadly address the concerns of those !voting "support" that worry what would become of the articles that already exist. I think it is necessary to address what should or should not happen should "oppose" be the result as to alleviate some of those "support" concerns. By no means am I saying this RFC is done and over with. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: I'm wiling to start a guide on how to improve high school students to ensure that those that already exist can be developed as well as they can be. I've written many high school articles, mostly in North America but some also for international private and state-operated schools around the world. I actually encouraged Chinese university students in a workshop to start writing about their high schools, and this is a way to get Wikipedia to grow. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Echoing CalzGuy on it currently trending "no consensus". Regardless of how this RfC closes, even if it closes as support, I think SCHOOLOUTCOMES is no longer workable, and there will need to be further discussion on how exactly to implement the consensus here, or in the case of a no consensus close, to try to arrive at a guideline for schools that can achieve broad community support. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• I agree that there will probably have to be further discussion about where to go next, whichever way the RfC closes, but it's still early days - I can see this one running for a while. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• ? If this is voted down, it will just be another proposal not included in the guidelines. One does not make a consensus by people not voting for something, they make a consensus getting people to vote in favor of something. It will be as it always has been, the edge cases will sometimes get fought about, and the schooloutcomes out so that fights don't have to happen over and over again will be generally followed for the rest. The schooloutcomes thoughts and what gave rise to it are not going to magically disappear. The reasonable improvement from present would be to have a school sng: eg. 25 years, 500 students, acreditation, reference in such and such sources, etc., etc. but obviously that depends on someone really working on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The way this is being presented, if it passes with Support, then what is at SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be codified better at WP:NORG ("All verified-existing secondary schools are presumed notable"), removing the language at SCHOOLOUTCOMES as duplicative at least with respect to secondary schools. If this passes with Oppose, then the language at SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be changed to reflect that secondary schools are not presumed notable just by sheer existence. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  I would go farther and say if this is no consensus SCHOOLOUTCOMES as something that can be referenced in AfD is in shambles, and there would probably need to be more work done on crafting a guideline that could get community consensus on schools. SCHOOLOUTCOMES has the somewhat weird place in AfD because the idea is that it represents a longstanding community consensus on schools. Anything short of a support close here would be a rejection of that idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  This RfC has already attracted far more comments than the average school AfD, so if consensus either way is reached here, then I would argue that it is more representative of the community's views than any assessment of AfD closes would be. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  No. Schooloutcomes is, as the name says, about outcomes, the only way to change that is actually have mass deletions at afd. (and really, no matter how many comment, you don't get a backdoor consensus by finding no consensus or opposition on specific wording of a new guideline, no one has ever proposed before, and never bothered to refine.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  Key is that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay, and it has been used (or misused, depending on one's POV) at AFD to keep articles on schools as the sole argument. It's working on a catch-22 approach: "keep this article on a school because school articles are routinely kept", and allowing those AFDs to close without any attempt to show actual notability or additional sourcing. This RFC seems to be stating do we actually bite the bullet and say that secondary schools should be presumed notable and eliminate the catch-22 , or do we say they are not and eliminate the catch-22 the other way. And as Tony points out above, even a "no consensus" should lead to discussion about what to do about the catch-22 problem. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  That's not a Catch-22, even if that word was not overly dramatic, it is another beloved bugbear of Wikipedia, 'consistency', and sure we generally really want to be consistent - to treat like, like - because that is a basis for being neutral and fair (until we are not). You do get a chance to discuss it every-time at Afd, but Afd like every process looks for both a consistent application, and the reduction of transaction costs (eg., don't have lengthy fights about the same thing, again and again). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  But that creates the problem emphasized by the two linked AFDs: resting the argument against the deletion on an essay that describes a practice as to maintain that practice is a self-fulfilling cycle. The closures of the AFDs and the subsequent discussion show it is time to either cement that practice in notability guidelines or get rid of it as to break the cycle. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  SCHOOLOUTCOMES has a bunch of other uses, including suppressing the addition/supporting the deletion-or-merge of numerous primary/elementary school articles. We need to ensure that this continues to be the case, whatever the outcome here. CalzGuy (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Good luck with that. The grand compromise between deletionism and inclusioniam would be flushed, the SCHOOLOUTCOMES essay reduced to nothing. Deletionists might think they're "upholding standards" and eliminating a bunch of really terrible articles about high schools from India, but what they are actually doing is opening up the floodgates for about 100,000 American and English elementary schools to have vapid fluff pieces with news about Mrs. Finley the principal and what is served for lunch on Fridays. You think I joke. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

If SCHOOLOUTCOMES were to be eliminated, notability of schools would default to WP:NORG, and key in there is WP:AUD "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." Now, we'd have to be careful ("This school is acredited by the state's board, so there's your one statewide source!"), the implication is that this should be a secondary source, not primary. But we have the language in place to prevent a flood of primary schools from being created because of that. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: We can't get hung up on degree/diploma awarding as it is uncommon in many countries for secondary schools (attended by pupils aged 12-18 or some subset) to award documents like those. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Supporting SCHOOLOUTCOMES only because we're scared of the amount of work that would suddenly pop up if it is abolished doesn't make sense. Setting up a separate stream for such deletion discussions, so as not to block up the "normal" AFD stream is trivially easy. It will do no harm if we take months, or even a year or longer, to clear out school pages that might no longer qualify for inclusion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Spoken like somebody that doesn't spend a lot of time at AfD. Carrite (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment About two years ago, the notability requirements for planets was readjusted, which resulted in hundreds if not thousands of planet articles being nominated for deletion. I was working at AfD at the time, and can attest that going through all of these deletions was a bloody nightmare. However, the majority of the planet articles were non-controversial redirects since they lacked any coverage in reliable sources (or at least beyond a few trivial mentions that confirmed the existence of the planets). This meant that non-admins such as myself were able to substantially help with the workload. With secondary schools, I highly doubt this will occur. At least in the United States, high schools get tons of coverage at the city, township and county level. However, most also receive at least some coverage (of debatable worth) from sources at the state and federal level. There are going to be very few non-controversial AfDs, and the burden of closing them will fall on the admins. WP: AfD will likely be completely and utterly clogged for the foreseeable future if this discussion does not reaffirm the current consensus regarding secondary schools. (I’m not exaggerating here- we have articles on over one-hundred public high schools in the state of Iowa alone, which is roughly the twentieth least populated state in the US). Given this, I believe that some concrete steps need to be taken to keep wp:AfD functional. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the AfD process would probably be flooded with AfDs should this not close as support initially, but I also think Masem has a point that WP:FAITACCOMPLI does exist. The issue is how to deal with editors who would likely make WP:POINTy nominations afterwards (I have no one in particular in mind here, just a gut feeling.) I'm not sure what the best practical way to prevent that is if the RfC closes NC or oppose, but I also feel that the sheer volume of work that it would take for people to nominate a ton of schools would keep people at bay for a while, especially since I doubt this will close as outright oppose at this time (but who knows, I could be wrong and we have plenty of time left in the RfC.) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, to my eyes, the primary issue regarding a lot of primary and secondary schools is probably not so much their notability as such, but whether there is really enough encyclopedic content to merit a separate article. In cases like this one, I think that there actually are probably quite a few relevant reference works relating to the topic, and they would, I think, probably be the best indicators of how we should proceed here. The primary question there being what content to have in articles on specific institutions, and what content to have in school districts, or similar bodies, and how much really encyclopedic content that leaves over for separate articles on specific schools in those bodies. Now, I myself wouldn't necessarily have any real objections to, for instance, articles on schools of any level, primary or higher, which seem to be one of the few or only schools (either at that level or higher) operated by a specific entity, like a church. But how to deal with content on specific schools as opposed to their governing bodies, where such include several similar schools, is another matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see some alternative policy to schooloutcomes created. I know for a fact that there are many secondary schools that there is a lot of encyclopedic things to say about, but that would probably end up at AfD is no replacement policy existed. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment about closing - We're still a ways from the 30-day mark, but when the time comes what do people think about requesting a team of three uninvolved editors/admins to work together on the close, as is done from time to time on highly contentious matters. This is something that's come up so many times, and so often, and with so much history that it may be useful. Numerically, at time of writing, it's just about even between support and oppose, which may mean no consensus, but there are nuances, qualifications, interpretations, etc. that suggest something may come out of it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Seconding. The notability of secondary schools has been a highly debated topic on Wikipedia, and there is a lot of nuance within the discussion that needs to be accounted for. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd also support that. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is aprox. a decade old, and anything that would change it in one way or the other would have a huge impact. Having a team of uninvolved closers seems ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd support that approach too. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment As I suggested earlier, I don't think there should be any outcome from this RFC other than a Nc close, as I think that, with all due respect to the OP, it asked the wrong question. We need an RFC that asks the right question, actually a positive change from observational essay to an agreed policy or guideline. The oppose camp see SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a pseudo-guideline being used to prop up non-notable additions to the project, while supporters see it as a description of the actualité of AFD. It would be much better to define what SHOULD happen at AFD rather than describe what HAS happened previously CalzGuy (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

That's what this RFC was intended to do, by posing the question if secondary schools were notable, which was what the various no consensus AfDs seemed to be disagreeing on. The argument from the keeps traditionally being that SCHOOLOUTCOMES has long established that schools were notable and the deletes being that proof of meeting GNG or WP:ORG was required in the moment. This RfC was intended to resolve that by asking the most basic neutral question possible. If it closes NC or oppose, I agree that more work will need to be done on a new guideline, but I think the reasoning behind this RfC was sound and that it was the right question to ask. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The RFC is a single question to do with notability of secondary schools. There is much more required to be covered, and agreed, if a guideline (policy is probably OTT) is to come into play. For instance, there be nuances of geography, or of age of pupils, or of age of schools. Is a school notable if the building in which it is housed is notable? What about elementary/primary schools? What about all-through schools. This RFC is only about a single aspect of the whole. The discussion needs to be widened. CalzGuy (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If the RfC does close anyway other than the affirmative, then yes, you are right. The point is that it wasn't entirely clear before this started that something more than a "yes or no" was needed here. All the advice provided was for a narrowly construed RfC which is why it was framed this way. If this is closed in a way other than "support" the closing statement and this RfC will be able to serve as a starting point for a future discussion and will allow those of us who want to take part in drafting it to consider points that I don't think would have been considered if this RfC did exist. Personally, I think a wider RfC would have been even more likely to lead to a NC close than this one if there was not a more narrowly construed comment period first. tl;dr: You're right moving forward if this doesn't close support, but I still think this was the right starting point. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A 'No consensus' close will leave the status quo as is. It will be no different from a Support close because that's where we are just now. CalzGuy (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

We normally determine no consensus based on whether or not there is consensus,regardless of where it may happen to lead. Ay way, I think there is very clear consensus, far outreaching the result here--essentially no high school afd where the school clearly had real existence and was clearly a high school has closed as delete for lack of notability in the last 5 or 6 years. The argument that we must have sourcing for verifiability is of course valid as far as the verification of the facts in the article is concerned, but that's irrelevant, for meeting WP:V is a good deal less than the specific types of sourcing that shows notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Except that a point that is absent or underemphasized but core to this is how does WP:NORG's Audience guidance fit into secondary school notability. Many examples of "kept" secondary schools presented during this violate WP:AUD by using strictly local sources (that otherwise meet V/RS), but this point is never really brought up during AFD because you have a lot of people shouts "SCHOOLOUTCOMES". We need to get rid of SCHOOLOUTCOMES regardless of which way consensus falls, either by explicitly writing the allowance for secondary schools into NORG, or otherwise not given secondary schools that free pass at notability. I agree that this RFC doesn't answer that question but we now know better how to word it, including stipulation that if the "no free pass" is the agreed option, we are going to grandfather all existing school articles to avoid flooding AFD. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Assuming the closer has read this far, this RfC is as long as it is short, is as broad as it is narrow, and as skewed as it is straight - on two major points:

1. Schools don't 'not exist'. School articles are generally written about schools that exist. As coord of the WP:WPSCH for years (and genuinely active at it to boot), I've rarely come acrosrs a school being invented for the purpose of hoax. School articles may often sound somewhat promotional, but they ae mainly written by the children that attend them - or alumni and let's face it, most people are proud of their schools and without them they wouldn't be able to read or write or know that the world is not flat - let alone edit Wikipedia. Practically everyone on the planet goes to a secondary school with the exception of some remote developing regions. It's therefore fair to say that schools have an impact on society. On the other hand Not everyone has eaten in a small Mitchelin starred restaurant in the Netherlands that gets an article without so much as a nod, and doing so would not make them nutritional scientists, heart surgeons or astrophysicists. What's missing in this debate is rather a large portion of common sense - an expression we're not supposed to use on Wikipedia.
2. None of the opposers have any respect for the sensitivities of the dedicated editors and admins who have the burden the workload presented a) by new page patrollers who without a clue are allowed to tag articles and send them down various sewers of deletion or conversely let the clearly non notable or spammy for-profit high street cram school through. To oppose this motion would open the flood gates to the likes of those who with alarming regularity over the years now and again decide to send a bunch of school articles to AfD because between meals in their 'notable' restaurants, they have noting else better to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2017 (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.

SCHOOLOUTCOMES post-script & implementation

...200+ comments, 24,000+ words, and yet nobody even mentioned the existence of WP:Notability (high schools) (a failed proposal, now tagged as an essay). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe that all of the points in that essay were raised above and discussed thoroughly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• There should be a TL;DR summary of this close. My read is; secondary schools are not presumed notable by existance. SCHOOLOUTCOMES can be cited at AfD but may be discounted by the closer. Editors should make a good faith attempt to find sources in local media before nominating a school for deletion. A flood of school nominations in the wake of this close is discouraged. I am sure others took away something different so the closers should write a clear, citable/quotable summary so this does not spawn endless drama about what was meant. None of this is ment to detract from the hard work the closers put into this but this is a topic which needs more clarity than can be found by interpreting such a long closing statement. Jbh ^Talk 00:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless I am misreading this (it is a bit long and an executive summary would be helpful) Secondary Schools are not presumptively notable and SCHOOLOUTCOMES is discouraged from being cited at AfD. Further SO should be added to the list of arguments to be avoided at AfD. All of which said the closers seemed to also be saying that schools are different in an undefined way and editors should take a deep breath before sending school articles to AfD with an emphasis on due diligence and searches for sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Not helpful when the local print media is in Bodo. I don't know where this leaves us. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. I'll update the close with a summary to avoid further confusion. Jacknstock, references/sources do not have to be in English, so it kind of leaves you in the same position you were in before. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note I believe WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be edited to reflect this consensus change. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  I have updated the link to this RfC and added the text from the 'nutshell' to SCHOOLOUTCOMES [3]. I am not sure of how to phrase or what section to place the ' Arguements to Avoid' change so I will leave that for someone else. Jbh ^Talk 15:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  This could be a little confusing because citing the essay that was previously linked as SCHOOLOUTCOMES is precluded, but it looks like SCHOOLOUTCOMES now links to new guidelines. We won't be able to refer to the summary in AfDs because deletionists will cite the admin decision here to claim we can't use SCHOOLOUTCOMES, regardless of the fact it has been updated. This is all very muddy... Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  See WP:OUTCOMESBASED which Masem and I added per this RfC. SCHOOLOUTCOMES can still be cited if explained, but now OUTCOMESBASED and this RfC also exist to further explain the nuance to schools. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Would there be a reason to (or not to) have a 6-month or 1-year moratorium on the AFD of any secondary school barring otherwise fake or outright promotional articles, as to prevent the potential WP:FAITACCOMPLI of flooding AFD with school articles? (eg what I had suggested as part of the Process to consider above?) --MASEM (t) 18:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The close urges preventing a rush to AfD because of this, and I think if there are any disruptive editors who flood AfD they can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I don't want to get into instruction creep here. I do think it would be better to possibly copy the close and the summary to a WP-namespace page other than outcomes because I think the actual wording of the long form close is useful and the current permalinks to "this February 2017 RfC" could be intimidating to some newer users who very well could be writing school articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you all think about preventing "a rush to AfD" (or even a good-faith effort) by adding prominent recommendations that non-notable schools use the WP:Requested merge process instead, since that is normally the best alternative? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone agree that this is not a good venue for ongoing discussions? The RFC has been closed. We should all leave quietly and find a new place to discuss better ways forward, shouldn't we? CalzGuy (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any problem discussing how we are implementing the suggestions made by the closers which affects multiple P&G pages. The changes being made refer back to this discussion so that it thus helps a person coming in fresh to see what else is being done as to not make this closing action disruptive. (Key is is that no one is complaining about the close result, which would be inappropriate to go on about). --MASEM (t) 18:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see this as having much practical effect because all the related pages such as WP:ATA and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES are weaker than policy and so are open to argument regardless. Even WP:GNG is just a guideline and so we have numerous exceptions such as Chitty (cricketer). The most relevant policy here is WP:NOTLAW. Andrew D. (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • SCHOOLOUTCOMES has not been treated as something that is weaker that policy. Also, you may be interested in reading WP:PGE. We have some guidelines that are strictly enforced and some policies that aren't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

All notability rules are guidelines only. Suggestions to change WP:N to policy have been consistently defeated. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• The reason the closure is so hard to summarize is that it is not self-consistent. It seems to say there is first of all no consensus to change the statement that secondary schools are always kept if there's real evidence, but there is insufficient consensus to have a rule that they are presumed notable, and insufficient consensus to call anything Schooloutcomes. This ignores the basic principle of consensus, that if there is insufficient consensus to do or change anything, the situation remains as before, not the situation changes in some respects to the extent the closers think desirable. This leaves the matter in more confusion than before--especially so because it fails to take account of the strongest argument: that the rule is just a working compromise essentially balancing keeping secondary schools and redirecting primary schools, and need have no justification except that it works for Wikipedia. (And it does--imagine the entire discussion above needing to be repeated at every secondary and primary school afd--that's the alternative.)

I intend to argue just as before at afds: in practice we always keep secondary school articles if there is actual evidence for verification. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Multi-part RFC on Wikipedia:Recent years

Background: Recent Years is a set of editing guidelines for articles on events of global significance for an entire year, for example 2014. It is not binding on any other subset of articles pertaining to years that are not recent, such as 1865, or articles about certain subjects in a given year such as 2011 in Australian television, or 2011 in film and so forth. Recent years guidelines are not used as inclusion criteria for content anywhere else on Wikipedia, including the main page.

The issue this RFC aims to address is the fact that these guidelines were put into place and are maintained by a very small group of users, and indeed many if not most Wikipedians may not be aware of them at all, unless they try to insert material into an article on a given year (usually the current one) and suddenly find themselves faced with a number of new rules they never knew existed, being enforced by a small group of users who specialize in this area. Policy decisions in this area are sometimes made by as little as two or three users. It appears that the decision to make it an official editing guideline was made by a single user.

This is not intended to suggest that these users have been acting in bad faith, they have worked tirelessly to uphold what rules they have in an area of Wikipedia that seems to suffer from a lack of broad particpation. Constantly dealing with the same isssues day after day, year after year with little to no support or interest from the broader community can be understably frustrating.

For an idea of what these conversations are like and how many of them there are, see the talk page of any article on a year between 2002 and 2017.

Therefore, this RFC will attempt to mitigate some of these issues by calling for broader input on the rules used in recent years articles in order to make it apparent if the community at large supports them or not. Discussion will include the scope of the guideline, tools for improving awareness of it, and a review of some of the specifc points included in it, as well as the question of whether it should be a guideline at all.

21:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Scope of recent years guidelines

This has been discussed several times on the talk page of the guideline, but due to low participation a consensus is not clear and there is no set definition of what qualifies as a recent year. Should the scope be limited to:

• 2002 (the year after Wikipedia was founded) and onward (status quo at the moment)
• The most recent ten years
• The most recent 20 years, beginning with 2002 for now but moving each year after 2022
• Some other standard

Discussion of scope of recent year guidelines

• I personally think that the ten most recent years is a reasonable and manageable scope for these guidelines. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• twenty years max ten years min I tend to consider anything older than 20 years history rather than recent events. I think having it apply to anything older than that is too broad. Likewise, anything in the last 10 years is pretty solidly "recent". Reasonable people will disagree about exactly where the cutoff should be, but I'd be in favor of any proposal within that range. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• 2002, but guideline should no longer be called "recent" years. It was "recent" when first proposed in 2009. Some guideline is appropriate for all years, and I believe the start year should be constant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• 2002 for practical purposes, but I'd really like any year for which sourcing is available for this standards defined in the guideline to be met. Scribolt (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Scope:future years

Wikipedia already has articles for every year in this cenury, all the way up to 2099. Given that these will all one day come under the recent years guidelines as time marches on, should articles on future years be subject to the recent years guidelines? If so, how far into the future should the guidelines be applicable?

Discussion of scope:future years

• I'm not sure I really have a strong opinion on this, but I do believe it may be wise to have a seperate discussion on the issue of the usefullnes of articles about events that may or may not be relevant 73 years from now. Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON to have articles at all on years more than 5-10 years into the future. That being the case I suppose that whatever we decide the scope is for the past could project forward into the futre as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• I tend to agree that we shouldn't have articles for years more than 10 years into the future; until a few weeks ago, there weren't articles for years more than 50 years in the future; until a few days ago, 70 years. But I think the guideline should extend as far as we have year articles.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

When this is concluded I plan to open another discussion specifically on these articles, it seems a little nuts to have "predicted events" of little to no consequence that may or may not occur 75 years from now. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this needs its own discussion/RfC - many of these future year articles have no references whatsoever, and per WP:TOOSOON and WP:V they might need to be deleted at this point in time. And anyway, I agree it seems absolutely bizarre to have them. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree: a discussion needs to happen. There simply isn't enough reliable information about events beyond 10 years into the future to justify creating an article, & creating one beyond then is just too tempting for someone looking for an easy way to up their editcount. -- llywrch (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Short term Applies to all year articles in the future. Medium term Update the guideline to remove future events Long term discussion need as per above as to whether we should have future year articles and what they should contain.

My reasoning as being so harsh regarding future predictions in the year articles is mostly due to manageability of dynamic information such as this. Imagine NASA announce that plan to place a human on Mars in May 2025 attracting considerable news coverage. So, we have a future year with a significant anticipated event. Various Mars & Mars landing articles are created, updated by a large number of interested Wikipedians. The 2025 article is updated, presumably by the much smaller subset of Wikipedians who like to update year articles. Later on, the launch is postponed to July, generating less media coverage and the Mars Wikipedians are all over it, but we're relying a Year Wikipedian being aware of the new date and remembering that this exists in a future year article and doing it themselves.

And also, Wikipedia is not a calendar. Scribolt (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent years category/edit notice

Currently, the only tool in use for identifying articles within the scope of the recent years guidelines and advising users of the existence of said guideline is {{Recent years}}, a talk page template advising users of the existence of these guidelines and advising them to read them before adding anything. There does not appear to be a category or a standard edit notice to better organize these articles and better inform users of these specialized guidelines.

Shoud a category for identifying and organizing these articles be created? Should there be a standard edit notice attached to all articles bound by the recent years guidelines so that users who do not check the talk page first will still receive notification of these specialized guidelines? If technically possible, should all three be linked so that adding the notice to the talk page automatically adds the article to the category and generates the edit notice?

Discussion of Recent years category/edit notice

• A category seems rather obvious. It would only need to be updated once a year so it would be exceptionally easy to maintain. If the mechanism that would automatically link all three things is technically possible that would be helpful as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• I think it should be a maintenance category, since readers wouldn't find our organization by applicable policies too useful. I think an edit notice would be useful, but I'm not sure how I feel about it yet. If there is consensus, I'd support automation. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, there should be an obviously visible link into the guideline. Scribolt (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The "three continent rule" for events

Current wording:

New events added must receive independent news reporting from three continents on the event. This is a minimum requirement for inclusion. Events which are not cited at all, or are not Wikilinked to an article devoted to the event, may be removed.

Should this rule be continued to be used as the minimum threshold for inclusion of an event in a recent year article? Is there a better metric that might be used?

Discussion of the "three continent rule" for events

• I think continents are a poor indicator for evaluating global relevance: something covered in the US, UK, and Australia alone would qualify. Number of countries might be a better indicator, though I'm not sure if it's the best. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• I think it can be improved, but I'm in favor of keeping it until a solid improvement is proposed. I don't see the US, UK, and Aus example as a problem: coverage in all three shows that it's internationally notable for the anglophone world (which is what enwiki primarily serves). Going off number of countries would really privilege regional coverage over truly global coverage sinceis also being discussed countries close to each other will probably report on each other, and those should go in regional articles like 2004 in Europe. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Needs to be some proxy for international significance; possibly, an item which belongs in a regional article shouldn't be here. I'm afraid that would be subjective, and probably subject to as the current regime as argument. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• As per Wugapodes. Could be better, will do until its improved by those closer to it. Scribolt (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @King of Hearts:, do you mean all three of US, UK and Australia ("alone" to mean not including other countries in coverage)? Because that would be 3 continents... :-)Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm sympathetic to Wugapodes's viewpoint that it may in fact be enough. But if something has only been covered in the American and Chinese press and nowhere else, I'd argue that it is at least as significant, if not more so, than something covered in the American, British, and Australian press and nothing else. So my primary concern is about the choice of metric rather than the cutoff used on that metric. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Pretty much everything of national significance in French politics would count, since France includes pieces in South America (French Guiana), Africa (Réunion and Mayotte), and North America (Guadeloupe and Martinique), as well as Europe. For a lesser issue, anything in Russian or Turkish politics being reported in North America or Africa would also qualify. If you want this kind of rule, you should specify something like "three different countries, each on a different continent". Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That also runs into difficulties, e.g. a minor international incident between Egypt and Israel reported on in those countries and Greece but nowhere else would qualify, but a much bigger incident between Zambia and Zimbabwe reported on in every country in sub-Saharan Afica but not further afield would not. Number of countries would be significantly biased towards European events as Europe has significantly more countries per km² than any other continent. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"Ten languages rule" for births and deaths

The current rule for inclusion for births and deaths of notable persons are as follows:

Births:

Births are only to be included if there are Wikipedia articles in English and at least nine non-English languages about the individual in question.

Deaths:

The same criteria apply to deaths as to births, with the addition that the number of non-English Wikipedia articles is taken at the time of the person's death. Persons whose notability is due to circumstance rather than actual achievement (e.g. oldest person in the world or last surviving person of [x]) do not meet the basic requirement for inclusion.

Should these continue to be the minimum standards for the inclusion of births and deaths in recent years articles? Is there a better metric that might be used?

Discussion of the "ten languages rule" for births and deaths

• I think the inclusion criteria for Births and Deaths might be a little too high; I understand that it is intended to counter systemic bias (in past years, Births and Deaths sections were overwhelmingly filled with people from the Anglosphere or Europe; some of whom had no interwiki links at all), but I fear that in the process it might actually enhance systemic bias, since I presume in many cases people from the Anglosphere or Europe would have more articles about them in other Wikipedias than those from non-Anglophone or non-European countries. How about lowering the requirement: instead of at least nine interwiki links, how about lowering the required number to five or six? I would agree with the current guideline provided that it should apply to people from the Anglosphere, but more leniency should probably be given (maybe on a case-by-case basis) to people from non-Anglosphere countries (i.e. China, Japan, Brazil, Kenya, etc.) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• What if we used similar standards as events? Rather than interwiki links, it's based on how international the coverage is. Or combine the two? The death is reported on in at least three countries/continents and has at least X interwiki links. Perhaps 3 so that significant figures in developing countries whose wiki may not be very robust can still be included if they're notable enough for inclusion in, for example, English, German, and French wikipedias. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• I think the criteria may be too lenient.... The "three continent rule" has been subject to debate before. The existing rule is objective. Still, a feel for what difference there would be for different options would be helpful in weighing alternatives. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Lacking a better (more objective and/or easier-to-use) rule, I believe it is good enough, eventhough it's self-referencing in a way. Looking at the number of people included in the past few years, it could even be moved up a notch or two (i. e. 10 or 11 interwikis). — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Silly criteria - many well known people only have articles written after they die in a language other than that native to the person. And does the mere existence of some stub in some other language elevate the otherwise locally known to worldwide known. Most other language WP's have similar notability criteria to the English language one. So putting "Joe Blow was an Olympic participant" or "Joe Blow was a professional <sport> player" or "Joe Blow was a member of the legislative assembly of state/province" translated into French, Spanish, German, Scots, Simple, and whatever Google translate would spit out, with a citation to something to show notability, on 9 other sites achieves instant qualification. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Should focus on notability, not Wikipedia coverage (which sadly isn't always the same thing). No immediate suggestions though. Scribolt (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• The bit about "due to circumstance" ought to be relaxed; for example, the death of Florence Green, the final surviving veteran of World War I, belongs in the 2012 article: her death was much more significant than that of most figures on the list, e.g. an actor, a swimmer, or a football referee. Not sure how to relax it, however, aside from a general encouragement to treat certain high-profile deaths as events. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recent years as an editing guideline

The Recent years page was created on January 5, 2009. After some discussion between about five users on the talk page, it was moved into project space and marked as an editing guideline one week later. This does not appear to conform to the usual process for elevating advice or essays to the status of editing guidelines. However, it has been used and basically accepted as the standard for articles on recent years since that time.

Should Recent years continue to be marked as an official guideline, relegated to essay status, or promoted to a policy?

Discusion of Wikipedia:Recent years as an editing guideline

• While I think more initial input would have been desirable, this has been used as an editing guideline for nearly eight years, so it should probably remain one regardless of how it got there int he first place, with tweaks as needed. Hopefully this discussion will attract more users to this area and consensus will be easier to determine in the future. vBeeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• There seems to be debate as to whether it should be considered more than a WikiProject essay. I think it should be a guideline, but I believe there would be pushback if it were made a guideline unless considered now to be an essay and promoted to guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears the tail wagged the dog on this one. Guidelines are supposed to be written to reflect best practices already in use, but in this case the guideline seems to have come first and dictated the practice. However, at this point it has been in place for long enough that it does seem to be the accepted guideline, and this discussion is drawing so little input that it looks like it will stay that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• As per Beeblebrox. The guideline seems mostly sensible though and the improvements discussed in this RfC will help develop it further. Scribolt (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, treat it as a guideline, and don't make significant changes to it without discussion, since it's had long enough use. It's not like most of the MOS pages, which are reflected on pages only when disruptive style warriors edit-war to enforce compliance with the decisions of a small group of people. Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

General discussion of recent years guideline

Please leave any comments that do not fit in any of the above sections here.

• I have a general question about this because I'm not at all familiar with the area - why do we have guidelines for recent years, but not year articles generally? It seems that these guidelines should cover all years, but perhaps there's a good reason for limiting them to "recent" years. Sam Walton (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  This is because events, deaths etc are often added as soon as they have happened. As such the guidelines for Recent Years need to be more strict than Years in general. In fact, the guidelines for WP:YEARS are often either vague or non-existent making them virtually useless for Recent Years. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  Given that WP:YEARS is a WikiProject, not a guideline, it strikes me that it might be useful to turn WP:RECENTYEARS into a guideline on year articles generally, with a stricter section on recent years if appropriate. Looking through the existing guideline it seems sensible enough to to apply at least most of it to all year articles. Sam Walton (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that extending WP:RY to cover WP:YEARS is within the scope of this discussion but the main difference which would make this problematic is that the older the event or death the less likely the probability that it will be covered in readily available online resources. Coverage of Deaths in particular is skewed by recentism which would mean that a sliding scale would be needed to make the criteria work for earlier years. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  @DerbyCountyinNZ: Well I'd support more relaxed restrictions for less recent years, or years before a certain date (2000? 1900?), but I'm still not convinced that most of the points, or at least the structure of most of the points (with more relaxed criteria), couldn't apply to all year articles. Sam Walton (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed, they could. But this possibility needs to be advised to as many associated projects as possible because the cynic in me expects considerable pushback. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  I expect pushback on even recent years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  Following up on Sam's point, I think it would be more helpful to have a general years guideline, and make the recent years guideline apply to the current year only (with perhaps some buffer room a la WP:BDP, so 2017 is covered by the policy starting December 2016 and 2016 is covered until the end of January 2017). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  I think a general years guideline would be a good thing to develop, but I think the recent years guideline fills a niche. Most things included at 1180 would not satisfy any of the criteria we're discussing here, while if we used the same inclusion criteria for 1180 at 2006 we'd have a terabyte long page. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Also, I discussed this in a WikiProject talk page years ago but the discussion went nowhere, so I'm raising this up again: what about persons with no publicly-known years of birth? A person keeping their age a secret from the public is fairly common in Japan, as well as among lesser-known celebrities in the United States. If the person is notable and meets the inclusion criteria for Births and/or Deaths, should they still be listed in date articles? For reference, this is currently being done in the Chinese, Italian, and Japanese Wikipedias. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  My initial reaction is no, this would fail WP:V. Or perhaps you could show me an example of it being done, as I could be convinced if I saw it in practice? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  @King of Hearts: For example, take a look at ja:2月13日#誕生日. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  I'm guessing you're talking about the 生年不明 - 川田まみ、I've歌手 entry at the bottom of that section? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Nihonjoe: Sorry about the late reply, but yes. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  Oh, that's fine - but I thought we were discussing year articles only, not dates? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I raised it here to see if the topic will get more discussion, as I had previously raised it in the WikiProject talk page but the discussion went nowhere. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know quite what to do here, the idea was to get more users to comment on these things so we can say we have a consnesus one way or the other, but hardly anyone is participating. I put here instead of at RY itself and listed it at WP:CENT. That's about all I can think of, it's possible people don't want to bother getting up to speed on on what RY even is and are therefore just not bothering. Hopefully if this is here for a while it will get some more interest. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Either I wasn't aware that this guideline existed, or I might have but forgotten it for a long time. Either a navigational template or a sidebox template is needed to help people surf to the guideline. What about Template:Guideline list and/or Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines? At least I can use category pages to browse guidelines. --George Ho (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Hyphen in titles of articles on railways of a narrow gauge

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.

---

Should articles with "Narrow gauge railways" and such in their titles include a hyphen as "Narrow-gauge railways"? And is there any tweak needed to the guidelines at WP:HYPHEN to be more helpful in deciding such things? Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutral background

Many articles were moved in late December and early January to include a hyphen, and then after about four weeks were disputed and moved back. Discussions at various places left the matter unresolved, and an RFC was recommended.

Affected articles include but are not limited to the ones in this template, which works the same with and without the hyphen due to the redirects:

Other pages moved in early January to include a hyphen, but not explicitly disputed or moved back, include Narrow-gauge railroads in the United States, Narrow-gauge railways in India, Narrow-gauge railways in China, Narrow-gauge railways in Canada, Narrow-gauge railways in former Spanish Morocco, Narrow-gauge railways in former French Morocco, Narrow-gauge railways in Oceania, Narrow-gauge railways in South America, Narrow-gauge railways in North America, Narrow-gauge railways in Asia, Narrow-gauge railways in Africa, and possibly others. Presumably if this RFC has a robust outcome it will apply to these as well.

@Bahnfrend, No such user, Bermicourt, SMcCandlish, Cinderella157, Tony1, Necrothesp, Mjroots, Corinne, Checkingfax, Scribolt, Mandruss, and Andy Dingley: Pinging participants of prior big discussion at Talk:Narrow_gauge_railways_in_Saxony in case any of them didn't see the notices. Dicklyon (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The case for hyphenation in these titles

It is standard practice in English to help readers parse phrases involving compound modifiers before nouns by using hyphens to hold the compounds together. As WP:HYPHEN states, hyphens are used:
3. To link related terms in compound modifiers: [Specifically, compound attributives, which are modifiers of a noun that occur within the noun phrase. (See hyphenated compound modifiers.)] – Hyphens can help with ease of reading (face-to-face discussion, hard-boiled egg); where non-experts are part of the readership, a hyphen is particularly useful in long noun phrases, such as those in Wikipedia's scientific articles: gas-phase reaction dynamics. However, hyphens are never inserted into proper names in compounds (Middle Eastern cuisine, not Middle-Eastern cuisine).

The application to the compound "narrow gauge" when used before a noun is clear: the hyphen helps the reader, especially the general or naive reader unfamiliar with the phrase, to quickly parse "narrow-gauge railway", and not have to consider whether the intended meaning of "narrow gauge railway" might have been a "gauge railway" that is narrow. This is common courtesy to help the reader, and has no downside or negative impact on any reader. There is nothing special about titles that would suggest a different style from what is appropriate in the text.

Sources are mixed on hyphen usage, since it is common practice for writers to drop such hyphens when writing for an audience that they feel is so familiar with the term-of-art phrases that they don't need help to easily read them. But in the case of "narrow gauge", which is well known to rail fans but less so to the general public, usage in books is actually a strong majority in favor of hyphen usage. See n-gram stats from books: [4]. Even if it were only 50% used in sources, it would be wise to follow the advice of our style guidelines and most external style guides and dictionaries to make it easier for the general readership rather than the specialists.

There is no ENGVAR issue here. Using the n-grams link above, but modifying the language domain from English to British English and American English, it can be seen that while the relative frequency of railway versus railroad changes enormously, as expected, the relative frequency of hyphen stays in a strong majority in both variants.

Dictionaries specifically list the adjective form of "narrow gauge" as hyphenated: dictionaries, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].

Within specialist literature, the hyphen is still sometimes used, and in literature for the general public it is sometimes omitted, but it is better to follow standard practice and guidance than to be that random, and it is much better to help the general reader than to try to mimic the specialist.

Note also that in company names, signs, headings, titles, and such that are Title Case or all caps, it is more common to omit hyphens. So the appearance of these terms unhyphenated but capitalized should not be taken as evidence of any preference one way or the other.

Note that WP:MOS, including WP:HYPHEN exists to set a style and prevent style disputes so we can all get back to work on non-trivia. It did not prevent a battle in this case, but I think it is clear enough and probably does not need any particular amendment in this area.

Examples of titles with hyphenated compounds used as adjectives

Most Wikipedia titles involving compounds such as narrow body, broad spectrum, standard definition, short range, high speed, low pressure, small cell, large scale, wide angle, and such do use the hyphen in a way exactly analogous to what is proposed for narrow gauge. Examples:

• Narrow-body aircraft
• Narrow-bandwidth television
• Narrow-body righteye flounder
• Broad-spectrum antibiotic
• Standard-definition television
• Standard-type battleship
• Short-term memory
• Short-circuit evaluation
• Short-range ballistic missile
• Short-time Fourier transform
• Short-title catalogue
• Short-chain acyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase deficiency
• High-speed rail
• High-definition video
• High-pressure area
• High-level programming language
• High-altitude nuclear explosion
• High-frequency trading
• Low-floor bus
• Low-carbohydrate diet
• Low-cost carrier
• Low-pressure area
• Low-budget film
• Low-level waste
• Low-energy house
• Low-carbon power
• Low-frequency oscillation
• Low-power broadcasting
• Low-angle shot
• Small-cell carcinoma
• Small-signal model
• Small-angle neutron scattering
• Chevrolet small-block engine
• Small-scale agriculture
• Large-signal model
• Large-format slide projector
• Large-scale structure
• Large-group awareness training
• Large-cell acanthoma
• Wide-angle lens
• Wide-body aircraft
• Wide-bandgap semiconductor
• Wide-gamut RGB color space
• Wide-leg jeans
• Wide-spectrum language

Please respond to this opening case in the discussion section below, not here. Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The case for no hyphenation in these titles

The phrase “gauge railway” by itself is meaningless. In fact, the only other modifiers that I can think of other than narrow are broad/wide, standard, miniature, and “out-of-” (however, no argument about using hyphens for the last one). Therefore, the argument requiring hyphenation is pointless, and this attempt to enforce one particular POV should be dropped in favour of common usage, which seems to vary slightly from one side of the Atlantic to the other. (This point was made in an earlier discussion, but Dicklyon now seems to be walking it back.) The suggestion made by the nominator that the average reader needs the hyphen in “narrow-gauge” for comprehension is pure and simple condescension. So in a word:
Oppose. Useddenim (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bermicourt, Bahnfrend, and Mjroots: This RFC is ready for an opening statement by someone opposing the hyphens. Dicklyon (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Side Survey: The case for not really caring one way or the other / The case for editorial freedom

because I don't. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support Optimist on the run (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Bermicourt. Both variants are widely used in the sources; however, there is a much stronger regional tendency in US sources to hyphenate. So we should allow editorial freedom to choose, using the same approach that is used for ENGVAR, and not force editors to adopt one or the other. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - this is pedantry at the extreme. People need to focus on more important things - it isn't as if we have a shortage of those. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that these should not be counted as opposing the proposition of this RFC, as these editors (or most of them) have put the oppose !votes already in the survey below. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: that is disingenuous and highly misleading; we do oppose the proposal because it would force us to adopt one of the two common variants used by the sources. But thanks for alerting me to vote below as I hadn't, despite your comment --Bermicourt (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position, and you're welcome for my alert. I don't know why Optimist thought it a good idea to add this side survey, and I was certainly not being disingenuous in trying to call attention to the confusion. Please AGF. Dicklyon (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is the one wrong result. The reader is helped by consistency. These will alll be used in lists and categories, wherre consistency is particularly important. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Although someone really needs to table an amendment to *policy* that states where MOS guidelines are disputed by local consensus, uninvested editors should back away. I would also support any MOS-update that states Railway article terminology has to comply with Thomas the Tank Engine. While I agree in theory with DGG above consistency in lists and categories can be important - lists and categories are not the primary function of an encyclopedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"Uninvested"? If you think anyone who has no especial fondness for a particular topic is uninvested, you're mistaken. Everyone working on the encyclopedia is invested, even those who participate in discussions by announcing that they don't care about the outcome. Primergrey (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think someone whose presence at a railway article is only there to enforce a general usage MOS rule which may not be appropriate given the specific circumstances is uninvested in railway articles yes. They might be invested in the MOS... But ultimately no one outside of railway article editors and their readers care about the hyphen usage on railway articles. The world is not going to end if narrow-gauge is hyphenated. It really does not matter. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"and their readers" is the important part. Dicklyon (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Being invested in the encyclopedia means being invested in all articles therein. To dismiss an editor trying to uphold site-wide style guidelines as "uninvested" runs counter to WP's stated purpose as a generalist encyclopedia. Also, "the world is not going to end if narrow-gauge is hyphenated", if true, is an excellent reason to support hyphenation. Primergrey (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support allowing both variants. Disputes can be settled by local consensus, after an examination of sources related to the specific railway or station in question. Yes, we will have a few difficult cases where the sources are not clear. Despite this, I think we should avoid adopting a "one size fits all" rule on this... because, whichever "rule" we adopt, we will simply end up with endless arguments about how our "rule" is wrong. In other words, we will end up with more disputes if we adopt a "one size fits all" rule than we will by allowing both variants. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Both variants should be allowed. There is no extra "clarity" here - both clearly and unambiguously refer to something to do with a railway where the gauge is narrow(er) than some standard - that is undoubtedly why usage without hyphen exists in substantial numbers across the English speaking world, and it is well within standard written English grammar to drop unneeded hyphens. The claim of "consistency" is without merit as shown by the fact that we do not demand everyone write like everyone else (especially on something so wide-spread, and on an issue where insisting is so obviously narrow-minded and bizarrely inflexible.) We allow such minor leeway (and, indeed much larger leeway) for very good reasons too numerous and too embedded in our system of writing (although an article should be internally consistent). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose inconsistency and ambiguity – no editor is being compelled or even asked to help, just to not interfere when things are moved toward compliance with the MOS, in favor of the interests of readers. Bermicourt started this mess by interfering after all articles had been made consistent, pretty much without objection except for his on Narrow-gauge railways in Saxony which he reverted back to hyphenless form (as he has a right to revert bold moves); so we went to discuss on the talk page there, and while that was not going in his favor he went and moved the rest of the articles about European countries, none of which had been objected to for a month. This is pure disruption, bad for the reader, bad for consistency. So now we're here, on advice of the closer there, to decide. So let's decide. Dicklyon (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Bulldozing opponents might be fun in real life but it is extremely destructive at Wikipedia which relies on volunteers who maintain and build article content. Dashes are not as important as collaboration. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

    Are you in the wrong section? Nothing about dashes is being discussed here. Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. As this proposition is inherantly contrary to WP:Consistency, which is stated to be a policy document and thereby does not permit such latitude. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not. There is actually little support to make it apply everywhere. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support allowing both per Blueboar. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – all "editor freedom" does is cause trivial content disputes and long AN/I threads. Laurdecl ^talk 08:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Main RFC Survey

Please Support or Oppose including the hyphen in the titles.

• Support. The list above clearly shows how it's easier for non-experts to pick up the word group if there's a hyphen ... not to mention our own style guidance and that of the style authorities on both sides of the Atlantic. Tony (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose There is a view espoused by a handful of hyper-active editors here that styleguides mandate all uses of a particular phrase and that any single deviation from this is some sort of thoughtcrime. That is nonsense: language is simply not that consistent. Nor does WP policy follow such a line, instead we have WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NEOLOGISM which state that WP should follow the practice in use, not mandate its own claims and force them on top of reality.

There is a case for consistency with names that are created on WP. So I have no problem with "Narrow-gauge railroads in the US", nor even "Narrow gauge railroads in the US" (I really don't care what our "default styleguide in the absence of any external influence" says. But when the name is based on an external source, those sources should be followed, not the styleguide.

Why do external names matter for the hyphenation of narrow-/ gauge? After all, there are very few of them (although the North Wales Narrow Gauge Railways didn't hyphenate). Because this isn't just a question of hyphenating narrow-gauge, it's also the question of capitalising "Line" in "Heart of Wales Line". The two naming issues should have been raised in the same RfC. But whilst the narrow-gauge one is broadly linguistic and hardly appears in sourced proper names, the capitalisation issue certainly does. Yet if the easier narrow-gauge issue can be won, that then establishes a "precedent" for WP naming, including the case issue - when in fact, WP does not follow WP:PRECEDENT in such cases. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Every single time there is a hyphen/en-dash/em-dash argument is comes down to a small group trying to impose a Victorian image of linguistic correctness on everyone else. There is literally no difference in reading comprehension between the characters. It annoys the picayune and the obsessive but is ignored by the rest, if such differences are even perceived at all. The MOS and external style guides are not weapons to hammer other editors with, especially when worrying about near-imperceptible differences such as this. Even if the three versions of a dash or no dash at all are randomly mixed between articles, it absolutely won't matter except to a handful of Emersonian hobgoblins and certainly won't damage the encyclopedia. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support narrow hyphen. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support with obvious cavaets If the name is not proper, eg "Narrow-gauge railroads in the US", the hyphenated form seems correct and easier to read particularly if more modifiers are added "the longest narrow guage railroad..." is awkward but "the longest narrow-guage railroad" is clear). But if it is a proper name like "North Wales Narrow Gauge Railways" above, we should not force that style onto the name, and leave it as is, and editors need to take care in page moves to not force this onto the proper name. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support – The hyphen is necessary according to the existing MOS:HYPHEN, and is the standard usage. Dicklyon's survey of reliable sources makes this very clear. RGloucester — ☎ 15:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as completely unnecessary. (See above for more.) Useddenim (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Grammatical clarity is a Good Thing in an encyclopedia, full stop. Most of the rest is generalized anti-MoS ideology and personal vendettas, which we could do with a lot less of. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Miniapolis 19:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Hyphen is more grammatically and phonetically correct, it is necessary to convey the meaning of the title correctly. Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση 2001 (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support as normal English usage across national varieties, and an obvious boon to clarity. Nothing is gained for anyone by dropping the hyphenation. This is not TrainspotterPedia, and WP is not written in a quirky shorthand style for specialists and fans to use with other specialists and fans (who have no trouble understanding the conventional style with the hyphen, just a subjective preference against it in their own materials). This same basic issue comes up across many topics, and it all comes down to the same answer: we have our own style guide for a reason, just like every other professionally published, multi-writer publication. People will unproductively fight about style trivia indefinitely if not given a house style to follow. WP follows the WP style, which is derived from the most influential off-WP style guides. We depart from our own manual when reliable sources (including general-audience ones, not just specialized ones) are with remarkable consistency doing something different from what our style guide does, for a particular case or type of case. (You'll find this exceptions rule in various wording at WP:MOS, MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, WP:COMMONNAME, etc.) The sources show no consistency in writing about railways, so that's the end of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose See my arguments at Talk:Narrow_gauge_railways_in_Saxony. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose being forced to adopt a variant with a strong regional US following, when the rest of the world is neutral. Give editors the freedom to decide and let's not force an "either/or" that is not reflected in the sources. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The proposal seems very reasonable, is already consistent with established conventions, and I am unimpressed by the case against using the hyphen. Obviously in cases where "Narrow Gauge" is part of a proper name, we should use the WP:COMMONNAME. But the affected articles seem limited in scope to those where the title of the article is a descriptive title. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with Sławomir Biały. I also find Dicklyon's statement above, which is not only written clearly and in a neutral tone but also is backed up with specific information, to be persuasive. To me, the most persuasive piece of information is that many Wikipedia articles use the hyphen in compound adjective modifiers. While I personally don't see the need for a hyphen in "narrow gauge", I do see some value to the encyclopedia in consistency of style, especially in article titles.  – Corinne (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support hyphenation for the benefit of readers. Standard English practice "on both sides of the Atlantic" as Tony notes and sources confirm, in spite of claims by Bermicourt that this is "a variant with a strong regional US following". (as nom) By the way, I just finished writing a book published by Cambridge University Press; their style guide differs from WP's in places related to things like heading case, quotation style, and other things, but on hyphens it's pretty typical of those we follow, including "Compound adjectives will generally be hyphenated if they precede the noun: short-term effects ...". Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support hyphenation. There is clearly no evidence that the un-hyphenated form is more prevalent. The hyphenated form is slightly less ambiguous and for a non-English speaking reader, it may possibly prevent a small degree of confusion in the future. Where possible, article names should be consistent in construction. The oppose arguments don't really identify any real benefits to the un-hyphenated form. Therefore, we should choose a standard construction and that construction should be with hyphenation (with the caveat that exceptions relating to proper names can exist as per Masem but the default position should be hyphenation). Scribolt (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support hyphenation. It is standard English to hyphenate in this way when the term is used as an adjective, which it clearly is. This is not an ENGVAR issue (I'm British, incidentally). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support hyphenation per consistency and standard English practice. On the meta-issue: I don't really understand the substance of opposing arguments if there is one, apart from "we don't like it". If there are editors that exhibit "pedantry at the extreme" (call them "gnomes" or "MoS warriors" at will), why don't just let them if you really don't care one way or another? I will readily grant that enforcing MOS-conformance and consistency is not a high-priority task, but everyone freely chooses what to edit on a wiki. No such user (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support as concerned as I may be about being labelled a "hobgoblin", an "obsessive", or a Quixotic opponent of "thoughtcrime", I must cast my lot with hyphenation and its added clarity, particularly for some non-native readers of English. Primergrey (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposal to remove editorial freedom and force editors to adopt only one two common variants; the one which is only predominant in US sources. It's not a grammatical issue, it's a sources issue. Please note, I'm happy for editors to use the hyphenated version if they choose, please give other editors the same freedom to use the very common unhyphenated version. Note also that the glossary published by the International Union of Railways to which most of the world subscribes, uses the unhyphenated version. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC) (Bermicourt already opposed above on 5 Feb)
• Oppose One-size-fits-all does not work for socks or collaborative projects. Wikipedia needs volunteers who do good work more than it needs MOS enthusiasts who care about dashes but not the articles concerned. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support – The general English pattern of using a hyphen to make a compound work as a single adjective is appropriate here, especially seeing that this is the way it is most commonly done in books (per the n-grams), and in light of the linked dictionaries that list the adjective form as narrow-gauge and give examples of it hyphenated. Also, per our house style described in detail at MOS:DASH. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. While there may not be a clear case for improving clarity in every case, there are certainly cases where clarity is improved (eg British narrow gauge slate railways, where a consensus was recently reached for hyphenation and clarity was a significant issues with respect to this particular title). There is some value in consistent usage across the main space for titles (WP:CONSISTENCY) referring to rail gauges and within content: that is, that narrow-gauge is adopted throughout, and not just where it is appropriate for clarity. References to narrow gauge within an article that uses narrow-gauge as part of the title (for reasons of clarity) will inherently lead to inconsistency within an article that can most effectively be dealt with by standardising on the hyphenated form across articles. I note that WP:Consistency is identified as a policy document. This is the basis for my support. I see no strength to assertions of WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN. This is ultimately a matter of clarity and then of WP:CONSISTENCY - if it is needed in some cases for clarity it should then be done consistently. The converse of consistently not using the hyphenated form would lead to a degradation of clarity in some cases. This is a proposition that is less acceptable than the alternative. I also note the article title Narrow-gauge railway was moved to the hyphenated form on 8 Feb 2015 by User:Anthony Appleyard. It is difficult to argue against hyphenation when the title of the lead article is hyphenated. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It is enough to say, clarity is not improved - the contra claim, that maybe sometimes it might be improved (which is actually entirely doubtful) is a 'tail-wag-the-dog argument'. Cinderella links to a discussion that actually admitted no-one is actually confused. In standard English language grammar, dropping the hyphen happens all the time. Here, for these words, we know for a fact, that dropping the hyphen happens all the time. The "consistency" argument is just as absurd. It is stated above that there will be articles where we can't put the hyphen in the title. So, the consistency argument winds-up being 'I insist you use it everywhere (accept when I do not) because there is no real reason for me to force other editors to do this.' No, editor autonomy is a billion times more important then the silly, useless, hyphen, here .Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support: There's a good case that there's a (tiny!) improvement in readability, that our existing Manual of Style rules promote hyphenation for readability, and that on balance, sources hyphenate more often than not. Many of the opposing arguments can be summarized as "it doesn't matter", and advocate flexibility over strict adherence to the pattern. That seems an odd argument to me: flexibility and tolerance are compatible with supporting hyphenation: all that needs to happen is for those who prefer hyphenation to avoid browbeating users who happen to add unhyphenated versions of the phrase. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 22:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Opppose as restricting editorial freedom into a straightjacket. If we were actually getting paid to edit or if we had professional proofreaders who "finished" a page and then it never needed revision afterwards, we could induldge in this sort of MOS-minutiae. We aren't, so expecting it beyond the page is just pedantry. Go work on content. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The benefit to our readers, if any, is too minor for this level of control to be worth it. Local consensus on these article titles is fine; inconsistency between article titles is also not that big a deal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The AT policy page has consistency as one of the five characteristics of good article titles. Primergrey (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It also says "These should be seen as goals, not as rules", and makes it clear that the rules on article titles are for the benefit of readers. If I thought that readers would suffer in any way (by being unable to find the right article, or by being confused as to the topic of an article, for example) I'd agree we need to enforce a rule here. WP:COMMONNAME, which is the next paragraph in AT, says editors should reach a consensus, and includes "usage in the sources used as references for the article" as one of the inputs to that consensus. To me, this all means we don't have to have hyphens in these article names. If they already had hyphens we should leave them in; if they don't, leave them out until there's a consensus among editors working on the article that they should be changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The correct name should be used in all cases, and on the right hand side of the Atlantic that is without a hyphen in the majority of cases, and on the other side neither seems to be primary. WP:COMMONNAME is a policy, the manual of style is a guideline (and it should be a minor one at that). Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This nationalistic assertion has been thoroughly debunked, with reliable (British) sources, repeatedly and in detail. Start here, at item #5. (Well, start first with the material at the top of the RfC that you apparently skipped.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. This is already clearly in the MOS. I respect local consensus at an article or wikiproject to allow for variance from MOS, but I haven't heard a convincing argument on the oppose side. Sources seem to favour the hyphen. It's clearer and easier to read with the hyphen. Reidgreg (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support hyphenation, which makes an otherwise ambiguous term unambiguous. There is no such thing as "narrow railway" nor "gauge railway", so "narrow-gauge railway" is the proper way to go. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support hyphenation – there is absolutely no policy based reason to defy the MOS because of personal preference and it is absolutely not a good application of IAR. I also note that some of the opposers have cast their !votes twice to create an impression that this is somehow contentious. Laurdecl ^talk 03:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The MOS is not policy and the policy-based reason to "defy" MOS is in the MOS itself: ... it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. The MOS itself is contentious, as the 190-page archive of its talk page alone shows, so no false impression need be created. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support—with the common sense recommendation that proper names be exempt. Imzadi 1979 → 19:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I don't really understand Andy Dingley's long opposing rant after he stated that he doesn't really care. In particular, I tried to be clear that hyphens are usually not used in proper names, so there should be no worry on North Wales Narrow Gauge Railways if it's the proper name of the subject of the article, and if it's not then it would be correct to fix the case, too. Dicklyon (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  And that's the problem. You don't understand anything more than a simplistic one-rule-fits-all styleguide. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  User:Andy Dingley, your posts are moving from low- to high-level irritability. It would be more productive if you were less personal. Tony (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  Yes Tony, threatening people with Arbcom for disagreeing with them does tend to have that effect. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  Andy, ignore it. You do good work on WP. You deserve to react calmly if the waters are ruffled. Tony (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  I have no trouble at all parsing what Dicklyon is saying, which clearly indicates understanding of proper names and that a style-guide rule about hyphenation would not apply to one. It appears to me that the failure to understand or to be flexible is coming from the opposite direction, from individuals so used to and so personally invested in insider writing about the topic than they are unable to understand (or, much more likely, unwilling to concede) that they cannot force everyone else to write about trains the way a trainspotter would when writing for other trainspotters.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  Well, it would make life a lot easier if you, Dicklyon and similar were simply banished from any discussions regarding MOS. Perhaps there are already restrictions - I don't know because every time I see such names at the Pump, ANI etc, I've tended to switch off after a few minutes of reading. - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  Thank you for lending credence to my comment about generalized anti-MoS ideology and personal vendettas. Your comment is not constructive. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'd just like to chime in here, as I do every time I see an argument about small horizontal lines, to point out that this is a ridiculous, pointless dispute that matters only to the people involved. I would suggest you host any further discussion in the walled garden where the illusion that any of this matters is maintained and don't let the rest of us know what you decide. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  matters only to the people involved - I would suggest that people generally don't get involved in things that don't matter to them, so you could say that about any issue, making it unremarkable.
  I'll also note that this is not about hyphen-vs-endash, nor about spaced-endash-vs-unspaced-endash, which could be somewhat more easily dismissed as trivial pedantry. It's about clearly identifying an adjectival phrase as such for readers who are not familiar with the term "narrow gauge". Thus, argument about small horizontal lines appears to miss the point in a knee-jerk negative reaction to a legitimate MoS issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed. However, Beeblebrox raises a valid point, in that these disputes are about trivia yet become disruptive when pursued, and seem to come up again and again. The typical pattern is that an editor doing "gnome" cleanup work applying our naming conventions, style guidelines, and title policy will occasionally run into a faction who have a WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:TRUTH / WP:SOAPBOX position on one of these points of trivia, grounded in nothing but subjective preferences based on what deeply steeped insiders in the topic do when writing to other insiders in insider publications, and without regard for the needs or expectations of people unfamiliar with the topic. This camp will then tendentiously fight against guideline and policy compliance at WP:RM, one article at a time, for weeks, months, even years in hope of "winning" through attrition.

  That behavior pattern is obviously forum shopping, but RM has historically being easily system-gamed this way because of its lack of searchable archives and the difficulty of digging up previous related discussions as precedent. Last month, I raised this issue at WT:RM, and there is now a new search feature at the top of that page that should help to curtail this pattern of process abuse. However, until the administrative wiki-culture at RM shifts more firmly to shut down re-shopping the same trivial anti-guideline, anti-policy position over and over, the effective way to deal with it remains the WP:RFC process.

  The more RfCs that close in favor of following the guidelines and policies, and against special pleading and anti-consensus campaigning on a topical basis, the fewer such incidents will arise. These disputes consistently go in the direction of "just follow WP's own instructions on the matter unless the sources in the aggregate overwhelmingly prefer a variance" (since this is an actual rule found throughout MoS and at WP:COMMONNAME), and they go that way whether dragged out over 30 RMs or settled in an RfC. It costs a lot less editorial time to RfC it, and sets consensus-determination precedent that is easier to find and more persuasive.

  It's also proven more effective to RfC these matters at VPPOL rather than at WT:MOS, because on multiple occasions the result of RfCs at MoS have been ignored by those who didn't get their way and the issue has been re-shopped in an "anti-RfC" to try to overturn it here at VPPOL (ironically, the "walled garden" reasoning Beeblebox suggests should keep MoS disputes at MoS tends to have the opposite effect). So, just cut out all the middle-man processes and do the one that matters most, for any titles/style dispute that gets entrenched and affects more than a trivial number of articles, if a multi-page RM fails to resolve the issue (or it is not limited to title disputes).
   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• The opposition on this is grounded in two obvious fallacies: 1) that there is no comprehensibility difference, and 2) that the sources don't agree with the hyphenation. Both of these have been shown to be faulty. First, only someone already deeply familiar with the topic knows that a railway term of art is "narrow-gauge" (or "narrow gauge" as a noun phrase rather than a compound adjective: "this is a narrow-gauge railway" versus "this railway has a narrow gauge", a distinction most people learn in elementary schools or in their early ESL classes), but that "gauge railway" is not a railway term of art. The topic has many "foo railway", "foo railroad", and "foo rail" terms of art ("slate railway", "commuter railroad", "double-headed rail" etc., etc., etc.), so there is nothing obvious or intuitive about how "narrow", "gauge" and "railway" relate to each other in such a construction, except to experts. The very purpose of hyphenation of compound adjectives is to clearly link two words that form a single modifier, as distinct from independent modifiers (an "ugly brown dog" and an "ugly-brown dog" are not the same thing; I might have a magnificent, title-winning dog that someone feels is of an ugly-brown color, while if the dog itself were ugly, it wouldn't win conformance championships). Second, it's already been amply demonstrated that a) the sources in the aggregate do not prefer to drop the hyphenation, only specialist materials do so, and b) even those do not do it consistently.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  The fact that the ambiguity and confusion are real is easy to see with a web search for "a gauge railway". Even our article on Rapla exhibits this problem (I just now tagged it for clarification). You see it at Getty Images, this illiterate blog, this funny page, and some that just fail to copy the gauge template contents when they mine wikipedia. Even some conference publications and articles. Same for "the gauge railway", like in "The width of the gauge railway is 760 mm" and "Additionally, the gauge railway line will feature". These are probably all mistakes, but they indicate that this kind of unfamiliar construct is not the easiest thing for editors and writers to understand and get right. The hyphen can only help. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity and no confusion here. All of the links you have posted are very obviously nothing more than careless proofreading or editing errors, pure and simple. To say, as you do, that such obvious careless errors demonstrate confusion is like saying that the spelling of the word "Michael" is unclear and ambiguous because a lot of people misspell it as "Micheal". In other words, it is a grasping at straws, nonsense argument, which wrongly and disrespectfully treats Wikipedia readers as a mob of fools. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If any editor took my remarks as treating them as fools, or otherwise disrespectfully, I sincerely apologize. My remarks were about the ambiguity in parsing unfamiliar terms, and pointing out errors that might have been caused by that ambiguity as seen by unfamiliar writers or editors, and conjecturing that that evidence supports the interpretation that there is real ambiguity there for those unfamiliar with the concept, while acknowledging that many of those are simple errors of transcription or something. It's OK with me if you disagree; it won't make me think less of you. But the ad hominem might. Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• @SMcCandlish The only fallacy is that "arguments against enforced hyphenation are 'obvious fallacies'". First, the idea that you have to be "deeply familiar" railways to understand the term is an insult to the commonsense of the majority who don't need a grammar lesson to work it out. Second, the sources favour neither variant (we agree to that extent) except in North America, thus there is an element of WP:ENGVAR to this which simply reinforces the Wiki principle of leaving editors to decide for themselves as they had been doing happily for years, until this over-zealous, pro-hyphen crusade came along. Bermicourt (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't say I care that much either way, but as regards having to be deeply familiar and a specialist etc, I think it would have been sensible to ease off on the rhetoric and not post such thoughts until checked against a well-known not-that-specialist series of publications aimed at those who have not yet had the benefit of much schooling. If you Google "Thomas the Tank Engine narrow(-)gauge" it will be found that Thomas has "Narrow Gauge" Friends, except in WP where his friends are "narrow-gauge". Just saying....Rjccumbria (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Many of the Thomas books and other books by Awdry [10] [11] [12] [13] use "narrow-gauge engine", "narrow-gauge friends", "narrow-gauge railways" and "narrow-gauge rails" with the hyphen, but omit it when capitalizing as "Narrow Gauge". Pretty standard, and reported with links in the previous big RM discussion. Except this one gets mixed up and even uses the hyphen in capped "Narrow-Gauge Engine". Dicklyon (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Thomas books were first published between 1945 and 1972, and therefore cannot be described as a useful guide to present usage of hyphenation. Bahnfrend (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It's hard to tell which are the ones written since 1983 by his son Christopher, which modern editions might have been re-edited, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

In any case (apologies for having taken a break from this, and for obviously failing to be adequately clear first time round what the point I thought I was making was), the point I thought I was making was not that "TtTE avoids hyphenation, so should we" (give me some credit, chaps!) , but that some of the rhetoric was OTT counter-productive shooting from the hip. Far from the un-hyphenated form being some arcane perversion known only to specialists, it is one potentially known to any child whose reading age stretches to Thomas the Tank Engine (mind you, they could probably also tell the difference between a diplodocus and an apatosaurus better than most grown-ups). I suppose we should be grateful that (as far as I am aware) we have yet to be told that hyphens are a mandatory requirement under health and safety legislation.

Do I see from the above that people who learned punctuation in the third quarter of the twentieth century will not have valid opinions on best practice? That could be just the excuse I need to slip away from this...Rjccumbria (talk) 10:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Whether sources from that era reflect current usage is orthogonal to what anyone's personal opinion is. Regardless, a) it's clear that the materials you pointed to mostly do hyphenate except in proper names (which is a common but not universal alteration), and b) waht writers of children's books do wouldn't tell us much about how to write encyclopedic prose; we learn that from academic versus casual style guides, and from what high-quality but general-audience sources do, and the answer is "hyphenate compound adjectives, either uniformly or possibly with the exception to not do so when there is no possibility of confusion" (an exception which does not apply here; Dicklyon already pointed to numerous cases of things like "the gauge railway" and "a gauge railway" in professionally edited material, where writers had mistakenly parsed "narrow gauge railway" as "a gauge railway that is narrow".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Bermicourt, your ENGVAR theory is completely refuted by stats from British English books. If there's a small difference in the proportions, it's likely attributable to the higher proportion of rail-specialized publications in the UK compared to the US. But it's still a good super-majority hyphenated there. Dicklyon (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

But you are uninterested in external sources and consider only the hyphenation styleguide to have any effect. You've just moved (undiscussed, naturally) dual mass flywheel to the hyphenated form, despite the unhyphenated form being universal in the drivetrain industry.[14][15]

You come here, presenting yourself as supporting the use of sources for one case (narrow gauge railways) when there is very little difference of opinion over that particular naming question, yet when there are other issues (such as capitalising "Line") that are contested, your behaviour is to ignore all sources, provided that you can find even one,[16] no matter how non-RS or poorly copyedited that coincides with your prejudical view to enforce the styleguide regardless. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go over this, Andy? I think I've covered this with you at least half a dozen times already, on three or four different pages now. "[I]n the drivetrain industry" = in specialized sources written by specialists to other specialists. WP is written for a general audience, not a specialized one. What do general-audience, mainstream publications prefer, and what to the style guides they follow (and on which MoS is based) advise, for such constructions? Hyphenation of the compound adjective. Only someone steeped in drivetrain lore has any idea whether the unhyphenated "dual mass flywheel" means a "mass flywheel" of a dual-construction nature (a "dual, mass flywheel"), or flywheel of a "dual-mass" sort (a "dual-mass flywheel"). Specialized publications sometimes drop hyphenation, commas, and other clarifiers because they are certain that their narrow, focused readership all already know the answer and have internalized this terminology in great detail. Do you really think we haven't already been through this same argument many times with regard to medical terms, legal terms, computer science terms, etc., etc., with the same result? Do you really think railroads are somehow raising a new issue here? They most definitely are not. This is time-sucking rehash of perennial "my topic is somehow a special snowflake" tedium.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless you three are now so close that you're claiming to speak for each other, I have little interest in what you've said there and am still waiting for Dicklyon's explanation of his moves.

Yes, there is an awful lot of ICANTHEARYOU: Dicklyon is dragged to discussions where he puts forward a reasonable case that relevant eternal sources should be taken into consideration; but then the way he acts, by continuing to make undiscussed page moves against such sources, is at odds with this. I make no excuse for seeing that the naming of an obscure drivetrain component should be taken from the drivetrain industry, the one place it's discussed authoritatively. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I do support the use of sources (that's where all info in WP comes from, and informs us about style, too), but I'm not an advocate of "follow the sources", a discreditted anti-MOS campaign from Pmanderson of years past. Where sources are mixed, as S has pointed out, we follow the MOS. In the case of the dual-mass flywheel, I'm seeing 6 of the first 10 book hits with hyphens, but that's not the reason I moved it. I moved it because it was unclear without the hyphen (except to the those in drivetrain business, granted). Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I held off on tuned mass damper, because I could not clearly determine which of the two meanings was intended, or whether both work fine. Books sometimes use hyphen, but not often enough to convince me that the small minority with hyphens are correct. So I left it, even though sources are a little bit mixed and I think the hyphen would probably signal the intended meaning better in this case. Dicklyon (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Bermicourt, please do not engage in circular reassertion of points that have already been refuted; it's just a frustrating waste of everyone's time. Dicklyon provided ample evidence already of real-world confusion that "a gauge railway" is a real term. This is incontrovertible proof from multiple publishers that people are confused on the matter (even professional editors and writers). Second, "the sources favour neither variant" is precisely the situation in which "just do what MoS says and move on" always applies automatically. This kind of scenario (and the habit of people to argue incessantly that their option is the One True Way) is why MoS exists at all. Only in the opposite situation, when the RS are consistently in favor of one particular option and it differs from MoS's default, do we not do the MoS default. This is also the WP:COMMONNAME policy, BTW, so you can stow any "just a guideline" handwaving: "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". Third, a slight alleged regional preference for one variant over another has nothing to do with WP:ENGVAR. Please actually go read ENGVAR. It's about norms of standardized English usage that have "strong national ties"; a slight leaning in one direction or another in dialects that each demonstrate both approaches, in practice and in style guides, is neither a dialectal norm nor a strong national tie, but exactly the opposite of both. But as Dicklyon notes, your nationalist assumption is false anyway, and the hyphenation is found aplenty in British materials, too. It's just not preferred in the trainspotter publications you are cherry picking to try to "win". I also have to point out that you can't denigrate the MoS and those who seek compliance with its MOS:HYPHEN provisions, out of one side of your mouth, while crying for the overextension of the MOS:ENGVAR part of it to suit you whims, out of the other. That's like being an atheism activist most of the time, but insisting on your devout Catholicism on Sunday when you hope a desperate prayer will be answered.

This is very simple: If everyone understands the form with the hyphen (even if some, due to familiarity with the term find the hyphen unnecessary for their own, personal, individual comprehension), but some people may not understand without the hyphen (even if you believe that number is small or you think they're ignorant), then the obvious answer is to use the hyphen, since it costs nothing and helps some readers, and helping ignorant readers become better-educated readers is WP's primary raison d'etre. That's all there is to it, and it's how encyclopedic writers approach every such question, from whether to break up a long sentence, to which word order to use, to whether an illustration of something may be needed.
PS: I'm going to laugh very hard if you make some kind of "inefficiency and bother" pseudo-argument about hyphens, after the amount of editorial time you have wasted fighting in vain over this trivia, and since a hyphen and a space take up the same room and require the same number of keystrokes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Often, a 2-part compound word is written without a hyphen when alone, but as part of a longer compound it has a hyphen to show clearer what component of the total compound belongs closest to what. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's generally the distinction between the noun and adjective forms, respectively. This RfC is only about adjectival use (i.e., use as modifier of a noun). No one is proposing anything like hyphenating "narrow gauge" in a construction like "The railway has a narrow gauge".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

---

• This looks interesting; I'm tempted to try closing it. Any objections? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  None here. Best of luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:07, 8 March 2017 (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.

Future years- how far is too far?

See Category:Years in the future

This is a follow-up on the discussion of the recent years guidelines further up the page. While looking into that mater, I discovered that we have articles on years in the future, going all the way up to 2099, and articles are future millennia going all the way up to the 10th millennium. In addition to general information about predicted astronomical events and so forth, these articles contain speculative material as well as useless minutia such as what software may stop working properly 75-8,000 years in the future. While having articles for years in the immediate future seems reasonable, having articles for years that most of us will not even live to see, and cannot possibly predict, seems .... well frankly it just seems a bit silly. Should we develop a policy that prohibits articles on some future years? If so, what should be the cutoff? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Depends on the circumstances. For instance the Olympics are rarely cancelled, so based upon the assumption that a worldwide nuclear holocaust doesn't break out, its likely that they will continue ad infinitum. Nonetheless I think that the absolute limit should be 25 cycles of the activity (such as 25 FIFA cups, Olympics, etc), or else 100 years, whichever comes first. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm talking about the articles on the years/millennia themselves, i.e. 2075 or 7th millennium, not articles on specific events. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lazyges: 25 cycles in these examples does seem even a bit too much. What actual, verifiable, relevant information could be available today about the 2116 Olympics for example? Having an article on an event about which precisely nothing is known is blatant WP:CRYSTALBALL. And, by extension, having articles about years the same time away is predicting the future. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Most of the material in these articles is speculative (or cruft about fiction set in the future), especially once you get past 1 or 2 years. I would suggest that we limit future year articles to at most 10 years in the future. And I would say only 1 century or millennium in the future. Otherwise, it quickly gets into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory. Kaldari (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment — it is very silly. For example, in 2050 were told that "Sexual encounters between humans and sexbots will outpace intrahuman sexual activity", and this claim is repeated twice. I'm not sure that a policy could deal with this, but I certainly think articles that serve no useful purpose should be deleted. I disagree with Iazyges's comment about the Olympic Games. The modern Olympic Games only started in 1896, and, yes, several have been cancelled. I don't think it is likely that they will continue "ad infinitum". Nothing ever does. And until the host city is announced, there is very little we could write on the Games of that year. We really can't predict that far ahead. These future year articles seem to be a depository of trivia: scheduled events, random predictions, policy targets, and mentions in fiction. This seems to be totally pointless.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Well, but what's wrong with those example articles, 2075 and 7th millennium? Here we learn useful things. At 2075 we learn that Mary Shelley's seminal The Last Man takes place in that year, and that is not the sort of thing that inspires me to go "Well, we can't tell our readers that! They must never know!". Why remove this information from the Wikipedia? Who does that help? 7th millennium tells us that Mars occults Regulus on August 25 of 6727 (I for one can't wait) and you can take that to the bank.

Granted, these articles are not very useful, but that applies to many of our articles. Just now, working in Category:1966 songs, I've read The Brigands (band) (band may not have existed) and Ajax Hup Hup Hup (human words do not exist to express how ineffably marginal this article is). So why pick on the future? The future, unlike the past, hasn't done me any harm. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at a few past year artuicles which I can link to specific works of fiction (2004, 1968, 2001) I see nothing about such works of fiction. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally, in fiction sections do not belong in year articles. They add nothing to the reader's understanding of the actual year. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and fine, and its defensible. But it's still just an opinion. How to "understand" a year, or any concept... we can define that broadly, or narrowly. To say "a reader's understanding or even apprehension of X cannot ever be enhanced by describing how writers of fiction viewed and used X"... I dunno. That could be true I guess, but its certainly not a statement of settled objective fact. It's an opinion. Since it's just an opinion, I would tend not to make it an enforceable you-can't-do-that rule. Herostratus (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this was codified into the editing guidelines at WP:RY several years ago, but it is unclear if those guidelines would cover articles on future years as there is no defined scope for them. (if your interested, a discussion of what the scope of RY should be is still active further up this very page) Beeblebrox (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Well "Recent Years" is not the same as "Future Years" so I don't know how applicable any of that is. (I do note, regarding User:Od Mishehu's point, that "In fiction" sections are supported for past years; 1984 has one).

Generally, I'm not finding the level of argument at the discussion you point to above as being particularly rigorous. There's some general grumbling along the lines of "Seems like" it's too soon to have articles at all on years more than 5-10 years into the future, or "seems a little nuts" to have articles like this, or "we shouldn't" have articles like this. With no actual reasons given (except that they are created as "easy way to up their editcount", and people please don't make insulting "arguments" like that). So far it sounds like it's a matter of "I think these articles are silly", which the solution is "then don't work on or read those articles".

What I want to know what is the actual problem you are trying to solve here. You want to erase existing information and prevent other editors (who apparently do find working on these articles interesting and useful and are willing to volunteer their time and energy to do it) from creating these articles. What I want to hear is "It will be a service to our readers to erase and prevent these articles because _____________." "If a reader should, for whatever reason, want to look up the year 2247, it will enhance his experience here if we don't have such an article, because ___________." Tell me what goes in the blanks. Herostratus (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that argument amounts to anything.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem as I see it, is that the less eyes and interested parties there are on an article, the more likely it is to contain errors (intentional or otherwise) and not be updated when predicted events, don't transpire as they should.

"It will be a service to our readers to erase and prevent these articles because they contain nothing that couldn't be contained in another, better maintained and controlled article, category or list and is therefore less likely to be wrong."

"If a reader should, for whatever reason, want to look up the year 2247, it will enhance his experience here if we don't have such an article, because the decision making process that ensures that accurate, well presented and verifiable information that resulted in them having to access the content in slightly different way also means that many other things that readers might want to look up are also not there, such as gossip, propaganda and errors." Scribolt (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"them having to access the content in slightly different way" means "them not finding the information". You can't put the reader's mind in a straitjacket. I don't find to be compelling arguments like "Anyone who is interested in that astronomical phenomena can look at the relevant article"; that fictional events in 2110 should be found in the articles for those works of fiction, not gathered together in a year article, and so forth because no one is going to access them that way. We don't know how or why people want to access information. We are not paper so its cheap to present information in two different places, organized in two different ways, to catch different ways people are approaching a question.

Maybe the reader is writing a story set in 2110 and wants to see what other story writers imagined that year would be like. Maybe they saw a fact about 2110 event and got curious about other possible events in that year. Maybe they are just browsing diffidently though future-year articles to distract themselves from what Jenna said last night. Maybe they are settling a bet. Maybe they want to figure out the average year of the end of of the world in fiction. Maybe they remember a book set in 2110 but can't remember the title. Maybe they're idly curious about what's going to be happening when their daughter turns 100. Or any number of other things which I can't even think of -- and neither can you.

You are OK with telling all these people "Well, we could tell you this stuff -- in fact, we have these articles now -- but we're not going to. Instead, how about you Google it and take 15 minutes to find it and maybe never find it". I'm not on board with that. That's not how to make the internet not suck.

I don't see any "gossip, propaganda, or errors" in these articles. A lot of them have unsourced assertions, but that's general Wikipedia problem. I looked at bunch of these articles at random. They're fine. Herostratus (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus. I take your point to a certain extent. I wasn't claiming that the future year articles contain gossips, errors or propaganda, more that the reasons why I think we should be careful about providing content in articles such as this are the same reason that other articles don't contain them (well, hopefully not for too long). And whilst I agree that it would be nice to present all of the information in every single way that someone might want to access, I disagree with your statement that this is a the unsourced nature of these articles is a general Wikipedia problem. It's a problem that is magnified when we replicate information in so many places that there aren't enough editors to monitor, protect and update them. At some point we have to say, is the benefit of providing this information in this format outweighed by the risk that it's going to be wrong or outdated. I chose 3 years at random and I don't think they're fine.

2057: 1 unsourced claim of a double solar eclipse in a calendar year, 4 star messages reaching their stars (reference in their articles), an unsourced claim that the m6 toll contract will expire then, a 2008 natgeo prediction that the worlds oil supply is going to run out (dynamic information), the 2057 in fiction section and 2 infoboxes, one entirely in red links and the other filled with 2057 in various calenders.

2034: A partial lunar eclipse in September (sourced), a supermoon (sourced) the release of Alberto Fujimori (sourced but dynamic) and Switzerlands phase out of nuclear power (sourced, but dynamic). Plus year in fiction and date conversion infobox.

2021: India plans to conduct its first space flight (sourced to a 2015 article, dynamic info and almost exact example I used in the earlier RfC), some cicadas will emerge (sourced), and Costa Rica's pledge to become carbon neutral (dynamic info, sourced to a 2008 article). A red linked infobox.

So, the only reliable information that can be provided in these articles (that is not dynamic and unlikely to change and thus become outdated without anyone knowing) are the astronomical events and the year in fiction. Who is going to update the progress of Costa Rica's carbon neutral pledge? We shouldn't be have this kind of crystal ball gazing in something like this. So, is the best way of presenting what's left to have an article about a year? Or have articles, 2021 in fiction, 2021 astronomical events etc. There's probably some fancy way of having a category (novel set in 2057) that then have a list. All of these options seem to be better and more reliable ways of presenting this information. Scribolt (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• I could probably populate future years endlessly with significant events from Astronomy alone (total exclipses, regular comets etc) - obviously not every individual year, but easily past 100 years in the future. It cant hurt making a guideline that states FY's should only contain facts not fiction or speculation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you could, and that would be pointless. Anyone who is interested in that astronomical phenomena can look at the relevant article. For example, Halley's Comet returns every 75-76 years, so you could create articles indefinitely. Pointless, but probably right (until some cosmic mishap befalls our feathered friend). With regard to scheduled events: pointless, and often wrong. With regard to fiction: pointless, and totally trivial. "1984" is an obvious exception, as the book was named "1984" and was still considered relevant in that year.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If the argument 'its pointless' on wikipedia as a method for exclusion was considered valid by a majority of editors, I estimate the article count would be sitting at around 1-2 million instead of 5+. Given its entirely subjective, there is probably a middle-ground here. (FWIW, I dont disagree scheduled future events are pointless, just that people do seem to find them interesting and relevant.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's any other method. Do you think there would be any point in extrapolating astronomical events into the distant future through year articles??? I don't think you do. Part of the problem with these kind of discussions is that it is trying to put "objective" rules onto "subjective" subjects. I think the ultimate answer to "Who does it hurt?" is "Wikipedia". You create more and more articles with more and more trivial content, and these are patrolled by fewer and fewer editors. It is an empire that can't be defended. The legionaries just left Hadrian's Wall.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Well quite, but I think we reached that point 3 million articles on roads ago... So arguing that this is some sort of extra step in pointlessness seems futile. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

So fighting futility is futile? I might as well become a Vandal.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Either remove the future year articles or enforce a strict no predicted future events policy within them. For the reasons I cited in the original RfC (dynamic info not being updated, Wiki is not a calendar). I can just about see a justification for predictable astronomical phenomena, but even that would be better off in the parent article, or a category or list). FWIW I've got nothing against the future year articles per se, it's just that they contain nothing but predictions, which I do have a problem with. Scribolt (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Ten years is a reasonable limit. The scope of global changes in a decade means that no events can be predicted with certainty. In 1991, people were talking about peace breaking out; in 2001, they started talking about the War on Terrorism. And I don't think that many events are scheduled that far in advance. While some people make good predictions, most people make bad predictions. Wikipedia is not equipped to differentiate between the two. That would require some complex meta-analysis — and it still could be wrong. Wikipedia's policies and structures do not allow us to choose one expert's opinion over another, or synthesise various opinions and data. The predictions in the future year articles are just a random and somewhat bizarre selection of citations. Even if they're right, they don't give a coherent picture of the future, and they're likely to be all wrong. We can't tell readers what the world will be like when their daughters are 100. We just can't.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think there's any particular need for a crackdown on these articles. Articles about years in the far future seem to consist mostly of discussion of how the year has been portrayed in fiction, and where individual forecast events are mentioned it tends to be things that are virtually certain to happen (astronomical events in particular) and the occasional forecasts which are more speculative are still made by credible sources. The mere fact that events take place in a far future doesn't mean we can't write high quality encyclopedic content about them - take a look at Future of Earth, a GA which discusses things that won't happen for billions of years. We don't currently have articles on individual years beyond about the 2090s, when there starts to be too little content about each individual year to write them, I think that's a reasonable standpoint. Hut 8.5 22:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The Future of Earth reflects the state of current science and talks of probabilities. Assigning events to future years creates a false perception of certainty. Astronomical events can be predicted with a level of accuracy, but even astronomy can be wrong. Supernovas were originally thought of as new stars, and Pluto was recently thought of as a planet. More mundane predictions are notoriously prone to error. See:[17] It's OK to put these opinions in a book, column, blog etc, but they don't belong in an encyclopedia article because they are simply idle speculation. And for every opinion, there's a contradictory one. While the articles might be limited at the moment, I predict that if unchecked they will continue to expand. The compilation of lists of random mentions of a particular year also falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Upland as you may know our, standard for inclusion is WP:VERIFIABILITY not certainty.--Tom (LT) (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia represents to its readers what the current thinking of reliable sources is on each subject. If those sources decide that something is certain (or virtually certain) then we are justified in representing it like that. I don't think predictions of astronomical events like eclipses or occultations are remotely comparable to the other things you cite - people have known how to predict them with a very high degree of accuracy for centuries, and they certainly aren't comparable to speculation about immortality. If you can find any vaguely suitable source which casts doubt on the credibility of these astronomical projections then please do share it. Hut 8.5 22:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You have both misread what I said.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason to remove them, if they have useful or interesting information. Benjamin (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• I also don't see any reason to remove them, I find the current content interesting. I don't see the benefit to removal. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think you could make a strong case for deleting several of these future year articles, so I don't support including articles for every year from 2017 to 2099, but I don't think there is an underlying problem with all of the articles. I think we should treat each article on a case-by-case basis. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• There are plenty of predictable future events (comets returning, leap years, etc) that can be sourced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • But do we need an article for every leap year to infinity???--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Feel free to point out where I say that we do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: These articles are very helpful to, for instance, science fiction fans and writers. Lyrda (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any restrictions at all. I've been following this discussion for a few days, and ruminating on the implications of a restriction for a while now. I have come to the conclusion that there really is no harm in leaving these articles around, and letting people maintain them as they will. Where we impose restrictions on content and on behavior of editors at Wikipedia, we do so to protect from real threats by people with motivations outside of the aims of Wikipedia: we curb self-promotion, bias, attacks on others, etc. Almost every policy we have that restricts editing at Wikipedia (aside from the basic principles of WP:42 and WP:5P) is to protect Wikipedia from that kind of crap. We simply aren't well served by restricting editing that is harmless except that it seems to some individuals as silly or futile. If "I don't care about it" or "I think you're wasting your time doing this based on what I am interested in" were standards at Wikipedia, we'd all be worse off. This is simply not the kind of article that presents an imminent threat from people who would use Wikipedia's high visibility to promote their own aims above those of writing a neutral encyclopedia. Because there is no such threat, insofar is it is possible to write verifiable content, we needn't place any restrictions on people so interested in writing it. --Jayron32 15:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• In most instances, between eight and ten years seems about right. The main exceptions are comets and science fiction settings. Comets would be best dealt with with a SINGLE article mentioning the next appearances of selected comets. I'm not entirely sure science fiction settings need even be mentioned at all; but it could be dealt with in a manner similar to comets. As for things like "when will the world run out of crude oil?" or "When will Social Security run out of money?", or "When will software program X become obsolete?", we're pretty sure that those things will happen at some point in the future, but we don't even know exactly what year it will be, and, as such, shouldn't be mentioned. pbp 16:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• I don't see any point in an arbitrary time period, whether covering events more than ten years away, less than ten years away or between eight and ten years away all such proposals just read as pointless bureaucracy - rules for the sake of rules. I quite like the idea of only going a certain number of events ahead for repeating things like the Olympics. But the general value of such articles is in the synergy of what happens when they are written - all these astronomical events, material coming out of copyright and a religious prophecy all in the same year. etc. ϢereSpielChequers 17:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: Why is it pointless bureaucracy? Can you point to a lot of real-world details we know for sure about events 15, 20, 30, 50 years in the future? A full article's worth? pbp 19:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I know this about articles on years, not events, but I think this discussion is topical:[18].--Jack Upland (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

$100 in cash to any editor who can break my record in March.

In March of 2012, I challenged myself and set the all-time record as Disambiguation Hall of Fame Bonus list champion (the bonus list includes all disambiguation links from disambiguation pages with four or fewer incoming links). The record I set is 4,936 bonus list links fixed in a single month. Since then no other editor has even come within a thousand fixes of my record. I therefore offer a bounty of one hundred dollars in cash to be awarded to any editor who can beat this feat in the March 2017 disambiguation contest. That comes to about two cents per edit, bearing in mind that the fix must be correct and has to stick. Five years is a long time for an editing record to stand. Let's see what happens. bd2412 T 04:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I used to deliver newspapers for about $0.01 each, nearly 50 years ago when a penny was worth something. Your offer of $0.02 per edit is not very motivating. So I'll join in matching your offer, $100, in cash, check, paypal, or whisky, for each and every editor who beats your record; and I invite others to join and up the offer, to see if pennies and dollars motivate. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! You may want to cross-post this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#‎$100 in cash to any editor who can break my record in March. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Huh, I hadn't realized that the WP:Bounty board is closed.

I wonder whether User:Nick Number might be able to win the prize here. (Also, you should probably provide links to the list, so that new editors can figure out how to get started.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid this type of incentive runs counter to my personal ethics and system of motivat...wait, did someone say whisky? Nick Number (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Actually, I meant to post this to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), where it fits more naturally. As for links, Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links should provide the necessary guidance for newbies, although I can't imagine such a contest being won by someone who isn't at least a lightly seasoned disambiguator. Also, note that the bonus list winner is invariably one of the top three finishers for the month, and will therefore also win a t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation. bd2412 T 00:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this paid editing?

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Only if you break the record. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Definition of WP:OVERLINK, indent two

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

---

This is an rfc on the definition of the second indent of WP:OVERLINK. There are three options:

A: Remove the guideline of not linking to major geographic features.

B: Leave the guideline as it is. (Right now it says The names of major geographic features, locations (e.g. United States, London, New York City, France, Berlin...))

C: Propose limits on the use of the guideline. (specify your reasoning)

See also: User talk:J947.

I will add to this proposal once I am off mobile. J947 23:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option B - I see this RfC as an unnecessary reaction of J947 – an editor with 4 months' experience – to having his drastic interpretation of WP:OVERLINK (plowing through articles removing all links to "New Zealand" in several hundred of them) questioned by a number of editors, and his edits undone individually by many editors and rolled back en masse by me. I don't think there's any particular need to change OVERLINK, I believe J947 simply needs to have a better understanding of what the guideline means, and of the difference between an editing guideline and a mandatory policy. At this point, absent any compelling argument for the need to change, I think B is the only reasonable option, but I'd further suggest that J947 should withdraw this RfC entirely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This RfC should have been posted on WT:OVERLINK. I'm putting a notification there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: Right now it just says any geo feature should not be linked, which goes with why I unlinked all the NZ links in the first place. What I am doing here is to try and make the guideline clearer. J947 00:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option B Please don't start an RfC over every trivial difference of opinion. Guidelines are guidelines and should not be used as weapons to make a point. The guideline is fine as it is, given that it is applied with common sense. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option B there has been no evidence that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. The RfC seems to be an ill advised over-reaction and probably should be withdrawn and seen as a learning experience for the OP. Jbh ^Talk 00:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option B AGF is being tested really hard for me here. Removing links to only one country from articles which have links to many other other countries isn't what "policy" says to do., Moriori (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option B. Seems to work OK. BTW IMO editors who are finding a rule to be non-optimal are certainly justified in making an argument to change it. I can understand that at the margins there's room for dispute. "major" is certainly a vague rule. Surely "United States" is major, "Andorra" (also a sovereign nation" ) maybe not. New Zealand is kind of small so I can see the argument "Well, maybe schoolchildren etc. are not as familiar with it as they might be of say Russia" so you could go either way. But what are we going to do? List every case? We could give more examples I guess. But it seems OK now. Herostratus (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• It's a bit hard to consider this without the proposer's specifics having been added yet, but I distinctly remember having been confused by the second indent myself when I first read it. It may well be useful to put a bit more guidance around the usage limitations, or maybe provide examples. Schwede66 00:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: This is a new editor who, after following a guideline's (interpreted) instructions, was descended upon by multiple editors and had a number of his edits (de-linking New Zealand in the coin collecting and cyanide articles for example) innapropriately rolled back. As a reaction to this he is seeking clarification of a guideline. The accusations of bad faith and POINTy editing seem to be coming from cynical and jaded veteran editors who may need to be reminded that the policy and guideline pages are used by new editors to understand policies and guidelines. Primergrey (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• One doesn't "seek clarification of a guideline" by holding an RfC on changing the guideline, one goes to the guideline's talk page and asks questions -- or one could listen to the advice offered by those very experienced editors who "descended" on the editor's talk page to explain what he was doing wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Primergrey, I'll put my hand up for "jaded veteran editor". His edits were questioned by El C, BilCat, MilborneOne,NewYorkActuary, Meters and Beyond My Ken and he responded with "sorry to everybody" which I took to be him seeing a consensus against his reasoning. Then less than an hour later he files the RfC. AS I said above, AGF is being tested really hard for me here. Moriori (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

When multiple editors are telling someone that they are wrong, yet the guideline shows that, in fact, they are not, why wouldn't an editor seek to change the guideline to reflect actual practice? It happens all the time.Primergrey (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

There is little doubt that some of J947's edits were appropriate -- which is why I said on their talk page that any editor who wishes to revert one of my rollbacks should go ahead and do so. But citing a handful of cherry-picked correct changes does not alter the fact that J947 trolled through a large number of articles and removed all links to "New Zealand", even when it appeared in a list of other linked countries. That's not appropriate in the least. An editor with more time on their hands could have laboriously checked every edit one-by-one, but I felt that rolling them back and allowing normal editing to take care of those that were appropriate was a much more efficient process. The rollback didn't break the encyclopedia, nor did the occasional correct edits that got reverted. The encyclopedia was simply returned to the state it was in before J947 began his rampage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"Cherry picked correct changes" are correct changes. Your ham-fisted rollback leaves other editors to do the work you couldn't be bothered to do.Primergrey (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're citing only a handful of correct changes while ignoring all the other changes - that's what "cherry-picking" means, and it's an example of Confirmation bias.

If I may offer some advice, if you think that the rolling back of J947's edits did significant damage, then it would be better for the encyclopedia if you would spend your time correcting those which you feel were incorrectly done, rather then continuing to restate the same argument here ad infinitum. I'm not going to agree with your take on this, and it doesn't seem that many others here are lining up on your side either, so wasting your time here seems counter-productive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The guideline may be ambiguous, but let's see how the RfC goes. Moriori (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• A review of the removed links show some of the links being used are inappropriate linkages of countries. There is no need for the NZ link on cyanide as there is no geographic relevance for the topic here, whereas on coin collecting as we are actually talking about countries and geo-political aspects the link is germane. So yes, some of the unlinking was overzealous but some of it was proper and OVERLINK doesn't guide well enough to this. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It, indeed, must be unclear when two editors who are familiar with WP can arrive at cross-conclusions as to what should be linked. I don't see the link being germane to a coin collecting article but certainly can see how you might. The disruption occurs when mass rollbacks are performed on non-vandalism.Primergrey (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• The MOS is just advice, and this proposal seems like a knee-jerk reaction to a specific incident. That's usually not a good approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The MOS is a set of style guidelines, which I'm sure you are aware of. Primergrey (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of point you think you're making - a guideline is just advice, the consensus advice of Wikipedia editors. What it is not is mandatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

But reverting guideline advised changes is disruptive. That's my point.Primergrey (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, but it's an extremely weak point, since making the edits isn't mandated, and because removing hundreds of links without consensus or the proper understanding of the underlying guideline is far more disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that rolling back the mass removal of the links was appropriate. Meters (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option B Perhaps some clarification could be entertained if the proposer were to return and actually justify this RFC. As for the comments re AGF and POINT, yes, some of the removals were valid. Any mass change based on interpretation will likely catch some valid removal cases. In this case the removals seemed to be both indiscriminate (some of the links were very clearly not overlinking) and targeted (why only remove New Zealand links and leave other country's links in the same articles, sections, and even sentences). Meters (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option B. The OP hasn't posted a reason justifying Option A, and from where I am standing, it is content deletion without a reason. (Is there an undisclosed history behind this RFC?) Option C is basically a "bring your own option" choice. Essentially, this RFC is proposing nothing and Option B is the only valid response to it. —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• The history behind this RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Definitely Option B. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option B. I can't shake the feeling that the reason we are here is simply that the proposer used Twinkle's "unlink" function to perform an encyclopedia-wide removal of links to New Zealand. If this is true, it explains why the proposer has been so reticent about engaging in substantive conversation about his edits -- he himself didn't know exactly what edits were made until he started getting questions on his Talk page. As for the RfC itself, others above have already noted that there is little to do here in the absence of a concrete proposal. For those who are interested in this issue, there was a good deal of discussion last year on the Talk page of MOS:LINKING (see several sub-sections in Archive 18, here). Perhaps the proposer might withdraw this RfC and open up a new discussion at WT:Linking. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – There is a lot of ambiguity in the guideline and that is why I originally posted this here—to get consensus around the guideline. When I read it I saw it as opportunity to remove all links to the 'New Zealand' article. Plus, why does twinkle even have a 'Unlink' tool? J947 17:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

As I see it, the problem is that the guideline as written cannot be applied mechanistically: it doesn't say simply that the names of major locations are not to be linked; rather, it says that they should not be linked unless they are particularly relevant ("A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from.")—something that requires carefully evaluating the context in which the link appears. Also, removing links to New Zealand but leaving equally-inappropriate links in the same context (example) makes the text appear sloppy and is highly likely to offend.

The "remove backlinks" function exists to remove links to articles that have been deleted and ought not to exist. See Twinkle documentation § Unlink. It isn't intended to be used for removing excessive links to legitimate articles. Rebbing 19:46, 26 February 2017 (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.

IP Block Exemptions should be expanded to include accounts (5+ years) in good standing

For the past three years I have been using Private Internet Access VPN to make myself harder to track on the Internet. I don't see myself stopping this practice anytime soon. The only problem is that I can't edit wikipedia while logged into PIA. Most of the IP addresses are hard-blocked. So, most of the time, I simply don't edit wikipedia at all. I was hoping that this problem would resolve itself, but it has not. So here I am, proposing a solution.

Although I understand the need to block anonymous edits and new-account edits on proxy-IPs, I do not understand why this block must be so comprehensive that it prohibits veteran wikipedians like myself from being able to edit while logged in.

There is a technical solution already available to users in my position. It is called the Wikipedia:IP block exemption. IP block exemptions are automatically granted to bots and admins. Ordinary editors who are impacted through no fault of their own can also be granted IP Block Exemptions -- but only in extraordinary circumstances. My proposal is that this policy be relaxed. I also request that exemptions be granted to accounts that:

• have been around for five years and
• have at least a thousand not-minor edits to their name.
• Have not been blocked by an admin the last five years.

Very, very few spammers and sock-puppeteers are willing to create an account, contribute over a thousand (non-minor) edits, and wait five years for IP Block Exemption status just so that they can abuse the exemption status. But, if there are any, they will lose their exemption.. Keep in mind that this exemption would only apply to accounts that meet the above criteria.--*Kat* (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

While I wouldn't be opposed to this, it would be almost a complete 180 of how IPBEs are currently used. See for example Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive279#IPBE - IP block exemption removals where last year an 'audit' was done on every account that has IPBE and if they were not actively using it, the right was removed. Jenks24 (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Annoyingly so, for those of us that had this exemption, were not "actively" using it, but then had it revoked only to discover later when they got caught in an IP block trap. Whatever methodology was used for the supposed "audit" was seriously misguided. It apparently never occurred to those parties responsible that editors who are IP block exempt often edit from dynamic IP addresses, which are only blocked some of the time. It may be months without getting caught in a block. Also, it is not very easy to get administrators to grant IP block exemption. They make it seem like it is some kind of once-only special favor. If it is to be understood as a temporary status, then getting it should be far more automatic than it was when I had to spend hours arguing over irrelevant things like my username (you read that right!) in order to get exempted. In fact, this interaction gave me a disgust with administrators here that I still bear. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

At least you didn't get accused of abusing it for edit warring, especially on a page where there isn't enough diff to support the claim that you had a disputed, let alone edit-warred. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable change in policy, perhaps with the addition of a 1-year inactivity removal to reduce the risk of compromised accounts. If someone has been around long enough and proved that they're not causing disruption to the encyclopedia, they should be allowed to edit from wherever they want. — Train2104 (t • c) 16:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Strong opposition to any sort inactivity removal. I normally edit from home, but sometimes I edit from a job site in China. My employer requires that I only connect to the Internet through TOR when onsite in China, so I requested and was granted IPBE. The thing is, I may spend years between the times when I need IPBE. Right now, every so often I use TOR from home, just because someone might decide that I am not using it enough, but that is actually sub-optimal. Not only is it slower, it makes it harder to run a checkuser on me. Removal should start with asking me on my talk page, then seeing that I have edited Wikipedia to make sure I wasn't on vacation or something. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to inactivity as in "no edits at all", not inactivity as in "no edits requiring IPBE". Just like admins are desysopped after a year. — Train2104 (t • c) 03:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Administrator note As this would represent a major change to an established administrative policy, I think this should be reframed as a formal RFC, with notifications at WP:AN and WP:CENT. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and did all that, as well as notifying at WT:IPBE. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. If I have missed any other little steps, please let me know or go ahead and correct. (Sidenote: I'm off to work now and won't be back to discuss further for several hours) --*Kat* (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose any blind automatic granting of any userright as this proposal entails as written. I really don't care if you have been around for 5, 10, or 15 years. And you can do 1,000 edits in a month if you try. Edit count is never a good standard by which to grant userrights by in my opinion. If you need it, request it. If you aren't actively using it it should be removed. That is my stance on all userrights. --Majora (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I was trying to come up with objective guidelines. If you have better guidelines, please feel free to suggest them. I also don't understand why you "don't care" how long a person has been around. Do you truly see every editor as a potential vandal? --*Kat* (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    • It has nothing to do with seeing every editor as a potential vandal. Userrights should never be automatically granted. Ever. Period. That is my view and the view of a great number of other people as well. --Majora (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
      • So you would agree to my suggestion of essentially rubber-stamping any valid requests for this, as long as it is not done automatically? (Addendum: If you disagree, please explain why - what specific costs or dangers you feel there would be to such a policy. Obviously, it would have major benefits in terms of making users more satisfied and more able to edit the way they prefer, so you need to present specific costs or dangers to answer that.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
        • What is the difference between "rubber-stamping" something -- that it, approving it without evaluating it -- and automatically granting that same thing? They are synonymous, are they not? And how would one know that a request is "valid" unless one evaluates it, in which case there's no "rubber-stamping" involved. In short, what are you saying? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Majora presumably does not object to WP:AUTOCONFIRMED and WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, which are both automatically granted user rights. (If Majora does object because of the principle, then someone could look into revoking both of those on Majora's account, but I recommend against it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
        • @WhatamIdoing: Hilarious. I was against ECP to begin with and autoconfirmed is a necessary evil to get around the thousands upon thousands of protected pages (many of which I have on my watchlist and help maintain). Again, as I have said numerous times in this discussion. Need versus want. Autoconfirmed and extended confirmed is a necessary "right" that allows continual editing of the project. I don't have a problem with necessary rights. I have a problem with hat collecting. Which is essentially what "I want it!!!!" boils down to. --Majora (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
          • What? No, they aren't. You can edit just fine without either one, as plenty of new editors can confirm. I think you are much too confident in your own ability to detect through the Internet what other people's personal security circumstances might be. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Majora. Also, believe me, some sockmasters do go to great lengths to create and raise sockfarms to gain any automatically-granted access such as being autoconfirmed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Autoconfirmed's 4 day, 10 edit requirement is a much lower bar than the proposed 5 year, 1000 edit threshold. The only advantage an abusive editor would gain from IPBE is the ability to behave badly with his home ISP while editing blamelessly via a VPN. It would take less effort to acquire access through an alternate network—a trivial task for many. Rebbing 21:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Additionally sockmasters are the exception rather than the rule.--*Kat* (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Question: First let me say I am no expert on IP users and enforcement actions against IP spammers. The objections above are to any *automatic* "right" maintained by software. I agree with such objections. I think this objection could be addressed if a request was required first, and then this would be a guideline for approval, not automatic right granted, giving an opportunity to look at IP edits to see if there is a problem before being granted the *privilege*. So I am inclined to support under those revisions. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  @David Tornheim: The current guidelines for IPBE are already less strict than this. There are not silly numbers or bars that someone has to meet first. The current guidelines are if you need it and are in good standing you get it. That is in line with every other userright on the project. This RfC would actually increase that bar, not lower it, if it was anything other than an automatic granting. --Majora (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  Would it? I read the guideline before posting. My impression was that it was only granted in extenuiating circumstances. Such as if your natural (ISP granted) IP address was blocked due to someone else's actions? --*Kat* (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  Hence the "if you need it" part of the current policy on granting IPBE (and all other userrights for that matter). --Majora (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  I don't **need** it. I just want it. I *can* log out of PIA and edit but I don't like doing so. --*Kat* (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  And I want a million dollars and a fully paid private jet to take me wherever I want. "Wanting" something is not how we do things here. Even the lowest barred userrights (rollback and PC) require some sort of proof that you need the right to continue editing normally. You Can't Always Get What You Want. --Majora (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  @*Kat*: Do you want this to be *automatic* without request, or granted with a request having to be made first? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  @David Tornheim: I would prefer automatic. Most of the affected users wouldn't know to ask for it. That hurts wikipedia. If someone abuses it can be revoked easily enough.--*Kat* (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  @David Tornheim: That said... I can compromise. If the community is very much against an automatic granting of a user right. I can compromise. --*Kat* (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  Wait, hold on, Majora: Why are you opposed to Kat (and others in the same situation) getting this right? It is obvious that Kat is not part of some sort of sinister troll-network, which is really the only thing that matters here; and even if they were, this is not a right that (when given to just a few accounts) can cause much disruption. A million dollars and a private jet are expensive; granting Kat the ability to post using a VPN is free. I can understand, sort of, the opposition to granting it automatically, but I don't understand why you feel the right should be reserved only for the most extreme of circumstances - I feel that anyone who can make a good argument of "I would benefit from it" ought to have it. (Trolls are unlikely to request it because doing so only increases the attention focused on them and because, again, the benefits in exchange for the risks are so minor.) If you want to oppose granting this right to anyone who would benefit from it, you need make an argument for the harm or cost that would come from doing so. --Aquillion (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  You have put words in my mouth Aquillion that I never said. I'm opposed to anyone getting any right they do not need. If you need IPBE to edit normally, by all means, ask for it. I will stand behind you in your request. I will not, however, stand behind you just because "you want it". That isn't how any userright works, nor should it. --Majora (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  But there's a middle ground you're deliberately ignoring. What about users who would benefit from being able to edit via VPN (because they prefer to use a VPN constantly for whatever reason), but who do not strictly need it? What is your basis for refusing to allow them to do so? My feeling is that if someone requests the ability to edit via VPN, some other user should have to present an argument why they shouldn't get it. If you can't come up with that argument (and you've presented absolutely no reason to deny it here), then they should get it. Anything else would be pointless and unproductive legalese. Giving the ability to edit via VPN to someone like Kat makes it easier for them to edit the way they prefer and makes it more likely that they will edit prolifically, which benefits the encyclopedia as a whole; if you can't come up with a specific counterargument (some cost or danger that would arise from granting it to them), then your objections are groundless and ought to be disregarded. --Aquillion (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  (sigh) Wanting to edit through a VPN and needing to edit through a VPN are two completely different things. Again, want and need is the crux of what I am getting at. Very few people need a VPN to edit. Those whose government are monitoring them being the big one that comes to mind. Simply because you want to edit using a VPN does not mean you should have this userright. And there are dangers to this right as there are dangers with any right. Seeing as we have gotten into the "your objections should be disregarded" territory I don't see how continuing this conversation is a positive course of action. --Majora (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  I want to know more about the practical end of this distinction you're drawing. Who exactly is supposed to determine me whether my use of a VPN is truly "needed" or merely "wanted"? How is some person who is not me supposed to know what I actually "need" to edit Wikipedia? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: It is rather simple in my mind. Do you require it to edit. The vague "privacy" reason is meaningless without a further reason. As stated above, government surveillance is a major aspect that would warrant the use of anonymizing proxies. A paranoia that you are being watched is also meaningless. Take the China example. There is no paranoia there. The Great Firewall is a known surveillance apparatus that affects editors based in, or travelling to, mainland China. Besides the blanket blocking of zhwiki and the occasional blocking of enwiki, this would require the use of an anonymizing proxy. As a side note, most of these IPs are probably blocked globally and would require a global IPBE which are given out far more easily on meta anyways. There are very few reasons why someone would need to edit through a proxy beyond simple paranoia which Wikipedia should not be party to. Occasionally wanting to edit through a proxy is also meaningless as there is really nothing that is that important that goes on here that cannot wait for you to get somewhere where you don't feel the need for one. --Majora (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  So if I say that I won't edit without it, then you would say that I need to tell you my reason, and then you would pass judgement on whether my reason is good enough – according to your values and your circumstances and your understanding, rather than mine. And if you decide that my reason isn't good enough for you, then your reaction is basically "Good riddance, and don't let the door hit you on your way out!" I cannot support that. Individual editors are best suited to make their own decisions. We have in this discussion an editor who has largely stopped editing because of IPBE problems. Not editing because we're imposing an artificial hassle = not good for Wikipedia. This should be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit – not the encyclopedia that anyone who feels comfortable editing without a VPN can edit, or the encyclopedia that anyone who's willing to constantly log in and out of a VPN can edit. (Imagine doing that while trying to search for sources: Login to use a search engine, logout to get back to Wikipedia, login to click a link that explains more in the source, logout to finish editing... Requiring that of editors would be stupid, and it only hurts us.)
  I think that your hat-collecting idea is irrelevant. IPBE isn't a "hat". It's a way of enabling editors to do normal, everyday things. It confers no extra abilities to the editor; it merely puts them back on a level playing field. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support, or, failing that, support a general rule that anyone who meets those rough criteria can get it rubber-stamped without the need for extenuiating circumstances. I don't see any reason why this right shouldn't be granted to any established user who would benefit from it, since it costs us nothing and has almost zero risk. --Aquillion (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• If such a user asked for the bit, you can expect it would be granted. So no change to policy is needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Is this true? Some people above seem to feel that the bit should only be granted to people who absolutely need it (ie. some people are arguing that simply preferring to edit from a VPN for privacy reasons is insufficient, and that it should be denied.) I feel that this is the real question we ought to be addressing; the mechanism by which it is granted is less important than the standard for doing so ("only grant when absolutely necessary" vs. "grant on request unless there's a compelling reason otherwise.") --Aquillion (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Speaking from experience, the granters of this bit are not autocratic jerks. If they feel you're a trusted editor (this, of course, is key), and you state why IPBE would make your editing easier, you'll likely be granted the right. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
      • "the granters of this bit are not autocratic jerks": Given that you're one of the autocratic jerks that I previously had to deal with, who hassled me about my username, you'll hopefully understand why I don't take your word on this. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Thank you for proving my point. The only admin present in this topic used his judgement and made quite reasonable posts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Majora: I usually edit at home and school which autoblocks affected the school IP address mostly from vandals in the school, and strongly oppose the 5 year requirement that don't make sense either. I'll alternatively support a 6 month requirement instead. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 00:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not against a 6 month requirement. I just figured that people would scream that that wouldn't be long enough.--*Kat* (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as written. I do not agree with this userright being handed out automatically. The vast majority of users do not need it. Also, once you've met this threshold without using IPBE, why would you all of the sudden need it? Doesn't make a lot of sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  I figured that setting this to "automatic" would make it easier to implement -- from a technical standpoint. I was hoping that the five year limit bar would reassure people that the IPBE couldn't be easily abused.--*Kat* (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  On another note, you know what doesn't make sense to me? A blanket ban of edits from a proxy IP address, regardless of whether the editor is in question is an anonymous newbie or a logged in user who has been part of wikipedia for more than ten years.--*Kat* (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You'll note I said opposed as written. I am open to the idea of a reasonable proposal to change the conditions under which we grant IPBE, I just don't think automatically granting it after five years is the right approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Beeblebrox. Any editor who needs it should simply ask for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  Then can I propose that that be made more clear on the IPBE page? I came away (and per user Majora, still get the feeling) that only those with the greatest need be granted an IPBE. --*Kat* (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@*Kat*: I read over the granting at WP:EXEMPT and it seems to me that any editor who was blocked "through no fault of their own" could reasonably be expected to get the privilege:

IP address block exemption allows editors to edit without interruption, when their usual IP address would otherwise be blocked through no fault of their own.

Although it does say in other places that it is only granted under "exceptional circumstances," I believe that was meant to apply to editors requesting it for Tor. I got the impression that being blocked through "no fault of your own" immediately qualifies as an "exceptional circumstance." If that's what confused you, perhaps a suggestion about a slight revision to the page is in order? (To be honest, I think it is one of the better more concisely written pages on rules.)

Or is there another issue? Perhaps that long-term editors might not realize they can request the permission? There is a section that says:

In addition, IP address exemption may also be given by an administrator without a request, to prevent good-faith editors being affected by a hard IP address range block.

It seems you want this to be more automatic. Instead, I would support giving automatic notice to any user meeting the above requirements of the ability to request the exemption. I would support automatic notice for even a much lower threshold. Would that solve the problem?

--David Tornheim (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The part you quoted is intended for someone whose *normal IP* is impacted by a vandal's IP block. My normal is not being blocked. My "chosen" (for lack of a better word) IP is being blocked because it is an open proxy IP. I don't have a problem with open-proxy IP blocks. I've reverted too much vandalism not to understand why they are necessary. What I do have a problem with is open proxy IP blocks impacting long time editors who have done nothing wrong. --*Kat* (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim:, WP:EXEMPT makes it very clear that, "Editing via an anonymous proxy can be easily abused, so it is only granted under exceptional circumstances." THAT is what I would like to change. While I would prefer for the exemption to be granted automatically, if that isn't feasible at this time then it isn't feasible. But I definitely want to see this bar against VPNs lifted.--*Kat* (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@*Kat*: Okay, I don't know this well enough to know whether the word "exceptional" for Tor is too high a standard. I could see the potential for abuse, but I am not sufficiently familiar with that. I think the requirements you listed above are in a sense "exceptional". So perhaps there could be a change that those editors meeting the threshold you identified would meet the "exceptional" standard, but rather than be automatically granted by a bot, that an admin would have to review the request before it is "automatically" granted. I definitely understand the concerns about having a bot do it. A slight revision to the language on the WP:EXEMPT page would make that possible if there is sufficient support for such a change. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment *Kat*, it doesn't appear that you even attempted requesting IPBE before opening this RFC. I'm not familiar with typical practices at IPBE, but there's at least a chance that a lot of people's time could have been saved, avoiding this entire RFC. And if you were declined, then at least you'd have some concrete example to consider whether IPBE practices need changing. Alsee (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Guilty as charged. I looked at the WP:EXEMPT and determined that under those guidelines I did not quality. At all. WP:EXEMPT makes it very clear that only an editor with "genuine and exceptional need" should be granted an IPBE. As I stated above, this is not something I need; it is something I want. There is nothing preventing me from editing Wikipedia with my normal IP *except* my own desire to stay logged into my VPN. I can't be the only one in this position so I decided to make Wikipedia a better place by proposing a solution.--*Kat* (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC).

  I think it was better that

• Kat* made this RfC to address the concern, rectifying any actual problem for all editors similarly situated, rather than focusing primarily on his/her approval. If
• Kat* had been denied, and then made this WP:RfC, it would appear more self-serving than to make this request on behalf of all similarly situated editors. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

*Comment I don't see this RfC as asking the right question. I think IPBEs should be easily granted, without the need for editors in good standing to jump through hoops. (Perhaps granted by request from any user with a certain number of mainspace edits, been around for several years, no block log, or some other reasonable proxy for assessing "in good standing".) I also feel that some test should be incorporated into policy, to make this easier for administrators to check. At the moment, the policy seems quite vague and discretionary, and I think this leads to needless issues both for editors wishing to obtain IPBE and administrators determining whether granting this status is appropriate. However, I don't think they should be automatically granted, as that creates a needless avenue for abuse. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This having been said, the right to privacy is something that is explicitly recognized by the foundation, in the privacy policy, which states "we believe that you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement", and a commitment to "[use] reasonable measures to keep your information secure." This ought to include the freedom to use a VPN to avoid snooping ISPs, and the right should be granted upon request to any editor in good standing who asks for it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: IPBE should not be automatically granted or automatically removed. IPBE should be the result of an administrator looking at your edit history and deciding that you are unlikely to be a sleeper sockpuppet. Administrators should be instructed that a desire for privacy through a VPN or TOR is considered to be enough reason to grant IPBE, and to focus on the question "Do I think this will be abused" rather than on "can they prove that they really need this"? After this closes, we should have an RfC concerning what I just wrote concerning administrator instructions. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - This isn't a discussion about IPBE, this is about allowing editing from webhosts/proxies for established editors (5+years or some other metrics), and should be clearly framed that way. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Do you have a method that allows editing from webhosts/proxies without IPBE? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon — we know there are methods, because this is exactly how archive.is got black-listed. Basically someone used non-public (or just public, but not yet detected) proxies to add links to thousands of pages. The issue was not so much with the site itself, but rather with the modus operandi of one(?) user who just changed IP as soon as he/she/they got blocked. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely my friend -- stop hardrangeblocking to allow registered accounts. The old argument about attribution issues only applies to unregistered editing, and problemtic behaviour can lead to account blocks no matter whether the account is used on a dynamic or static IP or a VPN/webhost. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but claims that "this isn't a discussion about [the title and opening paragraph of the discussion]" will get you nowhere. If you want the blocking of open proxies to stop, you will have to post an RfC asking that question. See [19], [20], and [21]. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Only expansion I see here would perhaps be temporary IPBE, if you are going into an area where you will be forced to use a VPN, but still want to edit. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This is something that is going to have to be addressed in some way sooner rather than later. Private VPN usage due to security concerns is on the rise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with User:Only in death. Every security expert says to use VPNs on public networks. This issue should be resolved somehow. Maybe Wikimedia can have it's own VPN just for editing Wiki projects. Or whatever. Felsic2 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be a useful allocation of funds from the McDuck moneypit they are building. And of course, since it would be useful, its unlikely to ever happen. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is a solution in search of a problem. Which editor in good standing who needs an IPBE has been denied one? If the OP needs an IPBE then if they ask on my talk page they can have one! If there are privacy issues then go to WP:UTRS where I spend much of my time! Numeric criteria are no good - so an editor has no blocks, it does not mean that they are not problematic - admin judgement has to be used because the protection of the Project is the overarching requirement. Just Chilling (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• That's not a solution. I usually am logged into a VPN. Which means that my IP address is autoblocked. *And* it changes all the time. You are saying that I should request an unblock everytime I want to change a paragraph. This is not a feasible solution since it would take longer to get unblocked than it would take to change the paragraph. And then I would probably have to do it all over again the next time I see something that needed to be fixed. --*Kat* (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't say anything like that! Please reread my offer again! Just Chilling (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support in principle, oppose these conditions — I had the right prior to 2016 because I travel extensively, it was removed last year because I hadn't struck upon any issues then (which per definition I would have not have noticed) — and was currently not abroad. Within a few months I struck upon the issue while traveling (within Sweden as well, mind you) — which forced me to waste hours applying for a new exception, and wasted time from an administrator that had to look into the issue and verify that the IP I was editing from really was blocked, and was blocked for something unrelated to me. The issue has arisen at hotels, libraries and some campuses I've visited.

However I disagree with some of the points that are suggested here as to how the right would be given. While it is true that it is very unlikely that a vandal or disingenuous person would wait 5 years to later start sockpuppeting – this may open the floodgates for a stream of paid editors creating hundreds of accounts today, which could be used in 2022. This is not a good solution, even though we really ought to be far less rigid when handing out IP-block-exempt rights. Unfortunately I don't have any solution that would avoid this issue, but I think it's important to note that the issue is worth looking into.

The biggest hurdle to implementing this is the cut-off of only being able to go back 6 months through checkuser. We could potentially allow anyone with more than 1000—10,000 edits to edit through an IP-block, as long as we could checkuser them back further. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Our approach to this problem is increasingly out of date and out of step with both "mission-aligned" external groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and with other common security advice. Current procedure for obtaining IPBE expects disclosure of the circumstances that necessitate it, which is obviously counterproductive for those who really do have compelling serious security concerns, and unnecessarily restrictive for those who are just privacy-minded. It's time we modernized our management of this issue.
  This was discussed a bit after last year's IPBE audit, but a few proposals were made that weren't workable, and nothing really congealed into a better proposal. Unfortunately, this one isn't really workable either, as amply covered above - edit-count thresholds are both gameable and counterproductive, account-tenure thresholds are not all that meaningful, and in any case, five years is hugely excessive.
  Realistically, although socking by established users is more disruptive than socking by garden-variety trolls, it is also less common and often noticed behaviorally. It would be interesting to have more data, but I don't think we have strong evidence now that relaxing requirements for IPBE for established users would lead to such a significant increase in disruptive activity that it wouldn't be worth doing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose/Comment. I am opposed to automatic granting of rights to people who may not need them. I am opposed to arbitrary limits for edit counts or tenure in order to qualify. I am opposed to people hanging on to rights when they are no longer needed. However I do support some relaxing of the current wording of the policy. The policy was written a long time ago, before Edward Snowden, proper Wikimedia HTTPS, and all that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support dropping "need" as a criterion. I don't think the proposed five-year threshold makes a lot of sense. But I think Majora's "need versus want" is not a useful demarcation for this sort of thing. No one "needs" to edit Wikipedia in the first place. If a trustworthy editor judges that editing through a VPN will facilitate editing, there's no good reason for us to get sticky about whether it is "necessary". --Trovatore (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with you. It shouldn't be about whether I think your circumstances are sufficiently dire to absolutely require it; it should be about whether you'd (at least occasionally) use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose One user having difficulties of their own making isn't an issue. This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. I wouldn't like to see the right automatically granted, and I also think the five year requirement is far too long. Even if we made it a few months and a thousand edits, that will dissuade all but the most determined sockmasters (and those highly determined ones will find a way whether we grant people IPBE or not.) What I would support, as always, is granting IPBE on request to any established user in good standing (without trying to too tightly define that) with the clear proviso that "I want to use this service for privacy reasons" is a good enough reason. Wikipedia should be a supporter of open use of the Internet, and that includes, if one desires, the ability to use it without being tracked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Restart

I think we need to completely start over here. Many users have expressed support for some sort of change/relaxation of the conditions under which we grant IPBE, but very few are supportive of this specific proposal. So, let's try this again.

Currently, "because I want to use a VPN" is not a valid reason for granting IPBE, even to experienced users, even though it is granted to admins by default and they are therefore free to use VPNs if they wish. Should we therefore grant IPBE to users in good standing and with significant editing histories if they desire to use VPNs? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep in mind that currently there are only 145 non-admin users who have this right. The majority of them are either operating from behind firewalls in places like China or are regularly affected by blocks that are not targeted at them. The risk involved in opening this up is that, as we have al seen, sometimes even highly experienced users turn out to also be highly experienced sockpupeteers. If they are using VPNs Checkuser is pretty much useless at detecting sock farms. So, this is the risk we would be taking if we decide to do this. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, where do you get the idea that there are 145 non-admin users who have this right? If I go to Special:Listusers and request IPBE users, I see only 113 names, and at least one of them is an admin's public-computer sock (it's mine, Nyttend backup), which has the right because I travel a lot and not too uncommonly find blocks on public computers or other networks. Nyttend (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That's what it says at the IPBE page, must be outdated. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The IPBE page pulls directly from ListUsers. Special:ListUsers/ipblock-exempt does show ~140+ usernames. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Silly me — I just discovered my mistake. I reached the final page and ran a search for (IP block exempt), which returned thirteen results, but of course it doesn't count users who have other rights as well. Nyttend (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to start by accepting that with a certain level of dedication and sophistication, a sockmaster will be able to avoid all of our technical means of detection. I'm not going to spill the WP:BEANS, but its out there. Actually they can already do this with IPBE, if they are willing to put the time and effort in necessary to pass an RFA. Luckily, the number of sockmasters that are willing to make that effort to do either is small enough that we really don't really worry about it. So if we were talking enough edits to be in RFA territory, we are setting the bar high enough that few sockmasters would be willing to make the commitment. At that point the risk is really previously good editors who turn to socking after already meeting whatever criteria we set of IPBE. But there really isn't much we can do between just accepting that risk, or just saying no... The only thing I can come up with would be to restrict IPBE editors from editing in sensitive areas (noticeboards/areas with sanctions/related to arbitration) when using a VPN, such that either socking or violating this rule could be detected by Checkuser. Personally, I'd accept the risk even without such a restriction, and support something in the neighborhood of 20k edits & 2 years as a guideline for waiving the "need" criteria in an IPBE request. Monty₈₄₅ 04:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

20K might be a bit much. I've been here for 12 years and was active for at least 7 of them (not consecutively) and I've only got 5K. Maybe 20K is easier to get now than it was a few years ago though. Either way, seems a bit steep to me.--*Kat* (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support As per the above, it's obviously a balancing act. That being said, it's hard to see why experienced editors should be limited in this regard. Sockpupeteers are of course a problem, but anyone who is openly disruptive will be hopefully be caught before they get this far, or at least before they do substantial damage. We shouldn't live our lives running around in fear of sockpuppets. Additionally, the additional scrutiny brought by an IPBE request may actually help detect some sockpuppets. Certainly that's enough to make me think it's worth it. Tamwin (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support Obviously. Sure, sometimes good editors go bad but they are the exceptions rather than the rule.--*Kat* (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Alternate support - The question is "should established users be allowed to edit via VPN" and my answer is "yes" but I don't think IPBE is the solution. Instead of allowing IPBE for established users, we should stop hardrangeblocing VPNs/webhosts. The old argument about attribution issues only applies to unregistered editing, and problemtic behaviour can lead to account blocks no matter whether the account is used on a dynamic or static IP or a VPN/webhost. Softrangeblocks can continue disallowing unregistered editing via VPNs/webhosts. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  Would there be any downside to using soft blocks instead of hard blocks for VPNs? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  The old attribution argument hasn't had any credibility for at least a decade (if it had any at all). The real problem with softblocking proxies is the prolific abuse from vandals and sockpuppeteers who tend to use them to operate large numbers of accounts. Accounts are easy to create. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  You can block account creation on a rangeblock without disallowing editing for logged-in editors. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  And it's easy for any vandal who is rangeblocked to find another IP address in order to create accounts. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  Which is besides the point of this discussion, it is neither easier nor harder for someone to find a different range whether the original range is softblocked+ACD or hardblocked. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you've got something here. This would be easier to implement and would not require a lot of admin time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It's more of a mindset change. (And coding tweaks to ProcseeBot probably). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It would make socking marginally easier, as one could create an account from some clean/public location, and then sock from home via VPN. I don't really know how big an issue that would end up being... We could probably do a softblock trial and just make sure we can easily roll it back if we see a flood of socking... Monty₈₄₅ 23:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Dedicated sockers are already finding plenty of ways around the roadblocks we try to impede them with, so I don't foresee this option changing much. Miscreants with too much time on their hand have always and will always continue finding ways to haunt the project no matter what we do. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So at this point, I've stopped going after most webhost blocks for a year or two now at least, UNLESS I see abuse of the range. So all my blocks over these past 2 years are because of abuse. Futhermore, People ask me to go block the potential proxy that users rotate through like they get new IPs at the push of a button, I refuse as it's a waste of my time. So that's a lot already thats left open.

The reason I set them to be webhost blocks is so that any admin who is informed on proxies can make a legitimate change to them, otherwise, you'll just see me going right back to checkuser blocks on the ranges, which then increases the additional load on checkusers with block appeals that aren't worth the money they were written on, as it's harder to tell a legitimate user from a sockpuppet. Don't belive me? Read back to 2013 where I had a week and a half of hell and was berated for my well-intentioned actions. Post that, it then proceed through a month long audit of my actions. That said, reading through, I got a lot more support than I had realized, but I still only remember the bad end of it 4 years later, and it's molded into me hard. I've also had several more recent cases where the user gets upset when I ask them about their editing on a proxy, as they think they are exempt from such investigations having IPBE.

If the community wants to allow clear use of IPBE for any established editor on the fact that they want a VPN, then i'm going to be walking away from any investigations that involve webhost/proxy usage as a CU. This will only result in more "established user" sockpuppets from getting through. It's extremely hard for me to tell if Joe 1 is a different person from Joe 2 on a webhost/proxy, if they use the same software. Without the limit from people using a VPN...there is no point to CU investigations on VPNs. So you'll have more evasion, more major sockmasters getting away (including extremely abusive ones), and more community members frustrated over the lack of good that checkusers can do or have the ability to investigate. If your going to force the softblocking of proxies and webhosts...the same thing applies.

To be clear, if someone has a pressing issue that requires the privacy of a VPN, I do not hesitate in granting IPBE either. So I ask to trust your checkusers to handle the private request reasons and assign IPBE when appropriate. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Trust the government...they're here to help.  :-P --*Kat* (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

On a more serious note: It isn't that I don't trust you. I just don't understand why I should have to justify my decision to use a VPN.--*Kat* (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• For the benefit of the closer: I would also Support the suggestion as proposed, to allow IPBE to be granted more freely to established users. It's not my preferred solution as explained above but it's a solution I can still support. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: I honestly don't see a pressing need to allow people to use VPN, TOR, or other proxy services simply because they want to. Yes, any sufficiently intelligent and committed sockpuppeteer can still manage to make himself checkuser-proof, but from my experience at SPI, that does not appear to be most sockers. Most of them are demonstrably lazy, stupid, and/or ignorant of how the internet functions. If you make it easier to sock, there will be more socking. The WMF privacy policy never promises that all of your information will be invisible to everyone, only that it will be invisible to the public, and almost every user of the site. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: So you are against it just because you don't see a pressing need for it?--*Kat* (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• It occurs to me that if an email from OP had shown up in my inbox, I'd have spent a few minutes poking around to see if everything was on the up-and-up, flipped the switch, and then tried to remember to come back in a month and ensure it was being used properly. Truthfully, I likely would forget that last step. Long term good faith users are not going to ask for this flag to start socking, and while we need to be vigilant about handing this right out, we treat it entirely too carefully. People who want to make trouble aren't likely to start contacting checkusers with an open invitation to pull their data and investigate. Courcelles (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right, they just go and find an admin who is willing to do it. I also frequently forget the last step, most CUs do. And I think one big issue around this is define long term/established/whatever. Long term users won't ask for this to sock, my experience is when they are already socking or they won't ever sock. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose What legitimate reason would there be for wanting to use a VPN versus needing to? If you need to bypass censorship then that's a need, not a want. Still not convinced.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I do either. Others have said it is because they wish to maintain their privacy, but if you are just a username on a screen, only a CU can find out anything you don't tell them yourself, and a CU will only look if there is reason to suspect abuse. If instead you are frequently caught in blocks intended for others, that is already a valid reason to grant IPBE. On the other hand, all admins get this by default and don't have to justify using a VPN, ever. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support. I think far too much is being made over the difference between "wanting" versus "needing" to use a VPN. Privacy is a basic right, that is explicitly acknowledged by the WMF. It is also a necessity in today's world. Furthermore, one needs a VPN in order to secure this right of privacy. (Ever edit from a coffee shop? from work? from an unsecured WAN? over cable lines owned by an ISP? yeah, I thought so.) It may or may not be that there are immediate consequences to a lack of privacy, but that is usually only clear in hindsight (after arrest and torture, having assets frozen, identity stolen, personal details posted, or other unpleasantness). Unless administrators are granted prescient abilities to determine whether some such unpleasant circumstances are going to come about as a result of lack of privacy, they have no business determining whether an editor wishing to use a VPN to secure privacy comes from a "need" for this basic right, or a mere passing fancy. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Sławomir Biały: took the words out of my mouth and made them better. I'm not hiding from Wikpedia, I'm concealing my presence on the net by masking my IP. I'm making it harder for individuals and groups with the means and motivation to know what websites I am visiting and when. Using the VPN gives me peace of mind and for the most part the Internet is exactly the same when I am logged in as it is when I am logged out. There are only two things I can't do while logged into VPN: order a pizza and edit wikipedia.--*Kat* (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  You want privacy of a kind unknown to the vast majority of internet users. If it is that important, why not buy a VPN service that is not used by trolls to attack Wikipedia and so which is not blocked? The comments by Amanda above may seem incidental to you (just another person's opinion) but to those of who see WP:LTA cases, Amanda's comments seal the deal—privacy of the kind wanted is not available for free, and a very experienced checkuser has noted that open slather on IPBE would make checking too hard. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  You could demand committed identities from exempt editors. That would obviate the need for checkusers. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  I don't think {{committed identity}} is relevant to Amanda's point. It is not desirable to publicly discuss checkuser procedures but we have a clear statement that Amanda will not be able to pursue socks who operate through webhosts/proxies, presumably because there would be too much noise due to assumed valid users who are using them for assumed valid edits. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Sławomir Biały: and what would stop them from lying about it? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  You could confirm an institutional email address, telephone number, or other publicly accessible piece of information. Doesn't OTRS regularly have to do this sort of thing? Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Sławomir Biały: True, but not everyone has one of those, and some have multiple. Plus I don't really want to have someones phone number or text/call them to verify that it's their number, and pay the associated costs. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  @DeltaQuad: Is WP:AGF no longer a guiding principle of Wikipedia?--*Kat* (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Kat: When it comes to socks, no. If I assumed everyone who told me they are not a sock was telling the truth, we'd have many socks all over Wikipedia, including administrative ones like ArbCom dealt with this past year. Either way, my argument is that this data wouldn't be helpful to begin with. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  There is nothing in this proposal that says you should ignore WP:Duck and grant this access right indiscriminately.--*Kat* (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  Not that it should matter, but I do use a paid VPN. Private Internet Access isn't free. It is, however, quite popular with VPN users because it doesn't log anything. But we are getting off topic here. This isn't about me. This is about Wikipedia's policies. And privacy.--*Kat* (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  As far as I know, Wikipedia does not maintain a list of VPN providers that are not blocked. And in any case, there is no guarantee that a VPN provider which is not blocked now will remain so. I have used paid VPNs in the past which were eventually blocked. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  Some of the time the IP blocks I come across are specific to my paid VPN service. Perhaps I should be paying more? --*Kat* (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. A desire for privacy is sufficient reason. I don't use a VPN to hide from checkusers or to sock. I use one because, first, I use public access points with some frequency and it is insane to connect unprotected to those, and second, because I want to put one more stumbling block in front of entities (public or private) that want to track my Internet activity. Sure, Wikipedia doesn't track anyway and I wouldn't really care about my information being available here, but Wikipedia is not the only site I visit and a VPN is either on or off. I can use it since admins can bypass those blocks, but it's hardly fair I can do that and many other good-faith users cannot. Someone who is so determined to sock that they will work up an account to the "good standing" level is going to find a way to sock, period. It's hardly like use of a VPN is the only way to do it. The "good standing" requirement will dissuade those casually considering socking, and they're the only ones it's possible to dissuade at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I think "do you need it or do you just want it?" is an arrogant and obnoxious question. That's my main concern here. I'm OK with a reasonably high bar for evidence that an editor is trustworthy, but a trustworthy editor should not be asked why they "need" to do something. --Trovatore (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I suppose that current protection mechanisms exist for a reason, and are built on prior experience. My own experience as a regular editor is that some ten years ago one would far more easily get entangled in an IP sock fight with uncountable ramifications than more recently. I'd listen to the people managing SPI, because obviously they're doing a good job. VPN-related strictures can be bypassed via a standard operational mechanism without endangering the general protection level. So what does one want: not having to jump through any hoops if one wants to bypass VPN strictures without obvious rationale? Don't see what would be the advantage of that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  Comment. I don't say that editors requesting IPBE shouldn't be asked for a reason. I object to framing it as a requirement for a need. Kat, I think, has presented a reason. She judges it prudent to use VPN for everything, not just Wikipedia. That's a perfectly plausible reason, if not necessarily a need. If IPBE asks for a reason of that level of significance, together with an established pattern of behavior that inspires trust, it seems to me that it would be quite time-consuming and difficult for a sockmaster to establish a farm of identities that can all meet that burden, and almost impossible to avoid giving them away with common tropes/word choices/speech patterns/etc. --Trovatore (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Trovatore. If someone has a valid reason and is well-established and trustworthy (long edit history and no evidence of problems) there's no reason we shouldn't give it out. --Jayron32 14:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Sławomir Biały and others. According to The Intercept,

As described in a document saved by GCHQ, Palantir fielded a team in 2008 and tackled one such scenario using its own software. It was a powerful marketing opportunity at a conference filled with potential buyers.
In the demo, Palantir engineers showed how their software could be used to identify Wikipedia users who belonged to a fictional radical religious sect and graph their social relationships. In Palantir’s pitch, its approach to the VAST Challenge involved using software to enable “many analysts working together [to] truly leverage their collective mind.” The fake scenario’s target, a cartoonishly sinister religious sect called “the Paraiso Movement,” was suspected of a terrorist bombing, but the unmentioned and obvious subtext of the experiment was the fact that such techniques could be applied to de-anonymize and track members of any political or ideological group. Among a litany of other conclusions, Palantir determined the group was prone to violence because its “Manifesto’s intellectual influences include ‘Pancho Villa, Che Guevara, Leon Trotsky, [and] Cuban revolutionary Jose Martí,’ a list of military commanders and revolutionaries with a history of violent actions.”

That said, I should mention I have substantial reservations about VPNs. The ideological leader of the world, China, has already begun substantial and effective crackdowns on VPNs. The powerful elite behind omnipresent copyright surveillance in the U.S. certainly likes them no better. The VPNs may promise to limit record-keeping, yet all of them know that their days are numbered and in the end their best hope to make money and avoid prosecution involves some kind of deal involving those records. And using one provides extra documentation of identity and communications. I therefore don't mean to recommend them like they were a silver bullet, but ideologically I would like to see Wikipedia step out of lockstep with the computer surveillance state. Wnt (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wnt: The level of non objective content in your comment above is concerning. Wikipedia and its servers are guests of a State for which you speak against. The way you have phrased this post seems to suggest that Wikipedia should be at odds with the State that hosts it, not only is this extremely dangerous but also seems to violate the principle that Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy. I agree that VPN use should be unrestricted but only on the principle merit that it cannot be avoided and thus methods that work either need to be implemented to completely stop VPN use for everyone or it should be available to anyone. A failed system is a worse example than no system at all and if the system is required by practical need then it should be implemented to at the very least, work. Now anarchy is not the aim of the game here nor is it to try and counter Government surveillance of the country which implements this according to its Laws which are the same Laws the Wikimedia foundation is governed by. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 01:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid arguing general political ideology unless it really can't be avoided. This is a discussion about Wikipedia practices, not about how we feel about the State. --Trovatore (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wiki-Coffee: Wikipedia is not a "guest" of a State - it was founded and run by citizens of a State, who have rights. If that State were to make a law that forums cannot allow people to post if they come from a VPN, or unless they sign up with their official ID cards and identity verification fob device, well, then that would be a law, and WMF might follow it or take it to the courts. (I'd predict B, wouldn't you?) But until such time, if the State is going to set up a "voluntary" surveillance program, or if other States run surveillance abroad, we have the choice whether we want to help that or not. I'd say B again. Wnt (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wnt: I think that I can understand your point. Basically, we should accommodate the needs of people who are so vain that they genuinely believe a countries government would be interested in them for no reason and that supporting the needs of paranoid and irrational individuals is of greater importance than protecting the integrity of Wikipedia by preventing sock-puppetry and POV-Pushing from socks. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wiki-Coffee: This sort of "paranoid and irrational" namecalling never deserved respect, but today... have you ever heard the name Erdogan? Have you encountered articles like [22][23][24][25]? Modern mass surveillance goes a hell of a lot further than the occasional Marcus Garvey - the example I give is of a whole country where people thought they had a "democratic" society and now anyone accused of reading the wrong book or talking to the wrong person is living in fear. And ... even now, Turkey is still reckoned one of the freer countries in the Middle East, God help the poor bastards. Now - people hope that thinking that way would be paranoid for Americans, but who knows? It takes all types to make a balanced social ecosystem. If some people encrypt their communications and cache guns in the desert, maybe the rest of us won't need to have done so. Wnt (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I am confused how concerns about privacy over public networks, unsecured WANs, and ISPs became a discussion about state surveillance. While there certainly are justifiable concerns about surveillance from government parties &endash; local law enforcement Stingrays, federal spying programs, international espionage, or editing behind a national firewall &endash; often the primary goal in using a VPN is to prevent private, non-governmental parties, from obtaining unsolicited access to information. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sławomir Biały: There is a smooth gradient between public and private spying. For example, see the conflict HBGary and "Anonymous" hackers - was that a public or a private action? Business is crime is law. Wnt (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing, but dismissing concerns over privacy as anti-government paranoia seems to miss the point. Data is stored and shared by many parties, most of which are actually private entities. It's the weakest links in that chain that we should be concerned with. That might be a local law enforcement Stingray, or a poorly secured WLAN in a coffee shop. By saying that we don't want "government" to have access, most folks take that to mean the NSA. That just invites spurious arguments like "If you aren't doing anything that would place the national security of [...] at risk, then you have nothing to hide." The point is, everyday citizens should be concerned with their privacy, and not because of the NSA. However one feels about the Men In Black, there are plenty of (other?) bad guys out there to be worried about. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support granting IPBE in both proposals I agree with others that proposal statement could be formed better. The position that I support is granting easier IPBE to trusted users. It is too difficult to get this user right to the correct people who need it. I understand and recognize the need for a strong vetting process when this right is issued, but right now, the process is too indistinct to describe and too onerous to recommend. I have done editing to Wikipedia:Open proxies, Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Open_proxies, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Open_or_anonymous_proxies, Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor, meta:No open proxies, and also posted lots of notes at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Partnership between Wikimedia community and Tor community. I am convinced that there are no clear answers to be found on how IPBE is issued or managed, other than the approval process requires meeting unpublished criteria that are not cross-checked to meet the demand of what most Wikimedia people want. I feel that most Wikimedia community members would want for logged-in accounts that have passed a high standard challenge to prove their trustworthiness would support giving exemption to people who profess a need. My objection is that there is no standard, not even a high one, that a person can pass to get this right. I want a standard defined and the right awarded, and then over time I want the standard discussed so that it can align with community need. Among the people who might want to edit through a VPN include anyone who values their privacy as a personal choice and people who value their privacy as they edit political or illegal Wikipedia articles like LGBT+ related topics or articles about opposition parties in governments which discourage that. Right now, there is no way for a person with privacy concerns to publicly state their problem because many people who want privacy do not want to draw attention to the fact that they want privacy. The conversation needs to start somewhere, and it can start by vetting this person to have the userright. If things check out as they saw they do, then a user with a huge number of edits and 5 years of editing is a fair candidate for an increased level of trust. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support second proposal. I don't think it makes sense to automatically grant it to anyone, but "I want to use a VPN" seems like a legit reason to me, assuming that the account is a) somewhat experienced and b) in good standing. If they abuse it, it can be removed with a few clicks of a button. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm willing to accept that if the community wants this change, that we hand out IPBE on request. That said, this RfC has not specified so far what "established users" means nor has it established what we would do if a user is not in good standing (like a previous sockpuppetry block, about to be sanctioned, etc.). I would appreciate something surrounding that be put into this before we have admins granting IPBEs to editors who easily racked 500 edits in two months. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  "Established users in good standing" has been an accepted (if unwritten) standard at Wikipedia for some time. Its definition may vary some depending on context, but general it means that someone has enough edit history to judge that they know what they are doing, and "in good standing" means that there has never been any questions of the users integrity. Per WP:CREEP, WP:NOT#BURO, etc. it isn't always useful to define hard limits. Admins are promoted as admins solely because the community trusts their judgement and believes they can make the correct decisions in cases like this. --Jayron32 02:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  (ec) Comment. I don't know how formalized this needs to be. I would be happy with just a little change of mind-set, where the first question is not "do you need it?" but rather "do we trust you?" and maybe the second question is "do you have, not necessarily a 'need', but a non-frivolous reason that rings true?". If that turns out to be too much discretion (that is, if people are getting denied that the community can't figure out why they should be, or if there seems to be favoritism based on POV or something), then it can be revisited. --Trovatore (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support: "Because I want to use a VPN" and "Because I want to use TOR" are indeed valid reasons for granting IPBE, to users in good standing and with significant editing histories, subject to the discretion of the deciding administrator. In other words, not automatically accepted and not automatically rejected. If anyone thinks that what I just wrote is not what this particular section of this RfC is asking, let me know and I will post Yet Another RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  My reasoning: privacy concerns are a perfectly good reason for requesting IPBE, and the user should not be asked to "supply a good reason". That being said, a vague "this one smells wrong" feeling is a perfectly good reason for an administrator to reject an IPBE without prejudice (meaning that another admin is free to grant it). "Does this user really need IPBE?" is the wrong question for an admin to ask. "Do I trust this user to not engage in socking?" is the right question for an admin to ask. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  This seems reasonable.--*Kat* (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support What Guy Macon said. 'I would like my privacy protected' is a perfectly valid reason. The problem I forsee is 12 months down the line another checkuser deciding on a whim that everyone who has IPBE doesnt have need of it in their opinion and removing it. So there needs to be a policy change to explicitly prevent this, either in the Checkuser policy or IPBE to prevent 'sweeps'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - before people get carried away with @Guy Macon:'s comment, note that the question before us, what I and the others supported, was "Should we therefore grant IPBE to users in good standing and with significant editing histories if they desire to use VPNs?" That is a call for admins to grant the right, not to think about it on a case by case basis and use any or no justification ("smells wrong") to deny it. The proposal doesn't take away their discretion when evaluating "good standing" or "significant editing histories", until such time as those things are better defined, but it does require them to evaluate those things fairly and act on them as appropriate. Too much "discretion" here only encourages the situation Guy suggested - asking another administrator. The admins don't seem to like it when you ask Daddy because Mommy said no, so the excessive discretion would likely be followed up with an interpretation we absolutely didn't vote for, namely prohibiting any admin from reexamining the first admin's verdict, at which point the whole procedure becomes extremely arbitrary and subject to personal politics and perhaps ethnic affiliations or stereotypes. Wnt (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand. None of Guy's remarks indicated that he wants admins to ignore WP:DUCK and act as a rubber stamp. Nor does he suggest that editors should or will go admin shopping in a quest for approval.--*Kat* (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• He isn't disagreeing or agreeing with me. He is answering my question ("If anyone thinks that what I just wrote is not what this particular section of this RfC is asking, let me know and I will post Yet Another RfC.") by saying that there is at least one person who thinks that what I wrote is not what this particular section of this RfC is asking. Make that two, because I agree with him on that point. Clearly, a more carefully worded RfC is needed, which will appear shortl as soon as my nimble fingers start typing it in a new section. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• No admin can ever be positively required to take an admin action. We can always decline to push a button. So I can always answer a request to give IPBE (or any other user right) with "Sorry, but I'm not comfortable doing that." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed draft of new policy

Draft withdrawn

With respect -- and great appreciation for his support -- to Guy Macon I'd really rather us not get bogged down in a discussion on what we should discuss next in this discussion on changing the IPBE policy. so, if I may, I'd like to proposal a revised policy here. Current wording Editing via an anonymous proxy can be easily abused, so it is only granted under exceptional circumstances. Examples of editors who may reasonably request an exemption include users who show they can contribute to the encyclopedia, and (for existing users) with a history of valid non-disruptive contribution, but are either being hindered by restrictive firewalls, or for exceptional reasons must edit via anonymous proxies. However, many users are known to access through open proxy unknowingly due to the default setting of their browser. Before you apply for IP block exemption (which may take time and is not guaranteed to be granted), you should check the internet connection preference of your browser and change it to no proxy access. Note that avoidance of checkuser, or specific checkusers, is not usually considered a sufficient reason – concerns over checkusers should be discussed with the Arbitration Committee or ombudsman. Who may request An editor who has genuine and exceptional need, and can be trusted not to abuse the right. How to request Email the functionaries team or contact a CheckUser directly, explaining why you need to edit via anonymous proxies. Administrators who are contacted through other means may need to consult a checkuser to confirm the problem. New Wording (proposed) Editing via an anonymous proxy can be easily abused, and therefore will not be granted without deliberation. Examples of editors who may reasonably request an exemption include users who show they can contribute to the encyclopedia, and (for existing users) with a history of valid non-disruptive contribution, but are either being hindered by restrictive firewalls, or for reasons of their own, would prefer to edit while logged into a VPN. Note that avoidance of checkuser, or specific checkusers, is not usually considered a sufficient reason – concerns over checkusers should be discussed with the Arbitration Committee or ombudsman. Who may request Any editor with an account that is in good standing and who has a significant history of positive (non-disruptive) contributions to Wikipedia. How to request Email the functionaries team or contact a CheckUser directly, explaining why you need to edit via anonymous proxies. Administrators who are contacted through other means may need to consult a checkuser to confirm the problem. Okay...discuss. --*Kat* (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC) edited to add part about significant editing histories--*Kat* (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC) I think we need to treat those who cannot edit without a VPN (or equivalent) differently from those who could edit without one, but for any reason prefer to edit using one. We should only consider a request for IPBE from a new editor if they have a "genuine and exceptional need". The burden would be on the requester to provide justification. We should consider the request of an experienced and trusted editor without requiring them to provide any justification, though with an opportunity for discussion if anyone has a particularized objection to the editor receiving the right. There would be a reputable presumption that IPBE would be granted when requested by such an experienced editor. Monty845 05:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Strong oppose Ladies and Gentleman, this proposal could be seen to be a violation of the principle that Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or anarchy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a wonderful one at that. It’s a place for objective content which helps people access knowledge. Unless there is evidence to suggest that allowing wider access to IP Block exemptions, particularly to subjectively “trustworthy editors” is going to help Wikipedia by allowing for more useful contributions this policy suggestion is utterly redundant. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 10:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Coffee I would like for the VPN blocks to be done away with as well. But that proposal didn't achieve any kind of consensus. I was hoping that I'd missed something when Beetlebrox came out in support of the measure but judging from Amanda's response I didn't. Expanding on the IPBE is the next best thing -- and it is what has achieved has achieved consensus. Amanda can live with it and so can I. Since we are on opposite ends of this spectrum I think that means it has the best chance of actually effecting change. --*Kat* (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Oppose (& proposing a rationale for closing this discussion without further ado) – I just had a look at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption: seems the issue has been discussed for over a year, with multiple RfCs, the last one of these ending in a WP:SNOW close. When the topic was launched here at WP:VPP, no noticeable reference was made to that prior discussion (and its outcome), so to me this seems like a sort of ask the other parent, because if participants here would have been more aware of prior discussion I suppose this would have seen a WP:SNOW close long ago. Instead, we're just taking editors' time for something that sooner or later will receive its (half molten & watery, but predictable) SNOW close anyhow. Now the reason why I went to look at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption is that I was going to propose to close the discussions here at VPP and suggest not to come here again before at least at the IP block exemption talk page something would become apparent as not necessarily ending in a SNOW close. I still think that a good mode of operation: close this VPP discussion (and all other threads on the same topic). Keep discussions at the IP block exemption talk page until something with a sort of rough consensus there is worth taking the wider editor community's time for. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC) I did 'not' forum shop. I wasn't aware of the discussion on the IPBE talk page. I ran a search for "VPN" on the Village pump and skimmed WP:Perennial. Didn't see anything that fit. Which is when I posted here.--*Kat* (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC) No problem. Just inviting to do so now (i.e. look at the previous discussions – I gave the links to the major ones below), and then see whether we still need to go through with this new extremely similar exercise. Well, anyhow, for the next time: if you want a guideline or policy to change it is *always* a good idea to look at the talk page of that guideline/policy to see whether someone else had the same idea before (and if so, how that idea was received by other editors). And not start a new discussion about the same at VPP without linking to the last one on the same topic. I.e.: the last *closed* one; if you'd come here when there's still an open discussion there it would definitely be forum shopping (*unintentional* forum shopping if you didn't take the trouble to look at the policy's talk page, but still something we'd try to avoid, have the same discussion about the same topic in two different places at the same time). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Strong oppose "significant editing histories" has been excluded, which was directly included above. If you want to reduce it to that and that gets passed, i'll turn in my checkuser bit. No way in hell is a new user going to get IPBE without providing a damn good reason for it. And i've only picked that single part out of more issues. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC) My apologies. That was 'not' omitted on purpose. I was in a hurry when I typed up this section and clearly I should have waited until such time when i was not. Comment Clearly I have made a mis-step. My intention was to come up with some verbiage that we could put on the IPBE page. I didn't expect everyone here to like it but I figured we could make more revisions and come up with something better, much like we did with the original proposal. I'm sorry. It wasn't my intention to sink my own proposal. --*Kat* (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC) For clarity, continue to oppose the proposal after it was updated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Oppose In addition to my comments above, m:No open proxies is a global policy. Therefore I do not support expanded usage of VPN's.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC) The Meta policy doesn't prohibit editors from receiving IPBE in order to edit via proxy, and it explicitly states that "legitimate users . . . are not the intended targets" of proxy blocks. Rebbing 17:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC) @Rebbing: But it does give reasons for why open proxies are generally not allowed and why IP block exemption should be granted on a need, not a want, basis.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Support. Several of the reasons given for opposition don't hold water. @Rebbing: it is up to people at Meta to try to interpret their policy in a way to make some claim against this one based on it, and only after discussions there that, even if they find that, might choose to modify that policy not to conflict this one. We are making up our minds now and if they want to try to override us that is their crusade to fight. @DeltaQuad: "significant edit history" may not occur, but "a significant history of positive contributions" is actually more demanding. And as for whether there have been previous discussions -- we have seen that "consensus can change", too often for worse but in this case it could be for better. Wnt (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC) I didn't propose that new wording. I'm fine with the basic significant editing history, so i'm not sure why I was pinged. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Oppose as this would undoubtedly increase the burden on CUs per DeltaQuad. I'd prefer not to exacerbate the already difficult task of sockpuppet investigations by muddying the waters. (If a number of CUs voice the opposite to my assumption I would be happy to switch my !vote). --Majora (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

More discussion

Clearly I was wrong to try and draft a new policy. Or perhaps the big mistake was in trying to pound out a draft in the six minutes that were available to me before I left for work. Regardless it was a mistake. One made in good faith, but a mistake none the less. I apologize for contributing to the derailment of this discussion.--*Kat* (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• @*Kat*: previously I suggested you to take a look at these prior discussions:
  • Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#Less restrictive IPBE RFC (February 2016)
  • Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#Proposals for RfC (February-March 2016)
  • Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#RfC: Grant exemptions to users in good standing on request (May–July 2016)
  • Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#RfC: Automatically grant IPBE to users by proof of work alone (May–June 2016)

I still didn't see any reactions of yours to that closed talk page content (unless if I missed something). I'd be happy to know what you think. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've read the entire talk page. It seems that there is pretty broad support (if not a true concensus) for the IPBE guidelines to be relaxed. However, the actual proposals to do so have all been rejected as too broad or too complex (although technically that one was SNOWed). Having read through the opposition's remarks for all of the proposals, I get the feeling that no proposal to relax IPBE would achieve consensus -- on that page, at least. --*Kat* (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hence my proposal not to come to WP:VPP with this issue again prior to reaching a rough consensus with the Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption regulars (there's a technical & general WikiMedia protection strategy angle to this that prevents any change without having the CU and related type of editors on board). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm hoping there won't be a "next time". If you look at the Restart section you will see where quite a few people (approx 66%) agree that merely wanting to use VPN shouldn't be a barrier to being granted a IPBE. What we lack is agreement on how the new policy should be worded. --*Kat* (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Nah, in my appreciation the current WP:VPP discussion(s) on this topic is/are going nowhere, for lack of solid basis. So, whatever is debated and/or preferred here, the looks of it are that it won't lead to anything in terms of policy change while nor the current CU editors (on a local level) nor those responsible for WikiMedia's broader protection strategies are on board. Elegant way of saying: time sink, don't get your hopes up for change where it seems extremely unlikely. I'd have closed the whole thread on this basis if I hadn't been involved in these discussions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Italicizing article titles

A discussion is underway at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Words as words about elaborating on the policy under WP:ITALICTITLE to specifically mention "words as words" as an instance of where italics are used in running text, and should therefore be used in article titles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC on use of WP:OUTCOMES in deletion discussions

The recent RFC on notability of secondary schools[26] was closed with a finding of 4 keys points, the second of which was that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning.

Since this principle has been accepted, then why should it be applied only to schools? Exactly the same problem of circular reasoning applies to use of WP:OUTCOMES in every other deletion discussion, from astronauts to zoology. The principle is already set out at WP:OUTCOMES#Citing_this_page_in_AfD, but has not been carried through to WP:ATA.

WP:OUTCOMES as a whole should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES Survey

• Support as proposer. The articles considered in past discussions may have involved a different set of factors, and a broad summary of the outcomes of previous discussions does not help editors analyse the topic under discussion.
  Deletion decisions should be made on the basis of policy and guidelines, rather than on the basis of some editors's assessment of previous discussions. WP:OUTCOMES#Citing_this_page_in_AfD already provides an eloquent explanation of the circularity of using it at AFD, so WP:ATA should be updated to relect that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support- I agree completely. Reyk _YO! 06:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. For one thing, if you nominate a page for deletion, it's your responsibility to explain why it should get a different result from past AFDs for similar subjects: hitting someone over the head with "oh, no, you can't say that, we have a rule!" is something that needs to get you sanctions, not something we should be encouraging. For another thing, see rule creep; we have far too many rules already, and creating yet another one to stifle discussion is unhelpful. Thirdly, policies/guidelines must be derived from what the community's already doing as a best practice: you're trying to prohibit an established practice, not trying to write up what's already being generally done. Nyttend (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nyttend: one the key purposes of RFCs is to seek community consensus on whether to change a established practice. In this case, the document itself deprecates its own usage in this way, and a recent RFC has already found community support for that principle.
    There is no rule creep, because the rule already exists, just not in the most accessible place ... and saying "that's an irrelevant argument" does not equate to hitting anyone over the head. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support OUTCOMES should be part of WP:BEFORE's advice prior to filing an AFD, but nearly all the single pieces of advice in OUTCOMES are non-starting AFD arguments (the catch22 identified in the SCHOOLOUTCOMES closure). --MASEM (t) 07:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Well "Since this principle has been accepted" isn't really true. I just read the RfC, and was closed wrong. It looks like the person(s) closing didn't bother to look at the numbers (if they did, they didn't mention it) and the numbers were about even (actually exactly 46-46 by my count). It's always been true that if you have a proposition to change something, and you have a good quorum (90+ people here), and its fifty-fifty, then the presumption is you don't have consensus to change it. You need a supermajority. In some cases an exception is made for strength of argument -- pretty rarely, but sometimes -- but on this count the person(s) closing wrote "Some arguments, such as [various cogent arguments] do not make much sense and were discounted", which I guess is honest -- "we couldn't understand a lot of the arguments, so we ignored them" -- but not useful beyond that. Since the RfC was closed wrong, I wouldn't pay much attention to it. Herostratus (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • How ironic. If you had read the entire close, you would have seen that the closing panel—comprised of three sysops and an experienced editor—actually did look at the numbers: it's mentioned in the second sentence of the closing statement. Your argument fails on the merits because the RFC did not change the previous consensus, which, as stated at WP:NSCHOOLS and WP:ORGSIG, is that schools are not presumed notable and must, like most subjects, meet GNG or ORG to be included. If you have a problem with the close, you know where to take it; refusing to acknowledge it is not a legitimate option. Rebbing 15:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose:
  • "We have discussed this issue so often, always with the same result, why would this new discussion on the same issue be any different?" is a valid rationale, not only underlying WP:OUTCOMES, but also, for instance, WP:PERENNIAL, or a wide variety of WP:SNOW closures of discussions.
  • On the other hand, if such rationale is used, it is nearly impossible to break out of the circle, and truly test whether the consensus may have changed on the particular issue. That was the result of the SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC: on that particular issue the discussion is again open, and the circular argument of "see earlier discussions" can no longer be used.

Thus I oppose to expand that change of appreciation, which by the RfC is only applicable to SCHOOLOUTCOMES, to other topics – at least an RfC is needed for every specific topic of OUTCOMES (or PERENNIAL) to declare it open again for a new WP:CCC appreciation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: Consensus can change, but that needs to be done in a more public discussion. While that is not happening, past discussions can be used as a pretty good idea of what the outcome should be. Agathoclea (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Sometimes OUTCOMES is an excellent argument to use. If I think in any particular case what the essay says is valid and if I wish to preserve continuity of outcome and a generally collegial spirit then I should not be advised otherwise. Although many people at XFD like to have a good argument, others merely want to keep what is valuable and get rid of what is harmful – precedent is a valid consideration. Thincat (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Undecided The problem is not that people cite OUTCOMES in at AFD, its that they cite OUTCOMES with the circular reasoning identified by the School issue. The underlying arguments listed at OUTCOMES for other subjects are *good* arguments to make in an AFD. Only people dont do that, they just say 'per OUTCOMES' etc and leave it at that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:OUTCOMES can be both a good argument and a bad argument, depending on what point is being made and why. Consensus can change, but it is up to the person wanting to change the consensus to explain why it should, and equally if someone proposes that the general consensus should not apply in this instance it is up to them to explain why that should be the case. Referencing WP:OUTCOMES is often a good way to make someone aware of what the current consensus is, and in many cases why the current consensus exists. The blanket statement proposed in this RfC would therefore remove both correct and incorrect uses of WP:OUTCOMES hindering at least as many discussions as it would assist, so I am unable to support it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. As stated at the outset, the school outcomes RfC resulted in four key points, yet the proposal goes on as if there was only one key point! This is a distortion, reducing a nuanced decision to one simple sledgehammer rule. Secondly, WP:OUTCOMES does not in most cases suggest an umbrella outcome (such as the suggestion that high schools are generally notable). It can be helpful to provide at least a starting point or one resource for editors to analyze an article or a topic. A policy that any mention of the essay be immediately disregarded is unhelpful and unnecessary. It is the role of the person closing an RfC to balance the views presented. In their consideration of the discussion, they are able to review policy, guidelines and essays, and weight the arguments appropriately in reaching a decision. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as circular. The RfC-close stricture against mentioning WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in school AfDs is already mind-numbingly circular (and ill-considered in my mind). Softlavender (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Not that I necessarily disagree with the opposition here, but I was surprised to see "circular" attributed to something intended to head off circular reasoning. Could you elaborate? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I find the current wording of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES circular, in that it now contains more info about what to do and what not to do at AfD, but says not to use it. If that isn't circularity, I don't know what is. Softlavender (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
      • It's why OUTCOMES as a whole is a step to review prior to nomination at AFD, eg part of BEFORE, where all that information is valid. It's just that per the RFC you should not simply rest your AFD !vote on SCHOOLOUTCOMES as it has been abused in the past. And nearly all other statements in OUTCOMES are used as SCHOOLOUTCOMES was, to argue at AFD rather than a pre-AFD consideration. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
        • It doesn't say 'don't rest your !vote' on SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it says avoid mentioning it altogether in AfDs, while at the same time it makes all kinds of statements that are important and relevant to AfD discussions (not just to BEFORE) in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Leaning weak oppose as presented. I think to find consensus for this, wording is really important, acknowledging that WP:OUTCOMES can be a reasonable thing to bring up at AfD, but that there's a particular way of using it that shouldn't be used. The phrasing at WP:LASTTIME leaves room for these two kinds of usage, for example. I also like Masem's idea of including information about outcomes at WP:BEFORE, perhaps at the same time. Ultimately, however, I haven't seen widespread misuse of other parts of WP:OUTCOMES and subsequent backlash against it for anything other than schools. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

For those opposing this (that is, they do not want to see OUTCOMES broadly listed at ATA), I would ask if you can point to any specific aspect of OUTCOMES that is a valid AFD point that does not put any weight on past AFD discussions/OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type argues, the same type of issue of why SCHOOLOUTCOMES was considered circular logic from that RFC. In my read of the other points in OUTCOMES besides schools, all the points seem completely circular to me, putting weight on the results of past AFD rather than any compelling reason (such as meeting notability guidelines) that they are kept. As noted in this survey, even OUTCOMES says it is not to be used as an argument at AFD, so I find it odd that there's opposing to simply formalizing it at ATA. (Again as per my !vote, OUTCOMES is good advice for BEFORE, but AFD should not rest its weight on OUTCOMES). --MASEM (t) 14:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

PD- Copyright templates for public domain files

At present there are a considerable number of nominations at WP:TFD to delete unused public domain licensing templates on the grounds that they are unused and that PD files should be uploaded to commons in future. Several editors have been making these nominations and some are in batches. So far as I know there is not a policy disallowing upload here but there is certainly a preference for commons and files may normally be moved there from here. Some templates are being kept and others deleted. Sometimes there are objective reasons for treating templates differently, other times it seems to be a matter of who turns up. A particular aspect is for files temporarily transferred here from commons for protection purposes. A broader view could be useful. Note these templates start "Template:PD-". Thincat (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that these templates should be kept as long as they could be used, even if they are not currently used. There are plenty of editors who avoid commons, and this just makes their work more difficult for no good reason. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I was trying very hard to word my statement neutrally! Thincat (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

"If it is PD it should be on Commons" is an inaccurate statement Thincat. Commons requires two completely different sets of "free" licenses to be there for it to be acceptable. It needs to be free in the origin country and in the US. Enwiki only cares about the US side of things. That is why we have things like {{PD-ineligible-USOnly}}. Saying that we should delete the template just because it is not in use and it is PD is not helpful as long as it is a legally valid template. Deleting them doesn't serve any real purpose. --Majora (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There were also a whole bunch of older CC templates that were deleted recently. I would certainly support having a centralized discussion on what to do with the whole class of templates, rather than have totally disjointed discussions across various TFD noms. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and (at least arguably) these are templates associated with policies that, even according to WP:TFD should not have been listed there but should indeed have been discussed centrally. 08:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, no. These are a vast number of PD- template deletions, going back at least to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 31. Thincat (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend crafting an RFC on the subject. There's no rush to take care of these templates, one way or the other, and then after we can have community consensus on whether to delete them all, or resurrect the deleted ones. And then never have this discussion again. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point. It hadn't occurred to me that files that are PD in the US may not be so in the source country. The converse is frequent: PD files in the source country remaining in copyright in the US (URAA).Thincat (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

IP Editors as Bot Operators

An RfC regarding the Bot policy is open to determine if non-registered editors may be bot operators. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Are.2Fshould_IPs_be_allowed_to_run_bots.3F. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Pre-RfC on IP Block Exemptions

Proposal withdrawn.
The following discussion has been closed by [[User:Guy Macon (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)|Guy Macon (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)]]. Please do not modify it.
The discussions above (IP Block Exemptions should be expanded to include accounts (5+ years) in good standing) appear to have reached a consensus that the question concerning IPBE needs to be improved. To that end, I am volunteering to post a proper RfC that (I hope) asks the right question. To start the ball rolling. I am going to ask two questions. and use the answers when writing the RfC. QUESTION ONE: Should the existing question(s) be closed while we decide on the wording? Support: as proposer. -Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC) QUESTION TWO: What wording should be the question asked in the new IPBE RfC? Comment: I would suggest responding with Proposed wording: for proposals, Support or Oppose after each proposal, and Comment: for general comments that are not proposals for a specific wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Comment Do we really need a debate on what questions should be asked? Couldn't we draft a policy, put it up for discussion and amend accordingly? --*Kat* (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC) I don't see how. We already drafted a policy, we already put it up for discussion, and we already amended it (in the "restart" section), yet we are no closer to having a wording that most of us agree asks the right question. Far better to try to agree on what the question should be rather than asking new wrong questions again and again. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC) At this point I'd rather see Salvidrim's solution run up the flagpole. If we generally don't do hard range blocks on VPNs, the problem pretty much solves itself. Rangeblocks are something not every admin even knows how to do, so we're talking about a fairly small group that needs to be aware of it and adjust accordingly, and then this issue will pretty much be resolved ermanently without the need for users to make individual requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC) I would be 100% in favor of this approach. It would offer all the advantages of my original proposal with none of the drawbacks.--*Kat* (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC) I was going to wait till I rested to make comment, but tell me, how do we identify a VPN? Because every single webhost or colocation provider can be used as one. So are we setting every single one of those including the ones CUs have seen abuse from, especially spambots and socks with very sensitive (the best word I can find) histories. May I also remind this group that there are active open proxies on those ranges too? Are we really going to undo all that work? This takes an extremely different tone than the proposed RfC above in that the consensus is forming for established. "Should we therefore grant IPBE to users in good standing and with significant editing histories if they desire to use VPNs?" vs. Unblock any editor from using a VPN. Please take care before setting up an RfC that will have highly detrimental effects, and not reflect the existing direction. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Previous RfCs & RfC preparation (at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption): Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#Less restrictive IPBE RFC (February 2016: no result; seems to have been withdrawn) Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#Proposals for RfC (February-March 2016: previous attempt to design questions for an RfC) Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#RfC: Grant exemptions to users in good standing on request (May–July 2016: detailed closure, summarized as "NO CONSENSUS, POLICY UNCHANGED") Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#RfC: Automatically grant IPBE to users by proof of work alone (May–June 2016: SNOW close) So, where is this new discussion going? Is any of the experience of the previous failed RfCs taken into account? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC) From where I stand this seems like an elaborate "going through the motions" exercise, producing reams of text-walls (in content similar to the ones produced less than a year ago), with a more than predictable outcome... can someone explain why & how the new initiative on the same topic would be any different? Maybe better to put a break on it before excessive editor time is further diverted to it (with little more chance to success than less than a year ago)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Please look again. I realize things have gotten off track in the past 24 hours but before that we had a very productive discussion and came to a consensus that VPNs should not prevent registered users in good standing from requesting and receiving an IPBE.--*Kat* (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Oppose both. To be completely honest, I think the time community members are spending on this proposal is better spent editing articles. The current situation basically works, keeps things simple for CheckUsers, and reflects longstanding practice.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Oppose both for now because we have not yet had an RFC on if this RFC is appropriate to have before having the RFC. Holy shit, I think I just turned into an Xzibit meme. --Jayron32 20:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

does winning Grammy awards make one a musician?

There is an IP address, very active in nominating articles for deletion. They recently placed a {{prod}} on Phil Tan, an article about an individual who has won multiple Grammy awards. I asked that nominator to explain why they ignored WP:MUSIC, which explicitly says winning or being nominated for a high-level music award, like the Grammy, was usually a sufficient indication of notability.

The anonymous contributor claimed WP:MUSIC didn't apply, because the Grammy awards were for the quality of his work as a recording engineer. The anonymous contributor claimed being a sound engineer did not make one a musician.

So, does winning Grammy awards qualify one to have their notability evaluated according to the criteria of special purpose music notability guidelines? Geo Swan (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is "Do we have quality source texts about this person's life from which we can research and then write a good enough article". If the answer is yes, we should have an article. If the answer is no, we should not. Articles don't exist about a subject because we can check of an arbitrary box on a checklist. They exist because we have source texts we can use to research and write an article from. I have not even looked at this one person, but you should really ask yourself, before deciding if the article should exist "what is being used to research and then write information about this subject". If the answer is "nothing" or even "not much", then no, don't have an article. --Jayron32 11:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Jayron... However, it is very likely that someone who has won multiple Grammy awards will have sources that discuss him/her... sources we can use to support an article and establish notability. Yes, there could be exceptions to this (artists who are so reclusive that nothing is known about their life), but this would be extremely rare. So... the best way to "defend" the article from deletion, is to do some research. Find the necessary sources, summarize what they say, cite the sources and Improve the article. Blueboar (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• In this particular case this was an old article, dating back to shortly after he won his first two Grammy awards. It measured up to the wikipedia's standards, at the time it was written. At the time it was written, it included a long list of external links, instead of the reference style we use now. We shouldn't delete articles, on notable topics, simply because their reference style is no longer up to date.

  I am very sorry to say it looks like nominator 86.20.193.222 nominated the article for deletion without even bothering to look at those existing references.

  It is not that the references to confirm Tan's notability had to be found. It took me about ten minutes to reformat three of those references to the more modern style. Geo Swan (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32.

Additionally... please note that this person did not 'win grammies'. Some recordings won grammy awards, and he did some of the back-room work on them. Should the person who does Beyoncé's hair have an article, because she won 5 Grammy awards?

But, I digress. As J said, it's all guidelines; what matters is N. I don't think he meets it, which is why I prodded it. I should probably now go to AFD, but that's pretty hard for an IP user to do.

BTW, the reason I nominated it was, a new user whose AFC had been rejected was using it as an example of OTHERSTUFF.

Maybe others can clean the article up, or fix it, or AfD it.

Geo Swan is just grouchy because I CSD'd a hideous mess of copypasta that he created [27]; the 'history' there is a bit screwy, he's made rather a lot of work.

So now, he's stalking my edits to try to get revenge (e.g. Talk:Don_Bosco_Technical_College,_Cebu - deleted now, but he was complaining about me CSD-tagging an utterly blatant spammy copyvio).

Frankly, I can't be bothered getting into such silly discussions these days.

If it's notable, fine, remove the PROD and fix it. The PROD says that on it. If it's not notable, let it go. Who cares. drops stick 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the claim that he was a Grammy Winner... that said, given the sources that are currently in the article, I think the subject is boaderline notable. There is enough sourcing to remove the prod at least. The next step would be an AFD nom. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Opinion polling for the French presidential election, 2017#Embedded links in lieu of inline citations

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Opinion polling for the French presidential election, 2017#Embedded links in lieu of inline citations. Marchjuly (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

RfC: First sentence of bilateral relations articles

As has previously been raised at WT:WPFR, and others have agreed to at WT:LEAD, the current widespread practice of beginning bilateral relations articles with "X–Y relations refers to bilateral relations between X and Y..." is not in compliance with the Manual of Style, specifically WP:BOLDAVOID. It was suggested that an RfC be filed in order to determine how best to address the issue; I'm placing it here as the project talk page doesn't appear to see much activity.

The questions here are:

1. Is there consensus that the above interpretation of the MOS is correct, i.e. such wording should be avoided and a natural sentence without bold text preferred instead?
2. If there is consensus, how should the current bilateral relations articles be dealt with?

Personally I don't think all instances of the construct need to be corrected at once. If there is consensus, editors should be advised of the fact, and corrections can then be made gradually as interested editors go through the articles. Editors should also be advised to refrain from reverting such changes. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment [Pinged by bot] - Certainly, WP:BOLDAVOID asks us to avoid bolding for such phrases. But BOLDAVOID is probably the most violated edict on Wikipedia, and it would be a humongous task to clean up the leads that violate it. Bilateral relations articles are probably the most obvious violations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• I think that you've missed some alternatives. You don't have to use "refers" in such sentences. You could equally begin the article with something like these:
  • "X–Y relations formally began in 1724, when the King of X sent an ambassador to the Queen of Y to form an alliance against pirates from Z" (a statement about their history)
  • "X–Y relations have been tense since 2010 as a result of what scholars call the Tomayto–Tomahto Incident" (the current relationship).
  • "X and Y are each others' most important trading partners, so X–Y relations has long been dominated by pressure to maintain free trading arrangements between the two countries, as both countries' local economies could be plunged into depression by any significant disruption" (a quick summary of long-term issues). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarifying WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES

Hello guys and gals, I have a query or request for policy / guidelines here on Wikipedia to be clarified.

Goal of this discussion

The goal of this discussion is to ascertain if there is consensus to make WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES less confusing and more comprehensible.

Key questions

• Does WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES override or amount to an additional element of WP:GNG?
• Can WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES be used as a set of reasons or logical basis for a delete vote on deletion discussions?
• Does the RfC discussion on school outcomes in February 2017 have any binding elements on editors?
• Why are administrators as shown here still arguing that a school which does not pass WP:GNG can still be included on Wikipedia on the grounds that it is notable for its mere existence?
• Should it be made clearer to editors as to what the editing policy is on establishing the notability of schools?

Discussion outcomes

• To make the guidelines on assessing School notability clearer and more comprehensible for editors.
• If necessary, implement guidance on WP Guideline/essay/policy pages related to school notability which directs an editors attention to the most relevant policy for establishing school notability.
• To gain consensus on if or not school outcomes should be made less confusing and more comprehensible to editors.

Side note and conclusion I have not been actively involved in any of the SCHOOLOUTCOMES debates thus far and want to make it clear that I am not trying to seek to overturn or even edit the conclusions of those previous debates. The mere purpose of this proposal to clarify is so that editors like myself are able to better understand which policies are in play with respect to determining school notability.

Informing editors of this debate ^{These editors have all been involved in recent and relevant discussions about WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES}

• @Shawn in Montreal:
• @Necrothesp:
• @Tazerdadog:
• @Primefac:
• @The Wordsmith:
• @Someguy1221:
• @Cullen328:
• @King of Hearts:

The size of the ping list is beyond practical. If editors would like to ping in previous discussion contributors, it would help.

Thank you →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 03:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging Masem, Kudpung, Jbhunley, and Cordless Larry. There are many editors who were involved, but I know that these four had a part in planning the RfC or its aftermath. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• The cynic in me wants to say you're here because you're annoyed that an admin disagrees with you in an AFD. For the record (on the off chance the original RFC gets archived), here's the outcome:

I believe that answers the first three (and the most important) of your bullet points. As for the rest - people are allowed to !vote however they want. A !vote of nothing more than "keep" is still a vote, even though it won't be counted. You're welcome to request clarification from an editor, but you cannot change their opinions. If someone feels a school is inherently notable simply because it exists, then they are allowed that opinion. The consensus/majority may decide otherwise, but that's how debate works. Primefac (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I will say that this was something of a wacky RFC. In addition to support and oppose having no correlation to the opinion that followed each !vote, this was a rejection of a guideline that would have formalized SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which got closed as a narrow rejection of SCHOOLOUTCOMES itself. I think we got the close right, which would empower any admin closing an AFD to simply disregard AFD votes based on that premise. I agree with primefac, there is no policy that voters have to avoid bad arguments, but admins are supposed to consider policy/guidelines when closing an AFD. I had actually wanted a followup RFC to clarify the original - I suspect there would be support in the community to make some types of secondary schools notable by default, since much of the opposition to SCHOOLOUTCOMES was based on its being overbroad. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment @Primefac: @Someguy1221: Okay, there seems to be a problem here and that is a fundamental issue of understanding that some editors (especially inexperienced ones including myself) find it exceptionally confusing when a conclusion for an RfC states "SCHOOLOUTCOMES" should be added to a list of arguments to avoid making in AfDs yet on the other hand asserts something as an editing guideline such as "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Furthermore, a summery of this RfC is posted raw on the SCHOOLOUTCOMES page without any explanation so it reads like an inherent contradiction. Firstly it basically amounts to saying "arguments on this page should be avoided on AfDs" yet on the other hand it infers an editing guideline like "schools should not be presumed notable simply because they exist." Given that generally, as Someguy has said, admins are supposed to consider policy/guidelines when closing AfD's how can they consider something which asserts itself as an editing guideline which is listed on a page and in the same breath as saying "you should avoid using this argument on an AfD." It just makes no sense to me. Furthermore, I have absolutely no idea which guideline is supposed to be used to determine school notability in the first place, and that SCHOOLOUTCOMES just makes it even more confusing. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 03:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment @Primefac: @Someguy1221:

Furthermore, I have profound respect for consensus. However, in this case, there is no clearly defined summery of consensus on the issue of how to determine school notability. When I nominate an article for deletion, I hope to do so as informed as possible about the guidelines and policies for editing because otherwise it’s simply asking people for their subjective opinions on if an article should be deleted or not. The article, Yeshivat Shaare Torah is a veritable example of how the policies and guidelines contradict each other. Firstly, there are no sources about this school other than self-published thus it would be non-notable per WP:GNG. Furthermore, it is a company, as it is a for profit school, and thus theoretically would qualify for speedy delete under non-notable company/organization. However, as a school it seems to gain a “special status”, it seemingly does not need to pass GNG or company guidelines for notability. Therefore, one would refer to a guideline specifically for schools, which is supposed to exist in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. However, this essay now states it should not be used in AfD debates so what can an editor refer to regarding assessing notability of a school? If GNG and CSD does not apply to schools then what does? And can this be made clearer if there is indeed a relevant guideline / policy that does in fact apply to schools? Furthermore, is the statement associated with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that reads “secondary schools should not be assumed notable merely because they exist” an editing guideline or not and if it is why is it not written into CSD criteria or GNG?

I realize that there is some attempt to design an outcome here which does not open the floodgates for deletion requests for a wide array of schools and as someone who is a judicial minimalist, I fully understand it. However, there is a difference between trying to avoid frivolous deletion requests and completely undermining a procedure by use of contradictory imposition, that is the intensification of a burden for those who follow a procedure rather than the proper opposite. There is a minimalist way to demonstrate the points raised in the RfC closure, which balances the need to establish notability for schools with the need to prevent frolicsome deletion requests, however, the current format does not do that. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 05:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see what the problem is. As far as I'm concerned, and as far as I believe was intended, the RFC closure is only meant to discourage arguments based on common outcomes from being used in AFDs on secondary schools, not to disregard all policies and guidelines. N, ORG and GEO would still apply. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: Well you see the problem which is getting me is that un-involved editors might not even be aware that there is a history of arguments based on common outcomes or even if they are aware they, just as I did, read SCHOOLOUTCOMES as is presented. This is what :::I got from reading SCHOOLOUTCOMES:

• Secondary schools are not to be presumed notable simply because they exist
• SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be avoided in AfD debates
• The first point I noted above is listed on SCHOOLOUTCOMES thus should also be avoided in AfD debates
• Notability guidelines like N ORG GEO should be considered as guidelines for school notability

I found myself with a rather simple but compelling question: "Does the point that secondary schools are not to be presumed notable simply because they exist classify as an argument to be avoided in AfD's and are schools classified as notable geographical locations simply because they exist as would be inferred by GEO (WP:GEOLAND Populated, legally recognized places') but contradicted by the aforementioned statement about secondary school notability." I personally absolutely agree that just because a secondary school exists it does not or should not create a presumption of notability, however, I just do not think this is made clear by the context it has been asserted in. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 05:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The process of closing the RFC did not include adding the RFC to SCHOOLOUTCOMES itself. That change was made by @Jbhunley:, who was not one of the closers. It looked fine to me at the time, but I didn't see it the way you do, which is completely reasonable, and that page should probably be clarified - the RFC closure was never meant to be self-referential. Regarding GEO, that is not the way to read it. A 'legally recognized place' is to be read in the context of a populated place - legal recognition would constitute a postal code, state-recognized local government, or a census designation. Some schools do have permanent residents and even a postal code, and may qualify under that, but that's not typical. The "building" section of GEO seems more likely to be relevant. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The statement that "Secondary schools are not to be presumed notable simply because they exist." is correct according to my interpretation of consensus, and should be brought up at an AFD if it is relevant. The wording of the relevant policies/guidelines/essays should be updated to reflect this. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The only argument that we found consensus in the RFC to discourage at AFD was the circular argument "We should keep this secondary school because we always keep secondary schools. Many of the arguments in the AFD cited above are of this form, and should be at least partially discounted when the AFD is closed. All of the policies that apply to the rest of Wikipedia apply to articles on secondary schools. The other major effect of the RFC as far as an AFD is concerned is the need to dig more deeply than usual in order to check whether the GNG has been met. The minimum bar for this check is that it went beyond an internet search, and included some local print media. This search has not occurred to my knowledge in the specific AFD cited above, and would need to occur before the article is deleted on notability grounds. I hope this clarifies things to some extent. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've made a bold change to how the RFC was presented on the OUTCOMES page, to hopefully avoid this confusion in the future. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)`

  @Someguy1221: Thank you :D that seems to make it a lot clearer. This said I think the points raised in the RfC and the establishment of the principles in the closing are so significant that they should have wider exposure, perhaps integration into articles on notability which are commonly referenced in school AfD's for example GNG, ORG N, GEO N etc. The final point about offline sources seems impractical and unless there is a procedure established for requesting, gaining and knowing the progress of finding offline sources the process could go on indefinitely. I think that perhaps it should be less broad and have time limitations imposed. Furthermore, the request for offline sources to be found should have a broad presence on an article so that readers, interested parties and other editors have the information that offline sources are needed in the first instance. Furthermore, I think there should be more clarity on if the finding of offline sources apply to public schools or for profit schools, as technically speaking for profit schools would qualify for companies and there is a substantial risk of Wikipedia being used as a platform for advertising. Especially in cases of very small private schools which seek merely exposure on Wikipedia for whatever reason. I think that finding offline sources should not counteract or overrule the CSD criterion on advertisement or non-notable companies and it should be perhaps clarified in some way that for-profit schools are in fact companies and thus should be treated as such. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 06:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Someguy1221: In practice, here is an example. The article Yeshivat Shaare Torah which documents a school with 60 half day seats meaning 60 students. The Wikipedia page itself is viewed 8 times as a daily average which goes to show something about its notability in of itself. The article itself does not assert anything that would be notable per WP:GNG nor do the self-published sources on the page. The only conceivable reason this would be on Wikipedia would be for purposes of legitimising its presence as a school and likely some form of venue to advertise it. This is a for profit school (company) and the fact one would have to find offline sources per the current situation makes no sense and merely makes it more difficult to stop Wikipedia from being used to advertise things. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 06:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

In truth, the statement that editors should consider the possibility of offline sources is nothing new - that is supposed to happen at the AFD of any article in any topic area, if the deletion is proposed on the grounds of lack of notability. It was emphasized in this case due to the specific concerns by many participants in the RFC. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• No article should be allowed to stand if reliable sources could not be produced that can be used to fill the article with content. No article for which such sources exist should be deleted. I'm not sure why this is complicated. --Jayron32 12:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

What makes it complicated is the presumption that sources exist. This can be taken to extremes... where those who question the notability of a school must jump through hoops to "prove" the negative... to "prove" that sources don't in fact exist. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Which is why we already had an RFC on this end, which definitively showed that the community rejected the notion that you are complaining about. We already fixed the problem. Move on. --Jayron32 13:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: What Blueboar has said makes sense and I can further expand to say that a presumption of reliable sources is equivocal to a presumption of notability. The obscure nature of the issue of presumed existence of sources is particularly troublesome with schools... How the hell can you prove with absolute certainty that no sources exist and furthermore, if they do exist they could as well only inherit notability. This whole lot is completely confusing and frankly it is a disgraceful mess... I have never seen policy or guidelines so obscure and contradictory in my entire life and that is saying something. As a strictly personal opinion, if this issue is a problem for me as a Lawyer then it sure as hell will be an issue for new editors on Wikipedia. While I appreciate the need to increase content on Wikipedia its vitally important that editors can clearly understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines without there being contradictions. This goes far beyond school guidelines and extends to the entirety of the guidelines and policies here on Wikipedia.They are de-centralised, it is not clear if they are in fact binding or not and administrators seem to selectively pick and chose which policies / guidelines best apply to their own beliefs.... this is not what policy or guidelines are supposed to be for. I am frankly sick of seeing [[WP:]] policy links spread everywhere and never getting a clear understanding of if they actually apply or not... in fact its almost a mockery of Wikipedia, it makes me feel that the project itself is not professional and it ought to be. As Wikipedia progresses into the future it becomes apparent to me that bombarding the younger generations with a fuck tonne of policy and guidelines without a clear tone or them even being followed universally is utterly destructive. We need to delete content and make sure content is notable because otherwise WP will become a list of crap and nothing more or less... Policies are unclear.... Guidelines are unclear.... If I want to create a new article I know that I need sources and am afraid to not provide 100's of them to back up my points...... This is how it should be. Not a free-for-all of contradictory principles that admins don't even have to follow. What is the point in even having any policies if Administrators can elect if to apply them or not? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 14:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Look, if people are arguing with you about these matters, here's the trump card. Make the following statement and then watch them squirm when they have no response "Where does the content of this article come from?" If their answer is "Here are all the sources we used" then fine. If they answer is <crickets>, then delete the article. Wringing our hands because people are stupid is useless. Delete it, ignore the stupidity, and move on. --Jayron32 15:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• To clarify My central points are these (to the above comment.) And the problem won't go away unless its addressed its that simple:

• Are guidelines just that. Do they have any binding authority or can editors actually disregard them.
• Are policies actually policies? In that they must be followed. Can administrators close an AfD as keep even if consensus is to keep in spite of a member of the discussion having proven the article should be removed per a policy.
• Presuming reliable sources exist is presuming notability exists and does this not contradict the need for an article to establish notability.
• How can someone prove a negative such as no sources exist especially offline sources.
• Why does policy exist if administrators can elect to enforce them or not.
• Why can't the sum of policies and guidelines be streamlined and made into a quick and easy to read "do's and do not's of Wikipedia" so that new editors don't have to be bothered to read copious amounts of policies and guidelines just to make a contribution that will stay on Wikipedia.

→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 15:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have to be able to deal with much uncertainty, here. "Why is Wikipedia a hot mess?" Well, there are many reasons, but just try to hold onto when it's not and make improvements where you can. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Alanscottwalker: @Jayron32: I do feel bad about bringing “the shit out of the woodwork” because I do like Wikipedia. But at the same time, it is important to sustain it. There has recently been a significant decrease in new editors signing up for the project and it wouldn’t be so farfetched to say that it could in part come down to how policies and guidelines here are implemented and displayed. I find that when you keep getting policies and guidelines screamed at you from every corner yet on the other hand you have what are supposed to be experienced administrators justifying inherited notability or even contradicting core so called content policies you begin to not even take notice of policies. At this point one begins to have less faith in administrators overall, this is despite the fact I have met some wonderful ones. Additionally, new editors must be absolutely daunted by those policy / guidelines, I mean not everyone is so clued up and I think we need to make Wikipedia inclusive for them people as well. It just strikes me as fundamentally unfair that being a Wikipedia editor seems to be about being picked apart rather than collaborating to make things work. I am tired of arguing points with editors and having policies which are not even upheld by administrators to fall back on. I’d also love to see Wikipedia be more inviting to those who show less intellectual prowess but can offer a wider variety of views on things, this can’t be done if Wikipedia is all about reading and applying content guidelines and policies which take a genius to decipher. Sometimes when I come on here I honestly feel like I am in a club of geniuses who want to do everything to keep out anyone who is not part of that club. There is a place on Wikipedia for naivety, as it breeds creativity, there is a place for geniuses as it breeds factuality but more importantly there should be a place for both to work collaboratively to improve Wikipedia. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 15:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• YES YES YES. That's why for 10 years I've been consistently demanding WP:42 or nothing. Every stupid, extra, subject-specific notability guideline just confuses the hell out of the core problem. The ONLY thing we should ever ask for when there is a dispute over whether or not an article is appropriate is "Show me the sources". That should be the ONLY question EVER at Wikipedia, TBH. If we just reduced ALL deletion discussions to one simple rule: Show me the sources, then new editors wouldn't get so overwhelmed with all of the instruction creep. --Jayron32 16:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It's probably just too organic for all that -- my best advice, generally try for small incremental changes here and there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• The RfC close was overreach beyond declaring no consensus for the proposition, put forward. Being not that interested in schools, it makes little sense to contest that overreach, but let's hope such overreach does not continue from these closers, if they are to continue closing things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Even the the most fundamental structural of wp:notability is ambiguous. Do you have to just meet one of WP:GNG or wp:SNG (in which case the the SNG can override GNG on the side of inclusion), or must one meet both (in which case the SNG can override GNG on the side of exclusion). Wikipedia (mostly) makes this work in it's usual way....sort of a fuzzy combination implemented in a fuzzy manner, and I don't mean that in a negative way.

IMHO the goal of WP:Notability is (vaguely) to apply requirement for the existence of articles, probably a combination or real-world notability and how encyclopedic the topic is. And at the core of that solution is the "suitable coverage" criteria which is IMO the best choice. But then there are two big problems with this metric which I think that all of the tens of thousands of words of GNG and SNG's are trying to deal with:

• The proportion of WP:suitable coverage in WP:RS's in proportion to real article-suitability varies wildly. My son's grade-school football team probably has 20 times am much coverage in wp:RS's than most of the plant and animal species which an encyclopedia should cover, but my son's team shoudl probably not be in Wikipedia.
• Some fields are far more prone to people hammering the system to get some article included, e.g. for commercial or fandom reasons.

I don't know the answer but I suspect it is to make GNG the center of things, and evolve some new metrics into it to handle the above goals and issues, and then, someday years in the future, phase out SNG's. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think the best solution here is to start a separate RFC that cannot end in a "no consensus" decision, of whether WP:NORG (or a new NSCHOOLS) should establish subject-specific guidelines that presume any secondary-school (with any cavaets like for-profit schools) is notable (aka codifying SCHOOLOUTCOMES into notability guidelines), or eliminate SCHOOLOUTCOMES altogether, and making sure NORG reflects that secondary-schools are expected to meet the GNG. Predicated on this is that with the latter outcome, there will be a grandfathering clause to prevent mass deletion of schools for at least 6 months to a year to avoid the fait accompli issue. This discussion would need to focus on the biggest issue about schools: how appropriate are local sources to be used for notability evaluation, within the scope of NORG. (don't answer that now, I'm just framing what this discussion should be about). Key to recognize is that the status quo of letting SCHOOLOUTCOMES stay just doesn't work, and either we should bite the bullet to promote it to a notability guideline or eliminate it. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  WP:AUD is pretty gosh-darn clear about how local sources should be used (and perhaps WP:N should reflect that clarity): The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. --Izno (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, AUD exists but it is often seemingly ignored when people say a secondary school meets notability guidelines. Several examples in the previous SCHOOLOUTCOMES RFC were presented of well-sourced articles that relied solely on local sources, yet editors considered them acceptable for notability. This also is part of the systematic bias around school notability that favors US + European schools over other parts of the world, that should be part of this discussion to understand if we can actually craft a notability guideline for schools. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  I agree with Masem that a follow-up RfC is needed. If someone can get a US/European high school deleted through AfD currently, I will publicly eat my hat. The systemic bias concerns were noted in close, and I think moving towards a notability guideline that takes in the concerns of people on both sides of the recent RfC is necessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, this discussion has been badly contaminated by a series of falsehoods that Wiki-Coffee has been spreading about Yeshivat Shaare Torah, both here and at its Articles for Deletion debate. This editor has stated the school's enrollment is 60 half day students. That is false. The fact is that this organization operates a preschool program, a boys elementary school, a girls elementary school, a boys high school and a girls high school, with a combined enrollment of well over 1000 students. The editor claims that it is a profit making business. That is false. The organization is a registered tax exempt non-profit educational group. The editor claims that the only sources available about the organization are self published. That is false. I have added eleven independent references which verify the claims made in the article. Anyone who wants to cite Yeshivat Shaare Torah as an example of why we need to delete articles about secondary schools should rethink their position. Instead, it is an example of failure to properly research the topic before nominating an article for deletion, and a willingness to rely on falsehoods in an enthusiastic drive to delete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Sighs Okay while you are on a Witch hunt and clearly not assuming good faith, I have been busy with other things. Now to address this issue:

• 60 students - source
• The source you provided here says it's name is YESHIVA SHAARE TORAH INC. In the United Kingdom Incorporated companies are different from charities and have a completely separate registration process and are separate legal entities. I am from the UK so I go by that, If I am wrong about this and in the USA Incorporated companies can still be charities then I apologise.

Finally, how does this have anything to do with my nomination reason for this article? Have you read it? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 02:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

60 students in their pre-kindergarten program (for 4 year olds), not the entire organization. Yes, it's a private school, nobody is disputing that. The alternative is a government school, which is incompatible with it being religious... but did you notice you linked to a tertiary college that awards a 4-year bachelor's degree? So, probably not the same as the program for toddlers, right? Plus it says the type of school is "Private not-for-profit," which contradicts your assertion that it is for-profit. Finally, in the US, registered charities are required to be incorporated. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Jacknstock: Hmmm I did not realise that the link for tuition fees was to a completely different institution. The name is so similar I couldn't tell. It came up on a google search must have been that pesky auto search thing. Yeh, in the UK incorporated companies are completely separate entities from registered charities. Thank you for the heads up.→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 02:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Wiki-Coffee, my "witch hunt" is in favor of truth and against falsehood. That is because I am an encyclopedist. I happily assume good faith on your part, but the evidence here shows that your research regarding this matter was sloppy. You may well be a fine fellow but you made significant mistakes here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC - The creation of a simplified and unified policy document for editing Wikipedia

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.

---

Ladies and Gentlemen, there comes a time in the progress of any establishment from Wikipedia to Sovereign States that those whom govern it must either adapt or slowly whither and eventually die. Each one of us is responsible for our own decisions and we must forever live with their consequences be those actions Online or not. The reality is, Wikipedia is a place of knowledge for millions worldwide, a pinnacle of free speech and sometimes the only access to free and uncensored documents a person has. We, each one of us, play an important and equal role in sustaining this great project not just for today but for generations to come. Those who sit on their responsibilities while knowing true in their conscious that something must be done to alter a clear and infallible destruction of one’s own cause are guilty of nothing but cowardice. While realities sometimes give, us displeasure they must at all costs be confronted, never should the desire for ignorance commandeer one’s path. What we are faced with is nothing short of a road for disaster, new editors signing up for Wikipedia are at an all-time low yet article creation continues to grow. Eventually we will confront a situation which there will be not enough editors to keep articles updated, let alone build them and perform other tasks. If we are each true to our own experiences, surely many of us will find that this burden is already becoming apparent.

In the face of this impending tragedy we will each make a choice on what we want the record of history to say. Do we want Wikipedia to be consigned to the books of history having not fought for keeping what we have worked so hard to create? Or do we want to take a stand now and turn this ship around, do we want to work together on letting the historic record show that Wikipedia pioneered new and innovative collaboration which resulted in its thriving. Each one of us is entrusted with this wonderful masterpiece of human ingenuity, however, we must adapt to thrive. We can either continue to identify problems and seek solace in inaction by justifying it or we can accept them as problems we must change.

As the founders of the great United States said, we must never grow complacent. If our hands are forced we must act otherwise we will become nothing.

Therefore, to begin this Wiki-Revolution of sorts I hereby propose a notion which would completely change the game. My proposition is that we immediately move to implement a streamlined policy for the editing, creation and deletion of articles on the English Wikipedia. A policy that is colourful, interactive and understandable to the common new editor. A policy that fits into one WP: article. This proposal merely seeks to set in motion the creation of such a policy rather than discuss the contents of it and thus is it important that now we keep to the discussion at hand as to if this type of one page policy should exist. The reason for this suggestion is very simple, editors are being put off by the complexity of policies on Wikipedia and they currently foster an environment of arguments between editors about which policy supports their notion and which does not rather than maintain a clear a decisive document which can or should be agreed by all who use Wikipedia. Finally, we may move united together against what should be a common enemy, the tyranny of bureaucracy.

If we do not act now then when will we act, and by this time will bureaucracy and adversarial policies have gotten the better of us. Remember also that now we have room to test things and see if they work but I say it is not a time to stand idle and be complacent.

Long live the simple Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia anyone can and should feel happy edit.

@Jayron32: From previous related discussion.

→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Points simplified

• New editors registering for Wikipedia are at an all time low however demand for new articles increases. Thus creating a situation that we will have not enough editors to maintain the Wikipedia in any orderly fashion.
• Combating the aforementioned issue can be difficult and requires people to make hard choices.
• The current amount of policies and guidelines are contributing to the lack of new editors.
• Policies and guidelines as they stand are used to foster conflict between editors who are trying to better each other based on which policies they can use rather than concentrate on making Wikipedia better.
• The adversarial environment created by the current system of guidelines and policies effects new editor intake.
• To combat the issues above I propose the creation of a single policy document which unifies all policies in a streamlined way. This new document should be colourful and easily read by new editors with all ranges of intelligence.
• The request for comment is not about the content of such a page but is merely to initiate the process of creating it.

Comments

• I fell asleeep trying to read this, think you might try and sum it up a bit, this is a terrible way to start an RFC. See my essay on RFCs for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed. The first three paragraphs could just be removed for a start. To the point of what you're proposing, you don't need an RfC to write a policy/guideline overview page, just go ahead and do so, though I suspect they've already been written. If you're proposing actually simplifying existing policies and guidelines, you're going to need to propose specific changes you think can be made or this isn't going to go anywhere. Sam Walton (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Samwalton9: I am just going to be brutally honest. The current situation of throwing around policy links left right and centre to justify ones points is unacceptable. I get WP:GNG here get WP:GEO there and anything that could ever possibly mentioned. People just normally don't have the time to even read them let alone anything else. New editors will just find Wikipedia boring unless they are somewhat addicted to policy reading after a short time. I just don't know why Wikipedia can't get with the program you know the world is moving on for gods sake... it's not exactly the hip or rave place to be and edit and I think it could and should be.... I mean who actually wants to have to be a bloody scholar on Wikipedia editing policies to be able to contribute effectively. Like come on. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree that we could do a better job when it comes to new editors and policies, but I'm not sure why you're proposing this here. You can go and write an overview document and start using it without anyone's permission. See Wikipedia:Trifecta or Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset, for example. Sam Walton (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Samwalton9: Well you see the problem is that while those documents you just showed me are supposed to simplify the process, in practice I have never seen a single one mentioned by any editor anywhere. Surely this is a problem because if I had to come to a policy discussion and write a god knows how long essay to get that then imagine how hard it is for editors who cannot be bothered to go through with all of that to get that information. Practically speaking we have GNG, GEO, BLP etc etc etc which while seemingly daunting could be merged practically into one cohesive policy on notability. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• The vast majority of our policies are the result of problems that occurred before the current policy was put in place. While we do occasionally loose ourselves to the bureaucracy and create a policy preemptively, we are really pretty good at not doing it. Unless you are proposing a single monstrous 50MB policy page, there is no way to distill all our policies into one page. I realize that part of the goal is to reduce the total number of policies, and maybe some could be paired back or eliminated, but getting to one page just isn't feasible. Try to reduce deletion policy to one or two paragraphs (about 12-16 lines), make sure to fully explain fair use, and copyright considerations when writing it, but also fit all the rest. You wont succeed, there is just too much important information. But that is what it would mean to even start to fit all our policies in one page. Monty₈₄₅ 00:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Monty845: Yes I agree that specialised aspects of Wikipedia policy like copyright (which exist for legal reasons etc etc) should be kept as is. But they are only really referenced by those who are dealing in them areas. Whereas GNG, ORG and most of the notability policies and essays, guidelines etc etc are scattered all over the place with not much cohesion between them. There has to be a better method of simplifying Wikipedia's notability policies into a single set of clearly defined documents or even document designed to hold the attention of new editors without frazzling their brains. The extent of notability policies is just idiotic to be honest there are so many of them and most are interchangeable with each other it just adds to confusion of which one applies over the other. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• There has to be a better method of simplifying Wikipedia's notability policies into a single set of clearly defined documents or even document designed to hold the attention of new editors without frazzling their brains. I think our notability guidelines are crystal clear, actually: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. You couldn't ask for anything much more concise than that. The subject-specific notability guidelines help editors determine which topics under those subject are most likely to be notable, but if you only read the aforementioned excerpt from WP:N and never look at another notability guideline, you'll never have any problems. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a nice hypothesis but actual practice shows that people care fuck-all about the ability to actually prove anything the write with reliable sources, so long as they have a random subject-specific notability guide which they can shove in your face and say "YOU CAN'T DELETE THIS. I HAVE THIS PAPER THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT." The GNG would only be empowered to provide its promise you claim it shows if and ONLY IF we burned down all of the specific guidelines and reduced documentation to just that one principle. Good luck with that. --Jayron32 01:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: @Juliancolton: I think the input you both have had in this discussion reflects the overall problem with the notability guidelines in of itself. Everyone seems to be interpreting them in their own way. In fact this isn't just limited to here, I find it on almost every issue that someone asserts a notability guideline to support their argument - almost every interpretation contradicts the interpretation of another. Policies which are this widely interpreted should not be policies at all as they are failing to do one of the most basic precepts of being a policy; that is to adopt a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual. If they are not clearly defining how they should be interpreted then everyone will apply their own interpretations making it useless. Jayron's suggestion of having a single, simple and clear cut notability guideline seems to be the only rationale solution. Either that or have a single page asserting what makes something notable for Wikipedia and leave it at that.→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 01:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

We do not have "policies" on Notability, precisely because there is no agreement to have a policy - the best we have come up with is guidelines. But think about what you are saying, '1) We need more people to contribute 2) We will somehow get more people to contribute if we have an iron rule of article exclusion.' That just does not follow. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

2) is not what he or I is saying. People would be more likely to become long-term contributors if expectations were clearer and easier to understand. To new users, our rules (whatever word you want to use to describe them) seem arbitrary and arcane. That makes entry hard, as people don't understand why some content is allowed and other content is not, and it seems like we're being inconsistent. If we just told them "If you've got good independent sources you're fine, and if you don't, then you need to find some" that's easier to understand than "Here, read these 25 different pages of arcane text, and if you don't understand it people are likely to destroy your work." --Jayron32 13:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Editors do get told this all the time, and they come back with lots of questions for clarification such as what qualifies as independent. (Unsurprising, since if the editors were acting in good-faith, they already believed they had adequate sourcing suitable for an encyclopedia.) The notability guidance essentially says this in its nutshell summary, too. isaacl (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Which is fine and expected, but we're talking here about the subject-specific notability guidelines, which contains NO useful information in that regard, and instead encourages the creation of articles which will not meet our sourcing guidelines. That's the problem with subject specific guidelines in a nutshell, they encourage the creation of articles of unverifiable text. That's wrong. --Jayron32 15:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the subject-specific notability guidelines, a number of them seek to clarify what is considered adequate sourcing: namely what should be considered routine coverage and thus not meeting Wikipedia's standards of inclusion. Eliminating these would just replicate the same discussions on this over and over. There are others that put forth rules of thumb for presuming notability; the sports-related ones very clearly state that they do not supersede the general notability guideline and so adequate sources must be found eventually. isaacl (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really. Most of them contain language which indicates that they supercede or provide alternative routes by which someone could create an article even without any source text to work from. For example: WP:NMUSIC states "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Statements like that imply that if you can find them on a national music chart, you can create an article without any sourcing at all. I know that isn't the intent, and I know that other policies still apply first, but intent, as always, means shit. All that matters is effect. And the effect of these guidelines is to encourage gaming and WP:WIKILAWYERing instead of encouraging people to find and cite independent, reliable sources. If we had a guideline that said only "here's a list of good places to find sources" I'd be TOTALLY behind that. Instead what we have is a bunch of guidelines whose effect is to tell people "Can't be bothered to find sources? Don't worry, here's a checklist. Check off just one of these and your article is immune from deletion!" Again, that may not be the intent. I know that. But intent doesn't mean ANYTHING. Effect is all that matters. --Jayron32 16:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I listed some that explicitly state they do not supersede the general notability guideline; you've listed some that don't. I fully agree with changing the ones that don't. isaacl (talk)

If you haven't already, I strongly suggest you read Clay Shirky's "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy". The elaborate set of policies and guidelines is an attempted substitute for having a hierarchy in place to rule on content disputes. At some point, English Wikipedia's editing community may decide that the disadvantages of trying to maintain all of this guidance in a coherent manner outweigh the disadvantages of ceding editorial control to a non-consensus process. But until then, drastically eliminating most guidance will mean every point will get re-argued in every dispute. Even ignoring biased editors and those not interested in contributing productively, consensus decision-making doesn't scale; larger groups just don't have the necessary strong alignment in goals and principles. (For example, some editors may think articles should be written at a grade 5 level, to be accessible to a broader audience, while others may think it should be written at a grade 8 level, for greater concision. Neither groups are wrong; they just have different goals.) That being said, the consensus editing process can lead to a lot of repetition and overlapping guidance. Making efforts to streamline the policies and guidelines is welcome. (Be forewarned, though: it tends to lead to a lot of discussion with very little changes to show for it in the end.) isaacl (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That's where you're mistaken. We don't need guidance, we need sources. Sources solve all problems, and lack of sources causes all problems. --Jayron32 04:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do we need sources? Because we agreed upon it. What sources qualify as ones that can be used? We need to have a discussion to agree upon that. It's like saying "good-faith editors solve all problems". But they don't, because good-faith editors can still disagree, without any of them being wrong. isaacl (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

"What sources qualify as ones that can be used?"... that depends on the context in which they are used. Many sources can be considered reliable in one context and yet completely unreliable in another context. We always need to ask: "is this specific source reliable (and appropriate) in this specific context?"... and that question often requires discussion and debate to answer.

Yes, our editors can disagree, and disagreement can be messy... but disagreement is not a flaw. It is actually built into the structure of how Wikipedia works. In fact, we have a Policy that tells us how to conduct discussions and debates and resolve disagreements (see WP:Consensus). Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did not say that disagreement is a flaw. My point is that sources don't solve all problems by themselves, as was asserted. Disagreements still need to be worked out, and a policy for resolving them is needed, so eliminating this policy is not feasible. Additionally, discussion can be made more effective by noting what norms have been established through previous discussions. Another issue is not everything that is sourced is suitable for a Wikipedia article, or worthy of equal weight. Again discussion is needed to resolve competing desires. isaacl (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. The problem with Wikipedia is not the guidelines and policies, but the culture. You cannot legislate away a cultural problem. In fact, Wikipedia remains so successful in large part because of these guidelines, in spite of its toxic culture of vested interests, crackpot fringe-pushers, officious bureaucrats, internet trolls, narcissistic sociopaths, political ideologues, and innumerable cabals of uncritical groupthinkery. It's really no wonder potential new editors tend to stay away. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Sławomir Biały: No but you can try and make Wikipedia more appealing for those who do not suffer from psychiatric illness. Having a number of guidelines which are used selectively as policies just makes no sense. Its akin to having a chocolate bar labelled with the guidance "you might not want to eat this" and then you being thrown in prison by a over zealous police officer after you eat it - And the imprisoned not being able to do anything about it. Its nothing short of legitimised lunacy. The movie Stonehearst Asylum, based on the short story The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether is a brilliant work of the arts which could be compared to the current situation here. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 14:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said, the problem is not the guidelines, WP:AINTBROKE. In fact, my point was exactly the opposite. The only reason that Wikipedia remains successful is those guidelines that you dismiss as "legitimised lunacy". Just like the problem is not the UI, or any of the other things folks have suggested. For example, the WMF believed that the problem was that the user interface was just too hard for new users to figure out. So they created Visual Editor and Flow to "fix" the problem, despite everyone saying that this would do jack squat. Guess who turned out to be right. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Sławomir Biały: "The tragedy of life is often not in our failure, but rather in our complacency; not in our doing too much, but rather in our doing too little; not in our living above our ability, but rather in our living below our capacities." You have an opinion which is the guidelines which are not even used as guidelines but as policies are not a problem. I believe you are in the land of faeries if you think that people coming onto Wikipedia want to deal with the environment created between editors which breeds conflict over collaboration as a result of guidelines being selectively enforced as policies. It might be that some people thrive on conflict, and those number of people are in such large quantity in the world today that they are able to keep Wikipedia afloat for today. However, history has shown that conflict never ends in constructive outcomes. It is all well that the masses usually take what is said on Wikipedia as a given, and for so long this may continue to be, however, we all know that the "knowledge" often imparted on Wikipedia is the result of those who want people to see an issue in a certain way rather than understand the issue for what it is. This is nothing short of disgusting, enlightening people to the facts of the world does not mean indoctrinating them and from how I see of the workings within Wikipedia at the moment, this is exactly what is being allowed to happen. Notability guidelines are being used as a tyranny against truth and facts by those who would use them to justify the inclusion of content which serves no other purpose than to make the writer - right - in his own, impaired mind. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 15:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

No comment. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Sławomir Biały: Read The plot for Stonehearst Asylum, this will enlighten you as to some things which I am making points about. Its actually a brilliant movie, you should watch it sometime. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 16:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we have a shortage of editors who want to work on articles that breed conflict. We have a shortage of editors who want to work on "boring, traditional" encyclopedia articles. And "history has shown that conflict never ends in constructive outcomes"? Really? Have you really thought that statement through? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Can you provide me a case in history that conflict has produced more constructive results than could be been produced without the conflict? The answer would be that one could only speculate. However, we can compare situations that people have collaborated and look at those results over situations in which created a result from conflict. Of course, I use the term conflict rather specifically which does not extend to the definitions of constructive competition and debate. The term conflict I have used here is a means to define "A serious incompatibility between two or more opinions, principles, or interests." Fostering debates on incompatibility between two opinions could hardly be said to be more constructive than fostering debates between two opinions that both parties accept can be changed - for which there is a distinct difference. Having these so called guidelines fosters an environment of incomparable opinions, principles or interest rather than an environment based on a set of principles which most can agree to start from and work as a goal to reach collaboratively. It is not a good thing that Wikipedia editors are more interested in clashing incompatible viewpoints rather than finding a principle they can or ought to agree upon and then work on that goal together rather than working on a principle they will never agree on. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 16:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That was not your assertion. You stated that "history has shown that conflict never ends in constructive outcomes". Not "history has shown that conflict never ends in more constructive outcomes that I could come up with fantasizing about alternate history". And again, controversial topics are going to attract opposing viewpoints, opposing sources, and opposing opinions as to weight. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: This might be an example, we are for some reason not agreeing upon something as is implied by the adversarial tone you have chosen to adopt. Having an opposing viewpoint is different from having an incompatible viewpoint. Guidelines as they stand do not foster constructive debate, they foster debate from two sides who are convinced their viewpoints are correct and are not ever prepared to meet in the middle. This type of debate is hostile in appearance and many an editor who could be a great asset to Wikipedia is lost as a result of this type of almost aggressive and adversarial conflict orientated environment. We need to do more to stop this type of behaviour because it is not helping Wikipedia be an environment anyone can edit. It's making it an environment for argumentative people to thrive while everyone else can take a hiatus. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 17:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The guidelines are not written in a way to foster conflict. On the contrary, they are written in a way to minimize conflict. An easy way to put an end to many conflicts would be to have administrators actually enforce the guidelines, and block those who violate them. Unfortunately, the guidelines are usually applied unevenly. Get on the wrong side of an administrator, and you can find yourself blocked very easily. Stake out a blatantly partisan position in a discussion (which is against behavioral guidelines) and, as long as you don't get an uninvolved administrator upset with you, you probably will not be sanctioned. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The subject-specific guidelines are written in a way to maximize conflict because they create contradictions in guidance. First we tell people that all articles should have verifiable content WP:V, WP:42, WP:NOR, etc. Then we tell people to go ahead and create articles with almost no verifiable content so long as they can check off some property of the subject on a checklist, such as that they have reached some milestone or received a vaguely-worded "major award" or some such. If we didn't tell people it was OK to create articles under such presumptions, they wouldn't feel the need to do so. --Jayron32 17:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with you here. I've never liked the presumption that sources exist "somewhere" that show a subject in a particular field meets our general notability guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're passing off your opinion as absolute fact then of course you're going to get called out on it. For that matter, this is what a large part of our policies and guidelines are designed to prevent - stopping editors from injecting their own personal opinions into articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I absolutely agree with Jayron32 and his experience with Wikipedia is showing in his contributions here. It is quite bizarre that we have a "general" notability guideline but then have "specific" notability guidelines which contradict the "general" one. As WP:GNG is used so much it becomes hard, in fact extremely hard for editors to know which notability guideline should or should not apply. The fact the contradiction exists in the first place makes one feel the guidelines are not even applicable or practically usable. I have seen Geo notability used to contradict WP:GNG and WP:GNG to contradict WP:INHERIT and that is not to mention all of them. This is a problem which I think needs to be resolved one way or the other. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 17:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is going to be an environment where anyone can edit, then that means it will have to deal editors that have a "serious incompatibility between two or more opinions, principles, or interests." So there will be no way to avoid conflict as you define it. What Wikipedia environment needs is to foster collaborative behaviour by rewarding it over actions that increase acrimony. Unfortunately there are many structural issues that are barriers. isaacl (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sławomir Biały: Do not get me wrong, I absolutely 100 percent agree with you that the guidelines are not intended to foster an environment of conflict between editors. However, there is a difference between what happens in theory and what happens in practice. I think we both agree that guidelines are not supposed to be applied in your own words "unevenly." But they are being applied in this way and it is not something which is a small scale problem. The existence of so many guidelines which are de facto used as policies creates an inevitable problem of power belonging to those who enforce selective "guidelines" which not every editor is even aware of in order to press a specific agenda. An example of this can be found in content that promotes causes, religious content and generally other controversial content. The burden of proof in those situations shifts from providing reliable sources for information to who can quote the most so called notability guidelines and have them enforced by an administrator. I would very much like a policy which clearly and unambiguously defines acceptable and non-acceptable content on Wikipedia to make it, if anything, easier on new editors and even somewhat experienced editors like myself to actually understand what should or should not be on Wikipedia. Not only that but something that admins will actually conform with in a unified fashion. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 17:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I have just realised that some of the documents I assumed to be guidelines are in fact essays. For example, WP:INHERIT is actually an essay. The problem is people keep saying that the leads identify if or not the guideline/essay or whatever contradicts things like WP:N. But the fact is when people click on shortcuts they get taken to a specific section of the page and many people only read that section thinking its some sort of "enforced" guideline. I do not think everyone can be bothered to read the whole page just like people don't usually read the whole terms and conditions section (I do but being a Lawyer I get paranoid about them.) If Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia anyone can edit these sorts of things need to be made clearer. If guidelines are asserting themselves as policies and essays are asserting themselves as guidelines then something isn't right. It is not about if an intent exists for these sorts of assertions to be made by the text it is what is in fact being asserted to the reader. If one uses a shortcut it cuts to a section that imposes itself as if its a binding Wikipedia policy so a reader takes it on face value. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the reason administrators do not enforce the guidelines is that there are too many of them. It is rather that the responsibility is so diffuse that no one steps up. They know what the guidelines say, but cannot be compelled to enforce them, unless you make yourself a target. Again, the problem is a sociocultural one, not one to do with the existence of too many guidelines. There really aren't that many. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Sławomir Biały: @Jayron32: @Samwalton9: How do I start the process of making WP:1 Rule an official policy? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 20:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This contradicts existing policies and guidelines, and it is unlikely to gain any support (let alone become official policy). But you would do so by properly starting an RfC here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Sławomir Biały: Which policy and guideline does it contradict? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 20:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It's too reductionist. You are taking a whole bundle of policies and procedures with nuances and trying condense them down into a black-and-white "you must do it this way" rule. Wikipedia just doesn't work like that. If you can't live with a little vaguely and the spirit of WP:IAR and WP:DGAF you're not going to have an enjoyable experience editing here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:V to start with. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: You think there is a problem with only using reliable and neutral sources for content here? Shouldn't content on Wikipedia need to have reliable and neutral sources? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 21:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a Have you stopped beating your wife? question. I've already explained that it is more nuanced than your oversimplified rule would make it out to be, that's why it won't work. Wikipedia does not have firm rules. That's kind of first-day material for a basic understanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2017 (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.

I'm the relative newbie who, without knowing this discussion was ongoing, started the next topic. It was refreshing to me to read about many of the policies/guidelines/essays mentioned above, particularly Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Thank you to all for taking the time to add to the discussion. DennisPietras (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there any official wp policy that prevents the incorporation of primary source material in wp articles?

Hi! I'm a relative newbie, but have made significant contributions to pages, both small and large. Many experienced editors have appreciated and/or accepted my contributions of discussions of very recent primary sources from respected, peer reviewed, scientific journals, including one that is a GA article which had especially careful review by experienced editors.

Knowing that one well-known editor has objections to inclusion of primary sources, I began a discussion of possible inclusion of 4 recent primary sources into a wp page about an evolutionarily conserved gene DCC that is involved in axon guidance. I would use the references to discuss axon guidance (agenesis of the corpus callosum) and evolution (birds have had this gene deleted twice in 2 different lineages). I want to emphasize that this discussion would make no recommendations for medical treatment. It is simply interesting genetics, that tie in with popular culture (Kim Peek the megasavant inspiration for the movie Rain Man, had agenesis of the corpus callosum).

The well-known editor objected (on the DCC talk page) to inclusion of the references. One other experienced editor (who is a medical student) encouraged me to make the addition to see what I write before judging, a stance with which I am perfectly happy. The well-known editor cited WP:SCIRS as evidence that I shouldn't include the discussion. Yet, WP:SCIRS specifically states "Respect primary sources A primary source... may be a valuable component of an article. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Use of primary sources should always conform to the No original research policy."

I have come into conflict with the well-known editor repeatedly over the issue of inclusion of respected, peer reviewed, publications in wp articles. I am not going to be intimidated by his snarling and barking like a junk yard trained dog, but I will cease and desist if somebody can show me a specific, wp policy that prohibits use of primary sources. I understand that discretion should be used in citing primary sources. I don't look at articles from the Frisbeeland Journal of Science. The 4 articles were published by the Nature publishing group, which is widely regarded to be in the top 3 of most respected scientific publishers. I also understand that primary sources cannot be used to establish notability of a topic, regardless of how prestigious the publication.

In summary, before the well-known editor and I end up in an ani, it would be beneficial if someone could cite a wp policy that contradicts the official policies I read that respect the inclusion of primary sources, and support the well-known editor's insistence that I don't know how this place works. (note: none of the editors I ping below are the well known editor.) Thanks very much, DennisPietras (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)_{@Aspro, Jordanben, and PriceDL:}

I use a lot of primary sources myself. "Primary sources" can have a couple of different meanings here. The first one is when people write about themselves or their organisations. This is very likely to to be a COI situation, but still these sources can be used for uncontroversial facts. But the sources you talk about are not these. However the sources may be presenting ideas of one person or unconfirmable "facts". The findings may later be discredited or totally ignored by others. So please consider if there is also a review article (secondary source) that includes the facts mentioned in the primary source. I often use a different "primary" source that talks about research from another source in its introduction. This adds similar confirmation that the ideas are supported by someone else, as they would in a review. Primary sources of the original research are also often useful as they usually add far more detail than a review article would. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett:Thanks for your comments. Yes, I do realize that primay sources are not optimal, but recent primary sources have not had the time to be reviewed. Also, the 2 pairs of references actually "reinforce" each other, so I don't believe that there is any significant chance that they will be proven wrong. Thanks again, DennisPietras (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• There is no rule against using primary sources... but there is a policy that limits how and when to use them appropriately. See WP:No original research. Blueboar (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Right. Primary sources are vulnerable to interpretation -- you almost have to interpret -- and that's tricky. Also, I always figured that another reason to be leery of primary sources is... if there's no secondary source, is the material really notable? Like if I want to put in an article "Smith tweeted such-and-such" and link to the tweet, a reasonable objection is "But wait, not a single newspaper saw fit to report on that? Then how is it notable enough for us to report"? You're working in science stuff, but I guess a parallel objection would be "Wait, not one single journal reported that? Then is it really important enough for us to describe here?" If it's a matter if timeliness though -- a journal hasn't reported it yet because journals lag -- that's a reasonable counter to that, maybe. Herostratus (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This has long been a bone of contention here on WP. My view: If no good secondary exists then primaries are acceptable when the editor has in-depth knowledge and can place them in 'proper' context. I.E. If a study was done on a small cohort (due to lack of adequate funding perhaps) which means that cohort may not be representative of the whole. That should be mentioned and a good editor will point that out when using primaries. Some editors think that a newspaper is a reliable source. Read many an article and watched many a TV news slot where the Science Corespondent (whom may have a science degree in one discipline or another) but in order to reach the publication deadline, fluffed it up badly due too little time to understand the science in a different field from his own. So his interpretation was hopeless – yet should some editors think this should be deemed 'reliable'? Next. If the national press hasn't published it, is it notable? New breakthroughs travel very fast these days in the age of the internet. An encyclopedia is not actually and foremost a compendium of facts and figures – it is a means to disseminate the current views and thoughts for further discussion and debate. New findings often help to join up many of the dots. WP is work in progress. Not being a paper encyclopedia we can update fast and correct when necessary. We don't need editors that throw spanners in the works, who do not understand the field and progress being made...however well meaning they may be. Because it keeps WP rooted in the bygone days of William Caxton the printer. So I say, we can and are free to use primaries if we need. For those editors that object to this, perhaps they should create an centralized Objection Help page or something, rather than hog the talk pages. This may save worthwhile contributing editors (whom are actively adding content) the trouble of explaining and re-explaining every objection to the small but vocal cohort of objectors spreading their POV across many articles. --Aspro (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, whomever, you are, named @Aspro:, to be very blunt, Wikipedia should not trust your "expertise", nor should it trust your claim that we really have to know the latest thing now, though Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• I would be the subject "well-known editor". See User_talk:DennisPietras#Secondary_sources and the discussions linked from there, for the background. This is not rocket science - every policy and guideline says we should use secondary sources and that we can use primary sources but with great care.

The OP is an academic who wants to:

• • 1) write literature reviews in Wikipedia on biology topics built off primary sources, even when good secondary sources are available. (example here: GRIN2B). They can't see how this is WP:OR and not what we do here. The correct WMF project for this activity is Wikiversity -- a different WMF project than en-Wiki.
  • 2) take "hot science papers" and write news about them in WP, like this and this (same edit in two articles) or this, complete with "recently, X happened", inserting "hot news" about academic research that may never be commercialized into an article about plastic recycling - something that goes on all around us in the RW. They correct WMF project for this activity is WikiNews -- a different WMF project than en-Wiki.

Neither thing, is what we do here in en-WP. We write encyclopedia articles that summarize the accepted knowledge that we find in secondary sources and other tertiary sources, using primary sources rarely and with care.

To say that another way:

• • the mission of en-WP is to crowdsource articles that provide accepted knowledge to readers; the strategy through which the community does that, is described in the policies and guidelines; and the tactics are to find high quality secondary/tertiary sources and summarize them in WP
  • DennisP's mission here in en-WP is to write literature reviews and science news; their strategy is to generate that content based on primary sources.

Rather than wasting their own time and everyone else's in pursuit of the wrong mission in all these different fora, Dennis why don't you just get aligned with the mission of en-WP already? You could be producing so much useful content. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC Inclusion of WP:1 Rule as a guideline, policy or process for the English Wikipedia

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.

---

Proposal

I propose that WP:1 Rule be included on the English Wikipedia as a guideline, policy or process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-Coffee (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Why

It's very simple and straight forward. I believe it condenses the core and essential issues of determining if content should or should not be included on Wikipedia without putting through editors though hell and back trying to make sense of the current amount that exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-Coffee (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

What it is not

This does not intend to outright remove the applicability of other guidelines but act to complement them. I think that it will be a lot easier to read and understand by those who are not into reading 100 lines of policy to understand what should or should not be included on Wikipedia. At the moment, even I cannot be bothered to read it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-Coffee (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Please keep this civil, it took me enough courage to propose this in the first place. Editors keep going on about the need to encourage others to put forward their suggestions - well this is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-Coffee (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose "A neutral source is a source that has an impartial or unbiased view on the articles subject." No. Just no. I'd rather not scrap every WP:MEDRS source because they have a biased view of health care. Similarly, I'd rather not have to search for sources that say, "Was 9/11 a conspiracy? Both sides have valid viewpoints!" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @NeilN: Which MEDRS sources have a bias view on health care? Furthermore, why would you ever want to include information sourced from a bias source anyway? Would that not make the resulting content a representation of a viewpoint rather than a factual assertion about the subject itself? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 21:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• All of them, according to those who practice alt-medicine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @NeilN: Well the term bias is rather clearly defined as to cause to feel or show inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something. How does any source in MEDRS cause a person to feel or show an inclination of prejudice for or against alternative medicine? For example, if you had an article on alternative medicine and you wanted to enter in information from a study that objectively disproved a notion of alternative medicine this is not a bias source because it is grounded in fact... how does that source have a prejudice against alternative medicine? They didn't go out of their way to bring about a certain outcome and if they did then why should they be included as a source on Wikipedia? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 22:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

And alt-medders will say the results were biased because those who typically undertake MEDRS-compliant studies are shills for BigPharm/BigHealthCare. That's why we use the term "mainstream" instead "neutral". Wikipedia is biased - biased towards representing the mainstream viewpoint. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Then is it not on the so called "al-medders" to prove their assertions to discredit a sources impartiality. Otherwise their assertions are un-grounded and meaningless. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 22:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose There is tons of totally uncontroversial content that is under-cited. Our current system works quite well, when someone, in good faith, questions the validity of a claim, they can remove it and ask that it be cited per WP:BURDEN. This throws that away, and says if it doesn't have a cite, just remove it, even if its obviously true. That is a terrible approach when we are here to spread information, and would result in removing tons of true and informative content, just because it isn't cited right now. WP:V isn't cited, or verified its verifiable. Monty₈₄₅ 22:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Monty845: I did not think Wikipedia was a place for people to keep information they believe are facts but have not proven them to be facts. I do not think just because something appears to be true it is true and every little scrap of content on Wikipedia should have a source to support it or be removed until it has that source. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 22:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You are talking about a radical shift in policy. The reason WP:BLPPROD is a thing is because we couldn't even agree that all new articles needed even a single reference, let along to be perfectly cited. If you want to move Wikipedia that way, the first step would be to require all new articles to have a citation, then start working through all existing articles to achieve that. But even that would be a huge way from every claim in every article being cited. Monty₈₄₅ 22:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: "A neutral source is a source that has an impartial or unbiased view on the articles subject." Who is to decide that a source is impartial or unbiased? Members of the Church of Scientology? Antivaxxers? The National Rifle Association? The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence? All of these groups have strong opinions regarding what sources are impartial and unbiased. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: The dictionary defines what is impartial or unbiased not the organisations you have quoted. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)}

_{(contributions)} 22:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A dictionary might have a definition of neutral but this is a case where people will just read the policy as "I find this source biased therefore I remove it and the content it supports". Wikipedia is edited by people not thinking machines and we have to have some flexibility or else WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue will no longer apply. Nthep (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep: I find it reassuring to know that Wikipedia is edited by people who do not know or accept the definitions of basic words like impartiality, bias and neutrality. Pray tell how Wikipedia is supposed to maintain a neutral point of view when the information written into it is sourced from non-neutral sources. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mention non-neutral sources, just non-neutral editors. A policy such as you propose gives anyone with an axe to grind, carte blanche to remove any content they disagree with using your proposal as their justification. Read your own nutshell;

• "A reliable source is a source that is consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted." - as the recent Daily Mail RFC and aftermath shows all sources can be poor in quality or performance at times so no source probably meets the definition of "consistently good". So if I wanted to remove a source I could easily justify it with "this source hasn't shown itself to be consistently reliable" therefore as defined by rule 1 it is unreliable and it and the content must be deleted.
• "A neutral source is a source that has an impartial or unbiased view on the articles subject." Good editors will tend to apply a Reasonable person test to sources, poor editors or those with entrenched views will not and will claim bias against any source they don't like. Again easy justification for removing source and content. Nthep (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep: Okay so the definition of reliable is "consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted." So you do not think sources on Wikipedia should be reliable. Furthermore, if a reliable source cannot be sourced what does that make of the content itself. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as contradictory to WP:V which states "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article." (emphasis mine). Sam Walton (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Samwalton9: So you think because it says should be removed in WP:Rule 1 you think that this contradicts WP:N that it may be removed? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 22:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. Rule 1 compels editors to remove any unsourced content they see. Users would technically be breaking the rules if they made an edit that didn't also remove any unsourced content present in the article they were editing. WP:N only states that unsourced content can be removed. Sam Walton (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: This is a very good point. For that reason I will alter must to can remove. Thank you :-D →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9:  Done Thank you for noting that. If you read it now it should reflect the changes. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I've read through this three times now, and I'm still not understanding why it is proposed. It looks like a solution searching for its problem. Is this a replacement for WP:V? A supplement to WP:NOTE? It uses unclear language that is open to interpretation and argument that doesn't seem to have any promise of clarifying the situation. If I'm having a dispute with another editor, I want to be able to point to a policy document that is much more definite than this. It doesn't help if the dispute moves from, "That's not well-sourced" to "That source is biased/No it isn't/Yes it is." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: You think a debate about if something is bias or not is worse than a debate about it being "well sourced" and that "well sourced" is less ambiguous than "bias". I mean at least there is an established definition of bias to go from. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe I said that. What I am trying to convey is that the proposed policy doesn't seem to offer any definitiveness. When I turn to a policy, what I am looking for is to see if it supports my actions or not. Turning to this policy, vast swathes of potential actions could be justified. That fosters arguments, not discourages them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think I will drop this in here now; For the sake of humour on my own part. The definition of neutral is an impartial or unbiased state or person. It is very interesting seeing people contradict the definition of the N in WP:NPOV. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • NPOV is about keeping editors from injecting bias into an article, not about keeping biased sources out. See WP:BIASED and WP:NPOVS for why biased sources can still be reliable. clpo13_(talk) 23:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Clpo13: How can a source be consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted if it is bias? You consider something that is bias to be trustworthy on the subject that it is bias towards or against? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I consider the sources on a case-by-case basis, since there is no such thing as a completely neutral and unbiased source. Bias alone does not make a source untrustworthy. The New York Times is left-leaning, but it's still widely considered reliable due to it's editorial policies and reputation. Of course it can be biased with regards to certain topics, but it's up to us as editors to eliminate that bias when using information sourced to it. That's what WP:NPOV is all about. clpo13_(talk) 23:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Clpo13: So what is the argument then? WP:1 Rule re-affirms this in a non-100 page way. It states that content gained from sources which are bias against or for the the subject of the Article in which content is contained can be removed. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm arguing against, though. We shouldn't throw out information just because the sources are biased. We can work around that bias so that the Wikipedia article is neutral even if the sources aren't. clpo13_(talk) 00:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So you would support removing the 60+ references to the NY Times from Donald Trump, given that they have taken sides on issues against Trump? Not to mention CNN, BBC, and all the other news sources that have gotten in disputes with him? Then someone will come remove all the other sources, for having a pro-trump bias, and we will then delete the article for being unsourced per that part of your policy... Even in organizations that strive to avoid bias, it almost always seeps in to at least some extent. We need to be willing to accept a moderate amount of bias when it comes to sources, or it just isn't going to work. Monty₈₄₅ 00:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Monty845: I think that D.T. is a lousy statesman and very controversial. I do not particularly like him but he is no worse than the elegant Obama who deported more illegal aliens than any other President before him, Truman who declared War without congress's approval. Does my disdain for those people or at least certain characteristics they have mean I want to include information on Wikipedia that are sourced from places with a proven bias against them the honest answer is no because I realise that despite my own personal opinions, its our job here to give people the facts so far as possible. If we know a source is bias we should be suspicious of any content derived from it without first glancing at personal views. There are plenty of reliable and impartial sources which one could use to build an article on someone like D.T. and I refuse to believe if one was to remove all content based on bias sources from said articles that they would be any less truthful and any less informative, in fact I would argue the opposite. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - While we (WP editors) need to remain neutral in what we write, our sources do not. Sources can take a stance on what they discuss, and authors can state their opinions. Blueboar (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Blueboar: As I have proven in my above comment, having an opinion on something does not mean you must be bias for or against what your opinion is on. Bias is worth quarter of an observable fact, opinion is worth half and observable facts are worth it all. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my take on this will not change. Sources can and do form opinions... our job is to be neutral in discussing the opinions stated by the sources. Blueboar (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Welp, pack up all of your sources, folks! Our numerous sources suggesting nestboxes to help with the conservation of animals are heresy! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• @RileyBugz: Great example! Lets say a statement on Wikipedia said "nesting boxes have been proven useful for the conservation of animals". Per this WP:Rule 1 if the source was from lets say "SAVE ANIMALS TODAY" who had a track record of bias for or against nestboxes then the source from that organisation would be considered bias and another one would have to be sought. If nest boxes are truly "proven useful for the conservation of animals" there would be a source from, say a university which does not have a clear history of bias in favour for or against nestboxes. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 01:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The core problem here is that to summarise a lengthy and nuanced set of policies into a few sentences requires generalisations. To enshrine these generalisations and summaries into policy isn't going to happen because they create different policies, which conflict with the existing nuances and caveats found in the lengthier pages in small but substantial ways. It especially isn't going to happen in a community like this one, that cares very much about the details of these things. Sam Walton (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• snowball Oppose this is an encyclopedia, not a kindergarten. Dumbing down the rules like this goes against our core principles. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2017 (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.