Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

The idea lab section of the village pump is a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Wikipedia issues can be incubated, for later submission for consensus discussion at Village pump (proposals). Try to be creative and positive when commenting on ideas.
Before creating a new section, please note:

Discussions of technical issues belong at Village pump (technical).
Discussions of policy belong at Village pump (policy).
If you're ready to make a concrete proposal and determine whether it has consensus, go to the Village pump (proposals). Proposals worked out here can be brought there.

Before commenting, note:

This page is not for consensus polling. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them.
Wondering whether someone already had this idea? Search the archives below, and look through Wikipedia:Perennial proposals.

« Archives, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60

Poor articles

Is there a place to list and draw attraction to poor articles, particularly articles which are of high-importance? -Inowen (nlfte) 04:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On your personal "to-do" list perhaps? Failing that the article's talk page, or a related project's talk page. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found it: WP:AFI. But it seems to need improvements itself. -Inowen (nlfte) 18:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these will be marked as stubs, so you can look for stubs belonging to projects. One example tool is this: https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Physics&importance=Top-Class&quality=Start-Class or Chemistry actually has some high importance stubs: https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Chemistry&importance=High-Class&quality=Stub-Class . THere is also a good chance that some high importance topics have not been written about yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes (but not always) the relevant projects will be a good place. But it is not news to regulars that many important articles are poor. Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about if there was a threat that poor articles be removed? Wouldn't that motivate projects to take charge? Seahawk01 (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inowen, Also people can request copy editing help for an article at WIkiProject copy editing guild . JC7V (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They can go for articles for deletion, and if they are not up to good merits, they can have a tag at the top warning that they may go to articles for deletion. Vorbee (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vorbee, what about poor articles on important topics? For example, C-Class, High Importance Wikiproject articles? Could you delete those and then turn them into stubs or something? Thanks for the clarification! Seahawk01 (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone want to threaten people with deletion, if "they" (who is that, if it's not you and me?) don't get articles up to your standards, right this minute? That's not going to promote collaboration. That's not going to help us build the project.

Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. (WP:Stubbing sometimes is.) If you see a sentence, paragraph, or section that could be improved (e.g., by adding sources or re-writing the language), then fix it!. If you see a sentence that you believe is harming the article, then take it out. But don't go around saying that if the WP:VOLUNTEERS don't met your standards on your time table, then all their work should be completely discarded. That's uncollegial and destructive.

If you're thinking that threats work, then you should go read some more psychology. (Oh, and while you've got those books in hand, you might as well improve the related articles, okay?) What actually works is quietly helping people. If you find a new article that someone started today, or an expansion that a new editor made to an existing article, and you add a source or a fact (after waiting an hour or so to make sure they're done – Wikipedia:Avoiding edit-conflicts is important), then when they come back tomorrow, they'll feel encouraged and interested and maybe even learn how to edit better. That's how you get good content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I take the above points that it would not be practical to delete articles if the article is of high importance. If the article is a poor article, how about having an tag saying "This article may need clean up" heading it? Vorbee (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: ah, well...I'm new to Wikipedia. Seems like my saying "threat" was ill-considered. Perhaps I should read up on "herding cats"...then I can also channel all my research into creating a page about this topic as well :-) Seahawk01 (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the initial post, I happened upon Category:Wikipedia article challenges and thought having a challenge on vital articles might be helpful. Last week I made a post about this here as well (see below). I am seeing here at Village Pump / Idea Lab a general resignation and attitude that "Wikipedia is a work in progress," but I disagree since Wikipedia is such an important point of reference for so many people and feel fundamentally there should be more attention paid to provide the public with WP:GOOD quality articles on major societal issues. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right that we need improvements on articles these basic subjects. But... it's really, really hard. Like, you wouldn't believe how hard those "simple" subjects can be. I don't know if you've looked at the WP:FAs much, but one of the things that's striking is how many of the featured articles are on obscure subjects: an unpopular book, an uncontroversial weather event, a boring film. The usual explanation is that if nobody cares about the subject, then nobody cares enough to disagree with what the article says. Compare that to, say, last year's attempt to improve Acne, which is a subject that every person above the age of 12 has some opinions about, and which prompted disputes over things like whether to mention the belief (urban legend?) that smoking tobacco might reduce acne. The general subjects are hard because everyone believes that their own views are The Right™ views, and everyone has views on general subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply back WhatamIdoing. I did briefly look over the WP:FA list. I remember one was the shortest highway in New York state. So, that's pretty obscure! And, when I first started here a month or so ago I remember a discussion in the Teahouse about a page on nuclear power...how it had become bloated by years of people either for or against coming and adding their thoughts (with disregard for page flow, storytelling, etc). So, maybe it is just the nature of the beast and I'm so new at editing that I'm just idealistic. Before I started editing, I had used Wikipedia for years and always thought highly of it. But, I just used to look at pages like math history. Now that I started editing, I wanted to write about stop and frisk and related topics and am discovering how many problems social issues pages can have. As a side note, I did split economic inequality and split affordable housing (twice). But, to get a page on a topic like that in shape is too much work for one person. Better to pick smaller topics. Thanks again for your input. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A course on Wikipedia similar to ones on Coursera or EdX

Any comments on this idea - A course on Wikipedia similar to ones on Coursera or EdX:

Problem: Learning about the intricacies of Wikipedia is difficult for a new editor and sometimes the process is discouraging and very slow. Navigating Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays takes time, and mistakes by new editors increases the workload of older editors. Also, learning about Wikipedia can be made more fun, structured and efficient through such an online course for Wikipedia like the ones on Coursera (https://www.coursera.org/) or edX (https://www.edx.org/). A proper course with videos, quizzes, interactive elements, the history of Wikipedia and basic help navigating wikipedia for future editors, how the largest volunteer community in the world works, how things are resolved on controversial topics, so many things can be covered sequentially. The course can cover the whole of Wikipedia as well as WikiMedia, Commons, Wikidata etc and how all the other Wikis are part of the larger Wikipedia universe.
Who would benefit: All new editors, prospective editors and for those just curious about wanting to know more about Wikipedia itself. It would also provide an educational platform for teachers across the world to teach their students about Wikipedia in a more thorough and structured way.
Proposed solution: A course on Wikipedia on Coursera or Edx. (Even YouTube)
More comments: I know that Wikipedia – The Missing Manual and WP:The Wikipedia Adventure exists. But The Wikipedia Adventure would need to be expanded and updated extensively to cover this idea, it also doesn't cover the other wikis. I understand that there are other more experienced editors who help clear things out when there is a confusion related to how Wikipedia works, Talk pages are there as well as the TeaHouse etc.
DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki Education Foundation has developed training materials for the student classroom program. They include guides such as Editing Wikipedia and online tutorials. Perhaps some of this could be adapted for orienting new Wikipedia editors. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StarryGrandma: Thank you for pointing this out. I had never heard of Wiki Education Foundation till now. Thanks for adding the links! They are doing some great work! :) I will try asking for some feedback from a member. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well the dead horse I've been beating on this for a long time is getting video summaries for each major policy/guideline. There's potentially grant funding available that could cover things like space and equipment, maybe even a couple cheap actors. Writing scripts is easy enough. But I don't know anyone who has, for example, substantial experience producing content for youtube who would have the knowledge and expertise to bring the whole thing together and get a good production quality out of it. I'd love to snag someone like the GeographyNow crew who would be on board to see the whole thing through, but as of now I just continue to beat the horse. GMG ^talk 16:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have a brief case full of training booklets that have been produced for edit-a-thons and training sessions- and the they are all wanting. Dive in: Commons:Category:Wikimedia UK training booklets . If you want a quick fix, you could try Commons:File:Newspeak House- Strengthening an article manual.pdf

I have been a proponent of independent resource-based learning for decades, whereby tutorial material is written, and the learner or a trainer chooses the route through them. The resource sheets are written for different ability levels, in differing languages and in many ways resemble a wiki, catalogued and linked. The tutor will talk to resource- the independant learner would choose their own route. The resource bank would now include youtube type clips.
There is a massive need for a printed manual- but it must reflect Wikipedia as it is today. Forget teaching newbies about creating new articles: New page patrol and the draft space review backlog will zap most of those. Forget about teaching syntax: newbies usually edit with visual editor, or on cellphones/mobile phones. The experience we had when we started is not the same as the newbie gets today. Similarly, the language used by academics is not the same as that needed to write a tutorial sheet. The test I use to evaluate tutorial sheets is how they explain referencing.
Material used for tutorial material is not written in the same way as explanatory promotional material even if the content may appear similar. Both are needed. Active editors can provide the content, and the foundation can help with typesetting and editoral skills- the trainer can select the most appropriate for his students. I think the message is that we should have a serious look at the problem and appreciate that there is no one correct way, but having nothing is wrong. ClemRutter (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: Mention of making individual video summaries for the guidelines is a great idea, more implementable and workable at a smaller level than an "entire" course on Wikipedia. Thanks for the mention about the potential grant funding available for all this, I had totally overlooked how it would cover something like this. The mention of production quality like GeographyNow is a good aim. At a personal level I could request a few people for decent level individual videos, provided the funding say even for a sample. But then I am hesitating for various reasons, including personal reasons, so I think I am also going to be beating a dead horse too for sometime until I get the confidence to go ahead with it! :D :D I did leave mention of this idea on the talk pages of two Wikipedia Education Foundation members and one, User:Ian (Wiki Ed) acknowledged that he would convey the idea to his colleagues. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ClemRutter: Thanks for all these points. The points you mentioned about newbies are very relevant. I had hoped the course would not only be to train new editors, but an entire course in itself. (Like a Bachelors degree in Wikipedia, or a non-credit certificate course from a respected University, MBA Encyclopedia Management :D :D :D) Anyway... getting ahead of myself, thanks for the reference to the PDF too. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DiplomatTesterMan: Ramjohn probably has more pull than any of us could have as far as connecting the logistical dots. I did work up an example of a draft script a few months ago, just to illustrate the kind of thing I'm talking about. Very much shooting for a GeoNow or Crash Course type vibe, being informative and minimally entertaining, while keeping things super low budget and not taking ourselves entirely too seriously. (Incidentally, I've already emailed both GeoNow and Crash Course begging for interest and neither ever replied.)

But the idea is to make some passive way of learning policy, something where you can cook dinner or browse reddit and still absorb information about policy. At least enough to get you to the point that when a new editor actually sits down to read the full text, they already have a general idea of what it is they're reading and how it's applied. GMG ^talk 15:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Video is a splendid thing. So is printing, and many introductory pages exist, scattered in various places including user subpages. Mine is User:Jim.henderson/Wikipedia is collaborative which, on the theory that too many intros are technical (list of rules, how to format refs, etc), takes more a sociological or political tack. I print it as a single sheet folded as four pages and pass it out at edit-athons, where it is often well received. The usual problem with nicely printed pamphlets is distribution; the papers must be brought to the user. My sheet can simply be run off on your printer, giving a result far less pretty than what any competent print shop will produce, but it's easy. it would be prettier and easier if it were in a WP format instead of a Wikimarkup page. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feature Request: Add a 'Reading-mode' button to ease the reading of Wikipedia's articles

Hi,

I wish to read for hours articles as any user, but it occurs that the reading (on PC) of these articles is not enough comfortable as the white color background tires my eyes. I have to stop reading for a moment.

I wish to see a button called 'Reading-Mode' located before the title of article (Eye icon). By pressing this button, it will allow me to change the white color background of the article to a gray or yellow color (see example below). The purpose will be to let me choose as user what make my reading more comfortable.

example: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7RYcp.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmio (talk • contribs) 14:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexmio: Wikipedia is always in "reading mode" unless you click the edit button. However, if you want to change the background color, you can do so by adding the following line to your common.css file, located at Special:MyPage/common.css (replace #F1ECE8 with the color of your choice):

.mw-body {background-color: #F1ECE8;}

If you want to be able to toggle it with an eye icon, you can instead insert the following into your common.js file, located at Special:MyPage/common.js (replace #F1ECE8 with the color of your choice):

var readingBG = "#F1ECE8";
mw.loader.load( '//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ahecht/Scripts/ReadingMode.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' ); //[[User:Ahecht/Scripts/ReadingMode.js]]

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us that use Google on our 60+ inch TV's add the "Dark Mode" extension - chrome://extensions/?id=dmghijelimhndkbmpgbldicpogfkceaj . Simply a toggle button.--Moxy (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This link goes to the extension on the webstore; I personally use this extension in general but use this nice vector dark skin on Wikipedia. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox also has something known as Reader view which removes a lot of clutter. There are probably extensions available for other browsers. Besides what others have noted above, you can also install a dark theme.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a related wishlist item you can vote for: m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Reading/Accessibility settings for everyone.
Sidenote: @Alexmio: I occasionally use a bookmarklet to achieve this at various websites. You just drag the link given there into your bookmarks/bar, edit it to change the two instances of "tan" to "#F1ECE8" (screenshot), and then use it whenever you want at any website. Quiddity (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize. I use this user stylesheet for en.wikipedia.org:

#mw-head-base, #content, #mw-navigation {
    background-color: #f3f3f1; /* 6S 95L */
}
#toc {
    background-color: #e7e6e4;
}

It sets everything to roughly the TOC's default background, then darkens the TOC accordingly. —wing gundam 02:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automatically detecting paid revisions

I'm working on detecting paid revisions with a framework that requires weak heuristics for their detection. But I've no experience as an editor, so heuristics that I come up with probably aren't going to be very effective. Does this sound interesting to any experienced editors out here?

The framework that I'm working with. Paper supporting the framework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apiarant (talk • contribs) 20:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be concerned that such a heuristic can't tell the difference between paid editing and COI editing, as different policies apply to both. Or worse, not tell the distinction between paid editing and editing on an organization page as extensive edits to organization pages can be symptoms of spamming, paid editing or mere interest. Heuristics don't have mind reading powers, after all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is no rocket science. Heuristics cannot differentiate paid and COI editing. Even humans only do so by looking at the surrounding factors, prior knowledge or confession not by merely by looking at revisions. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should've been a bit more clear and gone in a little more detail about the framework. Indeed, the difficulty with detecting paid editing is that we don't read minds. And so, any auto-detection method that uses what we already know (like revisions made by self-disclosed paid editors) doesn't have much base knowledge to work with in the first place. Snorkel (the framework above) tries to improve this limited knowledge problem by trying to squeeze more out of shakier sources of knowledge, like experienced Wikipedians' judgments and their personal heuristics. A short summary of how it does this:

(1) Instead of applying heuristics directly, Snorkel (the framework above) can take a large collection of heuristics (which are never wholly correct) and model the ways that they are correct and incorrect with respect to each other, as a whole.

(2) From considering all heuristics, Snorkel can then make probabilistic claims about revisions. It can declare how unsure the sum of the heuristics should be.

(3) These probabilistic statements can be applied to edits that no one's really sure about. But now we have newly explicit knowledge that we didn't have before -- even if the knowledge is fuzzy. This probabilistic knowledge can improve other methods. Like the types of models that ORES works on.

Snorkel is a state-of-the-art thing that made a little splash. But it isn't a quick and easy solution; there's a lot of work to do. A first step is collecting a set of heuristics to model. And of course, if its performance looks shaky when testing offline, then it won't be brought online. Apiarant (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this could possibly work in the context of Wikipedia. As a concrete example, I've created numerous articles on artworks currently in Tate Britain; how could your system possibly detect whether I'm doing so out of an interest in the topic (unproblematic), because I'm an employee of the gallery and consequently know a lot about its contents and want to share this knowledge in my spare time (legitimate COI), because I'm an employee of the gallery and hope to boost interest in my workplace (inappropriate COI) or because I'm a PR agent hired to the gallery to raise its profile (unauthorised paid editing)? Even expert human admins find it very difficult to distinguish between interest, COI and UPI. Any attempt to automate the process will generate huge numbers of false positives, and Wikipedia is not going to look favourably at any system which flags significant numbers of good-faith editors as potential spammers. ‑ Iridescent 10:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty messy problem -- I agree. Whether this can work comes down to whether there are sufficient behavioral differences between paid and good-faith editors' behavior (as far as they are revealed to Wikipedia). If there aren't sufficient differences, then that's that. We don't have evidence to work with to build cases, so to speak. But if we've got the evidence, then whether we can produce an automated solution comes down to a technical challenge of finding the right model to capture these differences. As you've said, some of these differences might be quite subtle and difficult to observe, even for experienced humans. The nice thing about Snorkel is that we aren't asking for it to work with the evidence all by itself. Snorkel works because it gets "help" from people in the form of heuristics. And the more diverse and richer the knowledge-base of those heuristics, the better Snorkel can do -- sort of like a Wiki. The end model is (kind of) collaboratively edited.

More personally, my reason for the proposal: As the central repository of knowledge for the world, it's a shame that Wikipedia doesn't have the type of money big companies have for state-of-the-art automation (like Google / Facebook's ads, Amazon's recommended purchases, etc.). But Wikipedia has passionate volunteers. Snorkel has the potential to bridge volunteers and efficient solutions that work at scale, especially given stagnating growth in number of new editors. Apiarant (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apiarant, MER-C generates a list of suspicious (possibly COI/PAID) articles regularly. Probably someone you'd want talk to about this; and other editors who frequent WP:COIN. The heuristics could help in finding paid rewrites of existing articles that slip through the cracks. One identifier of paid spam is promotional articles from new editors that are too well done (someone who is paid often try to do a good job of it). Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

to expand on Iridescent's example, even for commercial organization, it is reasonable that individual hobbyists will be interested in all the products from a company. This even holds for non-consumer products==one of the revelations of WP is the range of things hobbyists can get fascinated in, and there's a even better example, Wikia. What I tend to find most suspicious is a deep interest in products from unrelated companies, but this is why most UPEs know at least enough to pick a different user name each time. Many of us working with UPE detection go by writing style--but this is less helpful one might think, since even the most characteristic PR quirks are copied by good faith editors whose idea of appropriate stye has been contaminated by exposure to the huge amount of PR in the world, and in particular by the large amount already in WP, which they copy thinking this is what we want--naive good faith editors have even said this explicitly, that they've deliberately copied the style of what they find here.

It should be possible to find a heuristic as good as any one of us, but none of us are really very good. It should even be possible to find one as good as the combined consensus here, but that will only be slightly better, for we often disagree on anything not utterly obvious. That's why the practical emphasis is on removing promotional articles, no matter by whom they are written. Very few people or firms will hire an editor to write non-promotional articles about themselves. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victims lists are becoming a source of constant debate and argument

The inclusion of lists of non-notable victims is becoming problematic. It seems that they are being added by editors to articles dealing with mass casualty WP:EVENTs which is causing frequent, often lengthy and sometimes acrimonious debates over whether such lists are appropriate and/or violate WP:NOTMEMORIAL and NOT:EVERYTHING with local consensus proving either elusive or dramatically varying from one article to another depending on shows up and how determined they are to bludgeon their way through. This is getting out of hand and we really need to establish some kind of guideline for the sake of consistency and putting a stop to these endless debates. I personally believe that in most cases they are unencyclopedic, add nothing of substance to the article and violate, at least in spirit, NOTMEMORIAL. But even if a decision is made to allow them, which I would strongly oppose, that would be better than the status quo. My personal preference would be to amend NOTMEMORIAL to expressly prohibit lists of non-notable victims. Obvious and commonsense exceptions would include otherwise nonnotable victims who were significantly involved in the EVENT. Which is to say they did more than just die. Generally these will simply be named in the article narrative. I also would be fine with including an WP:EL external link to a suitable memorial website or news site that lists the victims. I do realize that this has been discussed before, but the status quo is just not working. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that these lists add little to the article narrative. If a person had a notable role in an event, as documented in reliable sources, their role can be noted as part of the prose narrative of the event. If the person is otherwise wiki-notable (has or could have a stand-alone article based on their life outside of the event) then they can also be mentioned in the prose of the article. I am at a loss as to what the possible use is of lists of otherwise unnotable names, dropped into such an article without context, serves in the story of such events. Such lists serve little more than to act as a memorial to the victims, and while they can often be referenced, they rarely serve any relevant purpose, and as such, should go. --Jayron 32 15:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've gone round in circles on this issue at Talk:Thousand Oaks shooting and it was previously discussed here. I'm firmly in the "no unless the people are notable" camp, but some people aren't and always try to have a list.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- This needs to be broadened somewhat to include participants or crewmembers. USS Monitor contains a list of crewmen who are non-notable and don't perform any important actions. People who do something significant should mentioned in the text, but a list of people who were simply present has no value, regardless of their status as victims or whatever.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Citing lists from more articles that should also be removed doesn't really help build a case... --Jayron 32 15:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They should be removed in general. Where one or more victims had a role, as was the case in the Sandy Hook shooting, they can be described in prose. Makes it very easy to draw the line of what to not include. --Masem (t) 15:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To add to my argument, victim lists tend to be a matter of RECENTISM as well as sensationalist reporting (if the incident involved innocent civilians). A question to ask is if twenty years later, will those victim lists be essential to an article? Nearly all the time, that answer is no. I do realize that locally/regionally/nationally there will often be memorials to such victims, but that's just not information appropriate for an encyclopedia if these people were non-notable. What value is there knowing that Jane Smith and John Doe died in the event if they otherwise had no role in it? --Masem (t) 17:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not "memorializing" anyone. You have to know intention to charge that we are memorializing. Show me where "Jane Smith" or "John Doe" died in an incident. Names happen to often reflect ethnicities. Names are often "non-generic". Hometowns, ages—all of humanity is not a pile of undifferentiated biomass. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 10-20 years, unfortunately, yes they are, if they are non-notable persons before the event. The vast majority of humans are non-notable, and rarely gain notability post-death. And why do we care about ethnicity, save for cases when that was a reason for the mass death (eg the recent shooting in Pennsylvania) in which case we can say the broad description about them. --Masem (t) 18:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"why do we care about ethnicity" I don't know. But we do. And it is not just ethnicity. It is age too. And a minimal few other factors. Occupations and home towns have informative value. Bus stop (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is fundamentally an WP:ILIKEIT argument. Whether an individual picks their nose has some degree of informative value. Whether it belongs in an encyclopedia article or not is a different question. Parsecboy (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Whether an individual picks their nose has some degree of informative value." That is why we exercise judgement as to how extensive our coverage is of the lives of decedents. Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you just said "all information is constructive" - you can't have your cake and eat it too, my friend. Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wasn't speaking about Wikipedia. All information is informative. Most of it fails to inform. The value of information is a function of our ability to decipher it. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"All information is informative. Most of it fails to inform." GMG ^talk 18:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can summarize any critical ethnicity/gender/age/etc. breakdown if it seems appropriate in the prose given what the event was (eg we frequently break down nationalities of passengers in international aircraft disasters, or in cases of school shootings, how many were students and how many were teachers/others). We absolutely should not be guessing on names, hometowns (which doesn't confirm anything on ethnicity) or other details. --Masem (t) 19:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, you literally said "Our primary purpose is compiling information. You are mistaken if you think our primary purpose is providing constructive information. That is because ultimately all information is constructive." (until you removed it after I pointed out you contradicted it here - rather poor form, I'd say). So unless you have a mouse in your pocket, and you're working on your own website, I can only assume you were talking about writing articles on Wikipedia. Again, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You either make distinctions about what information is useful for an encyclopedia article and what isn't (like you seem to suggest above) or you don't (like you did in the comment you have now removed). If the former, you need to provide an explanation about how such information as you'd like to include is relevant in an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a newspaper article or a genealogical archive, for instance), and if the latter, then you have no leg to stand on, policy-wise. Parsecboy (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stop being silly. If there aren't space constraints, editors should be allowed to build articles. This is the sort of information being removed. The "Casualty" section is entirely constructive to the article. We see no excess of information in that "Casualty" section of that article, which of course I am presenting merely as an example. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sort of information probably should be removed. There are practically never space constraints, but we still don't include every piece of information. It's just article bloat – that's what WP:INDISCRIMINATE is for. Continuing to use this article as an example, I can't see how someone wanting to read and learn about the collision could ever care about the names, ages, and home towns of the dead. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say many readers would "care about the names, ages, and home towns of the dead." I know I would. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's trivial to find a minimum of 1 person in the world who would be interested in anything. However, I think the better test would be to look at the general trends at Wikipedia towards lists of people's names. There's nothing inherently different between, say, the list of people who died in a particular event compared to say, the list of people who attended a certain school or worked for a certain corporation or attended a particular concert or some such. What is Wikipedia's guidance for those sorts of events. Whatever that is, we should probably have similar guidance here. There's nothing extra special about dying over any other life event, after all. --Jayron 32 16:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, but show me an encyclopedia that lists that information. They'll give the number of casualties, but not details. Similarly, you'll often find histories of individual ships that are seriously damaged or sunk that lack detailed information on crew losses or casualties. Hell, a lot of my sources have different loss figures for the same event. The key thing for me here is WP:SUMMARY; naming the casualties/participants/etc. isn't summarizing anything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Jayron32 and Sturmvogel 66—the specifics matter. Part of the huge impacts these events have are their fatalities. There is a risk in generalizing. It is not "there were 7 deaths". It is "these are the people who died." We should not want to elaborate beyond a certain point. But it is also ludicrous to think that we have covered an incident by lumping all of humanity into one pile. There were specific people who died. There are minimum identifying features that should be included if we are covering an incident. That includes names, probably ages, and perhaps a few more identifying features. In the case of American sailors the hometown is a logical and completely defensible piece of information for inclusion. Do we want to know their dog's name, whether they are married or not, number of children, hobbies? No, we don't. Specific people with specific identities died and our coverage of these topics should allude in some small way to their identities. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specific people with specific names also attended a university, or worked for a corporation, or attended a concert. You've not established how these lists are distinct from others where we avoid naming otherwise non-notable people in them. --Jayron 32 17:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"You've not established how these lists are distinct from others" Nor need I. Reality has established the distinction of these lists. We are not here primarily to educate people. Yes, most of the time we try to digest information in accordance with the views of sources. But identities of decedents do not require any special explanation. We are documenting by minimal means the identities of the fatalities that are of central importance to the incident being written about. Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating that. It doesn't become true merely through your will to say it over and over. --Jayron 32 18:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"We are not here primarily to educate people." GMG ^talk 18:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed in November 2017 as linked by Ianmacm above. Discussed more recently in July 2018, here. People keep bringing the issue to the community, and the community keeps punting, saying that it needs case-by-case evaluation and even a default guideline would be bad. This, despite the indisputable fact that the arguments are the same in every case. If any argument has ever included something particular about that case as distinct from other cases, I haven't seen it. That means that case-by-case evaluation is a ridiculous waste of editor time. Until it can be brought to the community without case-by-case on the table—or the community magically comes to its senses—I don't see how we're not condemned to the status quo indefinitely—repeating the same arguments again and again, with the outcomes variously determined by who shows up for the discussions. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize the core arguments with links to examples, in an essay. Anyone can do it - demonstrate the repeating arguments. It would be a good first step to creating a guideline. -- GreenC 17:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does the inclusion of victims names add to the understanding of the articles subject for the general reader? I can think of some cases where it does but generally no it does not. Therefore I would support a policy along the lines of "Normally victims should not be mentioned by name in articles. Exceptions should be discussed on the article talk page and a consensus formed before being added." Lyndaship (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a parallel discussion to one ongoing at WT:NOT. --Izno (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the ultimate where trying to write the article without a victim list would be completely bizarre is Ariel Castro kidnappings...Naraht (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That article does not have a victim list, so it is a bad example. --Jayron 32 17:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe look again? The victim list is in the very first sentence of the article. Not all victim lists use list formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that article does not have a victim list. What that article has is three people whose story of integral to the prose narrative and we, of course, don't scrub their names from that narrative, which would be stupid. That article has zero connection to what is being discussed here, which is a list of people who died during an event, without any part of the narrative. So no, that article is not in any way a useful example because nothing in this discussion would change a single character of text of that article regardless of what the consensus comes up with. Try again. --Jayron 32 04:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of the victim's names, and therefore it's a "victim list" in plain English. And we are (and IMO should be) discussing all victim lists, not just lists of people who die passively. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naming victims that are essential to properly summarize the crime/event in the prose of the article is fine. You just don't need a separate table for that. --Masem (t) 18:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a matter of scope. Including the names of victims of a crime where there is only one victim (Killing of Jamal Khashoggi as an extreme example) is necessary. A "victims list" of hundreds of people is obviously not necessary; for example listing all 851 people injured at 2017 Las Vegas shooting would clearly be excessive. Even listing 58 people dead is likely excessive. When there are roughly 10 victims, it's often the case that the media will cover all of them in enough detail. I'd lean towards including it on the Thousand Oaks page or the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting article, but could be convinced otherwise. I certainly don't see any advantage to saying the victims included a 48-year-old bouncer; a 33-year-old Marine Corps veteran; and a 27-year-old Navy veteran over giving names (with references that have further info). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first question we really need to address is, what value does a list of names of non-notable individuals really add to an article? Unless you personally know the individual in question, a name is meaningless. The second question is, should an encyclopedia be in the business of providing enough material on a non-notable individual that their name is not meaningless? No, we obviously should not. News outlets generally include such information, which is all well and good, but we are not a newspaper. Parsecboy (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"a name is meaningless" Doesn't a name sometimes suggest an ethnicity? Bus stop (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, but frequently not. Without clicking the link, tell me where Vincent Rodriguez III is from. Moreover, what relevance is that for an encyclopedia article about an event? In other words, it would be relevant to know where a person is from if the article is about that person, but if the article is about an event, and they are a non-notable individual where their place of origin has no bearing on said event, why do we care? Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As unhappy as I am about lists of names of non-notable people in articles, I think that battle is lost: Passengers of the RMS Titanic. - Donald Albury 19:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find interesting a section for Passengers by ethnicity. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely include breakdown numbers by nationality/ethnicity in any mass-transport international accident. --Masem (t) 19:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a summary to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are hyper-involved ("geeky"?) with the Titanic, they known every passenger and their background. Books on this subject. Not a typical example. -- GreenC 21:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"they known every passenger and their background" And why do you think this is so? There may be reasons particular to the Titanic incident, but I don't think that explains all. No matter the incident the reader wants to know the identities of the people involved. Editors here are arguing that this information shouldn't be in the article. But who are we writing the article for? Oh, we know what is best for the reader? That is the height of hubris. We are not talking about extraneous or tangentially related facts. The identities of the deceased are clearly within the scope of the article. I don't think it is our role to deprive readers of relevant information just because we think they should not be interested in this information. And I will be the first to admit that I am interested in this information. The reason we are interested in knowing a little bit about the identities of the deceased is because we want specifics. When it comes to fatalities we want specifics on who died. It is unsatisfactory to simply be told "7 people died". The reader has an appetite for more information in the form of "which 7 people died?" Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It doesn't matter that some editors think the reader doesn't need to know this information. The ultimate question in this discussion is one of WP:WEIGHT. Obviously too much information on decedents is too much weight. But names and ages clearly are not too much weight. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A random idea is if what if these lists existed at Wikisource (as long as they are properly sourced)? They can then be linked too from WP articles. --Masem (t) 19:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Often people who are victims will then receive coverage in the media, so that they become notable, but it is just a one-event situation, so then they should be listed or mentioned in the article about the event. So if adequate sources exist then the victims should be included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victim lists proposal #1

So OK. Normally I'm of the mind to let the editors decide, but if it is true that "Victims lists are becoming a source of constant debate and argument", that wastes energy. So how about a compromise? Make a rule called WP:VICTIMS with something like this:

Articles on events in which two or more people were killed or injured -- airplane crashes for instance -- may usually give the names of the victims if there were ten or fewer. If there were eleven or more, articles should usually not include the names of the victims.

As always, common sense exceptions may be made. Bluelinked names are exempt from this rule, may always be given, and do not count against this "rule of ten" limit. There is no requirement to give victim's names; it is allowed if someone wants to (and there are ten or fewer).

The names and descriptions of victims should be in sentence or paragraph form, not list format. Normal sourcing rules apply, of course.

What's good about this is that it quashes arguments, pretty much. Why ten? I dunno -- got to have some number. Make it eight or twelve if you like. Ten is not really an imposition on the article. You can ten names and bit more into a short paragraph. It doesn't unbalance the article.

As to having the names in paragraph rather than list format: 1) it makes them a little less prominent; they don't take up half a screen, and 2) lists of victims just drive some people nuts, perhaps for that reason. Let's try to gruntle both sides a little.

Sure this is arbitrary but arbitrary works. Like for baseball players, there's an arbitrary rule: if you had even one at bat in the major leagues, you get an article, even it it was in 1887 and we don't even know your first name. If you had a fifteen year career in the minor leagues, you're not in. (Unless you meet WP:BIO and someone can successfully argue for you.) Fair or not I don't know, but there are virtually no arguments about ballplayers. We have lots of rules like that -- state legislators, etc. Works a charm. Herostratus (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are addressing the core issues here. Sure—we can place arbitrary limits. But what are we discussing? Names of deceased fall squarely within the scope of articles on incidents with fatalities. Certainly we can't include all decedents in World War II. But it is entirely incorrect for us to decide that readers should not want to know the identities of people who lost their lives in incidents. Elsewhere this information exists for current tragedies and there is no reason I know of to make Wikipedia the truncated source on these tragedies. Bus stop (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose that if proposed, as my objections to the lists have nothing to do with the size of the lists. You won't find "hey it takes up so much space in the article" in any of my arguments to date. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose that. (The baseball thing is not arbitrary, but basically an objective means to determine if a player played in one profession game). It is a number that will be gamed. It is better not have to have the lists in the first place. --Masem (t) 23:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It is better not have to have the lists in the first place." The same can be said for anything—"It is best not to include the names of alleged assailants", "It is best not to include the make and model of the gun used", "It is best not to include the street address of the venue of the incident", "It is best not to include the name of the venue". In your wisdom you feel the reader should not satiate their appetite for information pertaining to the identities of the deceased at our article; they will have to go elsewhere if they want that despicable information. You are making an arbitrary value judgement. Bus stop (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about victim lists, not prose information. If any of those elements are essential to be able to summarize the event clearly, then they should be included. Victim lists are rarely essential - there may be victims that were known to try to take action to stop the event, but those names can be included in prose. --Masem (t) 00:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we are talking about victim lists. I strongly favor victim lists of otherwise non-notable people including only rudimentary information such as name and age and sometimes a few other bare pieces of information such as occupation and hometown if applicable. That is the crux of this discussion. My examples might not have been good—you are correct to point out that my examples take place in prose. I stand corrected. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, I think that's a functional proposal. You'll need to add some weasel words to accommodate the existence of the Passengers of the RMS Titanic (and similar) list articles, but I think that won't be too hard.

The hard part will be getting entrenched editors to compromise on a rule that would let them get back to the work were all WP:HERE to do, instead of setting ourselves up for having this discussion at least twice a year for the next decade. So for all those who are thinking about opposing it: If you want to have lists, wouldn't you at least like to start with something that says that it's possible, under certain circumstances? And for those who hate these lists, do you really want to have this discussion again next week over the Camp Fire (2018) victims, or could you live with a compromise that at least rules out victim lists that include the names of dozens of non-notable people? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not want to have this discussion again at Camp Fire or any future articles. What I want is for the community to confront the issue head-on and decide, once and for all (or at least for the next decade or so, since WP:CCC), whether the lists should be included as default or omitted as default, with provision for exceptions by local consensus in either case. While I would prefer the latter, I would much prefer the former to the status quo. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the default needs to be either "yes to all" or "no to all"? Wouldn't "Yes if it's a short list, and no if it's not" be an acceptable compromise? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: As I said above, my objections to the lists have nothing to do with the size of the lists. These principles are not something it's ok to ignore as long as you only ignore them in small quantities. But if the community decided on include as default, I can certainly see the need for a rule-of-thumb limit on size. As a practical matter I wouldn't try to address both issues in one proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Day the Music Died names all (four) victims from that mass casualty event. One of them is non-notable. Are you going to remove his name, because you oppose all victim lists in principle? If not, why not? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: I wouldn't require "notability". I think a significant non-passive role in the event should suffice. Certainly the pilot of a plane that crashed qualifies as a significant non-passive role in the crash. He's named 19 times in that article, and he's very likely discussed at length in reliable sources because of his role, not his death. It's not hard at all to see the difference between him and, say, one of the victims of the Thousand Oaks shooting. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments I've remember you putting forth in the past are that victim lists are a policy violation (which presumably includes even this short one), that they are invasions of privacy for people who aren't public figures (which definitely includes this one), and that names are meaningless to almost everyone (which basically assumes that all readers are from your culture, so that if a name doesn't mean anything to you, then you conclude that it won't mean anything to anyone. For example, if an editor doesn't happen to know that a "Vicente Rodriguez" is probably Hispanic but a "Vincent Rodriguez" (i.e., a French or English first name with a Spanish family name) has a higher chance of being Filipino, then you conclude that almost nobody will, which is probably not true).

So now you add that you would exclude the names of passive victims. All right, I can agree that the pilot of that flight probably wasn't a passive victim. So let's look at John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash, which also lists all the people who died, two of which did nothing other than happen to be in an airplane that crashed. One of them wasn't notable, either. Why wouldn't you blank the name of this non-notable passive victim? She doesn't fit into any of your previously articulated exceptions: She's not a public figure, she died passively, and you have declared that names are meaningless. But I don't think you would remove it. Why not?

(She fits perfectly into my circumstances in which we should include names: It's a very short list, and it's unseemly to list nearly everyone by name except one or two). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Carolyn Bessette is named because she's notable enough to warrant a BLP. Lauren Bessette was at least a fairly high-profile individual, being a part of the Kennedy "family" by marriage as JFK Jr.'s sister-in-law. Privacy is hardly a consideration for either Bessette.
No doubt you could find other cases that get around those arguments, but don't bother. Until I encountered this thread my only interest has been in victims lists for random mass killings (RMK). As I expressed elsewhere, things get more complicated very quickly as you expand scope, and the result is often no improvement at all. Perfect is the enemy of better. I see little benefit in a General Theory of Lists of Dead People in Articles About Any Imaginable Subject, or rather I don't think the lack of such a theory should be allowed to impede improvement in the RMK area. John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash is not in the same class as Thousand Oaks shooting. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss—you say above in reference to a pilot that "he's very likely discussed at length in reliable sources". Reliable sources also happen to discuss the victims of the "Thousand Oaks shooting". In my opinion we should not be splitting hairs and making distinctions that editors think are significant. You are distinguishing between non-passive roles and passive roles. But those are your criteria. How do you know that the reader has no interest in knowing the identities of those people that editor Mandruss considers "passive"? Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"No thanks" to what? Bus stop (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing—Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. A separate page for listing brief identifying factors pertaining to fatalities such as name and age is feasible when the number of victims would take up too much space to be practicable on a main article page. Bus stop (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enh, what I'm seeing here is a couple-few guys who who don't want to compromise. Whether my idea is good or not, whether it could be adopted or not... who knows? When the most clearly expressed positions are "No, we must never list victims names, and no, no compromise from that position is possible" versus "Yes, we must always allow all names of all victims, and no, no compromise from that position is possible"... We're not going to solve the problem and you're going to have these discussions forever. You will; I won't, because I will have forgotten about it, because I don't much care, because it doesn't matter, really. The best-for-the-Wikipedia thing to do is to fix this problem. Holding fast to an entrenched position -- any position -- is not the best-for-the-Wikipedia thing to do. There's no core policies at stake here, and there's no "right" or "wrong" position. Give a little. Herostratus (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unfair. Not one editor has said we must "we must always allow all names of all victims, and no, no compromise from that position is possible". Not one. Nobody has denied that there are many policies and guidelines that might justify excluding a name (or any other fact), such as WP:N, WP:BDP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:MOS, etc etc. Disputing that there is are universal grounds exclusion does not assert that there are never grounds for exclusion. There has been a straw man that we are insisting that we name thousands or millions of casualties for every war, but that is but a straw man. Funny how fake news works: they repeat a falsehood often enough and eventually a lot of people start thinking it must be true. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opppse. Just for the record. My reasons are already documented. - wolf 15:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victim lists proposal #2

As a different suggestion, I would argue that fully sourced victim lists can be listed over at Wikisource and linked back to the en.wiki article, eliminating any victim lists within en.wiki. Articles in prose can still discuss notable victims and talk about specific victims that had a role in the event, but the tables should be omitted in favor of the Wikisource version. (This also makes those lists available for other Wikiprojects). --Masem (t) 00:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why at Wikisource? Why not a separate page on Wikipedia? Why wouldn't a separate article called "List of decedents in XYZ tragedy" serve that purpose, and only in instances where space constraints require that solution? Bus stop (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Wikisource accepts those. Wikidata would, and Wikibooks might. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a good idea I think. Herostratus (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata sounds fine by me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata sounds good. The proponents of these lists state that they have some sort of informative nature, data wise. Wikidata sounds like the perfect place for this kind of info. Numbers, birthplaces, occupations....that's all uncontextualised data. How about it @Bus stop: and @Dennis Bratland:? You get to keep these lists and encyclopedia articles will stop looking like bad journalism. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing from preventing people from making lists of Holocaust deaths, deaths in the World Wars, deaths in automobile accidents in (insert region). Why is a person who died in a collision more important than a Holocaust death? Or what is the difference between a ship collision or an automobile collision? Because one was a soldier? Well then, what if it was a soldier travelling to work? Those sailors on the ship were sleeping. Llammakey (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether is Wikidata/Wikisource/whatever, I am fine with any sister project that is designed to take raw data without additional commentary. That's the whole point of the suggestion. --Masem (t) 15:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, this could be used for things like Victims of the Holocaust. The only key criteria is that the lists should primarily be sourced to reliable third-party sources... an obvious "next step" I could see would be arguing for the alumni of every high school and college on the same principle, but those lists are not published by third-parties (outside local papers), and thus not appropriate. --Masem (t) 15:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the two proposals so far follow the unexamined premise of here, that casualty names in articles and lists are becoming a problem. Not so. They have always been an unresolved bone of contention. There has never been strong consensus on what this policy means.
I strongly suggest going to the WP:NOT archives and searching for NOTMEMORIAL and similar terms. Review the perennial debates over this policy. NOTMEMORIAL was added in 2004, and in the 14 years since, it has been tweaked slightly here and there, and a lot of effort has gone into what belongs in the non-article namespaces. But the part about the article namespace has not really changed meaningfully, and the meaning has remained controversial throughout.
This isnt like COI or BLP or RS, where new editors have trouble understanding policy, but after some time and experience, we all converge on a general agreement on why these policies exist and what they mean. Wikpedia's best, most experienced editors split into two entrenched camps on whether or not 'not memorial' applies only to article creation/retention, or if it also restrictes consents within articles. No revision of the text in 14 years has touched that simple question because there is no consensus on that question.
It would be great if a proposal could pass that said in plain terms whether or not, like WP:NNC (Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article), it does or does not limit content of articles. If anyone thinks they can win global consensus for a clear decision one way or the other, more power to them. Please do so, and put this debate to rest.
From what I can tell, it won't pass because Wikipedia is deeply divided. If we can't agree on that, then we have to admit that NOTMEMORIAL isn't much of a policy, since it doesn't represent a global consensus. There is probably global consensus that content with no purpose other than to honor the dead doesn't belong. But the obvious question "does this content in this article serve no purpose except to honor the dead?" has to be answered on a case by case basis. Decided by local consensus. No easy appeal to the top-down dictates of policy, like some simplistic 10-victim rule. No way is there global support for assigning an arbitrary numeric limit like 10 casualties, and no way is there consensus to shift all of it over to some other wikiproject.
The best, most realistic outcome would be a frank admission that this isn't something that Wikipedia has a firm position on, and it will vary from article to article. There are beautiful FAs and FLs with no casualty names mentioned, and beautiful ones with non-notable casualties included. It depends, and that's fine. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It will (continue to) vary from article to article only because the participants vary. The arguments do not vary from article to article. (While I haven't survey-studied all past discussions to make sure that's a 100% true statement, I've made the claim numerous times in numerous venues and it has never been disputed, let alone shown to be untrue. I think that's a reasonably fair test of its accuracy. It's true for the half-dozen or so article-level discussions where I've participated.) ―Mandruss ☎ 13:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading on, I see your comments about a ship collision. Note that I'm speaking only of articles about random mass killings. The wider the scope, the more complex the question and the less likely any consensus will be achievable. I suggest keeping the scope narrow for that reason. Random mass killings have very little in common with ship collisions, so I don't see how it makes sense to lump them together. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone point to an article that they feel has been negatively impacted by the inclusion of lists of non-notable victims? Bus stop (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Using this article as an example, it is about a collision between two ships. There are people involved that are mentioned by name because of their role in the investigation and its outcome, and they are already notable per WP:MILPERSON. There are otherwise non-notable people mentioned by name because of their involvement in the cause of the collision and/or the outcome of the investigation (eg: the commanding officer was criminally charged). As a result of the collision, seven non-notable people died. This is where the debate comes in: there is no need to add these names, either as a list or in prose. They have no relevance to the article. Except for the few people that might actually know them, these names are essentially meaningingless. You swap out any of those names for "John Smith" or "Bob Jones" and it would make no difference to the reader. The names do not lend, in any way, to the reader's understanding of the subject matter in the article. They have nothing do with the cause of the collision, they play no active role in the outcome. They just had the misfortune of dying. Noting that seven people died and they were all from the US ship is all that is needed, along with the numbers injured from each ship. Adding the names just needlessly memorializes them and Wikipedia is not an obituary. A couple editors, specifically Dennis Bratland and Bus stop, have argued vehemently to have the names included, but so far, despite numerous posts on multiple pages over several days, have failed to show how these names are in any way relevant to the article.
This is an example of same type of debates taking place on multiple pages, with these two, and a few other like-minded editors, arguing to have memorial lists of non-notable victims in articles about mass-death events. Some of these pages now have these needless lists, and they are being used to bolster an WP:OSE argument in support of even more such lists. This is why we need clear language in a WP policy to address this, and prevent further debates which have become massive timesinks, for years now, causing a great deal of discord, disruption and clearly irrelevant content. - wolf 07:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thewolfchild—you say "Some of these pages now have these needless lists, and they are being used to bolster an WP:OSE argument in support of even more such lists." Yet I also find you saying "OK Dennis, you go make a case for having a list of everyone killed in World War II (would want to leave any WWII article readers "hanging" now, would we?)" Aren't you making an Other stuff exists argument right there? Isn't your reasoning that we don't have a list of all the casualties at our World War II article (50 to 85 million fatalities) therefore we should not list the casualties at the "USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision" (7 fatalities) as seen in this version of the article in the "Casualties" section? Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Yet you also find me saying"...? Are you trying to paint the two comments as contradictory? - wolf 00:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing the World War II article when discussing the USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision article is an WP:OSE argument, isn't it? Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, you seem to be missing the whole point of an "OSE argument", which is "justification". For example, Dennis tried to use the Titanic passengers page to "justify" adding those seven names to Fitzgerald/Crystal collision page. So I was then asking if that in turn justified having a list of all the WWII victims. That's not me "making" an OSE argument, it's asking how far he was willing to take his. Let me know if you need anything else explained, I'm happy to help, as long as we remain on topic. - wolf 01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You also said to me "But we no more need their names to complete this article than we need a list of the names of all ≈80 million people that died in World War II to complete, or understand, any of the articles here about that subject." Bus stop (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was more to that comment; "Again, I will ask you; how are these names pertinent to the article? How do they lend to the reader's understanding of how the collision occurred, and what transpired after? Yes, seven people died, and that is noted. But we no more need their names to complete this article than we need a list of the names of all ≈80 million people that died in World War II to complete, or understand, any of the articles here about that subject." Unfortunately, Dennis jumped in there right after and I never did a response from you. So how about answering those questions now? (It's somewhat overdue). Thanks - wolf•

thewolfchild—you want me to now respond here to a post you made on an article Talk page 5 days ago? OK. You ask "How do they lend to the reader's understanding of how the collision occurred"? We are not only concerned with "how the collision occurred". That is an area of inquiry that you are putting before us. But it is hardly the only area a reader might inquire about. What you are studiously avoiding is the version of the article containing the so-called victim list. It is a section called "Casualties". It tells us the positions aboard the vessel of each of the deceased, their names, their ages, and their home towns. We are not only concerned with "how the collision occurred". We are also concerned with the identities of the deceased. The names are proper nouns and they don't really shed light on the particular question you pose.

But proper nouns of this sort are not unusual at all. Why are we told at the Thousand Oaks shooting article that it takes place at the "Borderline Bar and Grill"? Please tell me why we are giving the reader that proper name. And the name of the perpetrator—why do we need to know it was "Ian David Long"? Please explain to me why we are giving the reader that proper name. Now that the reader knows it occurred at the "Borderline Bar and Grill" and that the assailant's name is "Ian David Long"—do they now understand the event? I'm obviously not arguing against providing this information. Quite the opposite. A reader wants to know these specifics. There are specifics that can be dispensed with. But brief, rudimentary identification of key components is best included in an article. This gets us back to "who died"? Omitting that is truncating the article. I would contend the "Thousand Oaks shooting" article is a truncated article. The names and ages of the deceased should be included and unfortunately they are not. That is a defect in the article and it should be corrected by adding rudimentary information related to their identities.

Finally, we have articles such as The Perfect Storm (film) and The Perfect Storm (book). Didn't Sebastian Junger have to know information about the deceased such as their home towns? Don't writers consult Wikipedia articles? To the article's credit, the crew of the "Andrea Gail", upon which Sebastian Junger's book is based, though the 6 crew members are "non-notable", are noted in our article by name, age, and hometown. Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one that brought up the (partial) quote from the Fitzgerald/Crystal collision talk page (and have done so about a half-dozen times). I just pointed out that the quote was incomplete, that you never responded (and why), and asked if you would respond now, considering all the questions you seem to expect me to answer.

You still have not addressed the questions I asked. Instead, you abbreviated the quote to a single question that suits you and then launched into a lengthy reply where you've now introduced yet another article, this one about a mass-shooting.

As with any mass-death event, the names of the non-notable victims are irrelevant (unless they are individually notable, outside of the event, or had a notable role in the event, other then dying). In a mass-shooting, the name of the shooter is notable and relevant (do you dispute that?). I don't really have an opinion on the name of the bar, but if it's just a random, average bar, with no bearing on the event, I don't see a reason to name it. If the event takes place a location relevant to the event, (eg: a gay bar, and the perpetrator was homophobic) or notable location, (eg: Disney World), then yes, the location should be named in the article.

The seven names are not relevant to the ship collison article and you still haven't shown how they are. You just keep going on about how we should include these names because the readers might be interested in them, though you also admitted you have no idea why they would be.

"This gets us back to "who died"?" - Who cares? Except those few who might actually know these people, and as has already been made abundantly clear to you, Wikipedia is not an obituary.

If writer's are "consulting" Wikipedia articles for research, they should be using the sources cited in those articles. That is why we add them, so people can verify content. if they can't find the names of mass-death event victims in the sources, then those names shouldn't be in the article anyway. - wolf 23:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thewolfchild—how would you justify omitting the name "Borderline Bar and Grill" from the article Thousand Oaks shooting? You say I don't really have an opinion on the name of the bar, but if it's just a random, average bar, with no bearing on the event, I don't see a reason to name it. Bus stop (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why I would need to "justify" that, but I did explain my reasoning for it already. Conversely, I take it that you believe the article absolutely must have the name of the bar included. Why? What bearing did it have on the either the cause or the outcome of the event? How does adding that name, as opposed to simply saying "a local country & western bar", lend in any way to the reader's understanding of the event? - wolf 17:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short numbers of names (as proposed by Herostratus above take up a handful of bytes and don't seem too out of place (users read articles, not policies). For longer lists why not simply create a page "List of victims of XYZ" and hat-note to it? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thewolfchild, I pointed to sources that gave detailed reasons why the particulars of the 7 casualties mattered, and why they were not interchangeable with just any 7 people anywhere. You have repeatedly claimed nobody has given you reasons, and every time I remind you that indeed I have, you ignore it. Now you’re coming here to repeat the same false claims. If you disagree with the reasons that were given, you could criticize them directly. But instead of doing that, you pretend they don’t exist, and repeat your demand to be told what value the names add. I told you, others told you, and you responded by demanding someone tell you. What you’re doing is called sealioning. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, resorting to insults now, Dennis? That's disappointing. You've lowered yourself and diminished your standing in this debate. I have read all your lengthy comments, it's one of the reasons I mentioned you by name. I have not "ignored" your responses, the fact remains that despite all the "reasons" you've given, you have not provided any kind of sufficient rationale to justify the inclusion of those names. You have not shown how they, in any way, are encyclopaedic, relevant to the article, or enhance the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter. You keep claiming that none of the policies or guidelines cited by any opposers apply, while relying heavily on wp:ose as a justification to add those names. Tell you what; explain why those seven are so special, or explain why WP should list of all 2300+ military personnel killed at Pearl Harbor, all 2900+ civilians killed during 9/11, or all 80 million people killed during WWII. You can't justify one without the other. - wolf 15:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insults? Listen to the way you denigrate the editors whom you don't agree with. You describe them as unresponsive, unreasonable, criticize them for lengthy responses yet go on and on repeating the same demands for answers. You get answers that you happen do disagree with, and instead of simply saying so, you paint those who disagree with you in a negative light. But you're the one who feels insulted?

It would be much more productive to 1) stop re-fighting the Fitzgerald ship collision debate. You won, in case you forgot. Never seen anybody complain so much after getting a majority of editors to support them. Hate to see how bitter you can be when you don't get your way. Let it go now. 2) Seriously read the old discussions on 'not memorial'. The ones from 2006, the ones year after year after that. The thing to notice is how many editors (names you recognize as admins, from writing FAs, as leaders with years of contributions) confidently see a place for lists or prose mentions of people who were casualties but not main actors in events. Your point of view has many adherents. Many fine, experienced, important editors. But there are just as many fine editors who don't feel obligated to list thousands or millions of dead for every event, just because they do list some names for other events. You say "You can't justify one without the other" and that's fine. Many editors think a consistent standard applies to every event of any kind, and many say, no, it depends. For 14 years, nobody has formed a strong consensus on it.

Maybe now you can change that and get a policy change that settles it. But history suggests you won't, in which case you ought to try to make peace with the reality. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Riiight, I've been just awful, haven't I, Dennis? Look at how deeply I obviously hurt you with my scathing comment about kittens. As for the topic at hand; I simply cited the Talk:USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision discussion as an example of the issue being debated, and the reason that Ad Orientem wisely brought this here for a wider audience and hopefully some kind of solution. I didn't even mention the consensus there. Aside from the topic, I only mentioned that you and BS are arguing for the inclusion of non-notable names of victims. And while I just used the word "vehemently", I could've said 'page-dominating, persistent bludgeoning'... but I didn't. And don't need to either. People can just look at that page for themselves, or here, or here, or here or... here. These are all current talk page debates involving this topic, and a helluva lota' posts by you. Now, I tried this once before, and you blew it, but I'll try it again; I've said what I've needed to say here, (unless there's another proposal, or someone replies to me), so I will now step back and allow others to discuss. You've said enough, haven't you? How about you do the same? I think you can do it... this time. G'nite - wolf 00:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could, I've already shown that. The question is, Dennis; can you? - wolf 01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin of Sheffield; it's not about size, it's about relevance. Non-notable victims of mass-death events simply do not need to be mentioned on WP for any other reason than being one of the unfortunate to die in that event. Wikipedia articles are not obituaries, it's not the purpose of an encyclopaedia to memorialize such people. However, if people want to find or create a well-sourced off-site list and link to it as an external link, that is a different matter. - wolf 15:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just for the record. I don't see a problem with this proposal at this time, as I just mentioned in reply to a similar comment just above. - wolf 15:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victim lists proposal #3

Bare lists of victims, which only compile names and basic information (age, birthplace, occupation, etc.) are to be deprecated. Victims of crimes and disasters and other tragic events may be named as a normal part of a quality prose narrative, but lists of names with no context are not useful to most readers anymore than lists of names are in other Wikipedia articles, and advice for creating lists of names of otherwise non-notable people are as applicable to victim's lists as anywhere else in Wikipedia, and victims lists are not accorded any special exemptions from the normal practices of creating lists of otherwise non-notable people.

The goal here, is not to scrub the names of victims from articles, but to avoid the bad writing of slapping in "contextless" lists just because, or to afford "special status" to people because they died during a notable tragic event. The role of Wikipedia is not to create a remembrance of people who died in such ways, though we should also not be afraid to include names where the actions of those people during events would have come up anyways in the course of writing a prose narrative about the event. Simply put: if you think a person's role in an event in which they died bears coverage, it should be covered in the prose narrative. Simply creating a contextless list of non-notable people is not good writing, in this type of article or in any other. --Jayron 32 12:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of random mass killings, there are often a few reliable sources reporting enough about each victim that someone could construct what they believe to be a "quality prose narrative" that includes every victim. So, for those who oppose the lists largely for privacy reasons (in the same spirit as WP:BLPNAME), this proposal as worded does nothing to address those concerns.
What each victim was doing, or what they said, just before they got killed is simply not encyclopedic information, but news organizations report it because they are not encyclopedias. Similarly, we rightly omit much of the tabloidish play-by-play detail about the killers' movements and actions in these events.
Further, inclusion of little bio blurbs about each victim—that she was a mother of three and he was active in school orchestra—is nothing but memorialization, feeding the purely emotion-based desire to give the victims as much individual attention as the killers. Again, that could and would be considered a "quality prose narrative" by some editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which we could thus probably add in a bit of BLP1E: if the names of persons that are victims of these events meet BLP1E, then even if there are mini-bios of each person from RSes at the time of the event, we don't include them. (The fact that they are generally memorialized that way is, to me, a sign of sensationalist news reporting, to prey on sympathy from the reader, which at WP , has no place). --Masem (t) 15:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the point is that we don't treat victims of tragic events differently than we treat people in any other event. If a person does something worth note in an event, we don't conspicuously avoid naming them during the narrative. For example, let's say we have some fire which dozens of people die, and one of the victims rescued several people before succumbing. Let's also say that consensus is that this part of the story is relevant to the overall narrative. Saying "John Doe, one of the residents of the building, rescued several other residents before dying himself in the blaze". If John Doe's involvement is important enough to the story of the event, we don't avoid naming him. What we shouldn't do is include the names of people whose role in the story is not noteworthy of itself except that they died. "Jane Smith was watching TV when she died in the blaze" is a rather mundane event. "Jane Smith was watching TV" is not, under normal circumstances, a relevant, noteworthy detail of her life. That she died while doing it is unremarkable, so it doesn't bear writing about in the event. So we needn't mention that event (thus not her name) in the narrative. If she did nothing in the course of the event that is important for the narrative, then we don't also need to create a list of victims just to make sure they are named. Naming is not of itself sufficient reason to include. If we would include a person anyways, go ahead and name them. If we have no other reason to include them except that they were present and died in the event, we shouldn't. Just like we wouldn't include a complete list of people who were present, in an unremarkable way, at other events. --Jayron 32 16:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Fine, but you're reading a ton into "quality prose narrative" that is not present in the proposed language. Many others will interpret that vague phrase very differently; instead of endlessly debating the meaning of NOTMEMORIAL, we would now be endlessly debating the meaning of this new guideline. My goal is to substantially reduce the endless debating, and in fact that's a goal consistent with the heading of this level 2 section which I didn't initiate. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Lets work out a better wording then that captures the spirit of the proposal, but has less ambiguity here. This is VPIL and not VPP for a reason. This isn't a vote, this is a workshop to create the new policy so we have good stuff to bring to a vote. Feel free to propose something else. --Jayron 32 17:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Ok, let me sleep on it once or twice. It's far easier to shoot something down than to offer a better solution, I know. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Simply creating a contextless list of non-notable people is not good writing, in this type of article or in any other." (Jayron32 12:07, 20 Nov) I precisely disagree. I prefer contextless lists in many instances. The crux of this discussion happens to be contextless lists of non-notable people. Can anyone point to an article in stable condition that is negatively impacted by a ~~contactless~~ contextless list? User:Thewolfchild above attempted to do that above but did not link to the past version which contained a section called "Casualties". It is worth examining that past version because I would contend it is constructive to the article. "Contextless" is not the negative quality it is purported to be. I'll admit that I was surprised that one of the most starkly contextless lists made it into the 2016 Oakland warehouse fire but even there I would defend it as entirely constructive to the article. I argue we do not have to digest all information for the reader. We are not producing articles that tie up all loose ends. It doesn't matter if some things do not make sense. We are discussing articles in which "senselessness" is a key quality. The argument some of you are making is to take away all crumbs of clues as to the nature of what transpired in the addressed event. Everything is a clue even if an incomplete clue. We should step back and let competent and seasoned editors that are familiar with our already-existing policies and guidelines do what they do pretty well—create articles on the unfortunately proliferating series of tragedies—especially lone gunmen shooting up establishments. No one would disagree that the senselessness of these events defy description. Consider 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Whether there is a victim list or not almost doesn't matter. We should let editors write articles. I think that in every instance that there is a victim list it is constructive to the article. What I find unproductive is the attempt to control other editors. It is not the end of the world or the doom of Wikipedia if "contextless list of non-notable people" are included in articles. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone point to an article in stable condition that is negatively impacted by a contactless [contextless] list? That's the second time you've asked that question in this discussion. It was ignored the first time I suspect because it's such a vacuous question (that's certainly the reason I ignored it). List opponents feel that any article containing a list is "negatively impacted" by it—for the reasons we have thoroughly articulated in discussion after discussion, of which you are fully aware. That you disagree with those arguments goes without saying. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every argument you are making is countermanded by replacing "articles about events where there were lots of deaths" with "articles about literally anything else". Any argument you make for these types of articles should be applicable to articles on other subjects. What is the harm in including a list of every graduate from a University? What is the harm in including a list of every person who attended Live Aid? You've asserted that dying somehow makes these people special, but to make special note of someone merely because they died, and for no other reason, is the exact definition of a memorial. And consensus has determined that memorializing the dead is not, of itself, sufficient grounds for relevancy to an article. --Jayron 32 16:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss—a productive discussion might involve not only pointing to articles negatively impacted by uncontextualized victim lists but also speaking about how that particular article is damaged by the presence of such uncontextualized victim lists. Can you possibly criticize this uncontextualized victim list? It contains Jewish names and ages. I contend that a reader derives tons of information from such lists—in almost every instance. Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's illustrative. The article already clearly establishes that the dead were Jewish. You don't need "Jewish names" to show that (as if most readers know what a "Jewish name" is anyway). As for ages, that too can be summarized if it's deemed relevant; we could say that the dead ranged from 54 to 97. That's encyclopedic information. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying we don't need additional information if we already have information asserting a given point. There is no rule about that on Wikipedia and there should not be any rule about that on Wikipedia. Why would you prefer a range of ages when a particular person, identified as male or female, can be associated with a particular age? And all Jewish names are not the same either. Jewish names can break down into more religious-sounding names and less religious-sounding names. The question which you are not addressing is what is wrong with the list. My original question was—can you point to an article and show how the victim list damages the article. We know there are alternative means of including information. But why are you going to great lengths to prevent other editors from creating an article such as the linked-to section of this article. Please tell me what is wrong with the present version of that article. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the list bloats the article and includes information which is not vital to the narrative. --Jayron 32 16:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the list bloats the article" The article is not overly long. Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the article is irrelevent. The level of detail is. Details which are not vital to the narrative should not be included, even in short articles. Look, you know that you don't win this argument by simply repeating yourself over and over, right? I think your position is clear, and I'm not sure it will be worthwhile to respond to your increasingly repetitive demands. We get it. You want to include the lists. Lets hear from other people on the matter. --Jayron 32 16:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you prefer a range of ages when a particular person, identified as male or female, can be associated with a particular age? For the reasons I've given in discussion after discussion, including several where you've been present and I know you've seen them. You have a particular talent for not hearing opponents' arguments, repeatedly demanding that they give reasons that they have already given countless times, and I'm beginning to fantasize about a topic ban from victims' lists. I'm not aware of a single other editor that does this in this topic area. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"For the reasons I've given in discussion after discussion, including several where you've been present" I must have been out to lunch. Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, something we can agree on. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"You have a particular talent for not hearing opponents' arguments, repeatedly demanding that they give reasons that they have already given countless times, and I'm beginning to fantasize about a topic ban from victims' lists." Perhaps you should learn to repeat yourself. Just because you've said something once, especially in another thread, is not a reason you cannot say it again. You are shying away from debate. Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I promise to consistently "shy away from" repetitive debate. You know very well where to find my arguments if you truly have any interest in them. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I promise to consistently 'shy away from' repetitive debate." When a person asks you a question you should answer it. It is as simple as that. You don't know where they are going with their line of reasoning. You are stymying debate by constant grandstanding. Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you're doing is trying to win the debate by sheer force of will: You seem to think that because you spoke last, you won. That's not how these things work. What you're doing is repeatedly asking the same questions over again, once you've been given the answers, as though by asking the question again, you invalidate the prior answer. That's called sealioning, and is not a productive means of reaching consensus. It's much better to make your point and go on. --Jayron 32 17:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32—I think everyone is trying to "win the debate by sheer force of will". This is a debate between allowing editors of adequate competence to construct articles as they see fit, with Talk page discussion as need be, versus creating many more rules to supplement the already existing rules. WP:MEMORIAL actually does not apply to anything. That is because WP:BIO already serves the purpose of preventing the creation of articles on non-notable people. The question of whether there should be a list of victims is a simple decision best left to editorial discretion. My argument is simple. Bulleted lists have their value. I don't understand why a fuss is made over such lists. But if editors want to argue over them, let them argue over them on article Talk pages. In short I don't think Ad Orientem should have started this discussion. I'm sure Ad Orientem meant well but this is a can of worms. Bus stop (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We actually do have a rule about arbitrary information, that's WP:NOT#IINFO (you could also argue that a victim list without context falls under WP:NOT#STATS too). --Masem (t) 17:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good proposal. If there's some information about particular victims that would be valuable to the encyclopedia and is well-sourced, then the names can be included as part of that. For example, if there were a disaster or shooting and many sources discussed the actions of one of the dead victims during the event, then that might be worth including in the description of what happened. If there are many sources about what a survivor did in relation to the event afterwards (activism, writing a book about it, whatever), then that might be included in the article as related. Basically, if a survivor's name cannot be included into prose containing some significant thing they did related to the event, then it probably shouldn't be included at all. Even if that's the case, inclusion should of course be subject to the normal BLP and NPOV restraints. I just don't know if lists of unlinked names should be included except maybe on list articles. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red Rock Canyon—I disagree. The absence of contextualization in this instance is not a problem. There is nothing that needs to be fixed. We are only talking about rudimentary details about lives lost. Not only does the inclusion of that material not matter but in fact it is constructive to the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone knows you disagree. You've made yourself very clear in your 21 posts on this subject so far. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red Rock Canyon—"context", in the final analysis, is a red herring because tons of information can be conveyed in the absence of context. This version, which unfortunately has been reverted, tells us tons of information on the 7 people who died in a ship collision. How can that be construed as unconstructive to that article? Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not a encyclopedic summary of the incident. Too much detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proposal that is closely in line with my own thinking and preferences. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support, in theory. Just for the record. Agree there shouldn't be lists. If a person, in the event being documented, is notable, either for having a bio/blp page of their own, or they played a notable role in the event, other than being injured or killed, then they should be noted in the article prose, along with appropriate sourcing. This proposal could work in conjunction with proposal #2. - wolf 16:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I too like this proposal. I do feel though that we need a rider along the lines that Editors who wish to add names need to obtain consensus on the talk page to add them if challenged ie the default is no names and the burden to add is imposed on the editor who wishes to add. Lyndaship (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd go that far. I think that we let people write the narrative, and if some event in the narrative is determined to be trivial, we remove that event. The name itself would go with it. Efforts to shoehorn in unremarkable text into a narrative are rather obvious, and most everyone will see through such efforts to work a "list" in the back door that way, per WP:GAME. However, WP:BOLD is still good policy, and we shouldn't demand that people avoid names during the normal writing process. Prior approval is not required for good-faith editing. --Jayron 32 16:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an improvement on the previous proposals. There are different approaches to article content. But it's still simplistic, and it's one of those broad laws that only begs the question. What is sufficient context? Wikipedia has thousands of stand alone and embedded lists. Non-prose lists are very often a very good format, following various acceptable approaches found in guidance like Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. Saying names are fine in a quality prose narrative again begs the question. Now editors will debate whether the prose is of sufficient quality. Why not recognize that local consensus is what really decides all of this? If you're going to let local consensus decide whether a prose list is of sufficient quality, why not trust local consensus to decide if the article as a whole works structured one way or the other? There will never be global consensus for ideas as broad as "there shouldn't be lists". If embedded lists of casualties are bad, what about embedded lists of songs, even though none are bluelinked? Or a list of albums, some bluelinked, many not.
What about this embedded list of patents for things that are mostly not very significant in of themselves, but taken as a whole, tell a story. It brings us back to why we endorse redundant categories and lists and navigation templates and portals and prose containing the same information. A prose description of an inventor who has a long series of patents for inventions great and minor is fine, but the same information can also be given in bulleted list form, and for some readers, convey meaning better.
We can't prescribe what to do in every case in a top-down directive. Perhaps the real problems is treating names of the dead as a special case. Articles are full of things, in prose and in lists, and some of those things are highly notable, of great significance, and some of those things, names, patents, inventions, filmography or discography, that are worth mentions but not otherwise of great importance. It depends. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We can't prescribe what to do in every case, but we certainly can decide on a default that would require a local consensus to override. Arguments to override would be required to show what sets the case apart from the majority. This would reflect the fact that the factors are the same in a very large majority of cases. As I expressed above, the scope should be narrow enough to make the preceding statement true for the cases within that scope; i.e. random mass killings wouldn't necessarily be covered by the same guideline as ship collisions or aircraft crashes. I see this as little different from different article title naming conventions for different categories of articles, which AFAIK has worked fairly well without an excess of debate or edit-warring. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but do we need a policy-level directive for that? We already have a default: WP:LISTPEOPLE. It says bluelinked names. Then it goes on with "some common exceptions". WP:CSC does the same: lists of blue linked items, and plausible red links are the "standard", but lists of non-notable things are OK, though it cautions editors to "consider carefully". We have enough guidance here, we have a default, with "don't try this at home" cautions for those daring to try advanced kung fu. What we need is to focus on the perpetual debates caused by WP:NOTMEMORIAL's vague wording. Admit consensus doesn't support it limiting article content so we can stop arguing over it and focus on more subtle discussions over whether this list in this article makes it better or not. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: LISTPEOPLE does not say "bluelinked names". It says that the most common (=not the only allowable) criteria is "notable people". This means red-linked names if the person is notable, but nobody has written the article yet, then it's acceptable, but a blue-linked name that was redirected because the person isn't notable is not acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I said "bluelinked names" as a shorthand for "meeting WP:BIO as a blue link to an article or a redlink to a plausibly notable article". I didn't think the word count here needed to go any higher and everyone generally knows enough about these guidelines to know what I meant.
Anyways: anyone who thinks not-memorial applies to both article topics and to content should propose plain English words to that effect. Lacking strong consensus for that, admit that there isn't strong consensus that it applies that way. Everyone agrees you can't create a new article about someone for no reason except as a memorial memorial; they have to be notable. Only some editors think this means mentioning a non-notable dead person carries any special burden that wouldn't apply to whether or not we can mention any other fact. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen LISTPEOPLE cited in a victims list discussion. I assume the reason is that it applies to list articles. Same for CSC. For the most part—although "list of victims" articles have actually been proposed at least once in this saga—we're not talking about list articles but about lists within event articles. In my opinion LISTPEOPLE and CSC would support arguments for a new guideline establishing a default of omit, but they aren't substitutes for one. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEPROSE applies specifically to embedded lists. MOS:LIST reiterates all these principles, for both types of list. There are cautions on indiscriminate items, poorly defined lists, not using lists when prose is better. It's all there. Maybe everyone is so busy arguing over 'not memorial' they don't take the time to look at the basic guidance on lists. You can have casualties on an embedded list, stand alone list, or enumerated in prose, but only if it meets numerous criteria for quality. What we don't have is a single policy that lets someone do a drive-by deletion of casualties in all cases with a simple "per policy X". They have to get down in the details, know the context, and collaborate. It's a good thing, and it does work. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to state the obvious, but if that were sufficient it would have sufficed. In years of these discussions, I've yet to see any arguments of that nature, let alone see them prevail. Even if they were made widely by the "omit" side, it would be a rare closer who would close in their favor if the "include" side had a clear majority and made reasonable-sounding arguments. The solution is to make the guideline simple and more specific, using all that more general stuff as its basis. You could call it a derivative guideline. I understand the WP:CREEP objection to something like that, but the status quo clearly isn't working and I prefer some CREEP to the status quo. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a guideline. If 'not memorial' were a guideline, rather than policy, it wouldn't be such a battleground. Policies are powerful weapons that let one nuke content wholesale, silencing dissent. Guidelines ask us to bend and compromise and see nuance. Demoting it to a guideline would accomplish much.
Or end the 14 years of debate over 'not memorial' by changing it match the de facto state of affairs: there is no global support for applying 'not memorial' to article content, only article creation/retention. For the sake of proving a point, we could start with a proposal to make it say the opposite, that it does limit article content. Succeed or fail, those proposals would shift the debate away from not memorial towards other content guidance like the list guidelines, as well as WP:WEIGHT and other guidance on content triviality vs importance. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOTMEMORIAL is used to limit content in articles. We have several articles that fall into "crime against a single victim" where the victim was not notable, most of these start with "death of..." or "murder of..." for example Murder of Meredith Kercher. Just enough information about her background is given to understand family member roles (in the case history) and why she was where she was when she was killed. Not a full blown biography with flowerly langauge to make Kercher seem any more important, only that the murder and investigation had drawn enough attention to be a long-term news story. That's proper application of NOTMEMORIAL. --Masem (t) 20:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't WP:BIO serve the same purpose? In my opinion an article title defines an article and suggests its scope (which is really two ways of saying the same thing). Bus stop (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this proposal. Contextless lists of victims should be deprecated and the default position should be to avoid having them. But I wonder how far we'll get on this proposal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the reason that LISTPEOPLE isn't brought up is because editors don't think it will help them "win". The most relevant guideline is actually WP:SOURCELIST, which turns out to be even less helpful. Translated and applied to the case of people who died during an event, it says "Include the victim's names when they're WP:DUE, and don't when they're not". And that leaves editors exactly where they started, with some people absolutely convinced that the names are never-ever-ever DUE, and some people absolutely convinced that they frequently are, and perhaps most of us really not caring unless it gets really unwieldy, but trying to stay out of the line of fire between the two entrenched camps.
The longer this argument goes on, the more I think that the problem might be most efficiently solved with a TBAN for about a half-dozen editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can TBAN for persistent disruption, but you can't TBAN for caring too much about an issue. The problem here has not been with the participants, for the most part, but with the community's tendency to establish guidance that is so vague and watered down as to be completely useless, basically saying "If you feel X is better, do it; otherwise, don't do it." Duh. Thanks for all the help. Village Pump is frequented by too many experienced editors who can only sing one song: "Don't bother us, just go work it out in article talk." That's abdication of responsibility in my view. Perhaps the new discussion at VPP will bear fruit. Perhaps not. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're almost right about "guidance that is so vague and watered down as to be completely useless". If it's a should, and not a shall, then it belongs as a guideline, not a policy. Everyone gets that guidelines, like the extremely useful and successful MOS, are not ironclad, yet over time articles progress to meet that ideal, and those exceptions that need to deviate either gain consensus or lose it. Mere informational pages, like WP:WBA, are extremely influential even though the lack any force of law. NOTMEMORIAL wouldn't be such an odd duck if it were a guideline. As a policy, it's an embarrassment, precisely because it doesn't represent a global consensus. If it did have a strong consensus behind it, the language would have grown tighter and more clear over the last decade and a half, not remained mired in dispute. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone else who is seized by curiosity: our longest policy uses the word should 58 times. WP:COPYVIO uses it 12 times, and WP:COPYRIGHT uses it 11 times. The Terms of Use use it 8 times. I don't believe that the should–shall distinction reflects our actual practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's a lot of text here to wade through to get down to the bottom of this discussion. I've come to the following conclusions based on what I have read: 1.) Something aught to be done to address the problem, something specific so that editors can stop debating the point so often, and 2.) the arguments like "we need to know victims' names in order to understand the context" are utterly unconvincing, right up there with "It isn't hurting anything to include such a list" (um, yes it is: it hurts my attention span, even if the article is short) and "it is constructive to the article.to include this information" (which is so subjective it makes me want to vomit in terror). I am not convinced that leaving the issue up to individual articles is a best option because that is exactly where it seems the conflicts keep taking place. We could probably use a guideline that reigns in editors who feel compelled to add these lists, because those editors seem to be doing it for the wrong reasons (i.e., memorialization, beneath a veneer of contextualization). I have never been a participant in those debates, and at a certain level I do not care. But as a Wikipedia reader, I would be truly annoyed to come across these victims' lists because in most cases I would only come away believing, "Well, I guess if *I* die of lung cancer some day, maybe MY name will get to be on a Wikipedia list of 'Victims of lung cancer'.'" Because, you know, I DIED from it! You have to know who I am to understand the context! (no, ah, no you don't, not really). A loose noose (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we exclude material because individual editors find annoyance in inclusion of that material. "But as a Wikipedia reader, I would be truly annoyed to come across these victims' lists" Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support option 3 (support option 2 as additional, and oppose option 1, although for consistency even option 1 or the terrible counter-option "all crimes must include a victim list" would be better than repeated rehashing of the question). Where identification of particular victims, whether killed or injured or unharmed, is necessary to understand an event, whether criminal or otherwise, they should be included contextually in the article. Where their individual inclusion is not necessary to understand an event, they should not be. If there ever happens to be an event with an overwhelming quantity of notable (bluelinked) victims, then including a list of those would be reasonable. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English tab on all English (en.) pages

The Simple English version of Wikipedia is a very useful tool when reading something but you need it explained from a more basic or layman's viewpoint. I'd propose to add a dedicated tab, or link, at the top of each English page, only if there is an equivalent Simple English alternative, so that new readers to pages can instantly get a simplified version of the page. Similarly, on all Simple English pages, there should be a direct link back to the standard English page. One proposal is to have a tab along the other tabs like "Article, Talk", etc., another would be to have a sentence at the start of each article, in italics, saying "This article is also available in Simple English: <articlename>" and the <articlename> is linked.Byziden (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea to me. Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From how I understand it, though, SE articles aren't supposed to aim at a basic/layman viewpoint; they're just supposed to use simple vocabulary (as much as is possible for a given topic) and sentence structure. Even taking that into account, I think the quality of articles over there is on the whole very poor, and I'm not sure nudging someone there is necessarily a good idea. There was a pretty long discussion over there about closing it down, but there was a lot of resistance to the idea. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 - I think it's a great idea, Ofcourse the project has flaws but then again every project does. –Davey2010^Talk 17:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pretty nifty userscript by Djsasso that does this: User:Djsasso/SimpleWPTab.js and it's companion on simplewiki: w:simple:User:Djsasso/enWPTab.js. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 23:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should already show up in the languages area on the left sidebar on desktop views. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unbundling DYK queuing

I'd like to discuss the idea of unbundling DYK queuing so that trusted editors could apply for the tool to move prep to queue. I think it might solve multiple problems to have maybe twelve editors working in teams of two with that tool, each team responsible for moving, say, Prep 1 to Queue 1 for every iteration. Being responsible always for Queue 1 might make these editors take real pains to provide a detailed final review to prevent errors from appearing on the main page, whereas overworked admins sometimes may be just trying to feed the beast. Having two people responsible for that exact definite job would mean that even in times when RL inteferes, like during a holiday weekend, we'd be less likely to end up with six empty queues two hours before DYK is due to go up. I believe there would be multiple experienced editors who would be interested in doing this one important job for WP, but wouldn't necessarily be interested in applying for admin. valereee (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be in the wrong place with this question. The queues are where content is placed to appear on Wikipedia's main page. You are asking for a specific project to allow access to main page editing by non-admins. — Maile (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked here because it said Idea Lab was for developing ideas, but happy to ask for discussion somewhere else if someone can point me to a more appropriate place. I don't want to propose anything yet or ask for polling, just discuss what might be workable to solve these issues. valereee (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation has moved back to WT:DYK as the project itself decides on its template restrictions. — Maile (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The newer Advanced Search to become default feature soon

Three days later, the newer Advanced Search feature, currently a Beta Feature, will become default feature in all wikis. However, I have issues with it mainly because its Namespace checklist vertical window is very narrow and inconvenient to browse/surf. Due to the one-vertical-column formatting, clicking one of desired namespaces becomes harder, especially for users who have enjoyed the older Advanced Search, which divides the namespace options into columns. I was given a suggestion to discuss this locally. I am thinking ideas about what to do with the newer feature, like proposal to create the "Hide the improved version of Advanced Search" option, asking developers to delay the move, create a Phab ticket about the Namespace list, etc. George Ho (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcing WP:JOBTITLES

We still have many bios with political offices that are inconsistent with capitalizing & non-capitalizing. The best example is the bios of US governors & lieutenant governors. Can we enforce WP:JOBTITLES to settle the dispute? GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are these bona fide disputes, or just things no one has fixed yet? --Jayron 32 02:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's suppose to be settled at JOBTITLES. But, not everyone is abiding by it or at least, not everyone is making the effort to implement it consistently. A combination of some dispute & apathy, seems the core. Possible cause? lack of awareness across the community. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might be disagreement as well. JOBTITLES is part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style which is prefixed with "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I opened an Rfc at the WP:Manual of Style page. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

article assessment system is in need of repair

Hello, I'm a pretty new editor here...maybe one month. At first, I kept encountering lots of "class C - high importance" pages. So, I just assumed they were bad. But, then I started leaving messages on various WikiProject Talk pages and never get a reply. I assume they are dead? Even though they seem to have many members. Finally, I decided to get a "start class" article reassessed. I go look at one WikiProject assessment page and they have a queue of 11 articles and the oldest one is from 2013...five years waiting for reassessment!

So, my question to Idea Lab is whether Wikipedia needs to do something about article assessment by the WikiProjects. Perhaps a better messaging system is in order? Well, that was my one idea. Thanks for the consideration! Seahawk01 (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nettrom and User:EpochFail have been working on WP:ORES scores for articles, so that we can automate some of this. But the general rule of thumb is: if it seems significantly incorrect, then you should Wikipedia:Be bold and fix it.

The easiest cases are articles that are marked as stubs but are obviously too long for that status. (My favorite rule of thumb: if it's got more than 10 sentences, then it's not a stub.) The absolutely minimum case for B-class is that every content section (not counting the introduction or ==See also== or anything like that) contains at least one Wikipedia:Inline citation. With those two ideas in mind, and the willingness to walk away from any dispute and let the other editor(s) have their way, you could probably find and fix many outdated assessments. (The full rules are at Wikipedia:1.0/Assess, but they are only followed approximately, so don't get too hung up on the details.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seahawk01: There is also a script to make article assessment easier — see WP:RATER. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WhatamIdoing, I left messages with both User:Nettrom and User:EpochFail offering some simple suggestions on improving article quality ratings. Seahawk01 (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing and pythoncoder, thanks...great information about assessments. But, I'm still a bit confused about how assessments and Wikiprojects intersect. Maybe it will all come to me in a flash over the next week or two...I'm still a bit new :-)

Also, I would say that part of this post is about assessments, but part is a general complaint about dead Wikiprojects...or at least lack of communications inside the Wikiprojects and a need for a better messaging system. Seahawk01 (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Seahawk01: Assessments are supposed to be done from within a wikiproject, and thus theoretically they could use different scales but in practice everyone uses more or less the same one and assessment is done by new page patrol and the like. Also, even if some parts of a wikiproject are active, assessment pages often are not. So it may be a communication issue as you said. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Seahawk01: The level of activity of wikiprojects is extremely variable. You are quite right that many for all intents and purposes are dead. On the other hand, others are extremely active. I am in the electronics wikiproject, and review requests usually get dealt with eventually (though there may be a long wait before someone takes an interest in that particular subject). The Military wikiproject is probably the best example of a well organised project. They have an established, well-used review process for getting articles to Class A. I'm not a great fan of new page patrol routinely adding wikiproject banners. Usually, the person doing this has no interest in the subject, is likely assessing it inaccurately (especially for importance), and is merely proliferating useless banners for semi-dead wiki-projects. SpinningSpark 09:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I assess articles, I usually skip the |importance= (sometimes called |priority= ratings, unless I'm very familiar with the group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WebCite

In 2013 there was a proposal for the Foundation to take over the running of WebCite (see Meta:WebCite). The idea was supported by WebCite themselves. Alternative suggestions were that the Foundation should support WebCite in some lesser way; with technical support or monetary grants for instance. The proposal was closed without saying what has actually happened, if anything.

Since then, the site has had frequent, lengthy, and unexplained outages (see Talk:WebCite). WebCite is very important for Wikipedia. It enables us to safely protect references against linkrot. Is it time to reopen this proposal? SpinningSpark 12:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The landscape has changed somewhat since that proposal. We now have a better idea how many links there are across all wiki languages (WebCite is about 5% of all archive links on Enwiki), and WMF has a good working relationship with Internet Archive including IABot and WaybackMedic. There are also new players like archive.is which are effective at archiving WebCite archives, and I suspect Internet Archive would be open to it as well. In the end it's not our responsibility to fund WebCite as an entity, we only care there are archives of the pages. If we fund a site like WebCite, why not fund Internet Archive, Archive.is and everything else? If WebCite can't supports itself, why are we outsourcing our most critical pillar of WP:V to them when there are other quality competitors who don't require funding.

This can be accomplished IMO simply be capturing the WebCite archives somewhere else as backup, in case WebCite ever go down permanently. We can also begin the process of moving links away from WebCite to other providers, we've got bots ready to go at a moments notice it could be finished in a week or two. But it would require consensus discussion because despite the unreliability of WebCite (weeks long outages etc) there are users who want to and will continue using them. -- GreenC 15:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the great selling point of WebCite is it will archive on request. You can guarantee that there is an archive of the page you used as a source on the day that you looked at it. SpinningSpark 18:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh others have that these days. On Wayback it's called Save Page Now (SPN). On archive.is also available. In fact I would argue WebCite has the least robust because they will report the page is saved and provide the URL, but then start a background process and email when ready. If the page is not saved for some reason, but in the mean time you added the URL into Wikipedia, this creates link rot. My bot has cleaned up thousands like this, why WebCite has the largest percentage of link rot. -- GreenC 18:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about OMACL links?

A decade or more ago, various (entirely good-faith) Wikipedians added exlinks to omacl.org, which was at the time was the Online Medieval and Classical Library - which hosted a range of historical texts. But now, as an IP editor points out, omacl.org redirects to a payday lender. I expect that the domain has expired and has been bought by that loans company. We have nearly 200 links to omacl.org, which obviously we need to fix somehow. The IP fixed that particular link by changing the domain to mcllibrary.org, and that site appears to host the correct documents (and for a few of the other links we have, at least). I'm a touch skittish about that site, because it seems to be hosted by another individual person - and I fear that if we put work into changing all the links there, in a few years that person may abandon his project, and the same kind of domain-lapse problem will recur. It would be better if we could fix the links to a more stable location, like the Internet Archive, or a University department. So my questions are:

is there such a host that has this content?
should we change the links wholesale to that, or must we consider each link on its merits?
is there a partitially automated process (e.g. Twinkle) that someone could use to simplify this task? 200 edits is a lot for a person, but too little for a fully automated bot task.

I'll prod a couple of the related wikiprojects for their input. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 18:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Finlay McWalter: You can leave a comment on User talk:InternetArchiveBot or its operator's talk page to ensure these references are updated to archive.org links (or if they are not updated, then they can't be updated). For all others, you will probably have to 1-by-1 replace the links, and then I would recommend ensuring those links are saved on Internet Archive also. --Izno (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember ever looking at this site, but it appears from the list of links (see above) that it offered older English translations (therefore PD) of fairly well-known sources, in machine-readable text divided into chapters. This is not what the Internet Archive does best -- it's more like what Project Gutenberg does. But I don't know of any reliable way to convert the links to gutenberg without checking each one. Andrew Dalby 14:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment that the idea that documents hosted by university departments are stable is misplaced confidence. They are just as suscepible to linkrot as anywhere else, possibly more so. The documents often only stay up as long as a particular course is being run or a particular professor needs them. I've fixed hundred of such links that have gone dead. SpinningSpark 14:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A hack to allow reversion on mobile

Just want to put this here in case anybody wants it, I have developed a hack which allows a editor to undo an edit while on the mobile interface here. Comments, criticism, bugs, requests welcomed. — $f r +$ 09:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mobile editor seriously needs to change. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 05:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 —

f r +

06:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gross Page size change

In the edit record of edits on the watchlist, there are indicators next to every edit detailing the "page size change in bytes". This is obviously a very useful tool for the most part, determining when someone has removed or added a large amount of information to the article and so can be used to detect major changes. However, there are occasions where pages are edited in very large fashions, such as a restructuring or cleanup, that add a lot in some places but delete a lot in other places. Because of this, substantial edits are made to seem smaller because the net gain or loss is small.

My proposal is to add a second indicator that details the gross change in bytes. This way, large restructurings that have net byte change of zero are still shown as more significant than other, more minor edits. After thinking of different ways to do this, I have come up with two ideas: First, a second parenthesis could be added that details gross and is bolded if the gross change is more than 500 bytes, or the current parenthesis bracket could be expanded in a way that shows something like (gross change, +/- net change), where if the net change is high, the whole thing is bolded that color, while if the net change is low but the gross change is high, the indicator is bolded blue (for small nets and gross, the gross could stay blue and the net could be whatever color?). Thank you for your time, IntegralPython (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples of major edits being hidden in this way? They must be extremely rare. I don't recall ever seeing one. I've seen many edits that show zero bytes change, or some low number where the actual change involved more bytes, but these are invariably something quite minor. I wouldn't count refactorings like changing section order as being a major change. That doesn't significantly affect the information. SpinningSpark 08:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back on it, it may not be as common as I initially thought. I have edits show in drop down groups on the watchlist, so when it displays the summary in the header of said group, many times reverted edits show as (0) when in fact there was a large edit that was then reverted. This also happens to me when people make many small changes to an article in different edits, so I see now that most of what I was thinking about will not apply to most users. I might try in some time to make myself a js that does it for me. Thank you though, IntegralPython (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flicker Creative Commons

I think CC-BY-NC-ND, CC-BY-NC-SA, CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-ND (all creative commons) Flicker images should be allowed here on the English Wikipedia. I found this discussion on the commons about the same issue (c:Commons_talk:Flickr_files#Why_are_NoDerivatives_&_NonCommercial_not_allowed?) and it got a reply saying some Wikipedias allow these types of Flickr images to be uploaded locally but not globally (as the commons does not allow them as the commons does more the just illustrate Wikipedia). Using the images locally wouldn't be a commercial use as Wikipedia is not an commercial entity, so these images should be allow to be uploaded to Wikipedia. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 02:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Licensing/Justifications explains the importance of allowing derivatives and commercial use. It wouldn't be copyright violations to upload those CC NC or ND licensed flicker images. But in the same vein, we could use a lot more images under fair use than we do currently; the point of being strict about having truly free images and limiting non-free images is so that Wikipedia remains a truly "free" encyclopaedia; both free to use, and free to re-use in any manner (see WP:5P3). Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll skip that... I know nothing about Brexit"

I'm concerned about the limited number of experienced editors / administrators who are taking a large step back from Brexit-related articles / debates (on the basis of lack of knowledge of the subject) and leaving the same small pool of editors to reiterate their positions with ever-decreasing politeness.

Crunch time for Brexit is coming up. There is a crucial vote in the UK's parliament on Tuesday 11 December 2018.

Stewart, Heather (28 November 2018). "Brexit: how the meaningful vote will work". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 December 2018.

and prior to it a head-to-head TV deabate between the Prime Minister, Theresa May and the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, on Sunday 9 December 2018.

Mason, Chris (29 November 2018). "Brexit debate: Clash over whether BBC or ITV will host debate". BBC News. Retrieved 1 December 2018.

In July 2018 the BBC printed the following four Brexit outcomes:

Leave with a deal
Leave without a deal
Stay in the EU
Hold another referendum

Staff writer (19 July 2018). "At-a-glance: The UK's four Brexit options". BBC News. Retrieved 1 December 2018.

There's a lot of POV-pushing between possible outcomes going on.

Elaborated on in November 2018 by Bloomberg News.

Ross-Thomas, Emma (15 November 2018). "Confused about Brexit? Here's what you need to know". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 4 December 2018.

Is there some way of widening the pool? There is a Brexit Task Force WP:BREXITTF and I did think about issuing invites on talk pages but who to? It could do more harm than good. I also wrote an essay in my namespace WP:BREXIT101 trying to give a rough guide to Brexit for editors if anyone wants to read it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, the whole area is changing so rapidly that any attempt to move beyond a bland minimalist description is bound to fall foul of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Further pretty well any attempt to explain entrenched positions is likely to be WP:POV and lead to WP:BATTLEGROUND. I would seriously suggest that editors who are holding back and waiting to see what happens are doing the right thing. There's always Wikinews if you feel you want to make a dynamic contribution. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the BBC has a couple of objective explanations/infographics as to what's the options in the brexit process are -- it could be a starting point. If you think there's POV pushing try WP:NPOVN? ProgrammingGeek^talktome 14:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mysterious floating orb

Go to Bohol Sea.

Look top right.

See "coords" and a globe?

Click the globe.

Did you know it makes a map appear?

I was thinking about consistent maps for bodies of water, and that was pointed out to me. I never knew about that. Should that be made more prominent or the link put elsewhere or something? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that the map is just zoomed in on a simple Mercator projection. The result is that for higher latitudes the map appears stretched E-W. You would do better to click on the coordinates and select a map once you are above around 40° N or S. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a separate "Interactive map" with the globe icon next to it in the info box rather than buried by the Coords would help people discover it. Jayzlimno (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds pretty good. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KKK

Hey guys, when you look up the KKK, go to the dates where the 1st generation began and ended. The real exact date the 1st generation ended was in 1872. Just to let you know. Thanks!

Slenderman4962