Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:12, 17 April 2016 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.

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


Proposal to do away with including world leader responses to terrorist incidents

In the aftermath of the 2016 Brussels bombings, we have encountered a recurring dispute, namely: is there any use to be had in lists of world leaders' responses to high profile terrorist attacks like this? In the case of the Brussels attack, we have ended up with a separate article, Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings. There are several other articles like this (see the relevant category here:[1]). Now, while it's all well and good that Obama, David Cameron, Shinzo Abe, etc., have condemned the attacks in Brussels, did anyone think they wouldn't? Does anyone need to read the "response" article to know what the responses are going to be? I would argue that they don't. And consequently, the responses aren't notable. At the very least, all of them aren't notable. If we want to write something like "the attacks generated condemnation from world leaders", fine, but do we need the specific press release from the Latvian government? The response pages quickly become a collection of quotes and tend to promote a form of political pageantry. I would argue that that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Now, I've never proposed a policy change before, so I welcome assistance/corrections in wording or procedure, but here it is.

PROPOSAL: We adopt a policy by which the responses from world leaders to high profile terror attacks are not notable and (a) don't get their own articles and (b) don't take up large sections of the article about the attacks themselves. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This oppose is based on the consensus at every one of the AfDs that have taken place regarding the matter. I understand that editors don't like the lists, but if done properly with prose they do pass WP:GNG. Please address each AfD, and the arguments already hashed out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous AfD discussions should not be considered decisive here. AfD is a blunt instrument. There the question is: Should we delete this material entirely or not? The consensus from those discussions is, indeed: No, we should not delete it entirely. The present question is different. It is: given that we have this material, what is the best way to present it to our readers, and how much of it, in general, is it appropriate to include in the Article space? Cmeiqnj (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen this in far too many articles, and agree that its kudzu-like. A list of tangible responses, such as sending money, aid relief, police, military, or the like, or even a country's offer to help investigations - something beyond just a quote - are reasonable to include, but just a bunch of quotes condemning a terrorist attack, or supporting a region hit by natural disasters, or the like, feels like puffery and violates WP:QUOTEFARM even if it seems the articles pass GNG. This is not to say that a few choice quotes aren't reasonable to include, summarizing such down to a few sentences. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - comments by world leaders should be added to the BLPs of the world leaders. Such spin-offs smell too much like WP:RECENTISM or even WP:CFORK. Atsme📞📧 16:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither support or oppose The issue is that we're trying to fix a problem that requires a scalpel, and this proposal is using a chainsaw. It's a similar problem across Wikipedia in all sorts of issues. The issue is this 1) A good, well written article will often have a few representative examples of something important to the subject. For example, a famous song may have a few well known cover versions of that song which it is appropriate to include in the article. 2) People who lack proper discernment think that a "few well chosen representative examples" means "a complete, total, and unabridged list of every example possible." Thus, in my example above, people note "Hey, this article about a song has cover versions listed. I did a search at AllMusic and found 1,278 other cover versions. I should list and wikilink every one of those!" We need some balance and perspective to say that not all representative examples are equal and that we can have some discernment in choosing which examples to include, and which ones probably don't bear mentioning. If the president of a neighboring country, or a leader of a major world power, makes a statement, that's possible useful to include. We don't need statements from leaders of micronations unrelated to the conflict, however. --Jayron32 17:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Statements made by politicians (especially if they are leading nations) are by definition notable as they create policy. Consequently, I oppose the establishment of a blanket statement that reads "reactions of world leaders are not notable". It is true that for most of us it is not even remotely possible to realise and understand what significance each of these statements has; and rightfully so: This would require in depth knowledge and understanding of each country's political landscape, its internal and external affairs and even if some of us have it, it is certainly biased by our own political stances. For all the above, I consider that such statements are notable and should be recorded in an encyclopaedia as a statement of a fact. In line with Wikipedia's policy against original research, I also oppose to the selection by any group of well-intended editors to create a prose based on what they consider notable and what not. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually such statements are generally not notable, per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#NEWS; they are stated and then get little coverage after the fact. Such statements don't create policy if they are not backed by any type of actual action (see my !vote above - it's one thing to send aid or offer intelligence services, its another to simply show respects). This type of information is fine over at Wikinews, but in the long term, these statements offer little understand by themselves of the original event. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does a statement like "Prime Minister Kenny Anthony has expressed his shock and sadness at Brussels attacks" (taken from Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings) require "in depth knowledge and understanding" of the political landscape of Santa Lucia to understand... ? Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, and statements of fact are not necessarily notable (WP:EXIST). If you need to do academic-level research to determine whether a political statement is significant or not, it's probably not (for Wikipedia, at least). —Nizolan (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure - This is a tough one. I agree with the WP:RECENTISM and the WP:NOTNEWS stances, but I think a select few of those articles are notable and should be kept. Reactions to the September 11 attacks comes to mind. I suggest an alternative in which these reactions articles can be kept depending on the notability of the main articles, and I'm not talking about Brussels notability; I'm talking about 9/11 notability. Parsley Man (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In taking the 9/11 article, there's three sections that are just lists of reactions (which is what most of these other articles are). Nearly all of those sections, from a first look through, could be reduced to a paragraph or two summary statements. Eg, we don't need a line item for each city/country where vigils were held, but a sentence stating that vigils were held all over the world would be right in line. Similarly the section on the reaction from the Muslim countries could be reduced to a handful of paragraphs. The sections about the US's reactions, which are all prose, is what I would expect from such reaction articles; the list format that many of these use is rote reiteration without any effort to summarize, which is a problem with these articles. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full support - I've tried to address this on specific articles in the past and usually got major pushback. Responses by world leaders are marginally notable at best during the immediate aftermath. In the long run, 99.9% are wholly unremarkable. Should one of those 0.1% of responses actually make it beyond the first two weeks of the news cycle and become something memorable, it should be included. But deal with those rarities when they occur. Moreover, they run afoul of WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:QUOTEFARM. They add nothing to the understanding of the topic or event. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with InedibleHulk below, my support extends to any catastrophe (shootings, bombings, airplane crashes, elder god attacks, natural disasters, etc.) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Damn that Shinnok! Damn him with all my thoughts and prayers! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, March 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The standard condolences never change in any substantial way. Yay freedom and kindness, boo terror and death. And the reaction to those is never anything special. They're just published, republished and repeated the next time. Burn the standalone lists and limit reactions in articles to those which do something (legislation, bombing, concerts, so on). And call that section "Aftermath", to not suggest it's a place for that hollow stuff. I'm somewhat OK with hearing from the leaders of the victim and perpetrator parties. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:15, March 23, 2016 (UTC)
My support also applies to mass killings (usually shootings or earthquakes) that aren't called terrorism, but evoke the same general responses. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, March 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. These articles usually include nothing substantial that is of encyclopedic value. The fact that world leaders condemned a particular terror attack can be summarized in 1-2 paragraphs in the respective article; it does not require an entire article on its own. --bender235 (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've argued thus at several articles, including that for last year's Paris attacks. They end up being lengthy lists of platitudes. If, perchances, a leader veered from the normal response then that might be worthy of inclusion but otherwise we can summarise international reactions simply by referencing one decent news source - they always talk of "the world condemning ..." etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, bad policy. Jayron32 said it well. Our enforcement of WP:NOTNEWS is also generally spotty. A part of the problem is that Wikinews seems to be mostly dead, so all the news stays here on Wikipedia. —Kusma (t·c) 20:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma:, despite calling NOTNEWS bad policy, would you be opposed to a proposal of changing the wording on WP:NOTNEWS item #2 to While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Similarly, condolences and statements in response to catastrophes and deaths typically do not qualify for inclusion. ... (emphasis added to proposed addition)? Even if enforcement is spotty, we can try to improve the policy itself. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a good addition to me as well. —Nizolan (talk) 03:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good addition to me too. Edison (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For the reasons already stated. Firebrace (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose over generalization to label all statement responses by world leaders non-notable. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Whereas I fully share the sentiment and understand where this proposal comes from, I do not see any way it could be implemented. We could state in the policy that no reactions may be added to the article - but then it does not make sense, because it is reasonable to add at least reactions of involved states, and possibly unusual reactions (for example, I added to the above article the reaction of the spokeswoman of the Russian foreign ministry - she basically said that the attacks are the results of the EU double standards policy). If we allow such reactions, it can not be formalized. If it can not be formalized, people will add them anyway, and it will cost the community more time to police such articles that to let them have the lists. The situation is similar with the galleries: WP:GALLERY is very clear on what can be added to the galleries, and 99% of the galleries in the articles are counter to the policy, however, if you remove a gallery from the article, you can be sure in three years it would be back does not matter what the policy says.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can't a formal written rule have formal written exceptions? The unusual is generally noteworthy and reasonable people should want to hear from involved (or representative) parties in any subject. I think the spirit here is just editing out the echoes. There's no such thing as "waste", from a storage sense, but not even NSA money can buy a server that gives readers more time in a day. Every second we spend reading what we've read already is a second we ignore better, fresher things. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, March 24, 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I understand the sentiment, and appreciate that articles can become loaded with material of little value; but in writing about incidents in years long past, these have been extremely useful in expounding differing perspectives. Weeding out the redundant ones can be done as part of the regular editing process. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they were written in prose rather than as a list, this would make sense. And I can understand that the days/weeks right after an event, one is going to gather these all up and a list is by far the easiest way to organize them in the short term. But after some time, I would expect weeding out and converting to prose, doing necessary grouping of common-themed reactions. If 20 countries all offered condolences to an event, and nothing more, you don't need 20 lines of reaction, but a single sentence. In most cases, having separate articles is unnecessary - I wouldn't flat out call them POV forks but they lean towards that since nearly all reactions to these types of events are in solidarity of the country affected. In terms of this proposal, I wouldn't say that reaction articles should be disallowed, but they should be strongly discouraged and favoring tight summary prose to avoid all other issues identified. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hawkeye7, I can understand, as a historian, why quotes might be useful in expounding different perspectives. However, the issue here is in large part that the quotes generally all expound the same perspective. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semi-support, largely per Sitush and Ymblanter. I don't really see a benefit to adding every reaction from every figure, but involved, directly related, and unusual reactions do have encyclopedic value. ansh666 01:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support we need some sort of guideline which will prevent indiscriminate lists of quotes from appearing on Wikipedia. It sets a band precedent and grows out of control. Quotes and reactions articles are absolutely fine when their aim is to use prose, but such large indiscriminate lists should be the job of Wikiquote. See my post at Talk:Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings#Transfering to Wikiquote where I have explained the best course of action. I would propose adding the following to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists: Jolly Ω Janner 07:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

    An indiscriminate list of quotes from notable people and parties responding to an event is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Instead consider using prose to summarise the main points from each side and compile quotations at Wikiquote.

  • Support. Nothing wrong with a couple of relevant statements, integrated into prose, from directly affected nations, but these lists of identical reactions from every country in the world serve no purpose. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for reasons outlined when I created this thread. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I put together an essay a while back, Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka WP:REACTIONS, to summarize the takes on these articles. Edits welcome. Fences&Windows 00:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: World leader reactions are entirely predictable; the entire section could be replaced by "the usual people expressed the usual sentiments". --Carnildo (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the important qualification that responses from world leaders are not inherently notable, which responds to many of the criticisms above. A selection of responses should of course be included, preferrably in prose format, but unless there's a very good reason I don't see why a generic statement from a country on the other side of the globe merits inclusion in the respective Wikipedia article. —Nizolan (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or on the other side of the border, for that matter. But if a giant fish swallows Aruba, it would make sense to hear from the Netherlands. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, March 25, 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The usual responses are predictable and formulaic: "The King of Foobar extended his condolences to the victims and their families" etc. No encyclopedic value whatsoever. This nonsense is a waste of space and just brings out the same arguments every time there is an international disaster. Get rid of it once and for all. Significant reactions ("we will bomb the perpetrators off the planet") can be included in the main article. WWGB (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Every one of these article and ones on other tragedies can usually be summarised in a version of the sentence "International leaders offered there condolences to the victims and their families". Obviously if the reaction was the subject of multiple, reliable sources then the article can exist in its own right through WP:gng, but almost all of these content forks are just WP:Indiscriminate collections of tweets and soundbites. AIRcorn (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A separate article is needed for such an important event with international significance.BabbaQ (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can not have a discussion here that perhaps ends with the result that the article should be removed/merged. And then have an AfD were it seems like a majority wants to keep the article and not either merge or delete. So decide.BabbaQ (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, although the topics are related, the AfD pertains specifically to Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings, whereas this Village Pump discussion is more broadly about articles of that sort. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Atsme. Although we can pile up a bunch of reliable sources documenting such, I think this is one case where the topic itself is not notable. Really, most of the citations for these reactions likely mention the reaction but are not about the reaction so really the subject is not notable per GNG, regardless. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This should probably be a guideline, not a policy. Responses from world leaders, and just about everyone else who gets on their soapbox in the wake of a major tragedy, are transparently self-serving, predictable, and utterly platitudinous. They have no enduring encyclopedic value.- MrX 23:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed Unless the expression is intrinsically notable for its content other than routine praise/condemnation, we should not use it - but always recall that sometimes an expression of praise/condemnation does become notable in its own right, and should not be barred. Collect (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Including every national reaction to an incident goes beyond the scope of Wikipedia. While this may contribute slightly towards readers' knowledge of how visible the event was, it can be summarized as "many leaders condemned <X> event" and within proper context. I support only covering individual reactions in the actual event in the article itself if the reaction is associated with an action (such as an aid package, declaration of armed action against a terrorist group, or national/UN resolution). Esquivalience t 00:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Esquivalience and Evergreenfir. I particularly like the wording change to WP:NOTNEWS that Evergreenfir proposed above. Wugapodes (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should not be a new policy. This should be proposed at an existing policy or guideline talk page. HighInBC 01:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - These lengthy lists of reactions are not encyclopedic. Let's get back to writing some actual prose for a change. Kaldari (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not only is the content of the flagged bulleted list entirely predictable every time something atrocious happens, it violates WP:NOTNEWS. These routine reactions should be summarized, and only unusual reactions (those that are reported on, rather than merely reported) should be particularly mentioned.  Sandstein  08:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Is see the problem, but making this a policy will lead almost certainly to it being used against relatively novice editors who added such comments to share their outrage with the situation. Unless the application of such policy can be guaranteed to be polite (according to the cultural customs of all involved) and avoid all chances of WP:BITE (i.e. saint like application), I think we would do more harm than good with implementing this. Arnoutf (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our articles on terrorist attacks also attract new editors who add unreferenced information or update numbers without updating the source. As far as I know, we normally revert them and leave a polite message on their talk page. I don't see why this would be any different? If it becomes that big of a deal, we could even create a specific user talk template for it... Jolly Ω Janner 09:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – no reason to override existing notability guidelines, and sets a bad precedent. SSTflyer 13:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this content Keep, for example, the article discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings. This is in line with traditional Wikipedia policy. When a concept is covered in multiple reliable sources, then that concept has a place in Wikipedia. The amount of coverage that "reactions" get for these sorts of incidents is WP:UNDUE to go in the main article. It is appropriate content, and the only trouble with it is that there is so much of this appropriate content. When something is covered in alignment with Wikipedia policy, and it is undue for the main article, then it is right to split it into its own article.
    I see nothing new about this proposal. It might be a clarification about existing rules, but the base assumption is that "Wikipedia is a summary of what reliable sources report". Splitting this content off is a great way to capture it in an appropriate places. There is no limit to space for such content in its own article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know this was already brought up, but I think WP:NOTNEWS is key in this discussion. More specifically, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability ..." I don't know whether world leader's reactions to large-scale terrorist attacks like Brussels and Lahore recently have such "enduring notability" on their own, even if they can be very notable during the week of the attacks. I personally enjoy reading the controversial ones, issued by countries such as North Korea, though I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for that kind of content, eventhough nowhere else is either. ~Mable (chat) 17:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't Wikiquote be the right place for the reactions of notable people to notable events? ~Mable (chat) 17:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is too broad-brush. Each case needs to be decided on its merits. A guideline on how to make such decisions may be beneficial. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Under reconsideration This is too wide-reaching of a decision that fails to consider the merits of individual reaction articles. A number of these response articles do contain developments in policy and foreign policy. For example, the Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks includes sourced information about how the attacks spawned debate over resettlement of refuges from the Middle East and mass surveillance, resulted in an increased military presence in combat zones, and has had an impact on American law. Now, I’m not opposed to solutions that would cut down on the number of repetitive “we condemn these attacks and mourn the victims” type statements. However, I don’t think uniformly banning these types of articles is the way to go. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spirit of Eagle That's not the proposal though. It only relates to the lists of responses. An article that contains nothing more than a list of responses would go through a deletion nomination and this proposal would be cited and it would get deleted. If an article, like Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks, were proposed for deletion then it would not be deleted (or at least not because of this proposal), because a reasonable amount of the content is not a mere list of responses. The Paris attacks can be dealt with on the talk page. To summarise, the proposal would only be used to delete article which are only made up of responses and very likely to be used on article talk pages when proposing to cut down such a list within an already well formed article. Jolly Ω Janner 08:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Relatedly, this discussion could be used as an argument to remove bulleted lists of random world leader responses from regular articles as well. ~Mable (chat) 09:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I certainly hope so, Mable. Sections comprising only rent-a-quotes are no more deserving than a separate article. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've reread the proposal numerous times, and it seems like a pretty uniform ban on reaction type articles. My concern is that the actual language of the proposal does not make any distinction between boilerplate condolences and more substantial reactions, such as passing laws, offering aid, performing symbolic acts of solidarity, ect. I'd be much more supportive if the actual proposal assumed that some reaction articles can be notable, and attempted to regulate the content within them rather than essentially outright banning them. Personally, I'd like it to be standard practices for reaction articles for a single map to be used to track which states offered condolences, and to then list out the most substantial reactions. (I think the fact that so many states have offered condolences is significant, but I agree that actually listing out every single boilerplate condolence is excessive) .Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • The policy uses the term "responses", not "reactions". I think passing laws, offering aid (even this seems weak), performing symbolic acts of solidarity would not be classed as a response. If you want, we could propose an amendment which outlines the difference between the two. I think abounding the proposal would be a real disappointment. Jolly Ω Janner 20:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • I could support something along these lines. Also, I've struck my oppose vote pending further discussion:
              • 1. "Response to..." articles are acceptable if a number of substantial responses occurred and if the article subject meets standard notability requirements. Articles that contain nothing more than an extensive list of quotes from state leaders giving boiler plate condolences are generally not acceptable.
              • 2. Articles should not contain long lists of boilerplate condolence quotes. (Note: I removed some language about mapping responses due to concerns over original research)
              • 3. Reaction articles that are in compliance with point 1 but not point 2 should be cleaned up rather than deleted.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • I like the idea of a colored-in map, at least as something to be made available on Commons even if it isn't used on Wikipedia, though I suppose that would probably constitute to synthesis and might give more weight to countries that haven't given responses. Regardless, I agree that we should create a guideline that balances WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N well, which is why I chose to discuss rather than to !vote. ~Mable (chat) 06:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • In regards to points number one, "Articles that contain nothing more than an extensive list of quotes from state leaders giving boiler plate condolences are generally not acceptable." seems to match my opinion and I think the intention of this proposal. If no one opposes, I hope that when the closing admin prepares the update to the policy page, this is also added with it. Please do not go down the route of making (or encouraging) a map of responses with or without option 1. It is rather controversial and is a clear breach of WP:Synthesis. To my knowledge there has never been a published list of countries to have given responses to an attack in this regard, unlike say GDP data which is frequently published by major organizations. You're essentially saying "this country hasn't given a response yet, because we haven't been bothered or able to find a source for it online" and it's generally taken to be negative about that country. Jolly Ω Janner 08:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would hope that we could delete the indiscriminate lists before having to go through an AFD, especially as these always have to do with current events. The problem is that someone always adds these statements in the first place despite them being unnecessary, and then someone splits the article when it gets too big; it should not require the headache of a weeklong AFD to undo an unwarranted split. Reywas92Talk 17:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support There is no need for the repetitive obligatory statements by every world leader regardless of their relation to the event. They provide no useful information to the reader and a generic statement is notable neither by itself nor with all the others. Notability of the event does not lend notability to anything related to it whatsoever. Reywas92Talk 17:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Most of the time reactions of politicians are for political benefit though not always.atnair (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Support the proposal for International reactions are only deemed notable enough for inclusion if they are covered by reliable secondary sources outside of their home country.. Otherwise Wikipedia is essentially just pasting PR releases by politicians who issue these PR statements to "show" "how much" they "care". XavierItzm (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Oppose, in fact the strongest oppose I can think of, times 10 to the power of 12. This is encyclopedic information, and more often than not, it's referenced in secondary reliable sources that cover the incident's aftermath. Would people rather portray world leaders as unsympathetic by excluding all mentions of reactions? I'd much rather tone down such sections if possible, but they should not be deleted outright unless they don't have any secondary sources at all. Instead, let them be trimmed and merged, or even better, deal with them on a case-by-case basis. epicgenius @ 15:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Portray world leaders as unsympathetic" Yeah, right. A statement from Belize hasn't been added to the Brussels list, but I don't assume now that Belizeans don't give a darn about Belgium or terrorism. A generic boilerplate statement the same as after any tragedy is not encyclopedic, and just because a source lists it doesn't mean we're required to re-report it. This could be "trimmed and merged" by saying 'heads of government from around the world condemned the attacks and expressed their condolences', or even say 'The governments of countries A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K..... sent sympathies' to portray them as sympathetic, but repetitively quoting every one of them is unnecessary. Reywas92Talk 16:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible problem If this does come into force it would pretty much invalidate all of the AfD's including this one where a consensus leans towards keeping the articles. Please make this into an RfC to get a broader consensus from the Wikipedia community as I see chaos going forward with this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the last comments there argues that the problem is that there should be a discussion on the content, not deletion of the article. That article and others have excellent prose sections that could be merged into the main article and not deleted outright, and people are worried a delete vote would get rid of the good content too - they say AFDs should not be used as merge proposals or content discussion, just wholesale deletion of the article. Unfortunately talk pages usually don't get the interaction or admin closure that time-limited AFDs do. All of these AFDs get lots of people who say 'this has reliable sources, therefore we can't delete it' or worse, 'there are loads of these reaction articles, therefore this should be kept too', and the fact that they often occur in the midst of a recent news event impacts how people see the article. I do not believe that the AFDs on whole articles should have any bearing on the merits of these lists of statements in particular. Reywas92Talk 19:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: recent AfDs about these articles have quite consistently resulted in keep or snow keep, and this proposal really is about as blunt as an AfD in its terms, despite some claims. It may be sometimes needed to condense semi-identical "canned" international response into a single statement, and only give prominence to the ones with different content, and in general, to use prose for this kind of content instead of lists of quotes with flags, to comply with policies and guidelines. That does not in any way entail banning the topic entirely, as a valid WP:SPINOUT or otherwise. LjL (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I notice a number of comments in this thread seem to be taking issue with the notion that this discussion is undermining the AfD's on some of the relevant articles. Now, while I certainly didn't have that in mind when I created this thread, I think it's worth pointing out that that's one of the reasons why a policy discussion is necessary. We've been addressing these "reaction" sections/pages on an ad hoc basis and the argument often goes "Well, incidents X, Y, and Z got reaction sections/pages, so this event should too." The reasoning becomes circular and it remains too caught up in individual events. By addressing this issue at the policy level, my hope is that we can reach a broad consensus where in future, we can dispense with these arguments because there will be an unambiguous policy in place. Now, my personal position is that that policy should be to dispense with reaction pages, but even if this discussion goes the other way, I think it will be useful to all concerned parties to have the issue hashed out. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, Tigercompanion25, but since this proposal is not really much "milder" than AfD-type deletion in its wording (the alternative proposal below is different, although I don't particularly like that idea), it seems legitimate to object that if multiple AfDs overwhelmingly opted to keep these reactions, then consensus has been established on the matter. Do we want to establish it again anyway? Fine, but then it seems legitimate for me to say "oppose" based on my understanding that consensus on the matter has been satisfactorily reached in the multiple AfDs. LjL (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LjL, there is an incomplete list of articles that have not been kept at Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles. It's also worth considering that AfDs will be kept if multiple users vote to redirect or merge the contents instead of outright deletion. By trying to reach a consensus on the matter here, we are trying to reduce the amount of bureaucracy involved in every single AfD (although they should still be treated individually, the same issues are frequently raised). It's also a valid point that the type of editors who post on a deletion review for an ongoing news-related story tend to be bias and less experience than those at the village pump. I would encourage you to find a non-circular reason against the proposal. Jolly Ω Janner 16:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mine is not circular reasoning, because for something to be circular, it has to go back to square one. In this case, I'm saying I say "keep" because I've said "keep" on the AfDs and most other people have said "keep" on them. The reasoning would be circular if and only if the people saying keep on the AfDs did so because of "keep" being said here. LjL (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose noting international reactions is encyclopedic and notable. It is certainly something I'd be interested in reading if searching about a past event. If there are too many to be listed on the page, it is reasonable to split it --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These "reactions" quotations have always struck me as kind of pointless. What's the point in hearing from 20 politicians who all make what is more-or-less the same prepared statement? I agree that it violates WP:NOTNEWS. At the very least, we should require international coverage of the comments. Otherwise, it's completely undue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wikipedia isn't Twitter. These "reactions" sections infest every current event article and are almost all entirely pointless. Unless the reactions detail specific actions being taken that are related to or are made in response to the event, they should not be there. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with caveats. We should not exclude citation of world leader reactions. The problem with these sections is not that we point to this well-sourced detail about events, but that we do not properly condense it like other details of text. To the contrary, there is a little cottage industry of putting cutesy little flags and crap to showcase these sections. This may be motivated as a show of support for victims, a feel-good gesture, but it's not really encyclopedic. When they are routine, it should be enough to say that "Condolences were made by leaders of Andorra,[1] Angola,[2] Australia,[3][4], Austria[5]......" Things on Wikipedia tend to get out of hand when we drop out of prose and go into some constrained format. Wnt (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support ditching the "cutesy flags" and summarizing, in many cases. But, more broadly, response to some incidents that are not unadulterated tragedy is important. For example when someone is shot in a border dispute. Or "Responses to annexation of Crimea"...
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Alternative proposal

I'm not sure how well this fits in with the above proposal. Perhaps they could both be used? Anyway, I proposed a method to decipher countries which are notable and non nontabele to an event on the Brussels talk page and a few editors suggested I bring it here. I would suggest adding the following ammendment (or words thereof) to WP:NOTNEWS:

International reactions are only deemed notable enough for inclusion if they are covered by reliable secondary sources outside of their home country.

I think virtually everyone agrees that these lists need to be trimmed? The problem is quantifying what is and what is not notable without bias. The sources of information used are newspapers (or online equivalents). What is interesting is that most of these newspapers have readers from only one country and therefore a quote from that country would be relevant. Wikipedia takes an international stance, but this shouldn't mean we should weight every country equally. So how do we assess how notable a quote is? Well, if it's being reported from an international news source or a news source from outside of the home country, then that goes a long way. So here is the proposal. Jolly Ω Janner 21:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I still support the original proposal, but fear that its implementation may only be confined to "Reactions to..." articles leaving the door wide open for the shit to flood on to the main article instead. It should be noted that I have some doubts about the proposal. Mainly due to the recent Lahore suicide bombing, in which I came across this TIME article being used. Fortunately, the US presidential campaign would be caught out by the rule, since TIME is a US magazine, but it still allows some to slip through. It's better than nothing and it builds upon the original proposal! Jolly Ω Janner 22:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this idea as a rule of thumb. I still think a lot of this content might be best off over a Wikiquote, though. ~Mable (chat) 07:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content is certainly best off over at Wikiquote and we should never forget that, but (to my knowledge) I'm the only one to ever make a transfer to Wikiquote, despite raising the issue several times. In my experience these reactions are tallied by IP or newly-joined editors in a way to exaggerate the notability of an event that they feel closely connected to (likely through nationality or hatred of terrorism). Wikiquote is virtually unheard of by most people and certainly won't get seen, so I doubt anyone with the former intentions would care to compile them at Wikiquote. We have an article tag, which I frequently put up on these articles to see if it might lure people in. I guess Wikiquote is rather alien to most people, even to experienced editors. I made a proposed amendment further up in one of my comments regarding the use of Wikiquote. I could separate that off as another sub-section if you or anyone else supports it. Jolly Ω Janner 08:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree that Wikiquote is rather alien to me as well; I don't think I've ever even edited it. This whole "world leaders/famous people react to current events"-dealie might actually help make Wikiquote a more well-known website? Regardless, I feel like a dynamic bulleted list should generally be avoided in articles, and can often best be converted into more meaningful prose. In that sense "Worldwide responses" can work, but that's because it isn't plain news messages anymore. ~Mable (chat) 08:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • News source simply state the quotes or convert them into the usual wording of "X from Y shared his condolences with the following message:" There are only so may ways or rephrasing that. If we had sources that are dedicated to the quotes and their wider impact then converting them to prose would be a regular option, however it's pretty rare (maybe sometime they will cause controversy, which can be picked up on). This probably shows just how routine and unotable they are if even newspapers don't have much to say on them. And Wikipedia tries to make itself one step above journalism. Jolly Ω Janner 08:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but I'd prefer a stronger criterion. If the BBC mentions off-hand that someone said a thing, that doesn't constitute notability. My suggestion would be to go with WP:SIGCOV and strengthen it to "receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, including sources outside of the speaker's home country". —Nizolan (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, because I have seen news reports doing - maybe not as in depth as one of our articles - but still just giving out lists of responses from selected world leaders without additional comment. This last point is the problem with the reaction lists is that just saying "X said Y" is not providing any additional context for the reader, making it feel like indiscriminate information. These response sections are fine when they are summarized in prose, which allows editors to help provide useful context, even if the quotes are coming from the sources in the same country. Now, if a third-party, different country source goes into some analysis or criticism of a response from a nation, that's good secondary information to include. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Let's just not have these bullet point lists of statements. Just because media in another country happens to note a different president's statement does not mean we should continue to list all of these. They should be summarized in prose about actual actions taken, not the generic condolences always issued, regardless of who reports them. Reywas92Talk 17:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the time being, I support this idea. However, Wikiquote isn't really a good medium for such quotes. Wikiquote usually hosts quotes about the Wikipedia subjects themselves, not the reaction to Wikipedia subjects. Anyway, reliable secondary sources should be required for "condolence" lists anyway, because they're required for nearly everything else. epicgenius @ 15:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is kind of what I was thinking when I previously said in the main discussion, "I suggest an alternative in which these reactions articles can be kept depending on the notability of the main articles, and I'm not talking about Brussels notability; I'm talking about 9/11 notability." Parsley Man (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is an attempt to bypass the community consensus at every single AFD. No credible criteria can be given to, for example, include the reaction of the US President (which will obviously be included) and exclude other reactions. AusLondonder (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reaction from a US president is more likely to attract news from abroad whereas reactions from world leaders with little recognition worldwide would be less likely to appear in the sources. Jolly Ω Janner 03:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with caveats as above. Besides, this isn't really a meaningful restriction, because news today is very international. It is highly unlikely that any but the smallest country's condolences will not be mentioned by good newspapers around the world. I would be much more concerned about whether what was said was of substance - if a politician in a small country makes a routine condolence and goes on to say "this is why we're proposing a law to put cameras in your toilets." Wnt (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "if they are covered by reliable secondary sources outside of their home country" by definition is WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS against sources within a country about events that may not be world news. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Do away with them. Also do away with the "List of reactions" stuff. It is not encyclopedic (see caveat below), it's feelgood kind of stuff, it's advocacy (let me get my country here to show how much we care--and frequently NGOs and other organizations are listed as well), and it's typically an opportunity for flagporn--besides the fact that they are predictable cliches. Well-meaning cliches, and necessary cliches for the purpose of uniting humanity etc., but cliches nonetheless.

    The only caveat I can see is when (as some suggested) a reaction is a policy change. Let's say that as a result of some act a politician or statesperson decides to close the borders to [insert ethnicity, nationality, color, whatever], or even proposes to close the border, or change immigration law, or the availability of guns/semtex/whatever. That is worthwhile. But expressions of sympathy are of no inherent encyclopedic value, and not having any kind of guideline would suggest that the reaction by any notable person in the world is worthy of inclusion.

    We've had, in some articles, the tacit guideline of "only if the response is of importance, not just an expression of sympathy", or words to that effect, and that's something. Here's another instance where "it's verified so it's encyclopedic" is the wrong way to go. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes

WP:SNOW
Overwhelmingly clear consensus (36 "remove" to 12 "keep" and one "rename the parameter", if anyone cares about raw numbers) to remove the parameter from the infoboxes. How to implement this removal while ensuring that those cases in which the religion is significant to the article subject is adequately covered either in the body text or in a custom parameter will potentially require a second RFC if a discussion can't agree on a mechanism for an orderly removal of the parameter, but it's clear that there's strong consensus to remove the parameter from the generic infobox. ‑ Iridescent 20:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes for ongoing RfC to remove |ethnicity= from infoboxes for similar reasons.

Proposal: Should we remove from {{Infobox person}} the |religion= parameter (and the associated |denomination= one)?

  • Religion would be covered in the main article body, with context and sources (if included as relevant at all, per consensus at the article).
  • Permit inclusion in individual articles' infoboxes (through the template's ability to accept custom parameters) if directly tied to the person's notability, per consensus at the article.
  • Permit inclusion in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders.

Rationale: This would be consistent with our treatment of sexual orientation and various other things we don't include in infoboxes that are matters which may be nuanced, complex, and frequently controversial. The availability of a parameter encourages editors to fill it, whether they have consensus to do so or not, regardless of instructions in template documentation to gain consensus first; new and anon IP editors generally do not read documentation, they simply see a "missing" parameter at article B that they saw at article A and add it.

While written for categories, the concerns of WP:CAT/R and WP:NONDEF may be logically applicable here, since the context-free data in infoboxes serves a categorization/labeling purpose, not an expository one; their reasoning is frequently applied to navbox templates, at least informally. So is that of the WP:BLPCAT policy, which explicitly covers them, and lists. Per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:LAWYER, and WP:GAMING, if the community's consensus is to avoid certain kinds of arbitrary, contentious, or factually questionable labelling, this consensus must not be evaded by moving the label to a different spot on the page in a different wrapper.

Procedural notes: I'm listing this at VP because RfCs at the infobox template talk pages tend to overrepresent the views of infobox template editors and those who argue about these templates frequently, and I think this deserves – requires – broader input, considering reader needs, encyclopedic purpose, editorial community strife levels, etc. I think matters like this also very directly relate to the resistance against including infoboxes in entire categories of biographical articles, but I'm not going to leave pointers to this RfC at every wikiproject on the system; VPPOL exists for a reason. PS: If anyone really wants to, the places to look for any previous RfCs or other discussions on this parameter would be the archives of this page, of Template talk:Infobox person, Template talk:Infobox, Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, and Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) (all of which have already been notified of the current discussion, and the similar one on the |ethnicity= parameter.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for / against

  • @Curly Turkey: Because of broken indenting (please fix it, per WP:LISTGAP), it's not clear to whom your comment is addressed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Too nuanced to be covered by a single infobox parameter. Of course it can (and should) be extensively discussed and explained in a good biographical article (where relevant) but it isn't necessarily helpful in an infobox. --Jayron32 02:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many things which are "[not] necessarily helpful" in some cases; we don't use that as a reason for preventing them in all cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue is not "should religion ever be mentioned". It's whether the infobox is the appropriate place to mention it. I posit it is not, largely because the infobox does not allow for nuanced explanation or discussion of what is often a complex issue. The article text is a fine place to discuss religion. This is not a refusal to include text about religion in articles. It's a note that the infobox is usually not the place to do so. --Jayron32 01:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it is controversial enough to deserve discussion if it is notable. If it isn't notable, then like sexual orientation and the other elements not included in infoboxes for the same reason, it becomes trivia. There are some cases where religious affiliation might be important but not notable for the individual, such as with British politicians in the 16th-19th centuries, but in those cases too where it is relevant it can be explicitly discussed in the article. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, with clarification. We should not avoid things simply because they are contentious. We should avoid things that are unjustifiably contentious—bikeshed, essentially. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or Oppose) We say where people were born, we may as well at least suggest where they go when they die. If there's contention about a certain person, hammer it out on the talk page, and leave blank till there's a certain solution. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, March 24, 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment: There is a world of difference between where someone was born, which is a physical, geographical, verifiable fact, and what they say about what they believe will happen to them after they die, which is an unverifiable matter of pure speculation and personal belief. Hence the explanation above about nuance, which is putting it rather generously. (Unless you are just trolling us with the above, in which case well done and never mind.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a matter of faith. Unerifiable, but gets many through the days. I don't believe in trolls, myself, or many other myths, but if someone else does, that's a matter of (eternal?) life and death to them. Noting who subscribes to which distinguishes them, and distinguishing someone is a good step toward defining them. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, March 24, 2016 (UTC)
      • Straw man. This is not |belief in afterlife=. This is about which religion a person follows, while alive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe in reward and punishment, you'll try to live the righteous life. Or at least ask forgiveness when you don't. Two sides of the same coin. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:09, March 24, 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removal under situations matching an argument I've made WRT military service: if its inclusion in the main body would lead a reasonable person to ask, "Why is this here?", it should not be in the infobox. 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 03:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. Religion should be allowed in an infobox only when the subject's religion can be demonstrated to play a key or defining rôle in the person's biography—such as with religious leaders, missionaries, or whatever—and then only under the condition that it can be simply and clearly defined and is uncontentious. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. We don't need to fill in every single infobox parameter for every person. If the information is not directly relevant, it shouldn't be there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support. Infoboxes need to be kept to a brief succinct summary. The main body is the place for a detailed discussion, particularly of any controversial matters. "known for" and "occupation" are available if religion is a key identifier, otherwise keep it out. Besides which, those people for whom religion is a key factor often have occupations which clearly imply the fact: Pope, Archbishop, Dalai Lama, Mullah, Rabbi and so forth. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No; we only have infoboxes for some people for whom religion is a key factor: those you list are only for clergy, not laity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • This discussion is about {{infobox person}}, not any others. Pretty obviously "occupation=recognised religious leader" is going to imply clergy, in a Christian context at least. If you re-read my comment you will note that (1) I also mentioned the "known for" parameter which is appropriate for the likes of Richard Dawkins (for example - let's not reopen the whole atheism/religion debate here) and (2) "and so forth" includes those whose occupation is specifically religious but who are not part of a formal clergy. If a person is not a professional religious and is not especially known for a religious stance mention it in the article but not in the infobox. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. While the religion parameter may be relevant for those known primarily for their religion (e.g. priests and other clergy); or those who publicly and strongly self identify as adherents of a religion; the many debates about using this parameter when this is not the case is a serious problem. Therefore in my view, the benefits of this parameter for a relatively small set of articles do not weigh against the problems caused by over-user of it. I support removal. Arnoutf (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose removal. I am consistently baffled by this approach. Yes, there are some pages where this field is contentious, but this is outweighed by the vast majority where it is not, especially in historical cases. Of course there are cases where "it's complicated" is the best answer we can give, and obviously in those cases the field isn't appropriate; in others, consensus may determine that it's best left blank, and that's fine too. But in many, many articles (again especially in historical cases), it is a simple, uncontroversial field, like all the others. I do not see this as equivalent to sexual orientation or ethnicity (which I agree have no place in infoboxes - for what it's worth, I'd be targeting nationality as the most useless one still there); religion has a far lower incidence of being controversial than either of those do, and is rarely anything like as ambiguous. I am particularly unconvinced by the argument that it should be removed since being there at all encourages people to fill it regardless. I've seen very few infoboxes with all 100-odd parameters filled in, but I guess, for the 0.1% of the time someone tries it, I guess we should thin the herd - I mean, really, what kind of reasoning is that? I see, quite frankly, an overreaction here - an understandable one since I'm sure these are tedious and frustrating disagreements, but that shouldn't mean that the 99.9% of cases where this field is uncontroversial, useful and relevant should be ignored. For what it's worth, I think the current documentation needs rewording - "include only if relevant" is absurdly non-specific and, in my view, pointless, since "relevant" is virtually impossible to define in the majority of cases (I mean, is birthplace "relevant"? Is family?). A better instruction would be "include only if verifiable and uncontroversial", which I think covers the bases. Frickeg (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just suggest, Frickeg, that we should extend WP:BLPCAT, WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:NONDEF to cover the infobox |religion= field? I believe they already do, and they make clear (unless I have misunderstood) that use of the |religion= field is restricted to cases where the subject's religious belief is a defining characteristic of their public notability. In short, their religious beliefs must be why they are notable. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with you that they already do (although, again, in my opinion they are unnecessarily narrow), but disagree that it then follows that religion must be the reason they are notable. In fact, WP:NONDEF makes the difference between "definingness" and notability quite clear. Frickeg (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Xenophrenic: You have left out a few words of WP:BLPCAT. The full sentence in question is Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. Note that it says "public life or notability". --Scott Davis Talk 01:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't leave any words out. In fact, I didn't quote it; I paraphrased the three policies, and I believe I did so accurately. And Frickeg, you are, of course, welcome to disagree with Wikipedia. I think it would only be problematic if you attempted to edit against such "narrow" guidelines. As we all know, notability applies to determining if a subject should have a Wikipedia article. Once that article exists, it can be (and usually is) stuffed (including infoboxes) with all sorts of factoids of varying significance and relevance. EXCEPT when it comes to highlighting religion, ethnicity and sexuality in a Cat or IB; to do that, the information must be a defining characteristic of the subject's notability. Something that would exist in the WP:LEAD, no less. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. This appears to be the point at which we have different interpretations of the same words. I see nothing that says that a defining characteristic of the subject should not be reflected in an article's infobox, even if that characteristic is not part of their WP:NOTABILITY. If the article's prose clearly and unambiguously describes the subject's religion (with appropriate references), then I consider it likely to be appropriate (i.e. there could still be cases where it is not) to include this religion in the article's infobox. This is similar to many other aspects of a biography. Very few people are notable because of their date of birth, or the political parties they are or have been a member of, however these are commonly characteristics used in an infobox (and often a category) if they do not require qualifications or deeper explanations. --Scott Davis Talk 13:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Religion is a key defining character for a significant number of the people we write about, and is often closely related to the reason for their notability. To suggest that the many non-clergy in, for example, Category:Roman Catholic activists should not have their religion shown in their infobox beggars belief. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In these cases, their religion is generally evident from a glance at the article. Explicitly labeling the pope as Catholic is superfluous and looks weird, as if insulting the reader's intelligence.  Sandstein  12:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the proposal to "Permit inclusion in individual articles' infoboxes (through the template's ability to accept custom parameters)...": This is a horrible, horrible cludge, One of the purposes of infoboxes is to provide clear, structured information, with using unambiguous label:value pairs. We increasingly also have the option to transclude data from Wikidata, also. This suggestion is counter to both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If custom parameters were a kluge, we would not have them. label=value pairs are just a feature of the templating language. Unambiguous ones, in the sense you mean, are an edidor convenience not a requirement. Our generation of metadata is an afterthought, not a requirement. There are are theoretically 1,000+ pieces of metadata we could generate about a topic; our deciding not to do for one because it's nuanced and complicated has no implications for anything. Existence of a datum in Wikidata, some day, does not require that en.WP accept it; our sourcing, relevance, and other standards are local to this particular WMF project, and the relevance varies with context within that project. The likelihood that Category:Roman Catholic activists should have their religion shown in their infobox is why the proposal would permit exceptions. I think this covers all the points you raised.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Captain Obvious says; If we are going to have "religion: catholic" on all the articles about popes, shouldn't we have "defecates: in the woods" on most articles about bears? Except of course for polar bears. And perhaps a few popes I could name... --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In most cases, religion isn't such an important aspect of a person's biography that it warrants particular mention, and as with ethnicity, religion (which moreover can change over time) is often subject to such ambiguity that it is not suited to a one-word highlight in an infobox.  Sandstein  12:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal – Infoboxes oversimplify complicated field of religious identification, leave to problems of WP:NPOV and WP:V. It can be discussed in the body, but it does not deserve prime billing in the infobox, which is giving it WP:UNDUE weight. RGloucester — ☎ 13:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alter parameter name Rename the parameter to 'religion_if_has_wp_weight' as per what I said in the discussion below. We should be dealing with the root problem which is people not understanding the requirements for including information. Dmcq (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal – The proposal is a common sense approach. For those persons such as clergy, members of orders, or those whose notability is otherwise tied to their religion (for example, Category:Roman Catholic activists, the custom parameter option could still be there by consensus. For the vast majority of notable people, such information is irrelevant in addition to being ambiguous at best, and contentious without a justified balancing benefit at worst. TheBlinkster (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Religion is, as mentioned above, nuanced. While it may be important in some peoples life it is not in others, even those who are nominally religious. By labeling a person with religion= it is possible that we are bringing undue attention to this facet of their life. Beyond that, massive disruption caused by conflict on-wiki about this parameter causes more problems than the, very limited, benefit the information provides to our readers is worth. JbhTalk 14:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Far too much tenacious editing revolving around this field, showing it doesn't work readily. It's only a fact that can be sourced to self-statements, and that's difficult to get. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose — Religion is frequently an objective and relevant qualifier for people. Where it is (and only where it is), it belongs in the infobox. It makes little sense for Gerry Adams identified in the Infobox as Irish but not Catholic. One can think of dozens of historical situations (from post-Reconquista Spain to colonial Massachusetts to Nazi Germany) where religion is as consequential and salient to the lives of people as nationality. This is a blunt technical solution in response to a problem of overeager editing. Instead of an RfC turning off a feature, we should be extending the guideline at WP:MOS—"Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."—to the infobox.--Carwil (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal - as someone who edits mainly medieval people (and many ecclesiastical leaders at that) I'd even be in favor of removing it for many religious figures. We don't really need it for someone who is a bishop - it is redundant and often times leads to fringe pushing of terms not used in the sources (See "Chalcedonian Christianity" at Template talk:S-rel#Introduce two new parameters which has also sprawled out into the infoboxes for medieval bishops). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal Infoboxes are best used for simple statements of fact, and as there is a strong likelihood of "religion" etc. being a contentious claim in many cases, the prudent course is to remove that line but even if a minority of cases are not a problem the removal is still the correct course. Many editors, alas, think "if the line exists in the infobox, it should be filled in" and this has now been shown to have very bad results. This is not "turning off a feature," it is "removing a temptation to place contentious material into infoboxes." (Yes - I would support removal of all material which can be viewed as "not simple statements of fact" from infoboxes, if that is ever proposed. I have been berated in the past for asserting that labelling people by religion may end up implying "guilt by religion/ethnicity/association" but I retain that assertion here.) Collect (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. I have never understood the largely US view that everybody must have a religion. Even without the confusion of religion, ethnicity and culture inherent in, for example, "Jewish", in most cases it is completely irrelevant, on a par with their favourite pizza topping. I could be persuaded of the utility in the parameter remaining but with a strong documented comment that it is to be used solely in cases where religious activism is a prominent facet of the subject's public persona. Thus it would be removed for Bernie Sanders but not for Ted Cruz, for example. I will remain forever disappointed that "wingnut" is not an allowable option though. Guy (Help!) 17:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Demographics of atheism. 90% of Americans say they "believe in God?" whereas for the EU as a whole the figure is 51%. If you look at northwest Europe the it is roughly between 25% and 40%. Very, very simply put: for a US-centric view "Everyone has a religion - what's yours" in distinction to a NW EU-centric view "if you want to, that's up to you".
This fire-worshipping Canuck didn't mean to imply by his opposition that everybody must have a religion. Just that those who do should have a place in their infobox for it. If editors can't figure out how to figure out if somebody is religious, that's on them. I might just be hanging out at the wrong articles, but I've wasted far more time arguing with angry people over birthdates. The box is innocent! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, March 24, 2016 (UTC)
And no, we don't determine innocence through trial by fire. And we don't live in igloos, or say "aboot"... InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, March 24, 2016 (UTC)
You may not, but Ted Cruz does. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Went right over my head, and sent me on a wild goose chase, before I realized what you're talking aboot. Damn political games cost me 20 minutes (forever!), but at least I learned who he's fired, what he's under fire for, who says his pants are on fire and what Fire Island means in Washington (nothing!). Thanks for that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, March 25, 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removal as being an attractive nuisance which tempts editors who don't understand our policies or the nuances of religious beliefs to get into huge stupid fights over infobox entries. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal. Significant information for many people. SSTflyer 03:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal, Frickeg said much of what I am thinking. In addition, infobox standard parameters allow for standard formatting and in some cases microformats to assist catalog engines of various kinds, and correlating information via Wikidata. Infoboxes should contain more than just "what is relevant to the subject's notability" as some people above have said. It should contain verifiable facts about the subject that are likely to be attributes that a reader might look for without wanting to read the entire article. I have no problem with infoboxes that have |religion= having their documentation updated and standardised to be more explicit that |religion= and |denomination= are only filled in if they are described and referenced in the text, which is the standard required for many infobox parameters. There are many parameters of infoboxes that are used in hundreds of articles for information which is not relevant to their notability, but once their notability is established, are relevant to their description. Most people are notable for something they have done, yet the infobox on an article about them includes name, date of birth, age, nationality, a photo, spouse, ... which are not relevant to their notability, but are relevant to summarising the information about the notable person. --Scott Davis Talk 08:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shoesizes are not listed in infoboxes, and are, in the point of view of many Europeans, probably more relevant information than religion. So not all verifiable information about notable people that is relevant to summarise the information is provided. (note that the word relevant often, like here, is inherently subjective). Arnoutf (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Religious beliefs are not immutable, for many people they change over time. On a dating site it might work because the question then is current religious belief and the person who chooses the option is self declaring. But we are writing an encyclopaedia, and the infobox risks overly simplifying things. If we can reform the process so that religion is only used where relevant then I might be persuaded to change my view. ϢereSpielChequers 12:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. Due to the ongoing insistence of various editors in causing BLP headaches. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strongly Support removal. Support. I was going to join the dozens of commenters above and give my "Support", primarily because proper use of the field is a constant source of editorial disagreement and it is a time sink. Data entered into that field is mutable, often ambiguous, and rarely is an accurate summary of the subject's religious beliefs. After carefully reviewing the (only 6 at this time) "oppose" arguments in search of reasoning I may not have considered, I've changed my "Support" to "Very Strongly Support", because the arguments not only failed to convince, but often strengthened the case for abolishing the |religion= field. One opposing argument equates date of birth (an objective point of public record data) with religion (a subjective notion which can only be self-declared, and rarely accurately summarized in 1 or 2 words), and ignores the highlighting done by the neon-light billboard known as the Infobox. One argument was based on the woefully inaccurate assessment, "I do not see this as equivalent to sexual orientation or ethnicity (which I agree have no place in infoboxes...)"; when Wikipedia strongly disagrees (see WP:CATGRS, WP:OPENPARA). One argument bemoans by way of example, that "Category:Roman Catholic activists should not have their religion shown in their infobox beggars belief", yet when I examined the (all 200+) entries in that category, the vast majority aren't even using the |religion= field, and the minority that do are not using a standardized data format. One argument defeats itself by admitting that an infobox "is to provide clear, structured information, with using unambiguous label:value pairs", when entries in the |religion= field have frequently shown themselves to be anything but clear and unambiguous, and are often contentious. One argument suggests we can keep the |religion= field if we only extend "the guideline at WP:MOS—'Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.'—to the infobox", oblivious to the fact that we already have, and it has failed to solve the problem. (See WP:CATGRS, WP:BLPCAT.) Two other arguments were either clueless about the issue, or amounted to "me too". I'll continue to watch for just one substantive argument against removing the problematic field. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To address my "woefully inaccurate assessment" here, I think (as I said above) that you are conflating "definingness" and "notability", which are quite clearly different concepts. WP:OPENPARA does include religion with sexual orientation and ethnicity, but hardly equates them; moreover it is clearly phrased as a suggestion and not a hard-and-fast rule. As for WP:CATGRS, that is again a bit of a stretch - they are grouped together as "potentially controversial", not "aligned in all ways". I will say that my stance here probably derives quite heavily from the fact that I generally work with historical politicians, for whom religion is very commonly important (even in recent history) - sectarianism has often been a significant aspect of political history in Australia (and in other places of course - I mean, this is kind of important for, say, Irish politicians, no?). Especially in early cases, it is often just as important as the |political party= field. Whether I would argue for its inclusion in other infoboxes (say, of actors, or sportspeople) - I don't know, but I suspect I wouldn't. But this goes back to my original point - this parameter is useful a lot of the time, and should not be removed just because it is the source of what I am sure are annoying disagreements. Adapt the documentation if we must; don't burn the place down. Frickeg (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I have not conflated "definingness" and "notability", and WP:NONDEF should serve to clear away residual misunderstanding, if you feel the need. I mentioned that Wikipedia treats ethnicity, religious beliefs and sexuality with extra sensitivity and care, and with additional requirements and restrictions over all those other fields — especially in Categories and Infoboxes — and your most recent comment doesn't give me reason to change my assessment. Arguing with me that policy wording says "should" instead of "shall"; "generally" instead of "absolutely"; or is deemed a "guideline" instead of a "policy", etc., will be unpersuasive. The fact remains that religious beliefs of living persons are very frequently contentious, and therefore have higher sourcing requirements, and also more stringent requirements before they can be highlighted in an infobox or category. Religious beliefs are not well suited at all to being shoehorned into a template field or category that is designed for unambiguous, consistent, objective summaries of key facts, and that is why there is overwhelming support for removing the field. No one disagrees with you that religion can be important for historical politicians and others, and it certainly should be covered in the article. And no one is suggesting that we get rid of infoboxes specifically designed for people notable because of their religious beliefs. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Oppose removal: Improve the instruction set. In the cases where religion is an important part of someone's identity (for example Jimmy Carter) It should be made part of the metadata and used in an infobox, but also, there are many other parameters in {{Infobox person}} that aren't used in every article and are often irrelevant; height, weight, religion, political party, shoe size, etc. What I think is a better solution than removal is to refine the template page so that the "basic set" people can copy and paste is universailzed to only the most significant parameters (name, DOB, location, notabilit, etc.) , and all the other miscellaneous parameters that people use sometimes are in a "optional parameters to be used when appropriate". Montanabw(talk) 16:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have WP:CATGRS which tells us that Religion, Sexuality and Ethnicity are to be handled differently and with more sensitivity than "shoe size" or "birth place". We already have an "improved instruction set", WP:BLPCAT, WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:NONDEF, that instruct us how to handle such information, yet the |religion= field is still a perennial source of contention and misinformation. It is also anything but standardized, as one would expect from a metadata field. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Montanabw: Perhaps shoe size should be removed. People don't fight over, nor do they insist that it should be filled in for every infobox, so it hasn't been an issue. Some very vocal editors continue to insist that the "|religion=" parameter should be filled in even when the subject has no religion, or even if the religion is unknown. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to see a shoe size in an infobox (Ajaz Ahmed doesn't even have a box), but if there's a field and a good source, no. Not until a newer source shows there's been growth or shrinkage. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, March 25, 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support removal. The "Religion" parameter has been or is being used for entirely POV purposes in far far too many biographical articles. In most of the cases the article itself, and the person's life or lifestyle itself, does not even evidence the importance of religion or religious practice. Softlavender (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. Religion is much better addressed using full article prose where appropriate, rather than being oversimplified in infobox labels. In theory we should just have guideline that it's only included where it's specifically clear and noteworthy, but religion is an unusually messy matter and this field rises to the level of attractive nuisance. The religion field should remain in boxes for religious leaders, or other boxes explicitly relating to religion. Alsee (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - It would be fine if it were an available parameter that was used sparingly by intelligent editors. Unfortunately, there are too many POV-pushing motards out there... Carrite (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removalSome things can not or should not be summarised in an infobox. Keep them for simple uncontroversial information. AIRcorn (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal - Source of too much edit warring, even when sourced (Pattimura has been host of Muslim/Christian proponents edit warring a couple times, for instance). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose removal - Firstly, it is not right to remove a feature just because it causes of conflict or edit warring in articles (And is hard to maintain with). Even though religion is believed by many, as identified in the above comments, a harbinger of conflict, it is still an important indicator of many individuals' biography. People don't seem to be readily identifying the numerous wars and other events in history that were heavily influenced by religion, or more importantly the religious adherence of certain individuals. I believe that is extremely important for religion to be identified. Though it may not be required in the infobox in cases considered obvious, like Pope, not all religious leaders around the world are so well known, and it's inclusion in the infobox will only help an easier identification of the person. Also, to avoid any claims that I'm personally biased and a strong adherent of a religion, I'd like to state that I consider myself irreligious and an agnostic atheist. --Rollingcontributor (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal - apprising the reader of religion in the Infobox falls under the purview of our role in disseminating salient information. Disagreements over this should be discussed on individual article Talk pages. Bus stop (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The same as above.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's too hard to pin down in too many cases. Pope Francis: easy. Christopher Hitchens: not so easy. People who conflate race and religion, people who think atheism is a religion, people who think you're an x if you were ever an x and haven't formally been excommunicated, and the rest make everyone else's life miserable over this. In too many cases the question "Religion?" can't be answered in one or two words. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal Religion is sometimes relevant to a person and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes including the field in the infobox is both accurate & verified and provides appropriate weight. An example might be the newly elected Vice-president of Myanmar. To put this into context, his religion (christianity) is as significant as, say, the race of the current president of America, which is mentioned in the opening sentence of the wikipedia article. The same could be said for a former president of India who was a Muslim or the last Prime Minister of India who was Sikh. This should be enough for us to include it as a non-mandatory field in such a widely-used template. If, in a particular case, someone's religion is either contested, unverified or the inclusion would give undue weight to the fact, then this should be discussed on the individual page. I suggest a better solution would be to draft/expand a guidelines for use of this template that could clarify the test that should be applied on whether to include or not include for a particular individual. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. Summoned by bot. Glad to see this up for discussion. Yes, get rid of it. The religion parameter in the infobox has resulted in a lot of unnecessary and heated squabbling in Bernie Sanders, where there is much hairsplitting discussion over whether he is Jewish in a spiritual or ethnic sense or whatever. Yes, many of us have a fascination with religion and ethnicity. Where relevant, it can be discussed within the body of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coretheapple—You suggest removing the religion parameter from the Infobox at the Bernie Sanders article. Do you also suggest removing:
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from Mitt Romney,
Roman Catholicism from Rick Santorum,
Nondenominational Evangelicalism from Rick Perry,
United Methodism from Elizabeth Warren,
Presbyterianism from Rand Paul,
Roman Catholic from Joe Biden,
Nondenominational Christianity from Jim Webb,
Roman Catholicism from Chris Christie,
Episcopalianism from Jeb Bush,
Episcopalian from Lincoln Chafee,
Roman Catholicism from Marco Rubio,
Anglicanism from John Kasich,
Southern Baptist from Ted Cruz,
Seventh-day Adventist from Ben Carson,
Methodist from Hillary Clinton,
Presbyterianism from Donald Trump,
Roman Catholicism from Martin O'Malley,
Nondenominational Christianity from Carly Fiorina,
Methodism from Jim Gilmore,
Southern Baptist from Lindsey Graham,
Southern Baptist from Mike Huckabee,
Roman Catholicism from Bobby Jindal,
Roman Catholicism from George Pataki and
Nondenominational Evangelicalism from Scott Walker?
These are of course all people who are, or were, candidates in the United States presidential election, 2016. In each case their religion is found in the Infobox at their article. I think this information could be useful to some readers. I think it therefore should be in the Infobox where it is viewable at a glance. You refer to "hairsplitting" but I don't think such "hairsplitting" is substantially found at the reliable sources supporting this information. Bus stop (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually when I was summoned by bot to the RfC on the Sanders talk page I argued for inclusion of his religion in the infobox. At that time I observed an enormous amount of sniping over that on the talk page, which carried over to my talk page, and your response above proves my point. The religion of all these people can be discussed where appropriate in the article proper. Coretheapple (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal I was also summoned by a bot. Not only could this be covered in the main article body but often the need to simplify someone's religious beliefs down to one or a few words can be misleading. For instance, a person may live in a time and a place that by default requires them to identify as one religion but that person may not actually agree with the majority of the beliefs of that religion in practice.Louieoddie (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal not relevant to peoples' notability for the majority of biographies, and for those cases where it is a prominent aspect, it can easily be discussed in article body. I would personally get rid of the parameter entirely, but can understand including it in infobox for people whose religion is key to their notability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support removal. Unaware that this discussion was going on, I opened another thread today on a change made in one article, replacing "Catholic" in the article of a King of Navarre, with Chalcedonian Christianity, and, apparently, this has been done in articles such as the ones on Charlemagne, Clovis I, and others. --Maragm (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Removal - Infoboxes cannot be a complete summary of the article, only a short summary of the article. Experienced has shown that for this field, summarizing is not useful and can be contentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal - Makes sense to me. Reasons have already been pretty well presented (here and elsewhere, many times). Ultimately it's too often too complicated and too sensitive, and ultimately better handled in the text. Also support the inclusion of exceptions in this proposal, as there are certainly several articles for which local consensus can come to the conclusion that it's appropriate. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal - often too complicated to handle easily in limited space of infobox.--Staberinde (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not averse to the idea, especially due to the "template's ability to accept custom parameters" caveat. We certainly see dozens of cases daily on STiki and at AfC where IPs usually just add religions due to good faith edits. The problem arises from the fact that we have parameters which merit special treatment and more stringent referencing quotas, if you will; usually editors that are new and have no clue about infoboxes or verifiability do not know assume the onus is on them to establish fact, not to mention read template documentation. I don't have any ideas as to how this underlying problem could be solved, but if removing the religion parameter from easy manipulation provides some sort of respite, I'd like to see how that works. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal - if religion is especially notable to a subject it'll be covered in the article: but just as nom said race and sexuality aren't covered so religion shouldn't be either: just as other supporters state religion can be very nuanced. WP:LAMEish edit wars over the parameter would hopefully end under this proposal. NottNott talk|contrib 13:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It creates machine readable data about a relationship to a group. Other onthologies include ways to relate a person to a group, e.g. schema.org/Person includes affiliation and memberOf. The more that is removed the less useful the data model becomes. The premises against are based on percieved or potential misuse which to me seems like a problem with the editor and not the model. Moreover, the category religion is not an artifical type but a mapable reltionship to categories which represent worldviews. It is also a metric since "Religious Organizations" have a NAICS code 81311 which can be placed into the naics field in the schema.org ontology which is sponsored by Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Yandex. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think from some of the comments above there is clearly consensus that when a person is part of the organization of a religious group (such as priests and ministers), that specialized infoboxes for members of these religious fields should still clearly indicate the religious group they follow/serve/work for. This would readily address the schema aspect and the ideas around NAICS codes for religious organization. But your average person, those concepts don't make the same type of sense, since most people do not have the deep involvement with the organization of the religious group. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: that is part of my point: relegating the relationship to a specialized infobox excludes that relationship from the majority of people articles unless they, in effect, pass the qualification/restriction of a specialized infobox. It is more open to not restrict that relationship. Your other point, i.e. "do not have the deep involvement", is a different type of thing. The religion field is for establishing that a relationship exists between the subject of the article and the thing named in the field (organization, group, religion, etc.) – it does not define the quality of that relationship. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call for snow close

Call for snow close by any uninvolved editor per WP:SNOW. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussions

Related:

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved inserted question out of proposal text into discussion area.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All this removal of things - infoboxes will start removing date of birth soon at this rate and pictures will be removed because they are not the definitive picture of the person or show them at the wrong age or something like that. The basic problem is that people are putting in things which aren't really relevant and for some things we really require that it have some weight. Isn't what's really necessary to rename the parameter from'religion' where people think it is okay to just find it out, or even feel obliged to find it out, and stick it in, to some name like 'religion_if_has_wp_weight' so people think for a moment if the religion is actually something people associated with the person as part of their interest? We should be concentrating on the actual problem not on removing things because clueless people might misuse them. Dmcq (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a slippery slope fallacy and reductio ad absurdum. The removal of one thing from infoboxes (or even 17 things) would not mean "infoboxes will start removing date of birth soon". What's the difference between changing it to a parameter name no one can remember, and just removing it and allowing it to be done as a custom parameter (i.e. another string that people are not liable to memorize). In both cases, it requiers the exact same thing: Slowing down long enough to go to the template documentation page and figure out the name of the parameter to add, just enough time to think critically. The proposals are essentially equivalent.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What this discussion is highlighting is the need for clearer guidance on filling in infoboxes... to help editors figure out when it is appropriate to include a given infobox parameter... and when it isn't appropriate. It's not a one-size-fits-all thing. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No doubt we do need that, but it seems unlikely to solve the problem. The majority of edits by this point are made by non-regulars (or I saw stats to that effect no long ago; even if it's not quite so, a large percentage of them are). They have no idea what template documentation is. They see |religion= empty in an article, so they fill it and move on. Their next stop is an article where the entire parameter is missing (because consensus discussions the editor doesn't know about remove it). So they add it and fill it, and move on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. Just rename the parameter so they do think and that will probably reduce to problem to something fairly minor whilst letting people put it in where appropriate. No great fuss or fanfare. No need for editors to do anything special just because of clueless drive-bys. As to the slippery slope business we already have arguments around the place about removing any montage of few people illustrating something like a religion or a people and RfC's like this one and the one below. Yes it is a slippery slope and we're flies in the inside of a pitcher plant heading down to the digestive juices below. The first aim should be to develop an encyclopaedia, so we should try and allow things and just put in as little as necessary to stop things going wrong. Dmcq (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except there's a lot of concern that usually including religion labels is not encyclopedic. I'm content to let the RfC play out. You and I have both made our views clear already. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is supposed to also be about comments and you have gone straight to wanting a particular solution without the discussion about alternatives. Even the descriptive text for 'religion' has not been phrased in a way that would stop people just sticking them in if they can find a citation. Your solution is about making it technically difficult for some editors who might be interested in religious matters whilst leaving it as something that can be cut and pasted by a technically competent drive by editor from another article without them seeing any real warning. It should be straightforward wher eit is appropriate whilst deterring people just sticking it in because they can figure out the religion. Dmcq (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I think I've said my piece already, and am more interested in letting the discussion run, without trying to dominate it, that's all. I don't have a "campaign" to manage here. I've asked a question, and the community can ponder and answer it. This question was inspired by the earlier-started RfC on ethnicity in biographical infoboxes (a discussion that is now immediately below this one, having been moved here from its off-topic original location on the talk page of the main infobox meta-template). I honestly don't follow your objection, anyway. The idea here is that we should not have religion in infoboxes at all, except where there's a consensus at a specific article's talk page to go out of our way to insert that information there because we're certain that it's correct, that it's relevant, that it's simple and non-controversial enough to be such a one-word label, and that there's proper sourcing for it. Based on experience it seems unlikely that most cases meet all of those conditions, and as a result, strife erupts constantly over the inclusion of |religion=Something here, on page after page. Better to just leave it out, in my view, and the RfC asks the broader editorial community if it collectively agrees.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish—I can't agree that "most cases" fail to "meet all of those conditions". I think that the single point of disagreement I have with this RfC concerns "simple and non-controversial". I think that in fact religion is often "simple and non-controversial". Controversy can also be generated by those wishing to remove religion from an Infobox. It is easy to veer into original research and argue that such-and-such a factor calls into question the religion of an individual. That is a problem found on individual article Talk pages. I don't believe one should attempt to solve this particular problem by making this problem project-wide. This particular problem would be alleviated by applying the policy of no original research to the discussions that arise over this question. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the solution, then the problem wouldn't exist, would it? It's not like NOR is a new policy, or we didn't know how to use it until this afternoon. PS: It's not necessary to diff people's quotes from the same conversation. If they can't remember what they said within the last day or so, they're probably not competent to be working on the project.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ , 02:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem—let me un-diff the quotes. Bus stop (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't one of WP:NOR but of WP:WEIGHT. That's why the current description of the parameter is wrong. It can be quite easy to check the religion - and that's all the description currently implies one should do - but really very often it just isn't something important enough to stick into the artricle.. We don't often for instance put in what hair color of height people are and reli=gion is quite often just an incidental foist on people by their parents rather than anything relevant to anything of interest about them. Dmcq (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcq—you say "We don't often for instance put in what hair color of height people are and reli=gion is quite often just an incidental foist on people by their parents rather than anything relevant to anything of interest about them." That is an argument for the omission of religion from the Infobox at an individual article. It is not a general argument for omitting religion from Infoboxes at all articles. You are correct that WP:WEIGHT could be applicable as a part of an argument for the omission of religion at an individual article. Some editors are presenting that argument when they use the word "highlighting". If I can paraphrase such editors, they are arguing that the placement of religion in the Infobox "highlights" that person's religion. This is debatable, and I am going to refrain from entering into that debate. Suffice to say that is an argument concerning WP:WEIGHT, but that argument is not applicable to all articles. Certainly religion, according to reliable sources, in some instances, is justifiably noted. And this is not just in the case of for instance clergy. Reliable sources sometimes draw connections between for instance behavior displayed and religious affinities, whether incidentally foisted on the individual or not. The point that I wish to make is that this debate properly takes place at the individual article. We should not be deciding here that in all cases religion in the Infobox constitutes undue weight, because sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was commenting on where you said NOR is what disputes on this should be decided on by saying the problem was weight rather than OR. I never said that religion was always inappropriate for inclusion or should only be put in for clergy or anything else you said. Now if you are saying that verifiability is enough and weight doesn't matter then you would be disagreeing with me. Dmcq (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are most of the offending edits coming from people who are using the visual editor? If so, the proposal from User:Dmcq appears to be an effective way of addressing this, which I would support. AndrewRT(Talk) 19:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware of any connection. To clarify, this isn't about "offending edits", but whether it makes sense in very many cases to religiously label bio subjects in their infoboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question for clarification of scope Is this conversation about all biographical infoboxes as the section header says, or specifically about {{Infobox person}} as proposed in the question? A significant difference in the current layout is that {{infobox person}} generally highlights the personal information before the positional information, whereas {{infobox officeholder}} tends to put official positions first and personal information further down the infobox. I wonder if the supporters' "highlighting" concerns can be addressed by changing the layout of infobox person to emphasise positional over personal biographical information. --Scott Davis Talk 08:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was intended to apply generally, including to derivatives of infobox person, like infobox officeholder; the "straw the broke the camel's back" case was Bernie Sanders. The RfC is phrased such that, if the result were to deprecate the parameter generally, a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS could override this, e.g. for clergy. In theory it could also override this for politicians, though that would defeat the raison d'etre of the RfC to begin with. It would definitely be okay, and expected, to override it on a case-by-case baais, e.g. for a candidate whose platform and part of their notability is the advancement of a particular religion and/or denomination's views. Anyway, I don't think "highlighting it less" by moving it further down the infobox would have any effect on the analysis of whether the alleged information belongs in the infobox, since it mostly has to do with relevance, oversimplification, PoV and/or original research (e.g. particular interpretations – one might be "proud to be Jewish" or "a supporter of traditional Christian values" without either being a statement of religious faith or affiliation at all), etc. Probably the least important concern is where it is in the infobox. The presence in it at all, as a one-word label with no context or nuance, is the issue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are something like 300,000 Wikipedia articles with infoboxes about people (person, officeholder etc). The |religion= parameter seems to be contentious in under 300 of them, less than 0.1%, which says to me that in the vast majority of cases, it is handled well under existing policies on the talk pages of individual articles, and does not require heavy-handed mass removal. At most, the "short form" blank template examples could be modified to not show an empty religion field suggesting that it would normally be filled. --Scott Davis Talk 01:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is a potential outcome. The ethnicity RfC below could go the same way. I don't see it as the optimal outcome. I think it comes down to this: We can go out of our way to pigeonhole other people with over-simplistic labels, or we can avoid doing this and focus on why they're actually notable, on their own terms. I've noticed that articles that take the latter approach tend to be more encyclopedic and well written, while the former tend to have more problems and attract more PoV disputation. This isn't simply a difference in Wikipedian approaches either, but a far more general one. In simple terms, it's far more important to understand what the 44th president of the United States has accomplished (and failed to accomplish) that what the first black president of the US has. JFK's accomplishments and foibles had nothing all, really, to do with nominally being a Catholic. PS: I disagree with your stats. Not all of the 300K bio infoboxes use the religion parameter, and the number of active vociferous disputes is not a measure of the number of problems, just of the ones that people are presently pissed off about enough to be fighting over. A lot of the religion (and etnicity) labels on minor-notables' bios are problematic, but not many editors care to argue about these things on the article of a chemist from Zagreb, an actor who last did a movie in 1937, or a billiards player who retired in 1986.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ , 02:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: My stats are fine. I agree that not all of the bio infoboxes display religion, and that is the point. If an article does not describe the religion of the subject in the text, it shouldn't be in the infobox either, and that is generally not contentious. There are a few articles that seem to be generating a lot of heat when some editors interpret the sources to be present but ambiguous or conflicting. Taking away a standard way of summarising religious affiliation for the thousands of articles where it is not contentious is a rather excessive sledgehammer to crack the walnut of a few contentious articles, and a few with inadequate referencing, for which other policies already apply. --Scott Davis Talk 00:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. There are all sorts of things that could be in infoboxes which are not, and the world has failed to fall apart. Nothing is set in stone on WP. The parameters in this pair of RfCs have proven problematic. If they were removed, either an increase in calm and productivity will result, the opposite will, or no noticeable change will occur. If it turned out that consensus changed again after the removal of one or both of them, re-proposing their addition would probably be a simple matter, especially if the past was learned from and they were implemented in a more restricted way. If they were not missed, then it was the right decision. If dispute levels remained constant, then the parameters evidently wouldn't matter much either way, and would probably be put back on the basis that they're harmless.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ , 02:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your RfC explicitly refers to {{Infobox person}}, and no other infobox, And since you refuse to tell us where you have posted notices about it, it's reasonable to assume that that does not include the talk pages of the other infoboxes to which you now attempt to extend it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you go ahead and do it, then? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 
(edit conflict) And see WP:IDHT. You've already been told twice now, Andy, that I explicitly provided a list of where I posted, in the procedural note, and that if you doubt its accuracy you can check my contribs list for the same time frame to see if I'm lying. Waving your junk in my face is not going to impel me to re-list them for you redundantly. No one is obligated to deliver notices of RfCs to other pages at all, especially when posted here, WP's centralized forum for such things. And no one can (or should) stop you from posting more notices, if you think the first round of them wasn't sufficient. Have at it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be decided project-wide how religion is handled in Infoboxes because this is fairly standard biographical material which when well-sourced is well-suited to Infobox presentation. Bus stop (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm particularly concerned that this discussion at the bottom seems to be the only discussion about the parameter, there was no discussion as far as I can see before the RfC was raised about alternative ways of solving the problem. Having more people jump in saying oppose or support does not fix that. I think at best this RfC should be treated as a poll of how people feel about the religion parameter. Dmcq (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a reasonable outcome. Not all RfCs are to decide on immediate courses of action. They were not actually intended for that at all when instituted, but actually meant to be polls of editorial opinion as an aid to consensus formation, not the be-all and end-all of it. It isn't actually true, however, this is hasn't been discussed at length before. It comes up again and again; this is just the first time I know of that it's been centralized in a place frequented by a broad sample of content editors, not just editors focused on a paricular dispute locus, or those most interested in template coding. The ability to add features to a software development project leading to implementation of ones "just because we can" that are not really needed, or even counter-productive, has been well-documented for decades, and even has a funny name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes

There is overwhelming negative response to this suggestion. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moved from Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Ethnicity in Infoboxes
 – Was off-topic at original location.
See also previous discussions of ethnicity at Template_talk:Infobox_person [3].


A suggestion at the neverending debate at Talk:Bernie Sanders has been to include an |ethnicity= field in the infobox to get around questions about Sanders' religiousness while still making it clear he's a Jew.

The question: Should Wikipedia allow ethnicity to be marked in Infoboxes? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (ethnicity)

  • Strongest possible oppose. "|ethnicity=" in Infoboxes is one box of worms I don't think we should ever be opening on Wikipedia, and I would support an explicit ban on such a field. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in general, but allowing for rare exceptions. I hesitate to make a universal ban, as I expect there are corner cases where it would be appropriate (but I haven't thought of one yet). On the specifics: |ethnicity=secular Jew was there for a while, which seemed very strange to have put a religious epithet under "ethnicity" given the ongoing argument about whether it would be permitted in the religion field! I also note that the USA census is very deliberate in making people members of black, Hispanic, Asian race or ethnicity, but does not recognise Jewish, so under US law, Sanders is probably "White, not Hispanic or Latino". --Scott Davis Talk 06:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And definitions of ethnicities/races/etc vary from country to country—an oft-cited countrast is the difference between how the US defines "black" (especially in light of the one-drop rule) and they way "black" is defined in Brazil (where siblings with the same parents can be classified as different races). Wikipedia draws a very international audience, and race/ethnicity/etc are extremely complicated and contentious concepts—an Infobox is a horribly inappropriate place to put this stuff. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the "one drop rule", my wife might be American - one of her great-great grandfathers was born in Kansas Territory (of English parents). I thought Sir Isaac Isaacs (a Jewish former Governor-General of Australia) might have turned out to be one of my exceptions, but he "...insisted that Judaism was a religious identity and not a national or ethnic one." --Scott Davis Talk 10:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose. If you include the field some editors will feel they ought to fill it. On those very rare occasions when it is relevant to the main article it should be handled there in a sensitive and culturally aware manner. Curly Turkey's comments about definitions is important. Indeed I'd go slightly further; "ethnicity" itself is open to to interpretation: is it race, culture or geographical? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Such a parameter would get extremely messy and it really isn't something that should feature in a summary about a person (which is what an infobox basically is). If ethnicity needs to be discussed, it should be in the main part of the article. As above, its worth noting that the American fixation on ethnicity is not reflected in most of the rest of the world. There are other places where it is seen as important (for example an Arab Israeli politician), but to include an ethnicity/race parameter in the infobox suggests that it should be filled even when it isn't particularly relevant or important. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 11:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - In pluralistic societies such as the United States, this would, at the best, result in a proliferation of RFCs, about the ethnicity of each biography, and, at worst, result in edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it. Kill it with fire. Ethnicity is innately too complex for an infobox entry, and should be covered in the body of the article if we cover it at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all of the above! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Even if the person self-identifies with an ethnic group, there is no good reason to add it unless the ethnicity is an absolutely necessary part of the person's notability, and likely not even then in most cases. And, for good measure, I find this to be true for "religion," "ancestry" and "nationality" as well where there is the remotest possibility of the factoid being abused or misconstrued. Also for anything factoid not intrinsically needed to understand who the person is (or was). As for the "one drop rule" I have gotten into trouble for my strongly held opinion that "guilt by association," "identification by association" and "identification by ancestry" are, frankly, intrinsically evil. And I so state here as well. Collect (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If reliable sources clearly establish a person's ethnicity, and establish that it is a key feature describing that person, then I see no problem with it in the infobox. Though I'm not quite sure how to find the exact number, it seems that "ethnicity" is currently listed in thousands of infoboxes at Wikipedia, so you're talking about quite a huge deletion here. If you're concerned about abuse of the field, you could require self-identification, but to completely ban mention of ethnicity is very silly. Being part of a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture is suitable for an infobox, and that's what ethnicity means. It also strikes me as odd that User:Guy Macon now wants to "kill it with fire" but publicly thanked me for this edit. Also, the Sanders controversy is not over yet, and it seems inappropriate to use this forum to advance a position in that content dispute. By the way, race and ethnicity are different concepts, and just because the US Census Bureau may occasionally prefer to use ethnicity as a euphemism for race does not make it so; laws often include "definition" sections that define words in weird ways for purposes of that law only.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the other opposes said it well, especially Guy Macon. Talk about it in the early life section with supporting links is much better imo Govindaharihari (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons already well explained above. We should also remove from {{Infobox person}} some other troll/flamer/pov-warrior/BLP-vandal magnets of a similar nature, like the |religion= one. It causes nothing but constant strife and disruption. For the few infoboxes that really need it, e.g. for religious leaders, it can be re-added as a custom parameter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please post an RfC about removing the religion parameter and allowing it as a custom parameter. I think that this is a good idea that will receive widespread support. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely all that is needed is a hidden note to accompany the religion parameter stating that it should only be filled if there is a reliable source? Removing it completely (and only being able to add it if you are "in the know") means that it wouldn't be available to new and/or inexperienced editors. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 10:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with SMcCandlish's suggestion regarding the |religion= field. I think Gaia Octavia Agrippa meant to ask, "Surely all that is needed is a hidden note to accompany the religion parameter stating that it should only be filled if there is a public self-identification with the religious belief made in direct speech by the article subject, and only if that religious belief is a defining factor in the subject's public notability? (As presently required by WP:CAT/R, WP:BLPCAT, and WP:NONDEF.) Xenophrenic (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Summoned by bot. No, and I don't understand the obsession some editors have with ethnicity. I do feel that Sanders' religion should be noted, however, and have said as much. Coretheapple (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because defining ethnicity is difficult and often impossible, so inevitably this will lead to edit wars and inaccurate information. Ethnicity needs to be described with a story of the person's life, not a single classification.Waters.Justin (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. It's a tough call, because we do regularly include information on ethnicity in any number of biographic articles (BLP or otherwise), as informed by reliable sourcing. However, I tend to agree that the acrimony that would result from making this field available would vastly outweigh any benefit to that small handful of articles in which it could be used without contention. As others have noted, ethnicity is a deeply complex, often non-empirical, loaded topic informed by variant social context. By and large, it's simply better, when these sensitive and contentious topics are raised, to do so in the more flexible circumstance of the prose of main article body, where proper context and attribution can be made. Further, I agree that if the field becomes available, there are some editors with strong views in this area who will simply view it as an open invitation to impose or contest these classification with every fiber of their editorial identity. The net value of adding this parameter, in terms of clear presentation for our readers and the time and energy of our contributors, make too strong an argument for avoiding this strategy. Snow let's rap 04:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can you clarify please what precisely is being proposed and what it would mean? From what I can see, Bernie Sanders uses Template:Infobox officeholder. That template includes optional fields for citizenship, nationality and religion but not race/ethnicity. Would that then be applied to other infobox templates (presumably not this parent template?) AndrewRT(Talk) 18:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - completely lost meaning in modern times of mobility, where a person can claim 2n ethhic descents. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I take it that this would apply to all the infoboxes listed at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes#Person. Is that correct? DES (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Too simplistic, hard to verify, and not worth the trouble. Leave it for body. RGloucester — ☎ 01:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose inclusion under situations matching an argument I've made WRT military service: if its inclusion in the main body would lead a reasonable person to ask, "Why is this here?", it should not be in the infobox. 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 03:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ethnicity to continue to be marked in Infoboxes. All that's required here is a reliable source (maybe even the subject of an article themselves) stating what someone's ethnic background is in the first place. Guy1890 (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Ethnicity can be discussed in the article body or even occasionally in the lede, but its inclusion in infoboxes, which by necessity oversimply, is contentious, needlessly so. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose inclusion. Ethnicity is difficult to define, often irrelevant, and always inappropriate for the infobox. Frickeg (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. To the extent it is even a meaningful characteristic of a person, ethnicity is often a matter of discussion and nuance that can't be conveyed in a one-word infobox entry.  Sandstein  12:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice: All comments above this line were originally posted in the Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Ethnicity in Infoboxes location, and can be found in the edit history there.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — As others have noted, defining an ethnicity is way beyond the scope of a couple of words in an infobox, and is often irrelevant to the subject matter of the article. But even beyond that, it's clear from this discussion and others that there is no consensus on what "ethnicity" even encompasses (i.e. race? religion? ancestral nationalities? a person's self-identification with any of the preceding?) The "nationality" parameter seems sufficient for the infobox level, and anything relevant requiring discussion beyond that belongs in the article body. TheBlinkster (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object to framing of the RfC This is not a neutrally-worded RfC, as evidenced by the single example chosen. It asks "Should Wikipedia allow ethnicity to be marked in Infoboxes?", when there are infoboxes which already use |ethnicity=. No analysis of the current use is provided, and no link given to the discussion where it was decided to add that parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There wasn't any such discussion to link to [4]. There is no requirement that an RfC provide any analysis, just that it be neutrally worded (and we mostly tolerate it when it's not, anyway, though I don't think that's a good idea). What neutrality problem is there? The question asked is "The question: Should Wikipedia allow ethnicity to be marked in Infoboxes?" There's a pointer to an example discussion, and it's clear that both the poster of the RfC and everyone in the linked discussion understand that the parameter already exists. It's difficult to see what the nature of your objection is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose We cannot even agree on how ethnicity should be defined (there are some people on Wikipedia who confuse ethnicity with outdated racial theories). So we cannot simplify it to the level that it can be used in infoboxes without creating endless POV debates. Arnoutf (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unlikely religion which is based on how a person believes they are, you can't change your ethnicity - that's something innate. It may be difficult to source at times, but this is far different from religion. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I simply can not think of a good reason for this and the reasons against are innumerable. At best this is a kluge for the Sanders infobox issue that will lead to massive disruption on every BLP where nationalist POV pushers have an interest. It is just another non-nuanced point to battle over and provides little, if any, added value to our readers. JbhTalk 15:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons given above. However, for some people ethnicity is a defining characteristic: WP has a massive category tree under Category:People by ethnicity. Logically, if we reject ethnicity in infoboxes, shouldn't we also delete all those categeories? — Stanning (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Ethnicity is frequently an objective and relevant qualifier for people. Where it is (and only where it is), it belongs in the infobox. In some cases (apartheid South Africa, Spanish colonial America, the Jim Crow-era South), it's a legally defined status that determines the rights of people involved. It's somewhat obtuse that Hannah Arendt infobox has the nationality of "German" but not the ethnicity of Jewish, a characteristic she described as "an indispensable datum of my life." Yes, it's subject to complications. But these complications are not best addressed by proposing to ban it from infoboxes, but rather by elaborating and enforcing policy and guidelines, such as MOS:BLPLEAD. To address concerns, I propose that the rules stated at Wikipedia:CAT/EGRS be applied to infoboxes.--Carwil (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. The parameter is there for a reason. It should not be removed just because some folks may want to remove or exclude Bernie Sanders' ethnicity from his infobox (which is an individual case and should be decided by poll on that individual article alone). Also, there are plenty of European sub-ethnicities that are not reflected in a person's nationality -- Kurdish, and so on, and to say nothing of people's nationality/ethnicity when they are accidentally born in another country. This is an important parameter that is especially important in areas outside of the U.S.; do not let Wikipedia's WP:SYSTEMICBIAS exclude this notable and important parameter. Softlavender (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In the rare cases where it is relevant, ethnicity is much better dealt with in article prose rather than simplified infobox labeling. Alsee (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some things can not be summarised in a one word. AIRcorn (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is useful to readers.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate the parameter entirely I fully echo what Guy Macon, Collect, Scott Davis, SMcCandlish, and others have stated on why it shouldn't be used. It is rarely (if ever) relevant to peoples' notability, and can easily be discussed within article body instead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Oh dear. It does not make sense, in 2016, to start trying to summarize people's ethnicity in a word or two. Just finished reading through some arguments at the religion parameter RfC, which of course is very similar to this one. This seems like it may solve a few problems but cause a whole lot more. Unlike religion, I don't think this is one that even needs exceptions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It is not needed, there are no ongoing problems that genuinely need this as a solution, and to have it would cause an endless supply of more problems. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as per all above. All I see is WP:LAME edit wars firing up over such a subjective parameter, ethnicity is far better covered in article prose as others have said. We're really just inventing a problem when it isn't truthfully needed - it won't improve readers' experiences but certainly causes headaches for editors. NottNott talk|contrib 13:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Unlike religion, where a person's self-identification can generally handle many problematic cases, ethnicity has no absolute definition and no reasonable method for handling issues. For example, what's the proper ethnicity for a son of an African man and an American woman? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these discussions (Religion in biographical infoboxes[5] and Ethnicity in infoboxes[6]) are silly because they are compartmentalizing related topics. Ethnicity and religion can be related. Our aim is to inform the reader. The Infobox is useful to the reader. We should be intelligently using the Infobox. In for instance the Bernie Sanders Infobox we could complete the religion field with "Jewish, mostly nonobservant". This covers all bases. By that I mean that it reflects reliable sources. That benefits the reader. The bottom-line-question we should be asking ourselves is how best to reflect sources. What are the salient points expressed by sources, and how best can we sum them up? Bus stop (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment relates to many of the reasons of the opposing editors. How can we guarantee that the infobox is used intelligently, and how can we ensure that if ethnicity is not included if it is only mentioned in a byline (i.e. is not a salient point in the important sources). The problem with the inclusion in the infobox as is, is that it invites people to fill in the blank (which is non-intelligent) by whatever trivial source they find (which makes it non-salient in many cases).
If we can come up with an bot that can recognize and revert non-intelligent, trivia based inclusions for the infobox I would not oppose this parameter. But since it is highly unlikely such a bot can be created, I stick with opposing this field (which in my opinion is the lesser of two evils). Arnoutf (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity as "nationality"

Moved from Template talk:Infobox § Question about nationality/citizenship
 – Was off-topic in original location.

A number of different infoboxes include |nationality=, |citizenship=, or both. Should such fields use a demonym (eg. Citizenship: American) or the country name itself (eg. Citizenship: United States)? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that citizenship should list the countries that a person is a citizen of and nationality would be their identity. The two might differ slightly, eg someone identifying as Scottish (nationality) but having UK citizenship. There's also people who hold multiple citizenships but identify with only one nationality; eg, Gérard Depardieu is French but holds citizenship of both France and Russia. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Citizenship should be the default. Nationality only comes in to play if it is more complicated and as an addition. Like the examples above or Curly's Canada one. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 01:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer "|citizenship=United States" to "|nationality=American". "Nationality" is often used to mean something different from citizenship, and the adjectives can have different meanings as well. Think of how many ways "American" and "Spanish" can be taken—"citizen of the United States" and "citizen of Spain" can really only mean one thing. As "nationality" can be ambiguous, perhaps it should be avoided. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note It appears some editors are now using "Jewish" as a "Nationality" (sometimes hyphenated with other nationalities). Seems this is an interesting way of avoiding the (what I aver is) clear consensus above that "ethnicity" is improper as a general rule. Opinions? Collect (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewish" as a nationality?! What drives this obsession?! Hyphenated nationalities should be disallowed—how many Canadians would thus become "English-Scottish-Irish-French-Ukrainian Canadian"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below, about the decision to introduce an |ethnicity= parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMO we have to insist on the preferential use the unambiguous term "citizenship", disallow the sneaky usage of "nationality" for "ethnicity", and use "nationality" only when it has a specific legal meaning, e.g wor persons with nationality but no citizenship, etc. And these rules must be clearly described in templaate doc. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keep in mind the entire concept of "legal citizenship" is largely a modern one; people in 8th-century Venice, and millions even in the early 20th century in many places, didn't have passports and ID papers. The change you want to make could only logically apply for modern subjects in most cases.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert on sight the usage of "Jewish" [or anything similar] in these fields, as counter-factual, as WP:POV (whether anti-semitic, or "claim this subject as One Of Us"), and as WP:GAMING of the still-open RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice: All comments in the thread above this line were originally posted in the Template talk:Infobox#Question about nationality/citizenships location, and can be found in the edit history there.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • REVERT ON SIGHT ERROR to have religion in the Nationality field. Search results:
    • insource:"nationality = Jewish" 45 hits.
    • insource:"nationality = Jew" 12 hits.
    • insource:"nationality = Buddhist" 3 hits.
    • insource:"nationality = Christian" 1 hit.
    • insource:"nationality = Hindu" 1 hit.
    • insource:"nationality = Islam" 1 hit.
    • No hits on Agnostic, Amish, Atheism/Atheist, Buddhism, Catholic, Confucianism/Confucianist, Druid/Druidry, Gnostic, Hasidic, Hinduism/Hinduist, Jainism/Jainist, Mormon, Muslim, Quaker, Scienology/Scienologist, Secular/Secularist, Shia, Sikh/Sikhism/Sikhist, Sufi/Sufism, Sunni/Sunnism, Tao/Taoism/Taoist, Wicca/Wiccan.
I am cleaning them all up. I invite cleanup on anything I missed. Notably, virtually all hits are Jewish. Sigh. Alsee (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you note "Jewish-American" and such variants in that search? Collect (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, and yep, the search didn't care what came after it. Lots of Jewish-Country came up. The search wouldn't have found anything like nationality = Russian Jew. Someone who knows REGEX better might be able to do a more thorough search. Alsee (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found tons more when looking for "nationality jewish" in articles - almost all of which found infoboxes with that sort of usage - I think there is a major long-term problem lurking, alas. Collect (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's already someone (Toddy1) reverting[7] on this issue, with the very strange argument that a country's internal census-by-religion somehow trumps the standard English language and international meaning of Nationality. Alsee (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alsee should read Race and ethnicity in censuses.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aha - so the US census has "nationality = Jewish-American" as a possible entry? Blacks should therefore have the nationality "Black-American" and Episcopalians should be listed "nationality = Episcopalian-American"? We can have "India-England-UK" as a "nationality? Sorry - looks like that sort of opinion fails to even reach "minority viewpoint status" here. Collect (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in Race and ethnicity in censuses that indicates that the US or any othet country has at any time listed "Jewish" or any religion or ethnicity as a nationality. Not everything listed on a census form is a nationality, after all. DES (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See [8] and "Nationality = Jew" which one editor appears to think is a proper "nationality". I am awaiting the categorization of "Muslim-Americans" as a nationality any moment now. <g> Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Nationality field, not an ethnicity field. And the lead sentence of Race and ethnicity in censuses gives a pretty good explanation of why internal census results are useless internationally. Different countries may preform an internal census according to random and incompatible selection&definition of religion and ethnicity, and which are wholly unrelated to nationality. A Russian who happens to be Jewish is still a Russian-National. Furthermore the Russian/Soviet section of that page makes it blindingly clear that those internal census results are chaotically changing and unusable. 194 options in 1926 census, 97 in 1939, 126 in 1959, 122 in 1970, 123 in 1979, 128 in 1989, 192 in 2002. HELL NO, we are not going to insert those utterly random categories into countless biographies, and we're sure as hell not going to re-write them every few years whenever some bureaucrat decides to add or remove a hundred categories.
Hey! I've got a Pointy idea! Lets agree that the nationalities for Maria Mazina and Sergey Sharikov are "Jew" not "Russian". Then let's go to the Olympics-2000 article and strip those Fencing Gold medal wins off of the national Russian totals. Hmmm, interesting... it seems that Jews from Eastern European countries have been winning a disproportionately high percentage of Olympics medals. Those national Olympic-medal totals are going to go down quite a bit. Alsee (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nationality isn't ethnicity. No one's nationality is "Jew", although in modern times it may be Israel, and in ancient times (before and shortlky after the turn of the common era) it may be Judea. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles

What guidance should WP:Disambiguation give for article titles that do not result in a conflict between two or more articles, but which are not inherently unambiguous to a general audience?

Background:

  • This content regarding titles that inherently lack precision was added to WP:DAB on June 6, 2015, by SMcCandlish, consisting of a paragraph under "Is there a Primary Topic?", an example under "Deciding to disambiguate", and a summary sentence in the lead paragraph: "Disambiguation may also be applied to a title that inherently lacks precision and would be likely to confuse readers if it is not clarified, even it does not presently result in a titling conflict between two or more articles." SMcCandlish posted a rationale of this addition to the talk page, which received no replies.
  • On July 16, 2015, Red Slash removed the main paragraph, with the comment "How does this have anything at all to do with disambiguation?". A talk page discussion between Red Slash and Francis Schonken discussed this removal.
  • On July 28, 2015, Red Slash removed the example under "Deciding to disambiguate". On August 6, this example was restored by SMcCandlish and again removed by Red Slash, then, on August 7, restored by SMCandlish, removed by Francis Schonken, again restored by SMcCandlish, and again removed by Francis Schonken. An RFC on the content from that time doesn't appear to have been officially closed, but by my count has three editors in support of the principle of "disambiguation for clarification" and three opposed.
  • In February 2016, the lead sentence (the only remaining portion of the content originally added June 6) was removed by Born2cycle, restored by by SMcCandlish, removed by BD2412, restored by Dicklyon, removed by Calidum, restored by Tony1, removed by Calidum, restored by Tony1, removed by Calidum, and restored by Bagumba who locked the page for edit warring. A talk page discussion did not result in any clear consensus.
  • On March 23, the lead sentence was removed by Dohn joe, restored by In ictu oculi, removed by Dohn joe, and restored by SMcCandlish. A further talk page discussion ensued.
  • With respect to the participants on both sides, the discussion of the proposed guideline so far has generated more heat than light. I'm hoping a straightforward and (pardon the pun) unambiguous RFC can resolve the issue somewhat permanently and put an end to the disruptions to WP:D. Two of the talk page discussions have proposed taking this to RFC, but don't seem to have been able to reach agreement even on what an RFC should look like. As I have not, to my recollection, participated in the dispute, I have done my best to frame it neutrally and been so bold as to just go ahead and post it here. Please let me know if I have missed anything salient in the above summary.--Trystan (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responses (disambiguation)

Parenthetical notes in an article title (unless the parenthetical notes are part of the article title) should only be used to distinguish between multiple articles with the same title. I can't think of a time when I would add a parenthetical dab to a title of an article when it didn't belong, merely to clarify something. Perhaps if some examples of contentious article titles were posted, we could see the nature of the dispute here. --Jayron32 03:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No guidance. This kind of guidance is a can of worms - loads of unintended consequences. We should not "pre-disambiguate" an article because "it sounds too generic" or "that doesn't sound like it is an X" or "that sounds too similar to X". If there is an existing encyclopedic topic that shares a name with another topic, there is potential ambiguity, and we refer to WP:DAB's guidance. If there's only one topic, then WP:DAB does not come into the equation. The examples given to illustrate the contested guidance show that. "Flemish giant" - with no context - sounds like it might be a tall person from Antwerp. While this may be true, tall people from Flanders is not an encyclopedic topic. So instead, Flemish giant redirects to Flemish Giant rabbit - a domestic rabbit breed.

    But that's the point - "Flemish giant" redirects to "Flemish Giant rabbit". Why? Because there is no other encyclopedic topic to disambiguate from. Conversely, Algerian Arab is a dab page, while Algerian Arab sheep is an article about sheep. So in this case, "sheep" serves to disambiguate, while "rabbit" does not. If you prefer "Flemish Giant rabbit" for WP:CONSISTENCY purpose or something else, that's fine, but it's not actually disambiguating anything.

    So - there is actually nothing unusual here. Regular WP:DAB questions should be asked of any title. Those questions should not include "Doesn't that kind of sound like something else?" Dohn joe (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If you prefer 'Flemish Giant rabbit' for WP:CONSISTENCY purpose or something else, that's fine, but it's not actually disambiguating anything." OK, by your narrow definition, this is not actually disambiguating anything, in that there is no confusion what article you want if you say Flemish giant. Note, however, that by a broader definition, quite often that extra word that is "not necessary" does a lot of good in terms of improving precision and reducing ambiguity. Did you look at the railway station example I added? The point is that that minimalist titling that some espouse leaves things looking imprecise, and we have many examples of consensus naming conventions that don't interpret precision and ambiguity in this narrow B2C way. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Projects are allowed to develop naming conventions. They usually are exceptions to the precision/ambiguity criterion of WP:AT - see WP:USPLACE, WP:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies), etc., referenced at WP:PRECISION. So, yes, consistency, or naturalness or some other consideration can override precision. But it should remain an exception that doesn't swallow the rule. Dohn joe (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure projects don't change, supercede, or make exceptions to policy and guidelines. And WP:PRECISION isn't overridden by having the article title "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". People seem to ignore that provision, and treat precision as a negative when they could use a shorter title without a collision. That's the B2C algorithm, and it's nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never seen Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) until today. I can't believe it exists. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your singular personal belief is not required to make things exists. The world, and the things in it, exist outside of your consciousness. --Jayron32 05:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the world outside the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) basement has moved strongly against this pointless "disambiguation"—WProjects like WP:CANADA and WP:INDIA dropped this silliness years ago. So, what were you saying about "singular personal beliefs"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, it still exists. Notice how you had a feeling or an emotion (you thought it "silly") and nothing changed. The world works like that: reality continues to keep being real despite you having feelings about it. It's odd you haven't learned that. --Jayron32 16:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to have a point. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What Dohn joe is missing is that Algerian Arab was disambiguated to Algerian Arab sheep on the basis of it simply being naturally ambiguous. It only became a disambiguation page later. His 'So in this case, "sheep" serves to disambiguate, while "rabbit" does not' point is completely invalid. He doesn't appear to understand what "ambiguous" and "disambiguate" means. Neither do many of the other correspondents here. Fortunately, RM respondents often do. That's why Argentine Criollo, Welsh Black, British White, Florida White, and many other such names were disambiguated to more WP:PRECISE titles, despite no other article directly vying with them for the shorter ones.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No guidance. WP:DAB was created to address a very specific situation – what to do when two or more articles share the same name. Everything else is covered by WP:AT and its spin-offs. For example, I'd consider Flemish Giant to be an inappropriate title (or at least less appropriate than Flemish Giant rabbit) because it fails WP:AT's "precision" criterion ("The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject..."). No extra guidance needs to be added to allow for titles like Flemish Giant rabbit, and any such guidance would be outside the scope of WP:DAB. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain the guidance – and this RfC is non-neutral and grossly misleading due to major errors of omission: No policy rationale presented for removal, only false claims that consensus wasn't established. The material describes actual practice at WP:RM for 15 years, and actual requirements of various naming conventions (e.g. WP:USPLACE). Attempts to delete it are based on lack of basic understanding of the word "disambiguation" (it means "to resolve ambiguity"), patently false claims that previous discussion did not happen and that consensus wasn't established, and a minority, extremist view that WP:CONCISE trumps all other article naming criteria in every case, no matter what, despite the clear wording of the WP:AT policy. The RfC falsely paints a picture of a slow editwar. Actual review of the history shows two back-to-back consensus discussions, two different attempts to by parties that the RfC falsely paints as opponents to integrate the material into WP:AT policy itself, normal WP:BRD process and revision, 8 months of acceptance, the two drive-by attempts at deletion predicated on false claims and unawareness of previous discussion, which were reverted by multiple parties. See #Discussion (disambiguation) for details. This RfC, whatever its intent, would reverse much longer-standing portions of multiple stable naming conventions like USPLACE and WP:USSTATION, just for starters, yet none of the affected pages were notified. Three quarters of a year of stability is plenty evidence of consensus, especially after three consensus discussions refined the material to its present state.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recognize that disambiguation is more than one thing. Keep the guidance, as it deters those who try to use the omission (of recognition of this common practice of making titles non minimally short in order to make them more precise and less ambiguous) to drive toward a precision-is-bad minimality. 2620:0:1000:110A:71BE:75D9:749D:32C9 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That IP is me. Sorry for forgetting to log in, and expressing myself so poorly. The point is that disambiguation of this "unnecessary" sort is used, widely, in wikipedia, and is even encouraged in various naming guidelines and conventions, for the purpose of supporting the WP:CRITERIA or precision and recognizability. Those who argue against this use of disambiguation seem to want to take a very narrow view of what ambiguty is, and put zero value on precision. This approach is epitomized by the decade-long campaign of B2C for "title stability", described by him at User:Born2cycle#A_goal:_naming_stability_at_Wikipedia, where he espouses moving toward a system of unambiguous rules, essentially removing from editors the discretion to make titles more precise or less ambiguous than the shortest possible title that does not have a name conflict. To support this approach he has spent years rewording the recognizability, precision, naturalness, and consistency criteria to essentially minimize their value, leaving concisenss as the main criterion. I find this approach abhorrent. Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is ambiguity, and there is ambiguity that is relevant to WP:DISAMBIGUATION. They are not the same. Don't conflate them. The only ambiguity that has ever been relevant to WP:DISAMBIGUATION is when two are more titles on WP share the exact same WP:COMMONNAME. --В²C ☎ 21:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See dictionary material I helpfully provided for you. What you just posted doesn't even parse. Disambiguation is removal of ambiguity. All ambiguity is relevant to disambiguation, and all disambiguation is relevant to ambiguity. Disambiguation doesn't magically refer to "only the ambiguity I want it to mean". You don't get to make up your own version of the language on the fly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No guidance from disambiguation should be created for article titles generally. If someone is looking for information about the Flemish Goose, which is very large and sometimes referred to as the Flemish Giant, then it is good to have the search box suggesting "Flemish Giant rabbit" as the only possibility before the person clicks and starts reading and is disappointed. Ditto for the Flemish Giant cross-stitch pattern. A recent example of a too-short page title that I came across was Hybrid name, which I moved to Hybrid name (botany) because on the talk page are such comments as "Why is this article written entirely from the point of view of plants, as if hybrid animals don't exist? We need to redress the balance." and the page itself had a tag "The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. Please improve the article or discuss the issue. (May 2010)". The situation has clearly confused a few readers because although hybrid animals such as Ligers do exist, there is no special way of naming them, whereas for plants there is a detailed set of rules for creating scientific names. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain guidance as it stands - This isn't even a properly presented RfC. What is the problem with the current guidelines and why does it need to be re-evaluated per WP:PG? All I'm seeing here is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT or something for the DRN (which would be rejected). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No guidance. I feel that this sort of guidance should be integrated into WP:AT itself, if ever. I've been here on Wikipedia for a long time and I've always understood the WP:DAB guideline to only apply whenever two or more articles have ambiguous titles, and not merely because a non-ambiguous title sounds ambiguous. So such additional guidance that touches singularly on precision should be placed into WP:AT, where a more holistic look at the 5 criteria of good article titles should lead to better titles. Otherwise, the guidance placed on WP:DAB will seek to emphasize precision over the other criteria. —seav (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Injection of some facts and reliable sources, since at least half the respondents here don't seem to understand what "disambiguate" means. It is not a made-up Wikipedian neologism, for "resolve a title conflict between two articles" (resolving such conflicts is simply the most common use of disambiguation on WP; it has never, in the entire history of the project, been the only one).
    1. Definition of disambiguate at Dictionary.com (Random House Dictionary [US] and Collins English Dictionary [UK]): RH: "to remove the ambiguity from; make unambiguous: In order to disambiguate the sentence 'She lectured on the famous passenger ship,' you'll have to write either 'lectured on board' or 'lectured about.'"; Collins: "to make (an ambiguous expression) unambiguous".[9]
      Definition of ambiguous: RH: "1. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer; 2. Linguistics. (of an expression) exhibiting constructional homonymity; having two or more structural descriptions; 3. of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character; 4. lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct: an ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future." Collins: "1. lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct; 2. difficult to understand or classify; obscure."[10]
    2. Definition of disambiguate at OxfordDictionaries.com [UK & US]: "Remove uncertainty of meaning from (an ambiguous sentence, phrase, or other linguistic unit): 'word senses can be disambiguated by examining the context' ".[11][12]
      Definition of ambiguous: "(Of language) open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning: 'the question is rather ambiguous', 'ambiguous phrases' ".[13][14]; "Not clear or decided".[15]. Note that the definition some people want to apply here as if it were the only one does not appear to be a language-related one: "Unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made: 'this whole society is morally ambiguous', 'the election result was ambiguous' ".[16]
    3. Definition of disambiguate at Dictionary.Cambridge.org [UK & US]: "specialized to show the ​differences between two or more ​meanings ​clearly: Good ​dictionary ​definitions disambiguate between ​similar ​meanings."[17]
      Definition of ambiguous: "having or ​expressing more than one ​possible ​meaning, sometimes ​intentionally: The movie's ending is ambiguous. ... His ​reply to my ​question was ​somewhat ambiguous. The ​wording of the ​agreement is ambiguous. The ​government has been ambiguous on this ​issue."[18] "having more than one possible ​meaning, and therefore likely to cause confusion: Many ​companies are ​appealing against the ​ruling, because the ​wording is ambiguous."[19]: in "Business" tab 
    4. Definition of disambiguate at Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary [US]: "to establish a single semantic or grammatical interpretation for".[20]
      Definition of ambiguous: "able to be understood in more than one way : having more than one possible meaning; not expressed or understood clearly; doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness: eyes of an ambiguous color; capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways: an ambiguous smile; an ambiguous term; a deliberately ambiguous reply.[21] "Not expressed or understood clearly".[22]: Learner's Dictionary subsite 
Shall we continue?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all know what "disambiguation" means in the real world – however, I think it's one of those words, like "notability", that has acquired a very specific meaning in the world of Wikipedia. In the four years I've been here, I've only ever seen the word used in relation to article-title conflicts. WP:DAB, since its inception, has only ever been about article-title conflicts, and it's the broadening of the scope of this guideline that I object to. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REALWORLD. The nature of the discussion has made it very, very clear that "we" did not all know what disambiguation means at all. But let's back up and just look at WP:POLICY: "Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-agreed practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense. ... Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." There are entire naming convention guidelines that depend on this kind of precision disambiguation, and it is regularly performed at WP:RM; the "occasional exceptions [that] may apply" are so common they've often become codified as guidelines themselves! Ergo it has consensus, and it should be documented properly. It does not matter that the current draft of the WP:Disambiguation page only addresses title-collision disambiguation. It is not the only kind of disambiguation we do, and it never has been. We can wikilawyer for another year about what that draft says, and it will never change the facts about what Wikipedia actually does. There is no conflict of any kind between the wording you want to remove and actual WP practice, but there would be in removing it. By contrast, changing the WP:Notability guideline to use a broader definition of the word notable would instantly and radically conflict with actual WP practice. Notability here is a precise term of art with a particular definition laid out in detail at the top of that guideline; it's a criterion that causes results (e.g. article deletion). Disambiguation is simply a procedure, an action taken as a result of the application of other criteria, including precision and recognizability, after balancing their interaction with others, like conciseness. It's an apples and oranges comparison, except in that WP:Notability presently directly reflects WP consensus and best practices, and WP:Disambiguation did not until this was fixed 8 months ago; before then, and without the sentence you want to remove for no clearly articulated reason, the page reflects only some of standard WP disambiguation operating procedures, and pretends the others don't exist. All because people don't know what the damned word means. You're trying to disprove my point that some people are mistakenly treating "disambiguation" as some kind of special Wikipedianism, by trying to show that it's some kind of special Wikipedianism.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because some people sometimes justify title choices based on real world disambiguation does not mean WP:DISAMBIGUATION is, should be, or ever was about real world disambiguation. Whether real world disambiguation should continue to be tolerated as a factor to consider in title selection is within the domain of WP:AT, not WP:D. --В²C ☎ 21:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're just repeating yourself, I will as well: See dictionary material I helpfully provided for you. What you just posted doesn't even parse. Disambiguation is removal of ambiguity. All ambiguity is relevant to disambiguation, and all disambiguation is relevant to ambiguity. Disambiguation doesn't magically refer to "only the ambiguity I want it to mean". You don't get to make up your own version of the language on the fly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DISAMBIGUATION deals with how to resolve ambiguities among two or more titles of actual WP articles. When no actual ambiguities exist between actual WP article titles, then there is no need for WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Period. #NotThatDifficult. --В²C ☎ 20:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whose intention are you referring to? What about all the cases where it is used to reduce ambiguity and improve precision? Are you saying just define those as something different, not disambiguation? Or you're saying those are bad and we need to stop making titles more precise than the shortest possible title? Dicklyon (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon, I can't speak for Calidum, but conflating the WP and general meanings of "ambiguous" and "disambiguation" is not helpful, so I'll be precise about which one I mean. The point is that the merits of whether general ambiguity is a factor to consider when there is no actual WP ambiguity with another title is not a matter of WP:DISAMBIGUATION, but something for WP:AT to address. Perhaps it can be justified by WP:PRECISION, as you say. But unless there is an actual url conflict to resolve between two or more article titles, it's not a WP:DISAMBIGUATION situation, period. That's the point here, and therefore the wording in question has no place on WP:DISAMBIGUATION. --В²C ☎ 00:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying. But in the past you and others have pointed to this page to justify making titles less precise and more ambiguous. So having this page acknowledge that removing ambiguity has roles other than preventing article name collisions seems like a good thing that should stay. Dicklyon (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: Just asking for my own education – could you point me to an example of a discussion in which WP:DAB was cited as a justification for making an article title less precise? DoctorKubla (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one that opened just today: Talk:...Re_(film)#Requested_move_01_April_2016. It doesn't explicitly cite WP:DAB but relies on the theory that only name collisions matter and that ambiguity is otherwise fine. As you can see, editors other than Dohn joe are pretty much unanimous against this interpretation; maybe some of the other "no guidance" voices here will join him? Dicklyon (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another open case, not explicitly citing WP:DAB, is Talk:Ron_Walsh_(footballer)#Requested_move_13_March_2016; many primarytopic grabs are of this form; treat the disambiguating information as negative and argue that name collision can be avoided in other ways, so we must move to the more ambiguous title. Dicklyon (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a classic example from way back in 2008, with multiple editors on each side of the question: Talk:Bronson_Avenue_(Ottawa)#Requested_move; illustrating that editors often want to reduce ambiguity (disambiguate) even when there are not title collisions, and other editors point here and argue that's not OK per disambiguation guidelines. This one went on at great length and closed as "no consensus", meaning that the attempt to make the titles less precise and more ambiguous by citing "Unnecessary disambiguation" failed in that multiple-RM case. Dicklyon (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop circumventing policy: Keep what became somewhat stable and take this up through the proper venue for making changes to policies and guidelines, that only in part includes this discussion. A problem I have is that there are errors in thinking and procedure.
Exemptions like boldly making changes that could be accepted by a broad community consensus, seems to only make confusion and possible perennial discussions on what should be more stable far more often than not. Changing policies and/or guidelines should not be done by edit warring, the apparent practice of BRD, or these "local" only discussions to definitively solve such local editing solutions concerning policies and guidelines. A continued practice of by-passing a procedural policy (protection for any long accepted broad community consensus) does not make it proper, makes a laughing stock of our policies and guidelines, and allows said policies and guidelines to be changed on a whim.
I am in support of retaining what is on the page because we can not right an error by a wrong procedure any more than we should attempt to edit war to create policy. I think this should be closed as consensus to move forward and follow procedure (to be brought up on the talk page), or an admin could move the discussion to the talk page so it can be listed everywhere relevant. The end result would mean leaving things as they are and settling it the right way. This would also reassert that policy should be followed. I would think, from this point, that only Wikilawyers would oppose following policy. Otr500 (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Otr500, I, for one, cannot understand what you're saying, specifically what reasoning justifies "retaining what is on the page". What is on the page is the result of edit warring; the point of this discussion is to decide in a more thoughtful process whether it should be retained or not. This discussion has been publicized at the talk page; previous discussions there did not lead to consensus, so someone thought maybe we could have a more productive discussion here. Again, I don't understand what exactly you're saying, much less why. Please clarify. --В²C ☎ 00:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ B2C: Read the procedural policy. Because you can't here me (I don't understand "exactly" what you are saying) does not mean that others can't. I thought listing in two places, in bold, would be pretty clear as I didn't use any big words. Keep seemed pretty clear and retaining what is on the page equally understandable so I will assume (and hope) a miscommunication would be in the reasoning.
    • "If consensus for broad community support has not developed after a reasonable time period, the proposal is considered failed. If consensus is neutral or unclear on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal has likewise failed.". A discussion to a conclusion, that might involve an admin, would normally stop edit warring. Editors that find themselves in such a position, especially seasoned editors here to build a good encyclopedia, should self include Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Other_revert_rules to include 1RR (one-revert rule) or 0RR (zero-revert rule) and not use reverts to include team reverts to push a POV. I could expect this on articles but policies and guidelines should enjoy more prudence.
"Stop" means exactly what it states and I can provide a definition if that is unclear. Any "edit warring" began at a point and I saw nobody argue with what @SMcCandlish: stated that there were 8 months of stability. Maybe you missed that or didn't understand, and IF I missed something specifically please point it out instead of not understanding everything. I am stating: There should be no edit warring on policy changes or attempted changes. Clear on that? If not you might consider reading the procedural policy again.
To argue that disambiguation has only one meaning does not make it true and that it should stand alone is not policy. Policies should not conflict nor should guidelines conflict with policy. IF WP:AT needs to mention disambiguation and point to a guideline, to make better article titles, then what in the world is the problem with that. What we have is editors that sometimes have a POV and sometimes promote it the tenth degree and Wikipedia enhancement be damned.
Support for the below mentioned Flemish Giant over Flemish Giant rabbit has proven in many article discussions to be against consensus. To support Flemish Giant (rabbit) has also be shown to largely be against consensus preferring natural over parenthetical disambiguation. To try to ride a dead horse that disambiguation means only one thing just does not make it fact.
There is no need to change Belgian Hare but Blanc de Bouscat would be vague to the average reader. It has become practice (like it or not) to clarify titles like this by adding the breed and without the parenthetical disambiguation. Brackets around a word is not the only determining factor of disambiguation. Die-hard Britannica fans do not like this but Wikipedia does not have to be a sister site. Discussions have shown consensus has moved away from Britannica style parenthetical disambiguation, preferring to add the breed as part of the title, and to naturally disambiguate to prevent ambiguity and have consistency within articles, when we are deciding on an article title. Maybe we should examine the little active but relevant essay Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles? This does not mean that such practice of using parenthetical disambiguation is bad, or against policy, but used as an exception.
Sometimes accepted practice (by consensus) already shows the direction of community consensus, without trying to confuse the issue. Adding clarity so that new articles can follow accepted practice without large debates is not a bad thing. This prevents (as mentioned in above discussions) titles like Beveren (rabbit) (unassessed article with no talk page activity at this time), British Lop (stub class that is not a rabbit but a pig), English Lop (that is a rabbit and not a pig), French Lop (that is a rabbit), from Lop Nur, that is not a rabbit or sheep but a lake, and so articles like Welsh Mountain sheep are more clear (less vague) and differentiate (take away ambiguity that is still to disambiguate) a mountain from sheep.
Real world versus Wikipedia world: It doesn't matter because we are not talking animated or other world characters versus real world people. We are talking clarity versus unclear, precise versus concise, parenthetical disambiguation verses natural disambiguation. Leaning towards concise verses leaning towards precision. This should not be a battle. We use balance to name articles, as well as source and community consensus, and sometimes leaning one way or the other is not a bad thing, actually justifiable, and adding article consistency among titles helps and carries broad community consensus. Disambiguation, in the form of adding a word for clarity, does not mean we are promoting precision over concise. It means we are adding some precision so that the precise title name is more clear and less vague, and follows other like article naming. It does not matter how much we wikiLawyer this it is still disambiguation but I am sure we must because that is what lawyers have to do right?
Mr. B2C stated he can not understand what I am saying, and I hope not because of any personal inabilities. This discussion should be on the relevant talk page. The procedural policy, and I will type slow for clarity, states "Authors can request early-stage feedback at Wikipedia's village pump for idea incubation and from any relevant WikiProjects. Amendments to a proposal can be discussed on its talk page.". "start an RfC for your policy or guideline proposal in a new section on the talk page, and include the "rfc|policy" tag...". "The "proposed" template should be placed at the top of the proposed page; this tag will get the proposal properly categorized". These are ways to prevent edit warring and discussions from taking place, all over the place, as well as to ensure broad community consensus is followed, and so that changes made to policy by consensus is transparent, being on the relevant talk page. Listing a discussion here, as well as other relevant places, would be to point to a discussion on that talk page not have continued splintered discussions in many places.
Or; we can just make this a perennial discussion to be brought up over and over again. A lot of times this does not deter community practices as reflected by broad community consensus, no matter how much we discuss a supposed issue. Here is some fantastic reading: What to do if you see edit-warring behavior and How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars. That is why I stated that a discussion here is not a definitive solution but to gather consensus (not battle) that should be continued on the talk page to effect broad community consensus continuation or change. Otr500 (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To compress and get to what I think the gist is of Otr500's multi-paragraph, multi-indent-level post above, and cut through a lot of the other chatter here: Eight months ago, WP:DAB was updated to describe actual practice, which is what guidelines are form as a matter of WP:POLICY. There were multiple BRD discussions about the then-long wording. The language was refined, and a short version (the sentence at issue here) was retained. Two thirds of a year later, two editors (B2C and Dohn joe) attempted to delete it on the patently false basis that it had not been discussed. Not only are their facts wrong, they cannot even formulate a cogent reason why it should be removed, just hand-wave a lot, in ways that have confused a few other people into supporting removal of it from its present location, though plenty of others support its retention. Notably, many of those who don't want to keep it where it is right now think it should be moved into WP:AT policy instead. This was also discussed 8 months ago at WT:AT and the decision was to not merge it into AT policy. This is now stable guideline language. A proper closure analysis of this confused and confusing pseudo-RfC should conclude with no consensus to remove the material (since the arguments for keeping it are valid and those for removing it are not, ergo the original consensus to include the material has not changed), and no consensus to merge it into AT policy, because that idea has already been rejected, and no new rationale for why this should rise to policy level has been provided, so again consensus has not changed. There are thousands of things in various guidelines that are relevant to various policies but which remain in guidelines and are not merged into policies, because they are not policy material, but guideline material. This is not mystically different somehow. In absence of any showing that the material does not actually describe long-established WP:RM and disambiguation practice, which it clearly does, the sentence remains in the guideline. Suggesting that it can be removed when it was arrived at through multiple consensus discussions, now that a new discussion to possibly move it into policy fails to come to consensus for that idea, would be patent WP:GAMING. One could just as easily propose that, say, WP:Citing sources should be merged into WP:V policy, and then when that proposal failed to gain consensus, delete the guideline on citing sources! WP does not work that way. Nothing works that way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Disambiguation overreaches with respect to minimalist disambiguation, at the expense of the reader, at the expense of naming criteria "recognizability", "precision" and "consistency". If inclusion of a parenthetical term helps, it should be used, subject to balancing recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency, and other good things even if not documented. Parentheses should be avoided, but inclusion does not make WP:Disambiguation a trump card. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain guidance – A title like "Flemish Giant" benefits no one. Most importantly, it does not benefit the reader, because it does not clearly define the subject. Shorter titles are not always better. WP:AT does not suggest this, but certain editors continue to the push this notion to the detriment of our readers. It is important that the disambiguation policy does not result in an automatic removal of bits of titles that do not serve to disambiguate from other Wikipedia articles, but do serve to clearly define the topic of the article in line with WP:AT, as Mr Lyon suggested above. The guidance as it stands allows for this to be made clear. RGloucester — ☎ 02:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain the guidance. There has been a reluctance among some of the players to see disambiguation in terms of our readers. B2C's long campaign for a narrow algorithm-like solution was an utter disaster. Tony (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for those unaware of it, three times (at least) Born2cycle has agitated for concision-above-all-other-concerns changes to article titles policy and RM procedures, citing personal essays of his on the topic as if they were guidelines. In all three cases WP:MFD userspaced them as anti-policy nonsense [23], [24], [25].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Data point Life is too precious to read all the above, but I once was in an argument over Memorial Hall (Harvard University). This other editor said it should be simply Memorial Hall since, at that moment, no other Memorial Hall had an article -- and apparently guidelines supported that knuckleheaded approach. Anything that remedies that would be welcome. EEng 19:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of National Pension Scheme. (Surprise! It's specifically about India.) ╠╣uw [talk] 10:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain the guidance. I am also irked by the Memorial Hall (Harvard University) example provided by EEng and similar ones – articles about obscure things with common-sounding (i.e. wikt:ambiguous) names do benefit from some extra WP:PRECISION. Doing otherwise easily confuses the readers (as the context is often not enough to quickly conclude what the topic is, and matches displayed in the search box do not provide any hint about the topic) and editors (quite easy mislinking) alike. Of course, case-by-case examination is always welcome, but we do not apply WP:CONCISE at all costs. No such user (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain the guidance. It's reasonable to note that some titles may be ambiguous or likely to confuse a reader even if they don't exactly match any other titles, and I'm fine with having at least a modicum of text into the guideline to explain this. I understand that some prefer the term "disambiguation" to be defined more narrowly as just the mechanical process of distinguishing between otherwise identical Wikipedia titles, but I don't think that's particularly useful. There can be (and often is) a difference between what's merely technically ambiguous and what's actually ambiguous, and the latter can be a valid consideration when determining the best title for our readers. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (disambiguation)

  • More detailed background: Attempts to delete part of the guideline, which was established through standard consensus-building discussion and revision many months ago, are predicated on two obvious fallacies: 1) That "disambiguate" is a made-up Wikipedian neologism for "prevent article title collisions". Check any dictionary; it's a plain-English word meaning "to resolve ambiguity"; doing so to prevent title collisions is simply the most common reason we disambiguate and has never been the only one. 2) That WP:CONCISE is akin to a law, and that the most concise possible name must always be chosen no matter what. Actually read WP:AT policy – all of the WP:CRITERIA are considered, and balanced against each other; the overriding concern is not following any "rule" bureaucratically, but ensuring clarity for readers. The naming criteria "should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others."

    The previous debates about this guidance are misrepresented in the the summary in the RfC, which incorrectly paints it as a slow editwar instead of removal, discussion, refinement, acceptance, then much latter isolated attempts to delete it without a rationale. In the original discussions 8 months ago here and here, Red Slash tried to move it into policy itself at WP:AT (rejected), objections were raised about iit original length (it was shortened), and about particular examples it use (removed); the principal objector was Francis Schonken, on the basis of having made a proposal to rewrite AT in ways that would have integrated this and made various other changes (which did not achieve consensus at AT). After revision, the short version of this material was accepted in WP:Disambiguation without incident since that second discussion. This is standard WP:BRD operating procedure, and this revision and resolution process is how consensus is established. By August, the principal objector, Schonken, was removing attempts to reinserted expanded wording and examples [26] but retaining the agreed short version from prior discussions [27], which had already been accepted for two months. It remained uncontroverted for 6 more months, clearly long enough for consensus to be established, especially in a much-watchlisted guideline we use every single day.

    It was drive-by deleted in Feb. by Born2Cycle, with a bogus claim that discussion didn't happen and consensus was not been established [28]. This is is part of his years-long, tendentious campaign to promote WP:CONCISE as some kind of "super-criterion" that trumps all other concerns – which WP:MFD has rejected three times in a row: 1, 2, 3. The recent attempt by Dohn joe to delete material was predicated on his unawareness of the February discussion (which is mischaracterizing as being against inclusion when it was not) [29], his misunderstanding of previous discussions (see WT:Disambiguation#Restored content on precision cut from lead, which covers much of what I've outline here in more detail), and more false claims that consensus was not established.

    After 8 months of stability, the burden is on would-be deleters to demonstrate what the supposed problem is, and provide actual evidence that WP-wide consensus that such precision-and-recognizability disambiguations are permissible when necessary has somehow disappeared all of a sudden. This RfC, and two editors' PoV against this part of WP:DAB, would undo very long-standing naming conventions that call for this kind of precision-and-recognizability disambiguation, like WP:USPLACE and WP:USSTATION, and fly in the face of years of common sense decisions at RM, like the disambiguation of Algerian Arab (now a disambiguation page) to Algerian Arab sheep, and British White to British White cattle. Per WP:POLICY, the purpose of guidelines is to record actual community best practice, not try to force someone's made up idea about how things should be, like changing the meaning of English words, or preventing RM from doing what RM routinely does. Retaining this does the former, and removing it does the latter, both to pretend the word "disambiguation" doesn't mean what it means, and as to elevate concision above every other criterion, against the clear wording of policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments (since there seems to be confusion): Wait! You mean I just don't like it doesn't mean we can change things just because? How about used in conjunction with and while ignoring all rules.
We have many policies and guidelines and a single one can not be used in disregard of others. I was under the impression we can not ignore all rules, if it is against consensus, even if we don't like it, unless we can sneak it in under the radar. FYI -- we should not really (according to policy) attempt to make or change policy by using WP:BRD unless we "ignore" the policy on Proposals and Good practice for proposals. The first states: "Proposals for new guidelines and policies require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion to guideline or policy.". The second: "If consensus for broad community support has not developed after a reasonable time period, the proposal is considered failed. If consensus is neutral or unclear on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal has likewise failed.".
Further, the procedural policy explains the process in detail that is located in the second part. A request for comments here is only one part of that process and not a determining factor for an outcome. Some confusion at Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance#Policy discussions seems to be at odds with policy and may contribute to errors. Policy (Good practice for proposals) states the process for any proposed changes to policy:
1)- The first step is to write the best initial proposal that you can.
2)- Authors can request early-stage feedback at Wikipedia's village pump for idea incubation and from any relevant WikiProjects.
3)- Once it is thought that the initial proposal is well-written, and the issues sufficiently discussed among early participants to create a proposal that has a solid chance of success with the broader community, start an RfC for your policy or guideline proposal in a new section on the talk page, and include the {rfc tag along with a brief, time-stamped explanation of the proposal.
4)- A RfC should typically be announced at this policy page (and/or the proposals page, and other potentially interested groups (WikiProjects).
There appears to be some confusion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion concerning sequence or location but policy seems clear.
DAB: Does cover the topic question above as well as WP:AT. Although there are editors that seem to prefer parenthetical disambiguation, or unnecessary use of such on article titles (Britannica style), this has not been established by any broad consensus but more just the opposite according to policy natural disambiguation is preferred and parenthetical disambiguation as a last choice. The etymology of "disambiguation" would be "not unclear" which would be "not clarified". An article title should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.. Recognizable, natural, and concise goes along with this. DAB states: "Disambiguation is also sometimes employed if the name is too ambiguous, despite not conflicting with another article (yet),". Consistency also goes along with these and gives more than one reason why we have Flemish Giant rabbit, Continental Giant rabbit, French Lop, Lop rabbit, Angora rabbit, and so forth. Certainly using the more common name according to references. Common sense is also thrown in there somewhere.
Conclusion: We should not attempt to change or change policies or guidelines on a whim or by any local consensus. The process is made somewhat complicated to prevent easy changes. DAB and AT do a fine job. I think if editors disagree then they should probably follow the above procedures. Otr500 (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The portion of WP:DAB that you quote was added a couple of days ago. A clear consensus in support of this recent addition would neatly resolve the difficulty of having an orphaned sentence in the lead that isn't explained in the body of the guideline.--Trystan (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's also based on material present in the original, longer version. The WP:GAME here is to keep whittling away at the material in hopes that it can be made to seem out-of-place in its context. If context is restored, it's obviously belongs where it is. This was true 8 months ago, when the context material was originally reduced, on the basis (Francis Schonken's objection) that the example article titles were "unstable". This wasn't actually true then, and 8 months have proven conclusively that it's not true now, so the original rationale to decontextualizing the sentence has evaporated. Better yet, later editors like Dick Lyon have pointed out that entire NC guidelines, like USPLACE and USSTATION, rely on the exact same principle and have for years, so the examples Schonken didn't like almost a year ago were could have been replaced at any time anyway. A challenge against this provision now is a challenge against multiple naming conventions that have been stable for years.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: In-universe name details of fictional characters, in article leads

Should we list the in-universe (fictional) former names, aliases, middle names only ever mentioned rarely or in non-canon material, and other name variants of fictional characters, in the leads of these characters' articles? Example:

  • Jeanne Mary (Garcia) Deaux is a character on the soap opera Last Days of Our Lives ...
  • Jeanne Mary Deaux (formerly Jeanne Smith, born Juanita Maria Garcia) is a character on the soap opera Last Days of Our Lives ...
  • The Superfudge (in day-to-day life the reclusive businessman Robert O'Blivion, a carefully maintained alias of Petrov Vlaidimir Zorkov III) is a superhero in ...

A recent discussion of this matter, with editwarring and WP:ANI drama surrounding it, can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#Middle names, maiden names, married names, birth names, etc.... This relates closely to previous discussions like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 48#Lead section and character names, about changing comics character leads (for articles at the name of the superhero/supervillain) to begin with the fictional "real" name of the character in everyday "life", as if these were articles on real people.

An excessive genuine example of the issue is here ("Nicole "Nikki" Newman (née Reed; previously Foster, Bancroft, DiSalvo, Abbott, Landers, Chow, and Sharpe) is a fictional character ..."), but is not representative of typical cases, and the RfC question is more general; i.e. it should be taken as using the first of the above examples as typical. It should also be noted that the simple formula "Superman is a fictional superhero.... As Clark Kent, he is a journalist by day...", or "Iron Man (Tony Stark) is a fictional superhero...", is typical in superhero/villain articles, and many other fiction (novel, TV series, etc.) articles on fictional characters with aliases, and this RfC is not challenging that. There are more complex cases as at Spider-Man, where the "real" (fictional) person who is the superhero has changed over time; these generally approach this matter with prose explanations, not long strings of alternative names, and is often handled outside the lead, as at The Shadow.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: I've included a bio tag on the RfC specifically because the style matter in question is mimicry of biographical style but for fictional subjects, and it's expected that bio-focused editors will have opinions on whether it is great to do this as a win for consistency, or is a detriment as a confusion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor comments

  • No Leave pure minutiae to fanpedias, and not turn this one into Cruftipedia more than it already is. Robin (comics) is about the limit of what is "tolerable". Collect (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—the style you give is pretty ugly, but I think it depends on how prominent the other names are. If we're talking about a maiden name that just happens to be mentioned on the show, then absolutely not—probably nowhere in the lead. If we're talking Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man, then Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, and Peter Parker needs to be mentioned in the lead—but if you look at their articles, none of them are done in the style you mention. If you're talking about the "in day-to-day life" language, then no, that should be avoided. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No For the reasons I've already listed in the thread SMcCandlish linked to above (which was started by me) and at the other conversations on the matter I've also taken part in (I'll go find them now).Cebr1979 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is one of them. It would take some time to find the others, I can't remember where all they've happened but, I always sorta say the same thing: clutter can go. If those names need to be here somewhere, they can go in the infobox (which just reminded me of this conversation).Cebr1979 (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose prescriptive rules per WP:CREEP. Here's another example, which I wrote myself: "Mr. Dick, whose full name is Richard Babley, is a character in the Dickens novel, David Copperfield." Explaining this character's name is not a problem; it might well be the exact information which the typical reader is wanting. Andrew D. (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No assuming we are talking non-canon or non-obvious details. I would expect that we explain that Superman's alterego is Clark Kent, or that there are number of people known as Green Lantern in the lead, all which are reasonable search terms that can lead to that article. But obscure details that are unlikely to be search terms should not be featured in the lead. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly no. Comments as RfC nominator:
    • Necessary detail for comprehension: I think the Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, Superman and Robin (comics) cases are permissible, giving the detail level necessary to understand the topic, without throwing in middle names and other clap-trap, nor producing an impenetrable "name-cruft" lead sentence.
    • Non-canonical cruft: I think that non-canonical name details should be omitted (I've noticed a tendency to insert middle names and aliases from non-canonical comics, sci-fi and other media into character articles here).
    • Trivia: We should also not include former in-universe married names in a string of names as in the Newman example; if her former marriages are necessary to understanding her role in the soap, explain them in compact chronological form in an extended lead the way we treat the detailed superhero examples just mentioned, but otherwise omit them as noise. It serves no encyclopedic interest to note what someone's middle name and second married name were if these are things simply mentioned in passing in the course of the show, or were important in the show only briefly and a long time ago.
    • Nicknames vs. "real" names: It is not necessary to refer to a fictional character as, e.g., "James (Jim) Doe" if the character is always called "Jim" (cf. the Nicole "Nikki" Newman example above; it is poor in this regard, not just the long string of fictional married names). Especially do not include nicknames mentioned only once, as is especially common in sitcoms, where the writer-of-the-week makes up some back-story that is never used again. For superheroes and the like, it is not necessary to include former aliases in the lead sentence, or in the lead at all if they're not necessary for reader understanding of why the character is notable. WP is not a comics database.
    • Good example of keeping it short: The character of Penny (The Big Bang Theory) is just given as "Penny"; there is not fanwankery present about her name really being Penelope, about what her maiden name is about how she's (as of the last episode I saw, anyway) now Penny Hoffstadter, etc., etc. Her changing-over-time relationship to Leonard Hoffstadter is explained briefly in the lead, and that is sufficient. There is name-crufting going on, and it does not help the article to add any.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Penny is a good example of poor style; the article is mostly OR. So far as her name is concerned, the lead goes to the trouble of explaining that the show hasn't revealed her maiden name. The infobox gives a couple of nicknames and tells even more that we don't know about her family, such as her "Unnamed mother". As and when the show does reveal any more details, we can be sure that they will go straight into the article. SMcCandlish's long, complex list of putative rules isn't going to stop any of this because they are quite vague and unenforceable. Per WP:NOTLAW, our guidelines should be based on what happens in practise. And in practise, you can be quite sure that we going to be told that Captain Kirk's middle name is Tiberius; that he's often called Jim and so on. Andrew D. (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing of the content has nothing to do with whether the lead is laid out in the useful manner for a fictional character article. I did not read it past the lead, and the quality of the rest of the article isn't relevant to the discussion. Most of most of our articles [that wasn't a typo] on fictional characters have OR problems; a different issue for a different time. The shite state of most of their infoboxes is also an orthogonal concern. Your Kirk argument supports my view, since he gives his full name frequently in the series, and is very often referred to as Jim, so the material is pertinent in the lead; what Peter's middle name is in Family Guy is not. You can't seriously cite NOTLAW - i.e., a provision that we not treat guidelines as rigid rules – then criticize me for not coming up with insufficiently rigid rules, when my intent was clearly that we should be flexible about it, instead of our present warring approaches of wanting to include every bit of nomenclatural trivia as a wannabe rule vs. wanting to exclude all naming details even when salient as an equal but opposite wannabe-rule. Anything else?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The case of Penny demonstrates what a waste of time this discussion is. SMcCandlish says that he hasn't read the article, just the lead, which he praises. The first thing we see at the top of that article is a big cleanup template. It has been there for over two years but clearly nobody cares enough to do anything about it. The plan is now to create even more rules for people to ignore. The article doesn't give Penny's family name but this is not because the article's authors are keen on brevity. Instead, it's because the show's writers have made sure that she doesn't have one. The lead still feels the need to discuss this but instead of accurately reporting what the source says, the lead engages in OR, telling us that she's the only lead character not to have a surname – something which the source doesn't say. The quality of this lead is awful. We clearly still have trouble getting editors to follow the fundamental principles of WP:OR and WP:V. Inventing fuzzy rules about the finer points of naming is an absurd distraction. It's especially absurd when we already have a rule which advises against cluttering up the lead with minor details – WP:LEADCLUTTER. How come no-one has pointed this out yet? It's because we already have so many rules that people can't keep track of them all. We have rules which tells us not to do this – WP:NOTLAW and WP:CREEP – but some people just love this stuff and so the rules cruft is piled every higher. Enough! Andrew D. (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So pick a different example you like better. Next.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly no as long as WP:OTHERNAMES is adhered to (e.g. Dot Cotton has been known as Dot Branning for almost half her entire history). AnemoneProjectors 23:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of curiosity, specifically what and how would you like WP:OTHERNAMES adhered to?Cebr1979 (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pretty much per Maplestrip (Mable) below. Generally I think if a character has been credited with a name, it's their real-world name and should be included. Phil Mitchell's name in the lead is "Philip James 'Phil' Mitchell" but he's only ever credited as and known by viewers as Phil Mitchell, so it should just say "Phil Mitchell". Fatboy (EastEnders) has been variously credited as "Fatboy", "Fat Boy" and "Arthur 'Fatboy' Chubb", so I'm happy for that to stay as it is. Denise Fox has been credited as "Denise Fox", "Denise Wicks" and "Denise Johnson", so I would say all shoudl be listed, but "Denise Turner" has never been her on-screen name as it's part of her backstory so it's already not mentioned, and her middle name "Celeste" should also be removed. AnemoneProjectors 16:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but there needs to be sufficient information to identify them properly and give proper context. Non-cannonical names are instantly out, as is anything that requires original research. If it requires a long explanation, then it should be outside the opening sentence. But we need to tell people that Superman has a secret identity. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this varies strongly on a case-by-case situation. "Penny" is just "Penny", but Captain Kirk's names should probably all be there, and though the "Tiberius" part should be discussed on the talk page, I think the current form is fine. A superhero name and their alter ego are almost always both notable, unless the alter ego is only used a small amount of less notable media. Former names are rarely worth noting in the lead section, unless the character was known under that name for a long time in our world. A maiden name of a character that has been married from the pilot to the finale is probably not worth mentioning in the lead. A nickname is only notable if it is used a lot. Either way, go by sources: if you can cite a name to a reliable source, it's probably worth mentioning. I don't believe there's a specific rule you can follow, but try not to clutter the lead with fiction. ~Mable (chat) 11:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, provided that the canon of the fictional universe actually uses these name components. For example, the name "Harry James Potter" shows up in Harry Potter books 5 and 7, so this name should be used in the lead of Harry Potter (character); on the other hand, the name "Draco Lucius Malfoy" is never used in the books, so it should be left out of Draco Malfoy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Use common name and common full name when known, so ok to use James Tiberius Kirk and Homer J. Simpson. But do not add "Jim" to that since that's an obvious diminutive of James. Do not add joke names in the lead such as when Vash the Stampede calls himself "Valentinez Alkalinella Xifax Sicidabohertz Gumbigobilla Blue Stradivari Talentrent Pierre Andry Charton-Haymoss Ivanovici Baldeus George Doitzel Kaiser III" Do not add names that are placed in the late reveal of a character as with Fairywinkle-Cosma to Cosmo in The Fairly OddParents. Do not assume a married person has a hyphen or assumes the married family name unless that person is referred to as such in scripts afterwards. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, with limits - This should be done by a case by case basis as some characters are notable in literature for having aliases or the like. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly no in terms of listing them all in the lede. However, I'm "mostly yes" for listing them somewhere in the article itself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Unless... the article is for the fictional character as the notable subject - not an article about a singular actor/actress playing that fictional character. In which case, it should read " Timmy Shortpants is a fictional character portrayed Joe Bloggs whom .... " Aeonx (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong no, apart from when the middle name is part of their WP:COMMONNAME. No middle names, no dates of birth, no fictography whatsoever. These aren't biographies of fictional people, they're articles about characters as real-world creations.Zythe (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • YES and NO I'm very torn on this subject. While I understand the reasons for the ONLY using the a character's WP:COMMONNAME, but I think full names should be included to some extent -- maybe with the exception of the middle name unless it's apart of the common name. I kind of like Od Mishehu's idea of using the name when when it is often referenced in universe.--Nk3play2 my buzz 04:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and No, I agree that married names shouldn't be included in the lead names, but birth names, middle names, full names, should be included in the lead like Sonny Corinthos's legal name is Michael Corinthos, Jr. and I think it should be included in the lead as Michael "Sonny" Corinthos, Jr. that is important information, because readers would want to know is the character's name or a nickname. Plus, sometimes a character's full name ties to history. I'd include the title of whatever profession they had like MD, PsyD, etc. because if these characters are in a specific profession it should be noted in the lead. Jester66 (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, BUT please don't add lines to the MoS as that would be instruction creep. And furthermore this RFC is slightly begging the question as it's prefaced with "only ever mentioned rarely or in non-canon material", which is usually grounds in-and-of-itself to omit something regardless of whether it's a name or a plot point or whatever. (Well, depending on just what "non-canon" means in a context of course.) I'm presuming that if editors disagree with removing these names, it's hopefully because they don't think it's "only mentioned rarely" or only by fanfiction or the like, which means that this RFC shouldn't be casually cited to remove alternate names unless they really are obscure. As a side note, I believe there was a discussion on WT:SPOILER recently, but I *would* be in favor of omitting spoiler-ish names which, while mentioned in a work, are only relevant much later in the work. If there's a 3-novel series where a character marries 80% of the way through the 3rd book and changes her name, then they should be listed under the name they used almost the entire time, not the current name as of the very end of the series, and probably shouldn't have the last name listed at all in the lede where it'd just be a pointless spoiler that isn't even very enlightening. SnowFire (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the idea of "not adding spoiler names" in the sense that I believe we shouldn't discuss later portions of a franchise/work unless it is also discussed by reliable sources. A synopsis of a book series can often do well with a description of a set-up, setting, and some basic plot points, with the whole ending being ignored as non-notable. Name changes in a fictional work shouldn't be reported on Wikipedia unless reliable sources also report them. If a marriage between two characters in season x of a popular television show is heavily covered, then obviously the new name should still be in the lead. If such a marriage isn't covered at all, it isn't even worth mentioning. ~Mable (chat) 08:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with SnowFire and Mable here. For example, the current version of Pam Beesly opens with 'Pamela Morgan "Pam" Halpert née Beesly (born March 25, 1976) is a fictional character on the U.S. television sitcom The Office, played by Jenna Fischer.' Clearly the "Pamela Morgan" bit is not of major relevance and should be deleted, but her married and maiden names were both part of the character's identity for a significant time and so should be kept.--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends on situation I agree with Knowledgekid87 that alternate names and such should be a case-by-case basis, and middle names are fine to include as long as they are canon like Od Mishehu points out. Things like birthdate on the other hand are probably best left out unless it is a key trait of the character. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. There might be the incredibly rare outlier where this makes sense (such as a character whose notability extends from two equally well-known names--though no examples spring immediately to mind), but by and large this would be a counter-intuitive, non-encyclopedic approach. In some instances these details may be appropriate to the lead, but placing them in the first sentence and using normal conventions for different names can result too readily in increased ambiguity as to the character's fictional nature. In my opinion, encyclopedic tone in this case requires using language and emphasis that reflects that the article is one concerning an element of fiction, not a biographical entry. The first sentence should contain the work, the creator, and a brief description containing only the most essential details. In many cases, it might then be worthwhile to cover alternate identities, especially if they are salient, central plot devices. In some cases, alias need not appear in the lead at all. But where they do, bolding will rarely be appropriate. Snow let's rap 05:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed commentary

WP:ARBPOL, Harassment, and Private hearings

AMENDMENT REJECTED
Amendment opposed by overwhelming consensus of responding community members. Some have requested below that this discussion be left open as long as possible, such that ArbCom receives the strongest possible indication of the community's unfavourable view of the proposal. But nearly two weeks in, the !vote stands at 25-to-1, favouring opposition, this seems to be a WP:SNOW issue, and it seems unlikely that dragging the matter out further could make the disapproval of the proposal more resounding.

However, as with any community discussion, the most important result is found not in the numbers but in the perspectives provided, and the Arbitration Committee will hopefully take note of the deep concerns expressed here with regard to lack of transparency and proper process. Those concerns have been raised especially high with regard to the wording of this proposal but respondents have also expressed a more general unease with regard to the Committee's recent actions in the area of 'private hearings', with numerous users expressing the opinion that the exercise (as utilized of late) already strays from the principles of open community review of important decisions and bottom-up oversight that are generally-accepted cornerstones of Wikipedia's process.

Given the profile of this discussion, I hope I will be seen to have faithfully expressed the view of the responding editors and to not have erred in closing the discussion at this point. Nevertheless, I believe the writing is on the wall here. Snow let's rap 09:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

In keeping with the Ratification and Amendment section of Arbitration Policy, this is a petition that

Private hearings
In exceptional circumstances, typically where significant privacy, harassment or legal issues are involved, the Committee may hold a hearing in private. The parties will be notified of the private hearing and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made.

be amended to

Private hearings
In exceptional circumstances, typically where significant privacy, harassment or legal issues are involved, the Committee may hold a hearing in private. The parties will be notified of the private hearing and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made, unless the majority of active arbitrators believe that such opportunity is likely to result in or increase the harassment of a person.

The options will start with the following:

  1. Support
  2. Oppose
  3. Support an Alternate Amendment (please include a suggestion)

Please indicate your response in the appropriate section.Evangeliman (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support the idea enough to post in this section, although I oppose enshrining it in policy. Instead, I trust that there are enough sensible people on ArbCom to recognize those rare occasions when they should ignore policy. I don't think anyone on ArbCom would be immoral enough to ever do something that they truly believe will cause further harassment, just because some rule told them they had to. I just ask that they double- and triple-check to make sure they're extremely confident that it would lead to further harassment, and listen carefully to any one of them who disagrees. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"those rare occasions when they should ignore policy", ArbCom shouldn't ignore policy, period, otherwise there is no point for the policy to exist. If they thing that the evidence is serious enough and they think it warrants a ban of the user without informing him of the charges against him, then they only really have one option, refer the case upward to the WMF.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that occasionally a policy should be ignored does not mean that there is no point for the policy to exist. WP:IAR applies to every single other facet of this project, it's fine with me if it applies to ArbCom too. If it happens a lot, either change the policy, or stop doing it. If it happens once in a blue moon, it's OK. There are 15 fairly disparate people on ArbCom; they're not all going to agree to railroad someone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore all rules is about focussing on improvement over rule following, so in that way I don't see how it applies to ArbCom. Considering that this ArbCom has decided to do it twice in a row, I've got to disagree with you. A decision like this, undressed, is precedent for the future that ArbCom can do whatever the heck it feels like.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Cla68 case has nothing to do with this, so it is not twice in a row. And if you don't see preventing harassment as an improvement over facilitating harassment, I guess we're done talking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"And if you don't see that abolishing transparent due process as an improvement over facilitating transparent proceedings *which still have no less an ability to punish an editor for harassment if deemed so,* I guess we are done talking" is the parallel meaning of your statement—not that I particularly agree with all Insertcleverphrasehere has to say. 73.233.156.49 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Oppose as the right to defend oneself against accusations is a fundemental right of any process that even tips the hat at being fair. That the current Arbcom willfully and flagrantly are defying Arbpol as it is currently written is not a reason to re-write the policy that limits their ability to take unilateral action with no oversight, in order to make their current actions retroactively justifiable. I would also expect it to be taken that if this results in a clear oppose to the amendment, that Arbcom should cease to defy the policy that governs the use of their powers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Oppose I see no valid reason to endorse the idea that Arbcom may condemn people without even granting them the chance to be heard. Such a kangaroo trial would bring the project into disrepute. See Process is important. If harassment is an issue, surely there are ways to allow all sides to be heard without subjecting anyone to possible harassment, perhaps by hearing the parties separately. DES (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, Arbcom have already indefinately blocked two editors without following the process in Arbpol for private hearings (notifying the accused) - which the above wording change is designed to legitimise. Cla68 (alleged BLP issues) and TDA (alleged offsite harrassment) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose This change would turn ARBCOM into a "Ruling Party". Transparency of process allows us to check the integrity of Arbitrators, and this change would allow a bypass if a group held a majority position within ARBCOM. Cabal behavior and Group think are real phenomenon, and we need transparency and accountability to prevent those behaviors. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that this should get traction, but for different reasons than those given by editors above. Obviously, this proposal arose out of two recent decisions that ArbCom made in private. The way I see it, we elect Arbs to exercise good judgment about when to employ privacy concerning things like harassment. Changing the wording of policy won't improve their judgment. So pay attention to who you vote for, and who you reelect. And I think that it's only a small number of editors who feel, about those two recent decisions, that ArbCom should treat editors as though they have legal rights, the way one ought to have in a court of law. I've long wanted ArbCom to do less in private and more in public, and that's where I really see the need for reform. ArbCom should be permitted to make some hard decisions about harassment, but they need to get better at communicating the outcome to the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "on the basis that informing the accused might result in more harassment" is assuming guilt before having the private hearing. Why bother having the hearing at all? On this basis a false accusation alone, backed up by fabricated evidence, is enough to result in a banning. This isn't a good idea.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Maybe we should change it to "If the majority of active arbitrators believe it is justifiable, they can do whatever they want". I mean, if it is majority, and they are elected by the users, why don't let them do whatever they want. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. And also dismiss all the arbitrators who are violating policy and making up their own rules—which I suppose means all of them. Everyking (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I gave my reasons in the relevant discussion already, but in a nutshell: simply letting a person know what they themselves did, in private, cannot result in more harassment. There should be an opportunity for someone to be heard before condemning them: this is basic fairness and good procedure. The case was simply bad judgement by ArbCom and then doubling down on bad judgement. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This committee is already well on the road to making this dangerous, arbitrary, unfair system its standard operating procedure. One quarter of the way through the year, more or less, and it has opened zero public cases and make two bannings without either a case or adhering to the norms of notification of the parties and admission of exculpatory evidence. It stinks and it may well be time to abolish ArbCom altogether. Carrite (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, largely for reasons cited by Only in death above. Notice and opportunity to respond to accusations of wrongdoing are about the most basic and indispensable elements of adjudicative processes that even try to be fair and avoid arbitrariness of result. And the lack of transparency that results from these secret proceedings is incompatible with ArbCom's position as community-elected representatives accountable to the community. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Harassment is a serious problem and I am glad that ArbCom is taking strong action against harassers. But my imagination is not able to conjure up a situation where giving an accused harasser a chance to explain their actions in a private forum would create unacceptable harm. At the very least i would want some sanitized examples of such a situation before considering a proposal like this. And even then a supermajority should be required.--agr (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • One example I can think of: Editor A has clearly harassed lots of people in real life, one of them Editor B. Editor B complains, and provides incontrovertible proof (there may not be incontrovertible proof of any of the others being harassed). If ArbCom confronts Editor A with Editor B's proof, Editor A is quite likely to refocus even more harassment on Editor B. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You assume guilt before the hearing has even taken place. You say that "Editor A has clearly harassed lots of people in real life" but also "(there may not be incontrovertible proof of any of the others being harassed)" these things don't work together... there is either lots of proof of harassment or else Editor A has not clearly harassed lots of people in real life. What if Editor B brings proof that they themselves have fabricated, and the proof in question can be refuted by the accused by verifying where they were at the time of the incident or perhaps the email account where the harassment originated was created by Editor B and Editor A can prove it, if only given the chance.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mostly per the points raised by Carrite above. In a project where transparency and accountability are supposed to be key points, having a committee which seems to hold itself accountable to neither principle is dangerous. Intothatdarkness 17:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it's the right of any accused user to defend themselves before any decision is made against them. This includes a decision that giving them such a chance "is likely to result in or increase the harassment of a person". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose The accused should always have a chance to explain his/her side of the story. This would be like taking away due process by adding that statement. Sam.gov (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anyone has suggested removing a person's right to defend themselves (some of the rhetoric here is overheated, to put it mildly). The two blocks in question are more about the order of events. There are certain actions that are harmful enough that we block first, and then consider appeals and defenses. The most common example is serious, flagrant, or apparently malicious violations of WP:BLP. If we see an editor doing that, then we block them first, to prevent further real-life harm. Then we can consider wiki-legal arguments. But when you put real-life harm up against the "right" to pseudonymously edit a privately owned website, the former should win every time. That's WP:BLP in a nutshell. I think perspective is seriously lacking in this discussion. MastCell Talk 19:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually this is being brought up because at least one person has been denied that right. You can't really defend yourself against an accusation without knowing what the accusation is. And this proposed change in policy says ARBCOM can sanction someone, and deny them any form of defense. (By denying them any information as to why they were sanctioned) --Kyohyi (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • This would be the non-BLP issue where the subject's name was in the article when it was promoted as an FA, is linked in sources currently used in the article, and as the subject who actively gave interviews to the press, it could hardly be described as a major BLP issue given they were not trying to keep their identity hidden. It would be a hard sell at the BLP noticeboard that this is a violation of the policy, or that any real life harm is likely. Which is why bullshit like this requires scrutiny, because if the facts were known, it is a very different story to that which you are portraying. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think this is the place to discuss specific past cases (if it were, I'd say that you're misinformed, gullible, ignorant, or some combination of the three). Presumably we're discussing changes to policy that would apply prospectively, to hypothetical future cases. My point is that there are situations where it's appropriate to block first and entertain appeals/explanations later. Those situations typically involve potential real-life harm. Admins make these kinds of judgement calls routinely, so it makes sense that ArbCom—who, after all, were elected specifically to handle these sorts of difficult situations—should be able to use their judgement in the same way. MastCell Talk 03:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MastCell: Let's assume for the sake of argument, that the block is due to some urgent need to prevent harm. There is an easy way to test the claim. Did ArbCom bother to contact the person afterwards to get their response, now that the urgency is gone? If not, then the assumption is shown to be false, and it is a case of acting unilaterally based on the complaint, without due process, in direct violation of WP:ARBPOL. We all know what happened here, and people can draw conclusions from that fact. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense, as a matter of basic logic. The urgency of the block is one issue, and how (or whether) ArbCom chooses to communicate its reasoning is a different, orthogonal issue. If ArbCom chooses not to communicate (or fails to communicate) with a blocked editor, that says absolutely nothing about how urgent the block was in the first place. Separately, when we see blatant 3RR or BLP violations as admins, the perpetrators are often blocked "unilaterally" (to use your rather inapt word), without being asked to offer a defense first, but with the option to appeal after the fact.

Look, we elected ArbCom as a group of grownups to handle issues that the "community" isn't capable or competent to address. They reviewed the evidence and acted in these cases, as is their responsibility. Finally, frankly, if we took 0.001% of the self-righteous energy devoted to advocating for editors like TDA, and applied it instead to supporting and retaining sane, constructive, marginally mature, well-socialized editors, we'd have a very different and much better Wikipedia. That's the aspect of these sorts of discussions that I find most dispiriting: the infinite willingness to argue wiki-technicalities in defense of people who were irredeemable net-negatives as editors, while virtually every other aspect of this project decays. MastCell Talk 18:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you MastCell, in principle, however I'd like to point out that TDA wasn't given the chance to appeal, at least not immediately, it was set at 6 months before being allowed to appeal. In the previous discussion on the ArbCom noticeboard I already suggested that a possible solution to this issue would be to remove the appeal restriction from TDA, but I also think that it is also important that someone from ArbCom comes forward and agrees that they shouldn't have done what they did , as otherwise it sets an unfortunate precedent that the majority of editors on this page seem to agree is a bad idea.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that removing the appeal restriction would be a possible solution. Sam.gov (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If TDA (or Cla68) was an "irredeemable net-negative", then he could've been banned through the usual procedures and there wouldn't be all this fuss. Instead, he was banned in a secret hearing based on secret evidence without the opportunity to speak in his defense, or even to know why he was being banned. To object to that isn't "arguing wiki-technicalities", it's sticking up for the most basic principles of justice, and I think it's clear that the community is essentially speaking in its own defense, against ArbCom overreach, and not so much in defense of any particular individuals—except insofar as we think each editor ought to get a fair hearing. Everyking (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do object to editors being banned without they knowing the reason why. Appealing the ban correlates to one of the principles of justice. Sam.gov (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as serving no purpose. If ArbCom thinks that contacting that person will only increase the harassment, why do they think a siteban without a hearing is going to placate them? It appears that ArbCom already blocks people before those hearings begin, if they think there's a chance they'll run amok on-Wiki before they have time to agree to a permanent ban. There is no problem to fix. Geogene (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This is a (bad) solution looking for a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The committee was unable to follow the previous policy and looked awfully foolish trying (or rather failing to try) to explain how notifying a harasser of the hearing could possibly increase the harassment. It was the Rolling Stone method of journalistic rape investigations and it's clear that not involving the accused increased the harm to the accuser beyond any other process. It's bad enough that even a few arbs thought it was a good idea, but showing that it was a majority would indict the lot as incapable of rational thought. Lets not dig the hole any deeper than the not-so-brights have already achieved. --DHeyward (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The harasser still has the right to defend themselves, and know the basis of the ban or disciplinary actions taken against them. This is the most basic right in a just system. Exceptional circumstances can't warrant exceptional stripping of rights. ¬Hexafluoride (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—ArbCom is not a court, and arbitration isn't beholden to legal proceedings, but basic fairness seems a pretty fundamental courtesy to accord each and every person involved in the process, and central to the pillars of the community. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Pretty much everyone above me summed up the problem with secret hearings without right of response, so there is that. Just wish this was actually proposed by Arbcom themselves, as they haven't shown any actual "give a fucks" about this issue no matter how many people say it was wrong. Sadly no one can do anything about it, yay. Arkon (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this is the opposite of transparency, and definitely not the direction we want to go. —Torchiest talkedits 22:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Audi alteram partem; I agree with many comments above. The only people that would likely support a Kangaroo court would be ones that have enough power to never be subjected to one. Anyone that has ever been subjected to false allegations would likely never want one to exist. Such a "hang 'em in private" hearing (Trial in absentia without representation) is against natural justice. It would be more fair if a Grand Jury could pass sentence right? While protection of a supposed victim is a major concern, trampling the rights of another by advance measures because it might be thought a proceeding could be "likely to result" in some harm to said victim, is extreme. I suppose I have a different view than some as I feel that any extreme (egregious) detrimental actions by an editor, causing harm to another (harassment etc..), should result in a block/ban and it would cause no harm to Wikipedia. I do not ever think we should entertain giving such power to a select few to make decisions in secrecy. If this course of action were allowed it would seem there would be no appeal, as that too could be "likely to result in or increase the harassment of a person.", so that to would have to be held in secrecy. Could this not be allowing a possibility of a sanctioned lynch party? How can we possibly assume good faith that ARBCOM will always do the right thing with a potential provision that does not assume good faith?
    • I think I brought up a possibility of issuing an interaction block/ban, concerning harassment allegations (or any issue) between two parties. This would not be a punitive action but a protective one on both parties, that didn't seem to go anywhere, and I wonder how it could be explained why that could not alleviate potential problems, be within the transparent authority of ARBCOM, and a better solution than secret "courts"? Otr500 (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose I wouldn't vote to explicitly grant this power to an arbitration panel I actually trusted, let alone this one. If ArbCom wishes to conduct sub rosa proceedings during which they implement ad hoc rules, let them act in an unfair manner on their own accord rather than have us retroactively give our blessings. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I don't think the community is going to sanction turning Arbcom into an internet Star Chamber court. —Nizolan (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose - Clearly, Natural Justice remains strongly resonant in the collective psyche. Not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done.
    It is clear in the instances discussed that the latter did not occur; and consequently the former remains open to speculation. This is to the detriment of both the Committee and the community.
    Even if, by virtue of a collective conscientious objection, the Arbitration Committee feels unable to abide by the policies that the community, by consensus, has set, they must not act contrary to those policies. And we, the community, must act to strongly condemn any such contrary action; as the editors above have done.
    It is clear that in the initial instance which is understood to have provoked this discussion that, by policy, a hearing, whether in public or in camera, should have been held. If the committee felt unable to do so, and assuming that the matters at hand were of sufficient severity, the matter ought to have been referred to the WMF; I propose that we enshrine such referral in policy. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as it really gets too far when you start saying "you can have sanctions without oversight as long as you let the sanctioned parties respond except when you better not let them, and no one's the wiser about it all having taken place". This is an open community, come on. LjL (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - no compelling arguments for policy change have been presented. In extreme cases it would be appropriate for Arbcom to request a WMF intervention.--Staberinde (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alternate Amendment

Discussion

Note this in particular. Evangeliman (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal, as written, refers only to the first case (banning of The Devil's Advocate). Nobody said anything about harassment in the second case. There is an ARCA request about the second case. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice of you to ask, thanks, but I do not feel it's necessary for me. I feel like I said what I wanted to say. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call for snow close

  • Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. This proposal is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged discussion. Look, I took the liberty of examining that proposal when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it had been NAILED there. 'E's passed on! This proposal is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PROPOSAL!! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to earlier today, but I figured that it would be fine if we let it sit to the end of the week to see if the Weekenders have a different opinion. --Izno (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though the vote is already overwhelmingly against it, I think it's really important to let as many users as possible have their chance to say that this is not OK. As a community, this is a situation where we need to send a very strong and clear message to the ArbCom that we can't accept this kind of thing. Everyking (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too think it a dead horse and trying to ride it will just inevitably cause stinky pants. I think it should run the duration for the above mentioned "very strong and clear message to the ArbCom" that not only is this is a very bad idea, shame on whomever thought it up, but so all voices can be heard. I also would hope that an admin would close just for sake of it. Surely we have admins that are thinking WT_. Why would I think that important? Because I would vote to elect an admin to ARBCOM that stood up for other editors rights even those accused of a transgression. This was hopefully a good faith idea yet nonetheless a tyrannical solution. Otr500 (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By this point I think it's clear enough that the community is overwhelmingly opposed to the ArbCom doing this. Ordinarily, that would be enough: the proposal was shot down, crashed and burned, and we all move on. The ArbCom, however, has already made this proposal an ongoing practice, and it has so far not responded and has not stated whether or not it plans to continue this practice (or reverse the decisions that were already made in line with this practice). The matter can't be considered settled until we know whether the ArbCom intends to respect the community's wishes. Everyking (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think the logical next step, now community consensus is clear on the above, is a proposal that requires Arbcom to follow Arbpol as written: In short conduct a case (following the rules for private evidence laid out in Arbpol if necessary) for both TDA and Cla - or alternatively unblock both users as they have been blocked both out of process and without authority/remit to do so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a sensible way forward. Everyking (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of the phrase "piracy" to mean "copyright infringement"

Two months ago, I decided to go to a number of articles about creative works and change the word "piracy" to "copyright infringement" or whatever I felt was appropriate. After about 700 edits, I estimate that I am halfway done. This is quite a small number for a term that is heard so often in real life. Compared to newer non-neutral terms that I would also like to remove, "piracy" already seems to be used quite sparingly on Wikipedia. A clear explanation for this is the fact that many "veteran editors" are strongly critical of the recent trends in copyright law. Even if they had no such opinions, the manual of style states that a contentious label should only be used in a direct quotation or a sentence that also includes the name of the speaker. An example of this de facto consensus is the fact that digital piracy, media piracy, online piracy, Internet piracy, software piracy, movie piracy, film piracy and video game piracy all redirect to an article that only uses "piracy" in a discussion of loaded language. And yes, some articles were actively demolished in the making of those redirects. I have also seen concerns about this raised by people like Yamla, Son_of_eugene, Smk65536 and TiagoTiago.

Anyway, I knew my edits would elicit some reactions. A few people clicked the "thank" button and a few people clicked the "undo" button. However, one user Masem, now thinks I should stop until a larger discussion takes place. So be it. The reasons to keep "piracy" that I have heard seem to fall under four broad categories:

  1. The word is commonly used in many types of sources. Indeed it is, but so are thousands of other pejorative, demonizing terms.
  2. The word used to be pejorative but has since become neutral. I may not be paraphrasing this one correctly but Masem has written "It is a fair concern to avoid non-neutral language but I think in this case, piracy has become a more neutral term by sources when discussion copyright infringement issues." I suppose there are examples of this happening historically, but I don't see how "piracy" can be neutral when the copyright debate is far from over. It was not long ago that a judge decided it was too prejudicial to be used in a trial. And papers about its connotation are not hard to dredge up.
  3. The word was meant to describe more than just copying because infringing copyright before the 1900s was only possible if one's whole career was invested in it. This is fair enough and I have agreed to stop rewording paragraphs about pre-industrial "piracy". Perhaps the scope of this activity was so large that it really did require a different word.
  4. The word is more accurate because it only refers to a specific type of copyright infringement. Even if this were true, I think it behoves us to think of whatever combination of neutral words might be needed to describe the same thing. Looking at the content industry's response to file sharing, I do not see how there is any specificity left in the term. I've seen the label applied to all types of uploading / downloading, whether commercial or not, and the three people who have commented on my talk page have given three conflicting definitions of piracy.

I am not asking others to make this change on their own time, nor am I asking for some kind of "immunity" from people who want to revert me. But a first attempt to remove POV from these articles (especially ones that only ever included "piracy" because they were neglected) is something that should be allowed to go ahead. Connor Behan (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not use piracy – See the lead of the Copyright infringement article that points out that it's so biased that some courts don't even allow the MPAA to use it: "... copyright holders, industry representatives, and legislators have long characterized copyright infringement as piracy or theft – language which some U.S. courts now regard as pejorative or otherwise contentious." (with three citations there). However, converting to "copyright infringement" may not always be the right thing to do; we just need to make sure we are taking sides, e.g. calling something infringement if it has not been determined to be. Piracy is sometimes defined as "unauthorized access", which may not even be illegal; so we need to be clear, about who is alleging what act, in some cases. Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not use piracy Not a neutral, non-emotive term: it carries both historical and modern connotations. Obviously this is only relevant to the idea of copyright infringement, but I see no reason not to replace piracy with copyright infringement (when it's relevant!), crh23 (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow the sources - As one of the commentators on Connor Behan's page, the issue that in some areas, the term "piracy" is strongly established as the de facto term, particularly in the video game industry (where I saw this first appear on my watchlist) where even those that engage in the activity often call themselves "pirates". I would agree that if the legality of the act is unclear or there's no assignment of guilt yet, to use caution and stick to "copyright infringement". If it's not clear what the sources prefer, it makes sense to default to "copyright infringement" but it should not be wholly replaced without considering how the sources around the issue discuss the matter. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • One other aspect to add in re-reading the bit on the court order that prevented MPAA from using "piracy" during a case - it is important that if we are referring to any specific person or group that has been accused of such copyright infringement that we should not use "piracy" unless that person or group readily self-identifies like that. (The point at the trial was that this term presumed guilt already on the action before the judgement was made) But when broadly talking about the situation of copyright infringement with no specific group identified, we should review the sources and use what they use. I use video games again as many times developers can track the difference between legal sales and copyvio versions and thus it is well known there that software piracy is going on, so it is called this out directly most of the time. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an example of a case where we should follow the sources: the game Stardew Valley is notable in part because though it was pirated a lot, many pirates admitted to buying the game after the fact and some players helped those buy legit copies. Now, if you go to the sources (via google news search), there is nothing calling this "copyright infringement". It's "piracy" through and through. Even though the term can be loaded, it's established by both the copyright owners and those that engage in it that that's the word they use. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No blanket policy - Use whatever terminology seems best on a case by case basis. As Masem points out, our neutrality depends on presenting sourced information, not deciding what that information should be. fredgandt 22:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that a formal policy is not needed. Deciding case by case, whether to use "piracy" or not, is essentially what I'm doing. And so far, "not" has won out every time. Usually when a source refers to "piracy", we may replace that with one of the multi-word synonyms without changing the information conveyed by that source. Connor Behan (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be helpful to add piracy to the list of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels. That doesn't require creation of a separate rule, and doesn't prohibit its use, but does flag for editors that there may be more neutral alternatives.--Trystan (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The evolution of language is a constant [pain in the ass]. Looking at the hatnotes of Piracy and Copyright infringement paints the picture pretty well, that it can be reasonably expected these days for people to use the terminology interchangeably - sometimes at best. Etymologically speaking (teh lolz), English is a hotchpotch of gibberish, with a side serving of poppycock. Although everything everyone does here is important, it's essential to always keep in mind that it will never be finished - just like the English language. Go get 'em tiger! ;-) fredgandt 19:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally not appropriate to use piracy. We are an encyclopedia and we stick to more formal and non-controversial terminology. Alsee (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No strict rule, but avoid piracy whenever that can be done in a reasonably convenient way. I'm also a little concerned about this term causing confusion for people with limited English skills: Piracy is a maritime crime involving ships and guns, not downloading songs from the internet. I think that using piracy to describe intellectual property violations in pre-Internet times is particularly inappropriate. Copyright violations were very common at some points in history, e.g., William Smith (geologist), who ended up in debtor's prison after the Geological Society of London violated his copyright by re-printing and selling one of his maps. Nobody in 1815 would have called that "piracy". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so sure. This use of piracy does date to that era. That doesn't mean we should be using it that way. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferentially avoid "piracy" per User:Alsee, but no need to add a rule; that would be instruction creep. You can take this !vote as meaning I don't want to do anything at all official, but unofficially I support Connor Behan and encourage him to continue. --Trovatore (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not use "piracy" Using the word "piracy" is RIAA/MPAA propaganda, so a violation of WP:NPOV. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not use "piracy" when no ships are involved, do not use "copyright infringement" unless a court has ruled that there is copyright infringement. The phrase "piracy" as commonly used by the copyright monopoly (even when sources parrot the phrase) is far too pejorative for use in an encyclopedia. For a nuanced discussion about this, see When Stealing Isn’t Stealing by Rutgers Law School professor Stuart P. Green. Or, for those who prefer cartoons, see https://www.youtube.com/embed/IeTybKL1pM4 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4 :) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. Also this one. I can try to say "alleged" whenever I say "copyright infringement" but I don't think the term is much worse than "unlicensed access" or "unauthorized distribution". When I watch a torrented film, there are many reasons why it will never be condemned by a court: encryption, too many fish, privacy laws, shared wifi, interoperability exemptions, lack of evidence to support or refute fair use, and the fact that I have no money. However, it is clear that I've committed some sort of infringement against how the filmmakers hoped it would be used... whether it is legally enforceable or not. Connor Behan (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To avoid using "copyright infringement" makes no sense. Regardless of the situation, if you use someone else's copyrighted work without permission, you have committed copyright infringement. Now, whether your use falls into the fair use defense, or if you have egregiously violated the copyright, or the like, that's a matter of courts to decide, but you still have committed copyright infringement. --MASEM (t) 09:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. There are multiple ways to "use someone else's copyrighted work without permission" that are not copyright infringement. For example, Fair Use, use of Mechanical copyright, and cases where there is Copyright misuse are not infringing. More importantly, you appear to be implying that being accused of a crime is the same as being guilty of a crime. See Copyfraud#Notable cases to see why you have to prove copyright infringement in a court of law. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, different jurisdictions, commentators, etc., have different opinions about whether a particular act of copying should be considered infringement. Even a legal conclusion, in one jurisdiction or another, is subject to dispute. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, it is silly to consider that we should not use the term "copyright infringement" when it applies, either to the results of a court case or as part of a legal case which the claim is made, making sure to keep it as a claim. Eg: a company using ContentID to strike videos from YouTube claiming that those putting those videos up as copyright infringement and without any other legal assessment of the situation -- we'd obviously not call the users as "copyright infringers" in WP's voice, but it would be silly not to use the words "copyright infringement" to describe why the company struck down the videos. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. We should neither blindly accept it whenever someone makes the accusation, nor should we avoid it when, for example, it is the stated reason why Youtube says they removed a video. "Removed because of copyright infringement" seems clear; it means "Youtube decided that this video was a copyright infringement and took it down". Likewise, "found guilty of copyright infringement" clearly implies a decision by a court. On the other hand, just because the Arthur Conan Doyle estate claims that use of Sherlock Holmes or Warner/Chappell Music claims that use of the song "Happy Birthday to You" is copyright infringement that does not mean that we should accept those claims. We should report them as being claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Guy Macon. There are contexts where we need to use terms like "alleged" (this doesn't distinguish between "piracy" and "copyright infringement"). A person may sue an other person for "copyright infringement", not for "alleged copyright infringement". A web site may remove content because of "copyright infringement", even if no court has actually declared it to be such. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not use piracy. It's insipid SPA/MPAA/RIAA propaganda. Shameless PoV-pushing and hyperbole. It's exactly like calling shoplifters "inventory rapists". Also agreed with 'do not use "copyright infringement" unless a court has ruled that there is copyright infringement.' We do not label subjects criminals without WP:RS demonstrating a conviction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use piracy where in most sources and appropriate It has come to mean a specific type of copyright infringement and is not infringement in general. It is breaking the law and there is nothing intrinsically bad about using 'loaded' terms to describe wrongdoing.. The beef I have with the SPA and MPAA is the Mickey Mouse business of extending and extending the copyright period. I think Mickey Mouse should just be a trademark and early cartoons should not still be copyright. Copyright is a good thing but they are pushing and twisting it to their own ends and causing harm and turning people against it. Dmcq (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not use piracy—for pretty much all the reasons already brought up, but also because "piracy" once had the nuance of "for profit": copied CDs sold on the black market, say, or those underground American copies of Ulysses. There's a huge difference between that and filesharing, regardless of whatever beliefs you hold about filesharing. Its use thus introduces ambiguity. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use IF an article is made on the idea: I've actually been working on an article lately (probably "Piracy (media)") that covers the term "piracy" as being a subset of infringement in regards to creative works. The term "piracy" has specific connotations; you can have copyright infringement that isn't piracy (i.e. illegal sampling), but most piracy tends to be infringement. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many people before you tried to make the same article and it was turned into a redirect every time. So far, your draft mainly rehashes the terminology section of copyright infringement and creates the illusion that it's a well defined term. If copyright holders actually agreed that illegal sampling was something different, there wouldn't be entire papers arguing that "piracy" should be avoided for sampling but used to describe other acts. Connor Behan (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any ban on "piracy". This sounds like righting great wrongs to me. Wikipedia isn't the place to change how society uses a certain word. And, anyway, it's not like "pirate" is such a horrible insult. Has everyone forgotten about the Pittsburgh Pirates, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Dread Pirate Roberts? Sheesh. You'd think that pirates were loathed in Western society. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piracy is a specific thing, a deliberate coopting of somebody else's clear private property right, in order to profit from it while denying the legal owner of the privileges of ownership. In some cases, such as setting up clandestine DVD reproduction operations and selling them on the streets in third world countries, this is clearly privacy as so defined. In other cases, e.g. a kid downloading a youtube video to play the audio of a song at a party, it is hyperbole, and any sources that say otherwise could be falsified. We speak in an encyclopedic voice, avoiding loaded terms, or siding with one camp or another in a battle to define narratives. Thus, we should avoid loaded terms like piracy, regardless of sources, unless there is an overwhelming, compelling reason to do otherwise. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not use piracy - "Copyright infringement" is a modern-era civil matter concerned with the protection of income deriving from a created product by restricting the usage of that created product by others. Piracy is a serious criminal matter with a long history that often involved death. Those that use the latter when referring to the former are either just lazy reusers of jargon or are wanting to inflate the seriousness of the effects of copyright infringement on society in general. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...much like the misuse of "lynching" or "rape" to refer to objectionable speech. It not only artificially inflates the seriousness of the less serious behavior, it minimizes the original crime. It also, by conflating two different things, makes our language less precise. It hinders communication if we don't use the same definitions for words. Yes, you can decide to use non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is the problem that I have when it comes to the video game industry. There's very little half-measures if one is going to engage in copyright infringement - either you have legally acquired the game, or you have done some act to get the game without respecting the rights of the copyholder, and there's no middle ground, in comparison to say the issue with Napster and other peer-to-peer sharing aspects which have grey zones. Those that willing infringe calling themselves pirates, the term "piracy" is used to describe this act, and its almost impossible to find where "copyright infringement" or similar is used. In other words, its not that "piracy" is used at some different frequency as "copyright infringement", but that it is nearly used exclusively. It would be confusing to readers if we discussed piracy-related issues using "copyright infringement" while sources do not use this wording but instead use "piracy" exclusively. Other industries, like the music industry, I agree are far more complicated and there, "copyright infringement" is probably the better term overall. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Masem: No middle ground? what about situations where A) the person downloading the game previously bought the game but it was destroyed/damaged, or B) Where the downloader would happily pay, but the game is no longer offered for sale and is only kept in circulation by torrent copies? Both of these situations could easily be called copyright violation, but A would in most precincts not be considered copyright violation or at least considered a grey area (see Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.), and B would generally always be considered copyright violation, however most people would agree that neither is morally wrong. I agree with you that exclusively using CI while sources generally use P doesn't make much sense.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • In which case we should follow what the sources say about these cases. I agree there is a small grey zone, but that's far smaller than the grey zone for the music or film industry. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not use "piracy" - to the average modern reader, piracy refers to ships. While there are some other meanings where the word is irreplaceable (e.g a specific sports team, a specific international organization), we should avoid the use in any context where it is avoidable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I'm feeling a little confused about some of the opinions above. This little FBI notification still shows up at the beginning of most films, and it clearly uses the phrase "piracy" to mean "theft of this copyrighted work". --Izno (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which accomplishes nothing because "theft" is also a pejorative term. If you define "piracy" and "theft" to mean "all use of a copyrighted work without permission that is not fair use", we are getting somewhere. But then we are right back at the problem of labelling an often harmless activity as inherently villainous. Connor Behan (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No blanket decision, obviously. Folks, you understand the concept of a homonym, right? A word can have more than one connotation. It is not the role of Wikipedia to rule by rote on whether a word's usage was the result of "MPAA propaganda" or whatever. Follow the sources (as required by NPOV). VQuakr (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid the term "piracy" except in direct quotations, or where it has become part of the accepted and well-known name for a particular event or controversy, in line with WP:COMMONNAME. But when speaking in Wikipedia's voice, use "copyright infringement" with or without an "alleged", as circumstances may warrant, or some similar neutral descriptive term. DES (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is beginning to look like a foregone decision in favor of deprecating/discouraging using the word "piracy". FWIW, about the only reason I can think of to prefer "piracy" over a more neutral term such as "copyright infringement" is when one quotes a source using that word. -- llywrch (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Compare how we deal with sources that use the terms "anti-life", "pro-life", "anti-choice" and "pro-choice". We pretty much avoid those terms except in direct quotes, and we tend to avoid even quoting them. Sometimes we allow "pro-life" or "pro-choice" because that's what they call themselves, but we pretty much always reject "anti-life" and "anti-choice", because that's what their enemies call them. "Piracy" is a term coined by the copyright monopoly. Yes, a lot of blatant (and anonymous) copyright infringers use the term to tweak the nose of the copyright monopoly, but it is still an innately POV term not suitable for an encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow the sources per Masem. As opposed to what people like Od Mishehu say, "piracy" is common usage among various communities (most notably, as has already been pointed out, video games), and does not have the inherent pejorative connotation most of you believe it does. I'm actually rather surprised by the course of this discussion; to me it seems like those in support of not using "piracy" are the ones blatantly espousing a WP:POV. ansh666 18:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not use piracy except in articles that discuss copyright issues as part of the conflict. Elswhere, the term is non-neutral and ambiguous. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid "piracy" except in direct quotes Of course, if using a direct quote, we must use it verbatim. The same is true of the names of organizations or the like. When speaking in "Wikipedia's voice", however, "copyright infringement", "unauthorized copying", etc., are good, specific, neutral terms, and should almost always be preferred. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Stale" userspace drafts of articles

See also § Does WP:V apply to drafts?, above, for a related discussion about drafts.

An RfC on stale draft policy

Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring --QEDK (T ☕ C) 10:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly encourage uninvolved editors to participate in this RfC to truly gauge community consensus. At the current rate, MfD as a whole is heading toward ArbCom, which is beyond absurd. ~ RobTalk 18:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inside-Facing and Outside-Facing (essay)

I have written an essay, User:Robert McClenon/Inside-Facing and Outside-Facing, or WP:FACING, and would appreciate comments. This is applicable in part to the controversy over the handling of drafts, but it not limited to that controversy. Thank you in advance for comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of Controversy About Drafts

I am increasingly aware of what appears to be a growing controversy about the handling of drafts, especially old drafts, both in draft space and in user space. I have my opinions. However, I would be interested in any comments as to what the problem is that a few editors are trying to solve, let alone what the solution is. As to retention of drafts, what is wrong with the existing CSD criteria including G13? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed this question at: User talk:Robert McClenon/Inside-Facing and Outside-Facing § At least 4 different concerns (from vital to bogus) about userspace article drafts.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I agree with the comments. However, I still have a question. What is the reason for the (apparently bitter) controversy about drafts and the rules about drafts? What is being said to be wrong with both the MFD process and with the CSD criterion G13? A few editors evidently think that the process needs to be fixed. Do they think that it should be changed to get rid of more drafts (either via CSD, or via MFD, or via robots, or what), or do they think that the process should be fixed to avoid getting rid of the drafts that are gotten rid of? What is the driver behind the controversy? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially it's the age old disagreement between inclusionists and exclusionists that has plagued Wikipedia for years - only now applied to drafts instead of articles. The inclusionists think we are getting rid of potentially good material, and want fewer deletions. The exclusionists think we are getting rid of bad material, and want more deletions. Both sides accuse the other of gaming the MFD and CFD processes, and are trying to close what they see as being loopholes in the rules. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That is as it appeared. I would then say, as my opinion, that in most cases the exclusionists are just plain wrong, because the purpose of draft space is to provide an incubator (as it was formerly called) for improving the bad material into good material. The inclusionist-exclusionist debate has historically had to do with articles, which are outward-facing. I don't see why in general there should be a push to get rid of drafts that are not ready for article space, except via G13, which is already there. There is bad faith on both sides, and that is not good. I do see that moving a draft into article space to nominate it for deletion is a blatant form of gaming of the system by deletionists. How are inclusionists said to be gaming the system? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be that the very argument that our usual deletion rules for articles shouldn't be applied to draft articles is a form of wikilawyering. I think that's an incorrect argument. But they may have other ones. And they do have some valid points. We do not need to retain drafts that have no salvageable content, which are attack pages, which are about WP:NFT material, which are nonsense, which have been surpassed by actual articles, and several other categorizations of "junk" pages. While userspace pages are "cheap", we don't want a billion of them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the outside, this whole Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring effort looks like the groundwork for some kind of funding proposal – a straw man of problem to get paid to solve. It is certainly not about draft "attack pages". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Enquirer allegation about Elton John

My recent comment on a the artiste's talk page has been removed by another editor. Looking back through the history, another editor has experienced the same treatment. I'm alarmed that editors are attempting to prevent others from even discussing news stories: do other Wikipedians share my concerns? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If The National Enquirer and Twitter are all that's available, I agree it needed to be removed immediately, for the reasons given by the removing editor: WP:BLP and WP:RS. It is not "news", it is blatant sensationalism. WWGB (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My question here is about neither the veracity nor the importance of the allegations: I was requesting others' opinions on the censorship of talk pages. I would expect a comment such as yours to have appeared under mine on the talk page: instead, the whole debate was immediately shut down. This wasn't my understanding of how debate worked on Wikipedia ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dom has a point here. First - There is a difference between what is acceptable to put in an article, and what is acceptable to discuss on a talk page. Second - the talk page edit under discussion asked whether a source was accurate or a hoax... That is an appropriate question to ask on a talk page. The question did not repeat the allegations made by the source, it merely pointed to it and asked whether it was accurate. No BLP violation occurred. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's well within the spirit of WP:BLP to redact it. The WP:BLPTALK advice would be appropriate for seeking advice about a genuinely serious allegation made in a plausibly credible source. A tweet of a tabloid making tabloid allegations isn't something we should even be linking to, nor stating that it's "a pretty serious accusation".--Trystan (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best, perhaps, to remove the link and leave the comment. Sometimes other editors will come later having seen the same allegations elsewhere and will want to discuss them as well in good faith, so it would be helpful to have an existing talk page discussion that already says "we can't put this in the article". Dom Kaos' comment complied with BLPTALK and no violation occurred, but its removal was a good faith effort to enforce BLP, so let's not causally claim "censorship" here. Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: Did you perhaps mean "casually"? DrChrissy (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)</ small>[reply]
I did. I need more coffee. Gamaliel (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)::[reply]
Gamaliel, do you mean it happened twice "casually"? Carlotm (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Blueboar. It is not and should not be a violation of WP:BLP to ask about a source on a talk page. That is not a statement that the source is true, but that the source exists, and is necessary for regular editing. It is amazing and depressing that people are arguing to cover up the basic citations to cover a story even when it is all over the news. The doggedness of censors to cover up what everyone already knows is outright inexplicable, but it is one of their universal and distinctive traits. Wnt (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Particularly with how the removed question was asked - it wasn't trying to push any BLP issue, but asking if the report should be taken seriously or not. That easily falls under BLPTALK. If it was an experienced editor stating that we must include a contentious bit of info that can only be sourced to a tabloid like tha National Equirer, or to Twitter messages, that'd be something potentially actionable, but not what was given in the original post here. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was just ragging on about something similar at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amakuru. I was annoyed that a bureaucrat removed a "BLP violation" from the discussion (someone called an African leader a despot ... who could imagine?) including a response by the actual RfA candidate. I mean, this business of using the policy to stifle discussion of whether an edit is good or bad is just intolerable, but it's totally absurd to me that you can have this process to make someone an admin, almost unanimous support for him, and someone is redacting his comments for supposed violations of policy right in the middle of his RfA when people are supposed to be reading what he says and making up their minds! It's just lunacy. Wnt (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I and BLPTALK consider the act and content of Dom Kaos's post completely reasonable, and properly making the intended use of the article talk page space. fredgandt 01:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Academics...Proper?

I placed "autobiography" and "notability" templates on this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Paulson It seems to clearly fail at both in its current state to me (I explain in its talk page)...I only noticed article because the subject of it placed content about himself in another article recently, "incompleteness theorems," which seems to be against policy... I looked at some other similar "academics" stub like articles and most of them seem to fail in the same manner....it's possible the subject is technically "notable" according to the guidelines for academics but it's not established in anyway whatsoever by third party sources; and may even be difficult to establish such...a lot of these academics are inherently obscure to the point too that it's unlikely anyone would ever create/contribute to an article about them that do not have a COI....is this just an inherent problem with "academics"..? any thoughts?68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and for someone like this too: is it proper for to have info about their wives and number of children they have (when could this be helpful to an encyclopedia user for this kind of subject??)...even if this could be verified by a source?68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
to clarify a particular aspect: was it proper to put those tags? even though I think technically proper? or is it kind of pointless (ie yes, we know most similar articles like this have this problem but to tag all 200,000 articles is pointless...??)68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@68.48.241.158: Not sure if this is the appropriate venue for this discussion, but on the specific article: the autobiography template is probably fine and the notability template is probably unwarranted (his publications, linked at the article, seems to pass WP:PROF #1 easily). Details on personal life can be added on a discretionary basis, as long as they're supported by reliable sources—see WP:BLPPRIVACY. The current citation is problematic but we might want to be sensible about how to approach it. On the last point, there's nothing wrong with adding maintenance templates if you think they're warranted. —Nizolan (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
does just pointing at the google scholar suffice, you think? Is this a third party source that asserts notability, or just a listing of papers? is the listing of how many times the papers have been cited by others what is creating the notability there? I'd say he's a fairly "ordinary professor" (again, not that there's anything wrong with that) in that, for example, I went to the University of Michigan and I'd say every tenured professor at that institution (associate and full professor) could present themselves as being just as distinguished or more (note that he's been involved in a lot of the presentation about himself here on Wikipedia over several articles) but that I don't think every tenured professor at the University of Michigan is worth their own Wikipedia article....if they are, Wikipedia could potentially have 1,000,000 article stubs about ordinary professors that would keep growing and growing as the years move forward...I don't care about this particular person, but wondering about the philosophy more generally...is there a better place to bring this up? (but obviously listing this guy's wives/children is silly and listing what undergraduate courses he's currently teaching is silly and inappropriate.....)68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appear to be a discussion for policy. Google scholar is definitely not a reliable external source, as you can edit your own user page (to some extent). Have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - I see nothing in the article as it currently stands that makes this professor qualify. So I would say he is probably not sufficiently notable for his own article. Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can edit your user page but not your citation count: articles with citation counts of 2,571, 1,546, and 1,171 is pretty huge and easily enough to pass criterion 1 in WP:PROF. If there are real concerns on this front they should be explored at AfD though. —Nizolan (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure it would. Yes citation counts above 2000 are pretty imprssive, but Scholar tends to be somewhat indiscriminate in counting. Citation count without an independent analysis of what this means in the specific field of an author does not really imply significant impact in the scholarly discipline. A friend of mine has top scoring papers with 7500 and 2500 citations in Google Scholar - and is assistant professor, and far away from notability. The interpretation for prof Paulson's citations is further complicated by the fact that his two best scoring publications are textbooks, yet he is especially since the two highest counted citations are from a textbooks, which may be in use for student papers or in reference to a software tool, but do not impact the discipline beyond that. If you look at his Web of Science listing (which is not free for all and only includes peer reviewed articles) his highest cited paper is only cited 38 times (considerably less than my own highest cited paper). So basically, I would say that Google in this case would be a fairly reliable primary source, but not useable in any way as secondary source to provide interpretations along the requirements of WP:PROF. Arnoutf (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Larry is certainly notable. If you look at researchers in the field of theorem proving, he is the most highly cited author, with almost 50% more citations than the next listed researcher (which is J Strother Moore, of the Boyer-Moore string search algorithm and the Nqthm and ACL2 theorem provers). Larry is a Fellow of the ACM, full professor at Cambridge, and a Distinguished Affiliated Professor at my own Alma Mater, the Technische Universität München. Plus plus plus.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose he's notable, but is he his own Wikipedia article notable? and what does this supposed "theorem proving" category on "Google Scholar" actually signify?? again, every tenured professor at the University of Michigan, for example, is probably Wikipedia notable if this guy is Wikipedia notable....does Wikipedia potentially want 25% of their articles to be orphan/stubs about professors????68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that his Wikipedia article is notable. That's why we have a Wikipedia article on Lawrence C. Paulson (who, as you agreed, is notable), and not one on Lawrence C. Paulson's Wikipedia Article (the notability of which is indeed highly doubtful, and which would take WP:NAVEL to a new level). And you might want to take a look at List of University of Michigan faculty and staff - we do have quite a lot of articles on these people. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
haha but I think you know what I meant...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the issue: I would think that in the case of a fairly "ordinary professor" like this guy (and, again, not that there's anything wrong with that!) there may be work he's done that could be helpful to cite within the content of other article topics...but I don't see the utility or purpose of him having his own Wikipedia article (so he can list about his wives/kids/undergraduate courses he's teaching...who cares!?)...as this could lead to, as I said above, 25% of articles being stubs about professors....68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without even sweating it, Larry meets WP:PROF #3 (Fellow of the ACM) and #5 (Distinguished Affiliated Professor at TUM). Not a "fairly ordinary" professor, but a highly distinguished researcher with massive influence via his contributions to Standard ML and Isabelle (proof assistant). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But is fellowship of ACM HIGHLY selective. It appointed 42 new fellows last year only last year[30], while the examples for being highly selective are on the lines of the Royal Academy (the given example) with a membership of 80 in total - so definitely fewer than 40 appointees each year; is distinguished professor (or the German equivalent of the title) at TUM (which is a major institute) comparable to the title distinguished professor in the US? This does require some sweating for the point to be made. Arnoutf (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that something like this shouldn't automatically qualify a person (it's a weakness in the guidelines)...I mean a Nobel Prize, A Fields Medal, a Pulitzer Prize etc....68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first example is not the "Royal Academy", but the Royal Society, which has 1450 members (who are all "fellows"). The other example for a "highly selective membership" is the IEEE. The IEEE appointed 297 new fellows out out a membership of 345,464. It has a total of 7113 fellows [31]. The ACM has about 100,000 members, so 42 for the ACM is much more selective than the IEEE fellowship. The ACM "recognizes the top 1%" of its members, so at most 1000, again much more selective than the IEEE, which is at around 2%. So yes, I think the ACM fellowship is "highly selective". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this particular person (who came to my attention randomly and I'm just using as in illustration) may be technically notable according to the current guidelines (though not sure the article properly establishes this) so the policy point is whether Wikipedia wants people like this to have their own article...it's safe to say there's a 1,000,000+ people worldwide who could likely make academic notability under the current guidelines...it's good to use this particular person as an illustrative case but there is a policy question here...does Wikipedia want potentially 25% of their articles to be about fairly ordinary academics.....?????...or should people like this more be cited in other article topics if they've significantly contributed there but not have their own rather pointless articles....??68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim of it being safe to say that there are "1,000,000+ people [...]" is unsubstantiated, and as far as I can tell, wrong. And both your implied assumption (if there are one million people who are notable, their articles will magically appear on Wikipedia) and your math are off (we have over 5 million articles in en:, so with a million extra bios those would make up closer to 15% than to 25%, even assuming no other articles are written). -Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it's probably a huge underestimation...I'd be shocked if there's not 300,000 currently working in just the USA alone who would technically qualify (that's like 1 in 1000 out of the population..so certainly a quite exclusive club of people)...and that's just currently...look over past 40 years the numbers is far bigger just in USA....so if look at worldwide population and then consider how it will just keep growing over time...I think Wikipedia has a problem....so policy might be to greatly tighten up eligibility here....and of course many academics will be cited within other topics of interest but just not be eligible for their own stand alone article about them personally.....68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting case. The professor seems an above average professor. His work is notable. But is he, as a person, also notable? I seriously doubt that. While he may narrowly make some of the requirements as set out in WP:PROF, we should carefully consider that these requirement are relaxations of General notability requirements. So I would say that when there is doubt for these relaxed guidelines we should err on the side of caution (non notable). (PS Stephan Schulz, I notice your are related to the same field as this professor. Can you honestly say that your position would be as much in favour of including a similar professor studying let's say the mating rituals of butterflies? - just to make sure there are no personal motivations in your arguments).Arnoutf (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm in the same (rough) area. I also know Larry at least professionally (we go to some of the same conferences). That is why I understand the breadth and influence of Larry's work, know how to interpret h-indices and citation numbers, and so on. For me it's a no-brainer that Larry is not "barely notable", but quite notable indeed, and one of the central figures in the field. I know nothing about butterflies, and I would not have recognised the name of any entymologist, so while my considered position would probably be the same, it's more likely that I would not have formed a considered position in that case. I think the question wether "he, as a person" is notable is somewhat beside the point, as far as current policy is concerned. Compare e.g. WP:AUTHOR - it's all about the significance of the work. And from Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Academics: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources" (emphasis mine). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue now becomes whether we can say that notability within the computer science community is sufficient for notability at global scale (ie Wikipedia). The mayor of (e.g) Ratingen is clearly notably within that community, but clearly not notable enough for Wikipedia.
If you read WP:AUTHOR you will see that while the work is important, the first two are about the person. From the guidelines " The person is regarded", "the person is known" and the second two are about work that are exceptionally central to broader society "The person has created ...., such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film", "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museum".
If you want to translate this to an academic the person should either qualify as a person, or has done something that is broadly recognized as a central work outside his/her own discipline in all disciplines within academia or even outside academia. So I really do not see why this would support inclusion of this specific person.
And we do not need a biography. We need evidence that an academic as a person is notable in the world of ideas (that is the world - not the discipline they are working in). H-indices and similar listings do not provide such evidence, and nothing in the article we are currently discussing does (neither in the text, nor in the references).
As the Anon editor mentions. This is an interesting case. This is clearly a good professor, but is good enough to claim he is notable? And are the notability guidelines under WP:PROF strict enough? And what if the actual article does not make it clear that the person matches the WP:PROF guidelines? Arnoutf (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
so for this particular guy, for example, perhaps his "Isabelle" program is itself notable and deserving of a brief article (and of course this guy would be cited and mentioned within that article..ie "Isabelle was created by LP in 19whatever while working wherever")...but then not just have an article about LP himself...because what's the utility of an article about LP himself to the encyclopedia reader?? It's possible the encyclopedia user could seek out "Isabelle" but who could possibly be seeking out LP himself (to learn such things as what undergrad classes he teaches and how many kids he has....especially if thinking about this with a long view..years and decades from now) ???68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean something like Isabelle (proof assistant)? Isabelle and its applications covered in many thousands of articles - both foundational and applications. Check e.g. this and note that Paulson's books on Isabelle have been cited several thousand times alone. What's the value of having an article on, say Miley Cyrus or Take That in the long run? Different people have different interests, and I find an article on a major computer scientist very useful - I might be asked to write the introduction to a Festschrift for him (well, not really - there are many more senior people working much closer with him), or as a speaker a conference (indeed, I would have, but he had to cancel and I introduced his replacement speaker instead). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the question, of course, is whether this interest in the man himself is far too obscure to allow a stand alone article on just the man himself...as it opens up a whole can of worms....you can always find a person who's interested in anything at all...Miley Cyrus, like it or not, is objectively a phenomenon of giant general interest....so the analogy isn't relevant...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
as the guidelines stand now Wikipedia is in a position to be a depository of hundreds of thousands of stub like articles (and eventually millions) about academics that are created by themselves or by people who work closely with them (ie grad students)...articles that have virtually no utility and more or less just list where these people got their doctorates, what their thesis was, and a general mention of their area of interest...but of course they'll also feel compelled to mention their kids and their pets....and this is all allowable because they're a member of some scholarly organization or penned a few papers that have been cited a bunch of times by other academics.....) I don't think Wikipedia wants to be in this business...these professors have their own web pages for such provided by their institutions....68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are now oversimplifying it. First of all, people should be discouraged to edit their own Wikipedia article as that would be a conflict of interest. So if the kids and pets appear, it should be added by someone besides themselves, making it not very likely they will appear. Secondly, we are not talking about the local boyscout chapter when we are talking about highly esteemed societies like ACM, these are definitely not some obscure organization. Also penning a few papers is unlikely to gain any attention in the field. You need a visible general scope of the field to be cited more than a few times.
The professor we are talking about is definitely an important person in computer science. Also his textbooks on his method are extremely well cited (and to be fair - computer science tends to publish most of their work in conference proceeding which do not feature in web of science, making comparisons with other sciences tricky).
As I said before, this professor is well above averagely notably and he is either very close, or does even pass the Wikipedia requirements of academic notability. And that is, in my view, exactly why this discussion is relevant. Do we, who are not involved in computer science, think this person is sufficiently notable for an article in Wikipedia? And if not, should we aim to adjust notability guidelines or their interpretation? And what consequences would that have for professors we would like to include (like my fictitious butterfly professor). Arnoutf (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
and my view is that this guy probably qualifies for his own article based on the current guidelines (though the article has problems as it stands now)...But that the guidelines should be more restrictive...for example, being a fellow of IEEE or whatever should not automatically grant somebody the right to their own personal Wikipedia article, as it currently allows now.....this is ridiculous....68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Do we, who are not involved in computer science, think this person is sufficiently notable for an article in Wikipedia?" - I think that is exactly the wrong question. Why should people who are not involved in a particular field make that decision? Should we, who are not linguists, decide if the Igbo language is notable? What about the Tapei language? Should we, who are not biologists, decide if Nyctiphanes is notable? Or Tethea ocularis? The aim of Wikipedia is to provide a summary of all human knowledge, not the intersection of topics interesting to everybody (which likely would be empty). And of course there is no "right to ones own personal Wikipedia article". First, there is no such right to begin with. And secondly, articles are neither private nor owned, in particularly not by the subjects. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is where we disagree. Wikipedia is NOT, neither aims to be, the summary of all human knowledge. If that were the aim, all knowledge would be, by definition, sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Instead Wikipedia aims to present all knowledge that is deemed sufficiently notable for a broader audience.
The issue thus becomes how broad the audience should be. That differs between topics (like the Tapei language (spoken by about 290 people in the world). And people, e.g. academics in the Tapei language research area. Any academic focussing on the Tapei language will almost certainly be notable within the Tapei language academic research area. Is notability among Tapei language academics enough to warrant an article about a Tapei linguist on Wikipedia. Almost certainly not. So I would argue that notability of an academic within a specific discipline does not constitute automatic notability for Wikipedia. That is why, in my view, the ideas of notability for those within a community; who can bring forward and interpret arguments about contribution of the academic within the community (be it Tapei language or computer science) should at least to some extent be aligned with those outside the community, who are likely better judges of whether the information is of any relevance to a broader audience. Arnoutf (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Arnoutf: according to Wikipedia: "Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia." The key word you are missing is "summary." VQuakr (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; I stand corrected. Summary is the important word here. When summarising knowledge, the decision what details to leave out is the important decision. The arguments remain largely the same though. What for some is essential to a topic (e.g. the bio of a leading Tapei language researcher), for others is an irrelevant detail that can be summarised with a single mention in the larger Tapei language article, or can even be omitted at all. Arnoutf (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"the all human knowledge" stuff is s a total misnomer, obviously....as there's all kinds of rules about what can/can't be included/what is/isn't notable....68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it is obviously pointless to have a Wikipedia article on academics themselves in probably 95% of the cases that would qualify under the current guidelines...as all they're really going to say is "X is a professor at Y who researches Z." And this is going to involved hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of articles...Again, many of these people may very well be mentioned or cited in articles about other notable subjects...But there should be a higher standard than currently exists for a personal article...perhaps they should objectively meet several of the numbered criteria (or at least half) instead of just one...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? See WP:NOTPAPER. Memory for these articles is, essentially, free. Bandwidths is only an issue if there is interest in the article. What is the argument to not have them, except from "they don't deserve it"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of three potential reasons: 1. these articles (and the current standards) inherently invite (or even require) editing that is against policy (COI, POV, Autobiography)...whereas if to qualify was more difficult it is far more likely non-connected editors will create/contribute 2. having a large number/percentage of articles such as these degrades the perception of Wikipedia as having respectable standards/being of a high quality/not being frivilous 3. 99% of these articles will be orphaned/never edited properly/or made to adhere to policy (and never visited...particularly as the years go on)...I think Wikipedia does care about this even if it's "not paper."68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article and the policies/guidelines in the current state. We do not need more restrictions on what constitutes notability. We especially do not need more of the concept that if someone/something is only notable within a "niche" discipline, than they may not be "notable enough" for Wikipedia in general. Wikipedia isn encyclopedia about all notable disciplines. The vast majority of people in the world are utterly uninterested in the vast majority of Wikipedia article subjects, but that cannot mean that all those articles are unwarranted, or Wikipedia has failed its existence goal. LjL (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought of an interesting example about academics: I think it is perfectly fine that there is an article about this "Isabelle" program that this Paulson created (so long as it's properly cited/verified/notable) where he would be mentioned and cited etc...but not okay to have an article about him personally as there is absolutely nothing that rises to notability about him personally....WHEREAS Noam Chomsky would require articles about his academic work AND (for better or worse) an article about him personally...this is an extreme example, an academic wouldn't have to be as objectively notable on a personal level as Chomsky to have an article, but...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky easily meets general notability guidelines, which are much stricter than those for academics. Not really a good example.
Let's agree that prof Paulson is sufficiently notable.
Let's also agree that the article in the state at the beginning of this discussion (i.e. lack of independent reliable secondary sources discussing the person beyond merely referring to his work) was problematic in presenting the evidence for that notability (even under the specific guidelines as set out by WP:PROF). By now Stephan Schulz added the distinguished professor title and ACM fellowship, which makes the case much stronger.
I have said everything I wanted to say about this, and notice that I am merely reiterating arguments. A good moment to call it a day. Best Arnoutf (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
right, but the idea is to require academics to meet something closer to general notability guidelines to have a personal article...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question too: would this be the forum to discuss changes that could then potentially actually create the changes to academic notability guidelines? In the TALK in the article on academic notability guidelines I see a lot of policy discussion...should that just be discussion on how to word the policy or can policy be discussed there too????68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP, the place to get consensus for relatively minor changes to the guideline (not policy; the difference is minor but significant) would be Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). This is a centralized discussion forum frequently used for more sweeping changes (ie deprecating a guideline or adding a new one). If you wished to propose, for example, removal of one of the 9 criteria at WP:NACADEMICS the guideline talk page would probably be a more efficient place to discuss it. In reply to your post just prior, the general reasoning behind secondary notability guidelines such as WP:NACADEMICS is to improve consistency in notability assessment. VQuakr (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment to Wikipedia's reference policies

WP:SNOW
this clearly isn't going to get anywhere. No use wasting people's time by keeping it open any longer. --Jayron32 18:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I propose to that Wikipedia make changes to its referencing policies. In my personal opinion, "personal information" or "personal knowledge" should be allowed. People who write paper encyclopedias aren't required to cite all of their sources - some of it is written based on just what they know. AgrAVE BAnks 17:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't they; is it? Can you cite your sources for those statements?  fredgandt 17:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it seems to me that technical articles leave room for some summary/explanation that wouldn't always need citations (ie summarizing/explaining the cited/factual content in the article)....but if you're stating a verifiable fact then of course it should be cited, and this policy makes sense....68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having just looked at your contributions and talk page, I see the problem you wish to address is something you've personally had trouble with.
Your writing is good, but without reliable references can only be accepted as original research by readers. Since readers have no way to distinguish OR from other content, and we can't manually verify every addition to the encyclopedia, we need a blanket policy of requiring everything to be verifiable and referenced.
Look at it this way: I could add "When playing Simcity, the player may press and hold the A key for 35 seconds to enter secret mode ..." and go on to describe this secret mode in some detail.
Should that be allowed?
In order to find out if there's any truth to that statement, the reader has to actually try it. There are over 5 million articles. Can you imagine the insanity if we allowed anything and everything to be included?!
Where a statement is notable it is likely to also be mentioned elsewhere, in books, or websites or newspapers etc., and we can quite simply connect our statements to these sources to confirm that we're not just making it up.
Something that you have unfortunately been the victim of, is the easy reaction to unreferenced additions - that is the removal of them. Another possible action editors may employ, is to place a {{Citation needed}} template after the questionable addition(s), then contact the editor who added them asking for sources. Unfortunately this happens less than I'd personally like. Another even rarer possibility is editors finding references for unreferenced additions in order to save the new content for posterity.
Again though, with over 5 million articles, that's a lot of work to keep on top of, for editors who are arguably right in feeling that the responsibility to back up their additions with references lies in the hands of those making the unsourced additions.
I encourage you to find reasonable references in the wider world that offer some proof of the additions you want to contribute, then be bold and try again. If you run into problems with other editors not accepting your referenced contributions, there are procedures in place to find an amicable resolution.
In short, if we publish anything anyone has to say, this encyclopedia would be utter nonsense within hours, and completely trashed within days. fredgandt 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well technically you would cite SimCity as the source (as a primary source) and verifiable by playing it. Much like you would cite films and books for their respective content - verifiable by watching/reading them. Was this an argument at random? Or is the OP's issue actually over game-cheats? Because Gamefaqs.com is a good secondary source for anything gameguide/cheatcode related. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Gamefaqs is not reliable - it's all user-generated content. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable with a small r. When was the last time it was wrong? Besides if you are citing both a primary and a secondary source, then being told to come back with a Reliable Source (TM) to confirm that IDDQD starts God Mode, thats just another editor being a rules lawyer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Well, no, not necessarily. Just because something is true, and you can source it to a small-r reliable source like Gamefaqs doesn't mean it warrants inclusion - this would lead to lots of excess fan pushing for material. The requirement for using Reliable secondary sources means that it has been noted outside the circle of fans, not just to source it but show its considered important to put into a summary article. If the only place you can learn how to activate a game's God Mode is via gamefaqs, its generally not appropriate to include regardless how correct it is. That's, in part, the issue with the original point of this discussion. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some way of magically preventing the creationists from inserting their personal knowledge that the earth is 10,000 years old or the holocaust deniers from inserting their personal knowledge that Hitler didn't kill any Jews? How would you resolve the competing personal knowledge some have that Ted Cruz is the Lead Singer of Christian Metal Band Stryper[32] and the personal knowledge others have that he is the Zodiac Killer[33]? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Guy (lol) plus similarly useful gems like this erm claim(?) on the talk page of a semi protected article. If it weren't semi protected, what might the result have been?
Unfortunately, not all edits or editors can be trusted, and so none can. fredgandt 19:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This isn't an amendment to policy, it turns what Wikipedia is upside down. some of it is written based on just what they know. - Sadly, many, many people know things that are not true, or are unable to distinguish between fact and their own subjective opinions. And paper encyclopedias are not wide open to every person on the planet who has a computer and Internet access and is old enough to use them (about 4); they are far more selective about who writes for them. No offense, but if one set out to propose a non-starter, it would be something like this. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that paper encyclopedias don't cite all their sources is that there are editors there who are hired to spend their time checking the writers to make sure that what they say is accurate. We don't have them and the Verifiability policy, which is the policy which requires references, is what we have that stands in the place of those editors. Without it, nothing here could be trusted. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facts that are unlikely to be challenged (like London is on the river Thames - which can easily be checked by anyone) do not require references anyway. So the policy is not overly restrictive.
WP:Trivia should not be mentioned in any case, and facts that do not have reliable sources, but can be checked by anyone, can be trivia. The reliable source in this case would have the role to show relevance. (in the example mentioned above, is a secret level relevant enough for mention)
So no to amendments, there is enough leeway in the current policies that should help you to discuss the case on the relevant talk page. Arnoutf (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Political drivel that does not meet any CSD

At new page patrol I came across the page Refugee crisis in germany today. Another patroller prodded it and while it may go through a round of "creator deprods - prodder goes to AfD" I see zero chance that it survives after a week, be it at prod or AfD. (The page is basically an essay attacking German foreign policy in Syria and its consequences, in the most soapbox-y terms one could imagine.)

I thought at first that there would "obviously" be a WP:CSD for things like that but there is none: it is not really an attack page (it does not even name German officials), and neither is it promotional (since it calmly states that current policy is a disaster, without obvious advertising of another policy). But of course, leaving that on WP for a week is already quite an eyesore (when leaving an article about software X that is non-notable after all is no big deal).

My understanding of the philosophy behind CSDs is that they are here for (1) things that may bring legal trouble and are urgent to correct (G10, G12, U3), (2) technicalities that cannot be debated, and (3) things that the WP community would be ashamed of leaving online even for the duration of an AfD even though it would not be totally unreasonable to debate them. That drivel seems to fit category (3). I was wondering if, in the vein of WP:G11 ("unambiguous advertising"), a criteria for "unambiguous political drivel" had already been proposed or would be feasible ("so much POV that a fundamental rewrite would be needed to be encyclopedic"). Of course, the problem is striking a balance between the urgency of the matter and the lack of real debate in the SD process.

Note: this is not an RfC, or even a straw poll, and I do not wish to establish consensus for a new CSD by this way. Actually, I hope someone will come up with a link to a similar debate of 5 years ago that convincingly settled the issue.

Tigraan (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSDs are a strict set of criteria, and nothing may be speedy deleted unless it meets one of these. It can be an attack page if it's purpose is to attack a policy, not only a human being. And your suggested #1 isn't completely accurate - firstly, because several of these "legal" criteria are actually more inclusive of the relevant legal issues; and secondly, because for Wikipedia to get into legal trouble, the Foundation must be informed about the issue and refuse to remove it; so us admins are not actually protecting Wikipedia's legal interests by speedy deletion of actual law violations. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are to a significant extent mistaken on what makes for a good CSD, Tigraan. CSDs are for things that the community as a whole, generally represented by a fairly broad sub section at an RfC or similar debate, decides a) clearly to be deleted in all cases; b) can be reliably recognized by one or two editors without any community debate being needed, and where false positives should be rare, and c) come up often enough that speedy deletion will significantly reduce the load on one or more XfD processes. Those standards are far more important than "legal issues" or "shame", in my view, although ethics have some role in the CSDs for attack pages and hoaxes. DES (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSD exists solely for things that a person, who is entirely unfamiliar with the subject of the article in any way could still look at the article and tell unambiguously should be immediately deleted. For example, if someone started an article that said:

Jimmy is the guy who sits next to me in chemistry class and he's the hottest boy around!

That would be eligible for CSD#A7, since it describes a real person, but does not say how they may be important. There's no need to ask any questions. I don't even need to know anything about it. Speedy delete exists for that. On the contrary, I frequently deny speedy deletion requests for articles such as:

Jane Doe is a painter from the Central African Republic who has won several awards, including "Young Painter of the Year" by the Central African Republic council on the arts and "Best use of Form and Color" by the Central African Republic Academy of Painting Science.

The reason that THAT article should not be speedily deleted (by really, ANY CSD criteria, but lets focus on A7) is because it clearly states that the person is important and gives direct, specific examples of being recognized as such, by winning several national awards. Now, you may say "But really, are those awards themselves notable enough to make the person worthy of a Wikipedia article?" See, to answer THAT question, we'd have to research something about the awards, find out how well respected they are, discuss that amongst ourselves, etc. THAT'S why we don't use speedily deletion for things like that, it needs to be discussed. The article noted above, while it (in my opinion) should be deleted, does not tick the boxes necessary for speedy deletion, and as such, needs to go through AFD. --Jayron32 16:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

how does this work anyway?

someone proposes a policy change...a bunch of people vote on it..and the policy change idea "wins"...how is this then codified or promulgated into policy for Wikipedia and go into effect for every relevant article?68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone edits the policy page. It's a wiki. LjL (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the policy pages, I don't see anything that goes into the kind of detail like, for example, about the above discussion to do with having articles about foreign leaders responses to terror attacks...is there somewhere that lists all the policy fine print....?68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is also created on pages like this one. A lot of policy is based on precedent and not written up. People might just point that archived Village Pump discussion, or it might get wedged somewhere into a style guideline in WP:MOS. Of particular note: MOS:BODY. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Policy and guideline should reflect community consensus, but it would be unmanageable to try to put all community consensus on every little thing in p&g. There are very few experts on organizing masses of information like that, no central control or authority, no mechanism for site-wide coordination of that information. So, some community consensus is reflected only in RfCs or simple discussions. It's often difficult, confusing, messy, and extremely inefficient, in part because (1) those discussions are usually hidden away in the archives of some talk space, and (2) there are often multiple relevant discussions hidden away in the archives of multiple talk spaces. Tons of editor time is spent just debating exactly what the community consensus is. It's a system that seems designed to drive editors completely mad, and someday we may have something better. The first step is to want to, and we haven't taken that step yet as a community. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see..68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of how I think this should be addressed, see Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes, especially the sections on "Background" and "Previous Discussions and related pages". I tried to pull together a list of all previous discussions and related policies and link to them. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vote results get written into policy pages if someone decides it's worth editing it into the policy page.
The way it "[goes] into effect for every relevant article" is whenever someone shows up at that article and decides to make the fix. Obscure articles might not get fixed for years. If someone opposes the edit then you point to the vote-result or policy justifying why your edit should remain in place. Either they accept it, or they argue it. If they argue, more editors can be called in to resolve the dispute. Someone who persists in fighting against policy can be deemed disruptive and get blocked from editing at all.
You don't need to know all the rules, you are invited to boldly make good-faith efforts to improve articles. If someone disagrees with your edit, they can give you a link to the relevant policy or vote-result to make their case. Once someone does show you the relevant policy or vote-result then you're expected to respect it. It's all very learn-as-you-go. As long as you're trying to help and you respect community consensus, then it's all good. Reverting bad edits is quick and easy. Mistakes are easy to revert, and tripping-over-rules-you-don't-know is a harmless and expected part of the process. Just don't do things that are blatantly abusive. Alsee (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
so it's kind of messy like the American legal system with case law but with the additional problem that there's no hierarchy amongst potentially dozens of different consensus discussions etc...so the same consensus discussion might have to be rehashed over and over again for each specific case (suppose best of a bunch of bad options)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is because consensus can change depending on specifics. We do occasionally make exceptions to our own rules (if there is consensus to do so). The important thing to remember is that making an occasional exception does not necessarily make the rule invalid. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the best way to define it is: We are ruled by consensus, and general consensus is that policies and guidelines should be respected.
One of Wikipedia's core rules is IAR: Ignore All Rules. For a simple clear case, let's say the graphics on some page are unreadable by people who are colorblind. You can and should fix that problem, even if the change technically violates some policy or guideline or consensus. It is obvious that consensus wants it fixed, even though no one ever discussed it. We don't leave the page unreadable just to lawfully-enforce a dysfunctional rule.
And yes, sometimes we get stuck re-debating the same crap repeatedly. For example the NOTCENSORED policy. We have endless incidents of people arguing that that sexually explicit content or images of Muhammad or whatever should be removed from articles. They fight over whatever article they find offensive, sometimes they attract a temporary local majority, but they have zero chance of reversing NOTCENSORED policy itself. Eventually the article ends up following policy to include the controversial content. Alsee (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing issues

Several days ago, I wrote a post on Meta-Wiki about the license of Wikipedia [34], but no one has responded. Since my questions come from issues here at Wikipedia in English language, I would like to receive help in the Community of Wikipedia in English language, to know if I can make these changes to Wikipedia in Spanish language.

First issue: Some time ago I saw these changes in Wikipedia in English, both invoked the legal team of the WMF: for MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright [35] made by Philippe (aka User:Philippe (WMF)) and for Copyrights [36] made by Moonriddengirl (aka User:Mdennis (WMF)). I wanted to ask whether they are mandatory in all the Wikipedias, because I have not seen any page of the Wikimedia Foundation that explains these these changes.

Second issue: I also wanted to ask about the Creative Commons 4.0 license. I understand that it is not possible to insert text CC BY SA 4.0 into any Wikipedia (with license CC BY SA 3.0), but due to the fact that m:Licensing update/Outreach does not report anything about the Creative Commons 4.0 license, I am not sure if I can import text with a CC BY 4.0 (without SA) licence into Wikipedia (with license CC BY SA 3.0).

Third issue: Threfore I don't have clear if it is possible to export text from Wikipedia (with license CC BY SA 3.0) to an external site both with CC BY 4.0 or CC BY SA 4.0 license.

Thank you for your answers in advance. Trasamundo (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Trasamundo. The edit of which you speak to the Wikimedia copyright template was not made by User:Philippe, but by User:Philippe (WMF) - which is an important distinction. :) His former edits are as a volunteer and have the same authority as other edits by volunteer. That edit was in his capacity as senior staff at the Wikimedia Foundation and on behest of the Wikimedia Foundation's General Counsel. It links to the wmf:Terms of Use, which is binding on every project.
The change that I made as Moonriddengirl was in my capacity as a volunteer administrator, not in my capacity as Wikimedia Foundation staff. However, as the footnote advises, it was made in consultation with Wikimedia Foundation legal staff. However, every Wikipedia requires that you license your content under CC-By-SA 3.0 and (in my cases) GFDL. You can read the Creative Commons license page yourself and see that it is not compatible with older versions of CC-By-SA. Accordingly, it is not compatible with our Terms of Use to import content from a CC-By-SA 4.0 source to any Wikipedia, as it cannot be licensed under CC-By-SA 3.0.
I am not able to speak in staff capacity to your export question. As Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content notes, neither the Wikimedia Foundation nor the authors of content can provide legal advice. However, the link I gave above may help. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your quick response, Moonriddengirl. There is only one issue that I do not see clear. I understand that the CC BY requires that the original author is given credit and that the user is free to do what he wants with the work, including modifications; nevertheless, I do not manage to see if original CC BY 4.0 text (not CC BY-SA 4.0) is compatible and can be mixed in a text with CC BY-SA 3.0 as final license. Trasamundo (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Trasamundo. For that, see WP:COMPLIC. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An ultimate Wikipedia:Autopatrolled?

This is a varsion of questions i asked erlier on Help desk. Thought it's a good idea to ask them here as well:

1. I understand autopatrolled users are not being checked just for new articles they create. I wonder have the community ever discussed what would be the implications of creating a new status for complete auto-patrolled users? Correct me if im wrong, but in simple terms auto-patrolling means that "this user will always create useful and well written new pages, therefore checking him/her is pointless". This a strong right, that show great deal of respect to the wikipedian. It is also a given by nomination, rather than by consensus or voting. My question essentially is what will happened if we extend this right to auto-patrolling each and every edit? These users would be auto-marked for each edit they make, meaning every edit is auto-patrolled. Do you think there were discussion on this topic? I searched and couldn't find it.

Generally Im curious about wiki policy on patrolling. I understand there are two major patrolling projects in wiki: Newpages patrol and Recent change patrol. There is also Pending Changes Reviewer and Roll-backers. Am i forgetting any important ones? Also autopatrolled users area passive part of the patrolling procedure, as they are bypassing the new pages patrol. does ultimately, the community wish every edit would be patrolled by trustworthy community members? If the answer is yes (which i doubt, but that's the whole point), creating the above mentioned status seems to answer this need as well. The "ultimate autopatrolled user" will would also get some kind of "positive patroling" effect when they revert or change any page they edit. Do you think it can help monitor pages?

3. Do you know if there are wikis that require every edit to be patrolled? Are there statistics that cross wikis on this kind of specifics?

Thank you all,

Mateo (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=715637590"