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 the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.

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

« Archives, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192

Restrict Article Creation to Autoconfirmed Users

While patrolling New Pages, I often find users who's first edit is to create a new article and often these fall into one of two categories.

1. Poorly formatted articles which are a complete mess.
2. Promotional accounts which are created by promotion only accounts or vandalism.

Now the first one isn't usually too bad as it can be fixed by a more experienced editor. However, the second group are more of an issue. I feel this could be combated by restricting article creation to those who are autoconfirmed. For users who want to contribute constructively, 4 days and 10 edits shouldn't be a problem and it will give them time to 'learn the ropes' to prevent pages such as those in category 1 happening as often. However, it should be enough to deter most vandals and promotion only accounts. If a user has a desperate need to create an article before this, they can still post it as Wikipedia:Articles for creation or request to be manually confirmed. Oddbodz (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This would indeed be a good idea. A controlled trial of it was proposed in 2011 under the name of ACTRIAL and received fairly general support, but was vetoed by the WMF. Further discussion in 2012 concluded that proposing it again would be a waste of breath. See:

• WP:Autoconfirmed article creation trial
• WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 87#Re-propose Autoconfirmed article creation trial

JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The WMF has much to answer for. Eric Corbett 21:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So much for Wikipedia:Consensus then! Still, if we can reach consensus again, perhaps it may be enough to persuade them to change their minds! Oddbodz (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Similar to how the Visual Editor was dealt with, perhaps the WMF's veto can be bypassed. What the WMF vetoed 2 years ago was the request by the community to impose a technical restriction on article creation by non-confirmed accounts, so what we'd need to do is add a speedy deletion criteria perhaps, so that such article creations can be zapped on sight. Tarc (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

sooo, what happened with Wikipedia:Page Curation which was supposed to address the flow a new bad articles? has that had any impact? Has the percentage of bad articles created by new users changed? Is there any data about how the deletion of poorly created bad articles by new accounts affects the retention of good editors? (I personally don't give two hoots about the retention of bad editors who only want to get their special product/project/fangroup listed in Wikipedia)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

While Page Curation has made it easier to remove bad articles, it does nothing to address the fact that they're being created in the first place! I agree - is somebody has come to Wikipedia with the sole intention of promoting their product, the odds of them deciding to stop this and use their account in a constructive manner is 0 to none! For the few that are doing it in good faith, waiting to become autoconfirmed should be enough for them to learn the policies and realise its not something they can do on Wikipedia. Oddbodz (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The likelihood of a newcomer arriving with a new notable topic, for which there is no related content in any existing article worth them editing, is very small. Four days and ten edits is very little to ask. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unconfirmed users' new article attempts being shunted to AfC. AfC should be but one option. Options advised should be: (1) Do some editing relating to your interest. If you have a new topic, expand existing coverage in existing articles first. After ten edits and four days, you will automatically acquire the ability to start a new article.; or (2) Submit an entry at WP:AfC; or (3) If you really want to start a page, now, ask for an established Wikipedian user to create the page for you, by asking on your own talk page, and including the {{Help me}} template to attract attention.

  We should not advise new editors that they can do ten worthless edits on thier own talk page, etc.

  Option (3), advising new editors to ask a question may lead to a human interaction that is far better that navigating AfC, and is probably a good way to select people visiting in good faith.

  I also support auto-welcoming accounts on registration. (when and where was that decided to be a bad idea?). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment I'm confused. There's 2 levels of checks that we on non-autoconfirmed users. Using the AFC process and the NPP patrol. These are the first two gateways that are passed when an experienced editor starts pushing for their article to be "published". Could AFC work harder to filter/polish articles prior to when they go out to mainspace? Sure. Could NPP exercise more activity when objecting to articles? Sure. Personally I know, as a AFC volunteer, that there will always be bad pages in articlespace that don't even meet the barest of minimums in what makes a good article. I see this VPP thread as a "We want ACTRIAL" complaint with no realy new solutions provided to the previous WMF veto. Hasteur (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support as a great idea!, We don't want to off-put yet the amount of promo/unencyclopedic content is an issue & needs addressing/stopping, 4 days and 10 edits is perfect. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would support as a technical limit on new accounts, which the WMF seems to have a stick up their butt about, but vehemently oppose it as a CSD criterion. If you are going to go through the bother of CSDing the damn thing, you might as well either 1) just fix the formatting, or 2) delete it as promotional spam. The only way this will work with any sense is if new editors get automatically shunted off to AfC and can't technically create the new article. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 22:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this will only work as a technical limit. Hopefully, if enough support is gained, WMF might reconsider or at least explain why they go in the face of consensus and refuse to make the change. Oddbodz (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• pending any surprising answers to my questions support a technical limit - It is a far better retention strategy to "force" people to ease into the Wikipedia world than to allow them to come in willy nilly, create a completely unacceptable page, and get slapped in the face because URDOINITWRONG and we did not provide the appropriate guidance to have them DO IT RIGHT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support i do believe this is necessary.Lucia Black (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Quite many new users start their wikiediting by discovering that a notable topic is not supported and writing a new article. If we do not allow them to edit we would lose a great number of good new editors Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  Any evidence for that? Eric Corbett 00:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  Well, for the start I have started my wikiediting by creating Theophanes the Greek (as an IP) and Pavel Filonov. I think the articles were reasonably good for a newcomer. I do not think I would have stayed on Wiki if I hadnot the ability to create new articles from the start. I used to do new article patrolling a lot and many editors who started as article creators ended up as good contributors. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  But it is significant that you did that in 2005, when Wikipedia is much smaller than it is now. It would be more convincing if you could present examples of new editors now creating valid pages within their first ten edits. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'd oppose if the method for enforcing this is a new speedy deletion category. There could be no more serious method of biting a newcomer than speedily deleting a notable article they created because they are new. I suppose the category could be something along the lines of "Article created by an editor who is no autoconfirmed that a reasonable editor would not keep at AfD". Ryan Vesey 01:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree - however, as mentioned above, I believe the method for enforcing this should be a technical limit, similar to the one in place that prevents anonymous editors from creating articles. Oddbodz (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This is a step in the right direction. Wikipedia is now mature enough that IPs and newly registered editors are not required for the brute strength goal of massive encyclopedia expansion. The time for more finesse has come. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. A major carrot for creating an account is the immediate ability to start creating articles, and I am very loathe to take away that incentive. Regarding the problems with newbie articles in the proposal, we already have WP:CSD#G11 to deal with promotional articles and CSD A1/A3/G1/G2 to deal with articles that are an utter mess or essentially empty. If the problem is merely presentation, fixing up formatting errors is relatively easy and the editing policy is clear that we do not expect anything nearing perfection. The proposal is motivated by a good faith concern, but adding layers upon layers of restrictions on newcomers comes across as BITEey. It is a sharp learning curve to pick up on wiki-markup and content policies, and we need to be somewhat tolerant of there being some trial and error in the beginning. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This would disrupt editathon activity in which new editors are specifically encouraged to create new articles. A new article is a better task for a newcomer than editing an existing article because there's less worry about breaking someone else's work and the structure of a new article is simpler. Examples of recent articles which would have been prevented by this proposal include: Eleanora Knopf, Elizabeth Laird, Gladys Anderson Emerson, Grace Bates and Julia Gulliver. Note that these articles were created by new female editors and are about women. There are many more articles like this still to be done due to the systemic bias against women on Wikipedia. Raising barriers to entry would be contrary to such outreach. Andrew Davidson (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• For organized events we could give participating users the Confirmed right. I actually did some quantitative research on this for the 2011 proposal. Not only do more people start by editing an existing page, but new users have around a 70% chance of having an article they create deleted, compared to only 30% being reverted on an existing page. Mr.Z-man 13:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This is why we have AfC as a gateway. The negative effects on activities like editathons outweigh any slight advantage. If AfC isn't working right, then we should focus on improving AfC. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The nproblem here is with people who choose not to use AfC, which is entirely voluntary. People can create pages in mainspace, "articles" by defination even if they don't meeet basic standards for articles, without ever going through AfC. As I understand it, he intent of thsi proposal would be to induce more such people to use AfC. DES ^(talk) 13:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - This goes against the very fabric of the project ie.."anyone can edit". As Sjakkalle states, we have many ways to handle these issues already in place. Mlpearc (powwow) 13:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • it does not prevent "anyone from editing", it merely prevents them from creating a new article page until they have at least a minimal chance of becoming familiar with a few of Wikipedia's requirements. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Only after we improve AfC review At present I think it an extremely bad idea to direct any but the most obvious COI editors to AfC , because of the likelihood that they will not get helpful advice there--the results sometimes seem almost random. Once we have established better reviewing by qualified editors -- say in 6 months or os, then it will be another matter entirely, Contrary to some previous opinions here, I think it quite likely people will come here with a genuine good faith valid new article about something notable that interests them: a new book or film or recording, a newly elected politician, an historical person who does not have an article, one of the hundreds of thousands of towns and villages we still have not covered, or the tens of thousands of biological species. It's an excellent motive for coming to WP to write a new article. Some people will study WP a little first and learn how to do it; some will gain experience by editing existing articles, some will need assistance. We should provide for all of them. As for the WMF I think the WMF is now properly concerned enough about promotional editing that attitudes there may be somewhat different than in the past. DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose this on many levels; however, due to my personal real life issues I don't have time to go into great detail at this time. I'll try to get back around and add all of my thoughts and reasons here or in a discussion section if one has spawned by then. Technical 13 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. As Binksternet says, a small step in the right direction. Eric Corbett 17:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support "Anyone can edit" does not imply "anyone can create new articles without any training or experience". This proposal or something like it has come up several times since I have been editing (I argued in favor back in 2001 and left for a while because consensus was over-ruled by WMF). It makes total sense to me, since I spend 90% of my time in deletion debates on such first-time articles, or fixing the few that are worth saving since they are so badly done. This proposal has been rejected every time one way or another, but eventually something like this must be done, or else at least the English Wikipedia will die of dead weight, when the experienced editors get tired and quit. Then all that would be left are the bad article creators. Certainly a better AfC process would be best, so people would have incentive to use it instead of going around it as the do now. And perhaps editors like me might have more time to help on AfC if we did not have so may new articles to delete and clean up. Has someone thought of the obvious: with all this attention to massive online classes, why not develop an online class on Wikipedia editing? If someone gets through the class we could give them a fast-track to creating a new article, and there might be fewer frustrated new editors as well as frustrated experienced editors. In this day it seems we end up explaining the same issues (neutral tone, citation format, external link policy, and notability). W Nowicki (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support While it is "a small step in the right direction", it is a very small step in the right direction and I'd be in favor of Nowicki's suggestion. Gandydancer (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. W Nowicki and Binksternet have said it all, I couldn't agree more. Yintan  20:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose simply on principle. As a long time editor who knows Wikipedia policies quite well, participates in discussions here on the policy page and generally engages with other editors on a regular basis, I have a very difficult time trying to get new articles created if only because every time I start an article it gets slapped with a PROD then inevitably an AfD that I must always fight (and my track record has been 100% keep with AfD). There are some serious problems with the article creation process where trying to slap down new users is not likely to help and fails to actually fix the problems with false positives on PRODs and new article deletions. We have some significant editor retention issues, and this particular proposal only seems to encourage the elitism... or at least the uber elite only need apply perception that many outside of core Wikipedia editors really have. If you really want to see what technically minded people (aka they can handle the Wikimarkup text or even raw HTML) think of their editing experience, please read this Slashdot thread and note that these experiences are typical. There are some real problems, but this proposal is at best a band-aid to a much larger systemic problem on Wikipedia that has no real easy answers. --Robert Horning (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I do not see how guiding people into creating appropriate articles where they will be significantly less likely to be immediately slapped because of egregious failings in their article would do anything OTHER than increase the positive initial experiences and HELP with retention. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
    • This proposal really won't stop the flood of new articles, even if implemented. It isn't guiding people into creating appropriate articles, it is simply throwing up additional barriers to participation. Trolls will continue to make pages in spite of being autoconfirmed, and it encourages nonsense edits simply to get to magic thresholds. I am also worried about a slippery slope of even further restrictions later on where editors will need to request "article creation" privileges (technically already possible with MediaWiki software). --Robert Horning (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. In a couple of recent RfAs, the candidates have expressed an interest in tackling speedy deletion, partly because they've noticed a backlog. As an admin who patrols CSD, I, too, have noticed the backlog and wonder what the cause is. It seems to me there's more trash than usual (mostly A7s), but I have no idea why. It is quicker to delete obvious candidates, but it's nonetheless a pain in the ass (many are often recreated). I would have supported this idea even before the increase in candidates. It's a relatively small barrier to article creation, and I see little difference between a no-experience-IP creating an article and a no-experience-newly-registered account creating an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. A relatively minor restriction for anyone intending to contribute usefully, and a useful filter against crap. I'm unconvinced by the 'oppose' arguments above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: This current proposal won't fly and the Foundation will clip its wings before it even grows feathers. As one of the main ringleaders of the reasons for and the development of WP:ACTRIAL - which BTW was a very heavily subscribed discussion with a very clear consensus - I would support this because it would solve most of the problems of AfC and NPP in one fell swoop. One the other hand, although they were far from polite about it, the Foundation did finally explain that it would clash with the very mantra that the Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and that within that founding policy/philosophy it means that any registered user can create an article in mainspace. The backup argument being that imposing a 4 days and 10 edits hoop would put off too many people from wanting to create an article. I understand that too, but where a huge number of new creations are genuine junk just fit to be jettisoned on sight, we still need to be looking at some serious solutions.

What we need to do is take a stiff, hard look at the way we are reviewing submissions at AfC and patrolling new pages at NPP. Both systems are suffering from the same ailments: too few operators, too low quality, and too long backlogs. The new New Page Curation system did not address any of those issues; although it is a brilliant piece of software, it's only any good in the hands of those who know what they are doing. Current proposals to introduce minimum qualifications for AfC rewiewing are meeting resistance from those who fear the introduction of too much bureaucracy or are paranoid about 'teenage admins with an axe to grind', while those who want some controls can only suggest burdening the already overloaded system by double checking the reviews.

On another point, I do a lot of physical deletions, and often work through the CSD cat (that's where I also catch the wrongly tagged articles), but I've never come across any serious backlogs there - in fact if there is one, I can usually clear it myself in less than an hour, but if we can address the issues surrounding AfC and NPP once and for all, it will also reduce the number of AfDs and its monumental backlog. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I do NPP filtered to new users, and I don't have the perception that most of what they create is useless or inappropriate. To be sure, most of the inappropriate crud does come from them, but shifting this to AFC will do no good, unless the AFC folks suddenly decide to start assisting more in creating the content rather than just reviewing it. Someone who is going to create a viable page will do so in article space or AFC, and someone who is going to write useless crud will do so in both places. NPP+CSD now take care of the worst offenders. And Morning277 and friends know full well how to get around the autoconfirmed restrictions anyway, so that's not going to stop them. Quite frankly, at the cost of some more real time cleanup (which we're already doing), I'd rather we don't add another restriction to article creation. The ideal situation in my mind would be for a technical solution where non-patrolled pages are visible but not indexed by Google until they are reviewed by a trusted editor. Because outside of petty vandalism, ultimately that's largely why people create crud - to have it show up in Google. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - please tell me why a user who has been here for 5 days and has made ten edits is that different to one who has been here for a day and made ten edits? By this proposal, the latter user couldn't write an article, and yet the former could. That, and the WMF wouldn't ever stand for it. This will make precisely no difference whatsoever; autoconfirmed is such a low bar that it essentially means nothing, and any higher restrictions would be unhelpful as well. Comments about backlogs aren't relevant either, because this will be a small drop in the ocean compared to what sits around in NPP for months. A quick look at NPP shows that the five oldest articles (all from 17 May 2013) were by users with 360 edits, 29 edits, 7927 edits, 19 edits and 195 edits. Pages from inexperienced users are generally reviewed first anyway, so all it does is shift the bar very slightly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support—I really didn't know which way to go with this, until I read User:DGG's comment above. He opposed, and part of his rationale is that "Some people will study WP a little first and learn how to do it; some will gain experience by editing existing articles, some will need assistance. We should provide for all of them." I agree with this statement, but I think that supporting this proposal is the best way to provide for all of them. Let's focus on the legitimate new editor who is not a vandal, someone who has a good faith intention to start a new article on something. They muck it up because they don't understand Wikipedia policies, Wiki markup, etc. Maybe their subject actually isn't notable. Their article gets CSD'ed, they get an automated message on their talk page (if they can figure out how to see it), and 5 to 60 minutes later their article is deleted. This doesn't sound to me like we are providing for the user. On the other hand, if they were restricted from starting new articles, and the error message directed them to the Tea House, AfC, or one of the other new user outreach programs we have going, their article might take a few extra days to get posted, but they'll have a much better overall introductory experience. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support although I don't think this proposal actually goes far enough. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, essentially per Mlpearc. Ironholds (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Moot - There's no point. The last time the community supported something along these lines, the foundation told us to fuck off. You're wasting your breath, unfortunately. Resolute 21:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

the "fuck off" was before their recommended fix for the issue was launched. There is now a bunch of data to show whether or not their proposed fix for the issues has worked which may lead some to change their minds to make them more willing to listen to ours. They may indeed say "fuck off" again, but they may not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we both know what the odds are. Resolute 23:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Encouraging new editors is a high priority and I'd like to be assured this won't hinder that effort. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Pronouncers should use English symbols and characters

I read the site in English and often something I've looked up has a pronouncer that includes non-English characters and symbols. For instance, the city of Shreveport shows it is pronounced as "/ˈʃriːvpɔrt/". I think the English version of Wikipedia should use only standard English dictionary characters and symbols in its pronouncers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.84.117.162 (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"standard English dictionary characters" - there is no such thing. Learn to read IPA; it's been around for 125 years, is used by linguists and lexicographers in nearly every country of the world, and is even used in ... wait for it ... many dictionaries! VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 11:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with adding traditional English phonic symbols, such as \ˈshrēv-ˌpȯrt\ for the example noted. The pronunciation shown is used by Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Random House, Oxford Dictionary Online (US English), etc. GregJackP Boomer! 12:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It's useless for the masses, but the IPA crowd likes it, so it's not likely to go away soon. Just ignore it like most everyone else does. --Onorem (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Until I started editing WP I never even knew IPA existed. It isn't used in any of the dictionaries I've ever seen, it isn't generally taught in South African high schools, colleges or universities (except perhaps specifically in linguistics courses?). I have picked up a rudimentary understanding of it only by looking at the IPA for words I that I know. IPA is simply not accessible to the ordinary WP reader. I have yet to see it actually used anywhere outside of WP in general reference works (specialist linguistics books and journals excepted). "Descriptions" such as "open flat forward labiovelar lateral voiced gobbledygook" which are common in the language articles here, might as well be written in Klingon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for things we know about and things we do not and never want to know. It is also an international encyclopaedia. IPA is an international standard, and if one wants to indicate the pronunciation of a word - like Sjambok since you mention South Africa - that is one way to do it, a sound file another. Alternative methods often run into the difficulty that they depend on a familiarity with the local pronunciation of other words or can be very long winded. --AJHingston (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Ouch! Did you really have to pick "sjambok" as an example of SAE? Something like "springbok" would have made your point just as well without the gratuitous negativity. (Apartheid has been over for about twenty years - by 1965 Germans were no longer constanly having Hitler rammed down their throats.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Nothing sinister intended - I was looking for an article title the pronunciation of which would not be obvious to non-native users and this came up by chance. The sensitivity of the choice should have occurred to me. As it happens, Germans frequently complain about Brits trampling in sensitive areas even today. --AJHingston (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't mention the war. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with GregJackP and Dodger67 above. IPA is not useful for the vast majority of our readers, any more than say the official long structural names of chemical compounds are, indeed if anything less so, since it uses symbols not part of the roman alphabet. I have never seen IPA used by any standard dictionary, and I have used many. Nor have I seen IPA used by any non-specialist publication. I suggest that the appropriate MOS page be changed to permit and strongly encourage if not mandate the use of such traditional English phonic symbols in addition to IPA symbols (I would oppose sound files unless they come from a WP:RS, which seems unlikely.)DES ^(talk) 16:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the {{USDict}} to the article, so that both pronunciation guides would be used. Since a majority of U.S. readers have no clue what IPA is, and probably even less interest in learning it, it just makes sense to add a pronunciation guide that they understand. GregJackP Boomer! 17:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think IPA is here because "the IPA crowd likes it"; it is here because it is an uncontroversial, rigid standard, applicable globally. But I also agree that many readers will not be familiar with it. What would be nice if there was a way to maintain pronunciation in IPA and then render it according to a preference; perhaps this could be centralized in the relevant template. BTW, the very first dictionary I pulled off of my shelf (Collins Gem French-English Dictionary, 6th edition, 2001) does use IPA. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• We need both' We need IPA because it is the international standard, and the only accepted exact method of showing pronunciation in written characters. But we need a respelling in English characters, however approximate it will inevitably be, because very few people understand IPA. I certainly don't, tho I have tried--such transcriptions are useless to me. Perhaps I have unusually deficient skills, but I suspect that at least most American users are equally weak at this. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

  I agree, but the second one should indeed be respelling, not US-dictionary. The problem with US-dictionary is that there is no standard; different dictionaries have different tables of sounds-v-symbols. Respelling doesn't have a fixed standard either, but since we're making it up ourselves, we can point the reader to a link. I don't see any point in including US-dictionary pronunciations. --Trovatore (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

  Agree too. Privileging American dictionaries over all others isn't justified. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

  If there were a US standard I think it might be reasonable to include it — the US has more than 60% of the worlds's native English speakers. But there isn't one, and I don't see any point in WP inventing its own US standard. Might as well just invent a good respelling standard. --Trovatore (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

  We could choose one of them (preferably the "most comprehensive" and "best") for our standard, or even say 'article writer: choose among these two or three'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw two comments above that they haven't seen any dictionary use IPA. I would encourage them to look in the Oxford English Dictionary, which isn't a terrible dictionary.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia exists primarily for our readers. IPA is Greek to most people and it's unreasonable to expect them to "learn", as Vanisaac suggests. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. I have an excellent education, one I have mostly squandered, but this "how to pronounce the hard word" stuff might as well be Chinese for all I can understand it. Greek I can read! I don't mind having it there, but I feel we could do with a readily easily understood=d alternative alongside it. I feel disenfranchised by seeing just the weirdly gobbledegook. Fiddle Faddle 12:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It is also an international encyclopaedia, and not just for those whose first language is English. IPA exists because alternatives are problematic. Something designed for US users may be misleading to an English speaker in India. I am sorry that the use of audio files has been deprecated on the grounds of lack of RS, because they are the friendliest to users and in the case of things like place names where they are most likely to be used and useful, it is very easy for others to check the veracity. --AJHingston (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree but, if say there was a note added to the IPA paren to an American English dictionary and other variety English Dictionary pronunciation guide that would be helpful to non-linguists. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Wait, audio is deprecated? That's... baffling. When on earth did that happen? Andrew Gray (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have made clear that was in this discussion, in a remark by DES above, but nobody else has spoken in favour of them. --AJHingston (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

When I first came across IPA it annoyed me. Now I have got a bit used to it I think it is really clever. As well as being a standard it also provides a specification, using one string of weird characters, how someone with your accent would be likely to pronounce any particular word. And if you and I come from different parts of the world or have different regional accents, the suggested pronunciations may be different for the two of us. That doesn't always work, but usually does. It's really clever. For many words, respelling with some ad hoc method simply does not achieve that. So, it's OK by me to keep respelling methods (sometimes they are a lot easier), but please don't get rid of IPA. The {{IPAc-en}} template is brilliant because if you hover over each symbol it shows you how it is pronounced in your own accent. An example is at Actinopterygii.Thincat (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with including IPA. There is something wrong with expecting the average reader to learn an alphabet "used by linguists and lexicographers". (This is akin to our mathematics articles, 95% of which are of no use to anyone who isn't already familiar with the subject.) Joefromrandb (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The solution would appear to be to add a respelling template as well. I agree that the ability to have the pronunciation explained by hovering over the IPA symbol is very useful. You don't have to understand IPA to start with, and linking to the IPA article provides an explanation of the differences between different sounds (in terms of tongue position etc.) --Boson (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Many of the pronunciation guides are for non-English words. It's impossible to use American dictionary symbols to represent pronunciation even in well-known, common languages like French, German, or Mandarin Chinese, let alone the more obscure languages. Do the people wanting rid of IPA have any idea how to show the pronunciation of e.g. Mönchengladbach, Szczecin, Landes, Corse-du-Sud, or Xhosa. Having IPA for pronunciation is no more ridiculous than having chemical formulae for chemicals or mathematical notation for mathematical topics. If an alternative can be provided in addition, that's one thing, but it's going to be less precise than IPA. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone above advocated getting rid of the IPA symbols. I surely did not. I do advocate providing a less specialized and more accessible alternative in many cases, when this will serve many users well. DES ^(talk) 15:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. IPA has the benefit of being international and independent of language/dialect. However, other pronunciation guides can be appropriate. For example, from Calumet, Michigan, we have "Calumet (/kæl.juːˈmɛt/ kal-yew-MET)". This seems entirely appropriate to me, and is overall short enough to not be a burden to the lead. Chris857 (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

About incriminating someone by mimicking a sockpuppet of them

That might have happened on Chinese Wikipedia, where an editor got his ban prolonged for using sockpuppet to avoid ban, and he later complained that someone might created that sockpuppet from a VPN which he shared with others. I think this behavior is quite noteworthy, because it seems easy to carry out and almost free of costs-- You can just go to some public computer and do edits that looks like that user (For example, if he is banned, just repeat what makes him get banned). The differences in IP and User agent could pose doubt, but sometimes people reveal their location and what user agent they use on user pages or otherwise, making it possible to pick a location near that user. Even if you don't manage to mimic those features, chances are administrators would still think it is plausible that this user has gone to this location to avoid detection. After all, are there policies about dealing with such issues? Mainly, the user would complain about someone mimicking him/her, but how do we know if that complaint is genuine?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe (but correct me if I am wrong) that on enwp most sockpuppets are blocked by the WP:DUCK test without any technical analysis. So, if someone is clever at impersonating someone else and other folks are gullible, there may indeed be sanctions against the wrong person. Does anyone know if such a thing has ever been detected subsequently? Thincat (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Look like edit pattern is more important. I noticed in Wikipedia:CheckUser#Guide_to_checkusers "An editing pattern match is the important thing; the IP match is really just extra evidence (or not).", which may favor the imposters. From my observations of that case on Chinese wp, 33 edits within 3-4 days(18 of those may relate to previous conflicts)can result in Checkuser saying "Likely from editing pattern"(just like DUCK).

Plus, What is common treatment for sock masters on enwp? Will you just get your ban prolonged from 1 month to 1 year because of a suspected sockpuppet with 33 edits within 3-4 days?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'd take what this user said with a very large pinch of salt. It's the standard "it wasn't me" defense. It is far from impossible that this has happened; but then again, Wikipedia blocks several VPNs and their IP addresses - only usually allowing the ones through that maintain the computer's default IP. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess that kind of complaint is just solved like other problems without a clear policy, we'll just debate until it's quiet... Wikipedia is not a legal system, so I think we shouldn't bug with rigid proof of something (for example, "I can prove I am out of internet/at a location different from where and when this puppet is operated").

Besides, I had a minor question about privacy: can a user accused of using sockpuppets get their own CU data? That might help them prove that they weren't using that IP at that time.(and also help them fabricate "proofs" that they aren't there?)--chao xian de lun zi (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

An accused user can't even ask for an innocence check - that is, for the CU to check the accused user and the accused sockpuppets, and see if they appear to be the same user. An accused user, armed with just his/her own data, couldn't do any better. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

List criteria

In the debate on List of unusual deaths, I realized that there is currently a problem with policy that would permit, depending on certain interpretations of WP:IINFO (that I happen to disagree with, but others don't), all sorts of lists that are unencyclopedic, and that go against the spirit of WP:NOT.

You can play along - to do so, just come up with a somewhat vague adjective, and a noun, like "Bizarre" and "Coincidences" or "Unusual" and "Vegetables" or "Beautiful" and "views" or "Ugly" and "women" - then do a search of google books, and in many cases, you will find a plethora of compilations, as well as newspaper articles devoted to the subject of <adjective> + <nouns>, e.g. bizarre coincidences, unusual vegetables, and beautiful views, and ugly women, along with a requisite list. However, I think that there is a line, and List of bizarre coincidences, List of unusual vegetables, List of beautiful views and List of ugly women are on the other side of that line w.r.t. to relevance within a serious encyclopedia. The reason these lists should not be here is because the inclusion criteria are inherently subjective, and wildly so. If we decide to be nice and just list the beautiful women, a List of beautiful women would, per the currently proposed criteria at List of unusual deaths, include any woman described (by any RS) as beautiful or gorgeous or pretty or charming or stunning or alluring or appealing or charming or cute or dazzling or delicate or delightful or exquisite or good-looking or ... That would likely be quite a long list, even if we just kept it to the bios we have on wikipedia. Now, you might say, we would NEVER have a list of beautiful (or ugly) women, that would be demeaning, and a BLP violation, and should be deleted per IAR and so on and so forth - but the point remains, per the current interpretation of policy that *some* people have, such a list would not violate WP:NOT nor WP:LISTN. I happen to disagree, but the question is, what do we do? PBP above proposed that all lists must have objective inclusion guidelines, but that idea was voted down, so I'm not proposing that here.

What I am proposing, though, is that we do *something*. I don't have any specific ideas at the moment, but wanted to get a sense from people here - should we allow things like List of deaths considered tragic and List of vegetables considered unusual and List of views considered beautiful? If not, what policy changes could we make to filter those out, while allowing things like List of films considered the best, which many people cited as a useful list.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

More adjective + noun examples here
The following are other adjective + noun combinations for which RS can be found, but for which lists, IMHO, should not be generated. Worst dictators Beautiful cities Bizarre foods Weird facts Bad poetry Beautiful views Ugly women Beautiful women Tragic deaths Unusual vegetables Evil men Evil wives Cruel stepmothers More to come! References

Please see #Proposal:_Lists_must_be_based_on_objective_criteria above where this was just discussed and where these types of lists are considered appropriate as long as reliable sources are the ones making the subjective call. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware of that discussion. I am making a different proposal here - that we do something, but something less dramatic than saying "all criteria must be completely objective". However, if we simply continue as is given the interpretation of certain players (e.g. it suffices to have a single book on the topic of <vague adjective> + <noun> to create a list, the result is madness, as I'm attempting to demonstrate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The easy way to see it is to consider that "List of X considered Y" should be the case where "Y" is a natural or common sense way to describe some X, and that it is a limiting factor, such that we are making a very narrow slice of all potential X (and of course, a source must make the claim X is Y for us). For example, I don't know if this was a typo but you give the example "List of vegetables considered usual", which would NOT create a limited division of all vegatables (on the other hand, if you meant "unusual", that's different.)

If you get to something like "List of women considered ugly", the key thing here is that BLP now applies, so just because some rag states a current actress is ugly is not sufficient to include. On the other hand, if historical text describe a certain long-deceased woman as being considered ugly, that's fine to include.

Basically, like the above discussion, I don't think there are any policy changes you can make; people will know a bad, unsourcable or maintainable list when they see it. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

So you're really arguing that having a list of dead ugly women is fine? Or Evil men? Seriously? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

With the caveat that BLP applies, yes. Meaning that such lists will likely never include a living person unless that person has self-asserted themselves as that. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That just illustrates the problem - we have completely different views on what WP:NOT is intended to prevent. In my mind, it's intended to prevent this sort of thing - a list of historical women considered ugly, or fat, or vain, or mean, or cruel, ... would be great for the Fortean times, but wikipedia should not touch it with a 10 foot pole. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The horse is smelling, Obiwankenobi. In your mind WP:NOT can be intended to prevent a lot of thing, but it currently does not, and there is no consensus so far for the view you intend to push. So far that some of your examples exist in some form right now: take "bad poetry", where we have Poetaster, that includes a list of poets considered bad. --cyclopia^speak! 23:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

So what? wp:ose, etc. The current interpretation by SOME of WP:IINFO is different than mine, so we need to develop a new consensus of what is or what isn't permitted by same. Also, please stop with the "There is no consensus" - that's a rather meaningless phrase right now, as we haven't even had this discussion yet, it only started 2 minutes ago. If you don't want to join in, the exit is that way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh no, I do want to join in. But it's not true that we haven't had this discussion yet. The discussion instead has already been done or is actually ongoing: in seven AfDs, five other AfDs, this DRV and the previous discussion here. And none of these discussion ever went close to suggesting consensus for what you are suggesting. Among people on your side of this debate, you're one of the most civil and reasonable, and I respect you a lot: but currently you are forum shopping, you are not listening and you are beginning to be disruptive. --cyclopia^speak! 23:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is the policy is vague on these points, so we need to have a change at the policy level. Otherwise, there will continue to be people who argue both sides of it. I'm working towards finding a new consensus - please help. If we don't find a new consensus, the split AfDs will continue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There is already a consensus, even if a vocal minority keeps trying everything against it. --cyclopia^speak! 00:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But that all comes down to sourcing, then, and that's why I doubt we'll actually ever see that list. Most sources that I've seen that create lists on this quality will be things like Cracked.com, etc., sites specifically for shock and humor value which we would not use for that. (On the other side, the lists that tend to promote the positive tend to be celebrity magazines and the like, their RS'ness for such purposes just as questionable). But if the NYTimes came out yesterday with an article that gave a scholarly treatment of the ugliest women in recorded history, with no living persons on the list, I cannot see how that cannot be a fair list to include on WP. That's how you make the distinction is not so much limiting the topic (as that begs what other topics you should start limiting), but to consider if the sources being used are really appropriate for such lists. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Masem, I've linked above RS for all of the topics. For List of unusual deaths, we are taking a Fortean times book as the strongest reliable source, so that would hence allow us to have "Stupid criminals" and "Weird sex" and "Bizarre behavior" and "Unconventional wisdom" and "Close shaves" and "Life's losers" and "Strange animal stories", amongst others [1]. Are you saying Fortean times is NOT a reliable source? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Which I would not considered an RS for purposes of these lists, since, like Cracked, the purpose is for humor and shock, and not actual scholarly reporting. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The fortean times books, and spin-offs thereof, were considered by those !voting at the AfD as evidence that RS covered this topic. As such, by extension, all fortean times books (and the lists they generate) should be considered RS. Or not? If not, why not? I'm just trying to see what the extension of the principle just formed results in - in my opinion, the result is ridiculous, so it means we need to reconsider the policy on lists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)we are taking a Fortean times book as the strongest reliable source - We have academic publications as well. --cyclopia^speak! 23:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I know you're really enamoured of all of the academic sources we've been finding, so let's take a look at one: "Unusual death of a transvestite: identification of crime weapon and survival time*. - Cornetta S, Addante A, Zotti F, Dell'Erba A." - this is a rather terrible story of a transvestite (already a term some trans* people don't like) who had their head repeatedly bashed against a car. It's "unusual" only in the sense that maybe people aren't often murdered by having their heads bashed against a car - but it doesn't fit in with the other somewhat "ironic" deaths. Unusual to these guys is TOTALLY different than unusual to the Fortean times - can you imagine the Fortean times article? "A rather strange death occurred when a gang of men bashed the head of a transvestite against a door. It is the first time in known history that a transvestite has been killed by a group of men in this way." - the whole thing would come off as callous, like most of the rest of the list does to me now. Anyway, we're not here to discuss that particular article in detail, I'm here to discuss the larger problem with WP:IINFO which is interpreted in different ways by different factions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the AFD for the unusual deaths article, nor would I have supported the use of the Fortean Times (as well as many of the other sources) to support the article, but those aren't the only sources given, and many of the others are stronger RS, so if anything, there needs to be better refinement on the type of sourcing. A case in point is List of Internet phenomena; we could list virtually any meme that comes out from any basic RS site, but that would flood the article. Instead, we have used a requirement that more mainstream sources must be used to assure inclusion on the list, avoiding sites like Gawker or Boing Boing as the only allowance for inclusion despite the normal reliability of these sites. The same can be done on any of these lists. If you feel the issue is getting into IINFO territory, then the solution is to get refinement of sources, because certainly in the case of unusual deaths it is a subject of discussion in sources. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

most would consider a forensic journal as a pretty reliable source for a 'unusual' death, but I have found potentially a thousand, or more, suicides from mostly common causes that would thus qualify (and we could likely find similar amounts more for heart attacks, cancer and diabetes), but to me it feels like a poor match with the current descriptions in the list of unusual deaths, because what a forensic journal considers unusual is quite different from what the Fortean times or the nytimes considers unusual - unusual in the medical literature seems to have little to do with the notability of The victim, nor the circumstances of the death, but much more about the very particular nature of the death, even if it is from ultimately common causes (eg a bullet to the head - several 'unusual' suicides in the literature find the type of bullet or the type of gun to be 'unusual') --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The way I read this and the way I think of it, list of unusual deaths can be improved by specifying two things, first what exactly is meant by "unusual" and secondly what sources such should be used to show this. That is, while the article title may be "list of unusual deaths", to avoid IINFO, it is implicitly really "list of unusual (as defined by blah) deaths as reported by blah". Which I am all for - listed that can be inheriently subjective need to set out strict requirements for inclusion in terms of sourcing, notability (in some cases) and the like to avoid the IINFO part, such as using a cross section of sources that all approach the subject concept in the same way (such as in the case of unusual deaths, those listed in medical/forensic journals). It is exactly the case that when we mix sources - between academic, newspaper, and blog-like sources as list of unusual deaths has - that there are the apparent IINFO problems. This, however, is less a policy issue (particularly from WP:NOT's standpoint) and more guidance on stand alone list construction. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, several years of discussion on the talk page, and a recent RFC, have been unable to solve these problems; the current compromise seems to be "as long as any RS calls it unusual, we consider it unusual" - wikipedia consensus somehow defining "unusual" seems to not carry much weight with the inclusionists protecting this article, and trying to objectively define "unusual" or "bizarre" or "weird" or "strange" w.r.t deaths is an exercise in futility. Secondly, if we did do something like require only medical journals, the bulk of the existing content, esp historical content, would be deleted, and would be replaced with things like the cardiologists definition of unusual, which you can see an example of in the following article: "Heart 1996;75:451-454 doi:10.1136/hrt.75.5.451; Spontaneous coronary artery dissection: a neglected cause of acute myocardial ischaemia and sudden death.; C. Basso,G. L. Morgagni, G. Thiene"- "Unusual histological findings were cystic medial necrosis in one case, eosinophilic inflammatory infiltrates in four, and angiomatosis of the tunica adventitia in one."- thus from this one article, you would add 8 heart attacks, four of which exhibited eosinophilic inflammatory infiltrates, just from this one article; many hundreds more (just heart attacks!) would follow- I hope I don't need to add that heart attack is an incredibly common way of dying, but cardiologists don't care about that - they care about the very particular circumstances of the heart attack [2] - and then we could add 'unusual' deaths from cancer, diabetes, lung disease, and so on, resulting in a list of thousands, all just from 'common' causes where the academic in question hadn't seen this particular combination before. In short, if we went with only academic sources, the list would be incredibly long and incredibly boring or unparseable to non-specialists; if we eschew medical literature, we are basically saying Fortean times is a better source on 'unusual' than BMJ when it comes to death; if you just go with high quality news sources, like the new York times, you get articles like this one [3], where 'unusual' death is an inmate who commits suicide using his bedsheets; according to [4], 93% of inmates commit suicide by hanging, 66% of those using bedding as the instrument of hanging - thus, by any statistical measure of "unusual", suicide of an inmate by bedsheets is actually the most common way to go. Any of the other examples I give above would likely have similar problems; for example List of vegetables considered unusual is often, in RS, a list of vegetables or varieties that are unusual in the particular region the author is talking about, even though the same vegetable may be quite common somewhere else; unusual is almost always a subjective judgement, based on lived experience, and wikipedia making a claim that something is 'unusual' just based on a single source violates NPOV. I argued during the AFD that a list of "unique" deaths, where the means of death (not the circumstances surrounding it) were claimed to be unique and never before recorded, like 'death by a beaver' - could potentially work, but no-one took up this idea. Instead, we have a king who fell of his horse, because he was a king and because a pig caused him to trip, we have a bizarre and ironic death, and it joins the list, even though hundreds of people die every year falling off a horse. The result is a non-encyclopedic mish-mash of the worst sort. I'm hoping we can change policy, esp WP:LISTN and WP:IINFO to make such lists impossible or somehow force a much higher bar.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I still honestly do not see a need to change policy to "fix" this. IINFO is fine as it is (it's working fine for other topics), and from a notability standpoint list LISTN, you are not going to be able to set anything stronger without stepping on toes (this we discovered when actually trying to write LISTN). I'm not saying that the unusual death list is a good list, though, but AFD is not the venue to try to evoke fixes, where you will get people to come out to protect it by any means. Primarily, the biggest fix on unusual deaths is to set some clear definition by sourcing, and I would further argue that the person must be notable or attached to a notable article where most likely the death would be explained in more detail, so that page then becomes more of a navigation page than a list. But that's advice for a page like WP:SAL and not any policy. --MASEM (t) 07:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand the argument that we should enact policy so as to prevent content that doesn't actually exist. postdlf (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, we've already done so - WP:NOT is a policy explicitly focused on preventing content thst should not exist. In this case, we do have examples of content that exists but which had differiing interpretations of WP:IINFO, that has led to 7 different AFDs over the last years with muddied consensus, so I'm hoping to define a more clear line. If List of unusual vegetables should not exist but List of unusual deaths should, what makes the difference? If they both should exist, then what about the other examples I give above - all with RS behind them? In other words, should <arbitrary adjective> + <arbitrary noun>, provided it is sourced, always result in a keep, or are there editorial judgements which need to come into play to set lines that should not be crossed?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

If repeat, highly trafficked AFDs have not reveal a clear line, then there isn't one. And there's no "should" here. What's the difference between List of unusual deaths and List of unusual vegetables? The latter does not exist and never has because none of our volunteer editors has tried to create it. Why you should be terrified that it will and that the community will fail to address it properly, unless we pass some new law or something that has no foundation in actual practice or demonstrated consensus, that's what I don't understand here about this whole thing of yours. postdlf (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

the repeat AFDs are because there is a fuzzy spot in the policy, so we need to clear it up, one way or another - I'm not terrified, but I am concerned esp with statements by Cyclopia that many of the ridiculous lists I suggested as bad examples, they are thinking of creating, because of this policy vacuum. I'd rather move the line a few inches to the left, explicitly disallowing lists like the death list (which could still be kept per IAR if warranted). Otherwise, the current hole in policy permits far too many adjective + noun lists and I'd like to find a way to refine it to disallow certain types of subjective criteria. For example, list of unusual time signatures is an ok list, since the scope is limited and inclusion criteria is clear; list of unusual vegetables is a bad one otoh.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Given this discussion and the previous one (and of course the AFD) I think it's clear you can't ask to remove such lists as long as there are sources that make the subjective call for us. The better solution is to make sure on such lists that an inclusion metric is well-defined so that the quality of the reasoning for each item on the list is about the same instead of, as in the current case for unusual deaths which suffers from the broadness in the RS-ness of the sources given. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

people argue to keep based on current policy - if we change or clarify policy, votes may shift. And I fundamentally disagree with you re: sources making a subjective call for us - we need to exercise editorial judgement to determine whether the subjective call is reasonable to be made per WP:RS , and whether the subjective adjective is useful and encyclopedic. I would argue that film critics, who watch and rate films as their job, are qualified to tell us which films are the 'worst' - in their opinion - and we could repeat that. However, a journalist or fortean times editor is generally not qualified to determine which death is unusual because they aren't exposed to the 150,000 daily deaths on the planet and don't have strong points of comparison. We need to come up with some filter such that not all adjective+noun lists with very subjective inclusion criteria can exist, I've given a dozen examples above, but adjective+noun combinations and the books about them easily run into the hundreds. For now only one or two lists has survived, so we need to make a stand to prevent the barbarian hoardes of subjective list creators :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The point is that these so-called subjective lists are acceptable, but their inclusion and content all rest on the type of editorial decisions we make about source to keep them in check or allow them at first. We already use editorial discretion all the time to narrow down what sources are included, article or list irregardless, so this is not a new change. The problem with the way you're approaching this, trying to restrict even having lists on a subjective criterion, is that even if you try to tailor how narrow the restriction is, there will probably be appropriate lists that fall within that exclusion, and as others have said, this is what policy creep does. The solution is to focus on tuning the requirements to be listed on such a list, though what sources are appropriate, what type of notability should be highlighted, or the like. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi, why instead of keeping pushing this change of policy (which seems to be not going anywhere) don't you come to the talk pages of the relevant articles and help shaping inclusion criteria? I agree there can be an issue with different definitions of "unusual" coming from different sources. However this can be worked together on the article talk page -we can split the list in two kind of lists (List of deaths considered medically unusual and List of bizarre deaths, for example? just saying), or we can focus on one of the two kinds, or whatever. In any case, one things you and I can agree is that we need at least clearer and more objective inclusion criteria for these kind of articles. Since you seem to bring some good arguments to the table, I'd like to see them used constructively to help shaping these articles instead than trying to remove them.--cyclopia^speak! 09:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

pls stop saying this isn't going anywhere, it's only been a day, I'd rather have a broader hearing , I know your opinion, but please give space for others to input. I'll help on inclusion criteria, just not now, as for now I think it's tragically flawed and impossible to fix in an encyclopedic fashion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support: List of <adjective><noun> lists need to be avoided, and policy needs to be written to reflect that. pbp 14:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Some such lists are probably undesirable here, others are not. i don't see a good way to create a bright-line rule that wouldm't be a cure worse than any existing disease here. This smacks of WP:CREEP to me. Moreover, the proponents here have proposed more or less the same thing in #Proposal:_Lists_must_be_based_on_objective_criteria above, where the consensus was clearly against this sort of policy change. Recent AfDs linked from the above discussion indicate the same thing. I think WP:STICK is starting to apply here. DES ^(talk) 14:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: I opposed the objective criteria suggestion above, and there's nothing yet to oppose or support - it's just a discussion, to see if we can agree that the policy is sufficiently vague that 50% of !voters think it requires deletion while the other 50% believe it doesn't apply. I really believe that we can do better than that, but we'll never know until we try.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't legislate general rules in order to eliminate specific things there is not an actual consensus to eliminate. Nor are any volunteer editors compelled to create content to satisfy some purported conceptual consistency. So your WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING jeremiads about an endless flow of all possible subjective lists, because the community supports some subjective lists, are just irrelevant straw men. So there's not even enough substance in the issue to carry on a discussion about what should be done about these purely hypothetical bugaboos. Nor is there any reason to fear that AFD would seize up in impotent paroxysms if someone created List of awesome people or any other such lists that a consensus would obviously find beyond the pale regardless of whether a line can be clearly drawn or drawn where you want it to be. The existence of contentious cases doesn't preclude the existence of easy ones. postdlf (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, the same reasoning given by most !keep votes for supporting certain subjective lists can be used to support hundreds of other subjective lists. There is no discernment going on here; you obviously seem to feel that some [[List of <adjective> <nouns>]] should be deleted, and I'm suggesting that it is possible to refine policy to get more meat around how we make said determinations. I don't see any value in remaining intentionally vague here. At least 15 editors in the last discussion felt that the WP:IINFO applied and that the list should be deleted; more editors felt similarly in previous AFD discussions - again the existence of strong division on what WP:IINFO and WP:LISTN means suggests we need to add more language. Someone has added WP:DISCRIMINATORY but it's an essay and there are calls to unlink it as it doesn't represent a consensus view of what indiscriminate means, so we just need to get more clarity there - I don't know why but it seems like you think the status quo is good - but the status quo has resulted in constant AFDs for several articles. there has to be a better way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, the reason the status quo works is that there probably several "List of <subjective adjective> <nouns>" that work without question, and by trying to define a limit against lists like "unusual deaths", you may cause these other lists to be seen as bad too. It's been readily identified that the sourcing is the problem at "unusual deaths" that is leading to indisriminate inclusion which can be fixed. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Obi-Wan: "The problem is, the same reasoning given by most !keep votes for supporting certain subjective lists can be used to support hundreds of other subjective lists." Who is using it in this manner? See my above comment about compelled "conceptual consistency" and how that's not a thing here ("Gawrsh, someone thinks my reasoning supporting this one list could be used to support the completely unrelated List of friendly-looking plants. I guess I have to write that now...").

Or let's play along and assume your worst case scenario occurs, and your feared flood of every possible permutation of "List of <adjective><nouns>" flows down the article creation slippery slope. The resulting AFDs will give us a lot more data points from which to plot that bright(er) line you are yearning for. postdlf (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to do that - just search the AFD archives, you will find dozens of examples of lists that were deleted because of "subjective inclusion guidelines" - even though for the particular topics, there was sourcing. Here is a somewhat recent example: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_unusual_personal_names_(5th_nomination) - it took 5 times to get it deleted - but there are at least 100 AFDs where accusations were leveled of subjective inclusion criteria, and many of those articles ended up being deleted. We don't need to wait for the flood to collect data points, we have data points by simply looking at the articles that were already deleted; but it would make things a lot easier if we could specify in what cases do subjective inclusion criteria go too far, and in what cases are they permitted? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Reading that one on unusual names, the reasons for deletion focused heavily on BLP issues, which I've alluded to before. Arguably, I would think it is completely possible to have such a list, with the first and foremost restriction that the person must be blue-link notable, followed by having strong RS sourcing. How long such a list would then be, I don't know, but again, here it is about the sourcing. If you can fairly argue that it is impossible to creating sourcing and notability requirements to limit including in a subjective list, that's a fair reasoning for removing/avoiding the list. But I'd still not use that to explicitly prevent subjective lists. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's take a specific example - List of men considered evil - this is eminently sourceable: "Evil Men; Author Miranda Twiss;Translated by Shelley Klein;Publisher Michael O'Mara Books, Limited, 2003"; and we certainly wouldn't have many challenges finding other RS that call Hitler or Pol Pot "evil", and we could only put dead guys there to avoid BLP issues. But I still think it would be a very bad thing for wikipedia to have such a list. I think it would violate WP:IINFO, because intersections based simply on an adjective are in general not very useful. But current policy isn't strong enough to delete such a list, people could simply claim, as they have elsewhere, "This is sourced!" - so at the end of the day it becomes a !vote - I've seen many other AFDs like this, where neither side really has policy to back them up, it just becomes the weight of participants on one side or another. If we could come up with something stronger, a refinement to WP:IINFO, that would prevent List of evil men and List of ugly women, I think that would simplify a lot of future AFDs.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"so at the end of the day it becomes a !vote" - welcome to Wikipedia, which is driven by consensus. If you think a list is a bad idea but several others have no problem, consensus will win out. There is no solution that fits all cases here that otherwise does not threaten to discriminate on legitimate subjective lists. The only thing with lists that subjectively categorize people is that the sourcing must respect BLP, and if the list is nothing without that, then yes, we shouldn't have it. Now, granted, one thing I saw in one discussion is fixing the name of these lists , to simply avoid the implicit way these seem to make these factual. For example, I would not use "List of evil men" but "List of men considered evil", which clearly implies we're reporting what other sources say. I'm sure that doesn't resolve your issues but it is a step to make it clearer that these are subjective lists but where the subjectivity is offloaded from WP. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Masem, you say there's no solution, but we haven't even started exploring solutions yet. Can you please stop trashing this idea until we've had time to brainstorm a bit about it? I'm not at all convinced, and I do think we can do better in the policy than we have now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you're staring from the position of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and asking to change policy based on that. Given that this discussion was just had in the previous thread, it's clear that its not going to be "fixed" at policy-level. I'm all for solutions that are based on using limiting sourcing, but that's going to be something at a guideline level and not policy, and it's not about going to restricting a list due to it being "<subjective> <noun>" lists (arguably, since we're talking standalone lists, that's akin to notability, which is a guideline level). --MASEM (t) 21:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. I actually like the list, I find it interesting, and I think it would have a great location in wikispace. I just think it doesn't belong here, and I think WP:IINFO, the way I read it, should preclude its (and many other lists) existence - however, that interpretation of WP:IINFO isn't held by everybody, they think if it's not given as an example in WP:IINFO, therefor WP:IINFO doesn't apply - which is why I think we should update WP:IINFO. There's nothing fixed in stone about WP:NOT, it gets updated a lot, so your continued calls for "it's not going to be fixed" is frankly not very helpful at a discussion board about potentially fixing policy. If you don't want to help, please at least don't hinder this discussion. I think some <subjective adj> <noun> lists could survive, we just need to think about it more carefully rather than throw our hands up and declare "it's not fixable in policy".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want to help, please at least don't hinder this discussion. - Translation: "If you disagree with me on changing policy, go away". Cute. --cyclopia^speak! 21:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The point is this: I would hope it is obvious that it is completely possible to have a list like List of unusual deaths, if the list inclusion metric was tighten down. I don't know what the "right" list inclusion metric would need to be, but I am certain that no one would question this list if the sourcing and requirements used for it kept it to a narrow focus using highly-reliable sources, and these requirements were explained as part of the list's lead. (Determining that requirement, that's a separate matter). Considering this, and applying to all the other examples that have been mentioned, I find it hard to say that we can use or change IINFO as a policy to disallow these types of lists, since they are allowed. The problem on these lists is not because they are <subjective adjective> <noun>, but because there are not well-established requirements on when an item can be included. List of unusual deaths is in poor shape not because "usual deaths" is subjective, but because the allowances for sources is too broad covering everything from medical journals to things like blog-like sources. It does sort of allude to the earlier issue that what is "unusual" will be defined differently by different source types, but that still again points at having stronger requirements for inclusion so that the definition of "unusual" is much narrower and keeping the list focused. In fact, that almost suggests that there could be multiple lists, depending on which way you spin "unusual" (medically unusual, ironic deaths, unexpected deaths, etc.), as long as there are tight requirements on each.

Which comes down to the point that we're not talking about changing policy, but changing how one constructs a stand alone list. I agree that in a guideline we can add language that if you are dealing with a topic that is subjective, you need to make sure that inclusion requirements are well-set to be clear and narrow the potential misuse of the subjective term (eg like "unusual" here). But as for changes to policy to outright remove/restrict these types of lists - even if not all of them - is just not appropriate from the present discussion. "List of <subjective> <noun>" in of itself is not a bad construct, it is when the list requirements are not well constructed that it gets out of hand, but that is always a point that editing and trimming (and not deletion) can fix. Now, as for getting editors to come to a consensus as to what to include, that's a separate issue. But just because they can't come to a more narrower definition for a list doesn't mean the list is bad. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest you take a look at the talk page, where editors have attempted to come to consensus, including a recent RFC, on the inclusion criteria, but the result is a muddied no-consensus as far as I can tell (I came into this due to a request to close that discussion, and reading through it I came to the conclusion that there was no consensus, and several of those !voting at the RFC said it's better to just delete it, as coming to clear inclusion criteria is impossible because the word "unusual" is incredibly vague.) As I've demonstrated elsewhere in greater detail, if we consider that there are 150,000 deaths per day, even if "unusual" was defined to be a death that isn't seen more often than 0.1% of the time, that would still mean 150 new "unusual" deaths per day. I estimated we could easily find at least 1,000 suicide attempts that were called "unusual" in the medical literature - and this is before searching the literature for synonyms in english and other languages. I really think that's too many. Attempts to force the list to only include "notable" people were also not able to pass consensus. We could attempt to really force the issue, and propose that no death can be recorded unless (1) the dead person is themselves notable and has an article (or could have an article) on WP; (2) a RS medical source calls the death unusual and (3) a RS media source calls the death notable - looking for a high standard of editorial control here. That would at least give you a more manageable intersection, and would call out those cases where both a medical professional and a non-professional description of unusual coincides, so we'd be getting the ones that "everyone" considers unusual. But the chances of those criteria passing are about 1 in a million, given the people protecting that page currently.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're conflating the issue with difficulty in achieving a consensus for inclusion (has this been put to an RFC to get wider involvement and dislodge it from apparent ownership issues?) with the appropriateness of such lists. Everyone agrees taxes are necessary but no one agrees on how taxes should be implemented, but that doesn't mean we get rid of the tax system. There is no easy drop in solution that will "fix" the problem that could harm other parts of WP. Everything "wrong" with list of unusual deaths is fixable within current policy and dispute resolution practice. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, it's pointless to be rehashing the AFD here. And discontent with that list is really all that's been driving this thread and the previous one. So let's move on. postdlf (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What Postdlf said. Don't try to change policy because you didn't get your way. Accept that consensus is against you, get over it, and go improve some other area of the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

... because some subjects are beyond hope of being improved. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I was planning to start a new List of fruitless Wikipedia discussions, but the software seems to block it, perhaps because of redundancy. --Hjal (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium/Alternate language names has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium/Alternate language names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice: RfC regarding how anime and manga topics are covered has started

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:HONORIFIC as applied to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh

In the context of this requested move discussion, was WP:HONORIFIC misapplied here?. WP:HONORIFIC, states: Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. Throughout academic literature on the subject the full title is commonly used and in the popular press the word "Bhagwan" was not understood widely a religious title: he was generally called Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. If the honorific issue does actually apply in naming this article, wouldn't WP:NCCL be more accurate? It seems we have no rules for individuals who, within a specific religious tradition, are considered human incarnations of "god"; but we do, for example, use "pope" in article titles. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse response/Guidelines no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Abuse response/Guidelines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2013 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are open

Nominations for the 2013 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday, 10 November at 00:01 (UTC) until Tuesday, 19 November at 23:59 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. 64.40.54.211 (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Does the WP:QUOTEFARM rule apply always?

WP:QUOTEFARM states "quotes...try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information...".

Long quotation could appear as:

1. Block quotations. The quote is included in the article.
2. footnotes: in line quotes with text. The quote is included in the article source, but does not appear as a part of the article, unless while the mouse is hovering around the reference tag (or when looking in the article bottom).
3. footnotes: Explanatory notes ( seems to be the same as list-defined references). The "readable prose" does not include the quote, which is below the "readable prose", at the bottom. It appears while the mouse is hovering around the reference tag (or when looking in the article bottom).

I guess that the WP:QUOTEFARM applies for the first type only, the block quotations.

The third type, list-defined references is recommended to use in order to avoid clutter. Hence it seems like it is not related to the WP:QUOTEFARM.

Does the WP:QUOTEFARM rule applied to all those quotes types? Ykantor (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Excessive amounts of blockquoting would be a problem (in addition to singular excessively long blockquotes). Quotes that appear within references probably don't apply, but care should still be taken to respect the amount of copy-taking for them, but in terms of number of quotes, QUOTEFARM would not apply. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to re-engage the community

I was reading MIT technology review Vol. 116 No. 6. It details the diminishing community and quality of Wikipedia. One thing it mentioned specifically was: "the loose collective [of editors] that operate a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers" (p.52).

Having seen some of the talk pages about articles, I have to agree.

So my proposal is this: The bureaucracy is ran top down, and a number of the long term administrators and senior editors have become so engrained in the culture of Wikipedia and rule, yes, rule is the correct term, with a style that deters newcomers. Jimmy Wales should revoke all administrator privileges from every administrator.

The slate would be cleaned, the trenches that were dug during the nascent Wikipedia experiment would be filled in, and people who actually care about the site in the present time, not the past, would be reinvigorated. An additional benefit would be to eliminate the Fiefdom-esque behavior of some of the administrators who rule over Wikipedia. When everyone is equal again, your advancement depends on your merits, nothing more.

So there is my proposal. I estimate it has precisely 100% chance of going nowhere, but it sure would be interesting to shake things up again here and breathe new life into the system.

96.255.149.31 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If think that´s a reasonable estimate, starting with that Jimmy Wales can´t do that, and if he tried, he would (for the good reason of acting like a dictator) be metaphorically hung, drawn, and quarted. Well, probably metaphorically. I´ll agree it´s probably harder to get new stuff into Wikipedia nowadays. Much is already here in some form, and Wikipedia has become more selective as to what is reasonable content. And that is part of what makes Wikipedia valuable to readers, in my opinion. I´ve seen examples in other discussions that indicates that the argument that Wikipedia is worse than it was has been around for a long time. I´ve come to belive that part of this is that Wikipedia (to an editor) becomes a bit like the hobby or long-running tv-show that you used to like. You get fed up after awhile, possibly regaining interest later. Or not.

The diminishing quality argument interests me. What areas in Wikipedia mainspace did the magazine identify as being worse now compared to for example 2, 4, or 8 years ago, and how did they determine that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The Foundation wouldn't allow it for a start - not just because vandalism would destroy a huge number of articles once vandals knew they wouldn't be blocked, the PR firms would have a field day, libel and copyright violations would be rife, and Wikipedia would become junkapedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Heavy Oppose There's no scenario which every administrator is desysopped and then chaos would not immediately follow. KonveyorBelt 17:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia bureaucracy is similar to the US Congress right now. The approval rating for Congress in the US is something like 10%. But when you ask people about their congressman approval jumps to 50%. Lots of people think Wikipedia is too bureaucratic. But if you start asking them if they support specific rules you're going to get lots of positive answers. So if we started over in terms of policies and processes, you'd probably end up with something substantially similar to what we have now - rules for what gets included, processes for getting rid of bad content, rules for dealing with problem users, and processes to give users extra rights. Certain things might be improved (though if you exclude experienced users and all their institutional knowledge of what has already been tried, this is less likely), but they'd serve the same purposes.

I hope you will do more research than than one often-inaccurate, overly dramatized article. In general, Wikipedia is a much, much looser collective than that indicates. The real problem preventing structural improvement is not some group of entrenched users trying to "rule" things their way. The real problem is simply inertia. Any major change requires a huge referendum and the longer that process takes, the more the result trends toward "no consensus, continue with the status quo."

There are numerous articles to work on here that are not "ruled" by anyone. I recently started improving an article related to my specialty that hadn't seen any substantial human edits since 2009. There are over 1.8 million articles that haven't been edited at all in at least 6 months. Mr.Z-man 18:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You lost me at The bureaucracy is ran[sic] top down. I'm trying to think of another large organization that is less top down than this one, and I'm not coming up with any. Do you use the term differently than usual?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the article: [5] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I joined Wikipedia less than a year ago, and I must say that 95% of the editors and 100% of the admins with whom I have interacted have been supportive and helpful. While the some of the other 5% may have been somewhat patronizing and/or dismissive, no one except one brand new user has been rude or bossy. A lot of the talk pages that I read are about people discussing changes that will make Wikipedia easier to use or more friendly, and I have already seen several such changes take place. I guess I am not seeing a problem here. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have just finished my first year of active editing, and my experiences have been mixed, with the problems not coming from top-down bureaucracy. I am sure there is no "typical" experience given the size of WP and the degree of interest (or disinterest) in various topics. My interests are very specific and narrow; which has had the unexpected result of my being the major contributor to several articles, adding the major content with only wordsmithing and grammar correction by others. There are general articles in The Arts that could use some attention, but I am not prepared to tackle them because I cannot improve them alone, and there does not appear to be any sustained interest. Or perhaps the online culture discourages most potential editors in the arts and humanities. FriendlyFred (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an example of articles whose quality has deteriorated in comparison with a few years ago. Speaking as someone who started editing near the begining, article content is definitely better than it was in, say, 2002. Or 2003, 2004 & I'm betting 2005-2007. I suspect what's happening is that people are looking beyond the usual, high-trafficked articles at the ones on more esoteric subjects & discovering that they're not as good. (I'm encountering that, & fixing those I can.) As for the problem of "a crushing bureaucracy", I figure that's just another way of saying "there are a lot of hostile editors on Wikipedia who revert edits". Which is true, & sometimes they're right in reverting the edit. And every editor encounters them. And lastly, I bet if there was a sweeping de-sysopping & re-authorizing of Admins, assuming that no vandals, PR flacks or POV-pushers exploited the ensuing chaos (as Dougweller points out above), I bet Wikipedia would end up with less than half the Admins needed to perform the administrative chores that keep it running--which would leave things worse off. -- llywrch (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Why are deleted articles "oversighted"?

I understand that some article are genuinely oversighted. By why are other deleted article not available for inspection as a historic record, and whose content could be incorporated elsewhere, including a record of user contributions and discussion. --Iantresman (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PERENNIAL#Deleted_pages_should_be_visible. --cyclopia^speak! 16:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, very useful. --Iantresman (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Block Vandals After 3 Warnings, Not 4

Currently, vandals must be given 4 warnings before they can be blocked from editing. However, I feel it would be much more effective to block them after 3 warnings. After being warned 3 times, a vandal making a 4th edit will be doing it fully aware that they are causing disruption and I don't see how a 4th warning should be needed. Users edit warring are blocked after 1 warning and 3 reverts - why can't we make it similar for vandals (whose effects are arguably worse than edit wars). I would propose we do this by replacing the level 2 warning with level 3 and the current level 3 with level 4. That way, users still receive a gentle warning the first time they vandalize and are still warned twice that they will be blocked if they continue. However, it will make it easier to remove editors who only want to vandalize the site. Oddbodz - (Talk) (Contribs) 20:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

4 warnings then block is not actually a rule, more of a general guideline with the 3rd being stern and the 4th being "this is your last warning". But there is nothing to stop a vandal being blocked (or reported to AIV) after 3, 2, 1 or even no warnings. Sometimes a vandal is clearly not here for any other purpose, so there is no reason to mess about waiting for them to be warned 4 times.--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not a "MUST" it is guideline. Sometimes they get blocked after one warning, sometimes they never get blocked. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 20:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

As per the others, there's no such requirement that vandals receive four warnings before being blocked. FWIW, my understanding of the current warning system is 1- Good Faith, 2 - No Faith, 3- Bad Faith, 4- Bad Faith/Final. I'm quite content to make my first warning a 3 if it's unambiguous vandalism. DonIago (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Block them after a single warning. Leaky Caldron 20:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as an abusive admin I would say you've a bit overcautious there Leaky, I've often blocked before they make an edit, just in case--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

user with older accounts with prior misconducts. How do we know?

1. Recently I posed in wp:ae#Pluto2012 concerning user:Pluto2012 conduct. Had I known that one of his previous accounts* was probably blocked**, I could have replied positively for the question of his prior conduct problems. Is there a method to know a user prior misconducts under his other accounts?
2. An administrator user:Zero0000 wrote: There are valid reasons for suppressing the earlier names of that user which you don't know about. I will block you if you expose that again. It reminds me the Stalin era. Is it true?

1*The user:Pluto2012 old names are user:Ceedjee, user:Noisetier, and more.

2**see [6] , [7]. Ykantor (talk)

Ok, you win. You are indeed a horrible editor. (Casual readers need not mind this allusion to a different conversation.) Neither of the abandoned accounts Noisetier and Ceedjee are blocked. Moreover, Pluto even admitted to being Ceedjee in his first edit. Now go away and read Wikipedia:Clean start. Zero^talk 15:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

if this is correct: "Prior to "retiring" and asking to be blocked, the user was warned he needs to leave the topic area, or be blocked. If he wants to be unblocked he needs to request it, and agree to leave the topic area." than Pluto should not edit the Arab- Israeli conflict articles. So why he is editing (and cheating etc.) those articles? ???? Ykantor (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)