Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss 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

Proposal regarding Article Rescue Squad

{Moved from AN/I by Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC))
Note: A request for comment has been placed to receive community input. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

An issue with an individual editor is better resoved by dealing with that editor and not taking an entire project to task. However, perception IS everything, and as much as there has been some really good work performed by its members in actually improving articles, the ARS refrained from setting up a hierarchy to oversee itself or guide its members. Lacking guidence, we thus have repeated ANIs about over-active members and MFDs about templates and their usage.

But "perception" IS definitely addressable. As the editors who were part of its original inception and design have gone on to other pursuits, it seems that NA1K has single-handedly and in good faith tried to tweak the project page for many months.[1] And while I have avoided editing the project page, I think by being a bit bold and making the project page itself more formal and neutral will be of help in underscoring to its members that they should be proactive in improvements.

I dislike suggesting the setting up a hierarchy, but ARS essentially lacks guidence. I think serious consideration should be given toward there being at ARS, just as with other projects, coordinators who help set a moderate and constructive tone. See Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Proposal for ARS Project page redesign. I request and will respect input toward my proposal, but feel a bit of personal boldness in setting a more sturctured and moderate ARS will be of value to continued improvement of the encyclopedia. Opinions? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Change the name. Perception is an issue, but "rescue" creates a certain mentality. How about Article Improvement Team? That said, there seems to be genuine concern above that more than one member seems to be simply going to articles and saying keep without improving the article or by making trivial improvements that don't address the issues. Despite the utopian view of AfD that we like to pretend to have, most admins do seem to just do a head count and 3 or 4 people could sway a lot of AfDs like that.--Crossmr (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A name change is something I had been myself considering. Revamping the ARS will need to entail the creation of a hierarchy (ouch!) of those willing to accept the responsibility of leading through example. Won't happen overnight, no... but definitely do-able, and well worth the effort.

I disagree that improper closes are performed by "most admins"... as an improper close is a matter for WP:DRV, and any admin who repeatedly closes AFDs improperly has their edits under close scrutiny and placed their admin tools at risk. Remember, WP:ANI is not only for non-admin-related issues... admins can be brought to task here just as can any other editor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

ARS members do a lot of good and the ARS is a good thing in itself. The point at which group needed co-ordination, or at that very least a plan to get things back on track has been, gone and disappeared from the rear-view mirror. At times in the past the group's message board has looked like an open house for those with a grievance due to some deletion process or another to come and have a whinge. Sometimes a romanticized view is presented of the ARS being a small group of battered soldiers huddling in a trench, valiantly guarding WP's content against a huge army of 'deletionists' who would tear it to ribbons. See comments on the rescue tag's deletion discussion for a couple of examples. It's not that the ARS necessarily encourages or even shares these views, but these are voices which shout loud and this paranoid and hostile vision is presented to potential members of the squadron. It isn't helped by the Squadron's underselling of itself, even in the limited area of my own interest I see numerous editors who would be of benefit to the ARS and perform the same tasks Squadron members do, but aren't being invited to join. Having members who specialize in different subjects and who agree to watch them would take the weight off other members and (hopefully) reduce the feeling that everyone has to check everything or else we'll lose perfectly good content every day. Wikipedians with good access to sources would also be a boon, as they could be approached if more readily accessible sources are not available. New blood, efficient deletion patrol, less feeling of backs against the wall. It's always been doable but someone has to roll their sleeves up. I wish you all the best. Someoneanother 12:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying "it's just this one editor" but that just plain isn't true. First of all, I have repeatedly mentioned another editor, Dream, who similarly pushes an agenda blatantly and I notice you have repeatedly defended retaining the rambling anti-deletionist screed that is Dream's userpage. Second, one can look and see that North is far from the only editor who has used the ARS as a canvassing group for inclusionists. In fact, on the inclusionist wikiproject, one of the suggestions for how to help the cause is to join the Article Rescue Squadron and sends people directly to articles that have been tagged. That wasn't even placed by a member of ARS from what I can tell, it was just someone in the inclusionist project.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• The rescue template was never used for "canvassing" by myself. It was adding a ten-character template to an article, in accordance with instructions for use of the template as they existed. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear, this ANI began by you describing your interactions with one editor and his use of a rescue template, included your discussion of three keeps at an AFD that appeared to be drive-bys responding to the rescue tag, your concerns that their not following instruction on the ARS page gave their "per NA1k" keeps an appearance of a template being "canvassing", went on to impune an entire project of 400 members based upon your interactions with NA1K, used Dream Focus and his user page as an example of "inclusionist agenda-warrior behavior", and then based upon your opening statements, your summary suggested that "the only feasible way to stop this kind of activity without getting rid of the group altogether is to explicitly restrict anyone in this group from getting involved in AfDs and limiting them explicitly by policy to only editing the article itself when it is nominated for deletion."

I do not see a topic-ban preventing 400 editors from involving themselves in AFD discussions simply because they are members of a project wishing to improve content for the project, as particuarly useful nor as a method to improve Wikipedia. If you have issues with the behavior of one or two or three or four editors, mount ANIs or RFCs against them. But an blanket ban of an entire project based upon perceived issues with less than 2 percent of that project?? Massive overkill. Your desired outcome as stated in your opening, is to topic-ban 400 editors when perhaps 380 or 390 of them have never had dealings with you. Wrong queue.

My proposal as above was brought forth as a means to address perceived issues through education and guidence in a project lacking that guidence. If you do not think issues can be addressed through education and guidence, fine... and thank you for your underscoring your issues with a minority. But I am seeking input from editors who might feel as I do that your solution to topic-ban 400 editors is perhaps a bit of overkill. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, my suggestion was to serve as an alternative to disbanding the group altogether. The way you quote my comment about Dream's behavior is as telling as your past arguments against deleting Dream's userpage. I sincerely doubt anyone objective could look over the exhaustive rhetoric on Dream's page and not come away with the same impression I got. Both North and Dream have sought to entrench that agenda-warrior mentality explicitly in the group itself. You keep implying this is isolated, but it really isn't. North and Dream seem to be two of the editors most regularly involved in the wikiproject's activities. Quite a large number of those 400 editors are inactive, with most of the remainder being less active than North and Dream. Their actions are inevitable given this group's existence, the way it draws attention specifically to articles facing deletion, and its freedom to be involved in voting on AfDs.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: The link above with an abbreviation of my user name was essentially a simple copy/and paste of information that I didn't personally originally write, but performed some minor copy editing upon, from Meta.wikimedia.org. At the time I felt the information may have been helpful to a WikiProject. I'm personally neither an "inclusionist" or a "deletionist", or any other kind of "-ist"; I'm an editor and contributor. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not believe that a proposed topic ban of 400 editors could ever be considered a reasonable "alternative". And such a proposal would essentially disband the ARS project... in application if not in fact... as a project-wide ban preventing 400 editors from being able to offer their opinion (either good or bad) at AFD, simply because they were a member of any project, would act against policy by not allowing them to participate in the building of consensus... and would discourage membership in a project which ostensibly exists to improve the encyclopdia. We do not assume bad faith toward all 400 because of the actions of two.

Your repeatedly returning to two editors as if they were entirely representative of or responsible for the other 398, might be a reason to address those two if deemed neccessary, but never to punish 398 others. And with respects, your stating "Their actions are inevitable given this group's existence" is a strawman... as ANY editor, inclusionist or delitionist, will edit however they edit no matter what projects exist or not on Wikipedia and despite membership or not in those projects. We do not curse the sky because of a rainy day. My own hopefully more reasonable proposal seeks to address the problem of ARS lacking guidence without the collateral damage of punishing 398 other editors, active or no.

Back to my proposal... do you have input on how to revamp the ARS though education and guidence? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you presume the problem is isolated and fail to recognize it as symptomatic. Sure, the editors will continue to act as they please, but the nature of the project has always been to direct people to an article so that they may "rescue" it from deletion. As long as the project exists with that tag and members are able to comment on tagged AfDs, it will continue to be used as a canvassing tool for inclusionists. You keep touting the idea of the WikiProject and ignoring the reality. It clearly facilitates activities that are contrary to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia in a uniquely disruptive manner. Honestly, I think there is no real way to revamp the group that does not involve severe policing. Saying "you can't tag the article" will be meaningless because it is likely someone else will tag it instead. By suggesting it is a problem with this or that editor and they should be dealt with individually you are essentially suggesting that your fellow admins play a game of whack-a-mole rather than going to the source of the problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

As any tag can be misused by any editor, it becomes a matter of education. We do not sanction 400 for the actions of 2 or 3. Period. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want an idea, I think one good step would be to eliminate the tag and bar anyone for promoting a specific article for rescue. They can look at the list of all AfDs and judge for themselves if something is notable then act accordingly.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The template and its use is being discussed elsewhere. Seeking improvement of ANY weak article is fully encouraged by the guidelines set for improving this encyclopedia. As for expecting editors to rumage through hundreds or thousands of AFDs, sure.. thay may do so... but as MANY completely unsavable articles are sent to AFD, this tag it is to be used only those whose clock is ticking at AFD, and is to be placed only when an editor feels in good faith that it actually might be savable before that clock ticks to zero. Proper use is a mater of education. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Another idea would be to introduce a delsort that would specifically note where an article's notability is being contested by nominating editor so members don't get involved in WP:NOT disputes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The delsort option is a quite decent idea... and is already among my own suggestions for revamping, guidence, and education as offered at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Rename and revamp the project Many if not most ARS members do good work improving articles. The problems arising here stem from the perception that ARS tagging of articles results in votestacking at AfD, so why not change the project's focus to article improvement generally, rather than specifically fighting for inclusionism at AfD?

• Rename ARS as "Article Improvement Squadron" or something similar.
• Prominantly link the project page to Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs and Wikipedia:Reward board.
• Change the much-discussed {{Rescue}} tag to a request for project members to improve the article (rather than "save" it from AfD), move it to the article talkpage as a standard Wikiproject template, and don't limit it to articles which are up for deletion.

Implementing these three changes would encourage the editors at ARS to continue their work without fostering the battleground mentality that seems to be poisoning the well. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support revamping the project I'm not sure a rename will help, but I'm not opposed to it. Here are some ideas I really do support though:
  • I like the idea above about prominantly linking to project improvement pages. Perhaps even sorting by topic so ARS members who have particular interests can find decaying topics easier.
  • Perhaps the creation of a "Someone is considering nominating this topic for deletion" that would go on the article's talk page instead of a "rescue" template. I would use such a tag and give it about a week before nominating something for deletion. This would give ARS sufficient time to improve an article before it was nominated.
  • Also another template option, include a |reason= option in the {{rescue}} template so ARS members can explain exactly what (other) improvements need to be made to an article by other ARS members (or regular editors)
  • Some kind of project-mentoring program for editors who show signs of competence issues who misuse the tags, use poor sources, or who only !vote keep in AFDs
  • Some kind of hierarchy to coordinate all of this effort and standardize responses to calls for help and who can accept criticism from outside of the project
  • Revamp the project's main page. I'm not opposed to this section about avoiding article deletion, but reasons like "It can be discouraging for an editor to have their article deleted" and "t can be frustrating for a reader to come to Wikipedia for information" are not in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines.
  • I like your hall of fame page, but what would really be nice is to see "rescued" articles reaching GA or FA status.
  • A link to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources added to your instructions
  • Effort by the project to address concerns by outside of the project. Acceptance that the concerns are valid even if they are misconceptions. Effort shown to improve the image of the project.
• I hope some of these suggestions would be taken into consideration. I'm not opposed to the entire project, I'm frustrated by the mentality and attitude of some of the members. Honestly, I feel like we're in a military tribunal, Jack Nicholson is on the stand (a leading member of the ARS) and Tom Cruise wants to know the truth about whether ARS sees Wikipedia as a battlefield. It's almost as if some ARS members revel in the fact that it feels like a battlefield but won't admit to it because they know it's wrong. I feel like one of them is just itching to say "You can't handle the truth!!!" Anyway, that's how I feel, take it or leave it.--v/r - TP 14:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is a need for a rescue template at all. Having something to categorize articles in need of verification on the subject's notability would seem to best. There is a BLP rescue project that particularly focuses on referencing BLPs whether they are facing deletion or not so I think that kind of model would be good. Also, I think the group should specifically mention deletion as a possible action with an article if all efforts to establish notability have been exhausted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You have offered your template opinion repeatedly. The template and how proper educaton can improve its utility is being discussed elsewhere. THIS discussion is about improving a project that seeks to serve the encyclopedia so it may serve better, and not about tacitly disbanding that project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Lots of articles that need improvement are fairly safe from deletion, so I don't think that a name change is appropriate. Also lots of people improve articles, including people who rarely touch articles at risk of deletion. But there will always be a need to educate newish editors that rescuing articles from deletion is best done by actually improving them. I'm not volunteering for the task, but would be delighted to see someone step into that particular breach. I think the Article Rescue Squadron newsletter was useful in that and would welcome its return. ϢereSpielChequers 17:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• ARS has always been an area that naturally draws in the most extreme inclusionists along with the more numerous well meaning users who actually improve articles. The extremists give the whole project a bad name, and nobody involved ever seems to call them out on it, so I agree that co-ordination would be a good thing. We've all seen the tactics used, ref bombing an article with every mention ever in any print medium no matter how trivial, excessive badgering of other AFD participants, carbon-copy !votes, the same two or three ARS members voting "keep" in practically every single deletion discussion, the rescue tag being applied to hopelessly non-notable subjects, etc. All this leads to the perception of a badly broken wikiproject that needs a serious overhaul. I like a lot of the ideas expressed above, it's a start anywhay. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• I personally have never had a problem with ARS. But I see conflicts with the project coming up so many times at ANI and elsewhere, more than any other Wikiproject that I'm aware of, that a change might be a good thing. I think the proposed changes above might be a good idea. -- Atama頭 17:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• My thoughts on the matter are at User talk:Jclemens#Content Rehabilitation Project. As someone who's observed the issues for three years, I've got a pretty clear vision of how to do the work without the problems that have led us to this point--primarily by incorporating the criticisms of ARS detractors. Jclemens (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• It looks to me like there are a handful of editors using rescue tags to attract keep votes or responding to them in that way, rather than a fundamental problem with the project. 'Rescuing' articles at AfD will always be necessary while we have a significant number of editors who judge subjects as 'non-notable' purely on the state of the article, with little or no effort to research the subject more widely, some of whom seem to get very annoyed when others prevent the article from getting deleted, even when it becomes clear that it should be kept. Rescuing should involve finding policy/guideline-based arguments for keeping, not just voting. Both extremes need to be dealt with, and it's unfortunate that poor AfD nominations rarely seem to result in action against the editors responsible. Personally, I take no notice of rescue tags as as I look over all AfDs every day anyway, and make my own mind up whether an article can be (and is worth) rescuing, and often those with rescue tags on are not. Looking over the ARS project page, it still looks fine to me in what it says, so if it comes down to a few editors who are problematic, better to deal with those editors.--Michig (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• One practical measure that may address the concerns would be to add a template in AfD's where the article has been 'rescue' tagged to make it clear that some editors may have contributed to the discussion in response to the rescue tag, and to prompt the closer to pay particular attention to the arguments put forward rather than the number of editors favouring keep/delete. Perhaps such AfDs should also be deemed unsuitable for non-admin closure. --Michig (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Moot now that the Rescue template has been deleted.--Michig (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• The easiest way to restore life to this project is to shift focus away from voting at AfD's and restore focus to improving articles. There are many ARS members (but certainly not all) who are very active at contributing AfD votes, but not very active at improving articles. In my opinion, ARS members should strongly refrain from voting in AfD's that have been rescue tagged (although, with rescue tagging no longer possible, it's uncertain what that actually means anymore). They should improve the article (and perhaps post a note at the AfD that they have done so), and let those improvements speak for themselves. Awhile ago, I created two proposals (1 2) for reforming the ARS, and while I freely admit that they are far from perfect, they might at least serve as a jumping off point. —SW— ^confabulate 15:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Focus should be on demonstrating that articles should be kept when that is appropriate. This can either be through improving the article sufficiently or by demonstrating in the AfD discussion that the article should be kept, with reference to notability guidelines. AfD is not for cleanup, taking articles to AfD to get them cleaned up is disruptive, and no editor should feel that they have to do major work on an article before pointing out the subject's notability in an AfD discussion.--Michig (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know the ARS from a hole in the ground or get involved in the inclusionist/deletionist stuff, but one course of action seems fairly obvious. Those who think the ARS should change how they go about their business should join the project in sufficient numbers that they can move the project in a better direction. These projects are open to everyone, right? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Have any members of the WikiProject Article rescue squadron actually been notified about this proposal? I added a request for comment to this discussion, and added a notification to the ARS talk page. I haven't notified anyone personally about this proposal, though. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• It is inappropriate for people here to be trying to change what happens at ARS from the outside. Instead, as suggested by Short Brigade Harvester Boris people should be joining the squadron and helping to improve articles or presenting ideas about template wording to project members at the project pages. And if a team of people votes to keep articles for no reason, then administrators can ignore them due to weak reasoning. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

For me, there is a fairly simple solution, though perhaps this is the wrong venue: deletion decisions must be made by what an article currently says. That is, my main anger at the ARS (although, as noted above, it's not necessarily all of them) is their act of going to an AfD tagged article, especially those tagged for notability concerns, finding some additional references, and posting them on the AfD. Then they fall back on the idea that notability is judged based on what is theoretically available, not what is currently in the article. In other words, they haven't done anything to actually improve the article whatsoever. Then, presumably the AfD is closed as "keep", the AfD itself is closed and hidden away. Readers don't get a better article. Normal editors may be completely unaware that a simple solution to the article's current problem exists. And on the AfD itself, it always felt like the ARS (though here I specifically thinking of Dream Focus) where taunting other editors and admins, in that Dream Focus literally refused to add information to the articles directly. Thus, all that would need to be done is for the admin to be allowed to decide based upon the state of the article at the time the decision is being closed. Any article with potential sources not currently in the article could be userified into the user who found the sources. And, when you think about it, this is no different than real life--you can't expect a publisher to publish the book you "think" you could write--they're going to make their decision based primarily on the draft you've already written. In short, I guess what I'm saying is that if ARS were essentially forced to actually rescue the article (because just commenting at the AfD won't be enough anymore), then their existence would be unproblematic. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well said, I have seen the exact scenario you describe play out dozens of times. The more extreme ARS activists see AFD as a battle to be won and often seem to care very little about actually improving articles. That is the heart of the problem here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the ways of rescuing articles is by opposing inappropriate deletion attempts, those based on ignorance or defiance of policy. Any article can always be improved, but there are about 25% of the articles proposed for AfD that are either satisfactory enough as they stand , and for which the arguments for deletion need only be refuted, or suitable for some remedy other than deletion to be followed. (No disagreement though that about 25% of the articles there need improvement if they are to be kept, 25% need such drastic improvement that they are very unlikely to get if they are to be kept at all, and another 25% are inherently unkeepable no matter what is said or done--estimates of the proportions may vary, but all three classes do exist). DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

IMO, it is generally a better idea to put the sources on the AfD, not the article.  For one thing, you can't assume that a closing admin will notice that the article has had a reference added.  Second, your work will survive on the AfD even if the article is deleted.  Third, I've known people that have removed references added to an article that help to establish notability.  Since establishing notability does not require articles to be improved, I suspect that it has always been an incorrect idea to put a rescue template on an article nominated for lack of notability.  Improving an article during an AfD has another negative consequence, VIPs that see articles being improved because they have been nominated might think, well, I guess AfD nominations are a good thing, they are a way to improve articles.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If you do that, people will object also, that you haven't fixed the actual article. I normally put the sources I find in both, though its quicker adding them to the AfD initially. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Do agree that we have a problem with bad AfD nominations?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is exactly the problem! You're acting like the goal is to "save" the article. What the heck is the point of saving the article only to have it be in the same state, with no demonstration of notability? How does that serve the reader? I don't mind the idea of also adding the info to the AfD, though often a "I just added 3 sources, all of which meet WP:RS and discuss the article in detail, so this appears to pass WP:GNG now" will likely suffice. This is the exact problem I want to stop: this notion that the goal of "rescuing" an article means to save it from deletion, when the goal of everything we do on Wikipedia should be to directly or indirectly improve articles (or the processes needed to work on those articles). And why shouldn't AfD be for improving articles? If I do a WP:BEFORE check, and, to the best of my ability, find no sources, and then nom for deletion...if somebody who searches better, or who has access to more sources than me, or knows a second language finds sources, then I'm happy. The process worked exactly as its supposed to. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Its a bit late at night to follow everything there, but any AfD nomination that does not result in a deletion is an inefficient process.  By definition, AfD does not exist to improve articles.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not inefficient if no other process up until that point succeeded in solving the problem. And you concern isn't really relevant anyway, because no process in the real world produces 100% successful results. Any process involving human judgment is certain to encounter cases where reasonable people, looking at the same data under the same rules have different interpretations. And finally, I can't think of anything less efficient than someone adding information only to an Afd and not to the article--now you did all that work and the encyclopedia isn't any better. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, the attitude you have expressed just above must have been meant ironically, for it is the exact opposite of WP:Deletion policy. Deletion is the last resort, for those articles that cannot be improved or otherwise dealt with. If you mean it serious, this expresses the reason why the ARS was formed and was needed; people would rather delete than allow for improvement, Improvement can occur any time: the criterion for deletion is unsourceable, not unsourced, and sourcing or other improvements can occur any later time, as long as the AfD makes it clear that sourcing or improvement is possible. If serious, you're advocating we remove what we cannot immediately fix. Fixing an article cannot be done with automated tools, and takes hours of work and some serious thought. Deleting takes a few seconds, can be done with automated tools, and takes neither work nor thinking.No wonder some people prefer deletion. There is only one problem: deletion of what can be fixed does not improve the encyclopedia. As essentially everything does need some fixing, it rather tends to destroy it. It's a form of very primitive triage: either cure by immediate action, or kill it. Who would voluntarily go into action with a army that eliminated the wounded? -- and the people who desert Wikipedia when their article is challenged are realistic in understanding that--if such attitudes prevail. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, no irony intended. This is where I fundamentally disagree, and I am fairly certain it comes from the fact that I'm a fairly "new" member of Wikipedia--that is, I started within the last 2 years. For me, when I look at Wikipedia, I look at it as a work that already has millions of articles. I look at it as a work in progress, but not as one in its infancy--that means that we need to be looking far more towards pruning than towards unchecked expansion (although this varies by area--I freely admit we need some serious expanding in those areas disadvantaged by systemic bias). Someone once said that the internet already contains the majority of the information collected on Wikipedia. Our value is that we sort and prioritize that information in a concise form while providing the necessary references for those who need more details. In that sense, I honestly believe that our value is decreased by every single article...heck, every single piece of information that we have that is not adequately verified (not verifiable). This is what makes me an immediatist. Our value is also decreased by every single article we have that's verified but that doesn't meet some sort of minimum standard for "importance" (what we call "notability"). I don't want us to be a place that, for example, collects all of the miniscule details about television shows that their fan-made wikis contain. I don't want us to have an article on every numbered extra-terrestrial rock. I want us to be, for lack of a better word, an encyclopedia. And while I no longer see myself that way, this is why some people would probably call me a deletionist. Instead, I would call myself what I am, by title: an editor. Editors edit. Editing is a combination of fixing what can be fixed now, and cutting that which can't be fixed now (leaving open the possibility that the next iteration of the publishing cycle can fix it). Look, all I'm really trying to say about the Afd process is this: if you have information that can improve an article, for the heaven's sake, fix it. Don't put it on a soon-to-be-ignored page in the Wikipedia namespace. And what I'm trying to say about the ARS is this: I am absolutely in love with the idea of an organized WikiProject whose goal is to repair articles that are currently in a state where deletion is a reasonable option (just like I love a Guild whose goal is to handle all of the copy-editing that many people don't like or can't do, and I like a team that helps exchange resources that are behind paywalls). I am absolutely opposed to the existence of a WikiProject that only cares about the number of articles not deleted, and doesn't seem (at least for some members) to give a damn about the articles themselves. Maybe I'm being unfair, and only remembering interactions with the more extreme members. If so, maybe the solution is as stated above: it's not that the ARS needs outside sanctioning, its that they need to do a better job of sanctioning their own members. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have made a vague proposal at WT:N related to my earlier suggestion that we stop making AfD decisions based on what can be verified and start making them based on what is verified in the article. As it's a continuation of this discussion, and I've received both positive and negative responses here, I believe that notifying this discussion is acceptable and not violating WP:CANVAS. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC) We have deletionists and inclusionists who joined the project at various stages of its development, I doubt if the editors who started in the last two years are generally more deletionist than others. Though the very new probably include a higher proportion of firebrands for all conceivable wiki philosophies. I have no qualms having people here who would like to change policy - whether it is moving from verifiable to verified or various other proposals I've seen to make it easier or harder to delete articles. But we do have a problem when some people behave as if their favoured policy change had actually happened. Whether we move to Pure Wiki deletion or we make "unsourced" a speedy deletion category it is important that we do so in a consistent clear and measured way; If some people operate a more deletionist policy than we have published then you can guarantee that a proportion of our contributors will be bitten.

As for the point about sources being quoted in an AFD and not then put into an article, surely the onus should be on the nominator? If you propose an article for deletion on grounds of notability you are basically saying "hi, I've not been able to find sources for this" If the response is along the lines of "Here is the twelfth hit from Google, she won xxxxxxx" then isn't it rather remiss of the nominator not to make sure that goes in the article? ϢereSpielChequers 16:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Except I'm not going to add a source to an article in a language I can't read, or that I can't access because it's behind a paywall. I have no problem with someone else adding such sources, and will almost always WP:AGF that the sources say what the person claims they say, but I'm not going to take responsibility for the edit myself. Also, and this was particularly a problem for DF, sometimes the person just says, "I found these five sources, (list), and they seem to be enough to meet WP:GNG. Well, I shouldn't now have to go through all of the sources, figure out what information is useful in them, and essentially rewrite the article. If it's simple, sure, I can add a source, but my experience is that often it is not. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

For people at both sides who like me were following this proposal, you may be interested in viewing the deletion review for the Rescue tag which is ongoing. Diego (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Further Proposal

I have been giving some thought to how to address what is seen by the ARS as the unacceptable loss of editors work by deletion, I have a proposal to make. It is rather a fundamental one, but I think just tinkering at the edges here probably is not going to be enough.

Lets change AfD procedure, for those articles that are nominated on grounds of notability, where there is consensus that the article meets our inclusion criteria, we obviously keep, for the rest, lets only delete outright those articles that have unanimous (or near unanimous) support for deletion for the articles in the middle (currently closed as either no consensus or consensus to delete with good faith claims of notability) move to a development name space, where the article can be worked on before hopefully eventual return to main space. The main space page vacated by the move could then have a soft redirect with a message along the lines of "We are currently working on an article for this subject, please help us to created it at ......". The development name space would have to procedures to make sure that articles were not abandoned forever, and the issue of noindex would need to be considered.

I am happy to add more details to my proposal if others feel that this could be a workable solution. Comment please Mtking ^(edits) 06:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We have the WP:Article Incubator. The problem is, that's practically a graveyard. But if we did start sending more articles there, I would not support a soft redirect. We're a work in progress, but if consensus is in favor of deleting something, it should be deleted, not just hidden behind one extra click. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be very unwilling to add yet additional complexity to the procedures. As it is , people find it confusing (I don't, but I've been a regular there for a long time now). This very well intentioned proposal will result in bad results in every possible direction. For articles that must be deleted, except for the obvious which might better have gone as WP:PROD, near-unanimous support for deletion tends to reflect not the quality of the article, but the lack of interest. Nor, except for a few is there generally unanimous support for keeping, unless it was a remarkably ill-considered nomination. This would throw most of the material from AfD straight into limbo, from which it would not emerge. It would certainly make it possible for a small group of dedicated people, like some think the ARS to be, and some think the less-formally-organizeddeletion nominators to be, to both remove most articles from mainspace, and keep most articles from being deleted.

The better solution, and one which people of almost all inclinations have supported, is to make full use of the entire range of alternatives to deletion that already exist. I agree with Qwyrxian that the last thing we need is soft redirects to unsatisfactory articles. Better to have hard redirects, to supportable merged content. DGG ( talk ) 15:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Count me as another supporter of middle ground between keep and delete. For AFDs that don't end in consensus, the best way to preserve the content (and the search term) is often a merge to a larger topic. One of the most effective ways that ARS could rescue articles and avoid the canvassing issue completely is to become an "article adoption squad", where editors who have a reasonable and good faith belief that an article can be improved can adopt an article at AFD into their user space, and either work on it themselves or find an editor or WikiProject with expertise on that topic to do something about it. The metaphor of ARS as an adoption agency would be highly compatible with the community aspect of Wikipedia, and would bring a lot more light than heat to the deletion process. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of some sort of article incubator. Articles belong in Mainspace, that's where they will get collaborative editing, categorisation and deorphaning. I know we allow people to have drafts in userspace, but IMHO it is an unsatisfactory can of worms that causes unnecessary risk and overhead. I agree that not everything in mainspace is yet fit to be "published" and I'd like to see unpatrolled articles made noindex, that along with a flagged revisions system such as on DE wiki and various other language versions of Wikipedia would give us a step change in quality. The important thing with new Article Rescue Squadron members is to teach them how best to rescue articles, and when an article is beyond rescue. ϢereSpielChequers 16:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DGG's point about preferring merges to incubation makes a lot of sense to me, too. I wonder if we would be going too far down the path of making admins "super-voters" if we allowed them to call a mix of "keep" and "delete" comments as a "merge". Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit I have not been active at AfD much, but before I became an admin, keep with delete could be closed as a merge if it was discussed. A merge accurately reflects the opinion to not have the article and the opinion to keep the material. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I always think anything is preferable to "no consensus". Without consensus we pretty much enable the most extreme parts of either faction to keep doing what they're doing. If there's a three way split between keep/delete/merge, just merging it is the best way to avoid the crap shoot of hard-keep vs. hard-delete based on who notices the AFD next time. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"no consensus" does have a use: many things that cannot be settled ,now, but may be settled at some time in the near future-- there are times when a discussion has gotten to a stalemate, and the best thing to do is nbot to continue it with the present accumulated baggage, but to wait a month or two, and start over. The hope is usually either that some of the less thoughtful people will have lost interest, or that additional evidence will have been found--sometimes more references, sometime the failure to find continued public concern. What we seem never have tried is closing as no present consensus, to be relisted in 3 months" or the like. Perhaps on the basis of IAR, I may give it a try--it seems especially useful when the question is NOT NEWS. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Count me in to support a policy for merging content from AfDs into related articles. This should be the default procedure to preserve content that is sourced by reliable sources but not enough to establish notability. Is there a Wikiproject for Mergetionists? Diego (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding merging, WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect was run a year ago. After a quick skim, I don't see any discussion on whether compromise (keep + delete → merge) closes are preferred to no consensus. The question comes up at DRV occasionally. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Future "consensus" access blackouts

I remain extremely disappointed with the way this "blackout" was conducted. As such, I would like to propose a new policy.

The policy will clearly lay out the procedure involved in implementing a temporary (or permanent, I suppose) access blackout on the English Wikipedia. It should require at least two week's notice (that is, two weeks prior to the action date), with the proposed action and action date clearly specified in the site-wide notice. Taking action should require not just a supermajority of interested parties, but ideally a majority of "active" editors (determined by some metric) (minus those who explicitly abstain).

Having a consensus policy in place will help prevent the travesty that occurred yesterday from happening again.

Thoughts?

-- Powers ^T 14:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion started a month ago. Not just two weeks ago in the end of December, but earlier in December. There were threads at different Village Pump, on ANI, and on the pages of dozens of the most active editors on this site (indeed, if you wanted to send a message to Jimbo Wales about anything other than the blackout, it was drowned out in other discussion). Those for outnumbered those against by over a 4 to 1 ratio. Getting votes from everyone on the site is such a logistical nightmare that it is for all intents and purposes impossible, and would make such future actions impossible. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

While that is all true, there is merit in defining a process by which we might consider such an act again. For one, the necessity of a site notice and adequate time when the (binding) RFC comes up. Not only that, but even though I supported this blackout, there is also merit in deciding if this is something we ever want to do again. A stunt like this does make a big splash the first time, but it loses effect each successive time it is done. The point at which the cost of such an action outweighs the value could be after just one such blackout. Resolute 14:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of this happened in non-standard placed like Jimbo Wales' user talk page or on Foundation-l and Wikipedia-l. A great many of us simply don't watch those discussion forums as project-wide changes will usually (but in this case obviously not) get more of a chance to get vetted and discussed prior to the action taking place. In short, it is very disingenuous to suggest that this had "months" of discussion and is spreading half-truths and forgetting that the "opposition" to this action was not very well organized. More to the point, the opposition to this action did not really have the opportunity to present its case and was casually dismissed when it shouldn't have been so. In a great many ways, there was forum shopping and other problems with the way it was presented, and I don't think the "voting" was necessarily conducted in a fair manner. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As noted, discussion about a possible blackout was stated. However, the time for implementation was made short when Reddit and other sites announced their blackouts on the 18th only the week or so before; at that point, if WP was to blackout a decision had to be arrived at quickly. Given that SOPA/PIPA (or any similar legislation elsewhere) could be introduced with almost no notice, we have to consider that we may need spur-of-the-moment votes to initiate action. That doesn't mean that there can't be discussion as to what mechanisms en.wiki may employ in the future as an act of protest against legislation impacting open information exchange and how to get rapid community consensus on the matters as a general guideline/policy. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Everything I saw about the discussion was just "there is discussion going on", and gave no indication that there was a binding vote being held that would prohibit access to the encyclopedia for a full day. There's a huge difference. One is a political action that one may or may not care about; the other is a nuclear option that every user of the site would care about. Powers ^T 15:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Powers that the action was both unfortunate and poorly implemented. The message relayed with the blackout was also very disappointing, indicating that all Wikipedians backed this action and share the same political views, which is far from the truth, as well as presenting only one side of the story. Like it not, Wikipedia has now positioned itself as a political tool, or perhaps more specifically an American political tool, which entirely alters its previous position and has significantly damaged its credibility as an independent source of information.

Now, evidently I get around with my head in the sand though, because despite visiting/editing the site almost every day, the first I heard about all this was when the blackout banner went up the day before it happened. Admittedly I don't spend my time frequenting the Village Pump, ANIs, or stalking "the pages of dozens of the most active editors" - seems I have enough more interesting things to do, and enough real life politics and drama to deal with without seeking out more on Wikipedia. However, do you want to contact editors, in particular active editors about such a monumental decision? Well seems to me there's this thing called a "user talkpage" that would tend to get any active editor's notice within a day or two. Automate a message to all users informing of the mooted action and !vote being undertaken and let them have a say; whether their 'say' is simply ignored is another matter, but anyway...

And we may hope this type of action doesn't now occur on a regular basis every time some fifteen year old Admin in Idaho or faceless employee of the Wikimedia Foundation gets their knickers in a knot over a bill going to Congress, but I fear we've started on a slippery slope. So while the damage that has been effected can't be undone, a binding policy may well be a good thing to at least try to limit future damage to Wikipedia. Oh, and just for the record, before people want to start an ad hominem attack, I may well be opposed to the bills in question, but frankly mine or anyone else's political views shouldn't matter a damn in terms of Wikipedia, and it's not uswiki's job to take political stances on my behalf, whether I support that viewpoint or not. If we wish to take political action there are plenty of other appropriate forums in which to do it; Wikipedia didn't used to be one of them. --jjron (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Guys, whether you noticed the site-wide messages about this or not, there was a discussion that over 800 users had no trouble finding andparticipated in, a record for WP. The vast majority supported this move. It's unlikely to happen again anytime soon, but it did happen, and now it's over and there nothing to be done about that and nothing to be gained by complaining about it now. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Surely a few months ago we all would have thought that it was "unlikely" to happen the first time, but it did. And the notice was far too short. I mean, we have a months-long run-up to ArbCom elections, with a secure polling system, outside administrators as adjudication, and publicity out the wazoo. But for a discussion on shutting down the entire site (for a day, granted), all we get is a single notice that some sort of action is being discussed? And a binding straw poll that was subject to some hysteria created by the immediacy of the event? So you're wrong that there's nothing to be gained by complaining; if we can implement a better procedure, then the next time the question of taking this sort of action arises, we can provide everyone with better notice, avoid making the WMF tech team work overtime, and be more confident that the action is taken with true consensus and not just a mob of a majority. Powers ^T 01:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • If you think "majority rules" here on Wikipedia, I would strongly recommend that you re-read WP:Consensus and WP:Vote. Consensus was certainly not achieved, nor was there even an attempt to arrive at a consensus. It was strictly tyranny of the majority through mob rule.... something that the consensus process of Wikipedia has supposedly been set up to avoid. This is also an anti-sock puppet policy in terms of Consensus as avoiding vote counting helps to discourage sock puppets on the basis that ballot stuffing can be avoided as it doesn't matter. More to the point, those "800 users" who all voted for the blackout could have just as easily been eight users with 100 sock puppet accounts each. Convince me that wasn't the case, even though I'm not necessarily accusing all of them or even any of them of sock puppetry. I certainly saw no attempt to cull potential puppets, and other aspects of trying to genuinely come up with consensus was not even tried. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The onus would be on you to make a valid accusation of socking, not on others to "convince" you that it wasn't the case. In a situation like this, consensus effectively *is* what the majority wants; there's no policy in place regarding blackouts. And honestly, bothering to gauge the community's voice was kind of the WMF. They didn't **have** to ask us at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

      Considering the extremely short time frame that happened on this "vote" and the fact that there was no consideration to even review if there had been sock puppets or other kinds of games being played, I would have to assert that it is likely that there was at least some sock puppetry going on.... particularly with such a politically charged issue and the number of people being involved. I ran a similar "vote" for the creation of Wikiversity, as well as was involved with the creation of Wikinews on Meta, and both had significant problems with sock puppets with specific rules in the voting process that were designed specifically to cull out those kind of sockpuppet account (including the equivalent of check-user review of nearly every account voting). I can't believe that somehow this was somehow a much "cleaner" vote given the circumstances. So no, this isn't a wild accusation, I'm speaking from experience and knowing first hand what happens when votes like this are taken. As for the WMF.... they stated in the past they wouldn't get involved in project issues at all, so they are even changing their mind on that basic foundational pillar of project governance. As a matter of fact, based upon previous formal policy pronouncements and even promises made in a formal manner to donors, this is even a change in policy on the part of the WMF. It is the policy of the WMF to only support the "community" wishes, especially on what happens to content on the projects. That is also one of the reasons why board members are elected by the community. Please, don't get me started on the "ex-officio" members of the WMF board of trustees unless you want another dozen paragraphs about my thoughts on the subject. There is no policy on blackouts because it wasn't ever supposed to happen in the first place and would have been laughed out as a ludicrous proposal in the past. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

      • An entire three trustees are elected by the community, and no, the WMF is not bound to support community wishes and has in the past denied proposed changes with a strong majority of the community (or, a strong majority of those who turned up) supporting them. Ironholds (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I'd stay away from pronouncements such as "unlikely to happen again anytime soon". If you read Jimbo's page, you'll see a thread on ACTA, with a statement by Jimbo "My point is to respond to this question with a cautious 'yes'" For clarification the question is about taking a stand not (yet) a proposed blackout, but one can hardly rule out the possibility of another proposed blackout in the not too distant future. It wouldn't hurt to think through now how we should address that, or some other call for a blackout. I guarantee that someone will think up some issue, and noticing the impact the recent blackout had, will propose that WP back the issue with a blackout. That issue might not have the broad support this one had, so we need a better mechanism to determine how to proceed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus that we need some sort of well-defined process in place for future drastic actions. I've started Wikipedia:Blackouts, but it's very bare-bones. Please edit mercilessly. Powers ^T 20:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least now more wikipedia editors probably have probably gained some vague sort of idea of what SOPA and PIPA are all about. Even so, the issues and implications are complex, and I guess I'm not the only one who feels the need initially to turn to informed advice from people like Jimmy who have carefully investigated potential threats to Wikipedia's freedom to disseminate verifiable information. So my first suggestion would be for the Foundation to provide wikipedians in advance with a concise, plain-English summary of the issues in question and of the perceived threats from the WP perspective, preferably accompanied by proposal/s for action around which to build consensus. The 'notice' would need to be easily digestible (without being simplistic, or dumbing down) so as to reach the widest base possible across the community. Then there's the small matter of consensus building within the community, and whether to use some sort of a ballot, as is currently being proposed at Wikipedia:Blackouts. Presumably, one way of obtaining a genuine community-wide vote would be by presenting all registered users (or 'active editors') with a survey 'screen' which one would have to dismiss by providing some sort of answer before one can start reading (or editing). In addition to allowing yes/no/(abstain) votes, I think it would be important to allow options such as "I don't the details, and would prefer to leave the decision to ... etc", "Dismiss for now, I'll vote later" and "Dismiss for good (I'm not interested)". IMO, such an approach should provide a more sensitive appreciation of community sentiment than a plain yes/no referendum style vote. Whether or not Wikipedia wants to get into the politics of majorities versus minorities within the community is another question. My 2 cents MistyMorn (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Small time frame before deletion starts again?

Please set aside deletionist, inclusionist, and all other similar viewpoints for this question: I have asked, and there is no policy regarding a frame of time that an article has before being proposed for deletion after it has already been through the process. There are opinions, etiquette guesses, and semi-guidelines...and it is a different answer when you ask a different person.

I think it is disruptive to end up with a "proposed for deletion" tag literally two weeks after an intense debate. I feel that another debate that soon couldn't possibly have different opinions than the first one, and it would be a pointless waste of people's time to hit the "battlefield again." I would hope that when there has been a contentious deletion discussion, with a remarkable amount of opinions and policy expressed, that a closer might have the right to assess the situation as needing a certain amount of time before it is up for deletion. It doesn't make any sense to me at all that anyone coould believe that notability, which turns out to be as subjective as it gets, could change drastically in a month or two. Other deletion reasons that are not subjective seem pretty drama-free...if it needs sourcing, verifiability, copyright dalliances, etc...those votes are clear and remedies either happen or don't.

I propose a time frame of two or three months, where an article is somehow protected from deletion tags (especially from users who seem to have deletion of an article as their only purpose here) when a previous deletion discussion has been closed and proclaimed no concensus. Obviously, after a certain amount of time, if there are strong believers that the article is not encyclopedic, anyone would be able to nominate it for deletion again citing appropriate policy and take it from there. If there was some kind of Policy in place for this situation, it could save everyone valuable time. Thoughts? Petersontinam (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want people to set aside "deletionist" and "inclusionist" viewpoints, you should probably remove the battlefield rhetoric from your own post. --Carnildo (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It was not written in battlefield rhetoric. The reason I wrote deletionist and inclusionist is because of reading 12 paragraphs about people discussing the Rescue Squad and how those terms seem to define the conversation. I was looking for opinions that would not look at deletion policy from either of those points of view. I wanted to point out that I thought it was a terrible waste of time to go through a deletion discussion very soon after it just happened. I used the word "battlefield" when I described a deletion discussion because when it is heated, it is 7 days of people debating hotly for their opinion. Frankly, I am new here and am already getting tired of every single word being twisted or ripped apart by someone who just likes to argue and cannot see the words for how they were written...like you just did! This is just not worth the time and frustration to dare put a suggestion forward to the experienced editors, because you will surely be told you are wrong within a second or two. I have a lot of care for my tone when I write...99% of the time...but take a look around you and tell me with a straight face that all these pages are filled with people taking care with their tones in discussion. You couldn't just add an opinion...you had to accuse me of "battleground rhetoric" without even reading carefully what I had put forward. You couldn't resist to take me down a notch. Well, that is the last straw. Why would anyone subject themselves to this day after day? You can all sit and argue over every little word, punctuation, "hidden" meanings, and tone until your heads fall off. If you thought what I suggested was stupid, you could have said it was stupid...instead of saying that I somehow worded it wrong. This is just too much. Oh and when you start to tell me to chill out, forget it. I'm already gone. Petersontinam (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) This is a perennial proposal, Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Numerical rules for deletion, rejected as instruction creep. Fast repeat nominations are not all that common, and for the ones where it is clearly done in bad faith, or completely against consensus they are usually close fairly quickly, for the rest, if it is true that a second debate will have the same result then nothing is lost, if not then clearly the second debate was necessary for consensus to be truly found--Jac16888 ^Talk 03:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The question of how long an interval should be left between one proposal for deletion and another overlooks one fundamental point: per WP:PROD, any given article may only be proposed for deletion once. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(I'm assuming writer was using 'propose' to mean 'nominate' and possibly was trying to refer to all XFD instead of a particular one like AFD, though it stopped me for a minute the first time I read it.) RJFJR (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In my mind it works this way. Anybody can PRO-D an article (assuming it hasn't been PRO-Ded) before. If the prod gets removed there's nothing to prevent the original proposer from going directly to AfD. If the article gets turned down for "It can be improved instead of deleted" there's a 2 to 3 month timer (in my mind) for those who used that reasoning for keeping to follow through with the improvements that would save the article. On the other hand articles that are well reasoned probably have a much longer (1/2 year or more) time for it to be challanged again. I probably end up more on the delete side of the equation as the articles typically are significantly below what I would consider standards to make me take action in nominating the article at AfD. Hasteur (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe the article in question in isBen Breedlove, and the second AfD was removed soon after it was added. Angryapathy (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this discussion. We have WP:DRV. One possible outcome of a DRV debate is to determine if there were sufficient problems in the closing of the discussion to warrant another round of AfD. While DRV is normally used to challenge the closer's rationale to delete an article, I see no reason why it couldn't be used to challenge the closer's rationale to keep it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

it has been so used many times, but normally it is very much simpler just to wait a reasonable time, and start another AfD. The most that will usually happen at deletion review of a keep is that it will be changed to non-consensus or relisted. The only real reason to use del rev is if you think the admin has made such a bad error that attention should be drawn to it--and even then, in my experience, it is usually not worth the trouble id what you really want to do is get the article deleted, orr unless you think the article so harmful that it must be immediately deleted. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content has been marked as a policy

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to let others know, I disagree with this change and have undone it; explanation at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is free content. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Lasted almost 48 Hours, very surprised it lasted that long. 10:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the five pillars, how is it not policy? --Surturz (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the exact wording of policies require a wide consensus to be approved, which this page doesn't have. The five pillars are ideals and thus are binding in an abstract way, widely subject to interpretation. Policies are much more concrete and they bind user behaviors in a more direct way, and thus require discussion to be approved. Diego (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content no longer marked as a policy

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a policy. It was previously marked as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

LGBT articles

Wikipedia has a vast number of articles entitled "LGBT rights in FOO" ranging from "LGBT rights in Russia" to "LGBT rights in São Tomé and Príncipe". Questions:

• Are they all notable? We don't have "Heterosexual rights in FOO" for any country or "Foreigners rights in FOO". In most cases there are no recognised rights in a country. So why the article? Do we have articles on "Icebergs in Kenya" which state "there are no icebergs in Kenya yet"?
• Is it not POV? The titles all assume there are automatic "LGBT rights" when a quick glance at LGBT rights by country or territory shows that the overwhelming majority of the world does not accept that. Should it not be "LGBT law in FOO" or just "LGBT in FOO"? In fact why have an article if there is little or no LGBT-related law in a country?

It rather looks like an agenda is being pushed instead of providing proportionate and neutral Wikipedia coverage. What do others think? --Bermicourt (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The logic of "there are no recognized LGBT rights in country X so there should not be an article about LGBT rights in country X" is faulty. A lack of recognized LGBT rights is noteworthy all by itself (this is the XXI century, think of it like "slaves rights" in the XIXs or "women rights" in the XX), so the proper question should be only "do we have reliable sources covering the topic at country X?". Wikipedia reflects the world we're living in. (also see "other stuff does not exist"). Diego (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

While your argument is valid, I would probably recommend that any such article provide a conversant discussion of the subject. If the contributor can provide full erudition about the subject in an unbiased manner, then I can't see any reason for contention. bwmcmaste (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think it looks like you are trying to push an agenda. If you are unable to understand why "We don't have "Heterosexual rights in FOO" for any country", I'm not really sure you have any grasp of LGBT issues whatsoever. → ROUX ₪ 13:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that having individual articles for countries unless they have notable differences is WP:UNDUE. Most countries could be grouped together under the main article without any loss. We should stick by the policies rather than inventing things. I believe they should mostly be nominated to AfD. It is not Wikipedia's job to understand LGBT issues or euthenasia issues or right to life or national health or education or pensions or anything else nor should we automstically set up articles on theses and a host of other things automatically for every country in the world. Dmcq (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • If they can be grouped, AFD is the wrong venue. I agree that merging to a main index article "LGBT rights by country", and only calling out regions/countries with significant coverage of their own, is the right approach, but none of these would be AFD in that scheme. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • (ec) Nonsense. It is the job of Wikipedia editors to understand what they are writing about, and I'd agree with Roux that the comment about lacking "heterosexual rights" articles does show a marked lack of understanding. And coverage by country for such a topic is part of comprehensive coverage, "comprehensive" being one of the key meanings of "encyclopedic" that too often gets downplayed by editors who simply aren't interested in a particular subject and so don't understand why greater detail is desirable. "Most countries could be grouped together...without any loss." I doubt this is true in any meaningful sense; just clicking through some of the smaller countries in Africa, for example, I'm finding distinct differences. It is not "undue" to give separate coverage to each sovereign nation on such a notable topic, and splitting it up by country in that manner is the clearest way to present that information. postdlf (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Differences are fine, but when they short articles, merging up to a region, while leaving the longer ones with {{main}}s helps in organization without losing information. "LGBT rights in X" is still a valid search term whether X is a country or region; it's just that short articles focusing on the country is served better by doing the coverage at the region level. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Why is it "served better"? I don't see why that would be so. There are at least 54 states in Africa, which makes quite a lengthy LGBT rights in Africa even at present with just one line given to each country in the table. Particularly given the number of mobile device readers, forcing someone to load an article with 54 paragraphs when they are just interested in one doesn't make sense. So your "small article" concern doesn't amount to anything here, not where splitting by country is such an obvious and sensible way of doing it, and "really freakin' large article" has obvious problems. postdlf (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Here we go again. Why is "LGBT anything" always compared to "Heterosexual anything"? Are there any countries in the world where heterosexuals have to fight for their rights? Any countries where being heterosexual is a criminal offense punishable by death or imprisonment? I didn't think so.

And I suppose you thought that "rights" meant only positive laws? Most countries which do not have positive laws for LGBT rights in place, have the opposite. In a large majority of them there are specific laws making them illegal, and a considerable amount impose a death penalty. That doesn't strike you as part of "rights", eh?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

In addition, do read WP:UNDUE again. Neutrality does not mean giving equal proportions of the coverage of certain subjects. Just because we have article A doesn't mean we should have article B as an automatic counterpoint. Just because we have Education in Ohio does not mean we should have Education in Sarawak in order to preserve neutrality. The existence of non-existence of other articles has no impact whatsoever per WP:OTHERSTUFF.

Notability is established independently. LGBT rights is a notable subject on a national level. Heterosexual rights is a non-issue. The same thing occurs in "Women's rights in FOO" which are notable in countries which have historically favored men over women in legal matters, particularly those with strongly patriarchal societies. Men's rights on the other hand is really only a big issue in the United States (mostly due to divorce laws) and India (in certain matriarchal cultures).

And Heterosexuals and LGBT aren't exactly at war are they? It's not a tit-for-tat thing as you would get when discussing Conservatism or Liberalism in the United States for example, or Argentina and the UK in the Falklands War. One does not necessarily impact the other. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• There was a lengthy discussion on LGBT rights by year articles a month ago, which may be of some relevance here. Shimgray | talk | 15:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Here's a thought: Why is there no article on sexual rights in country...? I have no opposition to a merge of a list (LGBT rights by country), but "sexual rights" is an unloaded term which could be used to describe what people are or are not allowed to do in a general location, regardless of the distinction between hetero, homo, or any of the other persuasions. --Izno (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • That would make sense for countries where all sexual orientations have been treated to similar standards, and where non-LGBT sexual rights have been received widespread attention as a noteworthy topic; otherwise those articles would be Coatracks, articles purportedly about one topic but focused on a different one. It's not an impossible situation to find such equal coverage, but it's not likely. Diego (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I agree with the coatrack point. NPOV demands that all information about the laws covering human sexuality in a country should be treated with equal weight according to the sources. If it's the case that the reliable sources cover one particular faction of people over another, that's not our problem. Which I don't think is the case. Such an article as Sexual rights in the United States could cover the legislation and court history which lead to cases and legislation such as Roe vs. Wade and California Proposition 8, equally. --Izno (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Uh? NPOV has never been about giving equal weight, it's about proportional, due weight. If reliable sources choose to cover one particular faction of people over another, it's only natural that Wikipedia will reflect the most prominent topic in more detail. Diego (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Word choice; I agree with you on proportion and didn't mean to say otherwise. That said, my point stands that the rights of the set of people who identify as LGBT are part of the more prominent topic of sexual rights of people in general, and could be covered in that manner. --Izno (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Can you show an example on how your approach would make a difference? In which case a focus on sexual rights in general could modify some existing LGBT article, and with which content? Diego (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Because LGBT rights are about far more than what people do with their genitals. → ROUX ₪ 22:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • What they seem to do with their genitals seems to be the root point of everything which creates the necessity for a certain group of people to see it as necessary that they be treated better and that they push that point of view... I'm sorry if you disagree, but that's the case to me. (Also, sorry for the slight runon.) --Izno (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
      • As an actual queer person, I assure you that our rights movement is about a hell of a lot more than just who does what with which genitals. Adoption, marriage, inheritance, hospital visitation would be the big ones. And with recent news of a proposed bill in New Hampshire, one can add 'the ability to engage in commercial transactions' to that list. It may seem to you that what we do with our genitals is the sum total of our rights, but I am telling you flat out that you aren't even wrong; you don't even appear to know enough to engage in the discussion in the first place. Sorry. I really, really, strongly suggest that you modify your opinion because it reduces us to being solely about sex, which is extremely fucking insulting. → ROUX ₪ 23:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Shrug. You'd see my point in slightly more clarity slightly above, I suspect. That said, you need to calm down, and possibly take a break. You seem rather agitated for a calm discussion, whatever and whoever may be pushing a point. :/ --Izno (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Two hints. One, telling someone to calm down when they are in fact perfectly calm is a really good way to start making them angry. I suspect you know this. Second, when someone who is actually part of the group you are talking about is telling you that you are wrong, it is very much time to consider the fact that you are wrong. And do not ever dare whine that I am 'agitated' over an issue which affects me on a daily fucking basis. Are we crystal clear? → ROUX ₪ 00:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Izno, I suggest you have a look at the article on David Kato. He was one of the Ugandan gay men whose photograph appeared on the front page of a newspaper under the headline "Hang Them" along with (IIRC) his address. He was trying to stop the Ugandan anti-Homosexuality Bill that would have made homosexuality a death penalty offence, a bill that was in part the result of activities by Christian Fundamentalist Americans. He was murdered. Then have a look at Homosexuals Anonymous, a part of the ex-gay movement that claims it can "cure" homosexuality. Then please explain how people being vilified by newspapers, murdered for being gay, and treated as if they are sick and in need of some sort of "cure" is about one's genitals. And that's without the issues Roux raised, issues which are important in some countries but in others are nothing more than a distant dream. EdChem (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Then it's a naming/wording issue you two seem to have. I threw out an idea which attempts to remove the innate bias toward coverage of LGBT topics to move toward a more general coverage of people's sexual preference. I honestly don't care what the name of the article is, but I am in no agreement that articles solely about "LGBT" topics, without the broader coverage necessary to meet issues of NPOV, are of an appropriate scope. As you might see above from my example of Roe (if no others), they are not the only group to have had issues with the law regarding their lives. Invocations of e.g. "we must cover the murders of these people, even if it means our coverage of the [greater] topic as a whole suffers" seem slightly hyperbolic to me. --Izno (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
          • There is no such bias. And I am sick to death of heteronormative status-quo upholders complaining that reportage of a subject is 'bias.' → ROUX ₪ 00:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Izno, I think what you're looking for is here: Category:Sex laws. It does place LGBT rights by country or territory in the context of the broader topic of sexual rights, as you suggest. Diego (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Homosexuality is not a sexual preference, it is a sexual orientation. There is a huge difference because 'preference' implies choice where there is none. Roe and abortion rights are also not about sexual preference nor do the two quite distinct and individually notable topics need to be artificially squeezed into a single article. Asert that LGBTQI topics can't be adequately and NPOV-covered on their own all you like but don't expect to get anywhere without some decent evidence. As for the murders of gay men in hate crimes, you might think them unimportant and hyperbolic but try arguing racist hate crimes don't matter and see how far you get. EdChem (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• "It rather looks like an agenda is being pushed instead of providing proportionate and neutral Wikipedia coverage." Oh no, an agenda of liking rights? Where are my pearls, for they need clutching. --Golbez (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Notified WikiProject LGBT studies of this discussion at their noticeboard. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 00:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, so much of this conversation is offensive to homosexuals. Almost all countries can have proper sourced rights articles, especially if they are the kind that have negative laws toward homosexuality, as that always gets coverage. There are more than enough reliable sources out there for these articles. There might be one or two that can't be, but it's going to be a small amount. Silverseren^C 00:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Let's put it this way really. If the OP can somehow write a coherent article about Heterosexual rights (and no not gender rights, but sexual orientation rights) in a certain country and actually make it notable enough to be AfD-proof, then we have something to actually base the eternal "why them but not them?" arguments. The question here is notability, which itself establishes the balance of the coverage that should be given on the subjects. It is not the other way around.

Go on. I'd suppose the article would start with "Heterosexual people in New Zealand have more rights than any other group. Heterosexuality has been legal since the prehistoric times. It includes: (and then you proceed to list all the rights granted to a citizen of that country)." Kinda silly, innit? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• LGBT rights in the United Kingdom (taken as an exemplar of this set) seems to me to meet all the requirements of Wikipedia:5P and fail all the requirements of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Most of the content is related to laws and regulations, which would seem to be different in every jurisdiction (barring EU-law and similar convergence; Commonwealth law and similar divergence), so a by-country breakdown is going to be needed. Homosexuality suggests that between 2 and 13% of people are homosexual worldwide (and presumably slightly more are covered by the GLBT label, depending on who's drawing the lines and where they're drawn), which makes me think that this isn't WP:UNDUE. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • How about a more representative exemplar LGBT rights in Côte d'Ivoire taken purely at random? This seems to be based on a document which has a paragraph on each country. Dmcq (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm guessing that it's sourced from a single paragraph in a single document because editors don't speak French and/or have access to copies of the laws / legal analyses. I see at least six facts there which should ideally be references to passages in law(s) or law analysis, each one a reference. I can also imagine an interesting section on GLBT rights during the Islamic period (something I'll admit to knowing almost nothing about). The fact that an article is still a stub doesn't make it less notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

---

People in this thread may be interested in reading Derailing For Dummies. ;-) This and this seem particularly relevant. Diego (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that I am trying to derail this business for emotional reasons rather than because I think it is a bad idea to automatically generate loads of stub articles? You have someone saying they can imagine some development - but will anyone actually do this business of developing the LGBT rights in Côte d'Ivoire article? It should have been part of a bigger article until someone came along to actually put material in and then split it off. At the moment it should all be part of a table with perhaps a one liner added. Dmcq (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not at all; Derailing for dummies is clearly written in a satiric way (as explained by its author here), thus my linking is not to be taken as an accusation of bad faith toward anybody in this thread. I pointed to it because it's a collection of arguments that commonly arise in discussion of marginalized groups - think of it as an arguments to avoid guideline, this time related to the topic of marginalized people. Now tell me that some of the arguments above (not necessarily yours) didn't parallel some of the ones found in the D4D website? Diego (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• So the solution for marginalized people is to... marginalize us further? I appreciate that you clearly have no first-hand experience of being queer or facing the daily challenges that we face, but that is the opposite of a good reason to deem our issues unimportant. → ROUX ₪ 13:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

May I ask you how you arrived to the conclusion that I'm deeming LGBT issues unimportant? (or that I am not queer myself, for that matter?) Diego (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for fixing the problems of the world. Not that I see these articles as fixing anything anyway. Dmcq (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In the practical sense then, which bigger article? LGBT rights in countries deemed too unimportant to have their own articles on a matter affecting their citizens on a national level? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The article LGBT rights by country or territory or perhaps better the article about the country itself, Côte d'Ivoire in the example case here. Dmcq (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the point I was trying to make above. First, I agree that somewhere, somehow, on WP, we should have a breakdown of how LGBT rights are handled on a county-by-country basis; the subject of LGBT rights is a clearly notable thing, and we don't need to talk about "heterosexual rights" alongside it to meet with WP:NPOV because its implicit in all coverage (outside of WP) that such rights exist.

But, when we create an article "LGBT rights in X", we are creating additional weight on that topic, even if the information within it is otherwise completely appropriate, and particularly in this case where LGBT rights are virtually non-existent in that country. When these articles are very short, it is better to keep them summed up into regional articles, breaking out where there is significant coverage; eg, "LGBT rights in the United States" is definitely notable and likely needs a stand-alone article, but the examples above are cases where creating the article just to have the article makes the seemingly NPOV problem stand out. This might mean that the "LGBT rights in Africa" will be rather large, but it is a better solution without the possible soapboxing that individual articles give. "LGBT rights in X" are still all searchable terms and thus this is just redirecting, not deletion. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously now arguing that mere existence itself is "possible soapboxing"? That we should deliberately remove sourced and notable information from Wikipedia in order to what? To appease people who aren't affect by them, don't care about them, or would rather see them hidden completely as it offends their delicate worldviews.

Do you think all countries in the world share the same legislation, the same issues, and the same outlook on all things LGBT? Even worse, do you think just because countries belong to the same continent they can be dealt with in the same way regarding national matters?

You can not discuss the intricacies of LGBT rights of each country in a vastly generalized article. Neither can you condense them to tables or single-sentence mentions. A nation, or in the case of large federations like the US, a state, is still the smallest unit you can subdivide these matters in terms of legislation, culture, and history. Restricting it to arbitrarily large overviews based on a misguided sense of NPOV means losing a great deal of relevant and notable information. Even the stub on Côte d'Ivoire has information you can not condense into a single sentence. It has inherent notability as a national issue and has all the indications of being capable of being expanded - the criteria that allows stubs to remain standalone articles.

How would you fit LGBT rights in Egypt into a larger general article for instance? Or LGBT rights in Kenya? Both are in Africa. Both are very notable and yet have vastly different laws, history, and cultural perceptions.

Or how about Asia? Let's start with LGBT rights in Iran in which transsexuality is accepted but homosexuality is punishable by death under Sharia, and that's excluding historically notable events like the public hanging of a 13-year old boy. How about LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia which is a monarchy? How about LGBT rights in Japan, on the opposite end of the spectrum, which has virtually no history of anti-homosexual discrimination yet do not have legislation for it either?

Yes there is soapboxing going on here. But it's coming from the other side of the argument. If there really is a POV problem, take them to the individual articles. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

When you create a stand-alone article, you are implicitly stating the topic is notable, and ergo putting weight on that topic. In some of these countries where there are next-to-nothing in terms of LGBT rights, giving them an article is undue weight on a topic that effectively doesn't exist and thus likely has little notability to start with.

Now, let me be clear: when I talk merging up, I am speaking of leaving the full text of the smallers into the larger one, so even countries with no LGBT rights could at least spell out efforts. The existing articles would be left as redirected pieces so that if in the future, a country suddenly flips and drastically increases the amount of LGBT rights, we can spell that out in detail in the country-specific article just by undoing the redirect.

And I'm not saying that we to remove all the country ones. LGBT rights in Egypt is too large to summarize but clearly notable, so it would have a {{main}} call out in the LGBT rights in Africa with a short para to summarize the main article. LGBT rights in Côte d'Ivoire would be an example of merging up until such a time that more can be written and expanded on it.

To envision something like I'm talking about, I point to Commons:Freedom of panorama where nearly every major country is listed with its legal stance on the topic. Yes, that's on commons, that's a project help page, and thus not the same as here, but I'm just using it to ID what I'd expect the "LGBT rights in (region)" articles would look like, excluding the using of {{main}} to call out to the larger articles. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you just have a solution in search of a problem. "When you create a stand-alone article, you are implicitly stating the topic is notable..." What the topic is can always be viewed in many different ways, and the maintenance of a separate page doesn't necessarily mean it's a separate topic. I know you disagree with this, but because of the nature of Wikipedia as a database of linked pages that can be viewed in any order rather than a single continuous print work, and the fact that excessive article length is an inherent problem (something your comment doesn't at all address), my view is the better one. From a notability standpoint, I think the best view of the topic in this case is "LGBT rights by country," and each country, having a separate legal system, merits its own coverage, which cannot be "undue" in any meaningful sense of the word. Considering how you don't think the content should even be any different, the decision of whether to maintain these on separate pages or in one massive mobile-device flooding African superpage should be based purely on which is the best method for presenting the information for the ease of the reader. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that most of these are short, stubby articles that have no likely chance of improvement barring significant political and religious shifts; an article that basically is summarizing "LGBT have no rights in X". We can't crystal ball such changes, so for all practical purposes that article remains a permastub, which is highly undesirable. Embedding the text of the article into a large article that summarizes the entire view of the region not only removes the perma-stub problem, but it also removes the notability problem (a topic X where X is effectively non-existant is not notable), and puts the article in the context of geo-politically closely related countries. I do recognize size may be an issue but at the same time 54 paragraphs plus a few more for lead/references isn't that much.

See, we should be starting the approach of these articles from the standpoint that "LGBT right across the world" is the most notable topic, which is it. Every article that extends from this should only be done if it is notable of itself, to avoid giving the topic any undue weight. Clearly discussing the topic by geo-political regions (which generally share somewhat similar views) makes sense to avoid trying to describe in prose these rights for 200+ countries. From the regions, where it makes sense to briefly summarize each country's specific trends, it only makes sense to break out when there's a lot more than one paragraph to discuss about the articles. WP better serves its readers with top-down approaches than bottom-up ones, which is unfortunately how the current approach to the LGBT rights articles are doing. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

For a "permastub," LGBT rights in Côte d'Ivoire takes up a whole screen on my laptop. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please show me all the nations where LGBT rights are not notable.

Crickets.

→ ROUX ₪ 16:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like you have a rather upside-down view of notability. Notability is not conferred by creating articles, we create articles because they are notable. If your rationale for removing them is to "avoid giving the topic undue weight" you are in effect saying that they are not notable. So exactly which articles are not notable?

Furthermore, where is "a topic X where X is effectively non-existant is not notable" derived from? Again, laws criminalizing LGBT is itself relevant to LGBT rights. Just because a country has a death sentence instead of gay marriage doesn't mean the same thing as "LGBT rights is a non-issue".

I'm also rather curious how you would think they can even fit into one article if we leave the full text in, much less make it coherent. Even the smallest of those stubs has information that would fit in at least two paragraphs. And those are a mere handful. There are 47 countries in Africa alone, the current article on LGBT rights in Africa can only deal with it at a very abstract level.

The statement "in the context of geo-politically closely related countries" is a bit naive in the assumption that neighboring countries influence each other that significantly. Besides, how many ways can you group countries "geopolitically"? What would be an example? "LGBT rights in Arab league nations"? "LGBT rights in insular democracies with a Muslim majority"? "LGBT rights in parliamentary socially-conservative monarchies with a Buddhist majority in Central and Eastern Asia"?

Even Women's rights articles also do it by country for the same reasons outlined already - countries differ significantly enough from each other to make any treatment of the subject by supranational regions an exercise in insanity.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me address the format/page layout aspect first. My spot checking of these pages show they generally share a similar structure, and particularly where there are no rights conferred, several sections are one-sentence long. Like LGBT rights by country or territory uses, a lot of this can be simplified in byte and word count to a simple table or box to say, for example "Same sex marriage: No"; no need for a whole section header and sentence to say that.

Geopolotical divisions would employ the same divisions used on the above large table, to be consistent.

But now to focus on the other side, the notability side. It is sad that we as humanity have to recognize that LGBT rights have to be given and granted by government as opposed to be inherently granted, because "no LGBT rights" is the status quo throughout the globe and throughout history; this relates to the argument of why we don't have "Heterosexual rights in X" because that's the status quo. How LGBT rights vary across the globe is a notable topic, for certain, but when rights don't exist in one country, that isolated topic itself isn't notable; its the comparison to the rest of the globe that makes it important. It is a very subtle distinction but important. That it, I believe that the current LGBT rights in Africa is much more notable and valuable article to any reader than any of the specific "LGBT rights in X" simply because I can compare and contrast across the continent instead of having to scurry into each country article to find out more, flipping back and forth as necessary. If anything, I'd add a row for each country to have the brief explanation of anything specifically unique - and using a {{main}} when a short summary isn't sufficient (as would be the case for Egypt). Given the current size of LGBT rights in Africa right now, this would not significantly harm a mobile reader (the tables already making the page long as it is).

Now, I'm talking about "now" of course. The woman's rights case I would apply similar logic, but because woman's rights have been a highlight much longer than LGBT, there's probably more information regarding woman's rights for nearly every country as opposed to LGBT. In the scheme I'm proposing, when new info on LGBT for a country becomes available to make a full article better, the redirect can be reverted and the article expanded, but still leaving the brief (updated, hopefully) summary and comparison info on the larger region page. That's the top down approach that makes sense from both information organization and notability factors, and does the best for our readers. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Seeing how Bermicourt made this post and promptly abandoned it suggests to me we were probably trolled. Good job, gang. --Golbez (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • My sentiments exactly; see my initial comment re: POV-pushing. → ROUX ₪ 16:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:EUPHEMISM

WP:EUPHEMISM says not to use "passed away" in stead of "died". However, when I had a look at the talkpage today, where I wanted to post that I see no reason not to use "passed away" in stead of "died", I found that others had disagreed with that guideline before me. I would say that since there is a lack of consensus about this, the guideline should not include such a rule. Please state your opinions, both as to the use of the euphemism, as well as to how the lack of consensus should reflect on the guideline page. Debresser (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a very poor faith post. You say you "see no reason". I gave you reasons, as did others. You misrepresented my reasons back to me in a stupidly simplified form, then ignored my attempt to explaind again and discuss it further with you. This looks like a classic case of forum shopping (and bad manners). HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I shall comment on your incorrect and bad faith (WP:AGF) assumptions on your talkpage. Let this not deter any readers from posting on the discussion. Debresser (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You are very careless with words. You misrepresented what I said, either deliberately or through lack of attention, and now demand on my Talk page that I apologise to you. No. Sorry. Won't happen. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. Let the discussion be the discussion. Debresser (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:Use plain English for reasons not to use euphemisms. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That guideline mentions not to use technical or vague words. A euphemism is not necessarily either. In any case, please feel free to join the discussion page. This section is no more than an invitation, and not the best place for this discussion. Debresser (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want discussion somewhere else, I suggest you link to it, rather than euphemistically refer to the talk page which could be any of several talk pages. See the confusion euphemisms can cause? My current working assumption is you meant Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Passed_away, but I'm still not 100% sure. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Forgot to link to it. Yes, that is the one I meant. Now linked above. Debresser (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

One argument given for the use of'passed away' is that it is "unambiguously clear." I can't agree and doubt that all English speakers would understand it. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not a valid point here. You can say that about any English idiom. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is why WP:IDIOM says "Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions." Mitch Ames (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't use euphemisms, because we present factual information that doesn't need sugarcoating in its wording. If anything, I don't see good arguments in favor of using euphemisms. To rephrase, why is "passed away" better than "die"? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Both "died" and "passed away" are in common use and, at least for variety's sake, both should be permitted, although I agree the latter should not be overused. Banning it though, rather smacks of pedantry and unnecessary pettiness. A bit of variety in language enhances the encyclopaedia. Let's get on with more important stuff. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the last editor here, that both should be permitted. Forbidding this word which is in so common use as to hardly be recognizable as a euphemism, is unjustified by practical use of the language. Debresser (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did say "shouldn't", not "mustn't". Sometimes prose requires deviations from Simple English. But when the use of the two can be interchanged without affecting prose, I don't see any benefits for using the "politically correct" version. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What does political correctness have to do with this? We're talking about dying, not human rights or ethnicity. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing really. I used the phrase in quotes to distinguish that I was referring to euphemism in that part of the sentence and not the direct word; not sure why you think it's used as the actual meaning of the term. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This whole conversation is like a joke, the punchline being that obviously we should use whatever is the most clear and direct language otherwise it is very easy to make unclear statements that confuse. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with deprecating passed away. It is not a straightforward term and can easily be misinterpreted by someone not very familiar with English.It is longer and just sounds silly.When I die I will die, I won't pass away or be with us no longer or have passed over or be with my maker or rest in peace or shuffled off my mortal coil or be worm food or given up the ghost or made a final contribution to nature or even be deceased. Dmcq (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Or how about 'bereft of life he lies in peace' as in the Dead Parrot sketch? Dmcq (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

More input for a straw poll

This straw poll hinges on interpretation of policy and the possible conflict between policies. It seems intractable to the participants and needs more non-involved input. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Policy regarding EMAIL's on Files

I know that it is frowned upon to use Email addresses in Wikipedia discusisons and articles but I have found quite a few files with Email addresses given in the summarys and descriptions of the files. Is there a policy somewhere that says that we should allow this? Given the nature of images and copyright laws and such it seems reasonable but I couldn't find anything. --Kumioko (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)