Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.

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

« Archives, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192

Contradiction at WP:Content fork: content forks are not always bad.

The third sentence of WP:Content fork implies that content forks are always bad ("content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia").

For this to be true, we'd have to be defining "content fork" to not include the overlap between article spinouts (e.g. history of coffee) and summary-style-sections (e.g. Coffee#History). But that's not how we're defining it: the first sentence of WP:Content fork defines the term to mean, quite simply, redundancy between articles ("A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject"; and coffee and history of coffee both "treat" the history of coffee). This contradiction has apparently been noticed, because someone has attempted to answer it, but the attempt just equates content forks with POV forks. ("Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View") (emphasis added). (not really relevant.)

I propose to rewrite the lead at WP:Content fork as follows, to reflect that the term "content fork" is used to refer to two different things -- one which is acceptable, one which isn't.

A content fork occurs when there is more than one article containing a treatment of a given topic. This redundancy is problematic because it forces related discussions onto multiple talk pages, hinders coordination and consensus-building, and leads to inconsistencies between articles. Nevertheless, content forking is made inevitable to some degree by the natural overlap between encyclopedia topics, and is often encouraged in order to avoid overly lengthy articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style).

Unacceptable content forks are of two kinds.

• A point of view (POV) fork refers to an article whose existence has no justification except to promote violations of Wikipedia's neutral point of view guidelines. POV forks are assumed to be content forks, because they are generally redundant to (and may even be created to intentionally circumvent) a pre-existing but neutral discussion of that POV. They tend to cluster among articles whose title identifies a POV (e.g., "Criticism of [topic X]"), although these articles are not always POV forks.

• The second kind is confusingly referred to simply as a "content fork". These occur when there more than one article that is entirely dedicated to a given topic. These redundant articles often arise accidentally. When they are identified, all substantive content should be merged into one of these articles; the others should be replaced with redirects to that article.

This is a revival (and improvement) of a proposal I made in August at the WP:Content fork talk page which ran out of steam.
Thoughts? Would anyone support introducing a new term -- "topic fork" or "article fork" -- to refer to bad content forks that are not POV forks? Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 21:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The convention that "content forks" are undesirable is too entrenched to be changed now; trying to do so will only lead to people talking past each other, as one uses the old meaning and the other the new.

As for the merits: the otherwise acceptable practice of having a "summary article" and "subarticles" should use that established terminology. Subarticles are only content forks when they rewrite the main article; even when both are written from a neutral point of view, this is undesirable, since it means the subarticle is off topic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "content forks" should refer to forking out sub-articles (acceptable), and the unintentional creation of two differently titled articles covering the same topic should be simply referred to as "duplication" or "content duplication". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Making the distinction between a legitimate spinout and a content fork has been a failing of the WP:CFORK document for as long as I've been aware of it. This has been an issue for a long time, so I would support any effort to improve the situation.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the issue. Couldn't it just say "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking", and be done with it, no qualifier required? Summary style is pretty clear, and should involve summary, not duplication. Rd232 ^talk 11:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that is not always the case. If a sub-topic is not notable in itself, then it is likely that the coverage contained in the two articles is likely to be more or less the same. For example, the articles Terminator (character) and Terminator (character concept) are both about the same thing. You could swap the content of the two articles around, as neither topic is notable in itself.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

But those two article don't follow WP:SUMMARY. They're just two different articles on (very) closely related topics. Rd232 ^talk 12:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

They do indeed follow WP:SUMMARY, but they are content forks from the Terminator films. In this case, there is nothing to distinguish the coverage of the film from these two articles. They are definately content forks. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What is a content fork?

• "fork" should mean "any redundancy (however small) between articles"; "POV fork" & "Content fork" should be pejorative and not overlap
• Rd232, here's the problem that would still remain: People are using the phrase "content fork" to refer to two different things. So imagine this: someone wants to get an article deleted; he gets it labeled a "content fork" under the first (neutral) definition [let's call it "neutral CF"]; then he equivocates by silently shifting to the negative definition [let's call it "pejorative CF"]; defenders of the article do the opposite; and now deleters and defenders are talking past each other ("it is a content fork! no it isn't! but you just said it is! well yes, but content forking is not grounds for deletion! yes it is! ...). This problem will persist so long as "neutral CF" and "pejorative CF" are being referred to by the same name. (Septentrionalis PMAnderson, I thus view your concerns as being part of the status quo, and are precisely what I'm trying to solve...)
• The only solution is to rename one of them. I think the "neutral CF" will be the most amenable to renaming: People devote more thought and work to pejorative CF's; people don't even think of neutral CF's as content forks (evidenced by the widespread intuition that summary style/spinout combinations do not represent content forks). Thus, I rescind my proposal, from the end of my original post, that the pejorative CF should be renamed "topic fork" or "article fork".
• Instead, I propose we assign the name fork to the "neutral CF", retaining the name content fork only for the "pejorative CF". This entails the following:

(1) the lead at WP:Content fork should be changed to indicate that there is no overlap between the definitions of POV fork and content fork. A POV fork occurs when an article is created to argue for a POV. These articles have been treated as a kind of fork, only because they tend to be redundant to (and are often created to intentionally circumvent) a neutral discussion of that POV at an existing article. Nevertheless, its main sin is not redundancy (the essence of a "fork"), but a violation of WP:NPOV.

(2) We could, if you want, create separate articles for "content fork" and "POV fork", with a disambiguation page at "fork".

• Thoughts? Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

speaking idealistically, the only valid kind of content fork occurs in a semi-hierarchical structure, when a section of a given topic is large enough that it needs a separate article of its own. whenever two article cover the same material but do not have that kind of parent/child relationship, you're looking at a POV fork of some kind. unfrtunately there's no structure on wikipedia for dealing with multi-article coordination (unless someone sets up a project for that purpose, but projects don't have the force of policy). --Ludwigs2 20:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• There is a structure on wikipedia for dealing with multi-article coordination: notability. As a basic rule of thumb, any sub-article that does not contain signficant coverage from reliable secondary sources is a content fork from the overarching topic. For example, if the article Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) provides evidence that its subject matter is notable, while the article Battlestar Galactica (ship) does not, then the article about the ship is a content fork. The reason is that its overarching topic (the TV series about the ship) is the subject of significant coverage that addresses its subject matter directly and in detail. Contrast that with the coverage of the ship, which all about the TV series. Unless reliable secondary sources can be found that mark out the ship as a suitable topic for a standalone article, then it would be better to elimate the content fork and redirect the article about the ship to that of the TV series. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's going off on a tangent, talking about notability. The "forking" issue is essentially about duplication, and the type of case you're talking about needn't have any more or less duplication than a usual summary-style split. Rd232 ^talk 12:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe Andrew Gradman's new proposal approximates current practice. whoops, misread it. Trying to distinguish "fork" from "content fork" is just going to confuse people. "content forking" is considered impermissible, and a POV fork is just a content fork with a specific intent. Whereas summary-style splitting of topics isn't considered "forking" (though on occasion, badly or maliciously done, it can end up being that, by failing to split/summarise appropriately). Rd232 ^talk 12:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability is key to understanding which topics are content forks. Without coverage from reliable secondary sources, there is no reason to have a seperate standalone article. Content forks are basically articles which have some sources, but the coverage does not address the topic directly or in detail. Simply put, a content fork is an article without notability, whose subject matter is covered directly and in detail in another article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

An appropriate content fork is not creating a new topic, but instead talking of one part of the subset of that topic. Notability needs to have already been demonstrated for the main topic before the content fork can be created. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with using Notability here is that it doesn't really tell us anything about the structures I talked about above. to use your example: say editor X is editing Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) and editor Y is editing Battlestar Galactica (ship). Editor X thinks his article is the main one, and adds a bit about the ship; Editor Y also thinks his article is the main one, and adds a bit about the series; the two bits they each add contradict each other. Now, if we knew that the 'series' article was the main one, we could delete the section in the 'ship' article about the series; if we knew that the 'ship' article was the main one, we could delete the section in the 'series' article about the ship. But since there is no overarching structure which says this or that is the main article, the the two articles are going to continue to contradict each other (noxious content forks) either because the two editors don't know what's written in the other article, or because the two editors don't like what's in the other article, and aren't forced to work the overlapping bits into a single page. a lot of topics on wikipedia have this problem, often because different editors started writing good faith articles on different but related topics that grew into overlapping regions.

and yes, I recognize that I'm suggesting Wikipedia make some policies or guidelines about overarching metastructures to information, and that that is a major headache even to consider. I'm just saying... --Ludwigs2 19:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

←The basic principle of the guideline, i.e. multiple articles on a single distinct topic is undesirable, is sound. For editors, it dilutes collaborative article building; for readers, either the duplicates provide no further information, wasting their time or, they only find one article, it's of inferior quality to its four-pronged siblings, thus we do them a disservice. I too think conflating content forks with notability is a mistake. –Whitehorse1 18:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

But Wikipedia includes articles of different types that share the same scope and which are entirely dedicated to the same topics, which makes them "content forks" according to the "The second kind" definition provided above. Wikipedia has prose articles and list articles. Topic lists (such as "List of opera topics" and Outline of geography are Wikipedia articles, and they share the same scope as the corresponding prose articles (Opera and Geography). But, topic lists serve different purposes than conventional (prose) articles: lists deal more specifically with the presentation of subjects' structures, and their format allows for faster readability, skim-ability, and navigation (they are somewhat menu-like). The cfork guideline apparently assumed "article" meant "prose article". Having two prose articles on the same subject or two glossaries on exactly the same subject is bad. But having an article and a glossary (and an index, and an outline) isn't bad (if the scope of the subject is broad enough to support these article types).

Therefore, the "second kind" definition should accomodate the other types of articles, perhaps like this:

• The second kind is confusingly referred to simply as a "content fork". These occur when there are more than one article of the same type that are entirely dedicated to a given topic. These redundant articles often arise accidentally. When they are identified, all substantive content should be merged into one of these articles; the others should be replaced with redirects to that article. Articles of different types (a standard prose article, a portal, a timeline, a glossary, an index, etc.) that cover the same subject are not considered to be harmful content forks, and they should not be merged together just because they cover the same subject.

The Transhumanist    23:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree and I don't think these forks should be accomodated at all. It is obvious to me, if not to The Transhumanist, that the list article List of basic geography topics is a content fork, since it is not a notable topic in its own right, due to absence of secondary sources to identify it as seperable, standalone article topic that is different from its overarching subject matter, Geography.
Without any secondary sources, it is purely a matter of personal opinion as to what this articles is about, by which I mean you could rename this article using any combination or permutation of words, just as long as it contains the word "geography" it its title. A more accurate tile would be "List of arbitarily selected topics loosely assoicated with geography" which would reflect that list subject matter is not defined or its title is not authenticated by a reliable secondary source. This type of fork is harmful, for it is little more than listcruft, and as such is a magnet for original research.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability only applies to topics, not to articles. The topic of List of basic geography topics is Geography which is already shown to be notable. It is a "good" content fork of the type desired per the above conversation (eg falling out from summary style). It's contents are well discriminated - either they completely enumerate what needs to be in a given category (the continents or oceans of the world) or provide a clear inclusion aspect of what is include (natural and man-made geographical features). There is no problem with this type of "content" fork. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Masem has impailed himself on the horns of a dilemma. If the topic of List of basic geography topics is the same as that as the article Geography, then the list is clearly a fork. There is not such thing as a "good fork": if the article topic is addressed directly and in detail in one article, there should not be another article or articles about the same topic with a slightly different name.
I think what Masem has failed to grasp is that List of basic geography topics is indeed a seperate standalone topic, except that it has no clear definition. What is a "basic" geography topic? Your guess is as good as mine, but I suspect it is a title that was plucked out of the air at the time. My view is that whether the article is called "List of geography topics", "List of basic geography topics" or "List of arbitarily selected topics loosely assoicated with geography", its subject matter is actually about the categorisation of certain topics related to geography, and is probably best dealt with as a category.
Content forks of this kind go against consensus, because they go against Wikipedia content policies:

1. The article's title is not recognizable in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions, i.e. the name has not been used in reliable sources, and so unlikely to be been recognized by the world at large;
2. The article's content is prohibited by the fact that it is a List of loosely associated topics;

I think it is fair to say that in this case, it's contents are not well discriminated at all. The fact that most of the list items are related to geography is undeniable, but then it is possible to argue that virtually everything is related to geography in some way. As long as the article topic lacks a definition or any kind, even a broadbrush one, then it is going to be a content fork from an overarching topic that has a definition and a recognizable title. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, Masem is correct.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 19:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, the entire issue of notability is a red herring: you can perfectly well have two content forks on a topic which is not notable (and conversely, notability wouldn't seem to be relevant for distinguishing reasonably-sourced POV forks). The question is whether two articles covering the same topic broadly construed can be differentiated (a) by substantive difference in focus as part of a clear relationship between the two, i.e. WP:SUMMARY; (b) by being essentially different in form, such as list vs article (and the example given, Outline of geography / List of basic geography topics, is indeed essentially a list. If either exception applies, it's not a "content fork". Rd232 ^talk 08:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the mistaken view that article which is "reasonably-sourced" is not a content fork makes no sense. If two articles share identical sources, but just have different article titles, that would be an example of a content fork pure and simple. The key to understanding which article is genuine and which is the fork will depend on which article title is addressed directly and in detail by those sources.
I think that Rd232 is also under the mistaken view that list articles are different from other types of article because they are in a different "form", but in substance lists are no different from any other type of article. In the case of List of basic geography topics, there are no sources that address the article's title directly or in detail. In this instance, the term "basic" in the title is little more than a fig leaf to cover the lack of significant coverage in it.
The only way two articles with similar or closely related subject matters can be be differentiated is whether or not the article title is the subject of significant coverage in accordance with WP:GNG. This is because, if an article title is not the subject of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, then that title is not recognised by the world at large in accordance with WP:NAME, and if an article's title is not widely recognised, that is one surefire indicator that it is a content fork.
Notability is not a red herring in this context, as a notable topic cannot be a content fork, as notable topics meet all of Wikipedia content policies which includes WP:NAME. For example Geography is a notable topic, as is the History of geography which is notable subject studied in its own right. However, "Basic Geography" is not a notable topic, nor is the List of basic geography topics notable, as it is not recognised as a seperate subject in its own right.
As a rule of thumb, if an article topic is not the subject of signficiant coverage from reliable secondary sources, then it is likely to be content fork from an over-arching topic that is notable. WP:CFORK, WP:NAME and WP:N are closely bound together, and you can't interpret them in isolation. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, I think you're missing the gist here. arguably, a perfectly written wikipedia article (should such a thing possibly exist) could not have a content fork - it would use an optimal selection of sources in a completely neutral, complete, and balanced way, so that any other 'perfect' article on the same topic would be equivalent. But I sincerely doubt we should be counting on people to write perfect articles. given the more realistic prospect that two articles on a given topic might say different things, then a question arises about the relationship between what the two articles say. If the two articles have a complementary, hierarchical relationship, where one article expands on a point that is only touched on in the other article, then you have a functional and useful content fork (maybe 'branch' would be a better term here, implying that it's connected to the whole but goes its own way for a bit). if the two articles have a oppositional, contradictory relationship (where each article is trying to one-up the other) then you have a POV fork, like two plants trying to choke each other out. The first is fine, the second isn't, but we cannot assume that the second never happens (on what amounts to philosophical grounds), because it obviously does happen.

I don't think you can reduce this to a matter of article titles, since titles are usually derivative from someone's perspective on article content. --Ludwigs2 10:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what you are talking about in the first instance is the splitting notable sub-topics into seperate standalone articles in accordance with WP:SUMMARY, which is standard procedure and not in dispute. However content forks are not recognised sub-topics, they are just a rehash of an existing article topic under the title that is slightly different name. Content forks can be recognised by the fact that their title is not widely recognised by the world at large in accordance with WP:NAME. For instance, "Basic Geography" is not a recognised subject in the world at large. In fact, the list article List of basic geography topics does not contain a single citation whose subject matter is "Basic Geography", which a pretty conclusive indicator that it is a content fork. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of this entire conversation was to make the distinction between "separate standalone articles" an "content forks". You seem to be conflating that issue with your pet notability issue, which isn't really helping the central topic here... I do like that "separate standalone article" phrase though, although it would be nice if we could come up with something more succinct. One thing that I think is abundantly clear is that someone really needs to edit the WP:CFORK policy to say exactly what Gavin opened his post above with, that "splitting a sub-topic into a separate standalone article in accordance with WP:SUMMARY" is not a content fork. That would make things much clearer for everyone.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

list of basic geography topics means list of basic topics in geography, not list of topics in basic geography. I could say it means list of common topics in geography or list of common uses of geography, and I'm sure that I cold find different scholarly sources that use 'basic topics', 'common topics', and 'common uses' in reference to geography. does that mean we should have three separate list articles? --Ludwigs2 18:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The page is misnamed. The article has been greatly expanded, and no longer fits the scope of the original name. It was renamed to "Outline of geography", but someone named it back. It is not a basic list, nor a list of basic topics. It is a presentation of the subject geography, in topic outline format, and also part of Wikipedia's contents system. If you delete it, you will be punching a major hole in that subsystem (WP:OOK). --The Transhumanist (on unsecured machine, using anonymous IP for security reasons). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.141.61 (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Content forks when backed by reliable sources allow us to expand of specific diverging viewpoints of a topic and thus are a good thing. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read that line several times now, but it still seems like an endorsement of POV forks. Was there a typo? LeadSongDog come howl 19:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Ludwigs2, if List of basic geography topics is really about basic topics in geography, then why is there no citation in this list article to show this? I would suggest the reason is that this list article is a content fork, whose article topic is not recognised by the world at large. I doubt very much you could find significant coverage on the subject of basic topics in geography or common topics in geography that links in any meaningful way to its content. The reason is that the real subject matter of this list is the categorization of geography topics, which is already covered by Category:Geography. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavin: the problem here (and forewarning, what I'm about to say is on the esoteric/philosophical side) is that the names of things are only loosely connected to the things themselves. they are not good diagnostics. what we would hope is that the topic in question has only one page on wikipedia. unfortunately, different people might use different names to refer to the same topic, and different people might use similar names to refer to different topics; If we just rely on the name, the name can mislead us, and leave all sorts of openings for wikilawyering in content forks. I'm sure I can find a dozen freshman textbooks that talk about 'common topics in geography', and a dozen more that talk about 'basic topics in geography', because 'common' and 'basic' are loose synonyms. at some point we have to recognize that 'common' and 'basic' are being used to refer to the same 'thing', and it's that 'thing' that should have a single page on wikipedia, not two different pages as the names might suggest. see what I'm getting at? --Ludwigs2 08:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Ludwigs2, I accept that a specific topic can only be loosely approximated by an article title, even in the case of a very specfic topic. Although article topics are not defined by their article titles alone, you would nonetheless expect that the article title to be the subject of significant coverage which can identify the article topic as having been recognised by the world at large. We know that geography is a very broad subject area, with many recognised variants, each with a specfic name (Category:Branches of geography would be a good place to look), but basic, complex, common or unique geography topics are not any of those. Its easy for an editor to make up variants such as these, because the names are so bland that they go unchallenged. If there is no signficant coverage from reliable secondary sources, then it is unlikely that it is a recognised article topic in its own right. Even if you can find a source which uses the term 'basic topics in geography', surely it must occur to you that the real subject matter is Geography, as that is the specific topic that is being addressed direct and in detail? Have you no common sense? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"List of basic geography topics" is misnamed from "Outline of geography", an unfortunate result of a move war of pages included in Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge. The words "List", "Glossary", "Timeline", "Outline", "Index", and "Table" are used as list type identifiers. When used that way, they are not part of the subject. Each one connotes a kind of list, the includability of which are established by the list guideline and stand-alone lists guideline, which predated the cfork guideline. For example, "List of animals" isn't about a document in the real world presenting a list of animals. It is a Wikipedia article about animals that is a list. The subject of the list is "animals" which is a recognized subject in the world-at-large. The same principle applies to "Outline of geography", which is a particular type of list, about the subject of geography, arranged as a topic outline, which shows topics that make up the subject. Outlines are much faster to read than prose articles, and they are arranged more logically than prose articles (which may present topics in almost random order within paragraphs). The outline on geography is a major component of the Outline of Knowledge, and has been for years (the set being called by other names in the past). The solution is to rename "List of basic geography topics" back to "Outline of geography". For the set of the outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge. For a description of Britannica's Outline of Knowledge, see Propaedia. --The Transhumanist (on unsecured machine, using anonymous IP for security reasons). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.141.61 (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I can understand why a "move war" came about, as the list is undefined, and without a definition, it could be called virtually anything, just a long as "geography" is in the title. I think that List of basic geography topics is itself a list of loosely associated topics in almost random order. WP:LISTS does not provide any basis for inclusion (only Wikipedia: Notability does that); on the contrary, WP:LISTS says that the subject matter of list should be defined by reliable sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As much as I often disagree with Gavin.collins (or, at least, the weight that he gives to notability as an issue), I have to support this statement. Of course, knowing Gavin.collins as I do, I should immediately state that the conclusion which he will inevitably extent the logic of his own statement to is not a view that I share, but I'm still right there with him on the point directly above. I'd say that the vast majority of these sorts of content disputes are started by slipshod, or usually just ill-conceived (or unthinking), forward planning on our collective parts. Sources, and confining an article to a specific topic, are all that is really required to avoid most content disputes (outside of the subjects you'd avoid in bars, you know... Politics, Religion, etc...)
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For your information, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic geography topics has now been initiated. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Collins, why don't you just say what this is really about? It's not about geography, it's your disagreement with the Scientific Opinion on Climate Change article in that it is (as per your claim) an unacceptable content fork from Climate Change; thus, since the words "scientific opinion" in the title do not have a footnote after them, the article should be deleted - or condensed and combined into "Climate Change" with all other articles on Climate Change (regardless of the current size of that article). Thoughts anyone? Airborne84 (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to tell as the contributions are so negative and don't contribute anything constructive but I think it may be it has little to do with climate change and be just part of the fixation about a peculiar interpretation of forks and notability. Dmcq (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Back to basics

I think this proposal would add much confusion to what is only a slightly confusing name for the policy. A "content fork" is mean to mean a split of identical content to two different articles, without attempting to sort out a valid difference between the one and the other. And specifically, because editor POV is not supposed to affect the article, that is not a valid difference. The policy is self-evident from the nature of Wikipedia: without setting meaningful distinctions between what articles cover, there would be one "Article" split into three million parts all covering everything at random. It also extends naturally to improperly segregated "Criticism" sections automatically, because sections of an article likewise should be distinguished by valid differences; so the article should be separated in terms of the major real-world activities/ideas/processes it addresses, not the opinions different groups of editors have about each individual detail. The bottom line is that when content is organized into articles or sections, it should be divided according to some rational, encyclopedic set of subdivisions. Wnt (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Advice on Lists of Minor Fictional Characters

I can't seem to find any policy or guideline relating to lists of minor characters, which has come up through an AfD discussion. We have a category full of these lists (Category:Lists of minor fictional characters, 122 articles at present) but they can present problems. As minor characters, they are by definition, not notable (although notability would apply to the list as a whole, rather than individual characters). The lists actually exist because no single character would qualify for an individual article. I have no problem with this and support the existence of these lists. However, the lack of any guidelines one way or the other makes AfD difficult and could cause problems in the future. The closest thing I could find to an actual policy is this obsolete and apparently rejected attempt: Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. So, I would like some advice on when a list of minor characters is appropriate and what the content should be. Thanks, AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Their lack of notability for their own article is not a valid enough reason to have a list. In actually, they are so minor they are rejected from the real character lists as well. This is when such information should simply be culled, not shoved off a handful of minor lists, almost all from the soap opera realm. While almost all of the other projects - TV, Film, novels, anime/manga, etc - that work with these topics have agree that minor character lists are inappropriate, a violation of WP:TRIVIA, and have no place in a group of articles, nor are such characters important for inclusion in the main character lists. They are minor for a reason. Any relevance they may have is limited to just a few episodes, at most, which is already documented in the episode lists. Such characters have no coverage in reliable, third-party sources, beyond plot regurgitation (which is already best sourced to the primary sources). Little to no real world context can be added for the topic of "minor character", making the lists as a whole completely inappropriate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:SALAT would be the relevant guidelines on this. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• A quick random sampling from the search results in the Wikipedia scope[1], and going through the first 20 results, including the rejected attempt already noted:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters in Morrowind - closed in 2006 as keep, later renamed Characters of Morrowind which was deleted through AfD in 2007
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sealab 2021 minor characters - closed as no consensus in 2008, merged to Sealab 2021 in 2009 with the minor characters removed
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Xenosaga (2nd nomination) - closed as delete in 2008, recreated purely as a redirect to main list
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters in the Ranma ½ manga - closed as keep in 2008, moved, and deleted after second AfD in 2009
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V for Vendetta (minor characters) closed as keep in 2006, moved to List of minor characters in V for Vendetta, but list seems mostly to have major characters rather than minor and should be renamed
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters of Crash Bandicoot - closed as merge in 2008
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Camp Lazlo (2nd nomination) - closed as merge in January 2008 to main list
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in My Gym Partner's A Monkley closed as delete in 2007
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ranma ½ minor characters closed as delete in 2009
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor Characters of 6teen closed as keep in 2006
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew - closed as speedy keep in 2008 due to ArbCom injunction; renamed to List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters and all minor characters later removed per consensus - list is now FL
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in the Firefly universe - closed as keep in 2007, later merged with main list
13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Xenosaga non-admin closure to keep in 2007, later merged with main list
14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters in Scary Movie closed as delete in 2007
15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Xena: Warrior Princess closed as no consensus in 2008
16. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters on Ugly Betty closed as delete in 2007, name kept as redirect
17. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters from Recess closed as delete in 2007
18. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Minor Characters in Dexter's Laboratory closed as merge/redirect in 2008

So out of 18, we have 6 deletes, 3 merges/redirects, 2 non-consensus (1 of which was later merged), and 7 keeps - of which all but 1 of which have since been deleted, redirected, or merged. Further, using some rough searching of "The result was merge" and "List of minor characters" in the Wikpedia space, we have 267 results[2], 844 for "The result was delete"[3], and 469 for keep.[4] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So like all articles the results is ... it depends. AdamBMorgan, I suggest a note to DGG may help as they have written some well-reasoned explanations that may serve as a starting point to add a note about lists of minor characters to WP:SALAT. All our lists IMHo are easy targets for improvement and disruption so starting to refine how the fit into our current practices would likely benefit everyone. -- Banjeboi 20:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

With the great majority being deletions. And note that many of the keeps were later redirected, merged, or deleted. Minor lists do not belong, and they certainly should not be added to SALAT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirections and editing do not reflect community consensus, just local consensus (or apathy). List of minor characters seems to be more appropriate for longer-running television shows that make use of recurring characters. Ultimately, if series credited cast are the only ones who actually get articles, there are plenty of current articles which should be merged into such lists. That is, redefining "minor" may be the best way forward, rather than blanket statements that such should be deleted. Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how such a general list could work. By lacking a specific subject matter under which minor characters could be listed, it seems like a free-for-all for anything and everything. What kind of usefulness could possibly come out of such a broad list? Minor characters make the most sense to read about under the related franchise or other subject matter. Erik (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

...Except for the length restrictions would cause otherwise useful content to be lost. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ding, ding; Echo Jclemens point. Just because bullying tactics are used against less experience editors - often contradicting consensus - doesn't mean this is a new policy or standard. It simply means those who wish to delete have managed to outmaneuver those editors who created or tried to maintain the material. This is not a best editing or people skills practice but should serve as a lesson that having some consensus guidelines would help keep non-consensuss merges/redirects a bit more in check. -- Banjeboi 22:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've often found minor character lists to be largely indiscriminate (What is a minor character? What is the criteria for inclusion? How extensive should such a list be?) and pretty clear violations of WP:WEIGHT, as you're giving a veritable ton of coverage to something that usually has little-to-no real world coverage of any sort whatsoever. 99% of the time, the "minor" characters are adequately covered in the scope of the episode list/medium's plot summary/etc. and if necessary, can be merged to the larger character list. There's also the quality control issue in which practically none of these lists can reach any reasonable standard for including real world information, thus making movement up the assessment chart a practical impossibility. About the only real exceptions is something like List of recurring characters in The Simpsons, which only works because 1) the show has been around forever, so there's a wealth of sourcing 2) you have a panoply of real-world topics to talk about, namely the various cultural references. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

These lists lack any kind of relevance. They violate WP:NOT#PLOT because all the non-in-universe information for almost any character would be deemed trivial content as it is like "Dan was the best guardsman" or the like. It furthermore violated WP:UNDUE as a fork to give minor characters the same weight as other more relevant characters put on a non-minor character list.陣内_Jinnai 22:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a point that similar to all lists there are pitfalls to avoid but their very existence hardly constitutes a blatant violation. Some are , others are not, and many are somewhere in the middle. -- Banjeboi 22:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you had a minor character that has some significant commentary on him from a source he could very well be placed in a general character list; however maybe they are better fit under another character, such as if they are some minor underling of the main antagonist then so that it doesn't violate undue because someone out there decided they really has a personal connection to this minor character to write a whole piece on them or if they were some one-line character that had some scholarly review done because everything else in the work had already been gone over with a fine-tooth comb. That is what WP:UNDUE is for. It means if something is minor, it should be treated as such, without some compelling reason to do otherwise, which could happen in a few rare cases.
Most minor characters won't even make it that far as there is no significant commentary on them and thus having a seperate list for them is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:CFORK by trying to get around undue by creating a spin-off article on such minor characters.陣内_Jinnai 04:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It really really depends on exactly what the definition is being used for minor. Lists of recurring - but not present in every episode - characters for a long running TV (eg Simpsons) would seem appropriate because a full list of all characters would be too large. But a minor list of one-shot characters for a single work or the like is unnecessary. Before these should be considered for deletion, attempts to be made to merge them into a single overall character list for the work or the main article itself, ensuring a good metric for what inclusion is on the list. If such an effort makes the list still necessary, then it makes sense to keep it. But really, most of these are not necessarily bad in terms of tracking characters, but are just too damn wordy and can likely be trimmed and groupped with the major characters. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not supporters of Minor characters list as the motive behind their creations is too often based on "Quantitative" thinking.

You run out of spin-out article ideas then let's create a Minor characters list compiling some of the last craps of informations available. You feel good because you created one more article for a work of fiction you like with tons of "additional informations". You think you improved the coverage done to this work of fiction by creating one more article with lot of Kilo Bytes of data.

Needless to say that this is the wrong way to think it. --KrebMarkt 08:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A little AGF, please. In fact, I think it's the other way around more often than not -- these list articles are created in order to remove articles on non-notable characters while preserving the information relevant to the larger fictional work. Powers ^T 13:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

They just act like consumers more & bigger and better it is. I won't blame their thinking but i can't express nothing save consternation after reading some of those lists. --KrebMarkt 14:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

They tend to be useful. I'm not a big fan of the "minor characters" lists for all but the largest works--I think merging into a single list is generally the way to go. But I agree with LtPowers pretty strongly on this. Hobit (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that individual entries in a list do not need to meet the same standard for inclusion as a standalone article would. It is the list as a whole whose importance should be gauged by coverage in reliable sources. Powers ^T 13:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This complaint is based on a simple fallacy. If a work is notable and its article grows to great size, then a separate article about all the characters (even minor ones) can be split off and is noticeable. If that article would be too large, the individual major characters can be split off. What is left after all that does not suddenly lose notability - in fact, it is necessary to complete a thorough coverage of the parent topic. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The character lists still need to follow WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF so there still needs to be some non-plot information. This can be creation info, merchandising or other non-trivial real-world information.陣内_Jinnai 22:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:WAF yes, but not WP:NOT#PLOT. The latter is tied to non-plot coverage of a topic; a character list that is split out from the topic is still under the main work's topic. WAF is still very important to avoid fandom approaches to these lists, however, and there is still need to validate the information for it. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, yea I agree. My point was those lists do not need to show notability; the very fact that their a list rather than an article in an indication that they cannot show notability. However, they WP:UNDUE still applies so its not open season to adding every minor character.陣内_Jinnai 05:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Merging a template into a page

I'd like to merge Template:Demography/Moguer into Moguer, the only place it is used. Presumably, we don't want to leave a redirect from a template to an article. Also, presumably, we need to still credit the authors who contributed to this template page (which is a reworking of es:Plantilla:Demografía/Moguer, so their contributions are minor]]. I believe I should merge the template into the article, copy its history to the talk page of Moguer, and delete the template. Anyone disagree? - Jmabel | Talk

Seeing no response, that's what I'll do. If anyone thinks I'm wrong, we can always undelete the page. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What you did is similar to WP:Merge and delete#Paste history to talk subpage and thus seems fine. It might be best to move it up to the header (section 0) and use a collapse box. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Drop 'notable' in favour of a more organic approach

Deciding if something is notable seems to border on NPOV issues and people hate their articles being deleted. 'The sum of human knowledge' to me says everything, that makes me an inclusionist, but articles relating to some backyard software project or sportsman that scored a goal in one game seems unimportant - so I am a deletionist too! Maybe there's a middle ground so I have a little crazy proposal that might circumvent this issue... Drop 'notability' inclusion criteria, instead rely on 'verifiability', which is a much more focused area. The arguments of verifiability can remove unsourced articles by themselves. If there are minimal, but verifiable sources they stay!

I can hear steam blowing - bear with me ... The next step is to reinforce the standard for internal links, i.e. they should only point to 'notable' articles. This is where the 'notability' argument could be had - but in context of a particular articles subject. This would (in a perfect world) lead to the articles self organizing into importance/notabilty with the number of links pointing to them indicating this. Non-notable articles would have few links, so not many people would get there anyway - and there quality would be of low overall impact ( except probalby by biased/dumbass outside analysis - but we have that already!), the search order could even be slightly organized by number of links ( with attention being paid to prevent spamming and ending up like a search engine !). At some point if an article has a number of quality links to it - it becomes notable by inference...

A interim supplement to make sure of this, could be a 'notable' tag/flag/cat for each article. Normal searches would exclude articles without this tag, but one could have an option to 'search everything'. And of course adding a wikilink to an untagged article could throw up discussion for its inclusion.

Summary of benefits I think this would give us: it allows us to step back from deletionism, possible future aditors getting annoyed their hard work is deleted, deleting somthing that might be important to one POV - ( hence better NPOV), although this will cause more disussions in different areas these arguments should be less heated as they are more focused at relevance to subject in hand and verifiabilty rather than the work or existence being 'deleted'.

This won't solve all problems, but I suggest it as an idea to improve the situation, look forward to your thoughts ;) cheers ! --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 02:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The most obvious problem with this would seem to be that related articles on something basically non-notable need to be interlinked. The second most obvious is that the administrative burden of patrolling non-notable BLPs would be brutal. It's tough enough keeping up on the notable ones.

But I sympathize with the idea being raised. I think a better solution (and probably one outside of Wikipedia and even outside of WMF is simply the creation of more specialized (or, conversely, less selective) wikis that would be glad to have these articles outside of our purview and responsibility. - Jmabel | Talk 02:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for you sympathies! The links between non-notable would be fine, and from non-notable to notable also, as long as links from notable articles are solid it should work. It could get complicated if a subject switches from non-notable to notable though... hmmm. I can't even fathom the extent to which the BLP work extends...good work to all involved! You remind me of another idea I once had - Graffipedia - which was basically 'the bits Wikipedia doesn't want' which had no rules and allowed anoyone to right whatever they wanted, linked to from various places in WP, this would've take away the graffiti artists and spammers and left them to their own creation.. wouldn't last long before it was taken down for legal reasons so it would have to based outside the law or self patrolled... Anyone care to start it! --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Not everything verifable is discriminate, and WP is not a collection of indiscriminate info. Lowering the inclusion to just verifyability will lead to everyone who can prove they exist to have a page, etc. etc. It's not an issue about linking but just plain visibility in WP.

The larger issue is that WP:N is a good guideline to judge inclusion for 99% of the topics, moreso for contemporary ones, but it should not be considered the only means of determining inclusion. Too many people treat WP:N as the only means, and we don't really have other means written out well for balance with WP:N, only what comes from consensus and AFD discussions. Inclusion in WP needs to be guided by common sense, not hard-nose following of rules. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Really, we need to clarify and stress the aims of wikipedia then - more of a PR job - then people wouldn't be surprised when their articles aren't included ? And I think 'Inclusion in WP needs to be guided by common sense, not hard-nose following of rules.' should be in the lead of WP:N - the curent line is the standard link to many other policies/guidelines! --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A healthy dose of common-sense would be fantastic, but the problem is that people in general like to have rules to follow. It's simpler to "win" a debate by saying "look, 2 sources, keep!" rather than trying to persuade an audience based on good sense. Shereth 22:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability is common sense! If multiple reliable sources haven't written about a topic in depth, why are we trying to write an article about it? How can we really write a decent article in the absence of such sources? That's the rule of thumb which is the WP:GNG. If you replace WP:N with WP:V as the standard of article inclusion, it becomes impossible to keep out trivia. Wikipedia would descend into listing every single little fact and incident in their own article regardless of the amount or depth of coverage. Fences&Windows 21:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely if we place WP:GNG into WP:V, then it mostly covers notability in an NPOV way, my argument is that the articles that aren't really notable will not be linked to and wither naturally.. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 11:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The concept of notability is flawed and I routinely ignore it. Everything relevant can be argued from verifiability. People who refer to "[replacing] WP:N with WP:V as the standard of article inclusion" do not (yet) realise that verifiability is the standard for article inclusion. What keeps out trivia is Neutral point of view, particularly the Due Weight clause. Notability is a mess of ad hoc nonsense created by people who do not understand how Wikipedia's policies work. --TS 12:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 13:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like are some strained aspects about notability as a unifying concept. For example, it is often used as a reason to keep individuals named in sources from even being mentioned in an article - and truly we can imagine some world-class flamewars if we had articles like list of registered sex offenders in North Carolina, even if there are solid online sources for it. Yet for non-human objects we don't want this restriction - we want the article on Big Ben to say how long the minute hand is, even though no one publishes an article specifically about it. There is some discussion of this in the notability guideline already, in its discussion of living persons known for one event, though I don't much like the wording. I think that in the long run the notability criterion needs to be steadily relaxed, but doing so abruptly would cause considerable fallout. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Do people watch deleted articles to see if they are re-created?

I was reminded yesterday that I had meant to do a search to see if one article in danger of deletion could be improved. I was too late, but I re-created the article and no one has objected. Just wondering: do people watch to see if this is done, just in case the new article isn't any better than the one deleted?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got a deleted category on my watchlist, just in case anyone tries it on again, and I used to have a deleted hoax article on my watchlist just in case. Can't speak for anyone else though. DuncanHill (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If I'm participating in an AfD I watchlist the article and it remains on my watchlist if it is deleted, so yes. J04n(talk page) 22:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I regularly check my deletion logs to see if any articles I have deleted have been recreated. Of course, even if one has been recreated, it does not necessarily follow that it will have to be deleted again. CIreland (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It depends. If I suspect it will be recreated, from history or heavy fan/anon attempts to keep it or a sock creation, yes, I'll keep it watchlisted a long time. If its a fairly routine one then I'll usually remove it after a few days/weeks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an option to watch the page when you delete it. This is checked by default (for me, at least), and very useful, since the page is often recreated within minutes. decltype (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that you have the extra tools... – ukexpat (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No third-party tools are required, are you referring to the admin tools? As a tagger you can opt to watch all pages that you modify with the same effect. decltype (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed guideline - Wikipedia:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

A number of editors have been working on a draft guideline for primary, secondary and tertiary sources for about a month. This has just been moved to the WP name space and upgraded to a proposal.

Currently, there is a section on the subject of primary, secondary and tertiary sources in the policy WP:NOR. Part of the proposal is that the section in WP:NOR will only talk about the original research aspects of using primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

A discussion is underway at WT:PSTSPROP.

Yaris678 (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Reviews

Just wondering, is it normal when reviewing a good article not to point that out on the talk page? I logged in recently to find that Go (board game) had been de-listed. Of course I checked the talk page to see why, but there was no record of any discussion or notice placed there. Nor indeed had any notice been given to Wiki project China, Wiki project Japan, Wiki project Korea or Wiki project Go! Strange I thought. I am aware that some people have as a hobby de-listing and deleting, but this strikes me as a tad sinister. I wouldn't open a secret review of a Featured article, then de-list it before anyone had a chance to notice.--ZincBelief (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This question is better asked at WP:GA. For information on how GARs work, see WP:GAR. That said, it was delisted as part of the sweeps, per Talk:Go (game)/GA1, and there is nothing sinister about it. It is part of the process, and notification of any projects is not necessarily required. And, in fact, it was clearly announced on the article talk page[5] per appropriate practice and with a clear edit summary, and only one person bothered to respond or attempt to correct the issues. After the appropriate amount of time (1 week) it was delisted. Seems completely on-board, and properly done. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

1 week is quite a short time, especially as it should be clear to the reviewer that his review had totally failed to attract the attention of any editor who had spent a significant amount of time on the page. Too often GA reviews operate like this.Actually I have no respect for the GA Sweeps project as they think it's ok to tell people who query their policy to Fuck Off (sorry for the foul language, but that's what literally happened). As a result of that I do not intend to ask them. When I have seen articles reviewed before it was always the case that a New Section was created in the talk page so that anyone reading it would notice. Good practice was to inform related projects and key editors. Hiding it in the colour overloaded mess at the top of the talk pages isn't quite as good or indeed appropriate, and an edit summary is hardly a good way of bringing about attention - it vanishes from visibility after the next edit. As a result I personally failed to notice any request to improve the page. It therefore fell to 1 person's opinion to de-list the page. Such is GA world these days. For me personally this is just more evidence of quite how pathetic wikipedia has become.--ZincBelief (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That is your view, and of course its understandable if you are taking it personally, however community consensus of GA in general (not just sweeps) was to move to using the same style system as is used for FAs, with the reviews linked at the top, and that being the primarily notice, versus the old practice of having them done directly on the talk page. The only difference between the way the two projects deal with GARs is that with FA, yes, individual notifications to relevant projects and the primary are required. And, honestly, I have never seen anyone in Sweeps tell anyone to kiss off so long as any criticism/question was made in a civil fashion. While you seem to be pretty bitter about GA sweeps, I do hope you will note that since the time that review was done, Sweeps did, in fact, change its process to require editor and project notification to avoid such issues as what seems to have occurred here. And please remember to assume good faith about your fellow editors. I myself have performed many GARs for sweeps (and outside of sweeps), and I have in deed seen many articles where even with all the notifications left, no one responded to the GAR at all. Usually in such cases, I figure no one feels capable of fixing the issues, or they just don't care. One week was seen by the community as an appropriate time for some response. Had more people expressed interest in fixing the article, I'm sure the GAR would have been extended. I myself have let some run as long as 2 months when there was active editor activity and discussion working to correct problems. Meanwhile, I went ahead and fixed the GAN you started for the article, as it was missing its topic. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I watch the Go (game) page, but also failed to notice the review because it was only a template change at the top of the page, and not announced properly on the talk page. It is not a matter of people "not being bothered" to respond to the review, but a matter of people not noticing that there was a review in the first place. I certainly would have done something to address the issues raised if I had known about the invisible subpage where the review was taking place on, as I am sure would have other regular editors of the article. BabelStone (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but if it was on your watchlist page, why did you notice it? Any change made to an article shows up in your watch list. The diff makes it pretty clear that a GAR was started. The template name is clear, and the edit summary was clear. If you both feel David Fuchs, the reviewer, did not properly notify people, its something to take up with him. But coming here to complain about it months later, seems really counterproductive, as it has nothing to do with policy. You both say you watch the page, yet neither of you noticed its being delisted for three months? Clearly at least one editor involved with the article noticed the GAR going on as he responded pretty quickly. And in doing a quick check, PC78 was not the only one who noticed it. The most active editor on the article, HermanHiddema, also noticed, though right after it was delisted.[6]. Did either of you actually talk about it with David first? There are procedures for dealing with disputed GARs, namely starting a community GAR to ask that it be reversed, or doing as was done and renominating it for GA. Speaking as an experienced GA reviewer, however, I suspect it will be failed because quite honestly the article does not meet the good article criteria anymore. It has far too much unsourced content and uses several unreliable sources, it does not meet basic [[WP:MOS] guidelines, the citation style is not consistent, it has inappropriate "notes", and its been tagged for some issues since April of 09. I think it would be far more productive if you both concentrated on bringing the article back to GA standards, rather than complaining in the wrong forum about how a particular GAR was carried out, especially when neither of you have taken the first step in dispute resolution, which is talk with the editor. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Or the GA "powers that be" take notice that there are actually quite a lot of us "mere editors" who would like a bit more effort at notification on these things and that maybe taking some time to go a bit above and beyond in doing some courteous notifications would be beneficial. A minor template change on a talk page is more likely to go unnoticed than for an actual who new thread being established which would be a bigger change. I know if its a small change on a talk page made by an established user I am less likely to go to a watchlisted page. This isnt about what MUST be done by the GAR people, its about what SHOULD be done by a normal human being in considering what makes notification easier for other people.Camelbinky (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, the sweeps process does now suggest that the main editors should be notified on their talk pages, along with appropriate projects. This is also the process for GARs in general. I'm not sure what else you are asking for... -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am reasonably satisfied that GA Sweeps has accepted its process was rubbish and changed it. It is not comforting to know that they decided on a useless process, nor it is comforting to have people defend that useless process, nor is it comforting to know that the GA Sweeps project decided to revamp the whole area through a need to justify its existence. Wikipedia should not be breeding ground for rules for their own sake. It would be a damn site better if people concentrated on thorough research (as opposed to verifiable 'facts') and proceeded to write them up with some literary flair.--ZincBelief (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The criteria for both FA and GA have been upgraded between 2066 to 2007, and a lot of older FAs and GAs no longer meets the required standard - especially for WP:V. I've have one experience of responding to a reassessment of a GA, there was a lot to do but I started promptly and made recent progress, and finished a little over 2 weeks later. Discussions with other GA reviewers show that they will allow longer if good progress is made in the first week. --Philcha (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, little progress will be made if the review is hidden from the regular editors and project members. I also noticed a disparity between GA criteria and GA sweep criteria the last time I looked, and further noted that many GA reviewers are seemingly unaware of the GA criteria. That was a while ago, and as I said earlier, I lost interest due to the GA Sweeps obnoxious attitude. --ZincBelief (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2010 (reUTC)

I see that the the GAR template was added to the top of Talk:Go (game). Standard procedure is that the reviewer should also transclude the review into Talk:Go (game), but apparently was not done. However, BabelStone noticed that the GAR template was added, and PC78 made a minor improvement. Nothing was done about the main issue, lack of sources.

It's also odd that the GAR was failed in Sep 2009 and the current complaint was raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) in Jan 2010. The time would have been better spent on improved the article and then nominating the article at WP:GAN. --01:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BabelStone stated that he did notice GAR template was added, you have not read what he has just written properly. It is a bit of a joke to say there is a lack of sources. Whoever wrote that obviously didn't read the actual sources referenced, because they back up all that needs referenced. For example the game recording section, that's such a trivial subject that it is an obvious area of subject specific common knowledge which does not need any references. Open a Go magazine and you are presented with the information. I have done some work to improve the article, and I did this work prior to raising this 'complaint' (it was actually a question) here. After completing the work I nominated the article. If you think that's odd you might like to explain why.--ZincBelief (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Are school scandals generally reported in school articles?

I heard on the news of several recent scandals at James Madison High School (New York) that began on Dec 9. There have been a string of 4 separate allegations involving 4 different teachers since then, but the school's article didn't mention them. This seems like a pretty prominent event, so I've added it to the article; but I'm wondering now if the omission was the result of some policy I'm unaware of? Equazcion ^(talk) 04:16, 29 Jan 2010 (UTC)

I think the question of whether to include fall squarely on whether the coverage is secondary, that is, whether the coverage says something about the scandal, or whether the information is a mere reporting (chronicling) of the facts. Opinion-free news reporting is not what we want to be sourcing directly. Did the scandals inspire commentary? If you call the source a "report", probably not. If you call the source a "story", probably yes. In the case in question, I think the four sources you give are clearly "reports" only. If the newspaper went on to report on the results of the poll, then there would be secondary coverage. The relevant policy is WP:PSTS --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're making a distinction I've never heard of, and don't follow at all. Could you clarify that? If this is about the relative low-browness of the Daily News, the story has been picked up in many other sources that could be used in its place. Otherwise, I don't see the difference between a report and a story; newspapers report stories, and even if you could have one without the other, this seems to be a story. How could this be considered a primary source? "Opinion-free news reporting is not what we want to be sourcing directly?" Since when??? Equazcion ^(talk) 10:30, 29 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I'm not really sure what the distinction between "reports" and "stories" means here either. I do understand that some stories contain commentary and all of that, I just don't see how it's particularly relevant. Anyway, I don't see any issue with adding properly sourced yet controversial/scandalous information to school articles. If I were particularly interested I might quibble about some minor things with your addition (exact placement of the cites, paragraph structure, need of using the Principal's age, minor technical things like that...) but certainly not with the content itself. Anyway, tangentially related to this is a discussion started yesterday at the Village pump (miscellaneous) about Charlotte High School (Punta Gorda, Florida).
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ohms. Feel free to correct any problems you see. It's not my best writing sample, but that's what's great about a wiki -- other people can improve on what you write :) Equazcion ^(talk) 11:03, 29 Jan 2010 (UTC)

True! The whole article could use a little touch up anyway. I'll give it at least 24 hours though, just to give this a little time to simmer.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 12:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason not to include these incidents. You may want to include other sources in addition to the Daily News since you are using the one paper exclusively for all four incidents. J04n(talk page) 12:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between reports and stories I make is that a report is a regurgitation of primary source facts, but a story includes commentary, or some other transformation of the facts, and is thus a secondary source.

The distinction is important because we, as an encyclopedia, strongly prefer all content to have been previously covered by other secondary sources, and to not build content directly from primary sources. If the secondary sources exist, we use them, but still use the primary sources as the primary sources tend to be more reliable in terms of the accuracy of the facts.

In this case, a "cause for concern" is that the references were just "reports" as I define above. They do not themselves indicate that anybody cares. Newspapers repeat all sorts of news. Newspaper reported facts do not, per se, demonstrate a prominent event. News these days is very cheap.

In support of including the material is the fact that the material was carried by mutliple media outlets. In this case, our story can be: "On dd mmmm yyyy, multiple media outlets reported ..." Also supporting the inclusion of the material is the fact that one of the outlets included a reader poll on the subject. This is a good indicator for the material being interesting. Even better for inclusion in the article would be a followup on the results of the online poll.

Where the content is related to "scandal" or non-constructive criticism, I think we should be more cautious to not lead in terms of commentary, and our mere inclusion of material is the commentary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that you consider news to be a primary source? Additionally, I don't see why we should worry about the nature of content at all, by making distinctions about content being "scandalous" or not, as long as we avoid using the personal voice and inadvertently end up making it appear as though Wikipedia itself is making any assertions about anything. Classifying the character of content will inevitably lead to non-neutral writing, which we should avoid at all costs.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, news is usually a primary source, in that it is a true copy of a primary source. More specifically, "news told with a sense of immediacy and factualness without the insertion of the newsreader's commentary" is an excellent example of a primary source, speaking historiographically, as any encyclopedia writer/editor should. The extent to which it is unreliable does not make it a secondary source. The terminology here is inadequate. News is rarely "the primary source" by which scientist often mean the best, most reliable, singularly most relevant source, but it is a primary source in the way a copy of a copy of a transcript is the same source as the transcript itself. To understand what a primary source is, you need to first understand what makes a secondary source. You should also understand that "primary source" is not at all synonymous with "reliable source". Eyewitnesses to the same event frequently retell different basic facts.

We worry more about "scandalous" in so far that we are concerned that some editors may be less than neutral in their intentions, and out of kindly concern for those we may inadvertently hurt.

We also worry more about scandals because scandals have a greater capacity to spread with increasing drama with each retelling than do the typical objective, dispassionate, calmly considered analyses. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"primary source" is not at all synonymous with "reliable source" -- That's in our policy already, see WP:Primary sources, and no one here is claiming otherwise. Also in our policies, though, is that news articles are not primary sources but secondary sources. And, being a source where information has been filtered through the discretion of a publisher and their editors, secondary sources are considered more reliable. You can debate the validity of the policy or the terminology, but these are long-established practices on Wikipedia. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:56, 1 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I am pleased to find that "News articles are secondary sources" is not to be found in policy. It would not be true. The converse is not true either. It's complicated.

The assertion that a news story "has been filtered through the discretion of a publisher and their editors" is something that attests to notability of the subject. The mere retelling can be said to be an assertion of importance. This is true for the newspaper just as it is true for Wikipedia. The fact that the stories you added to the article were published multiply supports your additions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not likely to find a quote like that, though that doesn't mean it's not true. There's no list of sources, that I'm aware of, that specifies which source type they are (primary, secondary, etc). "Primary source" has a specific definition on Wikipedia that doesn't fit news articles. Wikipedia:Rs#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources: "Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event..." A primary source is an eyewitness or a movie script. A reporter publishing through a newspaper is not on that level. It's secondary. Also see Wikipedia:Rs#News_organizations -- they are considered a reliable source, and with no caveat that they are "primary", I might add. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:25, 1 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Can too many references be a bad thing?

I think so. Too many citations introduce visual clutter in the middle of a sentence, interrupting the flow of a user reading the page.

For instance, look at this sentence, from Catcher_in_the_Rye#Controversy. There is an average of one citation per 6.125 words. (49 words, 8 citations)

The challenges generally begin with vulgar language, citing the novel's use of words like "fuck" and "goddam", with more general reasons including sexual references, blasphemy, undermining of family values and moral codes, Holden's being a poor role model, encouragement of rebellion, and promotion of drinking, smoking, lying, and promiscuity.

Look at the edit code for this section: This single sentence is 46 lines in edit mode. Who is going to try to change that sentence with all that unreadable stuff in there?

I know that as an encyclopedia you probably want as many references as you can get, but is it too much to ask that the article's content be arranged in such a way so that you can read a sentence without reading: "..Undermining of family values forty-seven and moral codes forty-eight holden's being a poor role model forty-nine, encouragement of rebellion fifty, and promotion of drinking, smoking, lying, and promiscuity fifty-one." I'm tolerant of end-of-sentence citations but breaking up the sentence arbitrarily just seems awkward.

I wrote an infobox that could be used in situations like this:

What do you think, would this make a reasonable policy? Phort99 (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

We do now have List defined References that can help this kind of thing, although it can be a pain to convert it to. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 10:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Too many references is a problem similar to overlinking. Too many links probably means to intellectual level of the writing is probably too low. This "gratuitous referencing" is a real world academic issue. See also User talk:SlimVirgin/templates "articles made difficult to edit because of in-text clutter from citation templates". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Heck - that is nothing! I can show articles which had 13 refs for a single word! And where it has been deleted due to ... lack of references <g>. SV -- is there a way of listing article with, say, over 200 "references"? Collect (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Code readability is a concern, but since it only involves the ease of editing, I don't think it's one that we need to concern readers with by placing a template on article pages. Perhaps a talk page template would be more apt. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:53, 29 Jan 2010 (UTC)

You know, the citations can go at the end of the paragraph... That and there's really no need for us to include every possible citation inline. If there are several citations supporting the same general issue then one possible solution would be to create a reference group and use one citation that lists all of the similar citations. Either that, or just pick one. There are plenty of other solutions as well, if we were willing to spend a nanosecond thinking about problem solving and being a bit creative.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 12:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, when you use the citation templates there's absolutely no need to break the parameters onto different lines, especially when the citation is in the middle of a paragraph. I regularly remove those line breaks whenever I come across them, and I highly encourage others to do the same.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 12:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

We can't have too many sources. They ensure that the reader knows from where every single fact in the article derived. As a reader you soon get used to references appearing, and them appearing right by the fact they reference avoids any confusion. The appearance of the code when editing is an entirely different matter, and one that is solved by list-defined references. This is template-cruft. Fences&Windows 20:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can have too many sources. A lot of articles do. It makes them look like postmodern Master's theses or something, whereas we're going for "encyclopedia article". On a more practical, less aesthetic note, too many citations makes it hard to find the important ones. (Too many sources is a separate question from too many citations, but too many sources can also be a problem — we want to point the reader to the useful sources, not to anyone who's ever mentioned the topic in passing.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much the number of references as much as the manner in which they are presented. Ideally, references should appear at the end of a paragraph; when circumstances dictate that a reference should appear near the fact that it references, placing it at the end of the sentence in question is a good solution. Reference tags appearing mid-sentence break up the flow of information, and in some examples the plethora of inline citations peppered throughout paragraphs and sentences has effectively rendered it incomprehensible to the average reader. In the case where numerous references appear together, grouping is a good soultion to the problem. Shereth 21:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have unfortunately seen many reviewers at GA/FA or peer review and elsewhere make the comment "Remember that every sentence needs to have a reference for it when you take it to FA". Which is fine in the abstract idea of every sentence is backed up by a source somewhere on that page, but unfortunately those editors are talking about a reference at the end of each and every sentence. I hope this discussion helps to put at rest such nonsense. Not every sentence should have a citation at the end of it. This is clutter and distracting, terrible authorship, and very unencyclopedic.Camelbinky (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems a similar discussion is occurring over at WP:VPM#Over-sourcing?. For those that want to effect a change, Wikipedia:Citation overkill is currently proposed as a policy, guideline, or process. -- œ^™ 23:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes to WP:SPS

One paragraph in Wikipedia's policy on self published sources currently says the following:

• Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

I propose we add the following line to this paragraph:

• If self-published material is being used as a source within any article (except a biography of a living person), be sure to attribute the material thus used directly to the self published source rather than as a statement of fact.

Discussions can continue from below. Thanks. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 13:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC):

• Conceptually, this seems reasonable to me. I have a problem with the wording... it reads like you are you don't have to attribute opinions in BLPs (when what I think you mean is... "Note: BLPs have even more restrictive rules about SPSs.") Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, is your proposal essentially saying that self-published sources are to be treated as opinions, where we should always refer to information from them as statements of opinion and include the author's name? If that's the desired outcome, perhaps we can figure out how to convey that more clearly. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, generally unnecessary rules creep. "According to" should be used where there is some reasonable doubt about the facts, and we say this already. If the statements are generally accepted and neither controversial nor debated, this is just silly. "According to Jane Smith, his mother, Joe Smith was born on April 1, 1975. Professor Fred Jones states Joe Smith died on February 29, 2004." --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Can we give our editors some leeway and judgement in writing articles and using sources? If anyone questions the source or is likely to, attribute it. We don't need more rules that everyone will ignore. Fences&Windows 20:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Things like dates/town of birth etc. are just fine from SPSes. In fact I'd bet that the NYTs takes people's word for their ages anyways. So even if the NYTs did report on their age or birth date it would be no more reliable. I'm even fine with things like basic resume topics (worked for AMD until 2005, now works at HP) and the like unless there is reason to suspect they are wrong/lying. Hobit (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Updated Changes Proposed to WP:SPS after incorporating points above

Given the points above, I've changed the proposal to what is written below. I suggest we add the line mentioned below to the current WP:SPS, to incorporate the points mentioned above by some editors. Do give me your responses (please note: only the line in bold is what is being added to the current WP:SPS; everything else is retained as is there currently). Thanks.

<-------->

• Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. If the material being being used from a self-published source within any article is expected to be controversial or subject to dispute, be sure to attribute the material thus used directly to the author of the self published source rather than as a statement of fact. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

<-------->

Discussions could be held from here on. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: This proposal is a result of this discussion, where Wifione would like to change this policy so a particular self-published source must be treated as an "opinion piece." Note that Wifione's standard is that no other sources need be provided to dispute a self-published source; the mere mention by a single editor that it is disputed or controversial is enough to consider it an "opinion piece" rather than information. I don't think we need a policy change so that the result of a single WP:RSN discussion can be influenced. I would rather that we hold self-published sources to the same standard of verifiability as other sources: "This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed." Yes, absolutely, let's use the inline citation--but let's not belabor the point with author names unnecessarily. If it actually is an opinion, then WP:NPOV already covers it and we don't need more WP:CREEP. It isn't more of an opinion and less of a fact because it's a self-published source (assuming it meets the other criteria). WeisheitSuchen (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support in some form. It actually seems perfectly reasonable to attribute a contentious statement to its author, especially if it was self-published -- and, especially if other published scholars disagree (I don't know if that applies to the incident that sparked this proposal). That seems like common sense, and I'm pretty sure it's even in some policy or guideline somewhere already. I don't think it's all that unreasonable, anyway, to add mention of it at WP:SPS. A self-published source should IMO only be used to state facts in non-controversial situations, and otherwise, they should indeed be specifically attributed to the scholar they came from. My version of the wording would be something like, "If material acquired from a self-published source is contentious in some way, it is best to explicitly attribute the material to its author in the Wikipedia article text, rather than state it as fact." Equazcion ^(talk) 06:21, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose At the least, "expected to be" should be stricken as controversy is not always easy to predict. Also seems like WP:CREEP. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment That can be done CyberCobra. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• In general, I'd agree that if someone says something is contentious, it's contentious enough to explicitly attribute it in text. In the IIPM case, I would recommend something like "A statement signed by Gale Bitter, Associate Dean of Stanford Executive Education, on such-and-such a web site, explicitly denies any association with IIPM or any other Indian institution." Of course it's contentious, it's saying straight out that IIPM is lying, that's a big deal. --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment I presume then your pov on this issue is support, right? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose adding this to a policy page as WP:CREEP. However, as guidance about how to attribute sources, there is some merit to be considered. In general, I think the crux of the issue is more a matter of whether the claim being made is controversial or novel. That is, I think it would be good form to properly attribute novel or controversial assertions, regardless of whether the source is self-published or appears as investigative journalism in a reliable source. Anytime an author's name is given as the the person investigating an issue, any assertions made by that person (other than simple facts that are verifiable from other sources) should be attributed to that person. For example, James Fallows is an investigative journalist who is published in reliable sources. Even though his work published in reliable sources can be assumed to have been fact-checked, I would still expect that controversial or novel claims would be attributed to him. older ≠ wiser 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment Bkonrad, generally this is what should be done - that is, controversial statements should be attributed to names. However, when the self published source makes a controversial statement, then it becomes a bigger imperative. I believe this should be mentioned clearly because sometimes, editors might think that if a self published source is presumably reliable, then the self published source can be quoted as a matter of fact, rather than as a matter of opinion. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - in theory this would affect any content sourced to newspapers which have been bought out by the staff. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment NeilN you perhaps don't have it spot on! Staff of newspapers are not 'publishing' the newspaper. Therefore, I think your oppose is based on grounds that are perhaps not right.Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NC

It has been proposed that WP:Naming conventions be moved and renamed to something like: WP:Article titles. The community is invited to comment at WT:Naming conventions#RFC on proposed rename. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to technical term formatting

I have made a proposal for formatting of computer science-related articles at Wikipedia talk:Technical terms and definitions. Based on a recent peer review, it seems there is no formal guideline for this, and I think this will help solidify what I think is a logical and standard formatting guideline for computer science-related articles. Please check it out at Wikipedia talk:Technical terms and definitions and offer your comments. Thanks! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where this belongs

Because of some recent issues (which reflect experiences I've had several times before on different articles) I have come to the belief that there needs to be a different set of editing rules with respect to dispute tags. The problem on my mind is when an editor or editors start reverting/removing dispute tags on sight - it effectively makes it impossible to raise sourcing, attribution, NPOV, or other content questions on the page without engaging in an edit war over the tags themselves (and yes, the issues can be raised in talk, but editors who are in the habit of removing disputes on sight are not generally big on talk page participation). While I obviously wouldn't want to make it impossible to remove bogus tags, I think that there ought to be something in policy that privileges dispute tags over normal content, so that they cannot be removed without at least some attempt at discussing and resolving the implicit content dispute.

This is such a vague idea, though, that I'm not sure where or how it would be implemented (if is a separate question, of course). I'm just throwing it out here to see what other people think. --Ludwigs2 22:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly I have a similar, albeit assymetrical experience with many such tags. A lot of the tags refer to a discussion on the talk page, that is often not there. So I would make it mandatory for the original tagger to open a talk page discussion. If no talk page discussion is opened in parallel with the tag, the tag should have no special privilege (as it could easily be POV pushing of the tagger). If there is a talk page discussion on the tag in that case removing it, as with content being actively discussed on a talk page, should only be done by consensus. But I don't see the difference with other content that is being discussed at talk.

My proposal here would be that taggers should start talk page discussions, and with that talk page discussion the tag is sufficiently protected against random removal. Arnoutf (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think ArnoutF has it covered. If there's no talk page discussion, you're completely justified removing the tag. If there *is* a talk page discussion, it is probably against consensus to remove the tag. This is the situation as it stands now, so I don't think we need to write any new policy. If you would like to document this existing practice somewhere, go right ahead! --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

lol - I'd be happy to document it, but (as the title of this thread suggests) I have no idea where. on wp:consensus? as a section of wp:edit warring? there doesn't seem to be any policy or guideline pages specific to template or dispute tag usage (at least, not that I know of...). I'm open to any suggestions about the best place to put it. I suppose I could write up something as an essay and propose it as a new guideline, but that would probably be overkill (unless there's more that needs to be said about template or dispute tag usage that I'm not aware of). --Ludwigs2 23:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Man, I've been arguing for months that "cleanup tags" ought to go on talk pages. Their really editorial issues anyway, but there is a significant number of editors who feel the need to air our dirty laundy in public, for some reason. Anyway, I also completely agree with Arnoutf, and even made a proposal earlier to seriously encourage some form of talk page entry being made about the addition of a tag, but that meet with significant resistance primarily because (based on what I could tell) "it takes too long" *rolls eyes*. To be more constructive here, My current idea in this area is that we ought to stick all of these sorts of cleanup material (tags, wikitext comments, notes about formatting, etc...) in the Wikipedia:Editnotice for the page. Page content should be strictly limited to exactly that: content. All editorial stuff really ought to be on the talk page or in an editnotice.

To be more on point here though, while I understand and even somewhat sympathize with the subject of the complaint, edit conflicts involving cleanup templates, I don't think that there's anything to be done while the system is as it currently is. I mean, as long as we're placing those tags so prominently on the pages they appear on, they will be a matter of contention between editors. Even if their moved to editnotices or to the talk page their still likely to create some conflict simply due to their nature. Articles generally only reach states where a cleanup tag is appropriate due to either willful disregard for, or ignorance of, our core content policies. That being the case, all cleanup tags are heavily critical of those who have made significant contributions to an article, especially since their placed so prominently. It really shouldn't be surprising that these tags sometimes create battles between editors.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I like the idea. But some things I dont agree with. I think there are certain tags that are useful for having on the article, dubious and citation needed tags let readers know that while this information is still being presented you should take it with a grain of salt because we havent backed it up ourselves. Now, some will say then that information shouldnt be here in the first place, and I would tell those editors in a civil manner to.. and.. with... (Joke before some anal admin decides to punish me for incivility, or take it to AN/I instead of blocking so I can defend myself) There are certain tags especially the big templates at the top of the page that could and should go to the talk page instead. I disagree that cleanup tags are the result of disregard or ignorance, at least not always, sure probably sometimes. I put citation needed on sentences I put in myself and know are right but to which I dont have a reference that meets our criteria right now, so I know this info is in here and can look up at my leisure. Other much better editors than I have done the same (in fact that's where I got the habit). Ignorance of our procedures (such as citations or formating or anything) is NEVER a reason for removal of contributions, tagging might not always be the best way to handle ignorance, taking time to help a newbie is better. But as Ohms points out, some editors out there want to tag or remove things and not do any actual work and leave the work to others and claim, "I'm cleaning things up by doing this, it isnt my burden, the burden is on those that add the stuff". FU to them, they need to start doing some effort and yes we need to load some burden on them to make them discuss or put the stuff on the talk page, to contact people, to be part of the solution instead of just point out problems on articles and running to the next article. Its a race with them and they need to be given some speed bumps, this is just one proposal which is a good start to erecting road blocks.Camelbinky (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Camelbinky. Some tags, like those dealing with warnings about the reliablility of content should be on the mainspace. Someone unfamiliar with the subject should know there is a question on the reliability, lack of information and/or neutrality of the subject. Furthermore, notability tags should also be placed on there because it is most likely to get attention and either find those sources or get the attention of an editor and, if it does not appear after some time to be approval, deleted/merged.

I also do disagree that some tags should be able to be removed without discussion. If there is an {{unreferenced}} tag and an article has no references or extensional links, it's clear the tag is warranted. You don't need to discuss that an article needs references when it has none. That's common sense.陣内_Jinnai 01:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

well, there's a couple of different issues here. pragmatically, most of these tags (particularly inline tags) need to be in mainspace - a citation or cleanup tag on the talk page would be very hard to link up with the place in the article that needs attention. I actually made a suggestion (somewhere, a long time ago) that there be a separate 'editor' flag which does nothing except show cleanup and and maintenance tags. that way all readers would see dispute tags, but only editors would see cleanup tags. the argument against it was that cleanup was an easy 'in' for new editors, who might see the tag and decide to pitch in. can't argue with that...

dispute tags are different: they're not just telling an editor that he's got some bad writing or needs to back up a claim, they're saying that the content of the article is (possibly) flawed, and that's going to set of all sorts of bells in editors who might already be worried about defending a particular point of view from attack. they do need to be visible to readers, and they do need to be discussed and resolved one way or another in order to make sure the page is accurate. Plus, if it were dispute tags were harder to remove, it would give an incentive for editors to discuss the issue, if only to get the tag removed

I'm tempted to suggest a rewriting of wp:BRD to be BRTD (Bold - Revert - Tag - Discuss) with wording that says he tag is integral to the process and shouldn't be removed. even better if it could be elevated to guideline status (which BRD should probably be anyway). I don't know if that would quite do it, though. --Ludwigs2 02:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap I never realized that BRD was just an essay not a guideline. That is sad (not just that I didnt know that, but also the fact that it is just an essay). I fully support any effort at elevating it. It is every Wikipedian's Jimbo-given right.Camelbinky (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Inline tags are completely distinct from Category:Cleanup templates.

Anyway, I think that BRD is perfectly fine as an essay. It describes an aceptable behavior pattern, but there's nothing about it with any kind of "this is what you must do" quality to it.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 14:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a requirement of a policy or guideline, in fact NO guideline or policy is something we MUST do, they are specifically simply our best methods and procedures and answers to common questions and problems that we have found work best at this moment. They are NOTHING more than that. BRD fits perfectly with that definition. Policies are not rules or laws!Camelbinky (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

BRD must remain an essay because it is only a methodology that may be followed. It does not document, nor does it set out to document, best practice. It's just one rather interesting (though rather demanding and often misunderstood) way for expert Wikipedians to resolve editing disputes. --TS 16:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice opinion. But an opinion of your own, that some may share. But an opinion only. BRD does not HAVE to remain anything. No law saying it MUST. By your own definition it fits a guideline "a methodology that may be followed" that is ALL a policy or guideline is! A policy and guideline is nothing more. That is for the community at large to decide. If consensus says its a guideline it's a guideline. It pisses me off when Wikipedians think there is some sort of "natural law" out there on par with gravity or electromagnetism that prevents or mandates things on Wikipedia. Consensus can change and do ANYTHING, we have no absolute mandates on what can/can not be a guideline. If enough people say BRD is the best practice and that's what should in general be done, then its the definition of a guideline. It is for individuals to decide their own opinions themselves on whether it is a good practice or not, and then for us as an aggregate to decide which opinions are strongest and how consensus is falling on the issue. And generally in MY OPINION yes BRD seems to be the best practice and one that Wikipedians hold dear and follow. Please refrain, for fear of confusing newbies and spreading the idea to them so they become more fanatical about enforcing the idea, from making it seem we have policies/guidelines that are strict laws or rules that MUST be followed and if it isnt a strict rule then its an essay that can be ignored. IAR applies to EVERYTHING.Camelbinky (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I can see both sides of the issue. If no one can point to a place in policy where this kind of thing would fit naturally, then maybe what I should do is create a 'Good editing practices' page and propose it as a guideline. basically I'd start from BRD, but expand the page to a more general outline of productive, 'best practice' editing behaviors. would there be any support for that, you think? I'll whip up a start on it today so we can look at it and think about it - worse comes worst we can always delete it. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh brother... Camelbinky, what I said above was simply a shortcut to make a point which we all generally take to be true. Obviously we don't have many firm rules which "must be followed", but there is a distinct difference in character between Policy, Guideline, and Essay documents. There's also a distinct character difference between some Essay's and others, for that matter. I'm sorry if I offended your political sensabilities, since my intent was to simply be succinct and to stay on point, but I see now that I actually made the problem worse. I wish that you would realize that you're pushing many discussions here far off course. I've been telling myself to avoid your posts on this board for quite some time now, and I think that this instance will actually push me to follow that rule. Anyway, @Ludwigs2, I'd go ahead and start it. Like you said, the worst that could happen is that we decide to delete it. I doubt that it could be more then an Essay itself, but if you start it off with that tone in mind it'll at least be more likely to become a guideline.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion and a show of bad faith. Nice how you can show distinct differences in character between policy, guideline, and essay when there are/have been discussions recently on just what the difference is and that its been put in the signpost and those discussions (to which I was a party to and you werent) could not come to a conclusion. But good to know, that as always, you know better and you have some insight we all dont have. Nice of you too insult me AGAIN in your post. Yea, maybe you should just not comment where I do. Ill be sure to make sure I post more often then.Camelbinky (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(studiously ignoring crosstalk...) well, here's a brainstorming draft. feel free to look, comment, edit, whatever. I decided to use that as an opportunity to draw together and sumarize a few other essays and guidelines, but I haven't linked through to them. I'm sure they'll be obvious when you run into them, though. here it is -> wp:Good editing practices --Ludwigs2 04:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

P.s. - just as an aside - why does the brain image on the {{brainstorming}} template look so much like a walnut? --Ludwigs2 04:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Because when you request that people brainstorm with you, you end up with a bunch of nuts commenting.Camelbinky (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

lol - I hate to admit it, but that joke took me a minute to process. well said! --Ludwigs2 08:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How much revenue would advertising bring to Wikipedia?

Are there any credible estimates on how much yearly revenue Wikipedia would make if it allowed advertising? Has anyone considered what to do with the money? With Wikipedia being one of the top websites on earth, is it not rational to think that Wikipedia could make a great sum of money from advertising? My apologies if this query is posted in the wrong place as I could not find anywhere else to post this. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No way. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 05:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So I see advertising is one of those "perennial proposals," and thank you for pointing that out. However, is it not time to revisit the situation today as many contributors are leaving Wikipedia anyway, as loudly covered by the press. Has the exodus of editors from Wikipedia affected donations? Are there any estimates of how donations to Wikipedia will be affected in the future if this trend keeps up? Advertising might be one way to staunch the flow of capital from Wikipedia. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, considering continuing debate over whether there actually is an exodus and even then what its extent is. The Wikimedia Foundation met its donation target for the year, so to my knowledge revenue isn't an issue either. I admit it might be fun to calculate just for the heck of it though. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As Cybercobra said, whether or not there is a massive loss of editors is not quite determined (it mainly depends on what your definition of "editor" is). But most donations come from readers, and the number of readers is still slowly increasing. Mr.Z-man 06:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Another thing i just thought of: Is the decision to allow or forever decline advertising made by us, the wikipedians, or is it a matter for the real-world owners of the site? If Mr. Wales and his company didn't want advertising, could we, the users, make them accept advertising through on-wiki discussion and consensus? Conversely, can the owners/managers of Wikipedia unilaterally accept advertising over community objection? PeterbrownDancin (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The decision is for the Wikimedia foundation board. We can't actually force the foundation do anything, nor can we stop them from doing anything. However, its extremely unlikely that they would ever force advertising without consulting the community, as they know the potential consequences of such a decision. Mr.Z-man 06:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP Semiprotction petition

Wikipedia:BLP semiprotection petition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbharris (talk • contribs) 10:17, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Also, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Semiprotection_of_BLP_articles_for_Super_Bowl_players. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to userfy all petitions

See WP:VPR#Proposal: move petitions to user space.--Kotniski (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)