Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 1

< September 30	October 2 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

1 October 2006

Wikipedia:Numbers need citations

This proposed guideline (or maybe essay - I don't have access to the page to check whether it was an essay or proposed guideline), was speedy deleted on 6 September 2006 by User:NawlinWiki under criterion G5 (ie. created by banned user while banned). I, and several others, were unaware that the page had been created by a banned user, and had been engaging in discussion of the issues on the talk page. I had seen this kind of speedy deletion happen before, and so I went to the NawlinWiki's talk page and discussed the matter there. See User_talk:NawlinWiki#Deletion_of_Wikipedia:Numbers_need_citations. NawlinWiki was kind enough to place a copy of the talk page on a subpage of my user page, but as I explained in my discussion with NawlinWiki, this didn't fully resolve the problems I had with the deletion. I proposed bringing the issue to deletion review, and NawlinWiki said that would be best (rather then undeleting straightaway). NawlinWiki also warned me that the identity of the banned user in question (Bobby Boulders/Dr Chatterjee) might arouse strong feelings - so I urge people to please look past that and consider the wider issue I am raising here.

A wikibreak delayed me bringing the case here, but now I am raising the issue for discussion here. The problems I see here are:

This was a good-faith debate (even if it was created by a banned user) - if the issues raised are relevant, they should be openly debated and either accepted or rejected. Just deleting the page stifles discussion, and means that the whole issue may be raised again in the future (thus wasting time by producing a repeating of the debate).
Deleting content from banned users that would be acceptable if contributed by a non-banned user seems to be making these banned users seem more dangerous than they are (effectively glamorising them) - if the issues they raise are wrong, then the community should be able to reject the arguments without the protection of CSD criterion G5.
Speedy deletions like this, without checking the talk page of the page, can severely disrupt an ongoing debate. It also removes good-faith GFDL contributions by people other than the banned user - can anyone seriously defend such deletion of good-faith contributions? The message it sends is: "you have been trolled by this banned user" - this is offensive to those users who recognised that there was something worthy of debate, and were in the process of debating it.
Cutting and pasting the page and talk page to a user page or other location (eg. subpage or talk page subpage of one of the Manual of Style pages) is an inadequate solution, as the edit history is lost. Possibly moving the page, thus preserving its edit history, may be acceptable.

My preferred solution is to see the page undeleted, to allow debate to continue on the talk page, and for the page to eventually be marked as rejected, or moved and redirected to somewhere related to WP:CITE.

For an example of how a similar case was handled, please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Quotations_should_not_contain_wikilinks. For future cases like this, I urge a reconsideration of CSD criterion G5 in cases where a good-faith debate is already in progress, and urge the use of a template at the top of the page and talk page, indicating that the page was created by a banned user. This would allow the people taking part in the debate to be aware of the full story, rather than seeing the rug pulled from under their feet with a speedy delete. Carcharoth 13:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. G5 exists to make it easy to clean up after banned users, when they have been trolling or engaging in other disruption. Deleting this page doesn't further that end, instead it removes legitimate discussion engaged in by non-banned editors. Even if a page could be seen as disruptive, if there has been good-faith debate by non-banned editors, then it should usually be nominated for deletion rather than speedied. --bainer (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse deletion -- Wikipedia:Numbers need citations, like all policy proposals created by Bobby Boulders, was created with the express purpose of disrupting Wikipedia. Bobby Boulders has admitted that he created the account User:Dr Chatterjee for the purpose of disruption [1]. In the case of Wikipedia:Numbers need citations, the policy proposal is designed to undermine the applicability of Wikipedia:Verifiability to information other than numbers. The fact that we are now seriously discussing whether an indefinitely banned vandal's policy proposal should be undeleted is merely a continuation of the persistent disruption that Bobby Boulders is continuing to cause. Undeletion of this policy proposal would be blatantly inconsistent with the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia:Banning policy, which is designed to prevent banned users from participating in the Wikipedia community (debating their policy proposals qualifies as participation, I claim). Specifically, Wikipedia:Banning policy states that
Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing.
Thus, any administrator who did undelete Wikipedia:Numbers need citations would be taking responsibility for the content of this policy proposal, including the disruptive purpose for which Bobby Boulders created it. Let's keep Wikipedia:Numbers need citations deleted, and put an end to the poisonous trolling by Bobby Boulders. John254 02:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding your quote from Wikipedia:Banning policy, I have been discussing that page here, and I have been told that "In general, the policy has always been that banned users' contributions should be promptly deleted before other editors start reworking them. On the other hand, if this isn't done and other editors have reworked text sufficiently to have taken responsibility for it, it should not then be deleted merely because a banned user created it." In this case, as I clearly pointed out, there was an ongoing discussion that was disrupted by the speedy delete. Hence it should never have been speedy deleted. I appreciate your focussing on the troll aspect of this, but please take a moment, as I requested, to consider how the indiscriminate application of this criteria led to the deletion of content contributed by others. Carcharoth 02:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Numbers need citations is a disruptive attempt by Bobby Boulders to undermine the applicability of Wikipedia:Verifiability to information other than numbers, as I explained above. That Bobby Boulders has actually been able to convince legitimate users to debate his policy proposal is more indicative of the exceptionally evil influence of his trolling, and is not an indication of the legitimacy of the policy proposal in question. John254 02:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think Wikipedia:Numbers need citations will undermine Wikipedia:Verifiability, then the page should be restored so the debate can take place there (I am not entirely clear what you mean by "non-quantative information" - numbers are quantative information). I have every faith that if you are correct, then the community will reject the proposal and the "rejected" tag can be placed on the proposal. I would also counter your "it must be evil" argument by pointing out that if Bobby Boulders could somehow propose something of genuine interest to Wikipedia, then enforcing the deletion is a way of letting the troll win. ie. The troll could propose something that is genuinely useful, and then be laughing as he sees people argue to keep it deleted just because he created it. OK, I probably violated WP:BEANS there, but I think this is a valid point: the continued deletion of this article could be what the troll wants. There is no way to be certain. The best option is to restore the page, let the debate take place, calmly reject it if that is the community's decision, and then move on. Carcharoth 02:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Wikipedia:Numbers need citations would undermine Wikipedia:Verifiability because Wikipedia:Numbers need citations implies that information other than numbers doesn't need citations. There should be no "hierarchy of verifiability" which implies that numbers are somehow more in need of citations than any other type of information. Furthermore, if Wikipedia:Numbers need citations did have genuine value to Wikipedia, then a legitimate editor could propose it. As it stands, Wikipedia:Numbers need citations is the bad-faith creation of an indefinitely banned vandal, and that's a very poor basis upon which to begin a discussion. Let's keep it deleted, per WP:DENY. John254 03:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I addressed this by proposing that, after suitable debate, the page be merged with, and redirected to WP:CITE. I took part in the discussion because I recognised that there is a need for standardising how sources for numbers are cited. At the time (and maybe still) WP:V was silent on the issue. Your proposal to have someone else recreate the proposal violates GFDL - editors made good-faith contributions to the page that got deleted. Their contributions should be recorded and transferred, not summarily tossed in the bin, or, worse, copied and pasted (that would leave no record of who created what). You also mention WP:DENY - well, I suggest that invoking the spectre of a troll to enforce the deletion of good-faith contributions by others to a debate is giving this troll altogether too much recognition. My proposal also denies the troll recognition (and in a less disruptive fashion than by deleting). The troll is denied recognition because the Wikipedia community takes over his proposal, and turns it into something acceptable. The fact that he created it doesn't mean that he contributed to the end product. Carcharoth 03:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia community can't "take over" Bobby Boulders' proposal. Attempts to exorcise the influence of Bobby Boulders over this proposal will be unsuccessful, as the proposal is already widely regarded as the creation of an indefinitely banned vandal. I don't suggest that some else recreate this proposal -- if the idea has merit, a proposal could be re-written, without using Bobby Boulder's text, or any text responsive thereto. Really, though, the idea behind Wikipedia:Numbers need citations is wholly without merit, and the proposal is quite properly in the ashtray. Numbers need citations no more and no less than anything else. John254 03:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, the comparison to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain wikilinks is unpersuasive, as User:Zen-master was an essentially good-faith editor who appears to have been banned because of his persistently tendentious editing in content disputes. There is no credible claim that User:Zen-master began to edit Wikipedia for the express purpose of disruption, or that he created the policy proposal in bad faith. Bobby Boulders, the creator of Wikipedia:Numbers need citations, is a vandal who has been deliberately harming Wikipedia for months. He created the account User:Dr Chatterjee for the specific purpose of disruption [2], and it is quite reasonable to assume that he offered Wikipedia:Numbers need citations in a similar spirit. Finally, User:Zen-master is not infamous on Wikipedia, so Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain wikilinks will not cause disruption by virtue of the identity of its author. However, Bobby Boulders is infamous due to his extensive vandalism, and any proposal known to have been authored by him is therefore likely to cause significant disruption because of the widespread hatred of its author. Even if Wikipedia:Numbers need citations hadn't been created for the express purpose of disruption, it would still need to stay deleted to avoid feeding the trolls. John254 02:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, but under my proposal, the page would be restored, debated, probably rejected in its current form, modified and then redirected to WP:CITE. That way the debate is kept, the troll material thrown out, the useful bits kept and written up at WP:CITE, and all that is left is a record that the troll created the page, the Wikipedia community rejected it, kept the useful bits, merged that useful stuff somewhere else, and preserved the debate to prevent it happening again in the future. Under your proposal, the troll can point out that a talk page of legitimate good-faith debate was deleted because he was, ooh, such a dangerous troll that no trace must be left behind. It sounds like he is being glamorised. I am also uneasy at the implication that the Wikipedia community is so susceptible to trolling that they need to be protected like this. Surely it is better to have faith that poor arguments will be rejected, no matter who makes them; and that good arguments will be accepted, no matter who makes them. Carcharoth 03:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that "poor arguments will be rejected, no matter who makes them; and that good arguments will be accepted, no matter who makes them" is of limited use, since no person is capable of making decisions in a manner completely unaffected by emotion, except perhaps where the outcomes of the decisions are determined through formal logic. When considering the best policies for Wikipedia, or whenever else decisions must be made on the basis of subjective considerations, emotional factors will have unavoidable affect. Bobby Boulders, as an indefinitely banned vandal, tends to arouse rather strong emotions. The debate on a proposal by Bobby Boulders would inevitably be contaminated by the infamy of its author, which would be feeding the troll. John254 03:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we seem to have reached an impasse over the troll issues. Could you please at least consider responding to the other points I raised? I've reviewed your contributions to this debate and you have said a lot about trolls, and a bit about why you think the proposal that was deleted was a bad idea (I don't think this is the proper place to debate that - that should be debated at Wikipedia talk:Numbers need citations). You haven't said anything yet about the issue of deleting good-faith contributions without a proper debate, or the point that if this debate is restarted then the previous discussion and its attributions have been lost. Both these points are, to my mind, worse than the troll issues. If we start causing disruption by deleting good-faith debate and attributions in order to suppress the trolls, then the trolls have already won. Carcharoth 10:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per Carcharoth; deleting bad pages is not the same as cutting off your nose to spite your own face. I wish John would realize that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. -- nae'blis 18:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme speedy keep deleted. Don't encourage the trolls. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Trolls are not the only part of this debate. Please consider the other issues involved, as stated in the extensive discussions above. My worry is that if deleting troll pages, rather than rewriting and/or openly rejecting troll pages, becomes habitual, then other stuff will get deleted with it. My main points are: (1) Deleting other people's contributions along with the troll contributions is a bad idea; (2) This practice could also encourage trolling. If trolls see that by creating a page where debate takes place, they can later succeed in indirectly disrupting the project as people rush to delete the pages created by that troll, that will encourage them to continue trolling. In some cases, perverse though it may seem, I think speedy deletion criterion G5 is encouraging trolling. I would favour the rewriting and/or open rejection options I present above. Carcharoth 11:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conceivably, a troll could create a page on which legitimate discussion would occur. However, that's not what happened here. The comments by legitimate users on the talk page of this proposal, while offered in good faith, were merely responsive to a disruptive policy proposal by an indefinitely banned vandal. Thus, the discussion on the talk page of this proposal is effectively a continuation of Bobby Boulder's trolling. This policy proposal should remain deleted, not merely based on a technical application of CSD G5, but also because it is disruptive and has no value to Wikipedia. John254 23:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the whole crux of the issue. You say it is a "disruptive policy proposal". I disagree, so we come back to needing to openly discuss the proposal to decide whether it is disruptive and needs to be rejected. The speedy deletion has disrupted the debating process that was taking place, which might have led to the proposal being rejected or drastically modified if it had been allowed to run its course. Carcharoth 01:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this policy proposal was created in bad faith by an indefinitely banned vandal, it is not entitled to full consideration by the Wikipedia community. Two respected editors have concluded that this policy proposal is trolling, and there is certainly no consensus in favor of undeleting the policy proposal. This justifies retaining the speedy deletion for which the proposal is already eligible under CSD G5. John254 02:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You still refuse to address all the arguments I am making. I will do you the courtesy of responding to your points. I would ask that you extend the same courtesy to me.
  You say that the policy proposal was created in bad faith by an indefinitely banned vandal. I can agree with that. What I disagree with is the response. I agree that if the sockpuppet had been uncovered earlier, before the debate started, the page could have been speedily deleted with no problems. Unfortunately, the sockpuppet was not uncovered until debate had started on the talk page. Once this has happened, the page should not have been speedy deleted as that is disruptive to the process of debating policy. You say that two respected editors have concluded that this policy proposal is trolling, but neither of you contributed to the debate on that talk page. There are three editors here who have asked for restoration. Again, I ask for the page to be restored so that a proper debate can take place at WP:MfD or on the talk page of the proposal. I find your refusal to consider opening this up to a wider debate very troubling. There is a long-standing tradition that when a speedy delete is contested, it should go to a proper deletion debate. With all this in mind, and in the spirit of reaching agreement, I propose one of the following courses of action should be adopted:
  Restore the article and nominate for deletion at WP:MfD
  Restore the article and use the move function to move the page and talk page to Wikipedia:Citing sources/Numbers. Allow debate to restart there, and incorporate the results into WP:CITE.
  If you insist on having the debate here, I am quite prepared, under protest, to provide examples of problems involving the quotation and citation of numbers. (Under protest because I believe the debate should take place 'out there' at Wikipedia talk:Numbers need citations, or a similar place). I agree that this proposal doesn't require a separate page, but I do think something needs to be said, and I point to the debate that was taking place (before it got deleted) as an example. Carcharoth 12:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some more things to consider. See Wikipedia:Numbers#Units_of_measurement where it says "Following footnotes or citing sources conventions, add a reference for numbers that identifies not only the source, but also the source's original units." (added 2 September 2006 in this edit) - this does not make clear whether all numbers should be cited, and is obscurely placed in a section concerned with the units being used. I would cite facts and figures as a matter of course, but I saw some evidence (in the deleted debate) of an attitude that numbers don't need to be cited at all. Thus the debate needs to be restored and allowd to finish, so some guideline can be agreed on. Carcharoth 12:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Wikipedia:Numbers need citations is an exceptionally absurd policy proposal, amounting to trolling. A simple example should illustrate the problems that would be encountered if this proposal were to actually become policy. The claim that
Amongst the earliest uses of biotechnology in pharmaceutical manufacturing is the use of recombinant DNA technology to modify escherichia coli bacteria to produce human insulin, which was performed at Genentech
would not require a citation, because it contains no numbers. However, the claim that
Amongst the earliest uses of biotechnology in pharmaceutical manufacturing is the use of recombinant DNA technology to modify escherichia coli bacteria to produce human insulin, which was performed at Genentech in 1978
instantly requires a citation, because of the reference to the year "1978". Similarly,
Genentech researchers produced artificial genes for each of the protein chains that comprise the insulin molecule
does not require a citation, but
Genentech researchers produced artificial genes for each of the two protein chains that comprise the insulin molecule
does require a citation. This is the bizarre result promoted by Wikipedia:Numbers need citations. Actually, all of these claims are equally in need of citations, and I provided citations for them when I wrote Use of biotechnology in pharmaceutical manufacturing.
- Now, it is true that when speedy deletions are contested, they are sometimes handled through the XFD processes. However, speedy deletions are ordinarily contested on the basis of claims that the relevant pages do not really meet any criteria for speedy deletion -- for instance, a claim that a page isn't really an attack page, isn't really patent nonsense, etc. However, it is conceded that Wikipedia:Numbers need citations does qualify for speedy deletion under CSD G5, and its deletion is contested on the relatively novel basis of a claim that it should be undeleted anyway. This is the equivalent of an argument that Wikipedia really needs a page whose content is typewriter salad, so CSD G1 shouldn't apply, or a claim that we really need an attack page to express our disapproval of a certain person, notwithstanding CSD G10. Per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, pages can be undeleted even if they qualify for speedy deletion under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion; however, the burden is upon the proponents of such undeletions to demonstrate that undeleting the pages is in fact "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". I submit that, with respect to Wikipedia:Numbers need citations, that burden has not been met. Therefore, as Wikipedia:Numbers need citations concededly qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G5, it should remain deleted by default. John254 17:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - (1) You are misrepresenting my arguments. In essence I said that the proposal would have qualified for speedy deletion if the sockpuppet had been uncovered before the debate began, but that it does not qualify for speedy deletion once debate has started, or the page has changed sufficiently since it was created. Also, my argument is not that keeping the page improves Wikipedia, but that deleting the page harms Wikipedia by disrupting debate. You have consistently ignored this part of my argument. I will provide an example: under your strict application of CSD G5, any page created by a banned user while banned must be deleted. This is obviously incorrect, as you would not propose deleting WP:V or WP:NPOV if you discovered that a banned vandal had started those pages. Thus it comes down to whether the page has been modified enough after creation. I presume you would say it has not been modified enough, but I, and at least two others, don't agree with you.
    (2) You say that the proposed policy is "exceptionally absurd" - I believe you have misunderstood the proposal. I agree that in its current format, the wording of the proposal is not acceptable, but the debate on the talk page was a prelude to changing that wording. You are judging it on its current state. I am judging it on its potential to, through debate and pooling of ideas, become acceptable. Also, you are interpreting "Numbers need citations" to mean "numbers need citations (but don't bother citing anything else)" - this is an absolutely absurd interpretation of the wording. I interpret the wording as "Don't forget that numbers, like any other facts and figures, need citations".
    (3) The examples you provide are missing the point. Firstly, years and dates are not numbers. That should be obvious from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), where numbers are treated diferently from times and dates. When I saw the proposal, I immediately thought of basic data, as found in the infobox at Earth. The aphelion distance is given as 152,097,701 kilometres. When I see something like that, I immediately wonder what source has been used. The meridional circumference of the Earth is given as 40,007.86 kilometres. It is probably that one source has been used for all the figures in that box. It is also possible that different sources have been used. This is actually important. The reader really does need to know here where the data has come from. Other claims involving numbers include: "About 71% of the surface is covered in salt-water oceans" (Earth, no citation provided), "Endowment: US $29.2 billion" (Harvard University - infobox, citation provided). It is these sorts of examples that could have been debated if the proposal had not been deleted.
    :Further, I submit that if someone had redirected the debate to a subpage of WP:CITE, then no-one would have deleted anything, and the debate would have concluded by now, and something productive would have been achieved. Instead, you refuse to budge despite several compromise solutions that I have suggested. Please understand that I am as against trolling as you are, and my primary goal here is to see a lessening of the disruption that speedy deletion causes when people fail to check the talk pages of the pages they are deleting. Carcharoth 19:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I do not claim that "any page created by a banned user while banned must be deleted". I do claim that CSD G5 creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of deleting pages created by banned users while they are banned. Consistent with Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, such a presumption may be overcome by sufficient evidence demonstrating that not applying CSD G5 would be "improving or maintaining Wikipedia." (see Wikipedia:Ignore all rules). I further claim that sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the undeletion of Wikipedia:Numbers need citations would be "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" has yet to be presented.

Of course figures for the circumference of Earth should be referenced, in the same manner as any other information that is not common knowledge. However, Wikipedia:Numbers need citations provides no additional remedies to eliminate unreferenced numbers above and beyond the remedies already provided by Wikipedia:Verifiability: The existing language of Wikipedia:Verifiability already allows editors to remove unreferenced information from articles until credible sources are provided. Even if Wikipedia:Numbers need citations did not have the intent and purpose of undermining Wikipedia:Verifiability by overemphasizing citation requirements for numbers at the expense of citation requirements for non-numerical information, this policy proposal would still constitute massive instruction creep, as it would be require citations for a proper subset of the information for which citations are already required by Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thus, Wikipedia:Numbers need citations would be an entirely redundant restatement of Wikipedia:Verifiability with respect to a particular type of information.

In any event, I seriously question the implicit assertion that Wikipedia has such a shortage of good-faith policy proposals written by legitimate editors that there would actually be serious value in a proposal written in bad faith by an indefinitely banned vandal. We don't need Bobby Boulders' disruptive policy proposal. John254 23:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, please read what I said. I have not been saying that the proposal should be kept. I have been saying that the debate should be kept. All along I have said that if the page is restored, the proposal needs drastic modification or rejection (though the kernel of a good guideline is there, in my opinion). Your arguments above justify the deletion of the proposal, but you have not justified the deletion of the debate that was taking place on the talk page. This debate we are having here is a good example. If this debate had been taking place on the talk page of a proposal created by a banned vandal, would you be happy if someone disrupted the debate by coming along and speedy deleting the page without checking the talk page, and without even telling people what was going on or giving people a chance to properly contest the deletion?

Let me repeat two proposals I made right at the beginning of this process, in the hope that you will actually comment on them, or even support them. Please feel free also to comment on the other proposals I made above.

(1) Why not restore the page and put {{rejected}}on it?
(2) Why not restore the page, move the talk page to a suitable archive location to preserve the debate (moving preserves the attributions - copying and pasting fails to do this), and then delete the proposal?

Also, I am still concerned that not many people are debating this, and that we are going round in circles. I asked on your user talk page if you would be happy if I notified the people who contributed to the (deleted) debate on the proposal talk page. Since you didn't respond to that, I will ask you again here. Are you happy for me to contact other people to get more views on this? Carcharoth 00:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A note has been added at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, asking whether admins should be required to check talk pages before carrying out speedy deletions. Comments would be welcomed. The argument is based on criteria G8, the first part of which states that it is OK to delete "Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere." In my opinion, the "unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere" bit applies in this case, as the debate at Wikipedia talk:Numbers need citations (which can be viewed here) did include discussion as to whether the proposed policy was acceptable, which to my mind qualifies as a "deletion debate". I also think that any relevant discussion on the talk pages should be archived somewhere else before the page is deleted, but that is a discussion that will hopefully take place at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. Carcharoth 10:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Speedy Deletion There are cases where G5's might successfully be appealed because a banned user contributed good content -- this isn't one of them. "Numbers need citations" is as bad an idea as "Articles about bicycles need sourcing" or "Verifiability applies to articles about dogs." Yes, those statements, and any hypothetical pages supporting them, are true; but, they divert from the fundamental issue. I don't know the intent of the banned user in creating this page, and it isn't all that relevant -- the notion is simply a distraction. Any assertion not in common knowledge needs a source: That's what an article writer needs to remember. Sub-classes of this fundamental truth lead to excessive policy-granularity; the tiny truth misses the big point. Extra discussion here isn't needed -- we have a valid CSD well-applied to a bad idea, so we're done. Xoloz 15:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't misunderstand me, but we are not done here. I agree with what you have said, but please read the arguments I posted above. Your response ignores most of what I said. I would have a lot more respect for what you said if you had responded to the many proposals I have made which achieve the same goals, but minimise the collateral disruption to the encyclopedia. If you had read the discussion above, you would have seen that I am arguing for the restoration of the material on the talk page so it can be properly moved and attributed. Should I do that in a separate DRV? There is also an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion where there is support for the opinion that deletion of pages without checking the talk pages is a bad idea. I also suspect that very few people have bothered to actually follow the link I provided to the copy of the talk page (see above). So I am copying that below, with notes, so people can see what I am arguing for. Carcharoth 16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did read what you wrote, of course. My respomse: in general a debate over a defective proposal is not of great value. While we do routinely archive rejected proposals for didactic purposes, we need not do so if a CSD may be properly applied to the page. Once a proper CSD is carried out, the onus shifts to those who would seek its restoration to show that such restoration has merit. Merely saying, "It's debate -- debate is good" is not, in my view, sufficient. Debate is a general good, but a debate on mistaken proposal is of little use. (It does have a use as a didactic tool, to ward off repetition of bad ideas, but that use is minimal.) The minimal use that would arise from restoration here does not override the deleting admin's discretion AND the presumption of policy against pages created by banned users. In short, your concerns aren't enough to alert the status quo. Xoloz 20:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the response, sorry if I was a little bit terse in my initial reply. You say: "a debate over a defective proposal" - this presumes that the proposal was defective. Regardless of whether or not it really is defective, the existence of the debate shows that there was doubt about this presumption you make. As to your bit about 'minimal use', I guess this is a matter of taste. When I weigh these issues, I come up with a different result. I will also note here in passing that the proposal page was deleted under G5 [3], but the talk page was deleted under G8 [4]. In fact, G8 specifically says not to delete if deletion discussion has taken place. While the debate was technically about rejection, I guess that is the equivalent of a deletion debate for a Wikipedia guideline page, so the talk page deletion could be overturned on that basis. Carcharoth 00:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the speedy-deletion, let the debate resume and, if appropriate, tag the proposal as {{rejected}}. Protecting the project from trolls and vandals is an important goal but once others begin to seriously consider and debate a proposal, it is better to let the discussion run its course. If the proposal is that bad, reject it on its merits. Speedy-deleting serves little purpose in this case and is creating more problems than allowing the discussion to continue would have created. Rossami (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Numbers need citations

The following is copy of the material originally posted at Wikipedia talk:Numbers need citations. Following speedy deletion of the proposal and its talk page, the deleting admin was kind enough to restore it to my userspace. I have copied it from there to here (with minor adjustments to avoid the headers appearing in the table of contents), in the hope that people arguing for its deletion will read it (the above discussions show no signs of people engaging with my arguments, which centre around whether it is right to delete discussions like this). I invite people to comment on whether deletion of the material below is justified. Carcharoth 16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rounding of statistics and figures

Sometimes rounded statistics and figures are used in articles. For example, the round figure of 150 million kilometres for the Earth-Sun distance is often used, or the phrasing "over 2 metres high" is used for an animal's size. Also, figures give to n decimal places are often rounded to give an easily understandable figure. These are obvious over-simplifications, but how should these sort of "figures" be referenced? Carcharoth 09:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue to use your best judgment when reviewing articles, but that perhaps the examples you've cited fall under the "self-evident" or "common knowledge" category. While a figure such as 150 million kilometres is fine for a ballpark Earth-Sun distance, and in and of itself, might not require a reference, it would still be preferable to write the statement as something like "...per modern estimatations, the distance is believed to be approximately 150 million kilometres (source)." Or, better yet, a more precise estimate with a source. Dr Chatterjee 12:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm talking about cases where you just want to mention the figure in passing. In the Earth article, you will find an accurate figure for the size, plus discussion of the orbital characteristics. In the global warming article you may find a passing comment about the Earth-Sun distance where the exact figure is not needed. Different articles, different presentation of the same fact. Carcharoth 01:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Does Britannica have each numerical figure sourced? If not, why should we try? Grue 10:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica's numbers aren't writable by the interweb populace. Fredrik Johansson 10:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Along the lines of what Fredrik is saying, Britannica is written by paid or freelance experts in the fields of each article compiled. They are permitted to use original research where applicable, because the level of trust in their credibility is there. Furthermore, these articles are subjected to extensive peer review among other encyclopedists and experts in each field. They are, basically, water-tight before publication. And, as Fredrik pointed out, they are not editable by anyone off the street. That last aspect is precisely why Wikipedia sometimes gets a bad rap in academic circles: there's no proof of expertise, or expert authorship, in any of the articles written. The closest thing we can come to expert proof is to cite our claims extensively. And numbers/figures/etc would seem to require such citations more than most facts. Dr Chatterjee 12:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last assertion, why so? Christopher Parham (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my opinion, numerical figures are the most easily prone to exaggeration, subtle alteration, inaccuracy, etc. Thus, numbers should always have a credible-source citation to back them up. They are among the most highly-"fudgeable" of data. Dr Chatterjee 20:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience this doesn't seem true at all. This proposal places a strange emphasis on figures over other information that is neither necessary or useful. All information should have a credible source backing it up; the most important items to specifcally cite are those which are controversial or contested. Specific figures range considerably from contested to uncontested and range similarly in the urgency with which they require specific citation. IMO this proposal as a separate guideline would simply confuse our efforts. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

m:Instruction_creep Geni 16:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese whispers with numbers

Another reason for making it a stronger guideline to cite source for numbers is that a game of Chinese whispers with numbers can result in strange results. A number can be quoted accurately from a source, but it can then degenerate as it is rounded up or down, converted to different units, multiplied with other numbers (a process approaching original synthesis), or even just simple calculation errors can be made. This can sometimes lead to stunningly inaccurate figures that don't match the original source. Quoting a source helps avoid this, and, crucially, allows verifiability. Carcharoth 01:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not another policy please

This is yet more redundant instruction creep. There is no need whatsoever for yet another policy which is nothing more than an overdetailed regurgitation of other policies. If we have ever more policies the result won't be that the principles will be applied better, but simply that there are more pages that hardly anyone reads because it is all just too much. Keeping the number of policies down makes the key points easier to identify and apply. Sumahoy 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]