Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

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

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

« Archives, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195

Donations in Bitcoin

Forgive me if this is in the wrong section. I had some Bitcoins burning a hole in my pocket and was surprised to see Wikipedia had no option to donate with them. I assumed an organisation such as Wikipedia would. You wouldn't be the first by far– Wikileaks and the Internet Archive both do, amongst others. Is there any good reason for this or has it simply not been implemented yet? Lukys (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the Bitcoin article was deleted due to a lack of notability (although more recently restored), it shouldn't be too surprising that there are some organizations who haven't accepted the concept yet, including the Wikimedia Foundation. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) had been taking them for awhile but found them too controversial and refunded/donated the funds in Bitcoins to some other organization and stopped accepting them. I would imagine given the track record of Bitcoin, several prominent thefts of the coins (mainly exchange sites) and some other problems including questioned legality of even using the electronic currency are something that the WMF may want to put off for awhile.

It is good intentioned, but Bitcoin is hardly the only alternate currency that has been suggested to the WMF in the past. I know that e-gold was pushed in the past where the then legal council (I don't remember the exact person) basically dismissed such ideas as did the WMF board of trustees on the basis that they didn't want to have too many complex donation options.

If you are serious about this, I'd suggest looking at sending something to Founjdation-l, the official WMF mailing list and where things of this nature are more likely to get some real response and traction if it is something that may happen. I'd also suggest looking in the archives of that mailing list to see if it has been discussed in the past. I've sort of stayed out of the loop for while so I don't know if it has been discussed recently or not. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin is radically different in concept and form to e-gold. It is P2P and backed by solid cryptography, rather than just dispensed by a company. Donation by Bitcoin is also very easy, since you just enter the donation address into your client/wallet and specify the amount. This facilitates cross-border donations without needing an intermediary. This is the exact opposite of a 'complex donation option'.

The theft of Bitcoins is only as much as a problem for Bitcoin as it is for any other form of currency. It's really nothing to do with the form of Bitcoins themselves.

Finally, there is no law against Bitcoins. But I am not interested enough to petition WMF. I just wanted to donate and now I won't (not intended as a "that'll show ya!", just a fact). Lukys (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the strengths and limitations of Bitcoins. I helped to write the original draft specification for the network protocol of Bitcoin by pouring through Satoshi's source code so I can say I'm a bit of an expert on the topic. I don't think it is all that different from e-gold BTW, at least from an outsider's perspective and the problem is more one of salesmanship to the Wikimedia Foundation in terms of if they would accept it or not.

As far as the legality of Bitcoins as a medium of exchange, the opinions on that topic are extremely varied. I'll agree there is no law (yet) about its use, but considering that the Wikimedia Foundation represents many official chapters in different countries whose laws vary by quite a bit as well as being governed as a Utah non-profit corporation (thus under the jurisdiction of American law more directly... Utah is just the state which issued the actual corporation charter), what law actually governs the activities of the foundation can be tricky. Accepting Bitcoins for donation purposes will be something that will need to be cleared by the general counsel of the WMF before it can be formally accepted.

I just don't have the energy to put forward such an ambitious proposal to get the Wikimedia Foundation to accept Bitcoins as a donation mechanism. I know what it would take as I've dealt with the WMF in the past and I have had proposals I've made become accepted by that body and have had a hand in influencing the direction of Wikimedia projects globally. If you don't at least send a simple e-mail to that mailing list, I'm simply saying as a matter of fact that there will never be acceptance of Bitcoins for donation purposes. If you are a fan, perhaps your attitude will change on that. Moaning about it here on en.wikipedia is not going to get the change you may even remotely hope for as the people who read the Village Pump for the most part aren't the people who can make a difference at that level which is needed. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take what I'm saying as moaning. I simply made an inquiry into something, and my curiosity has been satisfied. I'm not invested enough to take any action. I may petition for it at some point in the future. Thanks for your response anyway Lukys (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benifits from donation

Hello Everybody, I have given 100 $ donation to Wikipedia and I am proud of it.After all, Wikipedia is my favorite website.I'm using it since 2004.By the way, I was thinking that you people should created something like this.If a person makes a donation more than sufficient amount like 10000$ or something, then his/her user account should be given administrator privileges.Thus, I would say that any active user would be inspired to donate 10000 $ to Wikipedia and Wikipedia will easily make up revenues for expanding.Show what are your thoughts. Regards,14.97.189.216 (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I was thinking you had said 1,000 there for a while, and was thinking if that was a reasonable amount to pay someone to create an admin sock for you given the number of hours required, the labor cost in various countries versus the level of english required and so on, of course, you wouldn't be putting the money into wikipedia to become an admin, they wouldn't accept it and might be a little disgusted with the idea, you'd be giving it to someone else to do the work for you, and no doubt they'd be happy with that arrangement, and wikipedia would be happy as there is no appearance of a conflict of interest, and you'd probably be happy until you found out the job is far from glamorous.

But then I noticed, wait a minute, you said $10,000, well, all I can say to that is email me :) Because I know I'll be really really really happy, not just 'I can't believe it's not butter happy' but fireworks jumping off my chair punching the air happy, tipping over the monitor by accident as I victory dance around the desk, while a cat ran out of the room with a Rarrrroow and I'm too busy being excited to think for a second 'wait, I don't HAVE a cat'.

But seriously $10,000, isn't that overpriced ? Penyulap ☏ 06:49, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)

what is the going rate for adminship anyone ? Penyulap ☏ 06:52, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)

These days? two pieces of leather: A belt to the mouth and a boot to the head : ) - jc37 14:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. Buying adminship is just a bad idea. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buying admin seems misguided to me. On the other hand, there might be some kind of more harmless badge (something a bit like a barnstar) which could be given to donors. It may already exist. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buying admin seems indeed misguided. It would force upon the contributor the job of being a administrator. That's like being given a broom and the title "janitor" because you gave $10,000 to a charity. Being a administrator is not a title or a honor; its a responsibility and frankly a loot of work. A much better thing to give would be a barnstar or similar mark of honor. If someone gives time, or they give money, do not both deserve some kind of appreciation? Belorn (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All donators, get free access to Wikipedia content. Those that donate $10,000 or more get un-metered access. What more could you want? Similar benefits are available for those who donate time instead of money. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would we treat a large donor so poorly as that? We wouldn't have any left! :) Joking aside, being an admin isn't some wonderful thing. It invites a lot of abuse and criticism, and generally very little praise to temper it. Admin candidates have generally been around the block several times, and know what they're signing up for when they put their name in at RfA. Someone who buys their way in might be in for a very rude shock. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, $10,000 is never ever overpriced.Why? Because It's worth all the efforts you make to become a successful candidate at WP:RFA, including but not limited to fighting vandalism, giving a good judgement, making high amount of contribution, spending your time from your busy day, waiting for a long period, being criticized by fellow users, giving reply to all the damn questions at WP:RFA etc.In a nutshell, if a user is a experienced on Wikipedia, than instead of WP:RFA, he should be introduced with a new method of becoming a administrator.On the second point, I must say that becoming an administrator on world's largest encyclopedia that follows an ideal system of management would be an splendid experience.You can get a power and control in your hand via just a click of mouse!So, I am telling you to rethink in your mind about this subject.Also, I am not insisting the price to be such higher.It could be decided later.Keep only two word in mind- 'experienced user' and 'high amount to charity' Regards.(P.S.-I'm the same who started this thread, just my IP address is not static.)14.97.183.183 (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have different ideas about what adminship than I do. Since becoming an admin, I have found it much more restricting than empowering. I certainly have to parse my words more carefully to avoid a firestorm, I'm expected to tolerate incivility from others while not being able to crack wise back. If I make any mistake, there are dozens of people happy to point it out in multiple venues. Power and control are overrated and overstated, as we admins aren't the leaders of the community, we are its servants. A great many of the best leaders, voices of reason and editors around here are not admins. Being an admin has been a splendid experience in some way but not all, and it isn't ideal management. It is more akin to herding cats. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hit the nail right on the head for why I wouldn't want to be an admin, it would cramp my style :) I have much more variety and scope of strategies for interacting with morons than I would otherwise. But enough of this Dr Smith Lost in space 'oh the pain, the pain, adminship is such a pain' it does have it's prestige in the eyes of newbies who arrive from other boards thinking it is like the role of a sysop. The main difference in the eyes of a newbie between God and an admin is that God doesn't walk around all day long thinking he' an admin. Sysops are held to account for destroying Bulletin boards and forums, whereas here, nobody cares, it's all good. Penyulap ☏ 07:38, 11 Jun 2012 (UTC)

The idea of making users admins for giving money is akin to appointing some dude for public office just because they gave a million dollars to the President. That's capitalism, and I don't like the idea of capitalism on Wikipedia - or anywhere. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plutocracy, not Capitalism, fwiw, 113.106. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! the irony, to be the US president, people have to give you the millions of dollars. Penyulap ☏ 07:11, 13 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I'm just glad to be an American, where how much money you have doesn't effect your chances to be elected. </sarcasm> Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Wikipedia does not choose its policies or its admins based on revenues, and thank goodness for that. We are a volunteer organization that makes a free encyclopedia, and that is all. If money comes into it, that skews the editing and reshapes the entire purpose and direction of the project. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose spam is already a serious problem here. If we started selling admin accounts then there are heaps of PR agencies, lobbyists and other advertising organisations for whom $10,000 for an admin account would be petty cash. There are plenty of ways that they could get their moneys worth. If people want to donate time or money then we should thank them for their donation. But we need to get suspicious when they start saying that it wasn't really a donation and they are entitled to something in return. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense.What is relationship between the donation and community based volunteer work? Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 14:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should we create a new namespace, for essays?

The Wikipedia: namespace contains policies, guidelines -- and essays. One doesn't have to participate in many discussions before one sees contributors admonishing other contributors for "violating" an essay.

While some essays contain excellent advice, others contain bad advice, or advice from a fringe position. I suggest no good faith contributors has an obligation to explain, in advance, why they are not following the advice of one of our very large number of essays.

Clearly the box essays usually have at their top fails to make clear to those who reference them, as if they had the authority of policy, that they are just essays. Due to the use of wikilinks to sections of both policies and essays, these links skip the preambles, as to whether the document is a policy, a guideline, or just an essay.

I suggest that if all essays were demoted to an essay namespace, fewer contributors would cite them as if they were policies.

I suggest all existing essays be copied, with their contribution history, to a new Essay: namespace, with an explanation left, telling readers that the document was an essay, and where it can be found. When the essay is the target of a bunch of wikilinks to subsections within that essay, I think the explanation should list links to corresponding section, in the Essay: namespace. I don't think the current redirections should be changed to be cross-namespace redirections. I believe it was the widespread use of these shortcuts that it largely responsible for the confusion between policies and essays.

If this step was taken some contributors may wish to promote some of the most widely cited essays to guideline status. I would see that requiring a discussion as to the whether the advice in the essay is widely enough accepted, and well enough written to belong in the Wikipedia: namespace. Geo Swan (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is a problem (many problems; most obviously that many of them don't make sense, but have "owners" who refuse to allow them to be corrected). But I think there are already quite enough namespaces. I would say that essays should be in the User: namespace (so it could be clear who owns them), whereas anything that is consensually accepted as giving good advice and accurate documentaion of accepted practice should be in the Help: namespace (no need then to further mark it as a "policy" or a "guideline"). That would leave the Wikipedia: namespace for internal bits and pieces that people have no need to read unless they want to. Discussion pages like this should be in a Talk: namespace. But I realize that I have far too logical a mind to bother trying to reason with anyone around here. Victor Yus (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Essays in the Wikipedia space can and should improve and gain acceptance gradually, or go nowhere due to lack of interest, mixed right in with the policies and established guidelines. I think this is much more in accordance with the wiki way than making a special, privileged public namespace. There is indeed some problem with people citing essays as if they were policy; a worse problem is that people cite guidelines as if they were policy. But overall, things work pretty well. Editors debate most changes on their own merits, appealing to the insights found in a sprawl of conflicting guidelines and essays with no clearly defined levels of authoritativeness. That is all just as it should be. I concur with Victor Yus: people who want to "own" essays should keep them in their private User area, not in a public namespace by any name. There is also a new danger with an Essay namespace: that could encourage people to post essays about any topic, not just insights and advice about editing Wikipedia articles. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I certainly agree that there's a problem - today I stumbled upon an essay that clearly goes against policy on at least three counts. I may have been too harsh in adding a warning to that essay. :/ Such extreme examples should not be included in the project namespace at all; they can go in the user area. But many essays contain useful information that isn't covered by official policy, and before one searches for the information, there's no way to know whether it will be in an essay or in a policy. Keeping them both under the same namespace makes it easier to locate that information. ʝunglejill 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But then the (good) essays should be marked as guidelines, right? Because if you're told than a page contains just the views of an unspecified number of users, you don't know whether it is useful information or not. Victor Yus (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something can be useful without being a policy. That's what the essays are for, I suppose. If something hasn't been made a policy, there's usually a reason, like lack of consensus, or a desire to treat certain issues informally. There is a way of knowing whether the information is useful - if it helps you contribute and doesn't contradict policy, then it's useful. ʝunglejill 21:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There's already too much weight given (by some editors) to the policy-guideline-essay trichotomy; this proposal would further entrench such misguided thinking and further embolden ruleslawyers to the detriment of the project. How many times have you seen variations on the following three themes at a noticeboard or in another discussion:

That's a policy, therefore there can be no exceptions...(even in your unusual circumstances which probably weren't contemplated when the policy was created).
That's a guideline and not a policy, therefore I am not required to follow it, and I can't be punished for continuing to violate it.
That's just an essay, so you can't bring it up as a justification or argument in favor of anything; it should be ignored in this discussion.

Essays can be particularly slipperly creatures to classify, too, because often they have much stronger elements of why, and much weaker elements of how—they may describe a particular line of reasoning or justification for a given policy or interpretation, rather than give specific directives about how to perform specific tasks.

Finally, I would remind the proposer of the Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who weighed in here!

I am going to take the liberty of attempting a summary -- there seems to be general agreement that contributors citing essays as if they had the authority of policy is a problem.

Thanks to Victor Yus for suggesting that essays which the original author or authors aren't still working on in User: the namespace, could be kept in Help: namespace. I'd certainly prefer that to the current situation. There are some essays that I think authors would like to promote from User:, that are so controversial, poorly thought out, or otherwise inadequate that they should be demoted back to User:. But I don't know a mechanism for that kind of demotion.

Thanks to Ben Kovitz for noting that an Essay: could encourage individuals to use it for general essays that aren't related to the functioning of WMF projects. Geo Swan (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think if someone cites an essay to help explain their opinion, that's fine. It can save a lot of typing. If anyone cites an essay and claims that it's policy, it's pretty easy to tell them that it's not. The only problem I see is with essays that contradict policies and good practice. ʝunglejill 21:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, in the problematic cases, there is no explicit claim that the essay is policy (or even a guideline). What I see more is people giving shortcut links to essays in the same sort of context that they would give them to policies or guidelines, allowing readers to assume that the positions have consensus support. I am not saying that this is always deliberate and disingenuous, though sometimes I have my suspicions, but it's a problem even if it's not. --Trovatore (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a disclaimer right above every essay. I agree that someone can always come along and completely misunderstand an essay as a policy - this is the internet after all. But let's not take lowest common denominator too far. Most editors are perfectly aware that not every wp:ACRONYM is a policy. ʝunglejill 22:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that anyone explicitly thinks it's a policy. It's that editors who approve of the essay subtly give their positions the air of an authority or a consensus they may not have. Some essays are habitual offenders on this point (WP:ATA, I'm looking at you). --Trovatore (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I suggested this a while back - mainly so that essays would have an E: shortcut (instead of WP:) and be easily identifiable when cited. Rd232 ^talk 21:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the underlying problem is that this habit of "arguing" by writing things like WP:XYZ has become far too engrained. We need to rediscover our ability to think, instead of kidding ourselves that we have an infallible set of rules that will solve every problem for us, that arguments not based explicitly on any of these rules are deficient, and that simply writing the shortcut to a page of rules carries any weight as an argument. Another poor habit (not on topic, though it's illustrated by example here) is prefacing one's responses to others' suggestions with the words Support, Oppose and similar. We're supposed to be discussing matters and reaching a conclusion having weighed up all the factors, not jumping to a conclusion right away, which inevitably leads to a competitive debating-chamber atmosphere. Victor Yus (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But in terms of what we can do towards that, which is relevant to this thread: I think having Essay: and shortcut E: would help a little, because it would prod things towards using essays as argument (substitute for writing words - this essay says want I want to say here) rather than as authority, which WP: tends to imply. Rd232 ^talk 13:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone respond to the reason for my objection? To reiterate, it's easier to search for information if it's under the same namespace. A lot of essays contain useful information about editing Wikipedia, even if they're not formal policy. Sorry, but as a new editor, this is more important to me than providing a minor fix to a perceived problem with discussion style. ʝunglejill 14:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's easier to search for information if it's under the same namespace - not substantially. You would just need to tick both the Wikipedia and Essay namespaces at Special:Search. On the other hand, if you knew it was (or probably was) an Essay, you could restrict your search to that namespace, which would be helpful as the Wikipedia namespace contains an awful lot of content (all WikiProjects, for example). Rd232 ^talk 15:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you're strongly overestimating the willingness of individuals to divide their writings into separate namespace-appropriate 'what we do' versus 'why we do it' portions. Consider the existing system with its Wikipedia: and Help: namespaces. There's a certain amount of overlap between the two namespaces' mandates (as there would be between a future Essay: space and WP:), with two consequences. First, the Help: namespace is underused; even documents that probably should be there often end up in the more-popular and better-known WP: space; pages that sit on the edge almost universally end up falling on the WP: side. There's no good reason to expect this not to happen with a new Essay: space. (Where do we put the putative essay Wikipedia:Advanced footnote formatting?)

Second, we have a massive number of cross-namespace redirects, shortcuts, and hatnotes so that people who go looking for something in one space can still find it if it happens to be in the other. This cross-namespace confusion grows to epic proportions if we move all the existing essays wholesale to a new namespace, as discussions would contain a deeply perplexing mix of WP:- and E:-prefixed titles and shortcuts. (We'd have to leave all the old redirects and shortcuts in place to avoid breaking hundreds of thousands of talk page archives, and there's nothing to prevent our thousands of experienced editors from continuing to use their familiar shortcuts.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this unfortunately seriously reduces the value of the proposal, and is probably the main reason I haven't supported it. There does not seem to be any feasible way to get rid of WP: shortcuts to essays, and the existence of E: shortcuts could perversely aggravate the problem of WP: shortcuts appearing to have consensus or authority (somewhat in the same way that the existence of bike lanes makes it harder on cyclists on roads where they aren't there, or are obstructed).

Nevertheless there is a genuine problem here, and even if I have no solution for it, I would like to see awareness raised about it. If editors were merely reminded somehow that pretty much anyone can write pretty much anything in Wikipedia space, and create a WP: shortcut to it, that would be a significant improvement. But how to remind them? --Trovatore (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essay shortcuts could also start using the E: shortcut regardless of what space they're in, as long as there's community consensus for it. See how a lot of Manual of Style shortcuts use MOS: (such as MOS:NUM, MOS:LAYOUT, etc.), despite them existing in the Wikipedia: namespace. The shortcuts technically exist in articlespace but redirect to Wikipedia-space. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there are any truly urgent reasons for changing the status quo. many essays reside in user space where they are generally protected (by policy) from unwanted editing, and many essays are moved by their creators to WP space (where anyone can edit them). being in WP space doesn't make then any more important however. I have both kinds. 'E' space for all essays might be a good idea, but the editing policy of them would need more discussion. As far as citing essays as if they were policy, I believe that there are sufficient caveats, although some essays have acquired community consensus to be seriously recognised as a guideline - perhaps those should be promoted to guideline status.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a highly problematic path to a guideline. Personally I refrain from editing essays I don't agree with; the authors are entitled to their views and to make them known. I imagine lots of folks do likewise. But then, if the general theme of the essay gets consensus, it means that the views of those who disagree have not been taken into account, and change to the new guideline may be resisted.

Instead, the essay should remain an essay, and a new guideline should be written from scratch, with all views considered. --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read WP:PGE.

I also think that if you think this through, you'll see the problem. Where would you file WP:BRD and WP:TE, which are "just" essays? What about WP:Five pillars, which is (officially) just an essay, but which 99% of newbies seem to think was the first page ever written on Wikipedia and the sole basis for all the official policies? (Its history is summarized at its FAQ if you're curious.)

And then there's the whole concept of what constitutes "policy" in the first place. If you hold Jimbo Wales' view, anything you write that accurately describes the community's view on an important point is automatically a Real Policy. So if you go to your user page, and you type "It is incredibly important to cite reliable sources when writing Wikipedia articles", then that sentence is a Real Policy and your user page (or at least that part of it) is a Real Policy. But if you write a page that says something anti-consensus, like "We've all agreed that WhatamIdoing doesn't have to cite sources because she never makes a mistake", then that is absolutely not a policy, even if you slap a {{Policy}} template on the top of the page.

The bottomline is that reality is mushy. Our advice pages form a continuum. WP:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays is subtle and murky. I don't think we are well served by trying to make much out of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that policies and guidelines are both expected to have consensus, whereas essays need not — they are allowed to be expressions of one POV within the Wikipedia community, even a significantly minoritarian one. If a page marked as a policy or a guideline is actually against consensus, the template designating it as a policy or a guideline will normally be removed in short order. In contrast, it would be quite improper to rewrite an essay to reflect consensus views, if done in a way that contradicts the POV of the essay — essays are an important tool for editors to explain views that may not be the current consensus, and to argue why, in their opinion, those views should become consensus.

WP: shortcuts, unfortunately, elide this important distinction.

As I say, I don't see any easy technical remedy for the problem, because we can't actually delete the shortcuts beginning with WP: without breaking all sortsa stuff. But that does not mean there is not a problem. (I note in passing that you gave a shortcut to an essay, in support of the proposition that essays should not be considered inferior to policies and guidelines.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, PGE is a {{supplement}}, and it's one that was written with the advice of the regulars at WP:POLICY to explain some of the stuff that people keep asking, but we didn't want to bloat the main policy page with. It could have just as easily been put in a {{FAQ}} page. Or we could have added it to the policy page. We talked about it. The fact that we took this approach doesn't mean that the page's contents are any less valid. (I think we would have used a different writing style, but the content would be basically the same.)

Your problem isn't really with shortcuts. The spelled-out name doesn't tell you what the status of the page is.

And, again, there's that difficult question about what's "really" policy. See the bold-faced text at WP:COMMONSENSE, which addresses the question of why that page is labeled as an "essay" rather than a "policy". Is "use common sense" a True Policy or just "one POV" or something else? IMO the True Policy is what the community does, which does not always line up perfectly with its official {{policy}}-tagged pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it did line up. That's not the point. I made my point, but let me say it all by itself so it doesn't get lost in other stuff: Policies and guidelines are supposed to have consensus, and if they don't, they are supposed to be changed. Essays are not expected to have consensus — they are the opinions of their authors. --Trovatore (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is an essay therefore "owned" by the person(s) who originally created it? If I come along and add my opinion to an essay, can the author revert me purely on the grounds that (s)he disagrees with my view? Or is (s)he expected to engage in a consensus-forming process with me? If the first, then it seems the page ought to be in user space as a proprietary page of a given user; if the second, then it seems it is "supposed to have consensus" just as much as any other page would. Or are there some unwritten rules about the editing of essays that put them somewhere in the middle ground between my two scenarios? Victor Yus (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essays located at the user's space are owned by that person and not expected to be edited by others. However, if you move your essay to Wikipedia space this is seen as an invitation to others to further develop the ideas in it. So you really have the two possibilities, with the final decision in the hands of the essay writer. The difference between essays at Wikipedia space with respect to guidelines is that essays don't need to be consistent with policy or other guidelines. Diego (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you put it in Wikipedia space, you are "inviting others to further develop the ideas in it". However, to me, "further developing the ideas" is quite different from, say, writing a completely different essay, because you think the one there is flat wrong. When I think an essay is just completely wrong, that doesn't mean I try to censor it!

That's the point I'm trying to get across: An essay in Wikipedia space, while it may of course be edited by others, is still permitted to be an opinion that does not have consensus, or even that goes completely against consensus. It's unlikely that the community will completely change the thrust of an essay, just because most editors don't agree with it. This is different from policies and guidelines — if the community doesn't agree with a policy or guideline, it is normal for them to change it, or mark it as no longer a policy or guideline. --Trovatore (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of labelling shortcuts to essays with E: in the same way that shortcuts to the Manual of Style are labeled with MOS:. It solves the problem and doesn't require a new namespace, only a few users creting the shortcuts and beginning to use them consistently. This has a chance to gain traction and become widely used quickly, as it's very easy to spot. What essays should be the first to get the new shortcut style? Maybe those at E:Arguments to avoid (like E:JUSTAVOTE, E:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, E:ILIKEIT, E:OTHERSTUFF...) would represent a good test for fringe cases, since it's an essay that's actually used as a guideline. Diego (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a variety of Pseudo-namespaces, however they are classed as x-namespace redirects which there is a lot of opposition to. I agree that it would help with the problem of mistaking essays for policies, but I hope it won't get out of hand with every creator of an WP:essay creating a x-namespace shortcut for it. -- œ ^™ 16:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that a separate namespace is the best solution, but I am concerned that... well... essays cover a wide range. At one end of the range are essays which are respected by many editors, and at the other end you have essays which are a single editor's rant - but some at the latter end of the spectrum still have their WP:ONE_EDITOR_FEELS_REALLY_STRONGLY_ABOUT_THIS redirect - and I can think of a couple which have been cited often by the essay's author in discussions, using the WP: redirect as though it's a real and legitimate rule on enwiki. I find such editing problematic, because it gives a veneer of respectability and community support to a position which has no such thing; and in discussions which need to be formally closed, we can't always rely on the closer to follow every link and carefully weigh up the level of community support for the linked page. bobrayner (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fundamental problem with administrators and inactivity

About 6 months ago, I noticed that the number of administrators and the number of semi-active/inactive administrators was at near 50% with slightly more semi-active/inactive admins than active. Right now we sit at 697 active and 773 semi-active/inactive, or 47% active. Semi-active is fewer than 30 edits in the past 2 months, but at least 1 edit in the past 3 months. Inactive is 0 edits in the past 3 months.

The problem I'm addressing isn't inactivity, but rather competence of semi-active/inactive administrators who may not be informed of current practices on Wikipedia since they have been away. Our policy on removing administrator access to inactive accounts is good, but it's easy for someone to game the system to just keep their admin bit, and their status of trust, within the community. All we require is a single edit or single admin task to keep it. The problem is that all they have to do is come back once a year to make a single edit to continue holding their status. The status of administrator on Wikipedia isn't just the tools, which anything they can do can be easily reverted, but rather a pedestal of high regard and respect in the community that, without proper evidence or reasoning, usually isn't challenged. The problem with this is that with over 770 inactive or partially active accounts with admin, not all of them could be informed on our current practices after being inactive so long. Like I said, one non-binding edit confirms that they own the account, which is great, but it doesn't address them coming back with stature within the community and potentially being uninformed. Here are a few different examples in what I am talking about (these particular users were taken partially at random):

Xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - This is an example of an administrator who is semi-active I have no problem with having adminship. Their last fifty edits date back to the beginning of this year and he comes back infrequently to edit and do administrative tasks. It's clear that he is is still capable of holding his position.
(aeropagitica) (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - This administrators last fifty edits date back from 2012 all the way back to 2009 with 15 of those 50 edits came on the same sessions of editing and 10 of them are in his own user space. In three years, I don't know if he/she is still capable or knowledgeable of different changes that have occurred in guidelines and policies.
Lightdarkness (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - This administrator's last 50 contributions go back to 2007, with 0 edits since 2010 and only 12 edits since 2007. They avoided having their administrative bit removed by deleting the How do i add content test page in 2011 and hasn't edited since. 19 of 50 of their last edits were in their own user space. Again, I don't know whether they're informed of everything that has changed since 2007.

There is a tipping point that was established when User:LC, who had his adminship removed in 2011 for inactivity, came back to get his adminship restored and was denied because he had not edited since 2002. There was a fear of giving LC his adminship back for reasons of the myriad of changes over a 9 year period that he may not be informed of (also it was not sufficiently proven that the account was controlled by LC himself, and he did not reply to queries). At what point do we decide who is equipped and knowledgeable of our current policies and guidelines to still be valuable to the community with the tools or to have the tools restored to them?

If you're looking to skip to the proposal here it is. I think the answer is really simple, all that it requires is a different method of determining who is an active administrator and deprecating the current "one year inactive" de-adminship. It's fairly straight forward: If you do a combined 50 edits or admin actions outside of your own user space within a calendar year, you are considered an active administrator. If you make less than 50, your adminship is removed for inactivity. It actually benefits the encyclopedia in various ways:

It stops inactive administrators from simply coming back and doing a null edit to their user page to keep their adminship for another year and leaving the community to wonder if they are coming back or not.
It forces administrators at least provide a bare minimum of contributions or administrative duties to give us something to base their work on. We won't have to wonder whether they are equipped to handle to tools anymore.
The difference between a bare minimum of 1 edit/log to confirm they are here and my proposed 50 is this:
- 773 semi-active/inactive administrators making 1 edit to confirm they are still admin under our current system is 773 edits/logs (which could be as little as a user page edit.)
- 773 semi-active/inactive administrators making 50 edits/logs outside their user space is 38,650 productive edits, and all of them could keep their adminship and be considered active.
For administrators who fall inactive, the method of restoring their admin bit is slightly the same: all the former admin has to do is make 50 edits (outside their user space) to confirm that they are active, and they make request at WP:BN to get their admin bit back (at the bureaucrats discretion as always).

An example of this proposal in action is as straight forward as it's worded. For example, between 00:00 January 1, 2013 and 23:59 December 31, 2013, all an admin would have to do is make their combined 50 edits or administrative logs, and they keep it until 2014. In 2014, they just have to make another minimum 50, and so on into the future. The only way I see this being debated is because the proposal actually enforces that an administrator has to make a bare minimum number of edits, but is that a bad thing compared to accounts sitting there and rotting with an admin bit? Normally active administrators are unaffected, admins aren't forced to be here any longer than normal, and it makes inactive administrators only spend minimal time here if they want to keep being administrators. At 50 contributions per administrator who are inactive at this point, we can gain tons of useful contributions and the rate of completion for doing the minimum number is achievable within a single day. I look forward to seeing responses about this. — Moe ε 13:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The inherent flaw in your proposal is that you assume the inactive admin has not simply been reading, rather than taking an active role. Further, it's inherently "forcing" admins to meet a quota, something that really flies in the face of making good decisions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't assume that they aren't reading, and if that is the case, they could be very informed which is good. But if that's the case, if you make 50 edits in less than a year, you're not doing your part, are you? Out of the 1,400+ people entrusted on the entire website to be here and actually do something when there are problems, are the people we allow to sit and do nothing? Do you knowingly pass a user on RFA, if it said in their nomination "After I'm give admin, I'm going to rarely be here at all, but I'll keep informed and make an edit or two a year."? No, you won't. Like I said, is enforcing a quota a bad thing? Why do we tolerate administrators to sit back and not do anything? If you gave a janitor a mop and bucket and he only came by once a year to adjust their locker and leave, I'd be pretty pissed nothing is being done. We have 697 active and 773 snoozing. 50 administrative logs or edits combined, is such a minor task for someone at the level of an administrator. It's achievable by them logging in once and year a doing something, which is all I'm asking really. — Moe ε 23:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, I've been active here for eight years and I don't even know our current practices. The problem isn't inactivity among admins, the problem is in informing everyone of evolving standards and practices. --Golbez (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's fine Golbez :) I'm not expecting someone to re-invent the wheel or be some kind of connoisseur of the English Wikipedia. All I'm asking for is a simple minimum number of duties, a combined 50 edits and/or administrative logs (outside their userspace) that you do within a year. It's just a simple recognition that you are here and that you actually do something still, something very minor to prove you are still competent in holding the tools. — Moe ε 23:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the only problem I have with this proposal is that you mischaracterize the background. Logging in once a year to make one edit is not "gaming the system", since desysopping inactive accounts is a procedural matter only. And LC was not denied a resysop because he had been inactive too long to know what he was doing. That was claimed, sure, but there was no consensus on it. His resysop was actually declined because even the bureaucrats who didn't care how active he was weren't sure if his account had been compromised, or why he was asking. But getting back to the actual proposal, this seems to me like a solution in search of a problem. Please show me the administrator who, as a result of ignorance of policy changes, started screwing up the encyclopedia and resisted all attempts at being educated. An RFA is a stamp of a approval on an editor for not only being knowledgeable of policy, but also having clue. I choose to believe that any editor capable of passing RFA is at least cognizant of the fact that policies change. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to assume that anyone we give a stamp of approval on is aware of our every-changing policies and guidelines, but the reality is that most of them are probably not actively reading every day. If they are, that is one thing, and doing a bare minimum of 50 edits/administrative logs isn't very hard for someone reading Wikipedia every day. In the case of those who are not, then they don't have a clue what the current policies and guidelines are, because they are never here. In the case of Lightdarkness above, are you sufficiently satisfied that he is still able to perform administrative duties within Wikipedia based on his last bout of active editing stemming from 2007? The problem, as I said from the beginning, is accounts sitting there and rotting under the guise of they are an administrator for life, as long as they come back and make a null edit. I don't need to be convinced they are superlative at handling the admin bit, or that they know every policy, but rather confirmation that they are here and at least trying. Why would we give someone special privileges and stature in our community for them to sit and idle on it? — Moe ε 23:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, both Meta and Commons have (different) substantive activity requirements:
- Commons: less than 5 admin actions in 6 months: 30 days' notice to confirm intention to return; then desysop without warning if again less than 5 actions in 6 months. See Commons:Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.
- Meta: less than 10 edits in 6 months: immediate desysop; 10+ edits but fewer than 10 admin actions: 1 week to confirm intention to remain admin. See meta:Meta:Administrators#Inactivity.

Rd232 ^talk 21:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The Commons policy of harassing administrators in otherwise good standing to perform work to maintain that standing is, to be frank, bullshit. --Golbez (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And if anyone missed in my proposal, as long as you come back and do your minimum number of duties, even if you are de-admined for inactivity, you are given back to the tools procedurally like we do now. It's just changing 1 edit to prove that you're alive, to 50 to prove you're still functional. — Moe ε 23:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a good proposal. Unscintillating (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also support more substantive activity requirements. --99of9 (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This just seems like common sense. If you can't make at least 50 edits a year, then it is extremely unlikely that you are keeping up on policy changes and admin responsibilities and activities. Sure, there might be a few outlier admins, but the possible amount of those is so low as to be negligible for the main purpose of this proposal. Silverseren^C 05:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. On these criteria, we would have lost User:Moreschi, an excellent administrator. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They can easily do RfA again. I mean, if they're good admins, then it should be pretty easy to get reinstated and it would further show community support for them in general. And, heck, we could use some more RfAs in general for our current dismal stats in that area. Silverseren^C 05:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise. Actually, Moreschi would be fine, re-review the actual proposal. He has made 50 edits and administrative logs combined this year alone, so under this, he would retain adminship. If he was inactive for a long period of time previously (assuming he was gone for a very long time?), his edits proving him being active now means he would have got his adminship restored if it was removed. The only difference between our current practice and this proposal, is that it's 50 edits or administrative logs combined (outside of the user's own userspace) in a year, as compared to a single edit anyone on Wikipedia in one year. He actually wouldn't need to go through RFA again, Silver seren, he would just have to prove he is active on Wikipedia. This is to prevent administrators from idling for an entire year and committing a single edit to retain adminship without providing any service to the site. — Moe ε 06:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose. What we need are admins who are capable of fair, judicious and impartial actions. Those qualities do not degrade over time. The argument that a period of inactivity should of itself be a disqualification is flawed for several reasons (as mentioned above they may be observing but not editing, or they may be completely absent but prepared to spend time getting up to speed when returning).

RfA discussion is not just about technical knowledge of current policy, it's about assessing intent, motivation and character. And from the point of view of this longstanding, but not especially active editor, it works. The quality of admin work here that I have seen has been outstanding: not because of detailed current knowledge of every last policy, but because it has been thoughtful.

Now I'm sure there are examples of misuse or incompetence, and that might be the motivation behind this proposal, but the way to address that concern is to streamline the process for de-adminship (for action rather than inaction).

Another legitimate concern is that requests for administrative action be dealt with promptly - let's achieve that by encouraging communication by means other than the talk page of an administrator. I would support a proposal to put a "Seems to be inactive" notice there.

Finally, (sorry this is so long), it's hard enough to get properly engaged editors, let alone properly-motivated admins so please let's not let impose an arbitrary technical requirement. Mcewan (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mcewan. I'm not rather questioning their past usefulness to Wikipedia, which is self-evident because they are administrator, but rather wanting to expand what is considered inactive for the sake of the website. It's rather preposterous, the little amount of requirements it takes to retain adminship, don't you think? If admin X left now, July 3, 2012, under our current policy, he could do a total of ten edits and/or administrative actions, once a year, from now until 2022 and retain adminship without a further glance. We have continued to push a mantra of "administrator for life" to the point of ridiculousness. The whole premise behind that makes things very difficult to retain administrators, because they can come back anytime they like, make their minimum requirement of 1 edit and move on. After that, they can come back and by the time they do, it's not the same Wikipedia they left with. You can check any policy or guideline page on Wikipedia to exactly 5 years ago, it isn't the same as today. That mantra is fine for people who are here every day contributing, but it's the 1 edit admin a year this isn't fine for. All this proposal does, is makes someone who is an administrator fill a quota of 50 edits or administrative logs (blocks, protections, deletions, etc.) so that we can be sure that they are somewhat familiar with the site on a yearly basis. — Moe ε 06:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I suppose my point is that if we trust someone to be an admin then we implicitly also trust them to keep current on policy before acting. There is no correlation between knowledge of policy and number of edits, so why impose any activity requirement at all? Personally I would be happy with none. Mcewan (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, proposal doesn't actually solve any problem. 5 or 10 or 50 admin actions per year don't help me keep up with what is going on (unlike a month of lurking at ANI). We already have an arbitrary automatic desysop cutoff, and you have not demonstrated any actual problems (bad admin actions) that have resulted from making it easy to stay an admin. —Kusma (t·c) 09:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: on nowiki there is a gadget which helps people to keep track of who is active on which administrative tasks. See MediaWiki:Gadget-show-sysop-activity.js. Maybe someone finds it useful here as well. Helder 13:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the problem. Or, the problem that this would solve is not a problem that I've seen or that is being complained about. If we have signs that someone kept the bit (e.g., by making one edit every 12 months) and later screwed up with the admin tools (more than the average admin might), then de-sysopping due to inactivity (by any measure) would be reasonable. But I'm not seeing any examples of this happening, and failing any such evidence, the OP wants us to pretend that having the tools is a great big deal. Also, there are some admins who rarely do anything on the English Wikipedia, but who are sometimes enormously useful to us, e.g., dealing with multi-project copyright violations. Some of our "inactive" admins are actually quite valuable to us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are also uses to being an admin that don't involve performing any admin actions. A lot of feedback issues, help desk questions, and OTRS queries require looking through deleted edits. You could theoretically have an admin who uses his tools all the time, just not the ones that log. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a solution looking for a problem. I took a lengthy wikibreak at one point, probably near two years, but came back around occasionally during it. I still read the articles, after all, and I just can't see a typo or easily fixed problem here without, well, fixing it. I was never intending to leave the project permanently, just to take a long break. This being a volunteer project, I have every right to take a "leave of absence" whenever, for whatever reason, and for whatever period of time I want, and so long as I'm not leaving to evade likely sanctions, to come back in just as good of standing as when I left. Coming back to make a null edit every so often isn't "gaming," since inactivity desysops are strictly procedural and are immediately reversible upon a simple request to the 'crats anyway. It's just a way of saying "I'm still interested in working on the project, I just am not doing it right now." Obviously, it would be incumbent upon someone who takes a long break to carefully review any changes that have occurred in their absence, as I did when I returned, but admins have passed a community process showing trust in their judgment. I should think it very basic good judgment to say "Hrm, I've been away for X years, and this project is pretty fluid. I'd better make sure I check on current community expectations before I wade in to hit the big red buttons." If someone fails to do that and fails to respond to feedback when they're told we don't do it that way anymore, we can handle that through normal processes and ultimately ArbCom, but I know of no such actual circumstance. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Seraphimblade. We can only hope that people who come back to their former hobby they no longer participate in actively are as willing to realize this. I know most of them would be, but there's always that exception :) In your case, since you came back, you would have had your admin bit restored procedurally just like our current policy after proving that you are active again. There have been a fair share of administrators who have come back for their admin bit on the 'crat noticeboard, then proceeded to disappear again. With this proposal, all it does is make those editors participate minimally in the community rather than not at all. — Moe ε 07:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone. The most common oppose I have read from the above oppose !votes to my proposal have been based around no current problem and there not being any examples of there being an issue. I understand the premise behind that understanding, which is something we usually base our policies and guidelines on, but this is rather a solution to a future problem which is going to arrive since we have nearing 800 inactive/semi-active administrators. Active administrators are actually a minority that is steadily declining. Just keep that in mind. :P I may write a formal WP policy proposal based on the idea, since a few people did say they supported it. I'll be around to read comments until the thread dies. Regards, — Moe ε 07:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support A good administrator deactivated through inactivity shouldn't have any problem going through RfA again, and we should welcome the chance to review their credentials for currency. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - The whole idea is that the community chose to trust the individual with adminship. The proposal would de facto be a way for Wikipedia:Removal of adminship. We have had a tradition that any admin who has not had the tools removed "under a cloud" may have adminship restored by any bureaucrat. This proposal is contrary to that common practice.
And by the way, no offense to anyone asserting this idea, but the argument that someone coming back after a few years wouldn't know or understand the continually evolving common practice, and so should have adminship removed is straight up BS.

First, you have NO CLUE whether they have been reading during this time. To use myself as an example, at one point I had severe technical issues. And while I don't mind reading wikipedia at the local library or other such places. I strongly preferred to not sign in and edit from such places.

"Second, if we as a community decided to entrust them with the tools, and that includes to not mis-use the tools, then it follows that we should trust them to not misuse them after a lengthy wikibreak. This proposal just violates long common practice here.

So to re-affirm: Strong oppose - jc37 16:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jc37. To reply to your concerns:

If an administrators tools were removed for not being active (50 edits/administrative logs in a calendar year) under this, they would get them restored procedurally just like we do now at WP:BN, but the only difference is instead of 1 edit/log, it would be 50, to prove activity.
The notion that the semi-active and inactive administrators who only make an occasional edit to the encyclopedia and their request adminship back, but simultaneously sit and watch policy and guideline pages, is preposterous. There are semi-active adminstrators who do a fair share of edits around the encyclopedia, 2-3 every week, who would be unaffected by this. It's essentially only those who come back to WP:BN, request their adminiship back, then idle again are the ones who are directly affected for the most part since even semi-active admins make the bare minimum number of contributions of 50 edits/logs a year.
Even if there was "reader" admins who sit and make no edits but request their adminship back, what good can come of giving the occasional reader of Wikipedia adminship? Why don't we give adminship back once they no longer have technical issues or once they are ready to actively return and make a bare minimum number of contributions? Like I said, the process is still procedural that they get the tools back once they are active and ready to contribute using the tools. I hate the thought of giving someone access to tools when they aren't here for a majority of the time. It's true, we don't know whether they are caught up-to-date on policy or not, but being inactive suggests that they are not here, rather than that they are.
Regards, — Moe ε 07:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriateness of "X on Twitter" (or similar) articles

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There's been a lot of issues with behavior problems revolving around various celebrity's "...on Twitter" articles. Examples include

Lady Gaga on Twitter (Best I know, hasn't seen AFD yet)
Justin Bieber on Twitter (current AFD
Ashton Kutcher on Twitter (current AFD

Uncle G has provided a good summary of the poor behavior that these articles are creating (either way), in that we have "empty" AFD !votes, articles at GAN/FAC being sent to AFD, articles at AFD being sent to GAC/FAC, etc. Plus a race to create more, put more to GA (at minimum) as "protection" from AFD, etc. Rightly so, the problem is that these are articles that we don't know what to do with yet, and there are arguments on both sides regarding them.

First, I'd like to propose an informal halt to any meta-activity on these articles, at least until some resolve has been made. No creation, no AFD'ing, no GAN/FAC (allowing the current running ones to complete of course).

But we do need some resolve. I have my own ideas how these articles should be treated, but I don't want to taint the discussion with my opinion here. Instead, I'd like to see what the general community feels about these, are they appropriate, are there better ways of handling it, should they not even exist? Based on what consensus says, we can make appropriate changes to guideline/policy that summarizes that and then and only then can we turn back to what we have to see if the articles themselves may be affected.

Note that I am going to assume that we are talking about "...on Twitter" articles that already meet WP:V in terms of sourcing, and we're talking only those that other sources have clearly recognized, not a random celebrity or nobody. The three examples above are the ones that I would expect of minimum quality for an "on Twitter" article to even exist, so this is not meant to say that we can create a "On Twitter" article for any random person X. But even when they get as largely sourced as the above three, the questions on appropriateness remain.

Note that I'm looking ahead to any type of "X on Y" where Y is some social media application, like YouTube, or Facebook, or whatever. There may not be any articles that meet these now, but we should be considering the potential of what future such services may bring.

Given this, I'm breaking up the discussion into three areas, below. Two for "Generally acceptable" and "Generally unacceptable", and a third for "Other options", which I hope people expand with possible ideas for determining between acceptable and unacceptable. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...on Twitter" articles are generally acceptable

Assuming as the question does, that the twitter account is generally notable and verifiable. To avoid the illegitimate WP:BELONG type arguments, yes. These are similar to articles on noted individual blogs. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...on Twitter" articles are generally inappropriate

Because of the potential spread, since most subjects here in the entertainment industry have at least the potential for such a page, the standards should be very high. The claim that such a subject is notable is the sort of extraordinary claim that needs extraordinarily good sourcing. It should require a very strict interpretation of the notability guidelines, in which several really substantial non-tabloid sources of unquestionable seriousness and reliability --preferable academic or serious published non-fiction studies devoted primarily to the topic should be required. Otherwise we degenerate into a fansite. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that notability for these types of articles should be based on impact, and not just activity. Activity will be written about by "reliable sources" every day just because of the incredible size, reach and potential profitability of the industry, but this material is generally of the trivia/tabloid kind. However, sources about the cultural impact or long-term consequences of a person's Twitter account by the kinds of organizations DGG mentions above ("academic o[r] serious published non-fiction studies devoted primarily to the topic") are a completely different animal and would certainly seem to warrant a serious article. Those are understandably rarer, and so given the amount of -- yes, I'm going to say it -- cruft that finds its way into current articles on these subjects, I think saying that "X on Twitter" articles are generally inappropriate is closest to the truth. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 01:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, WP:notability (fiction) was a notability guideline and tried "impact" as part of notability criterion, but it is now an essay about notability of characters itself. All internet stuff is notable under GNG, but this whole discussion is becoming more about how to write a valuable article. As said, why focusing more on notability than an idea of making MOS guideline about internet topics? --George Ho (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue that is larger than the "...on twitter" articles is the issue of meta-articles in general. These articles are reporting on the reporting of others, which is distinct from using the reporting of others as sources. Said in WP-speak, articles such as these are treating what are normally RS as PRIMARY. By writing an article about what X or Y source thinks about topic Z, we are no longer an encyclopedia but rather a news aggregator. As an example if this, if a Twitter user tweets from their verified account that they are getting married then we may update their BIO to say that they are getting married and source it (BLP allows SPS as sources about themselves) to the tweet. That is writing about the event (getting married), not the medium of distribution (Twitter). When we get into writing about the medium, the line into meta-reporting gets crossed. That is no longer encyclopeadic, but just being an aggregator (at best). That isn't to say that there aren't notable events where there is an intersection. For instance, the race to 1M followers might be notable for both the BIO and the Twitter article. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As a devil's advocate, we have articles on notable fan sites that are pretty much just news aggregation or the like for something else. Take, for example Lostpedia or Equestria Daily. I will not dismiss the idea that a celeb's twitter can be notable on its own as long as the sources are talking about the Twitter account and not just reporting on news reported in the account. There is some reasonable logic here. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right and to add, there is no basis in fact or logic to the claim that "The Washington Post" or a myriad of other sources are "primary sources" about a twitter account. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It depends on how they are reporting it. WashPost stating "Celeb X said on his twitter that he will be getting married" is a primary source. WashPost station "Celeb X's twitter has been used for X to pass along news and personal information faster than through his PR agent." would edge on secondary. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. The Washington Post is a secondary source; the tweet itself is primary assuming it's the person involved tweeting.Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Wrong. Secondary sources require analysis and transformation of information; otherwise, if they are just repeating a primary source, they remain a primary source. This is why, for news and events, we expect analytic coverage of the event rather than only just rote reporting. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also, specifically, the WashPost in the example above would be a third-party source, which does help with WP:V, but doesn't help with notability. --MASEM (t) 03:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No. The Washington Post is almost never a tertiary source. And no, a secondary source reports from a primary source. It is third-party because it is not the first or second party in a communication. (however, its reporter might be the second)Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as Washington Post, a secondary source, weekly reports from soap operas, primary sources. Like soap operas, Washington Post reports primary sources, like Twitter activities and fiction. --George Ho (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a secondary source, they have editorial control over what they report from a primary source.Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware: primary/secondary/tertiary is one way to classify a source, describing how itself is using other sources,, and first-party/third-party a completely separate way. The WashPost is a third-party (in that it is unrelated at all) to a celeb's twitter, no question. But if all that is being repeated in the WashPost is what is in the twitter with no further comment, that makes it a primary, third-party source. The thing to remember: the primary or secondary nature of WashPost (or any other source) will change depending on the topic and how they report it; we never say that every article WashPost ever publishes is always primary or always secondary. It's context dependent. Please review WP:PSTS for clarity on this. --MASEM (t) 04:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As that says primary is created by the people involved not by others not involved. The Post is not the primary source. If someone speaks to you in person or writes a note that's the primary source; if someone else tells you what they said or wrote, that is secondary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's assuredly the "first party" source, but even a first party source can be secondary depending on the nature of the topic and method of presentation. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the topic is someone else's communication, and the method of presentation is the paper's editorial control over telling you that information is something they want you to inform you about. It is secondary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not as simple. If the newspaper is simply repeating what was in the Twitter with no additional analysis or critique, the newspaper is a primary source for that Twitter account because there has been no transformation of information. If the paper goes into an analysis of the Twitter account or critiques on it, or does something otherwise novel than just re-reporting what it said, it is secondary source for that Twitter account. That follows WP:PSTS and long-term discussions on WT:OR. --MASEM (t) 12:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper is not simply repeating (even if there were the specialized meaning of secondary, which is incorrect), it is picking that information out to highlight. Now, if you are saying the newspaper is primary for its own content, that is unremarkable and true of every source we use, but none of them are primary for other people's communications. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing down information from primary sources does not make a work secondary if there's no further analytical aspects added to it. And no, I'm not saying the newspaper is primary for itself. If an article, in the context of the topic of re-reporting what a Twitter account, performed no further analysis of that Twitter account, that article would be a primary source for the Twitter account. That makes no claim that the rest of the newspaper is a primary source, or that the article is only a primary source for any other topic, simply for the coverage of the Twitter account. Again, you need to review WP:PSTS, as we are looking not just for one-step removed but for the analysis that comes with secondary sources. "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them". --MASEM (t) 13:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The evaluative claim a newspaper makes when reporting is that it is something to be reported. Again, it is secondary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it happened that the entire article (or at least a very sizable chunk) was about the Twitter account, that might be true. For example, this news article discussing the Twitter "war" between Gaga and Bieber is secondary to both of them. This news article which is supporting a commentary about Bieber via quotes from his Twitter, is a primary source for the Bieber Twitter article on WP. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Commentary is a secondary source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary makes the second article a secondary source for Bieber himself but it makes no statement about the Twitter account beyond repeating the quote, so it is a primary source for Bieber on Twitter. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement it makes is that it is worth reporting. The tweet, itself, out of his or anyone else many tweets, is the primary source for the tweet. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your concept of "secondary" is far outside the lines we use on WP. Just repeating information (even if it is the case of editorial oversight to pick out the most relevant quotes) does not create secondary information. Again, please review WP:PSTS. This is standard practice on WP. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, as you have nothing to offer based on the ordinary meaning of policy, words, or reason. I take it that's the end.Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted what WP:PSTS says about secondary sources! You are drastically mis-interpreting that. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just reading it in its ordinary and common sense meaning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So exactly what "analytic or evaluative claims" are being made about the Twitter account by simply requoting the Twitter account? I strongly urge you to review past discussions at WT:OR where its being iterated that newspaper stories just reiterating the facts are typically primary sources, but can be secondary in other context. This is crux to this issue to understand why this articles can be problematic if they're based only on repeating what was said in Twitter. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sorry. We've been through exactly this above and it's best not to repeat. My answer has not changed. If you would care to discuss further come to my page. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You never answered this, and it is critical to this discussion not to separate it to a separate page. Understanding the nature of Twitter coverage by sources is critical to whether they pass notability or other tests for article allowance. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried in at least three slightly different ways, see the comments beginning: "The newspaper is not simply repeating...,"The evaluative claim. . ."; "The statement it makes. . .". I don't know what more I can do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The evaluative claim a newspaper makes when reporting is that it is something to be reported" is bogus, at least when considering the second article I point above. When a newspaper article dedicates itself to a topic, like the Twitter war article that the first example is, that gives some credence to the evaluative claim. But when it simply pulls a tweet out to support an article about the person, there is zero evaluative claims about the Twitter account. It's just using the Twitter account as a source, like they would use eyewitnesses, press releases, or interview responses as sources; using these first-person accounts as sources as part of a larger topic, without any further comment, does not make the newspaper article a secondary source for the first-person account. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the evaluative claim it makes. It doesn't matter if you don't approve of the evaluative claim it makes. It has decided that that information is pertinent and worthy of coverage. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the recap thing and stuff? How is reporting real-life events not the same as recapping soap operas? --George Ho (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can have a primary source recap an event, a secondary source recap an event, or a tertiary source recap an event, so its not pertinent to the distinction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A recap that only summarizes the event/show/whatever is a primary source. A recap that summarizes and adds commentary or analysis is secondary. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, the categorization is the sources relation to the action and what they use as source{s). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary/Secondary has nothing to do with the source relation; that's the first party/third party metric. It has to do with where the information is coming from and how it is used. I've read through the discussions on WT:OR to make sure my memory of how these discusses go, and again its pretty clear that reporting without analysis is primary, period. Your viewpoint, specifically on the example above where an article simply republished what the Twitter account says, that this article is a secondary source of information for the twitter account, is flat out wrong. You can check WT:OR if you want but that viewpoint is just not compatable with the normal definitions or how WP uses the terms.

But as to avoid dragging this out. I am making the assumption that when we are talking about this "X on Twitter" articles that they have sourcing that already meets the GNG, so we're not challenging these articles based on notability; ergo, whether certain pieces of coverage are primary or secondary doesn't matter since we're assuming we've got secondary sources aplenty so that notability is not what's being challenged here. There's other factors at play that are more significant to consider. --MASEM (t) 12:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. The Notability assumption is the one under which this discussion was started. I appreciate that you have come to agree with me that this is not the place to discuss categorization, although your understanding of the categorization is incorrect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't stand these articles for a pretty simple reason... 95% of what is written is pure trivia, while the useful 5% is already covered (or should be covered) on the subject's main article. They offer excessively fine detail on what is an incredibly small part of any celebrities person. Resolute 03:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will add, however, that getting rid of them is about as likely as dumping the equally silly royal wedding dress articles. Excessive detail on trivial things is something the project will very likely contain until the servers are switched off. Resolute 03:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What? Articles of wedding dresses worn by celebrity are historical and worth discussing due to royalty, value, and stuff, mergable or not. Of Twitter activities, on the other hand, are children of internet activities and may suffer from recentism. --George Ho (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is rather my point, actually. Kate Middleton is notable for marrying a royal and her wedding to Will is likewise notable. Her dress is claimed to be notable because she is, which is a borderline POVFORK. I view the ...on Twitter articles the same way. Justin Bieber and his music may be notable, but the fine detail on this trivia is likewise a borderline POVFORK. Bieber uses hashtags when tweeting, and discusses a wide variety of subjects! OMG! So do I! Better write an article about my Twitter activities too! Resolute 13:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - ...Well, wedding dresses are not similar to technology. In fact, under Wikipedia standards, articles of a dress need reception and analysis to add encyclopedic value, regardless of notability, right? 19th-century dresses may be exceptions due to needs of an offline source. However, an article of an account cannot explain only messages that made impact; it needs background of creation and signifying analysis in general. The current revisions of an account article is bloated and demeaning to general public of five years from now. --George Ho (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a piece of technology, a means of communication. What a famous person may say may be noteworthy, but what means of communication they used is not. This should just be so completely obvious to anyone above a basic grade level that I find it difficult to fathom just why we have to discuss it. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I explained below, but suffice it to say that I agree with DGG on this. WP:NOT applies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are WP:SS subarticles of the main article. As such, their topic must not only be separately notable, but their size relative to the main article and other subarticles (if any) must be in proportion to the importance of the topic for the person's biography as a whole. I would be exceptionally surprised if a topic so trivial as a person's Twitter presence would be so important to their biography as to justify the creation of a separate article. Moreover, such articles are at a peril of filling up with vapid tabloid-style content even faster than the main article. Sandstein 19:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...On Twitter" is inherently unencyclopedic since it is essentially original research-type sifting of primary source material to first publish a treatise a topic. Carrite (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment on one of the AFD's - in short: no thank you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't belong here; shows poor editorial judgement. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those odd cases where you can actually source an article correctly, even though the article itself contains nothing of value. Twitter might be a popular medium, but do we need a separate record to document what individual XYZ had said or done on this service? What about "On LinkedIn" or "On FaceBook", or the tongue in cheek "Caveman on historical clay tablet"?. There is simply no encyclopedic value in these articles - virtually the entire page is trivial information, and the few scraps of decent data can just as well be covered in the main page (And most times it is already covered). "On x" should generally be avoided - we don't want nor need an entire bunch of subpages for every article to document a relation with an external information source. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such articles are never appropriate as an article on any site with a desire to be a professional encyclopedia. The test of these things is to swap out one communication mediaum for another. X on a telephone. X on walkie talkies. X on Skype. X on Reddit. Ridiculous. DreamGuy (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty simple: we are building a serious encyclopaedia. For those who prefer a wiki that does not restrict their behaviour and accepts all kinds of nonsensical content: go install mediawiki on your own server. Arcandam (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not Facebook or Twitter. If there is any notable content in the article, merge it with the celebrity's main article. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 15:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'll copy and paste what I said at two ongoing AFDs:
... because this is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIARY, WP:NOTCASE study, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is not a simple issue of notability. The fact is, for any major public figure, you're going to be able to assemble sources about a myriad of subtopics. Barack Obama's appearances in Ohio. Justin Bieber's live performances. Lindsay Lohan's substance abuse issues. Those would all technically be sourceable. The problem is, you're starting to get into topic selections that resemble the biases of the editor. You're starting to confuse "the subject" with "what the subject is notable for". It's your standard WP:CONTENTFORK problem where people can write multiple articles that are all basically about the same thing, which would make the encyclopedia even more unmanageable than it already is.
... There's my best reading of our policy, in both letter and in spirit. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lindsay Lohan's substance abuse issues might be large enough for a spinout.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, you managed to stumble upon my worst nightmare. (I'm one of the main editors trying to keep Lindsay Lohan in shape and I am all too familiar with the reams and reams of sources available on the most minor aspects of her life.) I seriously hope the BLP and POV issues of a spinout like that are too obvious for anyone to attempt it. Siawase (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something like somebody saying they liked some clothes caused some rush that was remarked on in a secondary source then that would be about the limit of the twitter I'd have though was reasonable to include. A secondary source is needed. Dmcq (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only if there is commentary about the celebrity's use of Twitter, and a sufficient amount of that so that a spinout article is appropriate. The actual tweets by that ~~twit~~ twitterer should not be a factor as to whether there is an article. Otherwise, it really does fall into WP:NOTDIARY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how I think WP:POVFORK applies. I think it was Tarc who mentioned this in one of the afds, NPOV doesn't just apply to controversial opinions (where it most often gets brought up) but to everything. It wouldn't be NPOV to add 50k text with details of Bieber's twitter activitities to the main Justin Bieber article, that would be giving it undue weight. And the context of the full biography makes due and undue weight and NPOV fairly easy to determine. Creating a separate article on only one aspect ends up skirting around the undue weight issues that would be obvious if it was included in the main article. We're talking about entertainers here, who are notable for their singing, acting etc. And we don't spin out separate articles on that. There is no Justin Bieder's singing career or Lady Gaga's singing career that had to be spun out due to length, but these minor aspects supposedly need to be spun out? Siawase (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"On Twitter" articles should never be considered encyclopedia-worthy. As I said on the AfD discussion about Justin Bieber on Twitter: If your interested in somebody's Tweets, then do you A) read the person's Tweets or B) read about the Tweets on Wikipedia? I have a feeling almost everybody answers "A". Also, a topic's verifiability and the fact that it is well-sourced are not enough for it to be included. Perhaps include the information on each person's article, or start a section on the Twitter article about "Notable Twitter Accounts", but individual Twitter accounts do not deserve their own articles. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In almost every case, the media presence of a subject (on Twitter, on their own website, in the New York Times, etc.) is not independently notable of the subject itself, and as such, the default for "Foo on Twitter" should be "REDIRECT:Foo". The number of Twitter followers cannot and should not be used to claim notability p b p 22:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per DGG at the very top above. I suspect that the appropriate number of "X on Twitter" articles is zero (certainly sometimes a tweet is notable but it can be mentioned in the article on the author or subject of the tweet). But that my change as new sources become available . In any event, they should be the exception rather than the rule. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think DGG and Nolelover together covered it pretty well. I won't say that no X on Twitter article is worthy, but I think they would be exceptionally rare (and I'm not convinced we've had one yet). Anything someone tweets is either not worthy of mention at all, or should be in the main article on the person. We would need high quality (think academic) sources talking about the impact of someone's Twitter (Facebook, Goodreads, what-have-you) account as a notable phenomenon in order to justify an article in an encyclopedia about that account. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, WP:NOTPEOPLEMAGAZINE. LadyofShalott 02:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like the user just above me (LadyofShalott ^contact) wrote, I too feel that the users DGG (talk · contribs) and Nolelover (talk · contribs) together described the issue pretty well. Nothing much left for me to contribute, however I will say this that the subjects of the articles are not really worth a separate page. Brendon is here 12:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as though I'm mostly reiterating what others have said, but I see no need for separate articles along this vein. The content would be better kept (or moved, or added, as appropriate) to the ... article instead of existing in a ... on twitter article. --Nouniquenames (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...on Twitter" articles should not be lumped together but evaluated individually

I strongly object to the framing of this dispute. Were you to ask me whether I think said articles are generally acceptable or generally inappropriate, I would be compelled to say the latter even though I would vote to keep nearly all the ones currently in existence (the remainder being merge votes) and would move to undelete the one that just got deleted, which I said then and will say again was actually the one that was most worthy of being kept. The idea that there should be some sort of general verdict on the validity of including x-type of article is absurd. So, I will just create a section for people to assert the more basic principle that we shouldn't make judgments on Wikipedia content based solely on generalizations and innuendo. Each article is unique and should be judged based on its own independent circumstances not some confluence of hostility towards articles on popular culture and social media. We already have perfectly fine standards for determining whether an article should be kept or not, if we apply them appropriately and do not make judgments based on our preconceptions about the subject matter then it will work out fine.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a note separate from the overall status of Twitter account articles I would cover the specific problem of WP:INDISCRIMINATE being used in these discussions. In the Kutcher Twitter AfD, people citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE appeared to be using it as a nice way to get rid of articles on pop-culture subjects they detest by claiming it is an "indiscriminate" collection of gossip material without regard to anything that separates it from the norm (the Bennifer AfD mentioned below is a similar case of the policy being abused to ignore the unique notability of the subject). Now, when I cited that policy in prior AfDs it was for these "rumor" articles that literally just tracked down rumors and gossip about a subject and compiled it all in a single article that actually resembled some subject of pseudo-significance. It was an absurd thing that you could do for just about any subject, which is not the case here. You really wouldn't have the sources to do an article "Rihanna on Twitter" that would not just be a random summarizing of things she has said on Twitter because the actual subject of her use of Twitter does not get much attention. Nothing I can find in connection with her on Twitter has any independent significance. Basically it is just reporting her talking about stuff happening to her. That is the kind of difference I would try to find.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This. More explanation for why I think this is available in my earlier comment, but the long and short of it is that there is nothing inherent about a Twitter account that means it cannot be notable or written usefully about. If some of the current crop of Twitter articles don't meet our standards, that's fine - we have a deletion process that can deal with non-notable or unencyclopedic articles! However, if/when there are articles about notable Twitter accounts - whether that's today, in six months, in five years, whatever - there will be, and will have been, no value in a blanket prohibition on the very concept. Evaluate an article on its merits, not on whether we like the topic or whether our scry glass says that every article about it always will suck. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- To both above, the issue is that we need to figure out some line if there are some that should be kept and some that shouldn't. To say "oh, treat each case-by-case" is not a resolution. I am starting on the assuming that WP:V is met, and that they are GNG-notable in that there are sources that talk about the Twitter account and not just the person or repeating what they post. (All three above examples I felt met that) But from that, based on those that don't think these are appropriate, how do we decide that? What line do we use? There's a confluence of BLP, UNDUE, and SIZE/Summary style issues that work together; some are insisting there's no such line at all, but if there is one, we need a strong definition of it. We can't just wave the problem off as it is causing problems. Please feel free to include specific ideas in new sections for !voting, of course. --MASEM (t) 01:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is...well, sprawling and confusing, first of all. Regardless, While I agree we need a meter-stick to measure (or whack) things with, I don't think it needs to be a Twitter-stick specifically. The question is more, When does WP:IINFO apply? When doesn't it? What is the motivation of the policy? (cf. WP:WHYN) Does anyone have a clear idea of that? If we have some way to agree to that, then that will be the bright line for any 'on Twitter' article, after things like verifiable and notable have been passed, and judging them individually should cause some small measure less strife. I seem to have forgotten my login, I'll recover it momentarily. ~Darryl From Mars 150.35.244.246 (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter is a communication medium like any other. Probably 100 years ago if there was Wikipedia people would be saying should we have articles on radio broadcasts? And 15 years ago, should we have articles on blogs? Like anything else, most examples are non-notable, but there's going to be some that are notable, either because they use the medium in an innovative/clever/successful way, or because the communications have a wider influence/effect, or because they're useful in understanding someone who is sufficiently important to merit that understanding (much as historians and scholars use personal letters and diaries to understand figures of the past). People who pioneered use of Twitter as an advertising/communication medium are likely to be notable for their Twitter use, as are people who used Twitter for artistic or political purposes, but those who don't innovate may not be notable. But this can only be decided by studying the notability of the Twitter feed. (But of course there's a difference between notable twitter feeds and spin-offs from articles that have lower notability standards.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to be clear, again: For this discussion we need to start from the assumption that for "X on Twitter" (or whatever), notability has firmly been established, so that we're talking about the next step of if there are other aspects that make it appropriate or not. (Notability is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for a standalone article). --MASEM (t) 12:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Radio shows are a strange comparison to the social media use of already notable individuals. A more apt comparison from earlier eras would be "Correspondence of" articles, and we have very few of those. Siawase (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so different, see The Jack Benny Program. See also, Letters of Charles Lamb. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A comedy show with several writers and a large cast? And yes, look at Category:Correspondences and how few entries it has. Correspondence is not something that appears to be generally notable if we go back in time a bit. Siawase (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Particular correspondence is notable and particular writers of correspondence are notable. But I was responding to your ill-formed claim that a famous person is not different from a communication outlet, solely because the person is famous. Thus we have Letter, Book, Radio, TV, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other viewpoints

Okay, after all considerations, notability of these things are.... not easy to define. Nevertheless, another Manual of Style subpage about internet content is needed. Someone must focus more on that rather than focus on notability criteria on internet. MUST. AVOID. SAME. FATE. AS. WP:notability (fiction), as there is WP:manual of Style/Writing about fiction. --George Ho (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No special guideline is needed, just the usual WP:GNG. Has anyone written a book about Lady Gaga's twitter account? Are there serious articles from reliable sources that survey the history, behavior, and influence of Lady Gaga's twitter account? I just took a quick look at Lady Gaga on Twitter, and there do appear to be quite a few articles cited, in legitimate newspapers, whose main topic is indeed Lady Gaga's twitter account. There is enough material for a substantial article, with no padding or gratuitous quotations or cherry-picking references. Seems like a slam dunk to me.

OK, now I just took a quick look at Ashton Kutcher on Twitter. It seems to be a little more focused on trivia (do we really need to know the exact second that the account was created? do we need a list of his venture-capital investments? technology-related characters that Kutcher plays?? that he advertises digital cameras???), but there seem to be plenty of serious articles that really have this Twitter account as their main topic. I haven't gone over the article carefully, but it appears that even if the non-salient fluff were pared away, there is still plenty of factual material to make an article. The basis for notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from Kutcher's celebrity, it's that this was the first Twitter account to reach 1,000,000 followers. We don't just have a bunch of miscellaneous press coverage, we have a clear explanation for why the account received so much press coverage, in the form of a main fact that has a lot of closely related facts surrounding it, which got covered because that main fact was so important. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what we write encyclopedia articles about.

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like fictional and nonfictional material, WP:IINFO applies to these types. Notability and referencing are less relevant than content itself. Kutcher account needs an analyst, as Suicide of Tyler Clementi and Sam and Diane have analysts, which I've already said in AFD of Kutcher. --George Ho (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Ben Kovitz, the multiple angles the Kuthcher account has been covered in reliable sources -- from business, to communications, to philanthropy, to advertising, to media, to marketing, to (don't tell anyone) celebrity, etc. -- is why we write. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't our usual metrics apply? Primarily, the one that says develop related content in the main article and only split when the content threatens to become too large? Powers ^T 14:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In part, yes, though checking the history of these articles, that doesn't seem to be how they were created (and using the Bieber article as the example, it certainly wasn't from pulling out a section about his Twitter aspects based on its history, nor if we were to merge the articles back into the bios (ingnoring size) would much of these twitter articles retain their content. So the specific examples raise questions. But it still is entirely possible that a "on Twitter" article could be created as a spinout from a large bio article. That remains the question is that an appropriate spinout to meet SIZE aspects? That's a question to be answered here. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about what I see as a conflation of a couple of issues here. First, there's "are the current '...on Twitter' articles we have up to the encyclopedia's standards?" question. This is why there are AfDs running, and it's important that we do evaluate them. Second, there's "is is possible for an '...on Twitter' topic to be notable enough for us?" This is a valid question, though I think the answer is really "that depends entirely on the account in question, doesn't it?" It matters less to me whether they appear as standalone articles or as article sections, but I think we'll find in the near future that commentary that happens on Twitter is going to turn out to be something people write about in some depth, and pre-emptively prohibiting content about those topics will turn out to have limited us unnecessarily.

Now, both of these two issues are valid discussion points, and it's good to see them raised. However, I think there's a third issue being brought into play here, one that's really, seriously obscuring the discussion we should be having about issues 1 and 2. That issue is "do we, personally, like recentist-type content, especially involving newfangled celebrities or newfangled communication mediums?" and I think the issue of whether we like Twitter, or think Justin Bieber is ridiculous, or wonder why the hell all these news bureaus care about what Ashton Kutcher tweets when there's a war on, etc, is acting as a huge derail from what we should be looking at.

It shouldn't matter whether we think a topic is childish or too new - if that were a criterion for our inclusion, I'd be running around nominating every Pokemon article we have for deletion, because you kids and your newfangled games...!. But the fact is we have documentation and sources to show that Bulbasaur is notable, no matter how much its existence makes me want to headdesk. People talk about Pokemon, they write about them, and no matter how silly I find them, they're notable and sourceable. Can the same be said for "...on Twitter" topics, some or all? I obviously can't say for sure, but I do wish the community would focus on addressing that issue rather than the issue of whether those durn kids today have strange taste in what they write about. Relatedly, I would love to know how I've somehow found myself speaking up for anything having to do with Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga. One second I was mid-crotchety-cane-thump, the next I was copyediting a Twitter article! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur article is diversive: it has merchandise, reception, and creation. "<name> on Twitter", on the other hand, is just retelling of events, suitable for Wikinews, and lacks general signifying viewpoint on account as a whole. Viewpoint on specific message from Twitter... is not that general. --George Ho (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Twitter accounts are no different than any other topic, they are not presumed to be automatically notable or non-notable, they should be considered notable if there's been enough coverage in multiple reliable sources. Yes, it's true that topics like this are prime symbols in grand narratives of The Decline of Western Civilization, this vague (and empirically unrigorous) feeling that "we used to care about important matters but now all we care about is the Kardashians". But such feelings ought to have no bearing on our consideration of whether these articles actually meet the notability policy. If the current articles don't, I'm fine deleting them, but I'm embarassed to see DGG of all people endorsing the notion that a topic can be presumed inherently unencyclopedic. If more serious publications are starting to cover Twitter accounts on a par with blogs or YouTube series as a creative form, who are we to second guess them? (I've seen trends in this direction, if nothing that yet indicates true notability, for instance Pitchfork Media including "best Twitter account" in their end-of-year music polls).

Maybe it's just the "X on Twitter" framing that's tripping us up here. Shit My Dad Says is an article on a discrete creative product; @FakeAPStylebook could be one if you could find enough sources; so what's inherently wrong with @kanyewest or @justinbieber as a topic (given enough sources)? Of course that's not the same as collating every media reference to "X said something on twitter today". We don't have "X on Youtube" articles either but we do have articles such as The Angry Video Game Nerd whose scope basically coincides with a YouTube channel. 169.231.53.116 (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One significant difference is that Shit My Dad Says is notable for being a twitter account. Entertainers are notable for being... entertainers, singers, actors etc. Their participation in social media is a sideline, just one aspect of many of their life outside of the reason for them being notable in the first place. Siawase (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think that's a valid comparison. There aren't the same WP:CONTENTFORK issues with that twitter account. IMO, if that account were the activities of an already notable comedian, perhaps we would merge them there. But since it's uniquely and separately notable, with no other redundant article, the best way to cover it is as a separate article about twitter activities. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And on the flip side, there are personalities that have become notable by their blogs/social media (eg Angry Video Game Nerd, Doug Walker), but we generally keep the person and their blog/social media together. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources about accounts and they are copious and widespread I don't mind them, but the bar should be higher than the GNG, as for accounts of notable people or organizations they are superfluous and belong in a public relations or social media section of their owner.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

...Umm... Shall we move this to WP:village pump (idea lab)? Well, there is no policy on exact accounts used by people; just X on Y policies and guidelines, which might be vague. --George Ho (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how this discussion goes, this might fall under existing policy (like WP:BLP) or guidelines (WP:BIO). It is something that needs addressing. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a wider discussion that needs to be had on forking out single aspects from BLPs. There was also the recent AfD for Personal life of Jennifer Lopez (and current Articles for deletion/Bennifer.) If we simply use the standard of "possible to cobble together enough news coverage to satisfy WP:GNG" there are almost endless aspects that could be broken out as separate articles for high profile celebrities. Siawase (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure if the scope should be expanded to include general split off of BLPs - I'm not saying that the issues aren't related but I'm more worried on the current issue of this "On Twitter" articles which are starting to pop up. If this goes that way, then we should add it. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with DGG here, that X on Twitter should be the exception rather than the rule, and only when it has the proper coverage that isn't fansite like, or no more than recent news. There may be a few exceptions, but in general, most X on Twitter articles are not encyclopedic for a host of reasons, particularly those listed in our policy WP:NOT. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would even agree to that but not for DGG's reasoning that they need extra special scholarly sources and thus a new policy, but because most do not have notability, under current policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed this discussion at Template:Centralized discussion and added an {{rfc}} tag at the top of the discussion. Cunard (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Ashton Kutcher on Twitter is deleted. --George Ho (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to this, but is the way this discussion is broken up really going to allow us to draw to anything? Half of this page as a far too indented discussion of 'nuh-uh/yah-huh's on something irrelevant, and the rest is a series of individual knight-templar 'no's and long-winded 'only barely's; there doesn't seem to be any exchange or comparison of the arguments offered, if any? Darryl from Mars (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In response, this whole discussion is getting too big. Administrators, I want to split this discussion into WP:village pump (policy)/On Twitter articles or WP:requests for comment/On Twitter articles or something. Please, admins? --George Ho (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why would you split it??? Its the same discussion. Moving it to its own page may be a solution if there's more involvement but right now there's actually a pretty clear consensus that has very little rebuttal about it. --MASEM (t) 12:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, ignoring for the moment that it's not actually clear to me what that consensus you see is, the fact there's very little but is to my point; this is a good format for collecting a variety of opinions, but I can't fathom having a coherent back-and-forth on the arguments presented in this format.

And, ending the moment of ignoring it, what exactly -is- the 'un-rebutted' consensus you see in this? Darryl from Mars (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's about 15 to 1 that say that X on Twitter articles are generally unacceptable (yes, not a vote, but at the same time there's reasoning for each entry that's pretty clear what policies apply). --MASEM (t) 12:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that's the nature of the divisions made. I dare say that, if we consider the space of possible noun phrases as essentially infinite, almost all things are generally unacceptable. But I worry that you want to apply these general votes to specific situations? For example, as many as four or five of those fifteen express caveats that would lead to 'keep' votes for some of the specific 'on Twitter' articles under consideration, although they say rightly that this kind of article would be -generally- unacceptable. Moreover, there are arguments outside the first two sections, if you don't consider them to be rebuttals because they aren't directly juxtaposed, I can do something to that effect myself, if you like? Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the titles as "generally acceptable" etc. because like all policy/guidelines, ultimately IAR comes into play. Yes, the 15-to-1 doesn't mean that no "X on twitter" article should exist, but that they should be avoided. When can they be created? Assuming that this consensus remains, that's the next question, what are good metrics to know when a "... on Twitter" article is appropriate, or alternatively, when it is not. For example, in the latter case, based on the discussion here and at AFDs of the existing ones, issue like WP:IINFO come up, as well as UNDUE, as well as being wary that this is BLP-related material. At the same time we have Barack Obama on Twitter which, while at AFD, doesn't appear to be going to deletion any time soon as it is less a personal Twitter account as opposed to one done in the course of a job. So there's more to discuss, the first step was to get the feel for where consensus agrees things were. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hn, put like that, I can't help but feel this was foregone then. But fine, that next question is one worth moving to. Might I suggest consideration of each potentially relevant policy in it's own little section, or something like that? Something that winds the arguments into cohesive threads, because I suspect strength in numbers doesn't reflect strength in policy in this case. Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is to deal with these articles on a case by case basis. By setting a policy in stone, we may find ourselves in a tricky situation in future when there is a highly notable incident involving Twitter's use by a celebrity. However, we should also not get carried away and create an article on Twitter use by top-10 celebrities by the number of followers.EngineerFromVega^★ 07:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The former article has been userfied into User:TonyTheTiger/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter. --George Ho (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At first, I thought this discussion was about the "X on Twitter" links, i.e. {{Twitter}}, until I noticed there are such articles xD. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's translate this to other topics

Let's write similar articles, but about people who are not internet celebrities:

Rossevelt on stamps. Did you know that Franklin D. Roosevelt was a stamp collector and made several designs for US stamps? And then he was depicted in several stamps. And you can find coverage in books.
Goebbels on poetry. Did you know that Nazi propagand minister Joseph Goebbels wrote an autobiographic novel, two plays and several poems? And that he used poets to write propaganda? Yes, that side of Goebbels is covered in books

And so on and on. When a person is famous enough, articles about him start digressing about minor aspects of his life. By picking pieces here and there, you can write tomes about any minor aspect of a famous person. (see also Siawase's comment above) --Enric Naval (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've mistranslated. The "Y" in "X on Y" is supposed to be a social networking WWW site where the person has an account. After all, that's what the "on" connotes. Per our usual naming conventions, your articles would be properly named Joseph Goebbels discography and Franklin D. Roosevelt in popular culture or some such, which aren't really the point at hand and aren't the "X on Y" form.
For what it's worth: When researching Harriet Hanson Robinson recently, I found that she has two Facebook accounts. ("Activities: Women's Suffrage Interests: Books, Sewing". I kid you not. No, they're not in the mirroring-Wikipedia section, obviously, since Wikipedia has only just gained an article.) This is fairly good Internet-fu for someone who died in 1911. FDR only gets a page in the mirroring-Wikipedia section of Facebook. So come back with FDR only when you can write Franklin D. Roosevelt on Facebook to match Harriet Hanson Robinson on Facebook. ☺
Uncle G (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Roosevelt has appeared in many stamps of many countries[2], so I could still write Roosevelt on stamps. "Seventeen foreign countries have honored the stamp-collecting President with total of 85 denominations, more foreign stamps than have been issued for any other American."[3] Heck, I could even write about his stamp collection[4] (OK, OK, I mistranslated that) --Enric Naval (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoffs

As near as I can tell, these "Twitter" articles are spinoffs of famous people. Now normally such things are Bibliography of X (for books) or Filmography of Y (for films) or Album of Z. I can't imagine why Social Media Activities of X would be any different, as its just another form of media. Yes, its recent media, yes its hard to judge its impact objectively, but SO much ink has been spilled its hard to see why such activities should be forced onto RandomCeleb's main page. Its a fairly natural sort of break, and obviously some of these activities attract a lot of attention. Treat em as subarticles I say: Consideration must be given to size, notability and potential neutrality issues before proposing or carrying out a split. The Steve 06:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "...on twitter" articles have very different contents from spun out bibliographies, filmographies and discographies. The latter are almost always lists of works that are in themselves notable. Siawase (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) But when twitter is being taken as a creative medium, the twitter account is usually taken as a discrete creative unit. Individual tweets are never going to be notable, just as we have articles on blogs and not blog posts. Maybe that's the fundamental disconnect, I think of these articles as no different than an article on a blog, it just happens to be one with a 140-ccharacter limit. Not all blogs are independently notable of their authors but some are. Regarding X on the phone, Y on Facebook, I have never seen those discussed as creative forms ( though you could make a case for the Obama campaign's use of Facebook). If we just get away from the distracting "X on Twitter" formulation, the question at stake is whether @justinbieber is independently notable of Justin Bieber. Just like we might argue about whether The Daily Dish is independently notable of Andrew Sullivan.169.231.55.10 (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm saying we should take the whole twitter account as a single work of new media (starring Celeb X), with each tweet being similar to a line of lyrics in a song or a line of dialog in a movie. Obviously very few twitter/facebook/whathaveyou should be split, but we already have a guideline on splitting articles - use that one. The Steve 05:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the exceptions

By no means am I trying to infer that these two are acceptable, but while the Bieber and Kutcher's have been deleted:

Lady Gaga on Twitter seems to be accepted
The Barack Obama on Twitter has an AFD that seems to be heading for keep at this stage, and at least to me, does seem to be a different function/approach than either the Bieber or Kutcher articles.

If we recognize these as exemptions to the general !voting trend about that "'X on Twitter' articles are generally not appropriate" above, then what type of advice can we give to reconcile these exceptions?

My observations is the argument WP:NOTDIARY is strong and prevailing in both previous AFD closures; when much of the page is repeating the events of the person's life as lived out by twitter, the "...on Twitter" article becomes redundant and/or excessively detailed. This is combined with the overall BLP aspect, which is something that we have to be very careful under the Foundation's guidance. For the above counter examples, the Lady Gaga Twitter article has little to do with her as much as that Twitter account; in Obama's Twitter case, its more on his use professionally for the account, there's no diary aspects or BLP aspects that seep into them.

Thus, to start some type of division, we have to look at how the sources discuss the Twitter account, praising or criticizing the accounts as a whole, and not at what is necessarily actually said on the account. In otherwords, there is a GNG aspect here in that we're looking for secondary sources specifically on the account and not on the person themselves. Just having a Twitter account isn't sufficient, and having many sources use the account often to iterate information out from it isn't sufficient.

There is also the Summary Style issue. I think for both Gaga and Obama, their personal articles are already quite long and merging those above Twitter articles back in wouldn't help. This was definitely not the case for Bieber's or Kutcher's, once the NOTDIARY aspects were removed, in that the parent articles are reasonably sized to have a section to talk about their use of Twitter. Thus, the "... On Twitter" articles should only be created when there's a SIZE issue with the personality's main article. Otherwise, a summary of the personality's use of social media is certainly not unwarranted within their respective articles.

A final consideration is that focusing on "...on Twitter" might be a problem. I'm sure, 2-3 years ago, we could probably have some "...on Facebook" pages, and years before that "...on MySpace". I'd rather see encouraging those personalities that use social media to have sections and/or articles towards all social media aspects and not just Twitter; eg "Social media use by Justin Bieber" may be more acceptable (if it was needed) than just "Justin Bieber on Twitter". Social media is here to stay (I would think) and while the means of social media will change with time, the general class of applications and interactions holds true. I think the same can apply to both Gaga's and Obama's articles too, renaming them and including more (IIRC, for example, the President doing YouTube Q&A. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the Gaga article is at the bottom of the accounts being mentioned as her Twitter activity appears to mostly get coverage for being popular, without any clear significance beyond that. However, even there I would say it is a case for merging the article, not deleting it. Obama on Twitter would be at the top I think, with the Kutcher article next. I am seeing way too many arguments being thrown around in these AfD's that amount to "I don't like the way the article currently looks based on my selective reading of it and therefore I presume it must not be a worthy subject for an article." Those sorts of arguments should be getting tossed out as invalid, not heeded by an admin as though it were gospel.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Masem, I agree with all your points. 1)These articles should be massively trimmed to have only the significant and widely reported stuff. 2)Twitter may be too specific, and generally articles should be some form of "Celebrity + social media" 3) Such articles are only necessary when a section on social media wouldn't fit into the main article. Also, merge not delete is probably a much better choice. The Steve 02:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to be specific, we have had a variety of arguments that there must be some additional thing to justify inclusion for these articles. Supposing for a moment that you see these articles as potentially having that thing, could you sort of...describe it in a few words, or potentially give an example of a good thing in comparison to a not-so-good thing? Darryl from Mars (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no problem. For me, its all about sourcing. If Time magazine or Businessweek mentions what you twat in a serious article, there it is. If you only get one sentence every now and then, in the nature of "Oh yeah, and the twit is @celebX", that's not it. Quality sources vs. occasional mention. YMMV, naturally. The Steve 04:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the mileage varies. While the three of us may manage to agree on that, I worry about how effective touting 'the quality of the sources' would be against WP:NOTDIARY and IINFO in an actual AfD, since sources seem to fall under notability and verifiability requirements, which those policies explicitly disregard. Darryl from Mars (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure those policies were NOT intended to do an end run around good sourcing. Typical AFD misuse really. It doesn't make much difference to me, since back when I started editing here, I like it/don't votes were pretty much the only thing we used. It all comes back to editorial discretion really. If a majority of the editors are convinced that all twitter articles are beneath wp's notice, that's good enough for me. The Steve 02:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typical misuse indeed...Well, that is a discussion that would interest me, if it comes up; I can't say I'm as comfortable with that extent of democracy on these issues. Darryl from Mars (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing to date, possible route forward

So considering what we have said:

There's general consensus that "X on Twitter" articles aren't encyclopedic and have problems considering we're careful with BLPs as well.
A celebrity's use of a social media service may be notable but its got to be more than just reiterating what the celeb says on the service.
Even if in such cases, spinning these off prematurely from a celebrity's bio article is not wise.

Given that, I would suggest that the following courses of action be taken:

We should never focus on one particular social media outlet; instead, the use of all manners of social media by a celeb to interact with fans or the like should be the thought process here, calling out specific services as examples if needed.
Splitting this off should be avoided at all costs, simply to avoid the spinoff becoming bio-like and encouraging poor sourcing/additions. Most celebs will have other material (film/discographies) that can be pulled off first that are more neutral and less BLP than how social media is used.
If the social media aspect is pulled out , such articles should be "X's use of social media"; these need to focus on the account itself and how its used, and not so much what actually is said by the account.

The current articles that are inplace shouldn't be touched, though editors involved are free to discuss issues, but we should strongly discourage other articles of the type "X on Twitter" if they are created in the future without considering other ways of discussing the topic. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons licence prevents deletion of certain articles?

It seems as though a strict interpretation of the Creative Commons licence prevents the deletion of articles in some cases. Please see the discussion at WT:DEL#Creative Commons licence prevents deletion of certain articles?. It seems a bit barmy to me. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when a title-disambiguated article is sub-articled?

Either A: The disambiguated part of the title is kept in, or B: it is taken out. All across Wikipedia, I've seen both of these used, and I don't think it's been formalised yet. Perhaps now is the time. An example of the latter is with the article Mercury (planet) which has been split off into many other articles, including Atmosphere of Mercury - note NOT Atmosphere of Mercury (planet). So, what's the consensus on this? :)--Coin945 (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In article titles, the general rule is to only disambiguate where necessary. Is Atmosphere of Mercury ambiguous? If not, then no additional disambiguation is needed. Categories may be somewhat different and I haven't kept up with the guidelines there. older ≠ wiser 14:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, since all other types of Mercury (like the element or the God) don't have an atmosphere, the planet specification isn't needed. The Steve 04:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite formalized. The most relevant section of policy here is WP:PRECISION. Essentially, disambiguators are a necessary evil. The way to think about it is from the perspective of a person trying to find a particular topic they are searching for. A person searching for the planet is probably going to type "Mercury". The person searching for the god is probably going to type "Mercury" and the person searching for quicksilver is probably going to type in "Mercury". How do we maximize each of these three people reaching the article they want with the littlest hassle? Because all three targets are common and likely searches, we create a disambiguation page at the main title "Mercury"; thereby, all three of our "searchers" reache their intended target in "two clicks". However, if one of the three ambiguous titles is a much more likely search target (far more people will be searching for it than any other), then we make that one the main title—just "Mercury"—and put all the others on a disambiguation page with "(disambiguation)" in the title so that the most people searching for just Mercury will reach their intended target in one click, and everyone else (but fewer) will reach their target in three clicks: first to the wrong title, then through the disambiguation hatnote and then the click through to their intended target. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The disambiguator in the title is thus, only there because it's necessary. No one (but a Wikipedia regular like me and maybe you) would search for "Mercury (something)". So if a "subarticle" of the topic has a name that is not confusing with any other article unlike the parent page, it would never take a disambiguator. So Mercury (Planet) and Mercury (element) by necessity here, but never Atmosphere of Mercury (planet) because no one would ever search for that title and there's no other title it could be confused with.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up featured sounds

I have come many sound files that are old and need sound cleanup, and have the software(and time) to clean up the sound(Adobe Audition). Where shall I upload it? Overwrite with a new version? New File? Whom do I notify to replace the file? I'm sorry, but I'm not so experienced with Wikimedia Commons file practices.Rarkenin (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably ask this at the help desk, either here or on Commons. David1217 ^{What I've done} 18:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability - a question

In connection with an on-going dispute I am engaged with, can someone involved with "notability" as a policy please tell me if they have any evidence to show that a man by the name of Willielmus fil' (filius) Pauli is notable? With thanks, doktorb _words^deeds 20:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I have found the correct person, he was a member of Parliament in the UK around the year 1300 (see Preston (UK Parliament constituency)), which means he should pass WP:POLITICIAN. If there is sufficient material to write more than simply what years he held this post, I don't see an issue. Chris857 (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be a bit of a stretch considering that you're talking about the year 1300. But as you say, if there is enough material, it might be ok. By the way, are you talking about the person making a big habit out of making links to non-existent articles? Just because someone passes a notability criterion doesn't mean their name must automatically be given a link, especially when the link points to nothing. -- Avanu (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You two have hit the very issue I have been trying to get at. Is it not the case that, say with an episode of a sitcom or maybe a substitute footballer (of either/any code), policy usually discourages individual articles? And to the main question I'm leaning to - would it be constructive to red-link a person who might not have enough material for an article in their own right, or would it not be constructive? Avanu - your sentence is one I might quote in future, because it goes to the heart of the discussion/dispute. "Just because someone passes a notability criterion doesn't mean their name must automatically be given a link, especially when the link points to nothing" doktorb _words^deeds 21:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If no separate article is going to exist, but we can demonstrate that the object is "notable", then, perhaps, a redirect is going to exist? In such case there is nothing wrong with creating links (red or blue) to this redirect (potential or actual) - just as with any other article (potential or actual). The only exception (that doesn't apply to other articles) is the article that is (is going) to be the redirect target: we wouldn't make such links in that article, because we do not create links from the article to itself. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say between WP:OVERLINK and WP:REDLINK, unless a link is about to be made into a real article within a very narrow time frame, the text doesn't need to be linked. -- Avanu (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:OVERLINK has the same exception that I have mentioned - "Do not link to a page that redirects back to the page the link is on." ([5]). And concerning WP:REDLINK ([6]), which part would you consider relevant? I see a contrary statement: "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name."... The consensus seems to be that red links are desirable in general (for example, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 89#Red Link Notice). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the existence of a red link. The problem is someone going out of their way to make NEW red links. If you run across a red link here or there, where someone intended perhaps to create an article, and you leave it alone, ok.. no harm, status quo remains unchanged. BUT, if you are running around the encyclopedia generating hundreds of new links that go nowhere, that is not improving anything. -- Avanu (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And..? The users are free to do as little work, as they want. If you accept that there is nothing wrong with those links, what is the objection? Also, red links are improving something: they show, which articles can be created. Furthermore, when the article gets created, the creator doesn't have to look where the links would have to go. Some advantage, no disadvantage - thus adding those links (where the blue links would be suitable etc.) is an improvement (although a small one). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers guys. One more question from this - how long would you say was a reasonable time between creating a red link and starting an article? Does policy already exist which may help answer this for me? doktorb _words^deeds 22:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is a hard or soft timeframe on that. -- Avanu (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am "almost sure" that no such policy exists, for the simple reason that there is nothing wrong with red links as such - or at least I (and a major part of the community) cannot think of anything. Can you..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with a glass of water, or even eight glasses of water. Doctors like it when you tell them you drink a lot of water. But hundreds of glasses of water and now you're drowning or killing yourself. One behavior might be beneficial, one is destructive and unhelpful. If someone legitimately intends to do something with these links, the intent is clear that they're just doing work in Wikipedia. If they are just creating hundreds and hundreds of placeholder links, we don't need that. There's real work to be done, and making up a zillion false links isn't useful. -- Avanu (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we are not talking about glasses of water. I am not sure this metaphor is helpful. "If they are just creating hundreds and hundreds of placeholder links, we don't need that." - yes, that is your assertion. I know you think that having many red links is bad (by the way, please, keep the terms correct and neutral - those are not "false links"). I am trying to find out why do you think that it is bad. Maybe you think there is an obvious reason why having many red links is worse than having none, but I don't see it at the moment. If the case is going to be rather complex, take your time, write an essay and give me a link. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why I'm trying to build consensus against a certain attitude towards them. It is not right that an editor is carrying on creating hundreds upon hundreds of red links with no intention of creating articles ("I have no timeframe", to paraphrase a response to a direct question). When you couple this with the potential for non-notable people to be red-linked and subequently redirected to their 'base' article and you have a recipe for disaster. I've no problem with some red-links when there's a chance an article will be created; I have a serious concern about creating dozens of them across hundreds of articles for no greater good other than the desperate race for kudos doktorb _words^deeds 23:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I do not really see any argument here... Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place... Could you please state your argument in the form like "X is bad. Y is X. Z is Y. Thus Z is bad." or similar..? For otherwise it would seem that you consider the edit count to be something like an "award" and object to users increasing it without "deserving" it - and I am sure it is not the argument you try to present. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it is appropriate that a single user is creating so many red links in the links below, to name just a few, with no intention to create articles?

City_of_York_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Radnorshire (UK Parliament constituency)
Preston (UK Parliament constituency)
Portsmouth_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Plymouth_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Pembroke_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Kingston_upon_Hull_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

(With much more besides) doktorb _words^deeds 23:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't think of anything wrong with that (unless those articles are going to be the redirect targets - in which case the advantages and disadvantages would probably be rather well ballanced). That's why I'm asking you to write down the reason why you consider all this to be inappropriate. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained it plenty of times already. It is surely inappropriate for an editor to be creating countless red links in this fashion, without creating articles, expecting others to tidy up behind them and disrupting the project by filling hundreds of articles with edits which contribute no constructive end result. doktorb _words^deeds 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you, Doktor, very strongly. These are members of the Mother of Parliaments, and there is no doubt whatsoever that we need to have articles on them. The existence of these redlinks is a warning signal that these need to be created by somebody with the time and resources to do so. I have done the same thing myself with various districts of the Wisconsin State Senate, and have in some cases been able to come back later and turn some of those redlinks to blue. But my failure to find the time to fix them all is no justification for removing the redlinks from Wikipedia! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it is appropriate to redlink Willielmus fil' (filius) Pauli, a man from the 13th century of whom there is almost nothing known other than the obvious? Is that good, or is that bad, for the project as a whole? doktorb _words^deeds 00:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I've explained it plenty of times already." - where? At the moment I can only see assertions that "It is surely inappropriate for an editor to be creating countless red links in this fashion, without creating articles" and the like (expressed in different words), but no valid argument to support them (I hope it should be clear that proof by assertion is not a valid argument). Well, I assert that there is nothing inappropriate with creating red links. Now what? Which assertion wins? Well, mine has an argument: red links are beneficial (with further arguments supporting this statement), thus adding red links is beneficial too. And if there is nothing wrong with red links, there is nothing to "to tidy up behind them". So, once again: why do you think that there is something wrong with red links - or with a group of red links, if there is a difference? Why do you think that red links are worse than nothing? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe I'll try to "extrapolate" an argument from that "to tidy up behind them"... It is going to be rather speculative, but I hope you will correct me, if necessary. I guess you might be thinking that red links make Wikipedia look unfinished, and that is a bad thing. That would be an argument - it shows that conclusion follows from the premise. But, of course, I am going to deny the premise: there is nothing wrong with making Wikipedia look unfinished - well, it is unfinished. And it will be. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is primarily a matter of taste and style. There seems to be an obvious divide here in those that think redlinks are a prompt to editors to get more involved, and those who see redlinks as an eternal 'under construction' sign and eyesore. My personal take is that if people were inclined to create an article, they would simply do so. Experienced editors don't need to see a red link in order to know how to make an article, and new editors will probably do best getting their feet wet by simply editing existing articles. I don't see an overwhelming benefit to red links, and while I wouldn't go out of my way to remove one that already exists, I see no point in someone deliberately creating hundreds of them. Anything in moderation is more likely to be good, but being driven to excess is simply disruptive. -- Avanu (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is "primarily a matter of taste and style", then please, try to change your taste. "[T]hose that think redlinks are a prompt to editors to get more involved" - no, they are not a "prompt", but an indication that an article does not exist and a normal link when the article gets created. "[T]hose who see redlinks as an eternal 'under construction' sign and eyesore" - it is not "eternal" and there is nothing wrong with "under construction" signs. And if you don't like the fact that they are red, edit your personal CSS file and change their colour to, let's say, green or grey.

"Experienced editors don't need to see a red link in order to know how to make an article" - once again, the red link is not an indication how an article can be created, but that an article can be created. Experienced editors are not omniscient and do not have a list of potential articles in front of their eyes all the time. Also, the red links make creation of the article slightly easier: one doesn't have to type out the title, just to click on the link.

"I don't see an overwhelming benefit to red links" - yes, the benefit is small, but I do not see even a small real benefit of the absence of red links.

"Anything in moderation is more likely to be good, but being driven to excess is simply disruptive." - you still have to show when that "excess" is achieved and what real problems are caused.

So, in short, on one side (pro-red-link) we have arguments and personal taste and on the other side (anti-red-link) - just personal taste. Sorry, but arguments tend to win. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have reasonable arguments for both sides. I'll rephrase the 'arguments' on the con side for you. Redlinks get in the way of reading text. A unnecessary link or under construction link serves no purpose in a website and should be removed. If an editor is going to go out of the way to make a link, they should be focused on creating the content to go with the link, not simply using that as a directive for others to do the work 'later'. If the red link is created and the content is never created, you have essentially focused on work that served no purpose, and without proof that redlinks spur editor involvement, the implication that they are a primary motivator in article creation is spurious. When I used the phrase "matter of taste", I was referring to the fact that both sides here have reasonable arguments and the best one can hope for is a compromise position, where it is understood that redlinks should not be created just for their own sake, but because the editor creating the link has the intent to actually create the content for it. -- Avanu (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's better. Finally, the arguments that have actually been given "black on white".

"Redlinks get in the way of reading text." - do you think they "get in way" more that "blue links"? I do not find text with links that much harder to read than text without them, although, perhaps, things are different for other people... Still, we are not supposed to add red links where blue links would be inappropriate anyway.

"A unnecessary link or under construction link serves no purpose in a website and should be removed." - yes, but what links are "unnecessary"? Also, in this case, everything seems to apply to blue and red links alike.

"If an editor is going to go out of the way to make a link, they should be focused on creating the content to go with the link, not simply using that as a directive for others to do the work 'later'." - I completely disagree. The users are free to do as little work, as they want, provided that it is at least slightly beneficial (compared with doing nothing). We keep the cleanup tags for the same reason.

"If the red link is created and the content is never created, you have essentially focused on work that served no purpose, and without proof that redlinks spur editor involvement, the implication that they are a primary motivator in article creation is spurious." - red link still indicates that the potential article does not exist. That's what it is meant to do. I don't think I have claimed that red links "are a primary motivator in article creation" (although I am not entirely sure what that is supposed to mean).

"When I used the phrase "matter of taste", I was referring to the fact that both sides here have reasonable arguments and the best one can hope for is a compromise position, where it is understood that redlinks should not be created just for their own sake, but because the editor creating the link has the intent to actually create the content for it." - well, in this case I do not find this compromise a very good idea, for, well, the sides are not nearly equal... I suppose a better compromise would be like the one agreed in Russian Wikipedia concerning one of their letters: editors are free to add or avoid adding red links (that are otherwise appropriate) and are not to be criticised for that, however, removal of red links (again - that are otherwise appropriate) is, er, discouraged.

And in the name of conciliation, could you, please, try to calm down the other editor on your side, before he gets himself blocked for personal attacks, edit warring or refusal to follow consensus (edits like [7] make me fear that it might end up like this)..? Oh, and it would be nice if all the other parallel discussions (like the ones initiated with edits [8] or [9]) would end up with a link here or something like that... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As is stated by others above, if a subject can plausibly sustain its own article, then it's perfectly fine for someone to turn it into a red link to let others know that such an article has not been made yet. We have plenty of lists that do just such a thing. There's nothing wrong with it and there's certainly no time limit for when an red linked subject has to be turned into an article. Silverseren^C 04:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost any word or phrase can be shown to have notability. I give you your own comment above as evidence:

As is stated by others above, if a subject can plausibly sustain its own article, then it's perfectly fine for someone to turn it into a red link to let others know that such an article has not been made yet. We have plenty of lists that do just such a thing. There's nothing wrong with it and there's certainly no time limit for when an red linked subject has to be turned into an article.

The point is that while someone can easily establish notability for a lot of things, that doesn't mean we Wikilink everything. As I said above, in moderation, I see no problem with an occasional red link or two, but intentionally creating hundreds, if one has no intention of creating the associated articles in a timely fashion, is nothing more than vandalism. -- Avanu (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with or vandalistic about creating thousands of red links with no intention of creating the articles (and there's nothing to "clean up" about this) but, and it's a very big but, if an only if the editor is very carefully vetting each such link to determine that a viable article can and probably should exist at that red link. The difference between the two is night and day. If the person is creating hundreds of links and is not vetting them, they should be stopped cold, and ultimately blocked if they don't stop. I don't think anyone has identified very clearly the divide between those two very different types of activities.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there. But, in this case, it appears that the red links in question are links to Parliament members throughout history, all of which should indeed be notable and should have pages and do meet our guidelines implicitly. Therefore, I don't see the issue here. It just seems like some users don't like red links for some reason. Silverseren^C 06:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN doesn't mean they get an automatic pass, and especially so if you're talking hundreds of years ago. In fact, it specifically says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." It is complete BS to think that some random member of Parliament from 700 years ago is going to have an extensive history beyond "Adam de Biri paid a tax in 1332." And that simply isn't all that notable since LOTS of people have paid taxes. It is BS to just trust that someone will populate thousands of red links with legitimate notable information. If they have a common habit of making good on such behavior, then ok, it is a reasonable thing, but for the average editor, sorry, no, you are living in a dream. -- Avanu (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredibly frustrating. I will try, again, to outline my position.

Let us look at the City of York article, above. There are red-links for every member of Parliament going back to the 13th century onwards to 1510 and then on again to the the 1620s. To borrow a phrase from above, this looks like a massive "under construction" sign. To make is worse, this user has shown no intention of creating articles. I have asked the editor what timeframe they have to create them. Their answer, on their user page for all to see, is "I have no timeframe". My conclusion - this editor is simply creating redlinks in some kind of rush to look useful or busy with no intention to help the project as a whole, or the specific politics/constituency projects. The City of York article has been "under construction" in this way since January this year.

Further to all *this* - 13th century members of parliament were essentially noble men straight and true picked for reasons we'll never know and came and went almost at their whim. There is almost no record of who they were or why they were chosen. To red-link a noble man from the 13th century as part of some "pure Wikipedia" mindset is grossly idealistic. I ask again - as it was not answered above - "Do you think it is appropriate to redlink Willielmus fil' (filius) Pauli, a man from the 13th century of whom there is almost nothing known other than the obvious? Is that good, or is that bad, for the project as a whole?"

As Avanu says, "WP:POLITICIAN" is not a free pass, and should not be the basis of an argument for retaining red links

I can't believe that other editors are happy with an editor creating hundreds, if not thousands, of red links in a manner bordering on vandalism, leaving them sitting there for the best part of 6 months if not longer, on the off chance that the existence of a redlink will act as some form of 'Batsignal' across the Internet to an expert in the field.

It looks like disruptive behaviour from the editor, it resembles vandalism from afar and unprofessional close-up, and shows no sign of being a scheme that's actually generated user content at all.

If there is no clear evidence put to me here that this editor has done much good in the work they've created, I have no hesitation in reverting each and every example I can find, because this discussion and others has been all the proof I need that nobody can justify such behaviour.

doktorb _words^deeds 06:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doktorbuk, I see nothing in this discussion or others as proof that redlinks should be removed from MPs! You have also stated here that I have no intention of creating these articles, but you know I've already created thousands of them, and contniue to create many every day. If it makes you feel better about redlinks in general, I will concentrate primarily on articles for these newly linked MPs, those pre-16th century, as I've already done at Lincoln, Kent, Devizes etc., so you can see the information is out there for them to be created (although reliable sources are already clear in the constituency articles). This seems to me an example of someone not liking redlinks, but I'm loath to see a long-term editor wasting his time worrying about redlinks to MPs, so am quite happy to concentrate on creating articles. Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's early and I, for one, have only had one cup of tea so far, but could I ask a direct question. Would you accept my removing all the red links from MPs prior to an agreed cut off point (say, pre-18th century)? doktorb _words^deeds 07:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised you also posed this question here, so for the sake of anyone following the discussion, my answer was no, I don't agree with removing redlinks to MPs from any year. Boleyn (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how many more times I need to say it: WP:REDLINK suggests it's ok to link once from an article to another article that can reasonably be created. As MP's are notable by definition, it's reasonable to suggest the article could be created. As such, redlinks are valid. Didn't the software once use that to determine "most wanted articles"?? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with those redlinks and there is no need to stipulate a timeframe for article creation. Agathoclea (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should weigh in here, as I've created a fair number of (relatively) early MP articles; I'm not doing so very actively now, but I'll probably come back around to them again. We're fortunate in that we have exceedingly good documentation for Westminster MPs in the form of the History of Parliament publications, which are in the process of being digitized and placed online. (Some periods are still being researched and written.) Each biography of a member in there is written on the basis of several primary and secondary sources. MPs have generally been held to be notable under WP:Politician as "members of a national...legislature". That said, I think doktorb's implicit point, that members in, say, 1300, can't really be said to be notable members of a national legislature in the spirit of that guideline is valid. I would tend to follow the rule that anyone for whom a biography is written in the History of Parliament is notable (although this doesn't help us for the volumes still being written); I don't see why our coverage here should be inferior to that work. As a corollary, however, an MP within the period covered (1386-1868, when they finish) who does not have a biography is presumptively non-notable; if the History of Parliament writers can't find enough material, we're not going to be able to. For individuals pre-1386, I would tend to assume they're not notable unless demonstrated by other sources.

All that said, I would prefer to take a lenient attitude towards redlinks. The approach of "painting them blue" in response to challenge by creating large numbers of sub-stubs seems to me more harmful to the reader (by discouraging them from clicking on bluelinks) than simply leaving them as redlinks. Choess (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the non-notable aspect is not an appropriate use of the term other than in the Wikipedia sense of notability that has some strange connotations. 14th Century members of parliament still are notable even if they aren't published in some book, but I'd agree that finding documentation about them or from earlier eras would be problematic at best. It would be like trying to find documentation about a 1st century Roman Senator... some will have enough documentation to write up an article but many wouldn't. Regardless, I'd say that anybody who became a Roman Senator in the ancient Roman Empire was very much notable. The likelihood of finding any sort of documentation about many of those Senators, on the other hand, seems to be quite unlikely.

Mostly, I agree with you that it will be unlikely that many of these members of parliament or other early historical figures that names may exist on some list but that anything approaching a short biography of these people much less writing an article on Wikipedia about them seems to be remote. Still, I fail to see what the point of prohibiting red links is all about, particularly because there may be some documentation that is buried or otherwise not currently in circulation which may contain information useful for such a biography in the future. The people themselves may be notable, but the documentation might be very weak. Heck, I'd dare say that even documentation on kings or even pharaohs from ancient times (clearly "notable" people) may have weak documentation or even non-existent documentation. That the article about those people couldn't be written because of the scarcity of the documentation is true, I still fail to see why a redlink shouldn't be made for those people. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was using notability strictly in the Wikipedia-technical sense. Obviously, someone returned to Parliament in 1331 was of more moment than some villein swinking in the same year, even if all we know of the MP is his name. I think, however, that you err in trying to read redlinks as a marker of importance in the historical sense, rather than having meaning strictly in terms of Wikipedia. A redlink is simply an assertion that the material exists to create a policy-compliant standalone article about the subject of the redlink, whenever someone gets around to it. It's possible for some subject to be worthy of note in the greater historical sense, but not be suitable for an encyclopedia article here through lack of material. In that case, it shouldn't have a redlink, because the lack of material means that we can *never* fulfill the implicit promise made by the redlink that an article will someday be created. "What Song the Syrens sang" may not be "beyond all conjecture," but there's no reason to redlink it unless we at least know a little of the lyrics. Obviously, the state of knowledge can change, and a subject that was once considered inappropriate to link might be redlinked as new material comes to light. But we shouldn't redlink simply on the conjecture that such material might someday emerge. By presenting the subject in the appropriate context (say, a dated entry in a list of pharaohs), we've conveyed all we can of the subject and thereby fulfilled our duty to it. Choess (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a topic would be notable but is not currently sourceable then there is almost always going to be a suitable parent topic that would be suitable for a redirect. So if you've tried to create an article for that redlink and given up for lack of sources then the logical thing to do is usually going to be the creation of a redirect. That way in the long run most redlinks will wind up as either articles or redirects. On a broader note we have something of a chicken and egg situation on Wikipedia, at newpage patrol there are some who consider that it is a problem if articles start as orphans and yet there are people who don't appove of redlinks..... My response is that both orphans and redlinks are perfectly acceptable as ways to build the pedia. Ϣere SpielChequers 01:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with a standard of suggesting something doesn't deserve a redlink because there is insufficient information to ever create an article is that it demonstrates a level of omnipotence that is something I can only find in a diety. I am being completely serious here too. How can you possibly possess the sum of all human knowledge to such a degree, even in a specialized topic, where you can possibly know every single bit of trivia and source of knowledge about that topic? I find that to be arrogant to an extreme. It is also setting up a standard for redlinks that they were never intended to carry and is something that I think is not only wrong but foolish and contrary to the very spirit of Wikipedia. They should be welcomed so far as it is in the very logo of the project, where the missing puzzle piece in the Wikipedia ball is the redlink. Wikipedia will never be complete and to think that Wikipedia ever could be complete without any redlink at all is totally absurd beyond anything I can imagine.

I'll even go so far as to suggest that redirect done to remove redlinks are improperly done and indeed ought to be deleted. It is an important part of the project to have those links, to let people know they are on the frontier of the project, that their contributions to those areas if they may have some knowledge about those people and topics is not only useful but extremely helpful. There are many sources of information that can be used to fill out some of these articles if the time comes, and you may be surprised out of what obscure corner of humanity may have a book that nobody else has seen for several centuries or some random floating bit of data that can be tied in to make a difference to get an article written. You should not ever have to put a link to the standard of an AfD, and that is exactly what it seems like is being done. A redlink simply implies that the topic or person may be notable and significantly that a reader of the article may otherwise want to find some information about that topic in some manner in context to the article that the link is included. The redlink itself is what identifies simply that Wikipedia hasn't gone there yet. Period. It doesn't imply there isn't anything to write about the topic, it only indicates that there hasn't been anything written about the topic. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose 'Toast' Block

No, I am not advocating that we eliminate slightly browned bread.

I am proposing that we create a new type of block mechanism that allows for a block to be enacted on a timer. Some blocks today are implemented on a primarily administrative basis against newcomers that have no ill will toward Wikipedia, they are just ignorant of the rules and end up making mistakes. A specific type of block that comes to mind is the block that happens when Acme Guillotine & Cake Suppliers, Inc discovers Wikipedia. They get ambitious and make a new article about their company under their new username AcmeSlicersandSlices and start editing promotionally. Before long, an admin notices this and smacks them with a block. Poor Acme, all they wanted was a chance for the world to know how great they are at making world renowned execution devices and popular pastries for peckish party people.

So, now they're blocked. They're confused. And the boss has finished his cake and is eying the poor sap who volunteered for the PR department, and wondering about how to best use the promo-model guillotine XT-1000 on his desk.

So, let's cut, if we will, to the chase. I think it would be nice to give some editors a good faith window to ask questions, get their affairs in order, and transition without hard feelings to a new account. After all, we do want to retain promising young editors who have everything to prove, don't we? Immediate unexpected blocks, especially when you're new, come off hard and abrasive. And when you're just doing your best, why do we need to put their head on the chopping block for that? Let's look for ways to get more cake, and even maybe eat it too. A block that takes effect 1 week later, 2 days later, whatever, would be a nicer way to say... we're giving you notice... now its up to you to avoid the inevitable. And so we end up with a much happier editor, which is clearly, icing on the cake. -- Avanu (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I call it toast block because it pops up after a time. -- Avanu

I am not sure I understand... How is it different from simply warning first and then blocking after the warnings do not work? And, well, why do you think that a notice "You will be blocked after x days!" is going to be perceived as nice, friendly and non-confusing? I would expect it to be perceived as more confusing than a simple block (or warning)... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, our policy does not allow for a warning. It is clear that a block is the only appropriate action. It is friendlier to say, "You will be unable to edit after 7 days. Please take measures to create a new account. If you have questions, please ask at the appropriate forum or on this Talk page." -- Avanu (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds absolutely bonkers. The blocks you are talking about, the ones without warning are generally performed when the account is spamming and has a promotional username ("BricksRUsPR"), which is as desired, because we want them to stop promoting and to have a different username. A time-delayed block would result in one of two things happening, either they just carry-on believing what they are doing is correct, keep editing and end up blocked, or they disappear and never come back, which is basically what happens now, PR accounts are blocked and they either just leave, or they make a few unblock requests where they attempt to justify their edits and why they should be allowed to continue but rarely actually read our policies or try to comprehend why they were blocked in the first place. It is an extremely extremely rare situation for a promotional account to be unblocked, purely because most of them just never get what we're trying to do--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have wp:SOFTBLOCKs for people editing with promotionally named accounts. If I thought that a worthwhile proportion of spammers could be turned into useful editors I'd support a compulsory rename system, (Hi your username was overly promotional so we've changed it from User:Buy cheap rockets from Acme rockets to User:Pyrotechnology fan). But I don't see any benefit in the "toast" proposal to give spammers a 7 day free pass. Ϣere SpielChequers 01:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we generally just softblock those ones and politely inform them of our policies. Only their promotional username is blocked, they can still create a new account and hopefully the next time not be ignorant of our policies. -- œ ^™ 05:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link to an image: how for a reader?

In mainspace, we use images (graphic files). Quite often, there is no link=Some article set, so when our Reader clicks that image (link) it opens the image-page. Just think of it. My question is: how is that for the reader, or: how can I make that more gracious? The File:-page looks very ugly/technical/under-the-hood. For editors this could be OK (we are our 1%), but a bad experience for readers say always. Can someone explain, or point to a guideline, about this blurring of: readers only should see articles-idea? (Along the same line, templates themselves are not to be seen by readers).
My actual example: iron, its infobox links (top infobox) to File:Electron shell 026 Iron.svg. -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, each reader is a potential writer (with exception of blocked users and the like). That's the whole idea of a "wiki". Second of all, I do not happen to see anything wrong with the image description page. It has links to the image in different resolutions and some information about the image. Why do you think that such information is of no interest to the readers? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that in most cases the link to the file description page fulfills the requirements to credit the author of the image and to explain the terms under which the image may be reused. For example, the CC-BY-SA license used on File:Electron shell 026 Iron.svg requires that we keep intact the notice that the image is under that version of the CC-BY-SA license and that we keep intact the credit to the author.

In general, the only works that don't need this link are those in the public domain and those licensed CC0; there may be a few others such cases, but it's not common. In general, images used as illustrations in an article (as opposed to "decorative" icons, images working around poor font support for a character, and the like) should link to the file description page even if it's not strictly required. Anomie ⚔ 02:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to start enforcing policy on article ownership

Until recently I didn't pay much attention to it but I think we need to get a handle on WikiProjects and individuals setting limits on what can be added to articles. This problem seems to be getting worse as time goes on and projects and individuals are getting more defiant and brazen in the innapropriate ownership they appear to be showing to articles in their scope. In particluar and as one example some projects and individuals have demanded that articles in their scope cannot contain Infoboxes. For example, the Featured articles Emily Dickenson even goes so far as to have an invisible comment stating that it isn't required or necessary. This article is just one example and I'm not picking on it, just using it as one example of what I see as a growing problem.

I have several problems with this:

Infoboxes are a standard fixture in Biographical articles, not an exception to them
Infoboxes allow a quick reference summary of key information about the article without having to read the whole thing
WikiProjects and individuals should not be demanding that infoboxes not be on an article
IMO an article that does not have an infobox fails FA standards (and anything above B for that matter) because it fails B5 of the B-Class checklist for supporting materials.

Any comments on this would be appreciated. Kumioko (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the consensus is that infoboxes are not required. There's no way of convincing some people otherwise -- many of them would say your point #2 is a reason NOT to have an infobox. It DOES create a silly inconsistency that, say, Alexander Borodin has one but most classical composers don't. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- … and a pressure to write daft content simply to satisfy the needs of the infobox. See User:Geogre/Templates for a more thorough discussion. Uncle G (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Theres really no pressure to write draft content, if there isn't enough content to populate a few basic parameters of an infobox, the 5 W's so to speak, then there probably isn't much for an article either. The articles you identify, to me, seem like ultra stubs so perhaps the infobox could help those tiny little things look a little better developed. Kumioko (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I will agree that we shouldn't be forcing infoboxes on articles where the editors have decided they don't want it, we need to be aware that some infoboxes have been designed to create meta-data for search engines or the like that are important to have. For example, we have most of our templates for persons incorporating details of the hCard format. Now, such information is very trivial or even laughably unnecessary for someone like Dickenson that's long passed away, but perhaps we had the case where the birth/death dates and other simple facts were used by meta-searching tools? I'm not saying they need the infobox, but the editors need to be aware that not providing one makes this data absent to meta-tools, and they should find a way to recreated it - within prose, within hidden text, I dunno, but of some means - if they are forgoing the usual method of providing that. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wrote "daft", and the pressure to write daft content most certainly does exist. It's not where there isn't enough content. That's a straw man of your making. It's when the infobox pressures writers into filling in infobox fields with things that are either misleading or wrong; like specifying a modern publisher and an ISBN for a book that was published in the 18th century because {{infobox book}} has an isbn= parameter. Uncle G (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Melodia: "Basically, the consensus is that infoboxes are not required." Are you saying that's a general consensus, or specific to this article? I didn't see much in the talk page archives that resembled a consensus on this article. Without a discussion that produced consensus in the instant case, I'm inclined to agree with Kumioko that an invisible comment directing editors not to add an infobox smacks of WP:OWN. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In general. I don't remember where it was, but there was a large RFC on the topic, mostly relating the the classical composer issue. The basic outcome was "they are not required, however no WikiProject can make a general ruling overriding local consensus either". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Dickinson article, which was only used as an example, the only discussion I could find was on Archive 3 and was minimal. In regards to the arguments that infoboxes are not required I would agree that generally that is true, as an article progresses up the scale and approaches FA I would argue that it becomes less of an if and more of a requirement. If Infoboxes were not a necessity we wouldn't need templates like {{Needs infobox}}, parameters in WikiProject templates like |Infobox needed= or categories like Category:Articles without infoboxes which currently contains several thousand articles. We also wouldn't specifically call it out in B-Class checklists as "supporting materials". As another example what happens if one project argues that an infobox should be used and another argues against it? Who is right and who is wrong? Allowing WikiProjects or individuals to state that an infobox cannot be used on their articles causes unnecessary tension where none needs to be. If the author or WikiProject that is developing the article doesn't want it when its being developed then thats ok but they 1) shouldn't be telling someone else that they cannot add it and 2)the article shouldn't be promoted beyond B-Class because it fails the supporting materials criteria. Kumioko (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:DICTIONARY" should be banned

Can we please ~~get rid of this silly policy altogether, or at least~~ get everyone to stop using it as a solve-all policy?? In the wiki article on stubs, it explains that in its simplest form, a good stub simply defines the topic - giving the most vital information in a concise form: "Begin by defining or describing your topic. Avoid fallacies of definition. Write clearly and informatively. State, for example, what a person is famous for, where a place is located and what it is known for, or the basic details of an event and when it happened". This lowest common denominator the article speaks of, my friends, is the so-called "dicdef" that gets up some Wikipedians' noses to no end..... and it really annoys me. All over Wikipedia, I see good stubs being deleted on the grounds of being "merely" a dicdef... even though that's exactly how stubs are supposed to start out... (A recent example is here - obviously its not a good article by any means, but speedy deletion....??? .... seriously?!?!?). I say we ~~can this ridiculous policy altogether! (or, as I've already stated, if the policy is a lot more than that, we can just~~ spread the word that it is no longer a rationale for deleting those types of articles)

Oh, and while I'm here, I may as well inquire about something else: Many-a-time has a poor little editor (me :D) battled in vain against the cruel wiki-tyrants who have tried to rid the world of wiki-stubs on the basis that their current status was not perfect, even though they were on encyclopedic topics. While the Wiki-verse is still undecided over this controversial issue of current state vs. potential, I'd just like to point out a certain clause in the Wikipedia:Stub article (and this is just 1 example): "A stub is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion".

I would greatly like to see these 2 topics discussed below. Yours sincerely, a disillusioned wikipedia editor.--Coin945 (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Reveal, it's just a PROD so you can go ahead and remove if it you disagree with the statement; if the PROD nominator still feels it is wrong, they can take it to AFD.

But the question is, is that necessarily wrong? I think it's not so much that NOTDICTIONARY failed, but that people forget that we have no DEADLINE. NOTDICTIONARY should only be applied when we have an article that looks like it can't be expanded further but otherwise appears to be a dictionary entry (likely backed by word entomology). It is still proper advice, because Wikitionary is set up to handle content that is like that, but not here. But applying it to starting articles is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking what NOTDICT says presently as well: "Articles should begin with a good definition or description, but articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. If they can not, Wikipedia is not the place for them: look to Wiktionary instead." I believe this is actually capturing the essence of your issues on what we actually should be doing. It contains the key aspects of expanding and only deleting if there's no further expansion possible, which is obviously not the case of Reveal. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Masem says Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary addresses and discusses these points at length in several places. You should read the actual policy. The policy is not the problem, and (as our oldest content policy) is far from "silly". Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands the linked article is just an unreferenced dictionary definition, in fact it could just be original research WP:OR: I'm not even sure 'The Reveal' is a thing. A stub should at least indicate or establish why the topic is notable even if that just consists of one or two referenced sentences. It provides no reasoning for why it's a notable topic and no indication that it can be expanded, it just looks like an OR dictionary definition with no indication of how it could be expanded (I don't see a similar definition in wikitionary either). So I am not surprised it has been prodded. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's why WP:AGF is a policy. I'm not an arts person, but I am aware of enough about the medium that the term "Reveal" as listed on that page seems to be an applicable concept to the medium. Oh sure, I want to see refs, I want to see works created for demonstrating this, or which authors are known for this, at some point. There's clear ways it can be expanded, if that material does exist (and thus AGF that it actually does exist). But enough to discredit that as a bad stub that should be deleted at this stage of the game? Heck no. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary has had this sense for "reveal" since October 2005. It went to RFV and came back with quotations. Uncle G (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I saw that reveal, it's not the same thing as the usage the article above describes. They are speaking of the event of the grand reveal at the end of a magic trick. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. When it was proposed for deletion, the article also said "book, play, or film plot". Uncle G (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, first of all, don't let this discussion be based around "The Reveal" article. That was just 1 article I came across while hopping through the Special:newpages page. Whether it should be kept or not is irrelevant to my point, and was merely a recent example that crossed my mind while writing the previous comment. Second of all, it actually is a real thing, and a very important part of magic, cinema etc. Well... hmmm... perhaps if "The Prestige (film)" has anything to say about it, the correct title of the article should be Prestige (magic). I dunno.. anyways I do personally think that the article is notable.. but again, that's irrelevant. Thirdly, I was not ridiculing the policy on deletion. I do understand that it is vitally important, and I have read it before.. and I guess in the spur of the moment of writing the comment I just thought why not get rid of it altogether.. even though in retrospect that is just a ridiculous notion and totally disruptive. An added passage explaining when the policy should not be used is in order though.--Coin945 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I think we're saying is that the language you want is there, just not flat-out "don't try to delete stubs that look like dict defs". We mention possible expansion, and only deletion when expansion is exhausted and still looks like a dictionary definition. Stubs, by definition, are articles waiting for expansion. So the language you want is there; if there's a repeated problem of one or a few editors nominating such for deletion, that's a behavior problem to be remedies and I don't think we need to change policy for that. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that's exactly my point. Is there wiki-consensus that you should not delete an article so long as there is room for expansion? Is this considered by the majority to be the "correct" stance? If so, how is the best way to officially proclaim this the correct view, and end the ambiguity and uncertainty regarding this area of deletion?? (trust me... no matter how clear the policies are, this is still an extremely contentious issue on the AFD stage). Fine, let's not change policy, but if it about editors' attitudes, then what's the next step?--Coin945 (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, first, if they are being tagged as PROD, you can remove the prod, possibly explaining the reasoning via the talk page if you feel necessary. If the editor that added the PROD insists, they will take it to AFD where the article will be judged by consensus. Most likely if we are talking cases similar to Reveal above, this AFD will close rather easily in terms of "keep". Likely, this will show the editor how stubs should work (that they should be given time to expand, etc.) , but outside of that, or discussing it more with the editor, there's little else we can do from this "first time" incident.
    - Now, if the editor keeps doing this, with every time the PROD being removed and AFD being closed as "keep", and yet they continue to persist, that's when you start taking about user behavior modifications via either something like RFC for users. Particularly if they have been approached before and told that these PRODs/AFDs are a problem because they're targeting developing articles. The repeated PROD/AFD can become disruptive, and thus we use RFC/U to try to help them adapt their behavior, and barring that, go to the next step of dispute resolution, WP:AN.
    - But given that our policies and guidelines are clear that stub articles should be treated as developing articles, there's not much else we can do. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:DICTIONARY should be banned, then perhaps we should then merge Wiktionary into Wikipedia? --MuZemike 18:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the PROD. I expanded the text and found some explanatory references (which I placed on the talk page). If anyone else would like to help contribute, they would be welcome. - jc37 21:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Policies and Guidelines

Notice - There are ongoing AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Czech Americans and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish Americans where the issue of WP:NOTDIR and possible application to other Guidelines is under discussion. Additional community discussion is requested. Disclaimer: I am the editor who submitted these AfDs. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User pages redirecting into article space RfC

there is sufficient confusion over the issue to warrant a RfC here. Penyulap ☏ 19:46, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)

How to fix Wikipedia

A lot of people have been leaving Wikipedia lately, and I think it's because of hostility, infighting, bureaucracy, and Wikipedia's no-longer-welcoming environment. For example, User:Fastily left for those reasons, and membership has been dropping off. To save the encyclopedia from more users leaving, I propose the following:

1. Scrap 3RR -- there are too many exceptions, it doesn't catch edit warriors (one can still edit war without breaking it, and still get blocked), it encourages wikilawyering, and overall it's just more trouble than it's worth.

2. Scrap the MoS -- it's more complicated than the U.S. tax code (it even has its own search bar!), it encourages admins to bite new users who haven't read it, it's much too long for anyone to read all of it, it's overly bureaucratic, and enforcing it wastes valuable time that could be spent creating new content and/or improving existing content.

3. Enforce WP:BITE and apply it to deletion -- When newbies are insulted via deletion by either having their pages deleted without explanation or with a rude explanation or being attacked in an XfD, they will not want to stay and contribute. We should also encourage newbies to be bold instead of belittling their contributions. If something a newbie does violates our standards, they should be gently reminded rather than slammed and belittled. WP:BITE should be made an official policy rather than mere guideline (so people will be less inclined to ignore it), and be enforceable with blocks and bans. Same goes for WP:AGF.

4. Recognize that admins are part of the problem, and take steps to restore the honor of being an admin -- My idea is to create a discussion board called something along the lines of Wikipedia:Administrator grievances where users could post grievances about admins. If an uninvolved crat decided that the grievance was real, he or she would then place the admin on probation (i.e., take away their admin tools temporarily) so the community could discuss the grievance (the crat would open the discussion). After 2 weeks, the following action would be taken:

If the result was Retain: The crat would close the discussion as such, and the matter would be over, with admin tools given back (kind of like if it were a trial and the admin was found not guilty).
If the result was Caution or No consensus: The crat would close the discussion as such and give the admin tools back, but the admin would be warned not to do whatever it is they did again, and the discussion and items from it would be able to be used as evidence in future discussions regarding the administrator's conduct.
If the result was Desysop: Again, the crat would close the discussion as such, and admin tools would not be given back (kind of like if it were a trial and the admin was found guilty).

5. Encourage people (especially inclusionists and deletionists) to work together to build the encyclopedia rather than constantly fight. Everyone has things to offer the encyclopedia, and when we work together, we are equal to more than the sum of our parts. Let us take advantage of that fact and encourage peace and collaboration rather than strife and competition.

I know this is a big proposal, but when they left, Fastily and other users gave us a clear message: "This is what's wrong with Wikipedia. Fix it." That is why I am here today, writing this proposal. Please, take the time to think about this before !voting "oppose". ChromaNebula (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1: 3RR is not a hard-fast rule, users can and are blocked for "edit-warring", regardless of numbers or time-span, but at the same time 3RR is a good way of saying "ok you've reverted this twice now, one more and you'll be eligible for a block".

2: Do you actually understand what the MOS style is? It's just about trying to keep articles uniform and general project wide consistency, it's what stops people changing english variations every ten minutes, randomly bolding for emphasis and capitalising Hims when referring to the big guy.

3:It's not biting to delete an article which doesn't belong here. Yes people should be nice to new users and yes people should be called out on it if they go yell at the new kid cos they wrote an article about their awesome band they just started in their garage, but trying to make a rule that says be super-nice and make sure you don't offend them otherwise you're blocked is just silly and unworkable.

4:Admins are part of the problem, sure they are. How exactly? If admins are part of the problem then all the non-admins must be the rest of problem, you can't just say "admins are causing all the trouble so they need to be kept in place" just like you can't say "the french are stealing all our women they must be kept in place" after one french bloke marries the girl next door. Yes we all know that there needs to be a better way of dealing with editors who have the bit and who misuse it and yes there should probably be a better way to create admins, but creating a big board for anyone to go have a bitch about the admin who just deleted their article or made a decision they don't agree with is just going to make things worse.

5:Not to be rude but is this your big Miss World ending? The whole point of wikipedia is to encourage people to work together, with so many people of course there will be fights, there is no way of preventing arguments--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not recommend not deleting any articles. If a newbie creates an article in good faith that doesn't meet our standards, the article should be deleted, but the creator should be gently reminded of our standards rather than having policies shoved in their face. Likewise, terms like "trash" and "worthless junk" should only be applied to articles created in bad faith. Creators of deleted articles should be informed of our standards, but civilly, politely and without insult. As for the MoS thing, people know what proper English is, and any genuine mistakes can be easily corrected without an MoS. And I never said administrators were all of the problem, only some of it. Incivility from regular editors is dealt with via blocks and bans, but there's currently no way to discipline an admin (they can easily unblock themselves) apart from ArbCom, and ArbCom only handles the most serious cases. (By the way, I hope the noticeboard would rarely be used). As for 3RR, the edit warring/3RR noticeboard is mostly focused on 3RR, and as I said before, exceptions and the "you-don't-have-to-break-this-rule-to-get-blocked" clause make the rule pretty darn complicated and, in my opinion, more trouble than it's worth. I know there will be fights, but there have to be things we can do to discourage fighting and encourage collaboration and peace. We can't stop all fights, but surely we can reduce the number and severity of fights. How? Maybe a clause that says that the more aggressive warrior automatically loses the argument? ChromaNebula (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jac16888. But if we're doing some blue sky thinking, how about giving two extra reverts to the person who starts talkpage discussion about a dispute? If you do that, then the person to start discussion effectively wins. Knowing that would dramatically change the dynamics of edit wars. Hard to say exactly how it might work out in practice (definitional issues about "starting" and "discussion" might be a problem, possibly solvable by application of common sense), but it might be interesting to try. Maybe we can figure out a way to apply it on a limited basis to certain edit-warry articles, as a way to test it. Rd232 ^talk 22:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vast thousands are still here, but not talking about WP:MOS: After months of examining the editor-count statistics, I have tried to explain that the "editors-leaving" view is something of an illusion, because many editors are also joining, but the edit-stats show only limited use of talk-pages. In fact, I am fairly certain it can be said: the majority of Wikipedia editors do not edit talk-pages much, but rather focus on article-edits. Meanwhile, the WP:MOS rules are only "suggestions", so the admins should be reminded to allow some slack there. However, we really need all those MOS rules, when people want to force a choice; otherwise, someone will claim there is no rule to prevent 1 million ("1,000,000") from being changed to a "better" format as "1.00.00.00" or "1\000\000". Ifever people want to add too much wild text, then WP:MOS provides a clear foundation to explain the typical format for articles.

Part of the illusion of "fewer editors" (by comparing editor-counts) is because experienced editors, who formerly made over 100 small article-edits per month, now have learned to branch out into other namespaces. The count of active editors with "100+ edits" is for the main article namespace, where talk-page edits, templates, files (images), categories, and "Help:" or "WP:" edits do not add into that "100+ level". Hence, as editors learn to edit categories, or make minor changes to "WP:" guideline pages, those edits are not counted in the main editor-counts, but rather, as talk-page counts, or "other" counts. We even have some admins who make "147 edits" in a month, many crucial edits, daily, fixing 50 grammar errors in an article as 1-edit-per-page, but at the end of June, have a total of only "78 edits" or such (in article namespace), appearing to fall from the core "100+ edit" group into the occasional "5+ edits" group. Instead, looking closely at the editor counts, at the monthly editor-statistics data, reveals there are over 10,000 editors who edit Wikipedia on a daily basis, just not all article-edits every day. That count of 10 thousand editors helps explain why so much happens every day in Wikipedia, but remember most of those people are not posting messages in talk-pages. They truly are the "silent majority" who are rapidly changing articles but not talking about it for several days at a time. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we have a problem with editor retention, but it isn't a huge problem as overall numbers are fairly stable, and we are still getting around 200,000 edits a day. Perhaps MOS could do with being shorter, but what we need there is proposals for simplification not wholesale deletion. Deletion errors are a problem, and while it is rare that people delete or tag articles for deletion without informing the creator it is a damaging anomaly that we allow people to tag articles for deletion without informing the authors. We don't allow people to file an AN/I complaint on someone without telling them, and we shouldn't allow people to tag articles for deletion without informing the authors (except for a few exceptions such as dead, banned and retired editors). We do have a serious problem in that our number of active admins is declining, we have 300 less than at peak and recruitment of new admins is way below replacement level. One of the parts of the project that works fairly well is our desysoping process. Replacing or supplementing Arbcom with an easy desysop system that omits such elementary safeguards as dispute resolution would make the admin recruitment problem worse. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue differently as there is a huge editor retention issue right now, and those who claim there isn't are mainly those who like the status quo which has been going on for several years now. I see it particularly when I get into a group of people who are tech savvy but are as a rule not involved with Wikipedia. Their experiences are all across the board with mainly negative experiences. Some of them don't really understand the core philosophies of the project like the five pillars, several of them have had very negative experiences with admins or the new page patrol, and a few just got confused from the firehose of information expected to be understood out of brand new editor/contributors.

My largest complaint is the automated tools that are used. I've gone the rounds with this and some of those who are trying to help out the proejct, but that personal touch from one person to another is really lacking right now on Wikipedia. With much of the automated bot editing and standard forms that people paste onto new user pages, they feel they are talking more to machines than to people and view the whole editing process as extremely impersonal. When I've gone out of my way (I'll admit not nearly as much as I could) to welcome new users to Wikipedia and even leave a paragraph of a personal nature behind usually commenting about the work they are doing that brought them to Wikipedia in the first place, I usually get a response like "wow, I didn't know that real people still existed on Wikipedia". That should be a more normal reaction than an exception.

If new editors are viewed as a pure statistic and some sort of flow of people from the aether that will magically or not contribute to the project over time, something is most definitely lost. It is the attitude of those on the front line of the project who are interacting with these new contributors that makes a huge difference. Sometimes when you are on something like the new page patrol (or simply reviewing edits in general) those people (particularly admins) see so much garbage from spamming, vandalism, and simply trolls who damage the project that it is natural to think everybody who has an IP address account or is a new user is a similar kind of troll wanting to destroy the project. It couldn't be further from the truth.

I'd argue that some of this is a training issue, and teaching people about Wikipedia, how to use Wikipedia, and in particular training those who are on the front lines of the project meeting these new users so they don't make an ass out of themselves or drive away those who might be beneficial to the project. None of that is happening right now, where the training consists of reading a bunch of dry policy pages, "on the job" training where you are forced to sink or swim (more sink than swim), and if you are very lucky you might be able to attend a Wikimania conference where one of the talks/discussions might be about how to be a more effective admin. The process of developing a competent editor on Wikipedia is a very Darwinian attitude right now, and Wikipedia is weaker because of that too. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't arguing that differently to me. I acknowledged that deletion errors are a problem, and you've given some excellent reasons why they are a problem. You also raised the issue of newbies and how poorly we handle them, I'd agree with you there as well. But neither of these are about people leaving the project, which is what started the thread, they are really more about people not being able to properly join the project. Yes we have huge problems in the way we treat good faith newbies, and its an important topic, but there are big differences between our problems in retaining experienced editors and our problems in recruiting new ones. There are some developments in the pipeline, WYSIWYG editing will make a big difference to newbies, though as with any change it may not be welcome to the regulars. There are some relatively easy fixes, template bombing would be reduced if we replaced maintenance templates such as deadend, uncategorised and orphan with automatically generated hidden cats. One of the most bitey aspects of deletions could be ended if we put an obligation on deletion taggers to inform authors. Other problems are more difficult, not least because the community doesn't agree on the problems. BTW don't assume that it is the admins who are most jaded when it comes to IPs and Newbies. most admins don't do ether newpage patrol or recent changes, and our most active hugglers and many of our most active patrollers are not admins. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We desperately need new editors because we desperately need to improve the quality of our content. Our content needs to be GA quality or better, in my opinion. Of our core editors, I'd say maybe 10% are able to improve the quality of our articles in one way or another. Here's the numbers I think we need.

We need 10,000 people that can properly reference an article with high quality references from reliable sources
We need another 10,000 that can write high-quality prose
We need another 10,000 that can organize content in a meaningful way for a proper encyclopedia article
We need another 10,000 that can properly copyedit an article
We need another 10,000 that are able to research and expand our stubs

That's 50,000 editors just to fix our existing quality problems. If only 10% of new users fit into one of the above groups, that means we need to go through 500,000 new editors just to get the fifty thousand we need to become a decent quality encyclopedia. I say we desperately need new editors because our quality depends upon it. 64.40.54.44 (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard has been marked as a guideline

Why must I follow WP:SIZE?

Why do we have to condense length of every article for the sake of mobile phone and smartphones and different browsers? If I follow it, then must I change the way I write? Should sun or cat be condensed because they have loading issues and irritating readability? As of now, its "Rule of thumb" is still disputed, and even user dmcq has compelling arguments about size. --George Ho (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Must you? It's a guideline; you've already found some obvious exceptions yourself. Of course, if you're wondering why some particular article you're writing isn't being given the same leeway that, you know, the Sun is...? Darryl from Mars (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides helping for browsers on limited/reduced bandwith, keeping size in mind does help to keep to our goal that we're an encyclopedia that summarizes information, not duplicates it all. No, per NOTPAPER we don't limit what can be covered for a topic, but it should help to guide how to organize information when it gets too large. It shouldn't affect how you write content but only how you section it up and place it across different articles (as needed). --MASEM (t) 06:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:guidelines, "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." What kind of common sense, and what are exceptions applied? --George Ho (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I found some obvious exceptions without knowing it, but what are less obvious exceptions? Also, I would hope more servers mean less loading times, but the loading issues may be up to companies, like Apple and Microsoft. Wiki-technicians can take care of loading issues without our help, right? Or must we donate money for more equipment? Anyway, editing issues... and readability issues.... if they are neither minor nor major issues, how can condensation and splitting resolve them? --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have seen several cases about content forking of celebrities that may violate WP:BLP and WP:NOT, like Personal life of Jennifer Lopez. If WP:SIZE has nothing to do with this, then is this article consistent with other policies and guidelines? --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]