Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

 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 proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.

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

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

How important is verifiability?

I’m having a disagreement with a fellow editor, User:Shaddim, at Talk:Flatpak (and elsewhere), over interpretations of policy and community consensus. The way I see it, policy supports removing unsourced content, and strongly discourages restoring it while leaving it unsourced, and this (I think) is the consensus view. He says the requirement for sources only strictly applies to BLP content and other sensitive content, and calls my removal of unsourced content “excessive,” claiming the WP: links I’ve used to justify my actions do not in fact support my position. We’ve gone back and forth about this, neither of us seeming able to sway the other’s opinion of what the actual consensus is. I’m hoping we can get a (relatively) final answer here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I am no expert on WP policy but I think reading WP:Burden might help. I mainly edit in science areas and would not consider re-entering content without a source if this was the reason the content had been deleted. Hope this helps. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:V is the most important policy on Wikipedia. Reyk _YO! 23:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:V requires that sources must exist, not that they must be present to avoid blanking. So if you were saying that non-BLP content should be removed for no other reason than that it lacks inline citations, then you are incorrect. From WP:V: "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." See also policy at WP:PRESERVE ("Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia."). Do you think the content you have removed is actually unverifiable? postdlf (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Either I doubt its verifiability or I don’t believe it belongs in an encyclopedia, yes. When I find something germane that is unsourced, I tag it with a {{cn}} if I can’t source it myself. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, those are two different reasons for removal of content; the first one is justified per policy, the second is not. Tagging content with {{cn}} is the preferred approach, in special when you're not sure that it couldn't be sourced by someone more knowledgeable. Diego (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: Don’t WP:NOT and WP:BOLD—and even the quoted policy, Preserve appropriate content (emphasis added)—justify removing content that doesn’t fit? If someone disagrees with removal, there’s BRD, provided the restored content is sourced. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There are, of course, any number of reasons why verifiable content might be justifiably removed, at least from a particular article or spot in an article, without imposing on the editor who removes it the burden of finding some place it does belong. Say, it might not be relevant to the topic of the article in question, or it might be too trivial or too detailed (or too obvious), or it might interrupt the flow of the text and make the article harder to follow, or on and on. It's not necessary to have specific policy grounds for every such removal; it's enough that you think it improves the article. Then you have to be willing to deliberate and accept consensus.

I wonder if Diego maybe was thinking you were trying to sneak in some specific reason for thinking something "doesn't belong in an encyclopedia", for example because it's considered too provocative or something. But I didn't read it that way. However I'm not current on the original dispute. --Trovatore (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The only such reason I can think of was I considered it too trivial, to the point of not being independently verifiable. Or something like software release notes or an extensive feature list that looked like it might have been copied and pasted from PR materials. The kind of stuff that I don’t see the value of having in an encyclopedia at all, even if it weren’t unsourced. But of course I’d be happy to discuss the merits of keeping it, if it can be sourced, and if someone’s willing to discuss rather than repeatedly violating WP:BURDEN, as is too often the case. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

My feeling has been that there's what's allowable by policy/guideline, and what is considered "best practice". In many cases one is allowed to remove unsourced material, but in many cases if you simply remove it other editors may feel that another option (tagging, for instance) would have been the better course of action. Some editors may consider it disruptive editing if you consistently remove unsourced material rather than pursuing any other options.

One of the few bright-line policies I'm aware of is WP:BURDEN, which unequivocally states that if material has been removed for being unsourced, it is the obligation of any editor re-adding the material to provide a citation supporting the information.

Hope this helps. DonIago (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It says at WP:V, in the lede: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Remove anything that you think isn't sufficiently referenced. If you get reverted, discuss. While Wikipedia prefers status quo ante during discussions the burden is on the editor adding the content. If that addition happened long ago I would err on the side of sticking to sources. Unsourced content that is likely to be challenged is a danger to the trustworthiness of the project. I don't understand why PRESERVE disagrees with this. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the core sentence is "Any material that needs a source". Not every material needs sources or even reliable sources (whatever this is). The 5 pillars give a hint when sources are required "when the topic is controversial or is on living persons.". Meaning, for non-controversial things less reliable (like primary sources) or no sources might be appropriate. We still have the editiorial oversight, which works well enough. Shaddim (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You missed the word “especially.” That word does not mean “exclusively.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no increase in strength on "required" possible even with "especially" ...the only conclusion from this can be that sources are not required in non-personal, non-controversial cases. Also, there is "strive". 01:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It might be worth taking a look at WP:SKYISBLUE. Some facts are so obvious they don't require verification. 00:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

As example, here two examples, non sourced were removed. Given reason was "Usage: removing unsourced section". First, I think examples giving has a WP tradition and exist in many articles. Second, verifibility was even fullfilled with example 1, as it has a WP link (where a source or further information might be). Third, verifiability was very unlikely to be challenged for this trival facts. So, when no stronger reasons are given in the removal, I consider "no source" in such cases excessive. (Also, I would be good if the burden on source checking for a removal would be moved to the removing author...as in this case sources are trivial to find, yet the deleting author prefered to delete) Shaddim (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

That wasn’t my only reason for removing that section. Please review the article’s Talk page, where my additional concerns have not been addressed. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to get responses to User:Shaddim’s comments immediately above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I would note that Wikipedia bluelinks do not satisify verifiability concerns per WP:CIRCULAR. Specifically, linked articles can change. I generally recommend that editors copy the pertinent sources from linked articles in such cases. The fact that verifiability has been challenged moots any question of whether it was "unlikely" to be challenged. We don't deal with whether material was "likely" to be challenged with regards to verifiability, we address situations where it is being challenged. And in such cases the most practical way to resolve the question is to provide a source and move on, not bicker over whether one is necessary. I'll note that I tend to feel that the more an editor argues against providing a source, the more likely it is that it's because either a) one can't be found, or b) they're not willing to do the work to provide it, neither of which makes me personally more inclined to help. If sources are so trivial to find, why are they not being provided? Why are we arguing about this? DonIago (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm all in for adding sources, this is more about burden of providing these "trivial to find" sources. Currently, deleting authors tend to remove established, long standing, WP author checked, content in the blink of an eyes, without checking verifiability (or adding sources instead), often with the weak argument "no sources". Which is by itself unsuitable as not having no sources is not a deletion reason overall as only verfiability (of somekind) is required. Vandalism, POV, etc are suitable reasons for deletion, everything else I consider discussion and tagging suitable responses or "challenges". When the content is removed, it is unlikely that someone afterwrd can and will provide these sources, so I consider deletion in this case often a harmful activity. Therefore I suggested in the verifiabilty section the raising of the bar for challenges with "deletion" by doing at least the verifiability check, restoring the balance between creation burden and deletion burden. Shaddim (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If an editor cites his sources in the first place, as is usually the case per longstanding policy, there’s no issue. In fact, I’m not aware of a project-space page that encourages adding content before finding sources (WP:NOR discourages exactly that), so really this should never be an issue. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

We have many policies and position essays (WP:SKYISBLUE, WP:PRESERVE, Wikipedia:Inline_citation#When_you_must_use_inline_citations, and especially Wikipedia:Five_pillars) which indicate many situations where NO sources or weaker sources or other forms of verifiability are suitable. Additionally to many legacy articles or imported article material which also might have suitable content without being excessively sourced. So, in general "no sources" is an invalid "challenge", additional, to that that such light-hearted deletions are a quite harmful activity. This misbalance in burden between adding and removing we need to address to fulfill our over-arching goal. Shaddim (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It’s not misbalanced. What is the material you’re adding based on if it’s not SKYISBLUE obvious? If you’re not basing it on citable sources, it’s original research. None of those pages advocate writing without sources; PRESERVE only tells us how to deal with the aftermath of it. Nowhere, as far as I’m aware, do we say anything remotely like, “Write whatever you want about the subject; we’ll worry about verifying it later.” Because that would be contrary to our goal of building a respectable encyclopedia. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a big difference between something not being citable and not providing a cite. WP:V does not demand that everything without exception be cited. If it did, then challenging something merely because it does not have a cite would be legitimate. Not requiring that implies that such behaviour is not legitimate. Some people have got it into their heads that every single sentence must be cited. Nowhere in academic publishing is this a requirement. Wikipedia is the only place that does it (and it is not actually a requirement here either). Too often I have seen passages removed that are perfectly fine just because they have a {{cn}} tag on them placed by a drive-by tagger with no real interest in the page. Articles get cluttered with a sea of blue numbers to protect against that. In my view, any information that is commonly found in undergraduate textbooks really does not need citing and editors should not be called to task to do it, or have their work slashed for not doing it. At most, a general reference should be required. SpinningSpark 19:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a problem. I made a proposal on WP:V/Wikipedia:CHALLENGED to raise the bar at least at little bit by defining a valid "challenge" more strict, and making "no sources" not a valid challenge anymore (especially for deletion challenges). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaddim (talk • contribs) 20:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@User talk:67.14.236.50: You didn't address my scenario which is not about adding material but the already existing material: which might exist already happily in the article for years, reviewed by dozen of WP authors as suitable, found useful by readers, and which now got deleted, over-eagerly by an trigger happy author with the quick evaluation "no source" missing that the mark is verfiabilty, not sources. In this case he should have the burden of checking if he want to change established article consensus. Shaddim (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

"No source", by itself, is not really a valid reason for removal except on BLPs, and perhaps negative remarks on other kinds of articles. "No source and doubt that this is true" is a valid reason. "No source and failed to find any" is a valid reason. It is so easy nowadays to do a quick and dirty search of books or news sites that there is no reason not to require that of the would-be deleter. SpinningSpark 20:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course, if material you believe belongs in an article has been challenged, regardless of whether the reasoning was "valid", the most practical course is usually simply to provide a source and move on. In any event, claiming "invalid reason for removal" and simply restoring unsourced material will likely lead to a WP:BURDEN situation in any case. DonIago (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Problem is there might be no one who takes this burden to reinstatiate good verifiable content after an unsuitable "no source" removal. Also, this creates double and triple work of removing and recreating while creating a negative atmosphere among the authors (reverts are harmful). The best would be, that only the "deleting challenges" would happen when content is really non-defendable as being non-verifiable. The easiest measure is shifting the burden to the deleting authors. It can be also seen as process optimization by giving the required steps in one hand, reducing the required number of WP authors in this process. Shaddim (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Doniago, that is certainly the current situation with BURDEN, but this is the page to discuss policy changes and Shaddim is right, it is high time the burden was shifted slightly. Yes, the ideal situation is to have someone add a cite, but too often the original editor has long gone and no one else shows much interest. There should at least be a duty on the deleter to do a cursory check of verifiablility before deleting. SpinningSpark 23:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It would seem to me that editors should be assuming good faith in such cases, which is to say that the deleter did do a cursory check and wasn't able to locate a source that they felt would be satisfactory. If there's strong evidence to suggest that an editor is routinely and flagrantly deleting material without doing such a cursory check to the best of their abilities, then it might be worth considering whether that falls under disruptive editing, but a) I don't know how you could prove that an editor isn't doing a cursory check, and frankly it seems rather petty to me, and b) as I've stated, in my experience it's a lot more useful to the project to source material that perhaps should have been sourced to begin with than to quibble over whether it needs to be sourced. If sources can readily be provided, which is the better use of time: arguing for hours over whether it should be sourced, or taking two minutes to add a citation?

At this point I would much rather see the specifics of what changes editors would like to see made rather than arguing about this in general and potentially inapplicable ways. DonIago (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have the feeling the good faith assumption is here a little bit misbalanced in direction of removals (full good faith assumption) while it seems no good faith is assumed on content addition, full burden shifted to the adding authors. As I would argue deletions are as least as powerful (or dangerous) as additions I would expect some equality in the requirements and "faith assumptions". Beside, I have a concrete formulation proposal over at the talk page of verifiability. Shaddim (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The mis-balance that is corrected for somewhat, is the mis-balance toward adding content without citation (the easy way) - well, if you wish to take the easy way, just know that you leave it open to removal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is continually being accused of not being reliable. Since we have no board of paid editors to make certain that the material here is correct and reliable, verifiability through sources, preferably inline sources, is the only way we have to assure ordinary users of the encyclopedia of that fact. The tension, of course, is between encouraging people to build the encyclopedia, on the one hand, and insuring its reliability and reputation for reliability on the other. Putting a burden on removal of unsourced material beyond that already stated in BURDEN will cause editors who have genuine doubts about the verifiability of unsourced material to hang back from removing it lest they be blocked or banned for removing it without searching for sources for it to the competence level chosen by their accuser. In doing so, it disenfranchises the casual editor of this encyclopedia "that anyone can edit," and leaves removal of unsourced material to that — some say dwindling — core of editors who devote a large part of their life to the encyclopedia and who will take the time to be absolutely certain that sources cannot be found before removing material. It also puts an additional cartridge in the gun of fringe editors: If I see an unsourced entry in Westminster Abbey saying that it's haunted by the ghost of Geoffrey Chaucer, do I really in fear of being blocked, banned, or criticized need to go searching for some obscure source for that assertion which then has to be evaluated for reliability or should I be able to rely, as is the case today, on my concern that it cannot be reliably sourced and merely remove it? No. Giving editors who add material the discretion to source or not source on the basis of whether material is likely to be challenged is fine: That encourages the growth of the encyclopedia and makes it easier on new editors, but we also need to have the ability to easily and quickly removed unsourced material if anyone even slightly doubts that they have exercised that judgment incorrectly. (And that also applies to material which has been introduced and left untouched for long periods of time; many articles and introductions of material receive no attention until long after the material has been introduced.) Let me close by noting that this is a perennial topic of discussion at the V talk page and the consensus there has always been to maintain the current balance. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

In an effort (perhaps doomed) to provide a little clarity to the involved editors, let me define a few terms:

Verifiable

A piece of information is verifiable when it is possible for someone who has enough time, money, skill, effort, and motivation to determine that at least one (1) reliable source has previously published (anywhere in the world, any time since the invention of writing, in any language) this piece of information. WP:Verifiability requires that everything in the encyclopedia be verifiable in this way.

Cited

A piece of information is labeled with some indication of where this piece of information allegedly can be verified. Note that a piece of information can be "cited" but not "verifiable" (e.g., citation to a non-existent source). Only four types of material are required to be cited (see WP:MINREF for the list).

Challenge

A process of tagging or removing material specifically and primarily because you believe – to the best of your knowledge – that it is impossible for a well-resourced, dedicated person to find a reliable source that has previously published that information. Not "well, it's not cited already, and I can't be bothered to spend 15 seconds with my favorite search engine" or "I don't think that an encyclopedia should use ==Rationale== as a section heading", or "I'm not very good at research, so I thought I'd just blank anything that didn't have citations and tell other people to go find sources for me" or anything else. Properly speaking, you can only WP:CHALLENGE and remove unsourced information if you think it will be absolutely impossible for anyone to find a reliable source that supports it, and you should be hesitant to do this if you haven't got a basic understanding of the subject (e.g., the sort of understanding you'd get by spending a couple of minutes talking to Mr Google about the subject).

Normal editing

The process of adding stuff that (in your best judgement) belongs, removing stuff that (in your best judgment) doesn't belong, and improving everything else.

It'd be nice to see more of that last item on those pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Properly speaking, you can only WP:CHALLENGE and remove unsourced information if you think it will be absolutely impossible for anyone to find a reliable source that supports it" is correct only if by "properly speaking" you mean "if you are to follow best practices." There is no part of V which establishes that as a requirement. It is, unquestionably, a best practice, but the language in V is clearly permissive, not mandatory. However, the point of whether it is mandatory or a best practice is moot since we must assume good faith that the person doing it thinks that. This is not a standard that requires the deleter to do any research nor does it require any particular level of editor experience or knowledge of WP policies and practices, so it is only what the deleter has in his or her head that matters and what an editor thinks, except perhaps in cases of CIR, is exactly what AGF is intended to protect. This is not, moreover, wikilawyering the language of V: A stronger standard was fought for, and rejected, at the time that language was inserted into the policy. This has been discussed time and again at the V talk page (including a number of times after that language was adopted) and the conclusion is always that it is acceptable to remove material simply because it is unsourced (at least if you only do it occasionally and in limited quantity, and, some would say, after preserving it — but those are different issues than what we're talking about here), with the next-best best practice being to remove it and say that you have a concern that it is unverifiable, the next-next practice being to {{cn}}-tag it and leave it awhile and then remove it if no one inserts a source, and the very best practice being to search for a reliable source and only remove it if you cannot find one. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:V says "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable". I suppose we could add "And don't tell lies", if you want to close the loophole between "state that you think it may not be possible to source this, even if you know perfectly well that it would be possible to source this" and "don't do this unless you are sincerely concerned that it may not be possible to source it", but generally our editors are scrupulously honest on such points. One of the points here is clear communication (so that you don't have to guess whether my section-blanking was a CHALLENGE or some other type of editing); another is to stop people from crying BURDEN when the real problem cannot be solved merely by providing sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• "the conclusion is always that it is acceptable to remove material simply because it is unsourced" - That "always" is inaccurate; it would we more accurate to say "it is acceptable to remove material because it is unsourced as long as the removal is not considered disruptive". Reasons why such removal may be considered disruptive include the ones you list (removing large amounts of content without trying to verify it first, failing to leave traces to preserve it, bulk removal of every uncited sentence in an article as a way to force others to include inline citations...) Many editors also think that removing content without leaving a trace from old articles, that were written in a lest strict environment and have few reviewers, is disruptive. I would like to have this case spelled out in policy, if only as a best practice. Diego (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Diego (and somewhat to WhatamIdoing's comments in my second part, below), while I accept and agree with Diego's qualification I would note two things: First, while I don't hang around ANI much I do look at it when we have a flap at V over this issue and someone involved in the flap is being challenged at ANI. My experience is that it is very rare for an editor to be sanctioned, especially (but not only) with any sanction more than just criticism or, occasionally, admonition for engaging in any of those practices unless edit warring is involved. (It is to be noted that there is no 3RR exception for enforcement of BURDEN. That causes BURDEN to work in a salubrious way: When the dispute is over removal of newly-added unsourced material, the editor adding the material will hit the 3RR barrier first; when over the removal of longer-standing material, the remover will hit that barrier first. While that may be an unintended effect, it's a good one.) I have been told that such sanctions are more common than I've seen, but each time I ask the person asserting that to provide a list of examples, either none comes forth or there are considerations involved in the listed cases other than mere removal of unsourced material. Second, there have been a few efforts at V to codify those exceptions, none successful. I think that's in large part to the fact that they're really hard to define, especially briefly, and often fall into the "I know it when I see it" area. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that sanctions are more common than what you've seen (perhaps they are more common than what some people have seen, but IMO not more common than what you have seen). However, I don't think that a disinclination to punish editors for violating this rule proves that the rule doesn't exist. I think it indicates that the community prefers to resolve content disputes through non-punishment methods. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of ISBN magic links

Just a heads up, there is a proposal to have a bot wipe out all the ISBN magic links at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#Yobot 27. Relevant links MW:Requests for comment/Future of magic links and Wikitech-l: Future of magic links / making ISBN linking easier. Looks like the proposal is to use a template instead like {{ISBN}} SpinningSpark 16:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark, thanks for drawing attention to this. I've left notes on WT:ISBN, WT:MEDRS and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (because it affects PMID too). Do you know whether consensus was established to do this? Pinging Legoktm who wrote the MediaWiki RfC. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog points out that there was also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_89#PMID_magic_links. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, the proposal isn't to ban links or anything; it's to de-magic the words so that it's possible to write PMID or ISBN or RFC followed by a number and not have them create non-removable links. Right now, for example, if you're talking about our own WP:RFC process, and you want to talk about multiple RFCs on a page, then you can't write "RFC 1" and "RFC 2" without getting links to ietf.org on "Host software" and an unnamed piece from 1969 on how the internet works.

{{PMID}} was created in 2006 as an alternative to plain PMID. I think medicine-related articles will be fine (even though I'm one of the few who use this magic link). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

If anyone wants to see which pages are affected, then you can find the lists in these categories:

• Category:Pages using PMID magic links
• Category:Pages using ISBN magic links
• Category:Pages using RFC magic links

My quick look at the PMID page suggests that there are about 2,000 pages with RFC links (maybe two-thirds are articles) and 6,000 pages with PMID links (fewer than half are articles). The number of ISBN links is much higher, and that's what the bot proposal focusing on. WhatamIdoing (talk), 21:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It's unlikely that anyone would want to write PMID 27707452 without linking to PubMed, but adding nowiki works: PMID 27707452. Regardless of the arguments in either direction, this surely needs consensus. ISBN and PMID magic links are used by editors who don't use citation templates; the former is used a lot. A bot went around removing all the {{pmid}} templates not that long ago. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

That was {{cite pmid}}, not {{pmid}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

There are over 340,000 pages using the ISBN links. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Coming late to this discussion after spotting a mention on a user talk page of the planned disappearance of the magic link for ISBNs: this seems a very bad idea. Because once in a while someone wants to put a number after an isbn and have it not linked, we propose to lose the splendid "magic" whereby an isbn entered by any editor, however naive, is magically linked to the "Book sources" page which validates the existence and details of the book in question. I suggest that a better solution is to use ISBN{{nbsp}}1 or ISBN{{nbsp}}9781910392171 for those rare occasions where the isbn should not be linked, and to leave the magic linking in place for the other 99.9n% (at a guess) of instances. Where was this discussed? It doesn't seem to have been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books where editors interested and expert in books (and therefore in isbns) are likely to be found. (And it's perfectly possible to write "RFC 1" without it making a link). PamD 18:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

  My understanding is that the bot request is going to replace the existing "magic" links with template ones - so that they still work, phab:T148274 indicates that the wikimedia developers are removing the "magic" functionality. We can simply to nothing, and they will turn to unlinked plain text - or we can do "something". — xaosflux ^Talk 18:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Replacing "ISBN 9781910392171" with ISBN 9781910392171 (i.e. {{ISBN|9781910392171}}) has some advantages, including detection of invalid ISBNs, and the ability to use characters before and after the ISBN that are currently interfering with the magic linking. One downside, of course, is that editors have to type a few more characters. I think the benefits outweigh the negatives. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

But where was the discussion leading to the decision that the wikimedia developers should remove this functionality? This change will have two results: more work for editors wanting to addd an ISBN (ie having to remember to use a template and type the extra keystrokes) and no linking for the ISBNs which are input by un-knowledgeable editors. Unless a bot is going to run regularly to templatise any new occurrences of "ISBN nnnnnnnnnnnnn"? PamD 18:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@PamD: See: mw:Talk:Requests_for_comment/Future_of_magic_links - note this is not specific to the English Wikipedia. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we not request that it be retained, or that a discussion take place first? It wasn't brought to the attention of the people who use it most, so no one knew to take part in the RfC. I saw MZMcBride write somewhere, I believe in November, that if anyone wanted to keep them, speak up now. MZMcBride, can that still be done? We're talking specifically about the ISBN magic link, and to a lesser extent PMID. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi SarahSV. I think the only situation worse than having magic links would be to have magic link behavior that's different between Wikimedia wikis. That is, we would never want to indefinitely support magic links only on the English Wikipedia, for example.

My previous request was for people to speak up if there were concerns that would block changing the syntax from ISBN 1234 to {{ISBN|1234}}. Skimming this discussion and others, the arguments against doing this seem to be that the magic behavior is easier for editors. I would counter that the magic behavior is actually not great for new editors because it's inconsistent with how almost every other type of link works. Magic links pre-date the existence of templates. They actually even pre-date the existence of MediaWiki. If magic links were proposed today, they would almost certainly be rejected. We don't want the wikitext parser to have to guess at what should and should not be a link for most cases. (A weird exception is "free" links such as <http://www.example.com>.) Generally, we want to be explicit, as we are with nearly every kind of citation template.

If you look at Template:Citation/identifier#Usage, how would you explain to a new editor that three links (ISBN, RFC, and PMID) are special magic links and every other citation has a wrapper template?

I'm certainly still interested in arguments against changing the syntax from being magical to being explicit. In the admittedly scattered discussions we've had about magic links so far, the arguments to keep have been pretty weak, in my opinion. (cc: PamD) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

MZMcBride, thanks for the explanation. The argument is simply that they're incredibly easy to use. Typing out the templates is tiresome when you're doing a lot of it, and it seems a pity to remove that ease deliberately. Pinging Jytdog, who made a similar point. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

(un-indent) Yeah, that's part of the curse of templates, I suppose. Templates provide consistency, easier standardization, and input validation, however the wikitext is often uglier and more cumbersome as a result. As an analogy, perhaps, in your reply you used {{u|Jytdog}} instead of just writing "Jytdog" or even "@Jytdog". For better or worse, templates are what we have and what we commonly use. I think removing the "magic" behavior of ISBN, RFC, and PMID links will simplify wikitext behavior and human understanding of wikitext behavior in the long run.

Certain input tools such as VisualEditor may make it simpler to input just the text "ISBN 1234" and have it turn into a link that uses a wrapper template. That would help new and old users alike. I also think it's reasonable for us as users to insist that the existing link behavior be fully deprecated before being disabled. That is, I don't care if it takes four or five years for us to phase out the "ISBN 1234" magic syntax and empty the Pages using ISBN magic links tracking category. There's no real rush in my mind, but it is something we should do unless there are really good reasons not to. To me, the convenience of the current behavior is outweighed by the inconsistency and arbitrary special treatment of these three magic citation types. It's unnecessarily difficult and frankly silly to have to explain to users that PMID is special, but PMC is not. ISBN is special, but ISSN is not. I think we gain a lot, including simplifying the wikitext parser, by eliminating this magic link behavior.

Regarding behavior in a post-magic link world, a new user will type "ISBN 1234" into an article. If a tool like VisualEditor doesn't make the text a link, the user can look at and copy existing ISBN examples that are linked. To me, this is a much better experience than the current behavior where the text is a link and it's much more difficult to understand why. You have to know that in November 2001, Magnus added an "ISBN" function that made this string special. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

We can probably use the edit filter to at least tag these after the magic is gone - will give the bots something to feed on since the tracking category won't work anymore. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

MZMcBride, why can't we have more magic links? It would be great to have them for ISSN, PMC and notifications (where @MZMcBride pings you). Regarding taking years to phase them out, there's a BRFA to remove them entirely. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a matter of being explicit versus implicit. When you're explicit, there's no ambiguity about whether you meant for there to be a link. When you're implicit, you might be in a context where linking does or does not make sense.

Imagine you didn't use the "@" prefix with a user name. This is sort of similar to magic links. If you just wrote "MZMcBride", the software would have to guess whether you wanted to notify/ping the user or just wanted to mention them. Even if the software tried to make the simplest guess (always link, always notify), there's still a matter of figuring out what the user name is. "MZMcBride is a user" is a valid user name. "A" is a valid user name. Even with a "@" prefix, constructs can have ambiguity such as the input string "@Only in death is a user on the English Wikipedia". In this case, the software has to figure out that the user name is "Only in death". This is really tricky. If you compare to the explicit syntax case, such as using the {{u}} template, it becomes a bit easier to see why developers and their parsers prefer templates and other forms of explicit syntax. It's less guesswork, which generally results in more straightforward and expected behavior for everyone.

Regarding bots, I don't think it's a problem if bots or other automated/semi-automated tools are used to facilitate a syntax change. If the deprecation of magic linking happens faster, that's fine with me. I was just saying that if it takes a longer time, that's also fine, as I don't see a pressing need to remove the 15-year-old magic syntax until we're ready to do so. Ready to do so would mean we've updated the syntax in most of the cases we care about (subject-space content pages). --MZMcBride (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• (Comment made first at User_talk:Magioladitis#ISBNs but more appropriate here:) OK, I can see that this is a fait accompli, and can understand that the delightful, useful, slightly quirky, "magic" is perhaps old-fashioned and complicates matters for current technology, so after my initial shock I am now resigned to the fact that this "progress" will happen. It will have a negative effect on my personal editing experience, having to remember to use the template (and include 5 extra characters, more than 5 keystrokes with shifts, even messier if on mobile) rather than just typing a natural ISBN and knowing the magic will happen.

But a more serious concern is: what mechanism will pick up and templatise bare ISBNs added in future? Will it be added to the AWB "genfixes"? Will there be a bot trawling regularly to check for bare ISBNs? I suggest that the number of times an ISBN followed by a number is a deliberate non-link is vanishingly small, so that it would be reasonable to templatise all of these automatically. Is there a plan? PamD 09:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

And an even more serious one, who will decide, out of the millions if ISBNs which are the the ones (if indeed there are any) which are "incorrect" and should not be linked? Sure magic links have the scope to be incorrect, there may be a song called ISBN 978-324-333-552-1 and someone will have a NIGHTMARE of coding difficulty putting "nowiki" tags around that (Oh the humanity!).

What are people thinking? Is there one example where "magic links" have been wrong so far?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC).

Cannot anyone who does not want an ISBN magic link do "<nowiki>ISBN whatever they wnat</nowiki>"? Isn;t that easier then screwing up over 340,000 pages? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, from our POV, it's easier for us to not write the bot that will fix all of these and to not have our watchlists light up with the bot's changes and to not use a consistent approach to links in these articles.

But from the devs' POV, they've been maintaining this 15-year-old pre-MediaWiki legacy quirk for a long time, and they don't choose to do that any longer. From their POV, letting this feature die is much easier for them than continuing to support it, and there are additionally rational design reasons (see MZMcBride's comments) for them to remove it.

So it's not really a question of "what's easiest?", as if there were one thing that were easiest for everyone; it's more of a question of "who's ox is being gored?" The answer to the question seems to be the devs are harmed if the quirky feature stays [because maintaining it would impose unwanted work on them] and the editors are harmed if the quirk gets removed [because we'd lose a feature that a few of us use]. And the bot request is nicely practical: Let's just have a bot fix this, so that the devs' change doesn't remove links from articles (or even other pages). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm confused: What is the procedure for a massive projected bot-enacted change at the same time there is an active ArbCom request open specifically about the bot in question? I'm trying to avoid pouring gasoline (or petrol) on what appears to be an already-large dumpster fire. I don't have any dog in that fight. I am concerned, however, with how this will affect the ISBN functionality that I do use. Apologies if this is already covered above or elsewhere (I didn't see any such). Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I doubt that there is any precedent, and therefore editors will have to use common sense. The task could be passed to another bot, or it could just be ignored. (In that case, whenever the feature dies, we'll have plain old text instead of links, which is not a fatal fault.)
    As for the ISBN feature, it appears that this is going away, for fundamental technical/software architecture reasons, regardless of whether the links are replaced by a bot at this (or any other) wiki. Whether it goes away is up to the MediaWiki community, not us; whether we decide to pre-transform the existing links into templates is up to us, not them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rich Farmbrough. I think most of the reasoning for wanting to get rid of magic links has been sufficiently given in the previous comments. But I wanted to respond to your specific comment about when you might not want a magic link. We've seen cases where magic link functionality has worked or not worked in weird contexts, such as section headings or edit summaries, causing confusion. In addition, magic linking offers users no control over the output. We have templates such as {{ISBNT}} for contexts in which people don't want to repeat "ISBN" every time, such as in tables. ISBN syntax is also difficult to internationalize and has presented problems in non-English wikis.

Regarding the general practice of deprecating and replacing wikitext syntax, you're surely familiar with the practice given edits such as this. The primary (and perhaps sole) benefit that magic links have is that they're convenient for wikitext editing. The detriments are outlined in this section, including inconsistency with almost every other kind of citation markup. Your arguments elsewhere that we would be "overloading" the template system by having a means of doing input validation on ISBNs is without merit, in my opinion. Lua/Scribunto modules such as Module:Check isxn were specifically implemented to solve for use-cases like this. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Lets summarize :

• Pro magic:
  • It's easy to use.
  • The wikitext is readable.
  • It almost always does what is wanted.
  • If you want other behaviour, templates are available.
• Con magic:
  • There are some bugs in Mediawiki.
  • There are some more bugs in Mediawiki

The arguments about explicit markup are what got us in the nightmare scenario with every date being wiki-linked. Yes, if we change we will have to make 364,000 edits, but that's not a problem really (though blue murder will be screamed) given the number of edits is around 600 million. And of course, all the historical versions of pages (some 600 million) will stop functioning.

There seems to be a general philosophical problem here, in favour of complexity. Complexity is needed in order to deal with exceptions, but systems should be designed so that the complexity does not have to be invoked for the non-exceptions. To do otherwise is to bear an enormous unnecessary burden.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC).

That's not a fair summary at all. :-)

As mentioned many times, magic links pre-date the existence of templates. They even pre-date the existence of MediaWiki itself. Why should ISBN, PMID, and RFC be special? These three magic links are the exception, not the rule.

Suggesting that all historical versions of pages will stop functioning is pretty hyperbolic. Old versions of articles are already wrecked due to template changes, CSS changes, parsing changes, image changes, etc. The behavior here is that "ISBN 1234" will not be a link in older revisions. This is one of the most minor concerns when trying to look at an old version of a page. Not being able to view the images or templates as they were is a much, much bigger issue.

And not to fan the flames of this fire, but the 364,000 figure being thrown around is low. The tracking category isn't fully populated.

Regarding complexity, using regular expressions and what we literally call "magic" behavior is far more complex than treating these links the same way we treat all other templates. We already have built infrastructure to track templates, to do input validation, to provide an on-wiki means of changing output behavior, etc. Why would we duplicate all of this work for magic links? That's significantly more complex. We want to be explicit, not implicit, in wikitext. As Python puts it, "In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess." --MZMcBride (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that Rich is correct in saying that it's a philosophical difference. I might say that some editors want it to be "simple for me, even if that's complex for you", and that devs also want it to be "simple for me, even if that's complex for you". This isn't an "absolute right or wrong" kind of problem. It's about personal values and the compromises that have to be made when two groups want mutually incompatible outcomes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Longer term, you could probably easily do a transformation during paste or by the link dialog in the 2017 wikieditor. That's how many markdown editors do that too; you paste a link, and it inserts [title](yourlink) for you instead. Technically, this part of wikitext just doesn't make any sense unless you are one of the few who currently are used to it. But it's a total outlier and a complex exception that holds us back for no good reason other than 'but it's been like this for 17 years'. Maybe we should consider the next 100 years and not the last 17. Sometimes at a busy junction, you just have to remove a train track, to make sure the rest of the tracks can service trains more predictably and to make long term cost more manageable. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Requests for Deleted Articles

There is uncertainty and confusion about the proper forum for requesting copies of articles that have been deleted in accordance with a full deletion discussion at Articles for Deletion. Such requests may be made either by the author or would-be author of an improved version of the article, or by a reviewer at Articles for Creation who needs to compare a draft against the previous article. Some editors think that the proper place for requests is Requests for Undeletion, but some think that such requests are better made at Deletion Review. In looking carefully at the headers for the two boards, it appears that REFUND is correct, because it says:

This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace

However, some editors think that Deletion Review is the place for such requests. First, am I correct that REFUND is the correct place for such requests? Second, perhaps, if so, in the list of reasons why Deletion Review should not be used, there should be an entry for requests to restore deleted articles to draft or user space (use REFUND instead). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason to limit requests to one place? Blueboar (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No, if it is the intention that requests for copies of deleted articles may be made in either place. There simply has to be a clearly agreed way to request articles that were deleted by AFD, either to improve them, or for review by reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Another avenue that has been used is for an editor to contact the admin who deleted the article, requesting that a copy of the deleted material be provided for review or as a new starting point. Is this, in fact, no longer an appropriate route? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the key point is "articles that have been deleted in accordance with a full deletion discussion" at AFD.

There's a spectrum of situations that ranges from uncontroversial PRODs and CSDs (e.g., {{db-short}}) to hotly contested AFDs. In broad theory, you get a copy of a page that was uncontroversially deleted by asking the admin who deleted it, and you go to REFUND if that admin isn't handy. Similarly, you go to DRV if it's a hotly contested AFD. And if your request falls somewhere in between, then you go wherever you want, and the admins involved will redirect your request if necessary.

The general principle behind dividing these is that we want to reduce the bureaucratic burden on people. So if nobody's likely to care, then go ask the nearest friendly admin. And if people are likely to create drama over this request, then go to DRV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

but none of this makes it easier for the user to get their requested copy quickly & easily; it reads more like something "kafkaesque". Lx 121 (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Allow FFD discussions to be closed as delete via NAC

This already happens a little bit but there has been no actual community grant to allow this to happen. TFD already allows this per WP:BADNAC. Due to the extremely low participation at FFD and the even lower admin participation I would like to have the community grant non-admins the ability to close FFD discussions as delete. Afterwards the {{db-xfd}} template would be used on the file page to indicate that the image is ready for deletion. This would massively help reduce the backlog by allowing competent individuals who have a handle on file maintenance tasks the ability to close discussions in this manner. Of course, the deleting administrator would be responsible for double checking but with discussions that are still open from August I don't see any other alternative.

Note: I have posted a notice on WT:FFD and will be posting this to T:CENT in a moment. --Majora (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. --Majora (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Support because some discussions are open from May, relisted in August, and still not closed. Full disclosure: I already do this for a very small number of discussions that have been open for similar lengths of time because WP:NACD is a guideline, and "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

   Support: I think this might be a good way to help reduce the backlog at FFD. There have been previous discussions/proposals on ways non-admins can help reduce backlogs such as Wikipedia:Moderators/Proposal which have failed, but I think this one makes more sense because it's scope is limited to FFD, does not involve giving out "limited" admin tools and ultimately leaves any deletion of a file up to an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC); [Posted edited by Marchjuly to change from Support to Neutral. -- 00:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)]

3. Support - This will save admins a significant amount of time. I expect this to be a surprisingly drama-free timesaver for admins. It should be noted that if a nonadmin closes a discussion, an admin deletes it, and the close is successfully challenged, that should not be the admins fault. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

   Yes, it would be an admin's fault if an admin deleted something they should not be deleting. An admin is responsible for every action they make. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

   Support - no drawbacks, although I do not believe this will substantially reduce the backlog, because an administrator still has to review each NAC before processing the delete. -FASTILY 02:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC) same sentiments, but moved to neutral -FASTILY 00:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

4. Support Even if an admin will still need to review the cloture, being able to tag items with a CSD tag will get more eyes at FFD speeding up the process. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
5. Strong support --A noble way to partially reduce the backlog without giving the actual tools to those who are not admin.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 03:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
6. Support - yes, of course. I proposed the same thing for WP:RFD discussions some time ago, although the community didn't go for it. The backlog at FFD is far worse. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
7. Of course amid the infinite backlogs and I hope this gets extended to other venues in the future. Esquivalience (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
8. Strong Support could help with reducing the backlogs of unused and or low quality files that need deleting. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
9. Support: It could help with our backlog especially those who are not admins. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
10. Support less bureaucracy. Kaldari (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose In my experience FFD is too bureaucratic, at the expense of common sense, and so we should not encourage blind deletions. If there are non-admins who think they have the competence to judge such issues correctly then they should apply to be admins. If they don't have such competence then they shouldn't be making closes. Andrew D. (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose as non-admins do not have the technical ability to carry out such closes. Anyone I would trust closing such discussions, I would trust with the toolset, so let's send those would-be non-admin closers to RfA. I wholeheartedly believe that having backlogs encourages people to run for adminship, and if we apply a band-aid to "fix" the backlog (read: push them onto the CSD admins), then all we're doing is discouraging people from running for adminship. This also creates double the work, as BOTH a non-admin closer and the admin reviewer would need to look at the discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

   Moved to Oppose - Moved from Discussion section. 00:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Moved all to Discussion. George Ho (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose due to "Of course, the deleting administrator would be responsible for double checking", meaning this proposal simply doubles the work for the community, with little benefit. This is very similar to Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 9#Allow non-admin delete closures?. TfD allows non-administrator closes as orphan. Somewhat echoing Tavix and Andrew Davidson above, if a contributor is trusted enough to close discussions as delete in one venue, there's no reason they shouldn't be in others. Personally, I'd be more likely to support such a proposal if it applied to all deletion venues, though several incarnations of that have been solidly rejected. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose -- for all of the above reasons & more. "faster" is not synonymous with "better"

   tl;dr -- this kind of work is not "time-critical".

   if a file is copyvo, malware, or libelous we have procedures to deal with it quickly. (if we get something that violates US national security, that's probably an office action :p) if we have enough time sit down & have a discussion about something, we have enough time to decide properly.

   there are more important things than "clearing the list".

   now, if we want to talk about creating "deputy-admins", with (only) demigod powers & some proper qualifying requirements, then let's consider that. if we want to change the admin system, to make it easier to become an admin (& to get rid of them when they do a bad job @ it), let's consider that.

   but this kind of proposal is a "workaround" for the problem of "we don't have enough admins to do the job"; & not even a very good or effective one. so, fix the fundamental problem & get enough admins.

   instead of handing out yet more complicated half-assed categories of user "rights & privileges", with half-assed qualifications. in this case, it's not even a granting of actual "powers" on the wiki, just a "right" to declare that a discussion is "closed".

   & then, a "proper" admin still has to go & do the actual work, if any action needs to be taken. so, not that much of a labour-savings there.

   it literally just moves backlogged stuff from "list a" (discussion) to "list b" (queued for deletion).

   AND the whole thing becomes another point to argue about when disputing the legitimacy of closing decisions & deletions.

   Lx 121 (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Tavix. This creates more work, because the admin would still have to go to the discussion and assess the consensus themselves. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Tavix, and my opinion from similar RfCs in the past. Sounds like some FfD regulars should go to RfA. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Tavix's arguments. Image/file deletion is a particularly challenging area and discussions should not be closed by editors who have not shown particular competence. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I stated directly in my proposal that closers would be competent individuals who have a handle on file maintenance tasks including copyright. There is also nothing stopping an admin who doesn't know copyright from closing things now as delete. Nor is there anything stopping non-admins from closing things as keep when they shouldn't. This is true on all XfDs regardless of the area. --Majora (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   Well, why don't we just say that competent editors can do anything admins can? It's all very well to say that only competent editors will close discussions under your proposal, but Wikipedia is strewn with examples of destructive behaviour by editors who overestimate their own competency. I obviously hold a low opinion of the admin corps collectively, but image/file deletion is one of the areas where it has performed relatively well. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

8. Oppose. This is a solution that fails to address any actual problem. FFD turns out a very little amount of users, even less admins, and some discussion are simply too complex to close. Allowing non-admins to close discussions as 'delete' wouldn't reduce the backlog as those that have been sitting there for months are clearly not easy 'delete' closures. Per WP:NACD: Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. This is exactly what's currently sitting at FFD. What FFD is in dire need of is more participation to allow reviewing administrators to better determine a consensus, and more admins to do them—not what is currently being proposed. — ξ^xplicit 04:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Users are made admins not just for their ability to press a button, but for their skill and judgment. Either it's a complicated case that requires an admin to close anyways, or it's part of the vast majority of simple, tedious cases that the deleting admin would still have to spend the same amount of time double-checking in the end. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
10. Oppose for now per Travix. That said, if there are in fact people who couldn't pass RfA for reasons unrelated to sound judgement (say not enough content creation) and would clearly be good FfD closers, I could perhaps be convinced that we should move in this direction. But generically, and for any non-admin, I'd have to say it's not a good plan. Hobit (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
11. Oppose per all above, especially Tavix. The proposal is promising but has so many flaws. Even as a non-admin, the work would be very time-consuming, especially when deletion tools are not given to editors and db templates are all we have instead. I may know which ones are obviously unneeded but not more complicated cases. The proposal might reduce backlog but does not increase voting participation. George Ho (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
12. Oppose As with articles, a non-admin should not be closing a discussion as delete when they lack the permissions to delete same. I don't think the backlog is enough reason to make an exception here. Why not start recruiting these non-admins for RfA? Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I won't oppose this outright as a real problem has been identified and a concrete solution proposed. I appreciate that, and I know this is a problem, I just don't believe this will fix it. The reason is that any responsible admin reviewing these nomination would feel obligated to go and review the FFD the tagging was based on before deleting. This is the functonal equivalent of jst closing the FFD themselves, and so I suspect it will just move the problem rather than solve it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Neutral I agree in principle, but I think we need to set out explicitly what closures non-admins can do here and what actions they can take. For example I do not like the route of letting the NAC orphan an FFD that was agreed to be deleted, but rather add the right tags to the image file to alert an admin to clear out the image appropriately. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

   Neutral - Seems appropriate. However, a more controversial case should be handled by an administrator (or very skilled expert). Not all cases that still lacks participation asks for deletion but rather something else. George Ho (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC); re-changing my vote to "oppose". George Ho (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

3. Neutral - I switched from "support" to "neutral". While I originally thought this might be a good way to help reduce the backlog at FFD, I think that some of comments made by those who oppose this raise some valid points that need to be addressed. Non-admins are already allowed to close discussions at FFD per WP:NACD, so it's not clear how this is an improvement on that. Also as pointed out in some of the oppose comments, this does still ultimately require an administrator to review things so it's not clear that any time would actually be saved. If reducing the backlog at FFD is the primary concern, then there may be better ways to achieve this such as by being bold and simply removing a file or by using one of the various speedy deletion templates related to files and leaving FFD to only those cases where there appears to be some clear disagreement. I still think this proposal may have some potential to turn out to be something good, but there are still lots of details which need to be worked out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Neutral no drawbacks, although I do not believe this will actually do anything to reduce the backlog, because an administrator still has to review each NAC before processing the delete. -FASTILY 00:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I wonder if allowing an "orphan" closure for non-free images may make sense instead. A fair amount of NAC ripe old discussions are about whether a non-free image's use is OK or not. These don't need admin tools to close and enact. And because of NFCC they are equivalent to deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Technically if it is a non-free file a non-admin can mark these for deletion without actually going about it. Close the FFD as Remove (or don't even do that), remove the file, and then tag it F5. Sure it would take an extra 7 days to take effect and it smells a little to close to gaming for my tastes but it can be done right now. --Majora (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Jo-Jo. We should be tagging more often than executing in FfD closures. A perfect example is deciding which of two fair use images to keep—make the call and remove the other from the article. A bot will tag it as abandoned fair use, and all is well. Expanded below. czar 07:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: The problem I have with this is that it is deleting in practice but not in name. When we do this would we remove the {{ffd}} tag on the image page? Wouldn't the deleting admin look at the FFD anyways in this situation? I'm fine with doing this but since the practice does result in a deleted image it seems like we would need community permission to act in this manner wouldn't it? It would be a non-admin, essentially, deciding what image to delete and what to keep after all. --Majora (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean an issue with the proposal or what Jo-Jo proposed? Contentious closures are usually left to admin. If the issue is closing a discussion with a clear consensus, as in Jo-Jo's example, the point is that bots handle the cleanup (with a built-in delay) if the issue is deciding which fair use image to abandon. czar 18:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

So, FFD is one of the few areas where quorum is nonexistent. Take the example where someone brings two images (both under fair use) to FFD to decide which one to keep and which one to delete. There is no activity whatsoever in the 7 day window. It is relisted. There is still no activity in the next 7 day window. According to the FFD rules, this is a noncontentious decision (even after the first 7 days) and the (normally) admin closure would just go with whatever the nominator stated (hopefully they did) and delete one of the images. If a non-admin does this by removing the stated image from the article and tagging it F5 that is, in my mind, a backdoor deletion performed by a non-admin with the help of CSD. To me, that seems like gaming the system in some fashion. To me, that would seem like it would need some sort of community allowance since it results in the deletion of a title. --Majora (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, this reminds me of an interesting discussion I had earlier this year with a user who, instead of nominating clear NFCC violations to FFD, goes ahead and summarily removes those files from their articles, causing them to be tagged by a bot later as F5. I thought this was circumventing the discussion process, but they explained that it was okay because anyone can revert it within the 7 days and later take it to FFD, which I could understand as something similar to WP:BRD. Given that this practice of orphaning non-free files happens already as an alternative to FFD, I think I'd be okay with letting Jo-Jo's proposal of letting non-admins close preexisting FFDs as "Orphan" move forward. Mz7 (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• If this were to gain consensus, I would recommend including in the guideline a recommendation to non-administrators to wait at least a week to allow admins time to normally close the discussion, which is much more efficient. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – There may be an initial inclination to oppose this on the basis that "an administrator would have to review the discussion anyway before deleting, so no time is saved". This was a popular argument in past proposals similar to this one, but it is unsound because represents a misunderstanding about how the non-admin closures are applied. The wide, wide majority of closures at places like FFD and RFD are uncontroversial, with the nomination being either uncontested or unanimous. It is these uncontroversial closures that sometimes form a backlog, and only uncontroversial closures are suitable for non-administrators to perform (see WP:NACD). A non-admin closure would draw the attention of an administrator patrolling CAT:CSD to the uncontroversial discussion (using {{db-xfd}}) and make the process more efficient. In other words, yes, an administrator would have to review the uncontroversial discussion anyway before deleting, but without the non-admin closure, the administrator would likely not have reviewed the discussion in the first place. This is already in place at TFD. I haven't formed an opinion on this proposal yet, as I'm not too familiar with the backlog at FFD. Mz7 (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I would like to amend my prior statement here a bit. Czar makes a sensible point below that the kinds of issues at FFD are different from issues at other deletion venues in that they often revolve around complicated legal questions about copyright, like the threshold of originality, freedom of panorama, and de minimis. On the other hand, I'm sure there exists non-administrators who are competent enough to handle these kinds of closes (keep in mind, non-admin closures are already allowed for "keep" outcomes), but Tavix is correct above that this is a "band-aid" solution to the underlying problem that there is a need for additional administrators to perform these closures. My position is "Neutral" on this for now. Mz7 (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Although I support this proposal and think it's a good idea, I do think it's important that this only be done in cases where there is a clear consensus either way, the non-admin doing the close is not involved in the discussion and it is clear that the close was made by a non-admin. (For reference, these are general concerns and not specifically directed towards any particular editor or editor(s)). I am also not sure if it should be done for discussions where there is basically just a nomination statement and no debate. Some editors not familiar with FFD have made claims that files have been removed/deleted without discussion strictly based on one person's opinion, even though FFD discussions can technically be closed after 7 days and no debate/objection basically means a de-facto consensus has been established to remove or delete. It might be best for a non-admin to relist these once, check to see if people have been notified, use {{Please see}} templates to notify others if possible, and wait a bit longer before closing the discusison. Regardless of the specifics, if the proposal is approved, then I think WP:FFDAI should be updated accordingly to reflect it (perhaps a new "NACFFD" subsection) since WP:NACD and WP:NAC are more general discussions related to all XfDs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC); [Posted edited by Marchjuly to reflect change from Support to Neutral. -- 00:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)]
• I have FastilyBot tracking the day-over-increases/decreases in the number of files listed at FfD; it's useful for visualizing the backlog. -FASTILY 02:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• There is a fair amount of specialized discretion in resolving FfDs such that the backlog is more about finding someone prepared to handle the question's nuances than getting an admin to close the discussion... And I'd rather see the discussion stay open and get the right response than to steamroll over it with a db-xfd tag. Non-admin ability to delete is not the bottleneck, as far as I can tell. No prima facie objections to non-admin closures, but I think Jo-Jo is on the right track in that the better solution is encouraging template tagging as FfD resolutions (e.g., tag for needing FUR rather than adding it yourself, tag as delayed speedy if no one responds to the source/permission clarification request). But I don't see how the process is improved through the proposal: If a discussion should be closed as "delete", as a closing admin, it's much more helpful to see the relevant rationale/policy linked within the discussion itself than it would be to click several more times in processing a speedy queue, verifying the closure was done correctly, doing my own checks of the relevant copyright policy, etc. czar 07:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• I don't know... Sometimes a non-admin might not handle complex cases, especially when participation is lacking. For example, at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 26#File:Maynemedical.jpg, someone closed the discussion as used. However, the image is already orphaned at the time of the closure. I told the closer about this, so the closer reverted the closure to reopen the discussion. I wonder whether a person would appropriately apply the rules on one file or another. George Ho (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC) (Moved to oppose) George Ho (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Comment re-moved to here. 01:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  And, no, I don't have the capacity to determine whether image usage is appropriate or not. Instead, I am dependent on admin's rationale about any image. George Ho (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Moved portion per Majora's comment. 01:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  @George Ho: Quite honestly, saying that you oppose because someone made a mistake seems a little odd to me. Everyone makes mistakes. Someone getting the mop doesn't make them infallible. The point would be that the mistake was brought to their attention and they undid it. --Majora (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  ...Good point. Moved comment to discussion. George Ho (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  Before my re-voting, Majora, I'll try to brainstorm my opinions about this idea then. George Ho (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  As I was brainstorming, I suddenly remember Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 15#The Groove Line, which had "keep" votes and no "opposes" on some images that I uploaded. However, I uploaded a freer image at The Groove Line, and the image got then deleted by Explicit. I don't think an NAC would handle some old yet open like this, right? George Ho (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  During brainstorming, I end up writing more cons and very little pros. Pros: reduces backlog and spares time. Cons: Lots of things, I think. What about reading the rationale for discussing or deleting a file, determining copyright status of a file, considering NFCC, considering readers' ability to understand the image with or without a fair use content, etc.? George Ho (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  What makes this any different from what normal non-admins do with every FFD? Copyright and NFC policy are the two "pillars" (if you will) of the file namespace. People who comment there regularly should already have a firm understanding of those topics to a degree that will allow them to participate in a well thought out and rational manner. As for reader's understanding, most of the time it is actually pretty clear cut. It depends on the critical commentary on the article more than it depends on the reader's understanding. And in cases like that WP:BADNAC would insist that an admin close it anyways. NAC is only to be used in non-controversial matters when the decision is clear. For FFD that may be a no quorum situation but that would be the same for an admin as well. --Majora (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  Well... I won't support this, but... I'm now convinced. I'll explain at the Neutral section. George Ho (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Lx 121, can you move some parts into here and then add "(see further below at Discussion)"? The structuring of the comments is breaking the numbering list format. --George Ho (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  Alternatively, you can use <p> instead. --George Ho (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

not clear on how it's "breaking"? the "vote-count" numbering looks fine on my end. but i'm not as familiar with the mediawiki formatting mark-ups as you are; if you want to move/copy part of my comments down to "here", feel free; just please leave my "oppose" (& agreement with previous points raised, + "further") in place & put an internal link section-to-section? (honestly i'm just trying to finish one last thing now & them i'm going to sleep, for the first time this year; not the best time for me to try to learn a new thing in formatting mw) Lx 121 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Lx 121, it was fixed by someone else before you got here. All good. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that a better solution would be to look for more editors to serve as FFD-focused administrators (or any other administrative process where there tend to be unreasonable backlogs). I have not looked at the RfA process recently, but I recall that it was not very targeted. Perhaps various wiki communities like FFD could put together wanted ads for RfA, like "Preferred qualifications: knowledge of NFC", etc. This may encourage those with the required qualifications to come forward, and those wanting to earn adminship to focus on those knowledge areas. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Usage of Miles first and Kilometres as supplementary in all British articles

I have been reading many articles on British transport of late on Wikipedia, and I find the lack of consistency in units of measurement in articles very confusing and problematic. I have also seen that the preferred use of measurement to be very subjective within Wikipedia, and subject to very heated debates, see Talk:Edinburgh Trams and Talk:High Speed 2.

With regards to these articles, I am trying to remain as unbiased as possible and not share my personal opinion on the matter. I find it frustrating to read an article such as the London Underground which in one sentence will say ″the Metropolitan eventually extended as far as Verney Junction in Buckinghamshire, more than 50 miles (80 km) from Baker Street and the centre of London" and later on state "London Underground's eleven lines total 402 kilometres (250 mi) in length". Other articles are written solely in Imperial Measures (Chiltern Railways) and others are written solely in Metric (High Speed 1), some articles have supplementary indicators, some do not.

As MOS:UNIT states ″In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that:
-UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in (but road distances are given in imperial units, with a metric conversion – see next bullet);
-the primary units for distance/length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon (except for short distances or lengths, where miles are too large for practical use)″

While many articles use kilometres, and perhaps many of the engineers behind this project do also, there is a propensity for the British to use miles and miles per hour. For the average Brit, one would never use kilometres in a day to day environment. A recent YouGov poll found that 89% of Brits would use miles to estimate a long distance, whereas only 6% would use kilometres. I understand that the metric system may be more practical, but that is not what I wish to debate and I implore any commenters on this to not bring in their personal opinions on which system of measurement is better. I just want what is best for the average reader of Wikipedia, and until the British Government fully implement the Metric System I suggest all distances are kept in Miles and Miles Per Hour.

I propose that editors and contributors put aside their personal preferences so that we can have conformity in all our articles and use Miles (Kilometres). I propose changing MOS:UNIT guidelines to be clearer on the matter, and say something like this:

″In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric, except that:
-UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in (but distances are given in imperial units, with a metric conversion – see next bullet);
-the primary units for distance/length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon (except for short distances or lengths, where miles are too large for practical use)″

I appreciate your time and consideration --Alfiecooper (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Comparison with `wdiff`, hopefully correct:

In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that:
-UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in (but road distances are given in imperial units, with a metric conversion – see next bullet);
-the primary units for distance/length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon (except for short distances or lengths, where miles are too large for practical use)

—Sladen (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The phrase "or other internationally used units" is there to allow non-SI units where they are standard internationally. Examples are feet for aircraft height, years for periods of time and suchlike.

The issue the user identifies is not so much a problem with the guideline but with some editors who spent many years attempting to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI of metric-first, by going through articles by the thousand and flipping the units to metric, even where the guideline preferred imperial. This became so disruptive that we now have general sanctions in this area, banning large-scale changes of units on UK-related articles. Point being, even if we change the guideline, we can't implement the change on existing articles.

However, note that the rules requiring conversions between SI, imperial and US customary units on most articles and in most contexts are not so controversial, and I would encourage editors to add such conversions using the {{convert}} template where appropriate. Kahastok talk 12:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

We should always quote sources exactly, using whatever units the source used - and then give the alternate measurements in parentheses. We don't need this MoS. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You'd then have a ten times more confusing mess of thousands of different units all over the place, which is completely unprofessional and a nonsense. There is absolutely no reason to follow source unit usage. Just because The Economist's style guide likes metric units, and The Daily Telegraph's likes imperial, doesn't mean that either of those will necessarily be suited to Wikipedia, which is a global project, not an insular one. In any case, the present situation is a compromise, devised to ensure a curtailing of the disruption that had been rocking this topic area for quite a while. It has worked well, and the general sanctions have ensured that the disruption has more or less stopped. I see no reason to reopen this wound, until there is an official diktat by the government mandating metric or imperial usage in Britain. RGloucester — ☎ 13:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The measurement should be added to the article in the units used in the source, and converted using {{Convert}}; the field "|order=flip" can be used to rearrange the display of the units so that miles come first, as is standard for UK articles, even when the measure from the reliable source is in kilometers. PamD 12:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to say "should". Per WP:CALC, the conversion between measurements is a routine calculation that doesn't need to be explicitly sourced. I have on occasion needed to go into some pretty obscure sections of the convert template to get a correct conversion (see, e.g. Ben Nevis, which is about 1344.5 metres tall; {{convert}} by default will either give you more precision than you want or a wrong conversion). And there is the circumstance where the unit in the source is one you wouldn't otherwise mention. The fact that my source idiosyncratically measures railways in furlongs instead of miles doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs to do likewise.

Plus you probably want to ward off the absurd spectacle of people edit warring over whether the article should say "50 miles (80 km)" ({{convert|50|mi}}) or "50 miles (80 km)" ({{convert|80|km|disp=flip}}). Don't laugh, it has been known. Kahastok talk 12:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Either that or you'd get people choosing the sources based on what units they use - we've seen a lot of that as well.

If a fact on a UK-related article is sourced to the New York Times, that doesn't meant that we write that fact out in American English. If one source uses AD and the next uses CE, we don't randomly switch between systems, sentence to sentence. We don't switch between month-first and day-first date formats depending on the sources used in the article. This is no different. Kahastok talk 12:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

John specifically said that articles should "quote sources exactly". I don't see anyone disagreeing with his claim for direct quotations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I don't think there's any serious argument that holds that you might change the text of a direct quotation. Similarly if you were quoting the New York Times on a UK-related article, the quote would be in American English, and you wouldn't change that either. Kahastok talk 16:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Although I agree with your general principle, I can't see that there would be 'thousands of different units' [unless we get into weird antique measures like rods, chains, perches and other odd fish]. The proposal flies in the face of all modern engineering practice in the real world and reads to me as another bit of "let's turn back the clock"/'metric martyrs' nonsense.

We could certainly have another year-long 'weights and measures war' but my bet is that we'd end up back at the current policy. So let's just skip the war and keep the policy as it is. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Sourcing for plot summary in book article

I'm looking at Plot section of articles like The Golem's Eye, which are a regurgitated detailed narrative like a junior high school book report, and totally unreferenced. Another editor ridiculed me, saying the source was the book itself! I.e., the editor read and summarized the book himself. Isn't that original research? Can't I legitimately question: who says that's what the book is about? On the other hand, it's often difficult to find a plot summary suitable for a concise encyclopedic article, which is not drawn from promotional or merchandising material. If I were writing an article for a literary review journal, I'd have to cite sources, why not here? Anyway, the Plot is supposed to be what the story is about, not a retelling of the story itself. That's an artistic creation, original work, copyrightable, if one were inclined. Can the Plot section of the article be removed as <unreferenced> or alternatively as <original research>? I seriously doubt that any published source can be found with the level of detail in the section... some editor made it up.Sbalfour (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I think MOS:BOOKPLOT has this covered. DonIago (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Basic plot details can be sourced to the work itself. Anything that requires interpretation (character motivation etc) needs a secondary source. Which is why so many read like 'and then X did Y and married Z' because that level of basic plot description is all that can be reliably sourced. For an interesting semi-related issue, see List of Wikipedia controversies in 2012 for the Philip Roth silliness where secondary sources were given preference over primary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I've also regularly seen professional critics get simple plot details wrong that are easily verifiable from the works themselves. Reviewers are often working on tight deadlines or are simply careless about details that aren't germaine to the themes they are more interested in (or they are just disdainful of a movie or whatever they are only reviewing because they were told by their editor to). Primary sources are always going to be the most reliable and authoritative source for their own content. Even apart from inaccuracy in secondary sources, we can also really make an article worse by putting the cart before the horse with nonsense like "according to Roger Ebert, Darth Vader reveals himself to be Luke's father" (not an actual example, but I've seen the equivalent), as if the critic has special access to some information we wouldn't know about otherwise. postdlf (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

An additional reason that editor written plot summaries can be good it that they can 9and should!) avoid the "hook" syndrome of jacket blurbs and TV listings. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC).

You may find WP:USEPRIMARY useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources tend to be secondhand information. And secondhand information is frequently wrong or oversimplified. One thus needs to be careful when using secondary sources for raw information - which includes plot summaries - rather than analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

How to post an RfC on beauty pageants that addresses the community divide on deletion policy?

"Wikipedia will suffer no great loss if the standalone article is nuked", is a quote yesterday from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Brown, diff, in a diff in which the commentator agrees that the topic should be included in the encyclopedia.

I posted two RfCs last week on beauty pageants on this page and each was procedurally closed.  I've had follow-up discussions with three people since then, #your post at the RfC at VPP #Community divide on ATD without resolution.  I have posted a new draft at User:Unscintillating/Draft RfC on Miss America and Miss USA entrants.

Meanwhile, on Friday we had six new beauty-pageant AfDs posted in one hour, [1].  How do we post an RfC on beauty pageants that addresses the community divide on WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: I still don't understand why you're taking this approach. I can't imagine people supporting "grounds for action" when you seem to take great pains to omit what action that would be. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

There is also at least attempts at discussion underway in multiple places. Up above, there is a section here wp:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposed_inclusion_guidelines_for_beauty_pageant_winners., with almost no participation. That links to a draft on possible notability guidelines for beauty pageants designed (full disclosure:by me) to answer this very question. There actually has been a previous RfC on the subject that endorsed creating such a guideline and Further discussion of the outlines of that guideline at the relevant Wikiproject.

The small handful of participants involved (again full disclosure: I am clearly one of those) in these discussions appear to be the only ones that are interested in the subject. A previous VPP posting and previous RfC have likely ferreted out the interested editors already. New attempts to find more through new RfC's and VPP postings are not likely to change that.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

As best I can tell, the discussion above you've linked and everything else you've linked has to do with the concept of notability.  WP:Notability is a guideline. 

The discussion here is about WP:Deletion policy, specifically WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course I linked to discussions and guidelines on notability. Notability is a base issue for the most common criterion under the deletion policy. Why wouldn't I (and most other editors that have contributed to those discussions) discuss notability in this context?

Also, I know of no policy, guideline, essay, or anything else that requires explicit consideration of the ATD criteria in every notability or AfD discussion. I believe it is generally recognized by AfD closers that an editor who suggests in AfD that an article does not reach notability has made an implicit recognition that ATD were considered and rejected. I would say that these do not avoid consideration of of ATD. Consideration of ATD is inherent in notability judgments. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:DEL8 is the notability WP:DEL-REASON entry.  WP:Notability is not a content guideline, and all deletions are content deletions.  WP:Notability itself is only capable of reducing a topic to less than a standalone article.  Therefore, WP:DEL8 works indirectly, and only when there is an absence of the topic elsewhere on Wikipedia...the content deletion occurs because the content and edit history are stranded.  Nor does WP:Deletion policy#DEL8 exist in isolation from WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.

So, no, editors are not "assumed to have considered ATD" when they !voted to delete due to notability; in fact, the presence of the topic elsewhere on Wikipedia shows that their !vote was flawed. 

Likewise, "delete and redirect" for notability is also a bogus concept, as WP:N does not define a content problem.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

There is an amazing number of things wrong with that statement considering its brevity. I will pick the 3 most important. 1. 'All deletions are content deletions' - blatantly and obviously not true. 2. 'Only when there is an absence of the topic elsewhere on Wikipedia' - also completely untrue. Articles within topics are deleted routinely because they fail notability. 3. 'The presence of the topic elsewhere on Wikipedia shows their !vote was flawed' - That is basically an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and is routinely rejected by anyone conversant with deletion, WP:V and WP:GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm making policy-based arguments; while the above rebuttal uses the proofs by assertion, the word "routinely", intensifiers, and an essay.  Q.E.D. that there is a community divide, and possibly one with emotional charge. 

The question remains in how to move forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, @Unscintillating:, the qualifications about policy-based arguments and proofs by assertion smack of labeling another editor's discussion as invalid. However strongly you feel they are indeed invalid, it is not very collaborative to effectively say to others: "Ignore that man behind the curtain that just posted." Besides which, they sort of cut both ways. Stating that there is a community divide on these issues and so there must be extensive debates, for example, is somewhat tautological: Most of the divide demonstrated in the original AfD's that gave rise to these discussions is between you and a small group of other editors (yes, myself included - I'm not trying to make any claim to non-involvement or neutral observer status here).

As it stands now, you've raised the issue in most places that will likely attract attention. I would posit that those who are interested are probably paying attention already and further recruitment is not likely to bear fruit. So by all means, let's move forward. I would welcome your input into the draft standards in a way that will add your concerns to the draft. It might be possible we can work out a compromise there that will reduce further AfD tension. I look forward to hearing from you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I have stubbed that article. Completely unsourced BLP giving details of non-notable family members, personal information etc. The only reason that isnt eligible or a BLPPROD is that it has an external link to the pageant website which contains a black and white photo which can even be used to confirm the subjects eye colour and it was created before 2010 when our standards were shit! The only reason *I* am not voting delete for that waste of space is that after removing what little (completely unsourced) information there was, I would face accusations of bias. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• I tracked the origin of WP:ATD to here, but User:Radiant! is no longer active on Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • At the risk of being WP:BEANSy (in my defense, I'm probably too sick to be allowed out on the internet unsupervised), ATD already tells you how to stop an AFD on a subject of borderline notability. It's in the ATD-M section. You merge it to a larger article (e.g., the most relevant list of beauty pageant contestants) by making an exact copy of some part of the article's content. Use something like "Merged from [Name of AFD article], which see for attribution" as your edit summary, (ideally) redirect the original to the relevant section of the larger subject, and report your actions at the AFD page. For licensing reasons, the original can't be deleted, and Wikipedia will still have any appropriate content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Insufficient participation at the (N)OR noticeboard?

I started the discussion about very little participation at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard in WT:NOR and WT:NORN. However, no one showed up. Therefore, I am doing another discussion here to increase awareness on the NOR noticeboard. There have been cases regarding OR determinations, but very little number of people volunteered to interfere. I wonder whether this will end up in the same fate as already forgotten WP:notability/Noticeboard. --George Ho (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

how does 2nd chance work in practice, if it really exists?

on the south african maling list, User:DjMlindos was trying to get his account unblocked 4 years after blocking this and his sockpuppet. he was referrec to Template:2nd_chance. i am wondering first if 2nd chance is a real feature to be available to users, and second, if yes, how technically this should work? e.g. where to say "i want to have a 2nd chance", and how this would be configured in wikipedia? technically i do not have enough experience, but i suppose he is blocked from editing, and creating a new account - otherwise i suppose he would just do it. and wikipedia would be open to allow indefinitely blocked to easily create sock puppets. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope, that's not how it works. Blocks apply to the person, not just any accounts or IP addresses they use. If a person is blocked, they are not allowed to edit anything except their talk page, and they are only allowed to edit that for purposes of understanding and appealing their block. That second chance template explicitly tells the blocked user to "Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to" and paste it on their talk page -- they do not get to directly edit any articles. It does not address what happens if a user's talk page access has been revoked because that almost always means that the user is just not going to be productive. If DjMlindos (or any other user whose talk page access has been revoked) wanted to go thought the steps at Template:2nd_chance (and the standard offer), then he would need to send a UTRS request asking for his talk page access back. Then, following the steps at Template:2nd_chance and WP:SO, the blocked user would need to not make a new account or sockpuppet for six months, not edit from their IP address for six months, and so on. They could post on their talk page, asking questions about policies and guidelines related to their block with the intention of fully understanding why they were blocked. After that sixth month period, they could pick an article they think needs help, copy a portion of that article to their talk page, and make changes to that portion to show what kind of help they could provide. Then, they make a new unblock request that shows they know exactly what they did wrong (without blaming others or hiding behind generalities), what efforts they will make to avoid those mistakes in the future, and indicating what kind of work they would like to do on the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the "What is edit warring" section of the Edit warring policy

Our Edit Warring policy has a section titled "What edit warring is". However, the text in that section never explicitly defines the concept. Arguably, a definition might be implied (maybe) but if so it is buried way down in the third sentence. We could help NEWBIES and reduce drama in general if this section more clearly stated how it works. There is some marked-up draft text that shows the changes I propose. Please offer your input at the policy talk page in the "Definition section" thread. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia want to be current...

or does wp want to be "behind the times" by waiting for new discoveries to be reviewed? I'm a somewhat frustrated newbie and retired biologist. I'm troubled by the wp definition of OR. Let me explain. Suppose I wanted to test the adage that "the early bird gets the worm." I could get up from bed way before sunrise (a bizarre thought in retirement) and sit next to my front lawn on 3 nice spring days. Starting at the official time of sunrise, I could count how many worms are pulled up by birds in the first hour and, separately, in the second hour after sunrise. I could calculate the average number of worms pulled up during those 2 intervals to see if early birds get more worms. I could publish that data, which I am now naming Personal Data, on my facebook page. However, I could not publish PD on wp. I could not cite my facebook page as a source on wp, because it is unreliable and unverifiable. PD is the kind of OR that wp doesn't want. However, what is frustrating to me is that editors keep on dissing discussions/citations of Original scientific Research articles as OR as if they are as undesirable as PD. Original scientific Research articles are not PD! They are overwhelmingly collections of controlled, laboratory, experimental PD generated by multiple people, collected as a series of figures, scrutinized by the authors and combined into a manuscript, then presented to a journal, which sends it out to independent experts for (generally anonymous) peer review. Then, the manuscript is sent back to the authors to address the peer review concerns. Eventually, excellent work is published as Original scientific Research articles in more or less prestigious journals. One of the (if not THE) most prestigious journals is Nature. I've had an editor dis a Nature paper I wanted to cite becuse it was just OR. Unbelievable. smh. So, I wonder if the community wants to try to make editors aware of a difference between silly PD and respected OR in the form of peer reviewed papers? DennisPietras (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure who told you that citing a peer reviewed journal article counts as OR but they would be wrong. If you went and tried to claim that "the early bird gets the worm" by using your research without peer review that would not be acceptable. But the part of the OR policy that you seem to have missed was The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. That hypothetical article in Nature counts as a published reliable source. So...confused as to the point you are trying to make here. --Majora (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Dennis, I agree with Majora here that I remain confused as to the point you are trying to make. If it is mainly about the Nature article you wanted to cite, it would help if you provided a diff. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Dennis, is it possible that you are confusing OR (original research) which you call "original scientific research" with primary source, published research papers? DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that even if the article qualifies as a reliable source, it may still be considered undue weight if it presents some totally novel theory or explanation. This is not an accident of how policy has been written - it is rather quite intentional. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all! The key here is "primary source" vs "OR". I didn't know the term primary source, so I just capitulated when experienced users called a primary source "OR". In the future, I'll be able to explain that they are confused and cite this discussion! DennisPietras (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Be careful, interpretation of a primary source does constitute original research. Certain topics or claims even require secondary or tertiary sources (such as discussing trends or establishing notability). Also, discussions about hypothetical generalities do not always trump local policy-based consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson:Thanks. I read that policy and it is fine. DennisPietras (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to modify administrator inactivity policy

I have posted a proposal to modify the administrator inactivity policy; see Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposal. Maxim_(talk) 12:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC opened at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for comment on our proposed policy for users remaining in redlinked categories

I have opened up an RfC discussing what the policy should be on for users remaining in redlinked user categories after such category has been deleted at CfD, see here. VegaDark (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC on secondary school notability

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools, commonly referred to by its abbreviated link WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists". However, a number of recent AfDs on secondary schools have closed either with no consensus or with consensus to delete. The closing summaries of two of these AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden English School Btl and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bal Vikash Secondary School, have included recommendations that an RfC be held on the notability of secondary schools. Following discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Need for an RfC on schools' notability, there is agreement to hold this RfC, with the following question:

Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I am in favor of keeping and improving articles about accredited, degree awarding secondary schools as long as that information is verifiable through reliable sources. This has been standard practice during my 7-1/2 years of editing. These schools are important institutions within their communities and biographies of notable people often discuss their educational backgrounds including their attendance at secondary schools. An encyclopedia with well over five million articles certainly has room for such articles. If the existence of any given school cannot be verified, then I support deletion of such an article. One of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is that it "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Providing articles about degrees awarding educational institutions is entirely in line with that goal, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support keeping status quo. Generally, high schools are important enough that there is almost always significant coverage in reliable sources, which may not necessarily be easily found on the Internet. A high school in the developing world could be widely covered in papers that have no online presence, and most AfD participants are Western and native speakers of English who would have difficulty locating those sources, causing systematic bias as US high schools are much easier to defend against deletion even though they are no more notable than their counterparts elsewhere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Everything should be subject to GNG. GNG exceptions should be narrowly focused if made at all. If there are no reliable sources then there is nothing we can responsibly write about the subject. This is a particular problem with the thousands upon thousands of schools, academies etc in India but can be as bad with US schools as well. These articles are magnets for vandalism, promotionalism and BLP violations. Jbh^Talk 19:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Government websites and publications can be a source of reliable information on government-created entities despite not being independent, something which is not true for private organizations. That's why a town with a population of 3 in Wyoming is notable despite perhaps having only trivial mentions in reliable sources (e.g. a list of cities in Wyoming). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  The problem which arises is with private and for profit educational institutions. At a minimum these should be subject to WP:NORG. For what are considered 'public' schools in the US they can be mentioned in the article about the locality. One of the defining points of Wikipedia is that we are a tertiary source. Making exceptions to this may increase the number of articles we have but it does nothing to help the quality. I do not generally like GEOLAND since I think there is a qualitative difference between an encyclopedia and a gazetteer but geographic places generally do not pose the same problems with NPOV etc that schools do. Jbh^Talk 20:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  I would not be opposed to excluding private schools from this criterion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  While Verifiability is a core content policy, the GNG is a guideline which does not apply in all cases. The exception that comes immediately to mind is WP:ACADEMIC. We often decide that an an academic is notable based on how often their work is cited by other scholars as opposed to the sort of coverage required for a singer or a fashion designer. Similarly, we keep articles about 19th century state or provincial legislators per WP:POLITICIAN even if the only readily available source is a mention in the legislature's own records. The GNG is important, but not all-important. If it were, it would be a policy rather than a guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  I can see a GNG exception to public i.e. government run secondary schools but not for private/for profit schools. This RfC would allow a GNG exception for what are essentially diploma mills and businesses. I could support something which is more narrowly focused but GNG exceptions need to serve some articulable purpose which is a net benefit to the project. I do not see the net benefit here. Jbh^Talk 20:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

*Comment Can someone please define "secondary school". Some of the explanation in the RfC opening comments and in the linked AfDs seem to be very US-centric. Eg: UK secondary schools never award degrees. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support I am sympathetic to the "GNG or bust" argument here, but I do think that keeping the presumption of notability for high schools is the best way to go here. Simply put: even if this RfC agrees on a consensus that schools must be shown to meet GNG, I have zero hope that this principle will be applied to secondary schools in the Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, or the United States. There will be arguments over whether or not the extensive local coverage counts, but it will likely be resolved in favour of the high school. The consensus of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES will likely still be the de facto consensus for schools in these countries. This RfC was largely started because of outcomes of no consensus or delete for schools in South Asia. As has already been pointed out, it is likely that there is already coverage at the level that would be acceptable for secondary schools in any of the countries mentioned, it just isn't easy to find via a Google search. What you often find instead is proof of its existence on a government website, and that website might not even be the education ministry, it could be the agency in charge of elections because the school is a polling site. You also find sources about NGOs using these schools for events to immunize, teach reading, etc. These souces while scare confirm that the schools in question play the same role in their communities as secondary schools in nations where sources are more Googleable play in theirs, but they are hard to find. Making the standard be proof of existence and accreditation makes sense to me in order to prevent systemic bias, which undermine Wikipedia's credibility. I would happily !vote delete for a home school academy high school that has five students or something similar, but if the school is accredited, we should presume that it is notable and that the sources exist to expand it, even if they are not available online. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Schools in South Asia are generally all for profit institutions and we have to deal with promotionalism, NPOV etc. Making them de jure notable would take away even the limited ability we have now to fight the promotionalism. As for commercial institutions these schools should pass NORG. Jbh^Talk 20:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  I would be fine with a higher standard for for-profit schools in general, though I do think the locality matters (if the only school for 100 miles is for-profit, I would presume it notable.) That being said, I think there needs to be a distinction between private secondary schools and for-profit secondary schools. They are really two separate beasts. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Yes. And once we start getting into locality, we start making too many edge cases, until it no longer serves as a useful guideline. So I think it would be best to require evaluating private schools individually based on GNG. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed that for-profit should be evaluated individually based on GNG, where I think the edge cases would likely go no consensus. Private schools I am fine with a broad exception. I don't really consider a boarding school set up by nuns to be in the same boat as a diploma mill designed to make a proprietor a profit. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, however the 'boarding school set up by nuns' is not necessarily the typical private institution and making the distinction between what is a private school and what is a diploma mill or business can be difficult - Sister Mary's School for Deserving Wayward Orphans and Puppies may be run by Scammers 'R Us. It is just too hard to tell without independent reliable sources. Aslo, without reliable sources Wikipedia can be and has been used to legitimize such schools. See the whole mess related to WifiOne. Jbh^Talk 21:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 21:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  And if Sister Mary's school can be verified to be a legitimate institution that is what it claims to be, then it should be kept. If it cannot be verified to be this through reliable sources, then it should not be. The question being commented on here is about schools with reliable sources, not schools that lack them. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  The issue in your statement is "...verified to be a legitimate institution that is what it claims to be." There is a a huge difference between an independent reliable sources that verifies that and the massively low bar of proof of existance which is what this RfC wants to make the standard. You typically need independent RS for the former while we often accept self published sources like school websites for the later. Jbh^Talk 22:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  The RfC is specifically addressing if Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?. On the discussion about holding this RfC verifiability standards were brought up by at least a few editors, and I'm assuming part of the reason that Cordless Larry suggested this wording was because of that. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Hopefully I have worded the question neutrally, Jbhunley, and the RfC doesn't want to make anything the standard. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Cordless Larry: I should have said - 'should this RfC be closed in the affirmative' - I have no issue with the neutrality of the wording. Jbh^Talk 22:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  If there's a "massively low bar", then that is set by the current WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES essay. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Having a 'massively low bar' supported by an essay one thing. Promoting that to a formally community endorsed guideline, which this will effectivly do, is something else entirely. It removes flexibility and will codify a huge hole for commercial promotion. Jbh^Talk 22:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  I think the essay is treated like a guideline by many editors as it is, and debate about that is part of what led up to this RfC. Anyway, thanks for the clarification above. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Except that it's being used to justify creation of articles on secondary schools, rather than only used to prevent deletion of existing ones. While mechanically the process is the same, it is the case in point that it encourages editors to develop poorly sourced (read: primary, SPS, or locally-sourced only) articles on schools just because we tolerate them. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unlike some other items that we presume to be notable, such as senior politicians, there is little reason to believe that secondary schools are normally covered in depth in reliable sources that go beyond routine reporting in local media. The vast majority of such schools are WP:MILL organizations; there are thousands of them, they are distinguished only by such trivia as age or number of pupils, and are generally not of interest to people other than those educated there. Such articles are also often a magnet for WP:BLP problems and vandalism ("Johnny sucks!!!") because many pupils will want to "creatively" edit them; and we do not need another area of additional maintenance overhead with little benefit. Such schools should therefore not be presumed notable. The solution to the systemic bias problem identified by TonyBallioni should be addressed by deleting the many non-notable Western school articles instead of adding more non-notable non-Western school articles.  Sandstein  20:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Although schools are not covered often, they are important. The information just needs to be verified through reliable sources. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Notability is a valuable guideline "to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies" (WP:WHYN). On what do we base the content of an article if all we have is verification of existence? On what do we base an article if we have only primary sources? We inevitably become a directory of school facts and figures. A whole lot of schools are notable, and we should have articles about them, but there should be no inherent notability based on verifiable existence for any subject. I've seen a distinction made between "inherent notability" and "presumed notability", but they're functionally the same. If everybody goes into a deletion discussion presuming [that there's significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject], the burden is shifted from arguing for notability to arguing a negative position -- that such coverage does not exist (an impossible task, when the presumption is that the sources do exist, even if they cannot be identified). Guidelines that provide shortcuts via indications of notability are helpful, but in the end an article needs to go by core content policies (again, effectively outlined in WP:WHYN). To say something is notable is to say it's received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise, we don't have anything to base an article on that complies with NPOV, V, RS, NOT, etc. An editor simply saying "it's important; significant coverage in reliable sources doesn't matter" wouldn't fly if we were talking about an internet meme, delicatessen, or philosophical concept, so why is it ok to simply say "they're important; significant coverage in reliable soruces doesn't matter" for this subject? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The claim that there are always sources for secondary sources omits the fact that the bulk of those will be local, showing little relevance to the broader world. And as a symptom of systematic bias, the only type of coverage that I've seen routinely that's non-local about these sources are in relationship to sports (specifically only American football and basketball), which really is more about the athlete than the school. There are undoubtably notable secondary schools, but we should not be working that these are notable by default for just existing. That said, in most cases, coverage of these schools can at least be mentioned in the readily-accepted city/town article that the school is a part of, and redirects can be used to avoid disruption. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Status quo. Going in a different direction now will be just too disruptive (besides which, multiple (every?) high profile biography has link to the subject's upper schools as do some (probably not high profile) locations, so look at it as adjunct (or multiple split) encyclopedic information if nothing else). My rank speculation is this was, back in the mists of time, partly done precisely to get upper students interested in editing, which may are may not be bad, but it is long since done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this is one of these walled garden notability things that has gotten out of hand and are turning some parts of Wikipedia into mere directories. But WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The other thing to keep in mind here is with the privatization of education there are more and more private or public/private charter schools and Wikipedia is (as always) something people abuse for promotional purposes. If a school fails GNG it fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support current status quo (NOTE this is not actually fully supporting the proposal, since it requires that the schools also be verifiably independently accredited). Now, we need to emphasize that this does not mean that high schools are automatically in as some people seem to think, but instead that it's a case by case basis which actually requires research to determine. ansh666 22:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: That Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability is the very reason we have notability guidelines in the first place. The most important one of these is WP:GNG, and for the vast majority of topics it is indicative of notability. Some good, carefully crafted, exceptions to GNG apply. But as Jbh points out, they should "serve some articulable purpose which is a net benefit to the project". No accepted exception to GNG sets the bar as low as this proposal would, in a manner which defeates the purpose of notability criteria: if it exists, there can be an article on it. That is the antithesis of notability, the purpose of which is to keep information on Wikipedia from being indiscriminate and in violation of various WP:NOT. We are not an encyclopedia when it comes to most topics but the WP:YELLOWPAGES when it comes to high-schools; we are an encyclopedia all around. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support notability for verified accredited high schools, whether public or private, to avoid bias in favor of US high schools, as opposed to private high schools in developing countries. There is no assumption of notability for unaccredited high schools.secondary schools, such as someone's home schooling operation for their own children. No presumed notability for schools which stop short of the US 12th grade or foreign equivalents, but in some cases one might find sources to satisfy GNG or WP:ORG for schools which stop short of grade 12. I have seen many hours wasted in fights about some county high school, but in the end sourcing could be found. But coverage of major newspapers in some states is limited in online free databases, and it is unreasonable to demand that within a 7 day AFD period editors have to drive to the state a school is in and search the state's major newspapers on microfilm in some college library to find the significant coverage which is inevitably there. And this is in an encyclopedia where projects argue successfully that every dinky railroad station, every tiny section of numbered highway, every person who played professionally in one game of a sport, and every hamlet with 2 families deserves an article. A public high school today typically is a major cultural institution serving a significant population area, at huge expense, and for a long span of years, and has a big formative influence on perhaps generations of students. Edison (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I really see no case for changing the current status quo. This has all been gone into many times before, and the situation on the ground has not changed. -- Alarics (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• I beg to differ on your final point, Alarics. A number of recent AfDs have resulted in no consensus, and at least one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arya Kanya Girls Inter College, Hardoi, was closed as a delete. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Existence does not prove notability, Wikipedia is not a directory, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of secondary schools many of which have nothing notable about them. I'm sympathetic to the arguments about how this reduces bias against non-Western schools, but I believe that can be better achieved without claiming every school is notable. Further, these pages of schools that are not notable or barely notable are not really of interest to anyone except students and faculty. There will be few page watchers and since they're prone to vandalism, it will likely stay there longer. High schools that are notable for alumni activities, outreach efforts, or superior skill in academic or athletic achievement are far more useful and more likely to be seen and maintained because of the attention they receive because of it (thus satisfying the GNG). We don't need thousands of permanent stubs. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't agree with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Every article should be judged on a case-by-case basis, as per the most fundamental notability guideline, WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sandstein. The support crowd seems to think we dare not challenge the status quo lest the braying masses attack us for deleting the article about their high school. That's not an argument for notability but a sad plea for a political carve-out. Let the notable schools pass GNG or NCORP. All the others can go. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. SCHOOLOUTCOMES has been a thorn in the English Wikipedia's side for too long. It, or at least the common interpretation of it, is wholly out of line with our notability guidelines, namely WP:GNG and WP:ORGSIG, the latter of which says:

  "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists."

  Per that guideline, verifiable information about non-notable schools should be included in articles about the municipality or district within which they exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, there's a longstanding precedent (of sorts) against nominating schools at AFD, but this should not be made hard policy. Apparently we're starting to see articles on schools of such profound obscurity that little to nothing beyond mere existence can be verified (and in some cases not even that). If we can't verify anything, then an encyclopedia article on the subject cannot exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I think the current status quo works very well. It sets a very good threshold for assumed notability and it negates any systemic bias inherent in only including schools with strong references. The latter will tend to be biased towards fee-paying institutions which can't afford not to market themselves through the press. State schools generally won't have the luxury of paying someone or some entity to do PR for them, whereas fee-paying institutions will be strongly focussed on it. And it's not just schools where we do that. WP:FOOTY has strong inherent notability rules about football club articles. And they make sense. We also need to remember that school articles are often a first vehicle from young wikipedians. Deleting huge tranches of them as non-notable will only encourage vandalism and conflict in dealing with this future editors. No great reason to change. It's doing fine as is. CalzGuy (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I've been considering opening an RfC on this for some time. I find the use of this essay infuriating when presented by itself to argue for keeping articles on which no one can find any reliable sources. It's bizarre to me that we use the circular logic of 'schools are often kept therefore schools should always be kept' in these cases. Either "Secondary schools are always notable" should be enshrined in guideline/policy, or we need to stop using this essay argument at AfD. Sam Walton (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)