Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EEng (talk | contribs) at 16:47, 15 April 2015 (→‎Soften the notification number: bikeshedding already). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts

New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:



Proposal: creation of "style noticeboard"

Note: Dank has offered to the close this RfC upon its conclusion.

A user has proposed the creation of a "style noticeboard" (Wikipedia:Style noticeboard) at the MoS talk page, similar to the likes of the reliable sources noticeboard. He described the noticeboard in this manner: "a place where editors can raise and discuss specific situations, and get opinions on how to interpret the policy or guideline in the context of those specific situations". Such a noticeboard does not currently exist, and style issues are dealt with across a wide variety of labyrinthine MoS pages. The goal of the noticeboard is to allow for the centralised discussion of specific style issues at specific articles, so that users can come to consensus on how to interpret a specific piece of style guidance in our policies and guidelines, such as WP:AT and WP:MOS. Should such a noticeboard be created? RGloucester — ☎ 18:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: style noticeboard

  1. Support – There is no reason for there not to be such a noticeboard. The present system is not very good. Discussions are scattered across tens of MoS pages, article talk pages, Wikiprojects, &c. The creation of this noticeboard would allow for centralised and organised discussion of style issues, so that they can be quickly resolved. As we already have a series of similar noticeboards, such as WP:RS/N and WP:OR/N, I believe that this proposal should go forward. I have created the proposed noticeboard page, modelled on WP:RS/N. Please see Wikipedia:Style noticeboard. RGloucester — ☎ 18:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At this edit you originally opposed this idea. Can you explain whether this is a change of heart, or a different proposal, or what? Dicklyon (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is merely a thought process. RGloucester — ☎ 02:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support it would be helpful to have a place for people to ask specific style questions other than wt:mos. I think a central noticeboard is better than a giant "request for style guidance!!!!" template on talk pages throughout wikipedia, both for ease of management and for ease of locating past discussion, which is what I understand PBS to suggest. Not sure what's going on with the numbering here. AgnosticAphid talk 17:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mild support I have no problem whatsoever answering people's questions at WT:MoS, but a noticeboard might be easier for people to find. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support – I think WP needs a different venue for discussions about MoS issues. Often the discussions on talk pages (such as MOSNUM talk, in particular) can become overly long, and they can easily wander too far from the supposed topic of the talk page: changes to the MoS. Many threads on that talk page, indeed, have been about how editors should understand the existing MoS text, rather than proposals for changes to it. But as it stands, there is simply nowhere else to go to ask such questions. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - A centralized noticeboard would be beneficial to getting help with style questions and getting outside opinions in style disputes.- MrX 21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Good idea, so long as it's watched by active knowledgeable editors. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - A noticeboard would be easier for newbies to find and maybe a little easier to patrol, once we get past the initial re-routing posts to the new board. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support creation of this noticeboard; there were times I would have used it myself – had it been an option in my time of need. I am familiar with the cadre of personnel who generally comment on questions of Wikipedia styling and they are a competent creed who engender great confidence. Because of their collective professionalism, I expectantly anticipate that this noticeboard will quickly become the go-to example of a Wikipedia-thing "done well". Also, when you consider the stifling effect that discretionary sanctions have brought to so many talk pages, it becomes more apparent that neutral "sanctuaries of discourse" like this are needed things. Ironically, even Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style is subject to discretionary sanctions which cements my belief in the need for this noticeboard. Consider mine: strong support.--John Cline (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support – It would be a nice change to have a better, centralized place to bring up discussions concerning the Manual of Style rather than starting threads on one of the many different style talk pages. Dustin (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I'm abstaining, but it's It's worth noting that a note at the top of WP:VPP says: If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards. It says nothing about WT:MOS or any other talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC) No longer abstaining. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently that's as it should be, the MOS talk pages are for discussions about the MOS pages, not for general help with MOS applications. WP:PNB and {{noticeboard links}} list teahouse, help desk, etc. and also don't mention WT:MOS. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The first line at WP:PNB kinda sums it up. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support: Makes for more organized discussion of style guidelines, which are one of the most discussed areas of Wikipedia editing. Esquivalience t 03:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support as an attempt to centralize discussions which currently get spread all over the place. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support: I understand this as a proposal to create a place to help people who have writing style questions. At the top of WT:MOS, it says: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page" but it has also served as a place to answer style questions. I think it is good to separate out those two functions. Inevitably there will sometimes be disagreements there, but it is good to keep them separate from discussion of what the MoS should say. It could turn into forum shopping, but better to expose style questions to people with an interest in writing style than leaving them on a seldom watched talk page. The people opposing seem to be talking about something else. If I'm missing something - let me know.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support: great plan. It will help bring consistency. Atsme☯Consult 18:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Per the above; obviously a good suggestion.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support: WP:Reference desk allows users to seek specific factual information that they may have trouble finding themselves in our articles. The proposed noticeboard would do the same for style guidelines and best practices. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, let's give it a shot, there seems to be enough people who are willing to volunteer. Kharkiv07Talk 02:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support It sounds like a good idea. A place to get answers about style based on policy from uninvolved editors. AlbinoFerret 02:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support WT:MOS is a place to discuss the MOS itself, not an (official) place to ask questions. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 14:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)--Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 14:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support MoS talk pages have always sufficed on those handful of occasions I needed to clarify a particular matter of style. I think it occurs to a lot of people naturally as the place to go in that, if one is questioning a given style guideline, it is probably because it seems unintuitive to them in some way, and they are thus correspondingly interested in whether or not the MoS page should be altered, or at least in discussing the issue in that context even if they aren't certain a change is called for. Outside that context, the VPP and the the help desk are options as well. All of that being said, I really see no substantial downside to setting aside a dedicated space for this sort of thing. So long as it's made clear that this is the space for discussing implementation of existing policy, not debating it. Other noticeboards that exist for procedural, technical, and behavioural matters manage to operate under this dichotomy and are generally seen as beneficial (if not essential) to greasing the wheels on quickly resolving various types of issues and bottlenecks. Some have cited forum shopping as a concern, but no one seems to suggesting that we suspend policy or allow for endless debate on maters that we already have guidelines for (the appropriate place for such discussion should remain the talk pages of the relevant MoS/policy pages, central discussion spaces, and so forth). To the extent anyone lands at this forum looking to shop their perspective, it will sink or swim on the basis of how it conforms to community consensus, exactly the way it should. Snow let's rap 01:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support seems a good idea, often advise and discussion on style issues can be all over the place. MilborneOne (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, for much the same reason that Carrite (whom I deeply respect) has opposed it: "The Manual of Style is a beacon attracting obsessive sorts from far and wide to fight over dashes and capitalization". The current system is fragmented - style concerns are discussed in several different, obscure locations and can even involve one wikiproject's quirks becoming wikipedia-wide law, or different areas having mutually incompatible style rules - and this fragmentation makes it more likely that a small number of editors can get their own personal style-obsession regarded as a "consensus" and can then go about imposing that "consensus" on a much wider community. A single, centralised noticeboard would attract a wider audience and get a broader basis for any consensus. Doing without a proper discussion point won't make the (small, noisy minority of) problematic editors go away - the last decade of religious wars over minor points of style have shown us that. bobrayner (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support: WT:MoS is for discussing proposed changes to the MoS itself, while a Style noticeboard would be for discussing interpretation and application of the MoS. I can see how there would be some overlap between the two arenas of discussion, but given how difficult it is to navigate the many MoS subpages (and related, non-MoS, pages), I believe a noticeboard would be more beneficial than detrimental. Xaxafrad (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - I only just realised that, while I'm prepared to man (or "woman") the board, I hadn't expressed why I'm in favour of it. One of the greatest problems I encountered, as regards the Wikipedia learning-curve, was that of having to dig through the WP and MoS guidelines in order to establish transliteration standards, common name standards, dashes vs hyphens, lower case as the standard as opposed to the conventions used in Western academic norms, English language variants... well, you name it, it isn't intuitive, and it certainly isn't easy to find the relevant guidelines or norms. It's difficult enough to get one's head around policies and guidelines, much less having to spend hours trying to decipher discrepancies between geographical nomenclature conventions from other conventions. For the sake of new users, it would serve as an obvious and straight-forward method of addressing their concerns. Even for the sake of experienced editors, few could claim to be all-rounders. Pooling our knowledge at an easily accessible noticeboard has to be a better approach than guesstimating, only to have your hand slapped. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support as long as it's active. I think it would really service all editors and users very well. CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support a one-year trial period. At the end of that year, if anyone feels the need, there can be an RfC (MfD?) to decide whether to keep or remove, using actual tangible data instead of the CRYSTAL that is pervading this discussion. This deserves a chance to work. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. There are two reasons why I support this proposal. First, I think it will help prevent instruction creep at the MOS pages. Currently, whenever an issue related to style comes up, the only place to discuss it is at one of the various MOS guidelines. Since those talk pages are focused on discussing changes to the MOS pages themselves, any discussion quickly devolves into a question of "should the MOS be changed to say X?" or "We need to add something to the MOS to cover Y". However, often what is needed is not a change to current guidance, but a consensus as to the interpretation of it. I think the MOS guidance would become more stable and less contentious. The other reason is that I think it would help cut down on conflicts between MOS pages. We have many MOS pages, and they sometimes end up give conflicting advice. A Noticeboard would help highlight conflicts when they occur... If someone asks a question and gets conflicting answers pointing to different MOS pages, we will know that we have a conflict to resolve. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support with conditions: I am concerned with the use of the term "noticeboard" in relation to this outlet, primarily because it implies complaints about the states of articles. I'd call it a "Style help desk" instead. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: style noticeboard

  1. Oppose per WP:CREEP, WP:NOTFORUM and de gustibus non est disputandum. Andrew D. (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. For style questions relating to individual articles, the place to encourage discussion is not on a new noticeboard, but on the talk pages of the relevant article (or template, category etc.). We should also encourage style-related questions to be raised within the various WikiProjects. I also agree with Andrew D.'s concerns, noted above. Neutralitytalk 23:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose We don't need yet another place to drag users and berate them when we disagree with them. If someone is being disruptive over style issues, we already have places to discuss that. If people want to have genuine, non-confrontational discussions of style issues, we already have places for that too. This board is unneeded, and more "noticeboards" are merely magnets for more drama. No thanks. --Jayron32 00:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron32, your comment rests on a false premise. You must surly speak in jest when you suggest such nefarious motives; underpinning the creation of this noticeboard.--John Cline (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No where in my post did I mention any motive for creating this board. I don't really care why you want to create it, or what your motives are, and my oppose isn't based on what your motives are, because I am not a mind reader, and have no way to know your motives. I merely based my opposition the expected result of creating the board, based on the action at literally every other board at Wikipedia titled "noticeboard". What users do at anything named "noticeboard" is drag their enemies in for a good kangaroo court session. I could care less why you want to create this board. But because that's what every other single "noticeboard" is at Wikipedia, we don't need another one of those. I can only judge the likely future by the patterns of the past. And those patterns tell me this will be nothing except another dramah bord. No thanks. --Jayron32 02:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. oppose per Andrew D., WP:RS is a respected guideline, WP:MOS is a maze of twisty little passage, all alike, mainly existing to keep the contributors busy on something that won't cause havoc in the main namespace. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. oppose - This is interesting in theory, but I fear problematic in practice. I've worked in places where creative efforts and processes are reviewed often and the derision and debate is endless. Trained artistic professionals sometimes debate vehemently, and we want to invite a bunch of anonymous amateurs to do this?! I feel that creating a board where "artistic differences" are discussed will devolve into something that will make WP:ANI A.K.A. The Drama Board pale in comparison. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per above It's a good idea, but I feel Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style is "a place where editors can raise and discuss specific situations, and get opinions on how to interpret the policy or guideline in the context of those specific situations" in relation to the WP:MOS. If you ask a MOS-related question there about MOS someone will answer. --Psychotic Spartan 123 02:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose since in light of his comment here, I can only interpret RGloucester's proposal as an attempt to prevent the MOS from influencing style decisions. WT:MOS serves the purpose, and if we want more central style guidance, trying to move that role further from the MOS makes no sense. I would consider the original proposal more favorably. Keep in mind that RGloucester has made his contempt for the MOS very clear and explicit; so what kind of style guidance does he have in mind; he says his edits are directed by God, so I suppose that's his source of style guidance, too? Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seems like more bureaucracy and arguments. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose we already have the teahouse, help desk and village pump pages to ask at. We do not need the helping volunteers to be further spread out having to look at more pages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strongest possible oppose One of the most frightening proposals I've seen. "Neutrality" (near the top of this section) has it exactly right: changes to guidelines should be discussed on the respective branches of Talk:MOS, and questions about individual articles belong on the talk pages of those articles. When and if a particular issue proves itself to be wasting editor time on multiple articles, then it's time for that issue to come up at MOS for a possible change in the guidelines, to end that waste of time. What we DO NOT NEED is another place for disgruntled style warriors to forum-shop. If it matters enough for broad discussion, then that discussion should take the form of a consideration of a change to MOS; if it can't be expressed as a possible change to MOS, then it doesn't need broad discussion and should be discussed on the talk page of the article in question. EEng (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng: We don't seem to be on the same page. The noticeboard is meant to address cases like this one: [1]. Lots of people show up to WT:MoS asking "What should I do?" "What's correct?" "Does Wikipedia have a rule about this?" The noticeboard would be for these questions, not for suggested changes to the MoS. Blueboar and RG have both confirmed below that this is what they meant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I was imagining this as mostly as a place where disputes would be brought, rather than (as in your example) simple, probably noncontroversial inquiries. That feels less objectionable to me, but still I wonder whether Village Pump isn't enough. What's the volume of such inquiries? In fact, that gives me an idea... how about if those who see a need for this new board link to a half-dozen recent inquiries (somewhere...) that would have been better handled under this proposal. If there's really a need for this, that ought to be easy. EEng (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The concern that the creation of the noticeboard would address is that there might be many more people with questions who simply don't know that they're supposed to go to WT:MoS to ask them. It's not that creating a noticeboard would improve the quality of the answers (which is already quite high); it's that it would improve accessibility. If a new Wikieditor has heard about the RSN noticeboard and the V noticeboard then he or she is more likely to suppose that there might be a style/English/writing mechanics noticeboard (and vice versa) than that he or she should go and ask at WT:MoS. As for examples, I did provide a few links in the discussion section below, but the list is certainly not exhaustive. I just picked an archive page more or less at random and looked around for something representative. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    After watching the discussion develop for some time now, I've decided to let my oppose stand. The argument that there's an unfilled need for a place for people to ask where-is-it-in-MOS questions seems to me weak, but I'm absolutely terrified at providing another place for editors to pontificate on split infinitives, serial commas, and so on -- and that will happen, guaranteed, on any page with "style" in its title, no matter what's intended. EEng (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose; this is a recipe for more bureaucracy, disputes, drama, and chaos - all of which this area has historically managed to attract even without a dedicated noticeboard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose There are existing venues for asking for help with style. A noticeboard to discuss and establish consensus about style is likely to contribute to the divisiveness and unlikely to be beneficial. wctaiwan (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, and melding what you say with what I said earlier, we shouldn't have two tiers of MOS-like guidance -- some actually embodied in the text of MOS, and some embodied in some vague consensus you can only find by trawling through discussions on this new noticeboard. If we want to do something a certain way projectwide, that should be memorialized in MOS, and the various branches of Talk:MOS are the place to decide on that. EEng (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If one looks at the noticeboard, it makes it clear that its answers are not policy. They are merely third opinions. These would not constitute a body of precedent, or whatever. The purpose of the noticeboard is to allow people to ask questions about style guidance, just as with WP:RS/N and reliable sources. This is not about "memorialising" or "changing" the MoS. It is about directing people to obscure MoS pages, showing them the guidance, and explaining it to them, in reference to particular piece of text. It is about answering people's questions in a centralised and easy to access location. This is a great misinterpretation of the proposal. WP:RS/N does not override WP:RS. RGloucester — ☎ 18:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, unless I'm missing something, this seems like something that's best to gather consensus for on the talk page of the article. Kharkiv07Talk 00:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to support Kharkiv07Talk 02:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may well be missing something. The noticeboard is meant to be for asking style questions in specific instances, e.g. "I was working on article X, and found X. I was wondering if Wikipedia has a guideline about how to present this text, as the present styling seems off". It is not meant as a substitute for article talk pages, just as WP:RS/N is not. RGloucester — ☎ 01:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed noticeboard is meant to address cases like this one [2], not proposed changes to the MoS or other pages. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - The Manual of Style is a beacon attracting obsessive sorts from far and wide to fight over dashes and capitalization. This new notice board would give them increased leverage over productive content writers who may disagree with their idiosyncrasies and compulsions. We have adequate mechanisms for ensuring reasonable consistency of form already, this new noticeboard would be CREEP towards disruption. Carrite (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - What Wikipedia needs least is another drama board. Guy1890 (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's overly cynical, fundamentally at odds with Wikipedia's bedrock principles, and unconstructive. If I'm wrong, those who feel that way are doing the project a major disservice by failing to actively and seriously advocate the elimination of all "drama boards" (I'm talking about an RfC at WP:VPR, not randomly placed negative comments). Sorry for being blunt, I don't wish to start trouble, but I think it really needed to be said. It also applies to many other discussions, past and future. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when does opposing the addition of yet another drama board mean that one must oppose all drama boards? Quite frankly, when you've been editing here more than a year or so, you'll eventually come around to one of two opinions...that many (not all) of Wikipedia's drama boards help Wikipedia move forward with improving an online encyclopedia or they hinder its further development. Live & learn my friend... Guy1890 (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Carrite mostly. Other 'drama boards'are at least in theory supposed to relate directly to content issues - the distinguishing characteristic of most MoS-related drama is how little it actually matters to readers, who one can safely assume are more interested in relevant information than they are in whether an article does or doesn't conform to a self-contradictory 'manual' that could usefully be reduced to half a dozen short pages. Or to a simple instruction to write for the expected readership. Get that right, and 'style' issues are generally of little real consequence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be reducing the entirety of the MoS to a handful of useful recommendations that are mere suggestions. In reality, it's a major content guideline that represents a staggering amount of community consensus formulated meticulously over countless broadly-representative discussions and representing the solutions and best practices with regard to technical constraints, language policy, and accessibility issues, to name just three of the critical areas it provides consensus and consistency for. Snow let's rap 03:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose because of flawed premise. Instead, policies and guidelines should be kept as simple as possible, and use clear language. Samsara 08:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose If you are so concerned about MOS that you think a new noticeboard is needed try upping your meds, instead. I'm not handing anyone a cudgel to go along with their obsession. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Does WP:RS/N imply an "obsession" with RS? Does WP:NOR/N imply an "obsession" with no original research? It is simply a matter of answering questions. It seems like many editors here are challenging the existence of the MoS at all, and if that's the case, they ought do something about it. Otherwise, given that we have an MoS and that it is a guideline, we must provide clarity. RGloucester — ☎ 13:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Verifiability, of which reliable sourcing is an essential component, and No original research, are fundamental content policies, along with several others. Having noticeboards to discuss in central places such critical content matters is a necessity. On the other hand, while having a MOS is nice, and some of the suggestions in it are good, it's not so fundamental as to require a noticeboard. It's not critical if some obscure MOS advice is not exactly followed, it's a minor inconvenience at best; the same cannot be said about NPOV, BLP, V and such essential policies. Cenarium (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The people who come to WT:MoS asking for help with style issues think that those issues are important enough to be worth their time. Here's one case: [3] Don't they deserve a place to do it? What about the people who want help but don't know that WT:MoS is the unofficial place to go? Wikipedia funnels new users with questions toward noticeboards, and we've already seen that they work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For people who need help? Surprisingly, there is WP:HELPDESK. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah but it doesn't seem to be drawing the style questions. I plugged "spelling" and "punctuation" and "engvar" into its archive search and they don't seem to deal with those issues the way we see them at WT:MoS. Did I miss something? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Direct them to help, we have a whole desk for it, if you don't want to answer there. You can even put up a banner. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I don't mind answering on WT:MoS. The problem that the noticeboard would solve is that the newcomers and even veteran Wikieditors might not know that WT:MoS is the place to go for style help. A noticeboard would be easier for them to find. As for the help desk, what about the part where 39 out of 40 help desk requests have nothing to do with my area of expertise? We don't make NPOV specialists wade through three dozen style, R, and V threads. That's what noticeboards are for. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Experts? What experts. Helpful people fine, but experts? Don't help those you don't want to help, help those you do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean editing, proofreading and linguistics experts. There are people, such as myself, who do this for a living and are willing to share their expertise. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The concept of "experts" is elitist and antithetical to the project. You have no expertise here. RGloucester — ☎ 19:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language is the place for linguistic sharing (it can use help), and Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors is always begging for proofreaders. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:EXPERTS No, expertise is not antithetical to the project. Guild of Copy Editors is fine, but a noticeboard would specifically help people with specific style questions rather than improve articles one by one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose, per WP:CREEP and reasons stated by Neutrality.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - I agree with Carrite, above. CorinneSD (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose There is already far too much argument about MOS issues, and no indication that any good would result from providing another forum for enthusiasts to promote their favored style. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oh God no.—S Marshall T/C 12:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  22. I lean this direction per WP:CREEP. To explain myself further, my thought is that there may (often) come times where an editor asks for help at this proposed board, at least one person answers, and then a second answers, where the second somewhat contradicts the first. The likely scenario in my mind is that they hash it out on this noticeboard about what they think is the correct answer, but then nothing is fedback into the MOS. Alternatively, they don't settle it, then invite discussion on WT:MOS... at which point you should just have left the question at WT:MOS.

    I do see and agree with a concern that there are a lot of style talk pages lying around where one could ask a question about style but either a) get an answer from limited persons or b) not get an answer at all, both of which are negative experiences. If this is a real problem (and I might suggest that it is), then perhaps there should be some discussion about consolidating the MOS talk pages instead of creating this noticeboard. --Izno (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    People don't ask questions on the talk page very frequently because at the top, it says the page is only for discussing improvements to the MoS. When people do ask, I've seen what you describe in the first paragraph a couple of times, but far more often the question is asked and answered and that's the end of the issue. I see a noticeboard as a place where people would be encouraged to ask questions about how to write for Wikipedia. Our MoS is complicated, as most thorough manuals of style are. It seems a kindness to provide a place for people to ask questions.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To back up, what SB has just said, since this proposal was initiated, four people have come to WT:MoS with questions: [4] [5] [6]. They got straightforward answers with no debate. Even though the guy asking about "birthplace" got different answers, they were based on different interpretations of the question ("If you mean X, do Y." "If you mean Z, do Q.") and did not contradict each other. That's more typical Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @SchreiberBike: What a page self-describes itself as is irrelevant to the discussion. If there's consensus found, the purpose of the page of will change, so this argument is specious. Finding a place to ask questions, and having this "noticeboard" be that place, thusly does not follow.

    @Darkfrog24: And I have seen each and every one of those go by on my watchlist (as I do watch WT:MOS), which is why I did not dispute the evidence that there is a common kind of question that people will ask that does not seem to require much action beyond "here's where to go/what to do". What does not immediately follow is that there must be a noticeboard for this question to be asked at, above and beyond WT:MOS (which seems to do just fine). WP:BROKE is relevant. And I have not seen evidence to the contrary that there is anything broken, because the supporters of this proposal cannot show evidence of a non-action regarding this kind of question; a poll of users might be interesting in this regard. Show me evidence that WT:MOS actively causes users not to ask their question (whether the name of the title is simply enough to invoke non-action or if the users associated with the MOS cause non-action on the part of a question-seeking-answer user). --Izno (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternatively, I happen to subscribe to the view presented by User:Samsara at #Does this even need community approval?. Be bold, put a noticeboard together, see if people actually do use it or silently accept its use (if even they don't agree with its existence). Add it to a nav template here, another there. If it gains traction (because editors at WT:MOS suggest its use or for other reasons), then that's an improvement of the encyclopedia. --Izno (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The noticeboard isn't meant to change the way questions are answered; it's meant to be easy to find. As Mandruss points out in his comment, new users are directed to noticeboards for help. The idea is that there may be many people who have style questions but don't know that they're supposed to ask them at WT:MoS, so naturally we don't have evidence of how many people give up before asking. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not forget the many subpages, as well, which greatly complicate matters. RGloucester — ☎ 17:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno:I find some reasons to be suspicious of this project too, but not enough to reject the idea. When I started on Wikipedia, I looked for a place to ask questions but didn't find one. Instead I tried to read the massive MoS and I made mistakes.
    How about a trial period? Put up such a noticeboard, make it well known, and see how it works. After six months, a new RfC here to continue or stop. The problems people talk about could come true, but it also might help editors and make the writing on Wikipedia better.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think that would be a good idea, provided we could find an administrator to close this RfC. I can very quickly get the board up and running. RGloucester — ☎ 17:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just !voted for such a trial, and I got to believe I was introducing the clever idea for a few minutes before I found this. I suggested one year, and I think that much time would be necessary to get sufficient experience and data for any RfC. Those who like the idea might wish to modify their !votes to specify it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Per Carrite. I have lost more productive editing time over the years having to deal with obsessive-MOS types seeking to force the entirety of Wikipedia into their own preferred styles than for nearly any other reason. As Carrite notes, creating a centralized forum that could offer them greater leverage to impact the far larger population of editors will cause more harm than good. Resolute 02:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose: Where editors cannot work things out on an article's discussion page, the discussion page of the page of the pertinent MOS page already serves this purpose. If an editor behaves disruptively on such an issue, we have the administrators noticeboards.—Finell 02:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose, for the reasons given by Carrite. Kanguole 12:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So, we seem to be getting a lot of "per Carrite" points here. Please, elucidate. What exactly is Carrite's point? Such a noticeboard would not give "leverage" over anyone, and I don't see how it would. MoS is a guideline. RGloucester — ☎ 15:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per Carrite, and despite the remark directly above this one I think his point is well expressed and does not require expansion, which is why so many opposers have cited it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that an expansion of Carrite's diminutive negative observation? No one is asking you – or any of those 'opposing' per Carrite's CRYSTAL prediction of how it will inevitably turn into some form of hissy-fit-come-leverage-board – to involve yourself in manning (or wo-manning) the noticeboard. If it fails, it fails. Failure to render assistance and become an energy sinkhole for those willing to oversee the board will become self-evident quickly enough. You'll have to pardon my stupidity if I still fail to see the Carrite argument as any form of well expressed anything other than cynicism. By the same token, the NPOVN and RSN should also be removed as a waste of valuable time and energy for those "seeking leverage". All of the established noticeboards are equally, if not more, prone to abuse. Does that automatically make them unviable? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to says your calm, well expressed, and entirely logical and civil response has convinced me he is wrong and this noticeboard would not spawn the exact sort of problems Carrite describes. Well done. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose: I am going to say echoing Carrite and iterate specifics. Their quote: The attraction of obsessive sorts from far and wide to fight over dashes and capitalization. <snip> ... with their idiosyncrasies and compulsions. Two editors immediately come to my mind that I encountered because I employ an unusual grammar at times. I used an absolute adjective in an informal vote process, not in an article, even. And was pinged and critisised and teased in two different places. These are the type that would gleefullly dwell on such a board. I also agree that we have avenues now in place: start with the Teahouse, the article talk page, Village Pump, and since I am an active member of so many WikiProjects, I know they are a good resource. (Make an attempt to create a different style for Dog articles, for example with their rather stringent style, images, gallery size, infobox, sources already in place and you will get advice...). Fylbecatulous talk 17:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how what you just said has anything to do with the Manual of Style, or even "style" in general... RGloucester — ☎ 17:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I shall just state: oppose per WP:CREEP. Just above you said: "Please, elucidate", if one was using Carrite's statement as reason. If it is not the type of words you wanted, so be it. I still oppose per Carrite... Fylbecatulous talk 11:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per Carrite. Wikipedia does not need a uniform style, which this noticeboard seems to imply, and will be used to enforce. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm just baffled. This noticeboard has nothing to do with "enforcement". It has no power. It is answering questions. Like it or now, we do have a manual of style. It isn't "uniform" because nothing on Wikipedia is uniform. It exists, however...This is just incomprehensible. RGloucester — ☎ 14:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I fear it will be used as a staging ground for self-appointed MOS enforcers. MOS aficionados definitely desire style uniformity, some even arguing that anything less makes us look ridiculous. Mandruss, 13 April 2015, offers a possibly reasonable compromise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. The MoS requires internal consistency within articles, not consistency across Wikipedia: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia." A style board might be used to try to force consistency across the project. If people have questions about the meaning of anything in the MoS, they can ask on that talk page. Also, volunteers are spread too thinly across the various boards as it is. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: style noticeboard

I will oppose this proposal if it includes WP:AT as there is a perfectly good process for discussing Article titles Wikipedia:Requested moves and having a second place to discuss such things is a bad idea. -- PBS (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about moving an article. This is about asking for clarification on style guidance, just as RS/N is for asking clarification as to whether a source is reliable. RGloucester — ☎ 21:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I could see a style question that relates to an article title being raised at the new noticeboard... and what WP:AT says would logically have to factor into any answer to that question (Since a title is involved). Like other noticeboards, the proposed noticeboard is for asking questions and getting opinions... it won't issue "rulings". Blueboar (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have similar thoughts. To me, it isn't a problem that someone might ask a style related question at this noticeboard that they could have asked at a number of other places, like: the article's talk page, the teahouse, or Wikipedia:Requested moves – what matters is that they receive accurate information they can understand, and properly use. For example if their query did relate to a desire to move a page to another title, a quality answer would invariably include mentioning that Wikipedia:Requested moves is the correct page for advancing such a request. I do not see anything counterproductive with this noticeboard rendering such service.--John Cline (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another example showed up in the past twenty-four hours: [7]. This should serve both as an indicator of the kind of problem that this noticeboard might solve and the efficiency with which such problems are currently handled. The way I see it, the advantage of a noticeboard is that it might be easier to find. While the Wikieditors who come to WT:MoS with questions of this kind see them answered promptly and thoroughly, it might not occur to everyone that it is okay to ask such questions at WT:MoS. What I expect is that if this noticeboard goes up, we'd do the exact same thing but just do it there instead of at WT:MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC) @Mandruss: raises a good point. I think that if this motion does not carry, we should modify the note at the top of VPP to direct users with style questions to WT:MoS. That would make the status quo more official. If WT:MoS is then drowned in new questions, we can revisit the noticeboard idea. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – That's not what the MoS page is for. It isn't a noticeboard, and it cannot be listed amongst noticeboards. It is only for discussing changes to the MoS. Instead, I would suggest that people be redirected to the help desk. RGloucester — ☎ 03:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: Maybe you should remove the bold "oppose" from your comment. Someone skimming the conversation might think that you are opposing the creation of the noticeboard. I am not at this time formally proposing that we direct style questions to the MoS but I plan to if this motion does not carry. As for said line or two, we already answer style questions there and it doesn't much disrupt regular business. As you can see from my comment, it would also allow us to collect information that could be used to revisit the creation of a noticeboard. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Unacceptable. Style questions do not belong at the MoS talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 23:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well we got another one there just today [8]. It doesn't seem to be hurting anything, though I agree that a centralized, well-publicized noticeboard would be a better place. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Darkfrog24 is correct, it's potentially misleading to use a boldfaced "oppose" as a substitute for "I disagree with the preceding comment", which you've now done twice, RGloucester. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose his proposal. This discussion is not about support for my proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 03:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion: If this noticeboard is created and then goes horribly wrong, it will likely be because its respondents had the same mindset as the opposers here—that they’re not there to simply answer questions, but to make decisions. Which they shouldn’t. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how it could go "horribly wrong". As with other noticeboards of the same ilk (NPOVN, RSN, etc.), a style noticeboard would fulfil a need for having somewhere to consult with other editors who have MOS experience. There are a multitude of MOS guidelines/accepted standards that are extremely difficult to find unless you've been working a specific area of Wikipedia for a considerable time. Consulting on a centralised noticeboard is not the subject of sanctions unless a user is FORUMSHOPPING, which is a pre-existing problem with any noticeboards. Considering that the majority of new posts to similar boards end up being archived without any clear outcomes, it's hardly a precedent for hard and fast "decisions" to be laid down as a 'written in stone' outcome. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Monty845 suggested below, how would people feel about Wikipedia:Style help desk instead of Wikipedia:Style noticeboard? That seems less like a drama board and more like the Wikipedia:Help desk which generally works well. It would be a place for people to ask and answer style questions and a place for people to get advice when there's a disagreement. We could specifically disallow discussion of changes to the MoS and it would have zero power. Approving something like this for a trial period might be a good idea. I don't think it will, but it could turn into a toxic cesspool of evil; so how about trying it for six months and only continuing it if it passes a new RfC?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The proposed noticeboard must be a noticeboard, as with other noticeboards. There is no reliable sources help desk, and there should not be a style help desk. There should be a noticeboard, per WP:PNB. This noticeboard proposal is already a place where discussion of changes to the MoS are strictly disallowed, and where the discussions have "zero power". Please do not skewer the proposal into irrelevance. RGloucester — ☎ 22:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the people with questions have a well-publicized place to go for help then what's the difference? A noticeboard would be better because that's Wikipedia's existing format and would be easier for new guys to find, but what's this vehemence? RG, what do you consider to be the advantage of noticeboard format over help desk format? I'm also not clear on how a help desk would be any more or less prone to drama. We'd still be dealing with the same straightforward questions, which would have the same answers. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should use the established WP:PNB conventions for noticeboards. There is no justification for creating parallel new structures, which would make the whole thing for confusing. "Help desk format" is non-existent. This is noticeboard for policy and guidelines, and should follow the standard format for that type of noticeboard. To be frank, I hope that the closing administrator takes into account that much of the opposition, including this hair-splitting about "noticeboards", "enforcement", &c. is incomprehensible. RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where to place the discussion

Another issue is the style that the proposed notice board can take, I suggest that it would be better to follow the method used for WP:RM/RfC, rather than the WP:RS/N. Ie the discussions remain on the talk page of the articles rather than being placed in a central area. -- PBS (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the purpose of this noticeboard. RGloucester — ☎ 21:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you further explain this suggestion? Exactly what sort of notice board do you propose? Is what you suggest that if someone has a style question about the article "pizza" that they put their suggestion at Pizza:talk/noticeboard? That seems like it defeats the purpose of creating a centralized place that people can ask style questions. AgnosticAphid talk 21:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, AgnosticAphid. I cannot understand this suggestion. The purpose of the proposed noticeboard is to allow for editors to request a third opinion on style-related questions in a neutral space, as with RS/N. RS/N is of great use for this purpose, and I see no reason why this similar page would not be of such use. Discussion on article talk pages are important, but third opinions are essential to resolving localised disputes. RGloucester — ☎ 22:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what a style noticeboard would achieve that isn't already covered via Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming. GregKaye 10:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregKaye the current RfC you mention is for proposals like this, things that would change the styling manuals or naming conventions. Typically they take place at WT:MOS or whatever. Those RfC are not intended to discuss how implementing MOS would affect the content of a specific article. -- PBS (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is not practical in every situation, of course. Many editors can resolve their discrepancies within days of receiving accurate information within collegial discourse. They do in fact, often use any of a number of noticeboards, they resolve issues in a few days, instead of thirty, and then they move on. Also, before selling too many shares in RfC efficacy, let me say that I filed an RfC a few months ago. One editor responded, and an admin closed it after 30 days; opining that the one response was reasonable, of which I agreed. When you consider all of the specialized noticeboards that are currently in productive use,[9] It is counter-intuitive to speculate that something as specialized as "Wikipedia styling" wouldn't benefit from a noticeboard as equally as the others aforelinked, and counterproductive to impede forward progress for the sake of obstruction; in my opinion at least.--John Cline (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John Cline my experience of the reliable sources notice board is one is lucky if a conversation involves more than a handful of editors eg the last one I initiated:RN/N § Tudor Place -- PBS (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The way RM works is that a template is placed in a section on the article's talk page. It is then listed by the bot onto the RM page (see WP:RM#Current discussions). People who like to participate in RMs are presented with a current list to watch, while those who are interested in the article will be watching the talk page, so it encourages more input from both those interested in the issue in general and by those interested in the article. RM is similar to that of an RfC in that discussions are not centralised but placed on the article's talk page. I am not suggesting using either RM or RfC, for this proposal, but the RM model is I think superior to that of the notice board as the conversation is kept close to the subject of the conversation and it is easily available for future reference either on the talk page of the article or in its archives. -- PBS (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with PBS that a RM model would provide an efficient way of providing a central point of reference to relevant discussion some of which might even be located on the talk page of the same project page. Perhap it is relevant to note that issues of style in wiki are something that go beyond Wikipedia. I would be interested if an RM model could be extended to cover content such as commons. I wouldn't be surprised if there may be plenty of commons and other editors who would appreciate the existence of this type of notice board, either of a form that just covered Wikipedia or that worked across projects. GregKaye 16:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An "RM" model defeats the purpose of this proposal. An "RM" is about a request for a change to a specific article. This noticeboard is about requesting third opinions on the interpretation of style guidance in a neutral space away from a dispute. The whole purpose of this noticeboard is to avoid the "closeness" you are speaking about, as it is that closeness which leads to disputes. Please note that the proposed noticeboard, WP:SNB, requires that a link to the noticeboard discussion be placed on the relevant article talk pages. All editors will be informed. RGloucester — ☎ 16:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RGloucester , the "neutral space away from a dispute" idea gives me the heebee jeebees as I think that this could be used in behaviours like forum shopping. The RM format might simply state the nature of the discussion with indication being given to the location of the discussion. GregKaye 13:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, people come to the MoS talk page asking, "Should I hyphenate this? Where?" "Should I capitalize this or use lowercase?" "Does the MoS have a rule about this?" Here are some examples: [10] [11] [12] I'm guessing that this noticeboard would be for people with these questions. Frankly, I don't mind answering them at WT:MoS (though Wavelength usually beats me to it, heh) but a noticeboard like the RSN and V boards would probably be easier for people to find. RG, Blueboar, other proponents, is this what you mean the noticeboard to do? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. Instead of having discussion scattered across WT:MOSNUM, WT:MOS, MOS:BIO, &c., have one centralised noticeboard for asking such questions as these. RGloucester — ☎ 18:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ecactly. Blueboar (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Neutrality: No one is suggesting a depreciation of talk pages. However, many and most talk pages have few watchers, if any. It is also true that disputes often require third opinions if they are to be resolved. Talk page discussion is always the first step, but what is the next step? That should be the style noticeboard, which would provide a neutral space watched by many editors for specific style questions, just as RS/N does. RS/N does not supplant talk page discussion, and neither would this noticeboard. As it is, people are already seeking advice across many guideline and policy talk pages, as mentioned above. The noticeboard would provide a transparent and strictly defined space for people asking for such advice. RGloucester — ☎ 00:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RfCs last thirty days, and are not useful for answering quick style-related questions. Wikiprojects can be useful, but do not provide a structured and quick format for answering such questions, and are inherently non-neutral spaces. 3O, once again, is not structured to help with the specific problem that this noticeboard is trying to solve. This proposal is for something more like the reference desk or help desk, not a request system for direction intervention in the article in question. It simply an attempt to centralise discussions that are already occurring in outlying MoS pages. RGloucester — ☎ 04:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dicklyon: It is very odd that you think that I "hate" the MoS, given that I spend most of my content work time on copyediting and enforcing MoS recommendations in various articles. This proposal will obviously not reduce the "impact" of the "MoS". Nothing could "reduce its impact" other than a stripping of guideline status, which no one in his right mind would even consider. The purpose of this noticeboard is to ensure that the MoS is clear, and that its prescriptions are followed. However, I think there is a fundamental problem, and that's that you are interpreting "MoS" to mean a group of editors who support your interpretation of the MoS. The proposed noticeboard sits in a neutral space. It must be in such a neutral space, or else it will loose credibility to petty squabbles amongst different factions. Disputes about style rage across the encylopaedia, and have done since time immemorial — the response to these disputes is not to continue with such attacks as the one you've written into your "oppose" comment. The goal of this noticeboard is serve as a reference desk for style questions, nothing more. Wikipedia policy and guidelines do not change because of this proposal. It will merely be easier for editors to access the MoS, which is a dense document spread out over tens of pages. RGloucester — ☎ 06:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to ensure that your voice is heard is to support the formation of the noticeboard and provide answers to the questions of those seeking them, not to squelch the proposal for the sake of vengeance. I can assure you that I will not be answering questions at WP:SNB if it is formed, as I recognise that my name is tainted. RGloucester — ☎ 06:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteers are obviously needed

Without volunteers watching this page; prepared to respond, this noticeboard cannot be the resource envisioned. For those so comprised, please consider adding Wikipedia:Style noticeboard to your watchlist now, and let's hope to see more than thirty who are willing[13] Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is usually easy to get a bunch of people to sign up for such a list, but it in no way guarantees that there will actually be broad particpation. Many inactive, half-dead WikiProjects have membership lists with dozens of names on them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well for my own part, I already do my bit answering questions at WT:MoS. It would be nice to have a clearer and more organized place to do it, but a few of the people here, like SchreiberBike, already have multi-year track records. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What this board would actually do

I was against this idea at first, but then I got confirmation about what it actually is.

Right now, people already come to WT:MoS with questions like "Does Wikipedia have a policy about this?" "Another editor is doing X; is that against the rules?" "Why did so-and-so revert my changes?" "What's the right way to present this word in this variety of English?" While we've been having this conversation, two such individuals have raised such issues at WT:MoS. [14] [15]

So if you're concerned about drama... 1) You'll notice that their questions were answered clearly, briefly and without debate or argument. This is typical. 2) They're asking about things like whether "modeling" has one L or two; making the MoS shorter wouldn't help with that. 3) The demand for a noticeboard isn't coming from MoS regulars and style experts; it's meant to serve the demonstrated needs of those who wish to consult MoS regulars and style experts. This is about replacing an unofficial system with an official one, using a format that we've already seen to be effective on WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN. 4) It's the threads about changes to the MoS that tend to get everyone's back up, and the noticeboard would not be dealing with those. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this even need community approval?

Since it doesn't sound like this board will actually have any special powers, I'm not sure that its creation needs community approval. It's essentially just a WikiProject for MoS discussion. So anyone should feel free to start one if they so desire. The more interesting question is probably whether it will have enough active users to stay alive. Samsara 02:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it requires community approval, as it will not be a "WikiProject", but a noticeboard under WP:PNB. The community must decide whether it wants such a noticeboard. If the board doesn't have community consensus, it won't be able to function effectively. RGloucester — ☎ 02:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, that's the kind of statement that makes me suspicious of the direction you want to take with this. It seems to me that if there is really a need for this, it could be run at a lower level of privilege and then promoted once it's proven to have traction. Forcibly injecting it as a new cog into a working machine, well, let's just say it's not to everyone's taste. Samsara 03:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but I simply don't think it would be appropriate to start something like this without having the community behind it. You can look at my mock-up, at WP:STEIN. It is ready to go, and I could've just started it up the bat. However, I really don't think that's appropriate. As you can see, there is opposition, though I think most of the opposition is misguided. Not having consensus may result in a certain sabotage, I imagine. RGloucester — ☎ 03:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of the issues we'd address wouldn't require the formation of any new consensus. All three of the people who've asked style questions during the time we've had this discussion have had straightforward "This is what the rule is"/"This is the policy you were thinking of"/"Here's the page you want" answers. The only way I see the noticeboard needing to form any consensus would be if there were a question of how to interpret a rule to fit a specific case. We've gotten a few of those in the past.
RG, she's got a point. Now that the discussion's ongoing, we should abide by the outcome, but you or Blueboar could have just done it and then taken it down if a consensus ever formed against it. That is allowed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is "allowed" or not is irrelevant. It is wrong, and flies in the face of the basis of this encylopaedia, which is WP:CONSENSUS. If the community doesn't want a noticeboard, it won't get one. If it does want one, it will. One cannot just circumvent the usual processes because one feels one knows better than everyone else. That would be atrocious behaviour. I do not want any changes to Wikipedia policies or processes that have not attained consensus. They are recipes for disaster, and result in the likes of the Esperanza debacle. RGloucester — ☎ 05:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually WP:BOLD is as much a part of the basis of Wikipedia as consensus is. It is the usual process. You actually did something unusual by asking permission first. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Bold" applies to editing articles. It does not apply to Wikipedia processes. I can't start a new process called "requests for such and such" merely because I want to. Such a process requires consensus of the community. That's how it works with all community processes, otherwise we'd end up with tons of parallel and competing structures. The usual process for establishing community procedures is discussion at the village pump. RGloucester — ☎ 05:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh goody: a meta-meta-debate on the process by which the framework for the process for debating the forum for discussing style should be discussed is determined. Decided. I think. EEng (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Such a board likely would need community support and consensus. Stating BOLD as a justification for such a significant is possibly stretching its meaning a bit. In any case getting consensus is the best path as it raises awareness of the project and precludes any future questions over the legitimacy of the project.Trout71 (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the first item of business at this new board will need to be a discussion of its vs. it's. ;-) EEng (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like it, you don't have to help. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the joke, you don't have to laugh. EEng (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies user:EEng for a minor mistake which you clearly felt it necessary to point out. I am assuming your motive was petty, like your action. In any case I doubt that you are an expert on grammar. After a few seconds on your page I was simply horrified by the false apposition and the sundry other mistakes that are tell-tale signs of someone trying to use constructions and language that he doesn't really understand.Trout71 (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to be a grammar expert to find amusement in an its/it's mixup during a discussion of a proposed Style Noticeboard, though you do have to take yourself very seriously to be offended by a goodnatured ribbing – particularly one tagged by ;-).
Wikipedia is no place for humour.
Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.
In any case if my userpage exhibits false apposition (or other offenses tsk-tsked in your 19th-century grammar) please boldly correct it for me. I don't mind having my errors pointed out, whether for humor or enlightenment. EEng (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could start the WP:Style Help desk with little to no community consensus, just some volunteers interested in answering questions. Which under my reading of the proposal is what is being proposed. You would need consensus for a true noticeboard, where issues are taken, and a resolution is reached through consensus there, possibly over the objection of one of the parties. Monty845 01:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, a noticeboard sounds better to me but as long as the new guys have a place to go that they can actually find. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fringe theories noticeboard is an example of BRD-like creation. It was boldy created, sent to MfD within a few days, discussion ensued, and it was kept. That whole thing took less than half the time and far fewer words than this discussion has required, by the way. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I am firmly opposed to yet another drama board for this purpose, I would fully support a simple help desk. If it was strictly to help find relevant guidance from the MOS and explicitly not for any kind of dispute resolution I don't see a problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on what the difference would be. The kinds of questions we're talking about would be the same, and would have the same answers. For example, while this discussion has been taking place, three or four people have asked questions at WT:MoS: spelling/ENGVAR organization definite articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is apparent to me that many of the people above have not read WP:PNB. This noticeboard is meant to be established in the model of WP:PNB. I don't know why you think it has anything to do with "dispute resolution", though it may inadvertently resolve some disputes. RGloucester — ☎ 01:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Halftime report

This RfC is about halfway through, and it seems like one of those RfCs that might not get closed for a month, so I'm offering to close. (As always, speak up if you object.) One thing I'm not seeing that I think would be helpful would be more discussion of the general case: what happens on WP when some people are already doing something, and others believe that their process isn't visible enough or doesn't provide the best answers, so they set up another page to try to do it better? This strikes me as territory that's already well-covered by our policies and practices (but I don't want to inject my own views, of course). - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Suede Sofa cited the WP:Fringe theories noticeboard. It seems to be working out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's part of the reason why the opposition baffles me. This noticeboard would be ten times more transparent (something many of them seem to want) than the existing mess, would allow easier access for users looking for assistance, and is based in a common community standard, the WP:PNB. RGloucester — ☎ 19:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent for precedent's sake

As you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhay Vidhya Mandir Senior Secondary School, Hindaun City there are 2(3 if the speedy counts) votes for delete, one vote for keep, and two for keep because of precedent.

I'm proposing we drop the idea of precedent for precedent's sake.

A school existing should not be a reason to have an article on it. It should have to be notable, just like everything else on here. This seems like a really strange exception to me. While I understand precedent, I feel that it should only ever be used to end something quickly, or if there is no consensus reached. Right now when the AfD closes it would be deleted if not for the votes for precedent. If on the other hand there was no consensus then the closing admin could use precedent to close as keep. In the legal system a judge uses precedent as a guide, not a rule. We should do the same here. Jerodlycett (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but it seems to be that the whole argument from prededent is really a short-hand way of saying "the factors that are relevant to the current matter have been debated before, and come to a satisfactory conclusion, so there is no reason to expect a different conclusion this time." And that's fine if the old and new matters are the same, but there are always differences. By analogy to the legal situation, I believe it is better treated as persuasive precedent, not as binding precedent. Look at the old case, and decide what, if anything, from that discussion is pertinent to the current. It may or may not lead to the same decision.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. Jerodlycett (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • False premise, cannot oppose or support: "Precedent," except in the form of very recent consensus or policy or guidelines, does not exist here. Indeed, the concept of it not existing is enthroned at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? An argument at AfD citing "precedent" is, really, an argument that the outcome is a common outcome, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools. In short, it's an argument that "though in theory these can be deleted for lack of sources, as a practical matter these never get enough "delete" !votes to actually be deleted so this is a waste of time". The "rules," namely NHSCHOOL, are clear that schools have to establish notability through multiple sources, but there is sometimes a disconnect between what the notability guidelines say and what actually happens in deletion discussions. That's okay, of course, because consensus can change, both generally and on a case by case local exception basis. The point that should be made in the AfD discussion is that there is no such thing as precedent and "usual outcome" is not a substantial argument for retention. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are two arguments on the example I gave that state precisely that precedent is the reason for keeping. I don't know if the solution is a huge banner on common outcomes or on AfD stating that, but it's irritating to think that the article would have otherwise reached consensus and been deleted, but due to votes of precedent it may not be. The reason I put out an RFC is to try to get comments on this matter mainly, not necessarily votes, so thank you. Jerodlycett (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with TransporterMan. Precedent means nothing at Wikipedia, every single discussion should be decided on its own merits, based on consensus-based discussions in accordance with Wikipedia's core principles. All discussions stand on their own. That does not stop people from making bad arguments based on existing "precedent", but that doesn't mean we have to give those arguments any weight. --Jayron32 14:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this is true, then the article should close as delete per the consensus set there, correct? I'm not willing to make the bet that it will be. Thank you for your comment. Jerodlycett (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, consensus is assessed by the weight of the arguments. Admins are free to (and encouraged to) ignore arguments which are based on unsound principles or spurious rationales. --Jayron32 02:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also can neither support nor oppose because the practice of precedent for precedent's sake is not occurring, per se. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is based on prior discussions which have often led to a common result, and the common result is that schools of a certain level are almost always eventually found to be notable according to WP:ORG, unless they don't actually exist. However, each case is evaluated in isolation; one school isn't notable because another one is, and there is no inherent notability for any school. This is better described at WP:WPSCH/AG#N. Ivanvector (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean that it isn't happening, as it is. Even an administrator is doing so. Thank you for the comment. Jerodlycett (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that there is a better justification for this practice than simply "precedent" or "we've always done it this way". Ivanvector (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen many !votes at school AFDs that are simply invocations of precedent. The ones that bother me most are the editors who invoke precedent to delete articles about elementary schools that easily comply with both ORG and GNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as "precedent" boils down to "essay" trying to outsmart a "guideline" ignoring the "essay" as it recommends at its top might be good enoough. Deleting the essay as nevertheless misleading and not helpful might be better. What exactly do you propose here? I'm tempted to add support, but I'm not sure what I'd support. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the problem isn't exactly what I thought it was, so I'm waiting on more input to see. I'm beginning to think you have the best solution for what seems to be the exact problem, that essay. Thanks for the comment. Jerodlycett (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This particular schools a borderline case. We should;t use such cases to change established statements of practice, or we will have no stability at all, and no basis for consistent decisions. We can;t be expected to be perfectly consistent, but we should at least try. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." We should strive not for consistency, but propriety. We do what is proper to the specific situation, not what has been done in other situations merely because of some random points of coincidence. --Jayron32 02:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that word foolish in the quotation. A wise consistency is the hallmark of seriousness & intelligence. A foolish inconsistency is the hallmark of using no mind at all. The WP policy that avoids foolish consistency is IAR, but IAR is intend for the exceptions, not the general run of things. Newcomers are entitled to learn from reading our guidelines what they are supposed to do. Trying to build an encycopedia without consistency produces of hodgepodge of miscellaneous internet pages. Encyclopedias are by definition organized knowledge. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is an accidental biproduct of propriety, and never a goal unto itself. Doing the proper thing will lead to similar results in many situations, but that doesn't mean that should be the goal. When consistency is valued as an end to itself, that is a problem. That our results end up consistent is a happy coincidence, and the outward sign that we're probably doing the right thing, but we don't let consistency be the driving force behind our decision making. It is that thinking that makes it foolish. Wise consistencies aren't planned first as consistencies. They are merely wise. --Jayron32 02:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal after comments

Thank you who left comments assisting in this. My proposal is now as follows.

I propose deletion, or rewrite to indicate use only for assistance when no consensus is found, of WP:OUTCOMES.

It is being quoted as the reason to keep a subject that isn't notable on its own. While I gave one example above of it being used that way, and the results from it, you can see the discussion at WikiProject Christianity which shows it is considered a guideline, not an essay. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think the page itself, in its lead and first section, already does that well enough. Also, I think what you’re desiring is for precedent itself to be considered irrelevant in such cases, rather than this page that attempts to document it. As for WT:XNB, I see only that it’s considered a relevant page in the context of that discussion. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this wannabe-essay trying to overrule guidelines not in the form of a WP:AFD subpage is harmful, intentionally misleading, and pointy. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support marking WP:OUTCOMES with {{historical}}. It is a fantastically unhelpful page that hamstrings proper discussions of articles on their own merit. We should be discussing each article individually, not pointing at OUTCOMES and saying "Nope, can't delete it... precedent says we can't" We don't normally delete such pages, but we should tag it as historical and that it should not be used for resolving deletion discussions. --Jayron32 02:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I believe the example this proposal is based on is being misunderstood by the nominator. At a first level, schools are notable in the same way bridges and train stations are, as elements of infrastructure and public service - and we've included coverage of some very minor bridges and train stations. Motivation for this proposal seems to amount to WP:IDONTLIKE. Samsara 08:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Removing this will eliminate any sense of rationality. Discussing each article on its own merit will mean about 500 Afds a day,and we don;t have enough interest people to discuss properly even the 100 we do have. It will also result in an encycopedia where decisions are made not by the merits, but by chance occurrence of easy to find web links, and by the intensity of the people arguing. A reader should know whether or not they can expect to find churches or high schools or elementary schools, or what types of businesses or people they will find. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, DGG is right. OUTCOMES is just an essay, and like all essays can be referred to or ignored as the situation warrants. Schools are a somewhat unusual situation where notability is assumed to be inherent at high school level and above. Wikipedia doesn't like absolutes, but this particular precedent is useful as at one time years ago AFD was cluttered with lots of wildly inconsistent debates about schools, and it's far simpler to assume high schools are notable and move on. For what it's worth, precedent does exist--articles on human settlements and heads of state are essentially never deleted, for example. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rather than deleting OUTCOMES, I like the idea of creating a simple template, similar to {{spa}}, that can be used to 'reply' to "Vote per OUTCOMES". It should say something like "Outcomes describes what happened to average articles, and is neither binding nor necessarily relevant to this particular one". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discouraging biting the newbies

Background

We are short of new editors, particularly women. If a new editor is "bitten" as soon as they start their first article, they may give up on Wikipedia in disgust. Often a newbie is uncertain that they are allowed to start an article, so their first save may be little more than a placeholder. Once they see that has worked, they start to flesh out the details. A "bite" may range from hastily tagging the article with a minor cleanup template such as {{tone}} to a speedy deletion nomination. Although technically the tag or nomination may be justified, it will be very disconcerting to a newbie who does not understand how Wikipedia works. A note on their talk page, with follow-up only if they ignore it, would be much more welcoming.

I first became very aware of the problem a few years ago when my wife started her first article, Calton weavers, which was rapidly nominated for speedy deletion as "a blatant and obvious hoax ... where the deception is so obvious as to constitute pure vandalism." She would have given up, but I encouraged her to try again, and it got into DYK. Still, the experience soured her on Wikipedia and she has not done much more. Recently she pointed out a speedy deletion request on Natalie Smith Henry that managed to get attention from the New York Times and BBC News, and a year later from Huffington Port. We do not need this sort of publicity, which may discourage potential new editors from even starting.

To confirm that these were not isolated incidents, I registered an alternative account (User:Bymatth2) and started four articles that were on my "to do" list, in each case saving a first version that I thought might be typical of a newbie's first tentative version of an article. They were Ralph Biasi, John Payne Jackson, Colonne Fabien and Jean Troisier (the last is very similar to Natalie Smith Henry). Each had some context and some indication of significance, but weak. A web search would have shown that each topic was backed up by many sources, but all were quickly nominated for deletion. There is no requirement for the nominator to undertake a search. The nominators did nothing wrong – but if User:Bymatth2 really had been a newbie, he would have been profoundly discouraged.

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers gives some general behavioral guidelines. Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Be nice to the newbies advises editors not to be too hasty. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion explains some other options. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion offers some cautions. But none of these policies or guidelines defines persistently biting the newbies as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: "a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia."

Some of the editors who do a lot of new page patrolling maintain logs of the articles they have nominated for speedy deletion. Typically 5–10% of these articles show as blue links, meaning the CSD submission was declined, or the article was recreated and survived. A spot check shows that the author of the blue link article often does not do much more, as was the case with my wife, user:jomillsjo. Presumably some of the redlink articles could in fact have been expanded into valid articles, as with the four test User:Bymatth2 articles, but the newbies turned away in disgust. We are short of new editors, particularly women. Hasty CSD nomination may be causing great damage in turning away new editors, with questionable benefits.

Aymatth2 (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Various possibilities suggest themselves, such as imposing a delay between article creation and tagging (assuming the article is not an attack or otherwise immediately damaging to Wikipedia), using the newbie's talk page rather than clean-up templates to suggest improvements, and sanctioning editors who are consistently very aggressive to newbies. This is to propose that we first agree on a general statement of principle, to be added to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, saying,

Actions that tend to discourage newcomers, such as hastily nominating new articles for deletion or tagging new articles with clean-up templates, may be considered disruptive editing if constantly repeated without first exploring alternatives on the article creators' talk pages.

Aymatth2 (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments?

  • A better solution would be to nominate all of WP:UWT for deletion. The worst thing we do to bite newcomers is slap some arcane template on their talk page. No one reads form letters. If we want to keep them around, we should be talking with them, not yelling at them. --Jayron32 16:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just trying to get agreement on a first principle: persistent biting is disruptive. If that is accepted, we can discuss what other changes would naturally follow. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree about there being no requirement to check; see WP:BEFORE for steps that editors are expected to carry out before nominating an article for deletion. I feel that editors who consistently fail to carry out these steps, and/or who badly misinterpret the speedy deletion criteria, should be restricted from nominating articles for deletion, because while we can undo the frivolous nominations, we can't undo biting a new user. The second and third of your articles were badly tagged: A7 doesn't apply when an article makes a clear claim of significance, and the patroller clearly didn't understand what that means. The patroller's misjudgement was disruptive to the project, despite being in good faith, and if it is a pattern then we should not allow it to continue. Ivanvector (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think WP:BEFORE just applies to AfD, for some reason. I would certainly check the web before proposing deletion, but the CSD rules do not seem to require it. The article is just judged on its own merits, and may be deleted if it does not make a credible claim of significance. Of course "Speedy deletion is meant to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion." This could imply that WP:BEFORE applies, but I don't think so. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read WP:POINT lately, and considered how it might apply to your actions here? Breaching experiments are frowned upon, no matter how noble the goal. WP:ILLEGIT would appear to apply to your use of the Bymatth2 account, as well. Any justification for the second account that would conform to policy?—Kww(talk) 16:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh get off of your high horse Kww. This sort of thing badly needs to be reviewed and he's done this to try to bring about a genuine improvement to wikipedia and new editors in the long term.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Blofeld, I had you in mind as precisely the kind of editor that would view a policy like this as an endorsement of his behaviour. Took a quick look at your comments below and at your recent contribution history and it's apparent that after all these years, you still are in the habit of creating unacceptable stubs as opposed to articles. While reining you in has proven to be impossible over the years, one of my goals in viewing these proposals is always the need to make it clear to new editors that creating the inadequately sourced stubs that you do is completely unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 14:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inadequately sourced stubs, as long as they do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, can be created in the Draft namespace and moved to main when they have been brought up to an acceptable quality.--greenrd (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When was the last time I created an unacceptable stub? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll offer an WP:IAR on this one. This is an obvious good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, and added four decent articles in the process without really harming anything (that wasn't going to be harmed anyway). Ivanvector (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support that nothing was harmed and a good point was made. I think IAR applies.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses, "long-term users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users." That is why I did not use my main account. The main and alternative accounts are linked and categorized as such on their pages, have very similar names and have the same email, so there is no attempt to conceal the connection. The alternative account Bymatth2 did not contribute to any discussions. There was no Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. The alternative account did nothing disruptive and made no point. It just started four routine articles. If it had indeed been a newbie, it would have been an unusually productive newbie, stubbornly focused on adding new content. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You intentionally created four articles that you knew did not comply with WP:V and one that did not comply with WP:BLP. You knew that the articles were unacceptable when you created them, and that they would consume other editors' time and effort in getting rid of them or cleaning them up. That's a WP:POINT violation.—Kww(talk) 18:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you're making a fuss over this. What a fucking bureaucracy WP has become. EEng (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the news shows that it's all bureaucracy. That's part of the reason there are no new editors, we're intruding on the sandbox, and no one wants to share. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that this little "experiment" revealed any new knowledge, and it did wind up consuming part of a half-dozen editors' time. I don't object to this discussion, I do object to these tests.—Kww(talk) 23:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it didn't show much. Big deal. At least he cared enough to try something. Stop fretting about it. It makes you look like a sour-puss. EEng (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The experiment may not have "revealed new knowledge", assuming we treat Aymatth2's suspicions as "knowledge". However, it certainly provided better evidence for something where we only had anecdotes (which could perhaps have been dismissed as the media spinning a narrative) before. The consistency of the response to Bymatth2's attempts is striking. To me, there's a strong suggestion that a social solution (having people volunteer as new page watchers, jumping on new content typically within minutes) is being applied to a fundamentally technical problem (keeping possibly problematic content out of public view until it can be brought up to a minimum standard, which we are supposed to expect new editors to at least try to do if they're going to the effort of creating a new article in the first place).
Really, it's amazing how new editors get treated around here. The only antidote to being put through this wringer of page deletion nominations, talk page warnings etc. is to learn enough up front about how Wikipedia works that, in turn, people get suspicious of you. It's why I've never created an account.
As for "consuming editors' time", this thread of discussion has probably already had more of an effect than was required to put up a few speedy deletion templates. The pages are for notable subjects that deserve articles. Fixing a bad stub hardly requires any more effort than writing the article from scratch - arguably less - and it isn't specifically the job of those who notice the bad stub. So the argument that this created a disruptive mess requiring cleanup is not one I can justify. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we should be concerned not just with newbies getting bitten, but more experienced editors, too. Don't act as if new editors never violate verifiability and BLP policies when creating new articles, or that their articles never have to be cleaned up. What Aymatth2 did was useful and necessary if we're to improve the treatment of new editors and bring in more fresh blood; what you're doing is material support for keeping the newbies out. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good idea. It's very difficult to "unbite" a new user and they are a precious resource. I'm also sure it is difficult to deal with the rapid flow of bad new articles that sweep in every day. This idea swings in the right direction though. I have notified Wikipedia:New pages patrol to get their input.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes newbie biting is a problem, and there are lots of incorrect tags done at speedy deletion. But I'm not sure we need a rerun of WP:NEWT to tell us that. My suggestions would include, more eyes at CAT:SPEEDY declining the minority of incorrect tags that come there. Dealing with some of the bitey stuff that we can all agree is worth resolving, such as tweaking the software so that adding a template or category doesn't cause an edit conflict to the newbie trying to add their second sentence. More controversially, those templates that we don't need to use to warn the reader should be replaced with hidden categories, uncategorised and dead end being prime examples; Yes we need to find them, but no we don't need to disfigure the article with them. Ideally I'd like to see us resolve the divide between those who consider we have moved from a policy of verifiable to one of verified, and those who don't; Either we need to change the software and instructions to tell all new page creators that every article needs at least one source and widen BLPprod to all new unsourced articles, or we reaffirm current policy and stop people reverting edits and deleting articles simply for being unsourced. Perhaps we can compromise by introducing BizProd for all new articles on commercial operations that don't have an independent neutral reliable cite. In my ideal world we'd replace most speedy deletion categories apart from the G ones with a system whereby only logged in editors could see new unpatrolled articles, and only people with the autopatroller right could create articles that were instantly published, but I'm not holding my breath on that one. We do insist on a delay before A1 and A3 tags are applied, but historically it has been difficult to get consensus to widen that to other tags - there is a limit to the number of patrollers we have and in order to screen out G10s we do need to look at articles as fast as they come in. ϢereSpielChequers 18:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As always, I pretty much reject the concept that an unacceptable article is anything but an unacceptable article. I will support the concept that templating anyone is disruptive, and offer my old essay WP:Don't template anyone as my solution.—Kww(talk) 18:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say all articles, and in fact all content, should be sourced. Newbies are unlikely to understand that, and will often start articles that are poor quality, particularly their first save. It they are welcomed and given guidance, they may become productive. If they are slapped in the face after their first save, they are likely to walk away. This proposal is simply to ask that we agree on the principle that persistent biting is disruptive. If that is accepted, we can move on to more specific remedies. This is just asking for the first baby step. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that anyone would disagree that biting, let alone persistent biting, is disruptive. But in my experience we disagree as to what constitutes biting. Just look at WP:NEWT to see an argument as to whether those of us who did that were biting the newpage patrollers or whether we were demonstrating that new page patrol was biting newbies. I would consider that we are biting newbies by having a defacto standard of sourcing that is stricter than the system warns them of, others disagree. If we are to make progress we don't need to reaffirm that which we all already agree on, we need to hammer out some compromises so we can change things. ϢereSpielChequers 19:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea is to get the broad principle that persistent biting is disruptive spelled out in the policy, without being too specific. If we can get that agreed, we can move forward to next steps: to clarify what is unambiguously considered biting, and how to apply sanctions against biters. A key issue is that the bitten newbie is very unlikely to complain, other than in the press or external blogs, and that an experienced editor is unlikely to be bitten and very unlikely to make the effort to build a case against a particular biter. I think there are ways to handle that, but first we need the basic principle to be defined. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have proposed an unacceptable solution as your first step, by proposing that unacceptable content be retained for some specified period of time.—Kww(talk) 19:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not reasonable to expect that all articles must be immediately "acceptable" in the sense of fully complying with all policies and guidelines. Articles can always be improved. This proposal simply says that persistent actions that discourage newcomers may be considered disruptive.Aymatth2 (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's quite reasonable to expect every article to be immediately acceptable. If a new editor tries to create an article from scratch before having sufficient experience to do so, it's unlikely that he will succeed, but that's a reason to encourage new editors to edit before they create.—Kww(talk) 14:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we already have consensus that biting newbies is disruptive, changing that to "only persistent biting is disruptive" would not be a great move in my opinion. However I doubt that's your intention, and I'd reiterate that the difficult thing is to identify a way to make the site less bitey that has both consensus here and if necessary resource from the WMF. For example I doubt if anyone here would object to some of the bugs being implemented that would reduce the edit conflicts that bite newbies. But good luck in getting the WMF to focus on that. ϢereSpielChequers 20:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see any policy that says biting newbies is disruptive. Probably accidental "bites" are unavoidable. I am sure I have now and then upset new editors by a sharp response to a change they made on one of "my" articles. This is to propose just a small step forward by saying persistent biting is disruptive. I suspect that just a small number of serial biters are largely responsible for the massive decline in new editors. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Bite is the relevant guideline, it does allow for occasional exceptions and requires common sense in application. But it is a guideline, up there with AGF, COI and Canvassing. If you amended any of them to say that breaching them was only disruptive if done persistently, then it would become more like reversion, OK once as in the BRD cycle but beyond a point it becomes edit warring which isn't allowed. Amending that guideline to say that breaching it was OK as long as you weren't persistent would legitimise biting people but create a new offence of chewing them. Our problem is that we don't always agree as to what constitutes biting, those things that we do agree are biting are clearly not allowed. ϢereSpielChequers 06:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is rather vague, mostly giving advice on the tone to adopt in discussion with newcomers. It does not say that biting is considered disruptive and says nothing about hasty addition of cleanup templates. Way down the bottom in How to avoid being a "biter" it says "14. Avoid deleting newly created articles, as unexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out." This proposal is simply to make this guideline a little bit more explicit, saying persistent biting may be consider disruptive. Remember that Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles. One error of judgement is not disruptive. Repeatedly ignoring warnings and repeating this behavior is. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I agree that we shouldn't bite newbies, but we must be reasonable and strike a balance. We can't allow poor content to stick around just because we're afraid of biting new users. I'll tell a story from my own personal experience. When I edited wikiHow (I'm actually not active there any more, for rather complex reasons), I saw a very poor new article on "How to Use NutriBullet" come through RCP. I had vaguely heard of the product before, so I did a bit of research and improved the article. It's in rather good shape now. So, not too long after, when I started editing Wikipedia, I was trying to find an article to create. I decided to create an article on the product. From what I recall, the article was tagged for speedy deletion almost instantaneously. It was definitely frustrating that the patroller just slapped some tag on my talk page and didn't explain anything. The tag was declined, however, and the article was sent to AfD, where the discussion was relisted multiple times. It's very difficult having to endure such a drawn-out AfD. In a sense, I was almost relieved when it was finally deleted. It was a rather mixed experience. I was inevitably upset over the instantaneous CSD tag and what seemed to be an endless AfD discussion. On the other hand, I now understand why it was deleted, and it was a learning experience. After almost eight months, I'm still here with no plans to quit, and I feel that I've become a rather productive editor, although I've certainly made my fair share of blunders. ;)
However, this isn't the case with all newbies. Some just decide that Wikipedia must be a hostile place and quit immediately. So, I think we should find a way to control the inflow of poor content without biting too much. For example, we could promote personalized messages rather than templates (that takes much longer, though), or could try to make the templates more friendly, etc. --Biblioworm 20:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • CSDs and instantaneous accusations of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry are probably the two biggest ways that newbies get bitten and decide that Wikipedia isn't for them. Without some heavy guns (figuratively speaking) I don't think there's much that can be done right now about the latter, but for the former we could probably at least change policy so that barring WP:BLP issues, a new article must be at least x hours old (say, 48-72) before they can be CSD-flagged. AfDs would be more difficult, but perhaps making it clearer that an article could be moved to userspace for reworking could relieve some of the pain around those, too. Steps like those would probably go a long way in keeping new editors around longer, until they're more comfortable with our Byzantine ways. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving spam and self-promotion sitting around on the servers for days is unlikely to be a good or widely accepted solution. It's also bitey in a different way to let a newbie create an article and walk away thinking they're finished, and then silently delete it days later. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say at least 24 hours. I doubt any but the most dedicated editors actually stick around for 6 hour editing sprints, and we'd at least want to give the newbies a chance to respond to a CSD, PROD, or AfD for their shiny new articles. That, or on successful deletion, move the article to the editor's userspace instead of actually deleting it, with a comment about what happened on their talk. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that approach may actually be the wrong way around. I propose it's better to have new pages in userspace by default, or better yet, in some kind of explicit staging area that's visible only to those who sign up for it (or e.g. to logged-in editors, plus the original creator if an IP). This solves the problem of not allowing Wikipedia to be used as a spam/self-promotion vehicle, while reducing the pressure on the new page watchers to bite the newbies. I'm picturing a system where the software also takes steps to direct the new editor to the Talk page for the article to discuss the subject's notability, necessary steps to meet WP guidelines etc. - without the looming threat of a deletion template.
  • For what it's worth, I've noticed two red herrings brought up here. The first is the idea that unacceptable content cannot be tolerated for any period of time. Enforcing this is obviously impossible even in theory, and laughably so in practice. The second is that the problem is with spam etc. actually being on the server. What are we concerned about here? Impressionable members of the WMF accidentally buying into a scam while randomly browsing the drives? It's certainly not a question of disk space; even the entire history of Wikipedia is estimated at "multiple terabytes", i.e. a few consumer hard drives - and any given new article costs a fraction of a cent to store indefinitely. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone have any data on what kinds of edits newbies who stick around are most likely to make? One way of refocusing the question of what constitutes biting is to identify where a bite is likely to do the most damage. I try to catch newbie-created articles in my areas of interest, clean them up, and then leave the creator a message explaining the changes - but I probably intend to do this three times as often as I actually get around to doing it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPP is an extremely important process, it’s our only firewall against unwanted new pages. An unacceptable parqdox however, is that unlike its little sister AfC which is more of a project than an essential function, NPP requires no qualifications, no proven knowledge of policies and guidelines, and no demonstrated sense of tact and communication skills. A couple of years ago in an attempt to streamline the process, make it less bitey, and reduce the monumental backlog, we gave them the new feed and curation system and a nifty little messagebox to communicate with the creators, and rewrote the texts of most of the templates. It didn’t work - articles still get tagged too quickly, hardly anyone makes use of the message box, and the backlog though somewhat reduced is still outrageously long. Nothing’s going to change much until either the Foundation creates the new welcome page (promised now for nearly 5 years) or we get AfC disbanded and all those nice people there who do the reviewing migrated to NPP. And on that note, I’ll ping DGG. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having run into this issue while trying to reduce the NPP backlog I can talk a bit on this. One thing is that speedy delete doesn't mention anywhere that you have to research the subject to determine if the subject may be indicated to be notable. The content of the article itself doesn't seem to matter on that, only if it's pure vandalism. I got told off for tagging too many too quickly, though none of the pages I tagged had been touched in >30 days. So more experienced editors probably take the time to fully research a subject's possible notability before tagging. When I started reviewing there were 51xx pages needing reviewed, when I finished it was at 53xx. I think that speedy delete needs updated to make it clearer that a subject needs to be researched before tagging for not being notable. That or it needs to be made clearer to newer editors that they should establish notability in the article, not just let others find it off site once they've come across the article. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just created User:Biblioworm/DeletionWelcome. It could be placed on new user's talk pages to let them know about concerns with their article before the page is CSDed. I might take it for a test drive soon. --Biblioworm 01:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would love to see a proposal that balances the perceived problem of new editors being discouraged by biting, and the need to address near-constant stream of spam, vandalism, and incomprehensible nonsense that makes it's way into article space. How about any editor with less than 500 general edits can't create a new article? Or, how about new articles from new users are embargoed for 24 hours before being published to article space? Or, how about all new articles from new users must contain at least three sources before being visible to everyone but the article creator? - MrX 02:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done a fair bit of NPP, helped create a (largely disused) noticeboard for reviewing patrollers, and have pursued topic bans for NPPers that unrepentantly bite newbies. I am skeptical of the claim that tagging an article for improvement is a bitey action. @Aymatth2: I see your claim that a template at the top of the page will cause consternation in a new editor, but can you provide any support that this is a real problem? It seems like more of a distraction from the much more serious issue of hasty speedy deletion tagging. I would also be curious about where you got your "5-10% rejected speedy" statistic. Regarding deletion, we already have multiple processes in place to counsel and if necessary sanction bad patrollers. They could be better employed and enforced, but I do not think more rules are the solution. VQuakr (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When the tag placed on an article is one which questions its notability, when there might be hundreds of his in google books, that is bitey and unwarranted. It is annoying and irritating to create an article and somebody slop tags on it within a minute. I'm not buying that the tags help wikipedia in the long term. If it's in a bad state then a cleanup tag marker is OK, but those notability tags added to short new entries which really are notable is a big problem.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where the 5-10% figure in the proposal comes from is clear "Typically 5–10% of these articles show as blue links, meaning the CSD submission was declined, or the article was recreated and survived". The difficulty is in the assumptions, as an admin I can look at the deleted contributions in a blue link and spot the occasions where the deleted article was about a different person of the same name as the current article. I can also look at the deleted edits behind a red link and see when an A3 tag was applied after one minute, and hours later an admin deleted it and we will never know whether the creator would have added a second sentence if they hadn't been bitten by an overhasty tag. If you aren't an admin you can look to see if the edit history of a blue link shows that the speedy tag was removed as incorrect, or if the deletion log shows that an article tagged as A7 was eventually deleted by AFD because while its claim of importance was credible it failed the notability threshold. Simply counting the red and blue links in a CSD log is too simplistic an approach to give a useful idea about CSD tagging accuracy. ϢereSpielChequers 08:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @VQuakr: I cannot prove that cleanup tags cause consternation in new editors, but they certainly cause consternation in me. I lash back, but a newbie would not know they could do that. The 5-10% figure comes from CSD logs kept by two editors who launched CSDs mentioned in the background to this proposal. These editors may not be typical. If the blue link's edit history shows it was created soon after the CSD log entry was created, it is probably a recreation of the deleted article. If the editor recreated the deleted article, got it accepted, and then stopped, they could have been like user:Jomillsjo with Calton weavers. She would have contributed much more, but now just wanted to prove it was a valid topic before quitting in disgust. Or they could have just wanted to start that one article. There is no way to tell. Someone could sample redlinks and search the web to see if they had promise, but even if a CSD article was about a non-notable topic, the editor who started it might become a valuable contributor once they understand the criteria. It is impossible to get hard facts: "How would newbies respond if they were treated differently?" But it seems plausible to assume they would be more likely to stay if they got a friendlier reception. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Aymatth2: it sounds to me like the tagging problem is with you and your "lashing back." It makes no sense to be discussing two very different actions, cleanup tagging and CSD, in the same thread. It makes even less sense to imply that the same solution to both issues could possibly be appropriate. VQuakr (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @VQuakr: The proposal is deliberately broad, referring to "actions that tend to discourage newcomers", presumably anything described in the do-not-bite guideline. As it happens, I just saw a tag on a stub I started 6 years ago, Seme Border. I have no idea what I am expected to do about it. Would a newbie be more likely to understand it? Would their reaction be a) positive b) neutral c) negative? Aymatth2 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Aymatth2: b) neutral. I contest your assumption that a maintenance template is bitey (the guideline certainly does not say so). WP:BITE says not to be hostile to newcomers. It does not say to avoid actions that could merely be discouraging to a newbie - more so if the action would only be considered discouraging to a minority of individuals. VQuakr (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Case in point: this edit. Poor article, in the wrong space (obviously! well, to us at least), and even if it were in the right place it would be tagged for speedy deletion as A7 or as spam. And it's on the user's talk page as well. I'll leave a note of sorts, but it's pretty clear that this is someone's resume. Is reverting the edit biting? I suppose not. Is slapping a warning template on the user talk page "biting"? Maybe. But if the user were treated with kid gloves, are they likely to become the kind of editor we're looking for? Who can tell. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes some good points Aymatth. I think unless an article is blatant vandalism or very obvious COI/vanity, we should allow 24 hours for an article to improve without placing tags on them. I also think that it should be compulsory for new page patrollers to look in google books before putting something up for speedy or adding notability. Most confuse lack of content with lack of notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the problem is that A7 nominations often occur on articles where a technical reading of the criteria would mean it doesn't apply, but where the article doesn't stand a snowflakes chance in hell of surviving the notability guidelines in current form. When I'm active, I often patrol the A7 nominations as much to remove inappropriate tags as to delete anything, yet I often leave cases where there is an arguable claim of importance, but where it is also obvious that there is no notability, for others to decide. Wiki-lawyering a with a broad definition as to what a claim of importance means, and blocking as many A7 nominations as possible seems like it would be interpreted as pointy, and not in line with community expectations. By way of example, Searunners contains a claim of importance, that its the world's "largest service" for a particular thing, there is no way its going to meet notability, maybe it should be deleted G11 instead, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it go A7 just because its so clear it will end up deleted one way or another, but it would feel pointy to reject the deletion. (Obviously I wont delete it myself in such circumstances, but I can and will just leave it for someone else to decide on) Maybe it would be useful for there to be a discussion on just how technically the community really wants to A7 criteria applied. If we really cracked down on the criteria, rejecting more A7 (and A3) nominations, it might reduce the eagerness to nominate quickly and on borderline cases, but it would also just shift more nominations to other deletion mechanisms. Monty845 12:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
my advice here is that when in doubt which applies most, nominate using both criteria. I find it decreases subsequent arguments. (I think the page curation script does not provide for listing more than one, but Twinkle does) DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I agree wholeheartedly that we need more new Editors, how they are treated quite frankly just depends on which veteran they come in contact with first or early on. I wrote about this situation in an essay called WP:Don't be a WikiBigot in the section that addresses Newbies. We have some very veteran and experienced Editors that are (to put it nicely) EXTREMELY jaded when it comes to their tolerance of new Users, their edits, and choice of content to add especially when it comes to an article that the veteran might favor. As a daily Special:PendingChanges list Reviewer, I see sincere edits, edits done out of ignorance, and clear vandalism on a regular basis. As a result I use the Talk page templates daily as well. I can't imagine being a Reviewer without them. So unless we can change human nature or plan to start "showing the door" to numerous veteran, but still valuable "curmudgeon" Editors, I don't know how this will change. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All through the past 8 years at least, half of all submitted WP articles have been rejected. * years ago the rejected ones contained more utter junk than they do now, but the number of promotional articles has increased to compensate. We need to differentiate between keeping and improving articles that can be improved, and making sure we reject those which obviously can't, and it's a difficult balance. Similarly, we need to differentiate between encouraging and helping editors who may learn how to contribute productively (even if those productive contribution do not necessarily include writing new articles), and discouraging and if necessary removing those who come here with fixed other purposes; thus is an even more difficult balance, because it's extremely difficult to judge intentions.
The main thing that helps all new editors, is a full personal explanation, not a template. (with the exception of trolls, &c., who can best be handled without explanation , as they know perfectly well what they are doing). II admit that I often do not give a full explanation at the first instance, but only if an explanation is requested--purely for lack of time, because the articles need to be dealt with promptly while the contributor is still around (which is also the reason for not waiting a day), and there are not enough people to do this properly. The problem is the same as what Scalhotrod mentions just above in a different context.
It would be easier to do this properly if there were not so many people doing it wrong, and I think Kudpung is completely right that the requirement for NPP needs to be raised--its basically the same job as Afc, except that at this point most of the articles are usable, the questionable one going preferentially into AfC. The best way to do this might be to have all articles follow the same route and be reviewed in the same manner.But this is only advisable if we a/require competence, and b/follow up the problems where people do this wrong. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that too-hasty deletion nominations (not just speedy, but prod and afd), can and do bite. Clean-up templates are something else all together. For a good example of what I consider to be biting, take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allie X and the other two related AFDs. All three articles were created by a newbie; one of them was created via WP:AFC, and accepted there. They are sourced to WP:RS, and assert notability. The talk page of their creator indicates an invitation to the teahouse, a notice accepting the AFC creation, some bot edits complaining about improperly tagged images, AFD notices for all three articles they created, and sinebot complaining about them not signing talk page notices. Basically, this person came along, wrote an article, was told "This is good, you're doing it right," wrote 2 more articles, and was subsequently told "YOU'RE DOING EVERYTHING WRONG! YOU SUCK! GO AWAY!" (Not in those words - but that's the message that's being sent). Every message on that talk page until mine is a template message. Now the person is fighting tooth and nail at AFD when they shouldn't have to. You can't say this isn't biting. At the same time; I don't know what to do about it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have time to read the entire discussion right now, so it may well be that someone has previously pointed this out, but for the grace period proposal to work, there's some technical work required first. Patrolling would need to be done with "time capsule" templates that only become publicly visible after the grace period. Patrollers therefore would need a special view mode that shows these templates before their time has come, so that they don't double-tag things (aka duplicated effort). Some patrolling templates would not have the time-dependent feature, e.g. those to do with BLP or copyright violations or publishing of personal information. Any other implementation that I can imagne would exactly double the patrolling effort required, and I suspect the community would reject this. Samsara 03:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More comments (Arbitrary break)

Some of the following was moved from below the Votes? section so comments are not split.

As the newbie responsible for the development of this I feel it is time for me to add my 2-cents worth to the discussion.

Encouraged to do an article for Wikipedia I chose a topic which tied in with my interests. The “Calton Weavers” was drafted to the best of my ability (wiki writing is not easy to learn) and I proudly added it to Wikipedia. I knew I had a bit more to do to develop the article but getting this far was a big achievement.

The next morning I logged in only to find a ‘speedy delete’. No message from the editor; no valid reason for speedy delete (the article had enough there, with references to be accepted). And no volunteering to offer help or direct me to a source where I could save my article.

I was extremely upset - devastated that someone could do this without any consideration for what I was writing about or for the fact that this was a first article.

Obviously the editor was ignorant and biased; the presumption that his ‘knowledge’ would give him a sense of what is good or not good for Wikipedia is entirely misplaced.

In grade school through University students are given encouragement to learn from their mistakes and develop the skills necessary to write. ENCOURAGED. Not so for Wikipedia!

The immediate ‘speedy delete’ by someone making these decisions without knowledge or research is akin to censorship or bullying. Censorship by a decision to delete something which that one person has no understanding; bullying by constant deletions without consideration for the people writing articles. You can’t police Wikipedia. But you can use common sense and judgement; you can nurture and advise; and then, only then, can you make a sound decision to delete. Jomillsjo

Someone made a mistake five years ago. It seem a bit anecdotal to be basing a proposal on. Is this a common issue now? How often does it happen? FWIW, one of my first articles was wrongly tagged for speedy deletion (even though it had refs), so I do know how it feels and I'm sympathetic to what happened to you.- MrX 01:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The four Bymatth2 test articles indicate that it may happen very often, even when an article provides context, credibly claims significance and is not an attack or promotion. Despite the tiny test sample, four CSDs for four valid new articles is indicative. This proposal is that we discuss issues with the newbie before zapping a new article. I have no idea why anyone would object. We are seriously short of new editors and obviously have a lot of new page patrollers with time on their hands. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you mentioned it somewhere else, but in one of the tests the nominator self reverted a minute later. This page which I nominated, made no claim of significance and only had an infobox, so it was eligible. Is there some reason why we cant expect users to write at least a couple of sentences and at least attempt to add a source or two? After all, doesn't it say right above the new page edit window: "Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article.... When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted.... You can also start your new article at Special:Mypage/______. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready."? - MrX 03:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have put a more complete description of the test process at User:Bymatth2/New article test. Should have done that sooner. Yes, we provide clear instructions above the new page edit window, but people tend to ignore instructions. Or at least I do. The point is not that anyone did anything wrong, but that somehow four articles in a row on subjects that a quick search would show are clearly notable got nominated for deletion without any prior discussion. There is a process problem. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any proof that the editor who tagged your article attempt was "ignorant and biased"? If not, that's a rather egregious personal attack, not to mention a nonsensical one as bias against Scottish weavers who lived centuries ago is... uncommon, to say the least. It's also utterly unnecessary to insult the editor as they haven't edited since 2012 and are unlikely to attempt to defend their actions here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw the reaction of a new editor at a recent edit-a-thon. Her infant article about Catherine Corrigan was PRODed shortly after she hit the save button. Upset isn't strong enough to describe what she felt. I called out RichardOSmith on it (you may need to look in his archive). Richard's reply was reasonable and definitely correct based on the state of the stub that he saw when he saw it. Look at his talk page and you'll see that Richard helps lots of new editors. I definitely don't want to see him accused of disruption. Retaining productive editors is as important as attracting new ones. Finding one who frequently and consistently bite newcomers would be difficult at best. I would never have discovered it if not for researching old contrib's and talk pages before commenting in an RfA last year. Quick reverts of good faith edits can be as discouraging as seeing a banner atop a new article. Good arguments on both sides of this discussion but I don't see the proposed wording making a difference in a positive direction. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 16:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is meant to just be a start, but does imply that a talk page message should be the first step when a problem is found, not a tag. The tag can be added after. This would, I think, be a significant process improvement, and should be no problem for a productive and helpful editor. The main thing is to make it clear that persistent newbie biting is disruptive. With this agreed, if an admin sees an editor making a bad CSD call he can warn the editor and log the warning. If the behavior keeps on getting repeated, the editor gets hauled up at ANI. Ditto with AfD. There are other types of biting. Wikipedia:Articles for creation is a very forbidding place, for example. This change would give a basis for improving that process too. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please stop talking about speedy deletion and article maintenance tags as if they were the same thing? They are different actions with completely different effects on the article and the newbie editor. VQuakr (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MrX and others, this is not "one anecdote". There was an experiment in 2009 on the subject: Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion. The situation has not changed. Everybody who spends time working in this area knows that the story is the same in 2015 as it was in 2009. That's why we keep getting proposals like the one last month to restrict access to the Page Curation tools: people are trying to find ways to stop CSDs on made-up grounds like "you didn't add a citation in the first version of the page, so it fails WP:V (really? An article that contains only verifiable information fails the very policy that says only certain things require inline citations?) and WP:N because it doesn't have citations on the page yet (Funny, but I wrote that section of WP:N myself, and it says exactly the opposite)".

Furthermore, we have solid research (i.e., done by people with PhDs and formally published) that says the #1 predictor of whether a new editor keeps editing is whether you delete their first contributions. If you want new editors (and almost all of the loss in the number of active editors comes from our failure to retain newbies), then we need to fix this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment much on your last paragraph having not seen the data or the conclusions, but I wonder if it takes into account editors who only intend to create one article (about themselves, their company, church, band, YouTuber). I do believe that some level of competence should be required for reviewing articles. There is a learning curve and feedback from other editors is valuable. I would support making NPP a bit that can be given or taken away based on performance.- MrX 17:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to pretend I have read the rest of the comments, but I have a rather simple solution I use. If I come across an article likes those you created,and they were done by a new user, I move them to the Draft: namespace under the same name, leave a message on the creators talk page about where it is and why, and maybe add an WP:WPAFC template on top. I also keep it on my watchlist to see if any significant improvements happen, if so I move it back to the mainspace simple as that. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well like every discussion, I come across it days after everyone and their pet dog has said most of the things I want to say. I do an awful lot of "second-pass" NPP where I check articles other people have tagged (primarily A7 and G11), and see if I can save any of them. For the majority of occasions, I can't, and for every Stanley Hotel, Narobi there are hundreds and hundreds of WP:GARAGE bands, or insignificant corporations or businesspeople (frequently from India), none of which really need an article on Wikipedia. So I have to conclude that the majority of CSDs are called well.
Everybody makes mistakes at NPP - Kudpung won't thank me for mentioning this and DGG won't thank me for this either, but it's pretty obvious to everyone that those two are extremely experienced Wikipedians, especially with NPP, and if they make mistakes, who doesn't? I think the best solution is to try and recover and salvage any CSD tagged article if you can, but always AGF on the tagger. Most NPP taggers are generally amenable to criticism or feedback, and will happily accept a mistake. In the case of Naomi Sager, for instance, the editor who tagged it for A7 released their mistake and subsequently nominated it for DYK instead.
The problem isn't really with any specific editor, but it's the way the entire system is set up to deliver poor communication and feedback. As well as potentially biting newbies, I've seen an "us and them" hostility and aggression between NPP taggers and content writers (and yes, I admit in the past I've done it too). I can't really support any hard and fast rule, as there are always occasions where an article (such as a blatant copyvio or attack page) must be got rid of ASAP, so all I can really add is just try and get everyone working together, and if you have to delete something, see if you can take something good away from it (such as suggesting an alternative website or teaching them WP policies). Horses for courses, really. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, I was checking my email and saw that "Aymatth2" mentioned me for an issue from 5 years ago! That's a really long time ago and yeah, I was only a 10 year old child at that time. I guess I thought, for some reason, that "Calton weavers" looked like a somewhat bad article so I just tagged it for speedy deletion. Nowadays, if I would still do the new page patrol, I would look closely at the articles and check for online sources before either leaving it alone or tagging it. I guess I didn't know better back then, and since this was 5 years ago, it's a little weird how you guys are discussing an issue I did back then! Also, Starblind, I haven't edited since 2012 on my old account (Steve2011), but this newer StevenD99 account I've edited from August 2013 until I retired in November of last year, so really, November 2014 was my last edit. "Ignorant and biased" is also a personal attack to me, but it was just that I was 10 back then and didn't know better! No wonder Wikipedia has become so boring, it's because there's many harsh people here, many of which might be 50+ years of age! (But don't take this as a personal attack, please) When I retired, I thought I would never edit this site under my account again, but I guess not. Also, Jomillsjo, I'm really sorry I did that back then, since I was only 10. How harsh of me to do that back then, but nowadays, I'm 15 and a lot more mature and careful. Again, I'm so sorry Jomillsjo, I didn't mean to do that :( StevenD99 19:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenD99: You aren't the problem. Who in their right mind would put a ten year old on a customer service helpdesk? I suspect you have found Wikipedia "boring" because you've grown up and are discovering more fun things to do in life than routine maintenance tasks. You understand that you made a mistake, so we should not dwell on that any further. Meanwhile, there is plenty of writing work you could have a look at - any article in Category:All unreferenced BLPs could do with improvement, and that may be a refreshing alternative to endless NPP tasks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't want to sound pollyannaish but we should not be biting anybody. Yes, especially we should not be harsh to newbies. But the rough and tumble environment some revel in should be altered—clearly turned down a notch. Templating is ugly and even the shorthand of policy abbreviations has its toxic side. We should primarily be speaking English with links to policies, guidelines, and essays. Not to seem pollyannaish but we should be practicing this all the time. We can be mindful of how we speak to "newbies" but we should polish our act in all communications on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just went to CAT:CSD, thinking "I bet I can find a CSD that's been called incorrectly", and sure enough, here's an A7 that cites a New York Times article on its subject! I despair. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes?

There are some excellent points above. The general feeling is that biting the newbies is wrong, but many different approaches could be followed to prevent, discourage or respond to biting. It may clarify whether there is any consensus on the original proposal to see some votes. Again, the proposal is for a baby step, to add a statement to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, saying,

Actions that tend to discourage newcomers, such as hastily nominating new articles for deletion or tagging new articles with clean-up templates, may be considered disruptive editing if constantly repeated without first exploring alternatives on the article creators' talk pages.

Any additional suggestions for discouraging biting or sanctioning biters can then refer to this statement. Oppose? Support Aymatth2 (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - 'Hastily' is a matter of interpretation, and discretion. Adding cleanup tags to articles is a necessary function of maintaining the encyclopedia. If new users view cleanup tags as bitey, then the new users probably are not ready to edit and would be candidates for the teahouse or mentoring, although I have no idea how to address that. I strongly oppose associating good-faith new page curation with disruptive editing.- MrX 12:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"If new users view cleanup tags as bitey, then the new users probably are not ready to edit and would be candidates for the teahouse or mentoring, " I view cleanup tags as bitey and annoying when immediately slopped on articles two minutes old. I'm one of the most experienced editors here. Am I not ready to edit?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most editors figure out pretty quickly how to create a sufficiently substantial article with adequate demonstration of notability on the first pass. If you are still having problems with this, perhaps you should reconsider the content of the articles you create—Kww(talk) 14:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say I was still having problems with this Kww? Have you even bothered to look at my user page and contributions in the last 3 years? I see mindless tagging all the time on new pages.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. I was surprised your last few articles survived.—Kww(talk) 15:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like The Tower House?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, Ajaloo ilu and Ahasveeruse uni.—Kww(talk) 17:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those are perfectly acceptable stubs and constructive ones. If I could speak Estonian fluently they'd have been a lot better. That you think they should have been deleted just shows your level of ignorance and lack of understanding of what being a contributor to wikipedia actually entails. When was the last time you bothered to create an article let alone a featured quality one?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing with zero or one source is an acceptable stub. WP:N and WP:V both refer to sources, not source. It is impossible to have a balanced POV when using only one source.—Kww(talk) 17:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that unsourced and devoid of any content at all is unacceptable, which I might have created five years back, but so long as there's some content and at least one sourced fact it's acceptable. When the sources are in Estonian and you're uncertain of what is being said I'd say it's safer to keep it a stub with what you can decipher. And yes, things like Estonian novels are things English wikipedia badly need to tackle systemic bias and editors should be encouraged not discouraged from creating such stubs. Unacceptable would be xxx is an Estonian novel. End, Unsourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to raise your standards until each and every stub you create meets WP:V and WP:N from the instant of creation. The only excuse for not meeting those critical policies and guidelines is inexperience, and you've been around too long for that to apply to you.—Kww(talk) 20:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't need to raise my standards. And I don't have to create bugger all on here period. Ahasveeruse uni clearly meets GNG and the fact I've cited it as voted a top novel in the post independence period also asserts its notability. Get off of your high horse and work on content instead of attacking others. You're a bully.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I just think you are an example of one of our worst problems: an established editor that refuses to follow guidelines and policies, and thus encourages other editors to ignore guidelines and polices. No article with a single source can meet WP:N. It's mathematically impossible.—Kww(talk) 15:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that articles don't meet or not meet WP:N, rather topics/subjects do -- WP:N is a requirement for a topic or subject to have its own article. Yes, it's almost inconceivable that N could be satisfied with a single source, but it's not a requirement that all notability-lending sources be in the article from the get-go, or even according to some timeline. (I actually don't like that approach, but it's the approach we use.) Thus talking about whether "article X meets WP:N" is really nonsense; it's the topic that does or doesn't meet WP:N. EEng (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. A notable subject will always be notable, even if the subject is an unsourced stub. It is up to new page patrollers to look beyond unsourced or poorly sourced new articles and check for notability externally before trying to tag and delete something. Amusing for somebody with some 200 FAs and GAs combined to be told I ignore all rules and set a bad example with my content contribution. And coming from somebody who created just one stub in seven years. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's up to the article creator to create them in an acceptable state, not to create thousands of little tiny messes for others to clean up. The reason our policies don't forbid such things isn't because it's good to have them, but to avoid the very issue we are discussing here: biting newbies who create non-compliant material because they have good intentions and low experience. Last I looked, you had created upwards of 10,000 articles. It's not too surprising that a small percentage of them have risen to FA. Where we seem to fundamentally disagree is that you seem to feel that my contributions don't count because I exclusively remove material. The removal of material is the foundation of editing, and at least as valuable as the initial content creation.—Kww(talk) 00:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no, it is not up to new page patrollers to look beyond unsourced or poorly sourced new articles and check for notability externally before trying to tag and delete something. See WP:BURDEN and WP:CHOICE.- MrX 00:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: I don't think your editing experience makes your opinion about cleanup tags any more valid than mine. Different strokes, I suppose.- MrX 15:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if a newbie is not tough enough to handle direct feedback in the form of rapid addition of cleanup tags to their new article, Wikipedia is not the place for them. But we are seriously short of new editors. Maybe there are not enough editors of the thick-skinned variety, or maybe there are too many attractive alternatives. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. " Its reportedly unpleasant internal culture and unwelcoming atmosphere for new editors has long been blamed for an overwhelmingly masculine make-up." Not what we want the papers to say about the project. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think lowering the bar is the solution to any of our problems. Is the issue that we are seriously short of new editors, or is it that we are seriously short of editors who edit a variety of articles, as opposed to users who come to Wikipedia to promote their pet cause. We can certainly do a better job of educating users before they can create new articles, and encourage them to edit other articles and read our tutorials before jumping into the deep end. I wish we would stop parroting the media's sensationalistic trope that men are somehow unwelcoming.- MrX 14:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MrX wrote, "If new users view cleanup tags as bitey, then the new users probably are not ready to edit and would be candidates for the teahouse or mentoring" or both. I agree. Directing newcomers to a place to get help should be the norm for NPP as long as the article or edits aren't obvious trolling. Although rare, we occasionally manage to reform even a vandal into a productive editor. The COI noob trying to promote his company usually knows a lot about a product or service; a few of them can become productive editors while waiting for (or paying) someone to publish about the company in reliable sources. A few stick around afterward. Bots and concerned editors help direct newcomers and some not-so-new to the Teahouse and Mentoring co-op. The traditional Help desk and #wikipedia-en-help are great, too. Never biting isn't possible but we can sometimes sooth the wound. Take care, all. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 22:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors do not read all the rules, obviously. It is meant as a first step. Then we can discuss what follows. One idea I had was to change {{Uw-csd}} into a multi-level template for disruptive editing so if an editor keeps on making inappropriate CSDs they would get escalating warnings leading to a block. But maybe that is a bad idea. There are a lot of other possibilities. The broad principle should be spelled out first, in general terms. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good idea. Will help editor retention. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, terrible idea. Would complicate normal maintenence tasks with no clear benefit. "Editor retention" is unlikely: editors who show up just to create an article promoting their garage band or shaming the kid they hate in school aren't going to stay around after the article is inevitably deleted, as they weren't seriously trying to contribute in the first place. If anything, one could easily make the argument that prolonging that process is far more cruel than it is kind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Starblind: You surely assume good faith with new editors and want to welcome and encourage them. Are you objecting to any statement that implies persistent biting of newbies is disruptive, or just to the precise wording proposed here? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're relying very heavily, and I think deliberately, on non-sequiturs here. "Biting newbies is bad, therefore we should complicate NPP tagging" simply doesn't follow in any logical sense, and I think you're well aware of that. Politicians use similar nonsense tactics to push silly legislation that they know would never fly on its own merits: "We all agree domestic violence is a serious issue. Therefore it is vital that we heavily tax imports of tropical fish. Anyone who disagrees with me hates America and may as well be a terrorist." I'm actually surprised you got otherwise intelligent editors to fall for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Starblind: How about instead of "Biting newbies is bad, therefore we should complicate NPP tagging" something like "Biting newbies is bad, therefore we should do things that decrease the biting of newbies." That's as good as motherhood and apple pie, but might help move the discussion forward. What would decrease the biting of newbies who might become productive editors? - An otherwise intelligent editor  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly the problem, this proposal is all about complicating NPP tagging, not helping newbies. In fact, I think if implimented it would do the opposite of its supposed intention. You're free to disagree with me if you wish, of course, but please don't try to badger me into changing my vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will help newbies decide to stay if they get friendly advice and an offer of help on their talk pages rather than having the first cut of their first article swiftly tagged or flagged for deletion. Complicating NPP tagging is not an issue. Judging by the speed with which the test Bymatth2 articles were tagged for CSD, there is clearly no shortage of new page patrollers. The shortage is of new editors. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, we badly need something like this, seems the most viable idea so far to actually make a bit of progress on this front, even though it doesn't go remotely far enough. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – There is nothing "biting" about delivering rubbish to the dustbin. In fact, rubbish must be disposed of. As it is, Wikipedia is forced to maintain many disgusting articles that fly in the face of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. We must work harder to delete more rubbish, lest our encylopaedia become a blog. I fear it is already too far down that road. This proposal is misguided. Rubbish is rubbish, no matter who creates it. It must be deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 18:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - no support given for the claim that tagging articles for improvement is disruptive. VQuakr (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think a good solution is to put a courteous message on newbie's talk pages encouraging them to read the tutorial on creating a new article; if the article is obvious vandalism, we should message them accordingly. It should be clear that a clean-up template wouldn't necessarily discourage the editors from editing again, but a friendly message on their talk page should be fine, as some editors suggested above. Sam.gov (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Having read all of the above, I am especially moved by Aymatth2's story regarding his wife, a newbie who was bitten unnecessarily. While I emphatically agree with RGloucester that Wikipedia has retained more rubbish than it should, and that the bar is possibly already too low, I do not want to exclude potential new sincere editors and I think a template warning biters might be a very good idea. I myself was bitten by a CSD of my own first article. I became incensed, even overwrought by the business. I felt judged, humiliated, dejected, and lost. "Speedy delete" has a certain assonance that stung deeply. What saved me that time was the gentle intervention of someone who could walk me through the process. I remain to this day (seven years later) extremely grateful for that. Would this template have kept me from feeling bitten? Dunno. But maybe. KDS4444Talk 23:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@KDS4444: why do you feel that adding language to WP:BITE about article maintenance tags will improve our speedy deletion process? VQuakr (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Kafkaesque. We should not have to tip-toe around newbies to perform basic maintenance tasks. The rules and policies of Wikipedia apply to them the same as they apply to someone with thousands of edits. KonveyorBelt 16:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only wish that your assertion that the rules are applied equally to everyone were even half true. It is not. If I screw up (e.g., the formatting), the result is a quick fix or a personal note. If a newbie makes the same mistake, s/he gets reverted, templated, or even blocked. If I add a citation to a weak source, or if I put something in the wrong article, I'm given the benefit of the doubt. If a newbie does the same thing, it just gets removed. Or, if you want to hear it in a different form, there is a statistically significant difference in how IPs and brand-new accounts are treated vs admins and power users like me. Reputation matters. Anyone who edits while logged-out can attest to this, and the research agrees with it. User:HostBot's algorithm depends upon it: our consistently poor treatment of good-faith newbies is how it identifies people who are likely to benefit from an invitation to the Tea House. We have all kinds of biases in operation here, e.g., American high schools are rarely sent to AFD, but historic Indian ones often make a trip there; bios of female authors are sent to AFD at a much higher rate than comparable bios for male authors), and this is just one of them. This particular anti-newbie bias happens to work in "my" favor, but it doesn't work in "our" favor in the long-run. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As another fresh example, I nursed an article created by a new editor through to DYK and it took 4 months of trial and tribulation to get it done. The article was speedily deleted at one point and the A7 and G11 tags were both incorrect. I was able to turn this around but I'm a hard-bitten veteran and there's no way that the new editor could have managed this by themselves. The patroller is still active as I happened on an AFD nomination of his just today. My impression is that that patroller is somewhat careless and not following WP:BEFORE but so it goes. Such aggressive deletionism is rewarded in the current setup and Kww is a good example of this. He hasn't created an article for 7 years and that was a weak stub. But he's an admin and so in a position to hassle outstanding content creators like Dr. Blofeld and Aymatth2, as we see above. The trouble is that there's no pain or price for being relentlessly hostile and negative. It's the content creators that get all the grief and so it's no surprise that they burn out so quickly. See Encyclopedia Frown for more on this:

    “The encyclopedia that anyone can edit” is at risk of becoming, in computer scientist Aaron Halfaker’s words, “the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semiautomated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit.” An entrenched, stubborn elite of old-timers, a high bar to entry, and a persistent 90/10 gender gap among editors all point to the possibility that Wikipedia is going adrift.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Davidson (talk • contribs)
I don't hassle anyone that adds material directly traced to multiple reliable sources, doesn't misrepresent the contents of sources, and doesn't use multiple accounts illegitimately. The remainder should be a very small percentage of our editors.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're hassling me. And my article work "directly traced to multiple reliable sources" these days represents about 90% of what I actually do on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like I've chased you around, and, given that my spot check of your recent creations when this discussion started came up with two single-sourced stubs, I have to question that "90%" figure. Even if it is 90%, what's the purpose of the remaining 10%?—Kww(talk) 20:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important for growth to start articles from other wikipedias. And that includes stubs with a few facts and a source from languages I'm not fluent in and couldn't possibly translate the whole thing comfortably. Better to have a smaller stub with one source which is likely accurate than a start class one with poorly translated phrases and errors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but a very weak oppose. I support the concept but I can't support the statement as written. What constitutes hastily? Wikilawyer defenses like "It wasn't constantly repeated. I only CSDed a few today." will waste lots of editor time and effort. Let's encourage NPP folks to be more helpful, directing new editors to places to learn norms and get help along with the tags. Maybe another change or addition to tags? I want to thank Aymatth2 for the idea and effort put into this discussion. We need to be less bitey but I don't think this statement is the way to go. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 22:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal with teeth

So, what about:

Before placing a speedy-deletion tag on any article for lack of notability, a basic web search must first be performed. This helps prevent us from unnecessarily tagging an article that may very well be notable. Administrators likewise are to perform a perfunctory web search to double-check that there is no realistic possibility of notability for the subject. If there is any reasonable chance that an article's subject may be notable, the speedy deletion must be scrapped and the article should be nominated at WP:AFD instead, or simply kept. Failure to perform this check may result in topic bans.

as a way of making sure that NPPers have a quick, clear way to avoid biting newbies? Red Slash 02:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, as it's not possible to define a "basic web search". Every search engine will produce different results. Additionally, just because a subject might not have web-based references, other valid references may be available. This, to me, feels like bureaucracy creep. Nakon 02:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to that. The more information that NPP editors have, the better. Nakon 00:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Speedy deletion should be apply only to blatantly non-relevant articles, not on poorly written articles about obscure topics. --NaBUru38 (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, the article on Natalie Smith Henry was tagged for speedy deletion because it "did not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". That is ridiculous! Of course articles should do that, but missing that shouldn't be a reason for speedy deletion. That kind of articles should be encouraged to be expanded. --NaBUru38 (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This would help eliminate some bad calls. The point by User:Nakon that some subjects may not have web-based references, or that some search engines may not be as good at finding references as others, does not mean we just delete without trying at all. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I believe it should be compulsory for patrollers to do a google/g book search before assessing notability/deletion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: How do you propose to enforce this proposal? I can't think of a way to do it technically, so it will come down to people claiming that others didn't do a search and the one being accused saying they did. Can you prove they didn't? I'm more curious than anything how well you thought this through. I have more, but I will wait for a response for these questions first as I wouldn't want to "spoil the pot". — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be a few marginal cases but usually results pop up in all major search engines, if present online. If the closing admin did a search and found results, they could tag the nominator with a link to the search results page, and a L1/L2/L3 warning. The nominator could challenge this, but would have to give a link showing their search engine did not show any results. Editors in countries that censor search engine results should find more useful ways to spend their time. Sometimes an article may be saved by the admin while the nominator is not sanctioned. That is better than letting all deletions through without any checking. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great, just what we need -- a sequence of steps added to CSD involving a requirement for web searches, escalating warnings, and counter challenges containing links to prior searches. Meanwhile, we'll need to have debates over whether Country X does or does not censor search results, and "Sometimes an article may be saved by the admin while the nominator is not sanctioned" -- oh boy, I'm really looking forward to those discussions! EEng (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:BURDEN and WP:CHOICE. The onus should be on the article creator to do a web search and at least add a link or two. This proposal would undermine the community-adopted speedy deletion process by making NPP even more of a chore than it is now.- MrX 13:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CHOICE, if you find NPP is a chore you do not have to do it. The proposal is to add a small and easy extra step to reduce bad nominations, which would help reduce the number of new editors turned away by a hostile reception to a new article on a valid topic. Perhaps the NPP tool could do the search automatically. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I patrol new pages because I'm trying to improve the encyclopedia, even though it is a chore. Adding additional hurdles based on what I believe are faulty premises is what I'm opposed to.- MrX 22:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose An article that doesn't tell you why the subject is important, even if they are, is totally useless to the encyclopedia. Basically, this standard would allow an article that is less useful to the reader than a link to http://lmgtfy.com/?q=let+me+google+that+for+you to survive speedy deletion... A low minimum standard like indication of importance is fine, but there needs to be some minimum standard for what is in the article itself. Monty845 16:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See User:Bymatth2/New article test. The first version of an article by a newbie may be a bit skeletal, with plans to expand it once they are confident they can create an article at all. Deleting the first version immediately, without discussion with the newbie or a check for notability of the subject, may be one of the main reasons we are so short of new editors. Articles usually expand after the first version. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - terrible proposed edit. There is no CSD criterion for "lack of notability." The closest we have is A7, which is for articles, on specific topics, that contain no credible claim of significance. An article either contains some indication of why the subject is significant or it does not; a web search is not necessary to assess whether an article should be nominated for CSD under A7. More broadly, the community already has the ability to topic ban editors who lack the competence for NPP and refuse to quit voluntarily. VQuakr (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But a notable subject will always be a notable subject. It is our duty here to identify this. Too many people confuse lack of initial content as lack of notability. It's wrong. Many speedy deletions and AFDs would be avoided if reviewers took just 20 seconds to do a quick search before making decision. And article like the weavers one should never have been deleted. This happens all of the time on here and no doubt has caused thousands of potential greater editors to give up over the years. Wake up!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A7 does not attempt to assess notability. It looks at the article, not the subject. Feel free to propose a change to our practice, but let's make that change and assess whether specific enforcement of the new system is needed before adding language to WP:BITE encouraging topic bans. VQuakr (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @VQuakr: The proposal with teeth is to change CSD, not just A7, so it does assess notability. This could be made easier through adding an automatic web search to the NPP tool. Would you also oppose adding a web search to the tool? Aymatth2 (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vehemently disagree with this. Notability always requires some level of investigation, and CSDs aren't supposed to do that. Questions of notability should always be handled via AFD. A7 is designed for articles that say "Jim Smith is my best friend and he's super cool!" Anything with any reasonable claim to importance should always go through AFD, and we don't need to expand the scope of A7. We need to educate people that it is not OK to tag and/or speedily delete articles where claims of importance (even spurious or unreferenced ones) are made. --Jayron32 00:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's not the way someone is using it, we need to educate that person on the proper ways to use it. I don't oppose adding a link to a web search to anything, but we should NOT be increasing the scope of A7 or any CSD, we should be reminding people to kindly stop doing just that. --Jayron32 00:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is not to kindly remind patrollers to stop doing that, but to bluntly threaten them that if they do not stop doing that they will be topic banned. We have no shortage of highly aggressive new page patrollers, and a severe shortage of new editors. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Topic bans are always a last resort. If coaching a new page patroller gets them to improve their patrols, everyone wins. It seems to me that your motivation is not so much pro-newbie as it is anti-NPP. What makes you think that "bluntly threatening" good faith editors is ever going to be accepted by this community? The queue of pages to be patrolled is two months long, and we at NPP would love additional qualified volunteers. VQuakr (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the queue is so long, how come the four test articles at User:Bymatth2/New article test were each put up for deletion within two hours? A web search on the article subject only takes a few seconds. If a patroller cannot be bothered to do that, the closing admin does take that step, and it turns out the topic is notable, the patroller should be warned. If they persist, they should be sanctioned. The cost of the web search is trivial compared to the cost of the bad call if it results in losing a new editor. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the queue is so long, how come the four test articles at User:Bymatth2/New article test were each put up for deletion within two hours? Non-sequitur. Just because some articles get reviewed quickly does not mean that all articles are. Right now the NPP queue is 5472 pages long (better than it has been in a long time, IIRC). What is the relevance of the CSD category contents? Obviously that list will rot quickly as articles are speedied or nominations declined. VQuakr (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since four out of four in User:Bymatth2/New article test got reviewed very quickly, that seems to indicate plenty of available reviewers, or else that short new articles get reviewed quicker, or something. The question on the category list was genuine. I am interested in tracking a sample of CSD nominations to see what percentage "fail" in the sense of being rejected or challenged, and was not sure if this is the only place they would be found. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or that four is too small of sample from which to draw conclusions regarding a population of many thousands, or that there is a bias in the sample (for example, two of the four articles were curated by the same editor, probably because the articles shared the same author). If you are looking for a "snapshot" of nominations then your method seems fine; not sure if there is a better place to track CSD nominations in general. The page curation log lists all curation activities including speedy deletion nominations, but only those that are added using the page curation toolbar (a minority even among NPPers, who often use Twinkle). VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot but interject here that the adequacy of a sample has (essentially) nothing to do with the size of the population from which it is drawn. A sample of four is indeed just a "probe" (as mentioned above), but for any yes-no question for which you're willing to accept an error of up to about ±10%, a sample of 25 is completely adequate, and this is true whether the population is 1000, 100 000, or 10 000 000. EEng (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the NPP queue size, 5,472 does not seem anything to worry about. Since articles are being nominated for speedy deletion without even checking the web, and this is the most serious type of decision, I assume that a typical article review just takes a minute or two to glance to the article and to select which tags to check. A generous estimate would be 8,000 minutes outstanding review time, or perhaps a day if 100 reviewers each spent a bit more than an hour. Apparently the queue is shrinking, so it is hard to see this as an issue. If we could attract more new editors, it would be even less of an issue. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tiny sample in User:Bymatth2/New article test can scarcely be considered statistically significant, and may have been biased in many ways. It was just a probe. A sample of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion seems more meaningful.There are a few pink links in the list above that I think may be valid and have saved, but will wait to see the outcome and then perhaps recreate. After this one has flushed, I may repeat in a few days. Successful organizations treat frequency of process failures as a critical measure. Denying existence of a measurable process problem guarantees failure in the face of competition. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Aymatth2: WP could do a lot of things with 100 extra hours of experienced editor time (though not clear the NPP queue, which I estimate would be more like 300-400 experienced editor hours). More new editors, while welcome, would increase not decrease the workload on NPP. Out of curiosity, have you read this Signpost or the report it summarizes? You might find it interesting for background. No one (AFAIK) is claiming that our process is perfect re "denying existence." VQuakr (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The signpost report is very interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. It does indicate a 1-minute average on the delete decision. Maybe tagging takes a bit longer, although I cannot see why it would. That was three years ago. I suspect the demographics have changed significantly. When Wikipedia began it was unique. Now there are many other sites or apps competing for attention. To me there are four broad categories of editor: authors, copy editors, police and other. It should be possible to define measures that roughly sort editors into those categories. It would be interesting to see shifts in the percentages over time, as well as shifts in experience levels over time in each group.
Anyway, my main concern is that tagging will demoralize new editors, even when justified, if there is no accompanying talk page note, and every bad call on a deletion risks making a potential new editor give up. My count on the 42-candidate list above is Blue–9, Pink–9, Red–23. That will change. Two of the pinks are at AfD, which will take a few days to resolve. Fuckin' Backstabber (Single) may not survive long. ITraveller and ITravellers were basically the same article. A less peacock-like version might have survived.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26] I can't be bothered recreating it. Dynamic routing was a technical deletion to allow for a move, and so on. Some of the blues still look a bit promotional, so the creators may not do much more. But there are a few blues that seem entirely well-meaning, where the nomination will have seemed like a slap in the face even though it failed. How many should we accept for the sake of skipping a quick web search? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, because stating that contributors 'must' perform a 'basic web search' without providing any means of determining that they have or have not done so is unenforceable, because notability (or the lack of it) isn't a speedy deletion criteria, and because this proposal looks to me very much like an attempt to 'encourage new contributors' by lowering the acceptability standards for article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as unenforceable and a misunderstanding of CSD A7, which is about whether the article gives a claim of significance, not whether the subject is notable. BethNaught (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording in User:Red Slash's proposal could be improved. The intent is to require a web search as part of the CSD process in A7 cases, perhaps in others (Calton weavers was incorrectly nominated and deleted as G3.) That is, to change the CSD rules to require a bit of due diligence before nominating an article for deletion. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then propose a change to WP:CSD and WP:DELETE. So far we have a proposed change on enforcement of a nonexistent rule. VQuakr (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honey

A page from a 19th century copybook. The homily is paraphrased from a 17th century sermon of Isaac Barrow, Against Detraction — "Good nature like a bee, collects honey from every herb. Ill nature, like a spider, sucks poison from the flowers." (from Gods of the Copybook Headings)

A problem with Aymatth2's proposal is that its implementation might result in more negative waves. When the biters are bit, they might bite back or others might add yet more levels of biting. Perhaps we should look for a more positive way forward as "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar". But how? As discussed above, Dr. Blofeld has created stubs such as Al Abr recently. This example is just a start on an interesting topic. At first sight, it doesn't have any obnoxious cleanup tags but please notice that, at the foot, there is a {{Yemen-stub}} template. As with all such stub templates, this starts with an attractive icon and then some gentle text, "This Yemen-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."

I don't like the cleanup tags which cause a banner to be placed at the head of the article, along with some scolding text, and so like to remove them when possible. But my attitude towards stub tags is quite different. I go out of my way to add them to the articles that I create and am sorry to see them go when the article is expanded and goes through the DYK process. I am always interested to see the topical icon which accompanies the text and find the text to be encouraging and helpful. This seems to be a good example of a honey-coated message which we might copy in the more poisonous cases.

So, what I'm suggesting is that we go through the cleanup templates which are left by the NPP and see what we can do to restyle and reword them so that they are as friendly and as encouraging as the stub templates. The same approach might be taken with the deletion templates though it would be harder to sugar-coat the message there. Perhaps some process change might be needed for this – many editors have suggested that AFD should become a more general clearing house for cleanup and alternatives to deletion. Jayron32 suggests deleting all the user warning templates so perhaps these should be in scope too. This activity of making our communications more friendly and welcoming would be the natural basis for a project or task force similar to AfC and the Teahouse. This would provide the clout and manpower to get things done. But is there a consensus...?

Andrew D. (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Abr is not great, but I saw a map and it seemed to indicate it was a notable town. As the centre of district we should have an article on it and identify it as a notable subject. That's more important than not bothering to start it I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It would be nice to make the cleanup templates nicer, but they are fairly nice already, to the extent that a large critical notice at the top of a new article could ever be seen as nice. Does this mean that to avoid upsetting anyone (except of course the newbies) we forget about advising taggers to talk to the newbies first, forget about discouraging instant deletion nominations with no notability checks, forget about any sanctions on persistent biting, and just tweak the wording of a few templates? Does this include honey-coating the CSD template? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear newbie, this is a friendly note to say I have asked that your new article on .example be deleted from Wikipedia. In fact, it is probably gone already! I did not check that the subject belonged in Wikipedia, because as you can imagine I am a very busy person, but my impression of the first version you saved was that it was worthless. I do hope you decide to try again. We always enjoy new editors. Thank you and have a nice day. Aymatth2 (talk)
Come closer, new editor, that you may learn from these WP policies conveniently arrayed about me!
A newbie (brown) offers his stub to a New Page Patroller (green). If it fails to satisfy her she'll bite his head off.

Support a general process to review the language in NPP templates (as my frequently quoted essay shows, to some extent the specific wording is irrelevant). I like the idea of sending all the templates to the bottom, something I know Beyond My Ken has been complaining about for years. PS: I confess to laughing out loud at this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: move rather than delete

Just few hours ago I posed to VPM; not realizing there is a relevant discussion. So here's my related proposal: rather than delete, how about moving problematic newbie articles into their userspace, combined with leaving them a friendly version of the delete template. Instead of "your contribution will be deleted", "your contribution needs more polishing" kind of approach. It would reinforce the draft system - pushing not ready content to a similar space, but in one's userspace (so we could even preserve newbies sandbox-like stuff there). Userspace is mostly immune to search engines, so even spam is much of an issue; after all we are not paper. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I would definitely like to encourage moving to draftspace anything that does not urgently need to be deleted and might be salvagable. With a message like "Hi, thanks for creating the article 'Bringers of Darkness', I've moved into draft so you can add sources and tart things up a bit yada yada yada". I can hear wailings and gnashings of teeth at people worried how our server space will cope with all those non-notable garage bands and companies, but if new users go via the article wizard, they end up there as AfC drafts anyway, whereupon they sit until they expire per WP:CSD#G13 some time later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a change to the new page patrol process to allow for moves to userspace with a friendly talk page message. Two minor concerns are that a) articles in userspace are unlikely to get improved by anyone other than the author and b) Wikipedia:Articles for creation has extraordinarily tough barriers to promotion into mainspace. It is much easier for an article to survive AfD than AfC. Maybe the message should just tell them to say in the lead why the subject is important, add a few independent sources, then move directly back to mainspace rather than bother with AfC. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that people are confusing "userspace", "draftspace" and "AfC" when they're all different things. The way I see it, you can move an article from Bringers of Darkness to Draft:Bringers of Darkness and while most people won't come across it, it's not tied into a specific user. You can request a review (which is where the AfC bit comes in), but you don't have to (eg: The customer is not a moron, comprised of). I think we need to reorganise the whole way AfC works, and reinvent it as a "draft review" process. I've heard anecdotal evidence that declining an AfC submission is as bad as an A7 tag (it's not designed to be, but that's what newcomers have suggested), and would like some more evidence of that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole "move rather than delete" is good and I have done that on occasion. Template:Userspace draft is a good template to prevent search engine indexing. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across the Wikipedia article wizard and immediately used it to write an article. This was a big step for me because I've been around for years, but I found the process too difficult to attempt on my own. My partner is a prolific Wikipedia editor and he helped me with my one and only other article in 4 years! Today, I followed the Wiki Wizard and submitted something to draft review. I think the Article Wizard should be prominently displayed for all Wiki editors who have fewer than 10 articles submitted. It should be the only option for anyone that's never submitted an article before. This would be a standard induction procedure for the entire community and might help stem some of the hurt, anger and confusion people feel when they're in an unfamiliar and sometimes hostile environment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard The big blue button guiding newbies into Wiki could be a valuable tool if it was more prominent on newbie pages. Rhondamerrick (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This idea. Unless the article is a blatant BLP violation, copyvio or otherwise incomprehensible gobbledigook, we should be more explicit in our guidance to move the article rather than delete. Stuff that has tone/advertising issues, has claims of importance (but lacks refs) or otherwise needs possible polishing should be moved to the article space. --Jayron32 16:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New cite template proposal

See also: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 11 § Template:Cite_tweet

I know I am new here, but I have been looking at the various cite templates that we have and realized that an important one is missing: cite social media. Virtually everyone, including heads of States and other government officials, has a Twitter account nowadays, and Facebook is also increasingly used for official statements. Interesting random fact I read the other day: social media has surpassed porn as the #1 online activity. Does anyone agree with the template proposal? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 10:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EauZenCashHaveIt: We do have {{cite tweet}}, but you should be very careful when using Twitter and other social websites as sources, see WP:SPS among others. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where T:Cite tweet does not work, {{cite web}} should. --Izno (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Thank you for your answer. The template only covers Twitter, what about the rest of the social media phenomenon? My proposal deals with a template wide enough to "compete" with cite web. It also goes without saying that I am fully aware of the extra amount of care that should be applied when dealing with such sources.
@Izno: Thank you for your answer as well, but I was looking for a worthy alternative to cite web, see my reply above. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What information do you think you need to present which cannot be presented (efficiently?) in {{cite web}}? --Izno (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given how likely information is to disappear from Twitter, and I'm sure from other social networks, you would need to archive. I don't see how it would be any more efficient than web. There is also always a question of WP:RS for social media (especially given the password cracking issues). I'm also a bit questioning about social media passing porn without a citation on that claim. Especially given the darknet. Jerod Lycett (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jerodlycett: Valid concerns. In general a tweet's reliability appears at present to by tied to the credence that news media put on that tweet. If a news outlet has said (correctly or not) "notable person X announced Y via twitter -- and here's the tweet", that seems to be the gold standard in terms of "vetting" a tweet as a reliable source. However, consider the case of Blogs. Blogs in general are not considered to be reliable sources; but blogs which have as their author a notable person (like Bill Clinton or Bill Gates .. to draw a couple of Bills from the deck), then we increase the credence, the reliability-index, of that blog accordingly. I think there is a passage in the RS-related material which touches on this, but I don't have a handle on that at this moment. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EauZenCashHaveIt: I think that for general use, {{cite web}} would be appropriate. There are a couple of seldom used parameters which would be useful here. One is "type"; one could use the construct "type=tweet" or "type=Twitter post" as a replacement for the {{cite tweet}} template (albeit not a perfect one), and could use "type=Facebook post" for that source. Another is "website", which could be designated as, for instance, Twitter or Facebook. There are pros and cons to template proliferation, and I'm on the fence about which is better as an aspiration: a "universal" template which can serve all citation needs through appropriate use of parameters vs. "use case specific" templates which address sources individually or by classes. One advantage of the Visual Editor is that it could potentially support selection from an array of templates without the editor being an expert in all things WP-Citation. Not quite there yet, but moving in that direction. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. About the only worse source imaginable is graffiti on the men's room wall in the Tobolsk bus station. EEng (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have cite social media because social media should pretty much never be cited. I someone does something on social media worth mentioning, the news will cover it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You people are funny. As I said, The Pope uses Twitter, CIA uses Twitter, presidents and prime ministers use Twitter - not sure how you reached the comparison to graffiti in a men's room. Social media is a perfectly acceptable primary source, it's HOW we use it that makes the difference. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Pope, the CIA, and presidents and prime ministers are, obviously, exceptional cases. And even then, as someone just pointed out, secondary sources will cover any tweets (I hate that fucking stupid word) worth mentioning. EEng (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The exceptions are far too many, they have become the rule. And you have just admitted, in your own words, to "hate that fucking stupid word". That is a clear personal agenda, and I believe it is covered in WP:Conflist of interest. Secondary source are here to reinforce primary sources, not replace them. Again, it is HOW we use it that makes the difference. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen some idiotic assertions of "conflist of interest" before, but this takes the cake. Once again, in almost all cases a secondary source is needed to authenticate and contextualize these tiny mindless fragments. Sometimes it's useful to link to a primary source along with the secondary, so that the reader can see the fuller context if he wishes; but of course, with twits there is no fuller context, because the stupid things require all human thought to be shoehorned into 140 characters. As a result there's almost no call to cite Twitter itself. EEng (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Random article

The 'Random article' button should not direct to DABs. 86.190.99.149 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why shouldn't readers be randomly directed to, say, Barbara Hutton? EEng (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! You said DABs. I thought you said debs. Carry on. EEng (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Debs is part of the problem EEng... You see, Debs itself is a DAB, so because deb is dab, dab should not be random. Thanks, 86.190.99.149 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But Debs isn't a DAB, which is weird because there's also D.E.B.S. and D.E.B.S., so maybe there should be a Debs DAB? EEng (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake there was that although Debs isn't dab, debs is dab. Speaking of which, FAB is a dab, but F.A.B. isn't (well, it shouldn't be). 86.190.99.149 (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But it is. KonveyorBelt 21:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would require a software change. phab:T9937 is "Exclude disambiguation pages from random page feature". It's listed at mw:Extension:Disambiguator#Possible future plans. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. What are five entries doing in the phab Four DAB for? EEng (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Martinevans123, can you enlighten us?[reply]
You need to consult your Preston dab page. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IRC help channel disclaimer

Propose moving User:PhantomTech/sandbox/IRC Disclaimer to Wikipedia:IRC help disclaimer and redirecting all links that connect users to the #wikipedia-en-help channel to Wikipedia:IRC help disclaimer in addition to adding the script at User:PhantomTech/Scripts/IRCNick.js to MediaWiki:Common.js. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Details: There are currently several problems with the IRC help channel, a few of those problems are that people often ask the same questions and that helpers sometimes have issues helping people because of the nicks they're given. Right now, almost all links give the default nick "WPhelp" with a nice long number at the end. As this post points out, this not only causes issues for people trying to help but also the people being helped. The proposal aims to cut down on the number of repeated questions (though not everyone may read the page) and give user's a friendlier IRC nick by default. Not all issues with the help channel are solved by this but it is a pretty simple modification that can solve one of the bigger issues. Currently, the script picks nicks in the following way:
  • Users who do not support javascript fallback to using one of the current "WPhelp" nicks
  • If the user is logged in, their nick is the first 11 characters of their username with anything non-alphanumeric characters replaced with an underscore and "-WP##" added to the end, where ## is a two digit number unless the username has 4 or more characters replaced with an underscore, then the next option is used.
  • All other users are given a username that starts with a random color with "-WP###" added to the end, where ### is a three digit number. Colors are used because they are the least likely to offend people.
Example: Someone whose username is User might get the nick User-WP42, someone with the username Full.Stop might get the username Full_Stop-WP20 and someone who is not logged in might get the username blue-WP493. Note, "might" is used because the numbers at the end of the usernames are chosen randomly and the color in the last example is also chosen randomly. Feel free to ask for any clarification or any more examples, the script can be tested by following instructions at the top of the page at User:PhantomTech/sandbox/IRC Disclaimer to see what nick you would be given. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the disclaimer as written, could support it with some heavy revision. Oppose adding such a script to Common.js as that is not the appropriate place for such a thing. I could see a nick picker added to an on by default gadget though (such as the Teahouse Ask a Question script), and I would support such a suggestion. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific about what you think is wrong with the disclaimer? I have no issue making this a default gadget instead of something in common.js, assuming that default gadgets are enabled for IP users. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Exploring Editor Characteristics

I'd greatly appreciate feedback from this Wikipedia community on the following proposal:

While there are advantages stemming from the anonymity of Wikipedia editors’ profiles, the Wikipedia community might benefit (and further expand) by accurately describing the traits and characteristics of its editors. The paramount identification of gender trouble on Wikipedia inspired a conversation about gender inequality in online communities and the 2011 survey begins to document this problem. However, it remains unknown how gender might be a precursor or influencing factor in the degree and frequency by which someone edits. In addition, we don’t know what other user attributes are more predominately represented on Wikipedia and how these attributes might influence editing.

This grant would explore the gender gap through an intersectionality approach that may further contextualize how group membership (i.e. identifying as female and an ethnic minority) and enactment of one's identity contribute to this gender disparity. Are there user characteristics that make individuals more likely to edit on Wikipedia or edit more frequently and at higher volumes on Wikipedia?

In order to accurately explore the main goals of the Inspire Campaign, we must be able to effectively characterize our community. Any interventions that we develop should reflect and match the needs of the target population, requiring a thorough understanding of the traits and behaviors of our editor community. As a direct extension of the recent gender gap research on Wikipedia, we’d like to conduct another study that uses a Talk Page posted survey to compare the traits of the super-editor, the active editor (moderate editing), and the inactive editor (infrequent edits). A more thorough description of the project can be found on the proposal page.Cshanesimpson (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions we've already run into:

  1. How accurate are the Wikipedia editor rankings?
  2. We'd like to explore beyond the English Wikipedia. Are there suggestions about other Wikipedia's that have more robust activity?
  3. As Wikipedians vary in demographic characteristics, any ideas about appropriate incentives for such a diverse community? We've identified iPad's in the grant, but an online incentive would be much simpler to distribute (i.e. Amazon gift cards).Cshanesimpson (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So basically you want to see if the editors who are willing to out themselves as something other than Old White Male edit differently, and if it's even worth recruiting these people? Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit counts can tell you very roughly how active an editor has been, but I really dislike that you call them "editor rankings", which plays into an unfortunately simplistic metric of an editor's value to the project. (To answer your question there are likely numerous technical reasons these counts are wrong in large and small ways, but that probably has little effect on what you should be using them for -- sorting editors qualitatively by level of "activity".)
  • I hope the incentives you're contemplating are to reward participation in your project, not for getting people to edit. The latter would very much attract not-the-kind-of-editor-we-want.
  • I think you'll have your hands full with the English WP -- why don't you move on to others after success here?
EEng (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your feedback Jerodlycett and EEng and I hope I can clarify a few of your concerns. The reference to "editor ranking" was only in the context of the article's name. I agree with you that it would be incredibly difficult to qualitatively rank editors based on their edits. The Editor Ranking would serve as a sampling method by which I could identify some of our high-volume editors. However, I'm very open to suggestions about other methods by which this could be done.
Yes, you're correct that incentives/compensation are only provided in my studies for participation in the study; they are not given for editing. This would be a huge ethical issue and would not be granted approval from an ethics board such as the one I'll be using. However, we are constantly bombarded with surveys and I feel a small incentive often effectively shows appreciation for participation.
Good point regarding the English Wikipedia! I'd received feedback from other wiki communities recommending that I should expand beyond the English Wikipedia to capture a larger and more diverse group of editors. In short, I'm not entirely sure how effective my recruitment efforts will be. I'd like to think of this proposal as an exploratory study, which could eventually lead to other studies. However, I need to acquire a decent sample size to capture relationships in the data (hence the "beyond English Wikipedia statement"). Cshanesimpson (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USSTATION naming conventions

This convention and some of its friends and enemies have been the subject of a bit of a ruckus. At the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#Summary / conclusions, RGloucester has suggested that I bring that problem here, and get a whole lot more people to weigh in on it. I might do that if the move review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2015_April#Greenbelt Station doesn't reach a conclusion about the mess that came about in trying to start implementing this recent convention. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info, please remove the ambitious "guideline" while at it, as there was no confirmed consensus (= somebody putting his signature on a summary fully aware of the consequences if they get this wrong) for a promotion of this former user page. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should do that. I'm in enough trouble with that lot. Dicklyon (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding Embarrassing Pictures

I found that there are pictures which make people uncomfortable. For example, the pictures of genitals (male and female human sex organ), and pictures of diseases and some particular animals (especially some in Arthropoda). While there are needs for showing the scientific facts, we humans are genetically evolved to be uncomfortable to some facts. When a children is curious about human reproduction, he/she may found facts which is beyond his/her afford in the age. (Even I am a adult, I found I never want to contact with someone and reproduce when accidentally see the pictures of sex organs. I also want to know facts about some skin diseases, and an animal called slug. But I don't have that courage.) I suggest there can be 3 new functions planted into Wikipedia: 1. Hide/Show Pictures function, with some particular picture closed. Medical students can help to decide which kind of pictures are "not suitable for abruptly appearance to readers" 2. No-picture mode. While it can help data users on wireless services further (the data saving functions can often disrupt reading), some readers want to just look at words to make them more concentrated. 3. Safe Mode. This can be a further mode to protect violence and sex contents to children (and those who don't like them). I don't know where to send the suggestions. They may seem ridiculous, when being from a undergraduate student. Please tolerate me.Amy Xu 01:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • If you want to disable all images you can add .image { display:none !important; } to your custom.css. Trying to censor individual images for everyone runs smack in to WP:Not Censored. There is no way to help individuals selectively censor what they don't want to see without risking the tools we provide them being used for involuntary censorship, even if we could agree on how things should be classified. There has been talk of a user script or add on that was going allow censorship by classification, and we can't really stop that, but I don't know if the plans to make it ever came to anything. Monty845 01:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see Help:Options_to_hide_an_image#Hide_all_images_until_click_to_view for another option. Monty845 01:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the idea of content-tagging images so that they can be hidden/etc. has been long discussed before but otherwise generally rejected, in favor of a policy of "principle of least surprise". The issue is that what content is considered shocking or a problem will change from person to person, so there would be no universally good system. Instead, we rely on editors to use intelligent decisions on selecting images so that topics where shocking images would not be appropriate stay devoid of them. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "tagging" images as problematic is that there is no objective list of images which should be hidable. For example, many types of arthropods (mainly insects and arachnids) would be likely to be on such a list, but not butterflies (a type of insect). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soften the notification number

Surprisingly, I don't find this in our drop-the-stick list.

Despite exhortations in the guidelines, many editors experience an adrenaline spike when they get reverted, and this makes it that much more difficult to stay calm in one's reaction to the revert. This would seem to increase the frequency and severity of edit wars. Considering the known psychological effects of different colors, would it not make sense to use a soft blue or soft green, instead of a bright red, for the background around the notification number? I think we're waving a red cape in front of a human bull in many cases, if not most. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the big red square looks too much like an error message (or the more severe warning messages that we place on talk pages). I would completely support a blue to match, for example, or, as a compromise, an orange to match . --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to think of something which, though likely of very minor value (though maybe not...) would be so easy to try and ought to be uncontroversial. But watch -- someone will argue against it. EEng (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BIKESHED. That's my last comment on the importance of this issue. --Jayron32 16:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the nuclear power plant has already been built, there's no reason why we shouldn't have a nice bike shed there. I'm sure my blood pressure goes up when I get a notification; a blue like Ahecht suggested above might decrease the stress a little.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's only BIKESHED if people fuss over this obviously sensible, harmless change. It's a good idea and we should do it. EEng (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly not buying it. In any case, blue would blend in too well with the existing personal bar links, so orange should be used at a minimum from Mandruss' suggestions. BethNaught (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Purple's a nice cool color. EEng (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=656628967"