Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

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

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.

• If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals).
• If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
• If you want to ask what the policy is on something, try the Help desk or the Teahouse.
• This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.
• If you want to propose a new or amended speedy deletion criterion, use Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.

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

RFC on non-free videos

The article for the killing of Nahel Merzouk features a non-free video of the incident as the lead media. The file has been nominated for deletion with users claiming that a video cannot meet the WP:NFCC#3 minimal usage requirements. This is despite the fact that WP:NFC permits the usage of non-free videos, so long as it's a minimal sample, akin to audio files.

I've noticed that there appears to be a lack of precedent and discussion regarding non-free videos, with even WP:NFC lacking a comprehensive, dedicated section to it, merely grouping it with other types of NF media (in contrast, for example, audio files have WP:SAMPLE). The argument used by those espousing for the file's deletion is that you can technically claim that 10 seconds is enough, then 9, then 8, and so on, so it inherently cannot meet minimum usage requirements; this is despite NF audio clips suffering from the same issue. There appears to be not standard in place for this and I think that we really ought to address this instead of leaving it in limbo to establish a set precedent.

The issue is that however you put it, the rationale of "a video cannot be NFC" is fundamentally at odds with WP:NFC, which again does permit the use of non-free videos, and again, we acknowledge that non-free audio excerpts can fall under fair use despite having the same issue of "what's minimal usage" (hell, you can even make the argument that NF images may suffer from this since their resolution can still be reduced without impeding on the reader's understanding)? So, with this, I ask,

A. Do non-free videos fall under fair use Do non-free files pass WP:NFCC#3?
. If not, then what makes it different to non-free images, audio, and other types of media?

- Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 19:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• In answer to question A, it is irrelevant whether or not videos are fair use, in the strict meaning of fair use, because that is not the standard that Wikipedia uses. In answer to question B, videos should be treated the same, for our purposes, as any other media in determining NFC inclusion or exclusion. Based on the description above of the dispute, the issue appears to be that some editors are arguing that no video can satisfy WP:NFCCP #3b. That argument is an incorrect understanding of the NFC policy. As stated in 3b, the amount of the video used here must satisfy: "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." So if, for example, a non-free video is 11 seconds long, one can use a portion of it that is 10 seconds or less (preferably at reduced resolution). Whether one uses 10, 9, or 8 seconds depends on what "will suffice" to provide the information that one wants to convey in the Wikipedia article. Generally, the less one uses, the safer one is with criterion 3b, so it comes down to a decision about balancing that against the desire to present enough useful information. But if one is using less than the "entire work", one has satisfied 3b. The argument that no video can satisfy 3b because it is impossible to define how much less than the entire work is still usable, if that argument is really being made, is incorrect. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think A is irrelevant. Wikipedia's criteria are stricter than fair use. Therefore falling under fair use is not sufficient, but it is necessary for use on Wikipedia. So if videos cannot fall under fair use we can't use them. But I am not nearly familiar enough with copyright law to have an opinion on the matter. PS: I posted a link to this discussion at WP:Media copyright questions to bring this to the attention of more people with copyright experience. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  You and I are actually saying the same thing in different ways. I'm just saying that passing fair use doesn't tell us one way or the other whether NFCC are passed. Of course it's also true that something that is not even fair use doesn't stand a chance of passing NFCC. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  OK. Then I misunderstood you. Sorry. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  No worries! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  I apologize for the confusion; I accidentally mixed up fair use and NFCC3 in the above text. I've corrected it. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 00:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• You got a better argument if the video itself is the subject of the article as a creative work. That...kindof...adds an element of irreplaceability. GMG^talk 23:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  If by "irreplaceable" you mean WP:NFCC #1 ("no free equivalent"), I think the video at hand qualifies: it is the only known footage of a high-media-profile incident. No equivalent footage can be created after the fact (even if you reenact the scene with actors, it will not be an authentic recording taken on the scene).

  If you mean WP:NFCC #3 ("contextual significance"), that’s of course a harder sell. I tend to agree with posters below that in theory a full video could qualify but in practice screenshots are often enough, but that applies to a creative work as well (if L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat was still copyrighted, I doubt the full video would pass NFCC#3). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I mean in the sense of #3, of trying to determine what is the minimum we can use and still provide encyclopedic coverage. That includes something like whether we can do as we did with Central Park birdwatching incident and simply provide an Archive.org link to the full video. That can actually provide a lot more value to the reader than us trying to arbitrarily chop it up to squeeze under NFCC. That get's a lot of mileage under #8 also, as to whether omission would be specifically "detrimental".

  I'm not saying that a video can never meet NFCC, but the bar is set extremely high. That's by design. It's less "this makes it better" and more "not having this would be ruinous." Having a subject connected to a viral video is a dime a dozen, and doesn't automatically meet that. In practice, most non-free content is used when the content itself is the subject of the article (er, or logos, but that's not relevant here), and not simply related to it. As in the case of Dennō Senshi Porygon below, I can't adequately describe this to you in prose, the media is the subject of the article, and we have a very specific rationale for why this portion is used. GMG^talk 11:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• The actual video aspect of the video, given that we can always use a single-frame screenshot, has to be what has been discussed in sources as essential to its understanding per NFCC#8. Most NFC video content fails this test. --Masem (t) 00:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• I think that for NFCC#3 the deciding factor is whether or not a screenshot (or may be two screenshots to show before and after) is sufficient. Is it necessary to see motion, is it necessary to have audio, is it necessary to see multiple things that are not shown at the same time and could not be shown by the use of a limited number of screenshots, etc? So in my opinion a video can meet NFCC#3, but only when screenshots are insufficient. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• Dennō Senshi Porygon is one case where a non-free video, File:Seizure clip from Dennō Senshi Porygon.ogg, is used in the infobox. The article is about an episode of the Pokémon anime which is infamous for giving children seizures. Because it is a cartoon with rapidly-flashing lights, a video helps to illustrate how bad the flashing was. To be clear, this very file has been extensively discussed on that article's talk page and in WP:FFD, so this much has definitely been vetted by the community. As such, I think it's clear that videos are allowed under NFCC. 1937 Fox vault fire, a featured article, also contains a non-free video, with which the article passed its FA nomination, though the file's description discusses the possibility of {{PD-US-not-renewed}} applying. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• Videos can meet the NFCC. This does not mean that a specific one does (or does not), but it is incorrect to claim that a video can never meet the criteria. What counts as minimal usage will obviously depend on the length of the video, what it is being used to illustrate, etc. In some cases 2-3 seconds may be enough, in others you might need 10 seconds or even more. That screenshots will suffice in some cases is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• As per above. If someone is saying video content may never be used under NFCC, that is inaccurate. That said, usage of nonfree content is still expected to be as minimal as possible. If the use of a still frame or two would suffice, use of the video clip is more nonfree content than necessary and so fails #3a. But that won't always be the case. As always, whether the use of nonfree material is appropriate (outside some normally accepted areas; book/album covers in the article about the work, logos in the article about the organization they represent, etc.) is evaluated on a case by case basis. So, I would say we should generally be somewhat skeptical of the use of video material as NFC, but not categorically forbid it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• Per above, but NFCC video must be minimal usage (both in resolution (audio and video) and in duration relative to the original work). In the specific case presented, it could clearly be lower resolution, and the clip could be shortened to a couple of seconds prior to one second after the incident of note. I think it passes NFCC#8 as the context is the specific police claim that it was self defense and an officer was about to be run over (which our sources and this video refute). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• It's possible, though not likely, that a non-free video may meet the minimal usage criterion, but the threshold is high and is unlikely to be met. As others mention, in most cases a screenshot will suffice. Stifle (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Are there a way that people could see it through {{external video}} template? Because the original owner may post it elsewhere, using it as a source is possible. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 12:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• In order that a video can qualify under NFCC, it must not be replaceable by a reasonably small number of screenshots with a reasonable amount of explanatory text. Additionally, only other use the relevant time frame; low resolution; and no audio unless this it can be shown to be necessary. Animal lover |666| 08:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• This user supports the fair use of media to improve the encyclopedia.
  (In other words, yes, there are absolutely videos that qualify under NFCC. They're legally permissable and improve the encyclopedia, so we should use them in applicable situations.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Remember that we do not work off the concept of fair use to determine what to include, but what non-free content allows (which will by default consider fair use, but more restrictive than that). Masem (t) 15:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that non-free videos can meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. If a small amount of content, such as a few screenshots, can't sufficiently explain the material, a video would be good. But needing a video would be uncommon. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• I saw that the two bigger problems about fair-use videos than what's currently being discussed here are "how long can a fair-use video be" and "how high can a fair-use video's resolution be". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NFCCP is significantly stricter than fair-use. So first we have to decide whether or not NFCCP allows us to use a fair-use video at all. Then the next step is to determine criteria for fair-use. You already mentioned length and resolution, another question is whether or not to include sound. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  The answers are "no longer than needed to illustrate what it is illustrating" and "no higher resolution than is necessary to illustrate what it is illustrating", the specific values are inherently dependent on the individual video and the reason it is being used. For example if a video is of a police officer hitting someone with their baton six times when the officer claims they only hit them once then it will be necessary for the video to play long enough to show all six strikes (assuming screenshots are not sufficient). If the officer's claim is that they didn't hit them at all then a portion of the video showing a single strike may be sufficient. If the police officer fills the entire frame then it is very likely a lower resolution will be sufficient than if they fill only a small portion of it. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• I would argue there is precedent for non-free video files being permitted under WP:NFCC#3. See — 121 non-free video samples. I agree with Thryduulf, it just boils down to "no longer than needed to illustrate what it is illustrating" and "no higher resolution than is necessary to illustrate what it is illustrating" Stick to that rule of thumb and WP:NFCC#3 will be satisfied. You're not proposing any specific changes in the language related to WP:NFCC, so I'd say it's just fine. It's unfortunate that the file you are referencing about Nahel Merzouk got deleted. I'm not familiar with how long it was, or how long the original video was, but if it was fairly short, it should have met the standard of WP:NFCC#3.— Isaidnoway (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, non-free videos can meet all NFCCP requirements so long as the entire video (rather than a still image or audio fragment) is widely discussed in reliable sources. "Minimal use" requires that the clip could not be made shorter without losing information or context that the reader needs. A video that sparks countrywide protests could certainly meet NFCCP, though I've not seen this specific video or read the sourcing. — Bilorv (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• It’s extremely rare that we need unfree videos, but there’s no reason we can’t use them i.e. in the infamous Pokémon example, where an image literally could not convey the same information. Dronebogus (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• I would say yes. As stated by Dronebogus above, there are sometimes no free alternatives and we do have to rely on the NFCC, though if possible, I would suggest that we use external media templates before going ahead. The article on the murder of George Floyd is a good example, though I do believe if the original link does get taken down for some reason, editors should reach out to the content owners and attempt to convince them to release such content to us under a CC license (or release it into the public domain) before relying on the NFCC. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, they can, they are not treated differently to other forms of media. Jack4576 (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Notable covers are eligible for standalone articles, provided that the article on the cover can be reasonably-detailed based on facts independent of the original.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clearly no consensus for overturning the status quo that was established at the previous RfC some time before. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

---

WP:NSONG Anyone else think this should be changed to WP:NCOVER, which states "When a song has been recorded or performed by more than one artist, a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article)"? I'm looking to change the guidelines. We shouldn't be clogging up our encyclopedia with worthless cover versions, this also creates confusion for the reader, etc... the gradual change of Wikipedia into Wikia... Therapyisgood (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• I definitely get where you're coming from, but I think that notable cover versions do more clogging inside other articles than they do standalone. For starters, the original isn't always the most notable: take "Barbara Ann", for example. The Beach Boys cover dwarfs the original so much that the Regents' original gets barely more than a lead mention. As Levivich notes in his close of the RfC, that leads to the Regents getting an article for a non-notable song they write because of the inherited notability that comes with the Beach Boys cover, and is also a cluttery, unexpected, and undue way to write an article. There's no reason to be that strict: plenty of derivative movies and books have articles of their own, as do plenty of tribute bands. Truly notable song covers can have one or more of distinct lyrics, distinct music (which can be covered in-depth by music theorists), distinct composition, distinct production, and distinct critical review in the press. It'd be like merging Macbeth (1971 film) back to Macbeth.
  In any case, part of WP:NSONG is set by RfC. If you'd like to overturn it, I think we should have another RfC to let the community weigh in again. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Most cover versions by notable bands are just that and should definitely be within the article on the original song. Others, on the other hand, get their own spat of notability ("Africa" by Weezer is one) and can be separate. But this should be seen as the exception, not the rule. Unless there's good reason for a separate article on the cover, the original song article is suitable. Masem (t) 03:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• This is an attempt to reverse the outcome of an RfC from just over a year ago. Either evidence should be provided of why that recent consensus a) was procedurally invalid or b) has led to negative effects, or this should be speedily closed. -- 'zin^{[is short for Tamzin]} (she|they|xe) 04:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @Tamzin: Did you even read my nom? "clogging up our encyclopedia with worthless cover versions, this also creates confusion for the reader, etc... the gradual change of Wikipedia into Wikia", all of which are negative effects. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Additionally the close was by a non-admin, before I take this to AN for a close review is there a specific time limit on a close review? It appeared to be a no consensus to me, judging based on the rough count. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Those are asserted negative effects. You have provided no evidence. Are there cases of unsuitable articles being kept at AfD under this rule change? Currently your objection seems to be, simply, that you don't like what the consensus was, which is not on its own a basis for a new RfC. As to challenging at AN, I would say that once a reasonable window passes without an RfC's outcome being challenged, the lack of challenge in itself contributes to the close's validity, making it black-letter law; but if you want to try a challenge, I mean, I can't stop you. Although I'm not sure why it matters whether the closer was an admin. -- 'zin^{[is short for Tamzin]} (she|they|xe) 04:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Therapyisgood, I think you're missing the point in multiple regards: theleekycauldron has already explained why a general prohibition on cover song articles is not a good idea, and the closure appears to be fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
        • @Tamzin: I think we are already seeing the negative affects of this. Just today I had to start a merge proposal on We Didn't Start the Fire (Fall Out Boy song), which was a great waste of time. That kind of proves my point. The well-respected wiki mod @Amakuru: has said this shouldn't have been its own article, even under the new rules. See here for proof. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
          • If that page fails the current version of the guideline, how is that evidence of a fault with the guideline? And you've started this RfC without waiting to see if others agree with your merge proposal. This whole thing, Therapyisgood, seems very hasty and ill-thought-through. -- 'zin^{[is short for Tamzin]} (she|they|xe) 02:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• I think the discussion here is missing the core question: what do we mean by a "song"? Are we talking about a composition, or are we talking about a recording? It seems to me that in many cases we really are talking about a composition. We cover musical compositions that predate recordings, whether Piano Concerto No. 5 (Beethoven) or "The House of the Rising Sun", which seems quite reasonable to me. Once a composition has become notable (and it will generally do that through recorded forms), it seems that it is most informative to keep versions in a single article with only severe exceptions (such as the article growing too large that it needs to be split), as those various recordings and how they relate to one another are key to the history of the song. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I generally agree with this, though Theleekycauldron is correct in pointing out exceptional cases like "Barbara Ann" where a particular recording dwarfs all others and the composition itself; there's no question that a few covers merit independent articles. But something like the "Blue Monday" cover by Orgy does not, and should just be covered in WP:DUE amount at the article on the New Order composition and recordings (they made more than one of it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose making a hard rule against this. Individual recordings can be notable, and sometimes it is better to present them in an article about the original work, sometimes it is not. This is true for modern music as it is for classical. For example, we have Bach: The Goldberg Variations (Glenn Gould album). Often, as leeky observes correctly, putting cover versions into the original song articles clutters those up; we should not make a rule enforcing that. I'd rather have a separate article on UB40's Can't Help Falling in Love than having to scroll past all of its chart placements while looking at the article about the Presley song. —Kusma (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose establishing a hard-and-fast rule, per the above comment. This is one of those areas where article organization has too many complexities and caveats to be amenable to simple bullet points. XOR'easter (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per others here; this is trying to solve a non-existent problem. Covers don't usually get enough significant coverage to have their own page, but when they do, they should have one! WP:NCOVER should instead be updated. I'd add something along the lines of Depending on how much reliable sourcing exists for a cover, a separate article can on occasion be warranted. and removing the (never in a separate article) parenthetical. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with removing the parenthetical, and I think that many of the comments here support that as well. I'll start a subsection to focus on that in case this goes unnoticed. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - the previous RFC overturned years of practice in making it default for covers to have their own articles. That is wrong. There will be occasional cases that are so significant that one is merited, but those are the exception, and we need to close this before the floodgates open.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, a song doesn't even need to meet NSONG if it meets GNG (and never did, the latest RfC didn't change how notability works on wikipedia) so this just seems pointless. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose based almost exclusively on the use of "never" in the proposal. Never is an absolute, suggesting that in all cases the statement is true; suggesting that anyone can account for all instances of anything – let alone covers of songs – is hubristic and fails to account for the numerous instances where this simply isn't the case. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I strongly disagree with the idea that simply because notable covers can or are eligible for a standalone article that they should have one. Last December, theleekycauldron promoted the idea at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 26#Cover songs that should be split: "Now that WP:NSONG has been changed to allow covers, we should start making a list of songs that should be split out. Off the top of my head: [list of 13 songs]". The discussion that followed showed opposition to the idea and questioned whether the change to NSONGS was undertaken properly. The decision on whether a cover should be split off into a separate article should be undertaken only in response to a real need to do so, as determined by a discussion on the song's talk page. Otherwise, it seems like "here's the solution, let's find the problem". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • That is an excellent point, thank you for bringing this up. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposal violates the spirit of the 5 pillars, most importantly 5P5, but also 5P2. We shouldn't have guidelines that sound unbreakable per the spirit of pillar 5. Also we shouldn't have guidelines that directly restrict the ability of editors to make decisions that are best for NPOV (pillar 2). Beyond the proposed wording, I also do not agree with the expository language in the proposal "worthless cover versions". Wikipedia is built on notability and verifiability, not "worth". And if it gives any solace, as an editor who has taken some long breaks over the past 2 decades, Wikipedia is less like Wikia than it has ever been. —siroχo 01:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Before any action is taken, I should let everyone know that WikiProject Songs, a project that should definitely have a say in this RfC, was completely left in the dark about a previously similar discussion, which I think was pretty rude. I've notified them this time and hope some members will comment. As for how I feel about creating articles for cover songs, I've made my stance clear on the previously linked discussion and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 26#Cover songs that should be split. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The fact the WikiProject wasn't even notified of this should be enough to just overturn that original RfC. I'm pretty active in the songs space and had no clue this change had happened. Toa Nidhiki05 17:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  WikiProjects (which are only groups of editors who want to work together) have no special role or extra rights in discussions like this. WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations and do not have authority over any articles. This is documented both in the guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages and the policy Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus.

  This is a sitewide discussion on one of the highest traffic discussion pages in all of Wikipedia. An invitation to a small WikiProject (only 10 editors have posted to their talk page during the last three months; two of them have already posted here) is permitted but not required. If you think it would be a good idea for them to have another notification of this discussion, then feel free to leave a second notification there yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not saying WPs have extra authority in RfCs, because they don't, but I still believe it's common courtesy to notify them, even if their members aren't active. A thousand questions are fired when strangers come in changing our guidelines, but by that point, it's too late to do anything. In any case, I did notify them, so my mission here is done. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: and words should be added to WP:NSONG and WP:NCOVER to clarify that cover songs, if notable, are allowed to be described in a stand-alone article. Jack4576 (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• I haven't been involved with any of this discussion to this point, but shouldn't a cover be eligible for its own page only when WP:SPLIT applies? SportingFlyer T·C 22:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Handling exceptional cases

Elli has pointed out that the current guideline explicitly forbids separate articles, yet I see a lot of comments here supporting the idea that sometimes covers are independently notable and deserve an article. I feel like more attention on that may help to resolve this. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Orange Suede Sofa and Elli: that's wikiproject guidance, not actual guideline – it was just never updated with the RfC a few months ago, but it is superseded by it. It should probably just be updated to match NSONGS (either before this RfC ends or after, if we don't want to do it twice). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. We do not even want the appearance of a WP:POLICYFORK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on requiring non-plot coverage to demonstrate book notability

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion has been opened for a month, with only two comments this August. Numerically there are 5 supports, around 30 opposes, and a couple other comments that were not explicitly supports or opposes (there was also a small minority of opposes that supported more restriction on NBOOK but opposed this specific wording). As there is not a considerable difference in the strength of the arguments to override the very clear numerical count, I find there is consensus against this proposed wording to alter NBOOK. (non-admin closure) VickKiang (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the following be added to Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Other considerations, below Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Articles that are plot summaries?

Sources that are plot summaries

When assessing whether a book is notable the content of the source must be considered. Plot descriptions and quotes from the book should be omitted when determining whether a source contains significant coverage.

02:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Survey (book notability)

• Support. First, to comply with WP:NOTPLOT we need to be able to write an article that is more than just 90% plot description; unless there is significant coverage of the work beyond plot description this is not possible. Second, this will address the issue of indiscriminate coverage of books published by major publishers, as part of the publishers marketing strategy, by organizations like Publishers Weekly. Most of these reviews are churned out for said strategy and contain little beyond a plot summary; such routine coverage is not an indicator of notability and would be excluded by this proposal.

To date, these low standards haven't been a problem; there have been practical barriers to the mass creation of book stubs. However, with the advent of large language models these limitations are removed; we need to act now to close the barn door before the horse escapes. BilledMammal (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - independently published books with multiple reviews are of inherent encyclopaedic interest and Notability; the idea that books have to be shown by special, "non-routine" reviews to be "more worthy" than other books seems to presuppose an unduly diminished view of the potential for an online encyclopaedia, and also runs counter to the development of enwiki to date.
  There may well be problems arising for Wikipedia from the development of large language models and neural networks, but adding readily gamed restrictions on required content in a book review is not a response that would help with any of Wikipedia 's current and upcoming challenges. Newimpartial (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• I would want to support narrower language: something like Reviews that consist mostly of plot summary and quotation are not considered significant coverage. I think the proposed langauge implies that there is a hard amount of text required for SIGCOV that doesn't really exist. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing that implication; my intention was to just apply our normal standards of assessing WP:SIGCOV after we have excluded plot descriptions and quotes. For your alternative I think it is actually stricter language; it would exclude reviews that are 70% plot review even if the 30% amounts to WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Reviews" that are only plot summaries and quotes are not reviews, those are recaps or summaries, and those are primary sources, which are automatically excluded from GNG notability.

  That said, a review that actually is more than just plot summaries, and uses the plot summary or quotes to describe themes or other aspects of reception that are evaluations or criticisms that fall within "transformative nature" of secondary sources are fine. Thus, you can't just simply discount or ignore the plot/quotes from a review article to access its appropriateness for notability. Masem (t) 03:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  A recap is a source that talks about the primary source, making it secondary by definition. Maybe it's a mediocre kind of secondary source, but that's a separate question. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  No, secondary sources require transformation of thought, something that we can't do via WP:NOR. Something that just summarizes a primary work is primary itself. This is why news reports of an events are primary, since they are summarizing the events without additional transformation. Masem (t) 15:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  News reports of an event are primary because we have no access to the event that is more direct. An event is an event, not a primary source about itself. XOR'easter (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  If the reporter wasn't present at the event but collected information from eyewitnesses, authorities, etc. that were there, that would still be a primary source using other primary sources of information, because they are not using any type of critical thought to transform the information into something new, all per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. The same applies to simple rote recaps, compared to reviews that provide critical thought. Masem (t) 12:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, mostly per WP:CREEP. This is a proposal steamrollered through by BilledMammal without listening to any of the negative feedback in its discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books). It is focused only on a subset of the books (the ones that have plots to summarize). It fails to recognize that a description of the plot of a book can actually be transformative content about the book, artificially describing it as not significant not because it is actually not significant (if it were, we wouldn't need an extra rule to say that it is) but because the nominator wants to have more ammunition to delete articles. It solves a non-problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not all plot summaries are transformative and thus not necessarily secondary. In fact, the way that we are supposed to summarize plots is to a level of non-interpretative, sterilized rote repetition that our plot summaries would be considered primary works, as there should be no significant transformation (original research or thought) involved. And there are other works out there that create plot summaries in this same manner. (This is comparable to news reports - those just describing events without larger analysis are primary sources to the event.

  But that's not to say plot summaries from all works are primary. Secondary ones that present the necessary transformation and OR that we can't do on Wikipedia, exist. I am sure there are examples of analysis of Shakespeare plays that have the combination of plot summaries along with this type of analysis. Or the old sarcastic summaries that existed at Television Without Pity for various TV episodes would definitely qualify as secondary. Masem (t) 12:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Re "not all plot summaries are transformative": this is precisely why I chose the verb "can" rather than "is" in writing "a description of the plot of a book can actually be transformative content". It was a deliberate choice. But this proposal would eliminate that distinction and pre-emptively declare that all plot summaries are non-transformative. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Please demonstrate one single example (more are fine, but since I'm asserting no such thing exists, a single source will prove me wrong) of a non-transformative plot summary. Masem, David Eppstein or anyone are welcome to respond. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Published books covering TV series that typically include a summary of each episode (for example, this book at Amazon, or from this book from which this is a preview page. Simple rote iteration of what's going on with the episode in terms of summary. Now yes, these books add additional details and may be appropriate to expand on production details, but those plots are very basic and definitely not transformative. Masem (t) 04:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Turning a video into text is necessarily transformative. For example, someone had to watch that episode of The Simpsons and decide that Lisa was not just calm, but "eerily" calm. They bother to mention the name of Homer's business; they write that Lisa declares she is changing her name to Lisa Bouvier without specifying, as another might, that Bouvier is Marge's maiden name. XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Then that would mean all of our plot summaries are transformative and violate WP:NOR. These summaries still are primary recaps. Details like where Homer works or what Marge's maiden name are well visible details of the show as a whole so that's not transformative (eg our equivalent of allowable SYNTH). Compare to the examples that BilledMammal gives below to reviews from AV Club or IGN which insert commentary and reviews in the recap. Masem (t) 15:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not to the extent they reflect RS'ed plot summaries in line with NPOV. I mean, that's not even a remotely hard problem to solve withing longstanding policies. Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  lol 87.115.35.12 (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:NOTPLOT is about how we write about books, not about what sorts of independent reliable sources we can use to do so, a point the RFC initiator has been told before. A plot summary is transformative, hence a secondary source, because the summarizer must decide what is important and what can be left out. RfC initiator has failed to incorporate this feedback, and has put forth a proposal that is incompatible with NPOV: that policy requires our work to be representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This would impermissibly exclude some RS'es, hence being dead on arrival as a guideline contradicting a policy. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  This would impermissibly exclude some RS'es I believe you have misunderstood the proposal; this would have no bearing on what sources we could use in the article, once we have decided we can have an article. BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Please explain how removing some secondary sources from only book notability consideration would not be an NPOV violation. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Because asking whether an article that doesn't exist is neutral is a nonsensical question? To be honest, I don't even understand why you think it would be an NPOV violation; I note that other SNG's where we place restrictions on the use of sources that don't apply elsewhere, such as at WP:NCORP, aren't considered NPOV violations; I don't see any reason why this would be different? BilledMammal (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  NCORP is an SNG. Any corporation that fails NCORP can still meet N by meeting the GNG. So, you may have a point there... unless anyone disagrees that SNGs are positive only and can't exclude anything meeting the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support Straightforward application of established policy. If a source merely summarizes the book and does not elaborate on why it is important or meaningful, it cannot be used to establish notability. Avilich (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem, Newimpartial and David Eppstein. This is a "solution" that would not solve any problems that currently exist, nor would it solve the non-problem it claims to if that were actually a problem. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose There's a good concept in there of acknowledging that plot summaries on average are less indicative of notability, some severely so. But the wording, amplified by it's categorical form really is wp: creep, with likely unintended consequences. And does not acknowledge the variations described by Masem. And the bar for wording needs to be set higher because this is basically a calibration ( = modification) of GNG rather than being standard SNG fare. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose plot summaries are secondary coverage. This is the same kind of bad source limitation creep that is seriously hampering our coverage of other topics. Jahaza (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:CREEP and fundamentally, after reading the discussion leading to the RFC, I do not see a problem that needs to be fixed. --Enos733 (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, policy creep, doesn't seem to address a problem that needs fixing. —Kusma (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Absolutely support. Our book notability guideline is grossly flawed in treating all "reviews" as equal. One that just regurgitates the plot with little in the way of critical thinking should not count toward notability, as it lacks depth of coverage. This has been a problem for a very long time, and we have a whole lot of stupid, spammy articles on garbage books as a result. Even my efforts to merge some of them back into author articles have met with revert-warring to retain miserable perma-stubs on the books as stand-alone articles, even though they are not of genuine excyclopedic merit except as bibliography section entries or maybe author article subsections at most. It's all because of the overbroad way we treat "reviews". There are entire publications that do nothing but rote book reviews, and any book that is not self-published is apt to be covered in more than one of them, which means any non-self-published book is apt to be falsely taken as "notable" enough for WP. It is not working. Just read the actual wording at WP:NBOOK: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." Not a single mention of depth or what kind of depth. Even the five footnotes do not help, as they address pretty much every term and concern other than "reviews". What we need here is a new footnote that qualifies that term, as only including analytical reviews not plot-summarizing/abstracting reviews.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not for use to insert our value judgments about what reviewers (or RS generally) choose to focus on when discussing a narrative work. The purpose of GNG is to determine how much coverage a given subject has received from RS, as a measure of whether a statistically significant number of readers would benefit from the utility of an independent article on the subject. With respect, I strongly disagree with SMcCandlish's view that a detailed description of the plot of a novel does not constitute "in-depth" coverage, even if it includes a large volume of discussion of the contents of the book; I know of no policy or piece of community consensus connected to notability or weight which suggests we should be utilizing our own idiosyncratic impressions about how critically-oriented a source is (i.e. how much it involves subjective analysis of a subject) before it can count for the purposes to which we apply RS. Indeed, such a standard would be clearly rejected if proposed for any number of other subject types: we wouldn't exclude an article on a natural phenomena or historical event or an individual because all of the sources we presently had access to described these topics in purely descriptive terms, absent subjective analysis. Nor would we do so for any other variety of subject I can think of. Of course it's often of more value to our reader when we have sourcing of both the descriptive and analytical variety, but just so long as we can establish that a significant number of readers would get encyclopedic value out the coverage of a topic (and that the discussion of that topic is best effected through a separate article) we should have that article, even if what we are able to say about it (in terms of sourceable statements) is fairly straight forward and superficially descriptive. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for three reasons. First, because the only valid question in evaluating source-based notability is "are there enough adequate sources to support an adequate article". Anything more than that is simply exclusion for exclusion's sake and has no place in a project such as ours. A plot summary from a reliable source provides substantial article-building material. A valid point was raised above, that a plot summary alone cannot support an entire article. But it would be an exceptionally rare situation in which there were no sources at all beyond plot summaries. Second, because a couple decades of engaging with AFD wikilawyers tells me that this would immediately be weaponized to exclude any source that even contains a plot summary. The amount of harm that AFD has done to the project is immeasurable at this point, but the last thing we should do is add to it. Third, on general WP:CREEP and no-problem-requiring-a-solution grounds. -- Visviva (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have anywhere near as overwhelmingly negative an impression of AfD as you do, but for a certainty, one of the main practical concerns I have with this proposal is the absolutely certain (and probably quit marked) increase in edit disputes that it will lead to as editors begin to argue subjective standards for where the line between plot summary and a plot analysis lays in individual cases. All for the sake of addressing a supposed problem, the extent of which has not really been established here. As to the valid point regarding WP:NOTPLOT: well that's precisely where WP:PAGEDECIDE comes in. If the subject does have substantial sourcing, but that corpus of sourcing has blindspots that make construction of an independent article difficult or impractical, an argument can always be made on precisely the basis of the policy/carveout that already exists for that and similar pragmatic situations where notability exists but a standalone article is inadvisable.

  Now, don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that there are many occasions where such a NOPAGE approach can be (and are) stonewalled in favour of keeping a separate article, simply because that is much closer to the default presumption, once notability guidelines have been satisfied, and this really lets WP:ILIKEIT !voters to dig in. But that's an argument for reforming, clarifying, or just strengthening community consensus on the existing PAGEDECIDE standard. By comparison, the proposal here feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, by creating a new rule (that does not comport with our usual approach to sourcing and notability) that will undoubtedly lead to the removal of (or at least edit warring/content disputes centered around) many articles that have a perfectly valid encyclopedic purpose. Just for the sake of making it easier to excise a relatively small handful of articles that might be superfluous (without first even having a good showing that such supposedly problematic articles even exist in significant numbers), even though we already have tools for addressing those theoretical problem articles. To me, the likely cost-benefit analysis of the proposed approach just does not feel like it is flowing in the right direction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I see this as akin to assessing whether a particular RS interview can contribute to notability: if it contains significant independent secondary analysis/commentary--that is, material that is not quotes from the interviewee or the interviewer restating/paraphrasing what the interviewee said/felt, it may count. Editors find this easy enough to understand at AfD, even for pieces that have quotes/paraphrasing interwoven with commentary; I don't think the comparable nuance of plot summary (primary with regards to notability) versus analysis would pose a problem. JoelleJay (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is akin to declaring, in GNG, that all interviews are non-independent, preventing participants from making the kind of assessment you describe. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Many AFD !voters are in fact already taking the position that all interviews are non-independent. I think this is incredibly wrongheaded, but that's where we're at. Jahaza (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Uh, no, absolutely not; the proposal just states that the plot summary content within a source should not be regarded when assessing the amount of SIGCOV the source provides. That does not prohibit all sources that contain plot summaries--or that even those that are mostly comprised of plot summaries--from counting toward notability. JoelleJay (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose A bad attempt to fix a non-problem. A review that spends time doing plot summary is still attention paid to the book. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  And just because we can't or shouldn't write an article that is all plot summary, that doesn't make reviews which focus on plot summary useless. A "Reception" section could say, for example, "Reviewers praised the intricacies of the plot while noting that the characters generally fell into broad archetypes..." XOR'easter (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Competently summarizing a plot is work. It requires making creative decisions: how much detail do you include? Do you describe flashbacks in chronological order of events or where they fall in the narrative? Do you describe what the detective notices when they notice it, or when they reveal it? How much can you leave out as understood due to genre conventions? I'm sorry, but this proposal amounts to insulting an entire category of secondary sources for no good reason. XOR'easter (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  If the only sources that provide SIGCOV of a book are plot summaries, how can we write an article that does not fail NOTPLOT? JoelleJay (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd like to offer an eloquent explanation for my view, but I really can't improve on the arguments offered by Snow Rise and Visviva, and I agree with what they've said. Although WP:NBOOK isn't a very high bar, there have been a number of books that I've read that I was unable to create an article about because there simply wasn't the non-trivial coverage necessary, so I know that not every non-self-published book qualifies under the SNG, even without the proposed change. Schazjmd (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – There is no reason significant coverage should have to be a specific type of coverage beyond covering the subject in detail. Even if a book only receives significant coverage focusing on its plot, that is much more coverage than the vast majority of books, which won't receive any kind of coverage outside of self-published sources or catalog/shop entries. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Visviva, SnowRise, and the example given of a 'problematic' review that David Eppstein and Jclemens said more than enough about. I note that books (especially nonfiction and non-Anglophone fiction) are an area where Wikipedia has disastrous coverage, and the idea we need to discourage article creation for them feels rather like the idea we need to do so for any of our other underrepresented areas. I'm working towards a challenge to write articles on books in every hundreds-category of the Dewey Decimal system; it's incredible both how many books we're missing, including very recent and popular ones with substantial mainstream coverage, and how easy it is to write high-quality articles on virtually all these books (the four I've written towards it so far include one GA, one GAN intended to become an FA, and one FAC). Mass book stub creation through LLMs also doesn't really seem representative of the issues with LLMs for Wikipedia -- 'mass stub creation on subjects where it's easy to demonstrate notability' is a problem that doesn't require putting LLMs in the loop (as we know fairly well by now), and the practical/actionable issues (rather than the philosophical ones) with LLM content are mostly about issues orthogonal to the quality of existing sources, like the falsification of plausible-looking sources that don't exist. Vaticidalprophet 00:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support: routine plot coverage should not be enough to indicate notability. Also per @BilledMammal:. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 17:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. While this proposal seemed superficially appealing, I am persuaded by the "oppose" comments (especially the concrns raised by David Eppstein) and believe this would become a tool for abuse. Cbl62 (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on account that the nominator doesn't contribute positively to the encyclopedia. It's easy to pontificate and tell others how you think they should edit and what approved sources they can use when you yourself do not create content for the encyclopedia. Honestly, BilledMammal, I would unsubscribe from the RfC notice list that spams your talk page and really ask yourself why you're here, because it's not to build an encyclopedia. You are actively driving contributors away whether you know it/care or not. –Fredddie™ 18:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is not a forum for discussing editorial conduct, let alone your general impression of another community member. Nor is "I generally don't have a high impression of the OP" a valid reason for opposing the specific proposal here, such that the closer can give it any weight for forming consensus. If you feel the editor has clearly violated any policies, content or behavioural, such that th on another user to yourself. Regardless the observations in this case, as presented in your "!vote" above, definitely don't belong here, and are in fact violations of WP:ASPERSION, and borderline WP:PA/WP:DISRUPT themselves. I'd consider striking or removing them entirely. And note that I say all of this as someone opposed to the proposal who does not think it is particularly well considered. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  I will not. Spades should be called spades at every opportunity lest they continue their spadely ways. –Fredddie™ 22:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Suit yourself, but I'd recommend reviewing WP:POINT; regardless of whether or not you think you are doing the principled thing by noting your low impression of another editor here, this project has clear rules about when, where, how, and under what circumstances to "call your spades", and I'm telling you as a random community member with no previous experience of either of you or any underlying disputes that you are not comporting with those rules with the comments above. Please bear in mind that there is more than one kind of spade in the deck when it comes to behaviours this community considers disruptive, and coming to a content/policy discussion to expressly air your grievances against another editor rather than discussing the merits of the issue being considered could easily result in you getting called for a spade yourself. That said, this is the extent of the advice I am willing to provide, precisely because this is not the space for behavioural discussions. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with anything you're saying about me; you could rightfully call me an asshole and you would most likely be correct. But you see, the nominator has a pattern of butting into topics that simply don't affect him because he doesn't contribute content to the encyclopedia. It's akin to someone who has never ridden in a car much less learned to drive one openly advocating for stiffer penalties for speeding, not using your turn signal, and putting the registration sticker in the wrong corner of your license plate. I think it's absolutely relevant to this discussion to point out this behavior. To that end, I think all of our notability guidelines need to be loosened, not tightened. –Fredddie™ 03:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  I was going to leave this with the note I left on your talk page, but since you removed that and insist on repeating the personal attacks I will ask here: Please strike the above, and if you have a problem with me bring it to my talk page or to ANI. Discussing it elsewhere is uncivil and a violation of policy, and given that I don't want to derail an unrelated discussion unfairly denies me the opportunity to respond. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  I will not. Your character is relevant to this discussion right now. I'll also note that I have mentioned displeasure with your lack of content creation on your talk page. You ignored it. –Fredddie™ 04:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  If you feel that not meeting your expectations about the level of content creation is a reason for sanction and that I haven't suitably addressed your concerns, then take it to ANI. Your personal opinion of me is irrelevant to this proposal.

  I'm not going to take this further, but if you make such personal attacks in the future I will take you to ANI myself. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Fredddie, nobody can make you strike the comment, but at a minimum this line of discussion needs to stop immediately or I can tell you with confidence that BilledMammal will not need to take you to ANI--one of the rest of us will do it for him. As has been said here, if you have concerns about his conduct, there are forums reserved specifically for that. Take it there: it doesn't belong in this discussion about a policy proposal, even if you see a link between the proposal and what you do not like in his approach; even in that instance, the proper place to raise the topic of his behaviour is ANI, on a user talk, or an admin channel, depending on the nature of the supposed violation.

  All of that said, if you do take this to ANI, I would advise you not to lead with the "you don't edit articles, therefore you have less of a say" shtick: the community has, for a long while now, considered that a low quality and problematic argument, and many editors in good standing with the community have lower than normal mainspace editing ratios. Making a point of saying that you have gone out of your way to complain to BilledMammal about this is actually not a good look. I'm starting to feel you might be the ace of spades in this personal dispute. I'd really let this one go. But even if you can't, you've been told where to take such behavioural matters, about four times more than should be necessary; if you can't find the way, we can ask an admin to guide you there. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  I was intending to oppose this proposal, but I've been trying to ween myself off of policy discussions for awhile now. However, I just had to jump in here and say that you should really take the advice being offered by Snow here @Fredddie. This is not the way to handle confrontation in a collaborative manner. I want you to know that I have had my own unpleasant experience with the way BilledMammal has conducted business in the past so I'm not "taking sides" here, but I think you should strike the comment as BilledMammal has asked, and rethink about how you approach problems in a more productive way that doesn't involve slinging poop like a mad monkey. Lol. Huggums537 (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• I support making notability more restrictive, but oppose this particular solution, mainly because it can probably be handled with existing guidelines. If sources are not much more than a plot summary, then the consideration Articles that are plot summaries would probably justify deleting it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is about sources as plot summaries, not articles as plot summaries. It's an important distinction. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This proposal is not compatible with GNG. This proposal would render non-notable some books that satisfy GNG. There is no reason why books should be subjected to a higher threshold of notability than other topics that only have to satisfy GNG. James500 (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. We already have guidelines about what articles should be (eg WP:NOTPLOT). And within the notability guidelines we have the language "presumed notable" (with explanation). There's no need, in this case, to limit which independent, reliable, secondary sources can be used to establish notability to write what would otherwise be an acceptable article. If such a case were to truly threaten pillar 1 or 2, other policies and guidelines would cover it adequately, including the existing notability guidelines. —siroχo 22:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as unworkable and undesirable. It's common for high-quality reviews to inextricably mix plot summary and commentary. The selection of aspects of the plot that the reviewer chooses to focus on, and their manner of presentation, can be of crucial importance: they can't simply be excised and ignored. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as a solution without a problem. Unless someone can demonstrate why this change is needed this discussion is a non-starter, we don't just add bits and pieces to policy/guideline without having an actual problem that needs to be addressed... Thats actually a really good way to create problems where none existed before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The depth of a review can be evaluated separately from its coverage of a book's plot. For example, this review of a book I've written about recently, describes the book's plot without being "simple regurgitation" as other editors have described. :3 F4U (they/it) 03:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Meh Virtually all summaries in good critique exist solely in service of the critique, that is the critic chooses how to summarize based on what they really want to say about the author's work. It might be nice to have a premise that poorly written and constructed critique does not count, but that is unlikely to work in practice (perhaps work on guidelines concerning where the critic needs to be published in various genres). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Opppose. The whole basis of new criticism (particularly as applied to books) focuses extraordinarily on close readings of the text of the book itself—including plot description and analysis of direct quotations. This guidance would have the effect of excluding many works in the academic field of new criticism (and other related formalist schools) from contributing towards notability despite there being little motivating reason for excluding these sorts of analyses. Rather than implicitly excluding large parts of a whole academic movement of literary analysis (something that may well cut against the heart of neutrality if applied to content), I don't think that we should eliminate works whose principal methods of critique and criticism are plot description and direct quote from the piece. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that's at all a plausible read of this proposal and discussion. An in-depth "new criticism" review that happens, by its very nature, to include a lot of detailed plot coverage is not a depth-free "review" that consists of nothing but plot coverage and some unvarnished opinion. The "reviews" that just consist of the latter drivel are what we're trying to address here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unneeded, WP:CREEPy. Large language models (for me the abbreviation LLM always means a master's degree in law) may be able to summarise plots but any review site that posts such summaries isn't going to pass our reliability/notability standards. This reads as though it would exclude, for example, an academic piece discussing the qualities of a particular book-character. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reliable sources is what confers notability, and I don't see a benefit in restricting that by subject matter. As a project that endeavors to capture the sum of human knowledge, we should lean towards keeping articles, not deleting them. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is some appropriate criticism about people imposing their preferences on a topic area without knowledge of how the sourcing in that topic area works, which to me makes this proposal a solution in search of a problem. Imzadi 1979 → 21:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a solution entirely in search of a problem. Adding this to our notability guidelines is not necessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't a problem warranting this solution, and I think this proposal would more likely cause issues, specifically in debates/deletion discussions (per Snow Rise and Visviva). While I understand concerns about LLMs, Vaticidalprophet and FOARP have addressed how this proposal does not solve issues related to LLMs. Wracking ^talk! 05:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Current guidelines could handle this. A pure or functionally pure plot-summary would indeed not be countable towards notability, but I wouldn't exclude any plot aspect from assessing, say, Sig Cov length - as it's sort of a core bit of any review. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose this would be an artificial and inflexible rule and make book coverage on Wikipedia worse. Jack4576 (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The rule isn't necessarily wrong, but it's WP:CREEPy and we should be smart enough to discount those sorts of reviews anyways. I also don't necessarily see the problem this is trying to solve - do we really have books skating by on this alone? SportingFlyer T·C 22:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (book notability)

• I'm not seeing how this would make discussions much clearer. Most significant coverage of a book would have to include plot descriptions, and perhaps quotes, or there would be little to analyze. A regurgitation of a plot with no analysis probably isn't significant coverage, but from there on it's fuzzy and analysis and plot descriptions/quotes can easily be interwoven. CMD (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Clarification needed. What is meant by "quotes"? Does it mean "quotes from the book"? Or is it meant to include "quotes about the book"? Cbl62 (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Cbl62: Quotes from the book. Quotes about the book from the publisher or author are already excluded for lacking independence, and quotes about the book from other reviews are better sourced to said other reviews. BilledMammal (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Can you accordingly modify the proposal to refer only to "quotes from the book"? Cbl62 (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Cbl62: Done. BilledMammal (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Request - Could we get an example of a source that would be excluded by this proposal? Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would make a more specific request for a source that (1) would be excluded by this proposal and (2) has been used to support notability (at AfD or elsewhere) without being immediately laughed out of the room. In other words, is this proposed solution solving an actual problem? Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  The problem is more pernicious is topic areas such as television episodes than books, but in those topic areas the horse has already bolted from the barn; I am proposing acting in this topic area because there is there is currently the potential for the horse to bolt but it hasn't yet.

  That isn't to say it is no problem in this topic area; an example of a book review used in an AfD that would be excluded by this proposal is this review. BilledMammal (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  So it is your position that sentences like "The second book in the trilogy ... probes deeper into the relationship between Calwyn and Darrow, the man she rescued from being sacrificed to the Goddess. Darrow's mysterious upbringing and how he came to wear the ruby ring that once belonged to Samis are presented through flashbacks. Kimberly Farr's melodic voice enhances the strong characterization and lyrical language of the story, drawing listeners ever deeper ... The effectiveness of the background music varies-sometimes complementing the reading, at other times distracting from it" are purely regurgitation of plot content, and are in no way transformative? And that other discussion participants should be pre-empted from making that analysis by declaring that such content is automatically non-transformative? It is a short review, but if it is to be judged too short, it should not be because it happens to mention some plot points along the way; it is largely evaluative rather than narrative. You are, in fact, presenting the perfect example of why we should not approve this proposal: because editors like you will immediately try to use it against reviews that happen to mention plot points as illustrations of their evaluative points, rather than limiting your condemnation to reviews that are only about plot. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  The proposal is that the review would need to contain significant coverage beyond plot analysis, not that it would need to contain coverage beyond plot analysis. That article contains coverage, but I don't believe it contains significant coverage.

  Since I've raised the topic of television episodes, I'm curious what you would think of sources like this and this in the context of this proposal? BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Both of those are secondary as they have review and commentary atop the simple recap of the episode. Masem (t) 15:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wait, so we're not even just talking about RS plot summaries but also plot analysis? Yeah, that's even further a bridge too far. Definitely a non-starter proposal if that's where you want to set the exclusionary constraints. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Plot analysis is intended to be fine - my personal metric under this proposal would be that if a sentence could support content outside a "plot" section (for example, an "analysis" section) then that sentence would count towards assessing whether the source contains SIGCOV.

  There could be difference of opinion over whether a specific sentence could support content, but I suspect that would be easy to resolve; the editor believing it does contain such content could easily demonstrate it by using said sentence to support content. BilledMammal (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with David Eppstein here. If this what you want to exclude from consideration, BilledMammal, I am even more agreed that your proposal should fail on its merits. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did the old "Superprotect" protection level ever have its own lock image?

I was wondering because I was thinking of adding an image of it to the "Former deleted protections" section of WP:PP. LOOKSQUARE (👤️·🗨️) talk 00:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

If it did, you'd probably find it at Wikidata, where Superprotect was used on a few items (with community consensus). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

We never had a padlock icon for superprotection. That prot level was never used here, and although superprotect is mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 16 theer is no suggestion of a possible icon. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Use by others, and notability of sources.

We are having a bit of of a disconnect on this subject. Some examples:

• Recently, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ImportGenius was closed as no consensus. Nobody constructed a clear case that the subject met WP:CORP, but there was a lot of discussion around the fact that the company's data (its product, that is) was cited frequently by RS.
• Recently, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnergySage (2nd nomination) was also closed as no consensus. Again, no compelling case that the subject met WP:CORP. Some discussion around its use by others.
• Note also the ongoing RFC specifically about notability of journals at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals) § RfC on notability criteria.

One of the trickiest parts of this is that it's particularly hard to find good sources for sources, especially ones for which the notability is right on the margin of meeting WP:GNG. You end up overwhelmed by citations of the source. It's not an ideal state for a 7-day AfD discussion, nor for editors choosing whether to bring an article to AfD in the first place.

I will also note an essay Wikipedia:Notability of reliable sources that has discussed this in some depth, no prejudice towards any of the specifics in it.

If we could come up with a clear, broad subject-specific notability criteria for sources based their use by others, we could resolve a lot of this. I don't have a specific proposal yet but wanted to gauge thoughts in this area at this time. —siroχo 06:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on a quick search/skim of sources given, I agree that these two companies are marginal. If I had !voted it would be weak X on whichever side of the line.

I think that a source being consistently cited (as opposed to discussed) by other sources on high-risk topics (e.g. topics with potential corrections/libel risks) can be an indicator of reliability. But I'm not sure it's an indicator of notability. If it were, that would extend notability to every glorified PR agency, dubious purveyor of fluff polls, and entrepreneur guy who likes to be quoted in the press as an expert, etc. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on that front. I think mixing notability with reliability is not the way to go. Hypothetically, it would be convenient to be able to craft an SNG that requires a source to be reliable, but we'd risk overwhelming WP:RSN with notability questions, and also it might fall afoul of NPOV to base our inclusion criteria on Wikipedia using the source itself.

I'm hoping there's a different way we can exclude such things. The essay I linked had one hypothetical critera There is an in-Wikipedia consensus among experienced editors that a source is especially important for a niche topic which could be a starting point. I.e. a criteria not actually based on reliability or use per se, but instead on the collective knowledge of editors that a source is, in fact, notable due to it's importance. —siroχo 07:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I get what you're trying to do; I'm just not sure that it's possible to generalize beyond a case-by-case basis. There's a difference between thinking a company produces reliable enough data to put in your magazine article (for instance) about something else, and thinking a company is noteworthy enough to run an entire magazine article about it.

I don't think any of the suggestions in the essay you linked are feasible, nor do the suggestions seem especially informed. ("There is no obvious audience for publishing on [sources]"?) Not sure whether you're suggesting this but an unreliable source can still be notable -- e.g., the National Enquirer. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not planning on relying heavily on that essay as anything more than a possible starting point. In my opinion, the GNG would still be an option, this would just be meant to reduce repetitive discussions about whether reliable sources are themselves notable with a clear, NPOV guideline. I'm hopeful that it's possible but I hear you when you say it may not be.

Anyways, thanks for your input, I will think more on this and other possibilities. —siroχo 18:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed amendment on revision deletion for articles on ongoing Ru military operations

Within the territory of the Russian Federation, a number of Wikipedia articles have been banned, which relate to ongoing military operations undertaken by their armed forces. Some of these banned articles have resulted in fines for Wikipedia's parent, the Wikimedia Foundation. As of July 2023, there have been a total of 7 fines resulting in over 8.4 million rubles. Similar measures may also exist to a degree wrt to Ukrainian laws on the relevant topics.

After doing some digging around, it appears that the Russian Wikimedia arbitration committee has made the decision to anonymise editors for topics directly of a military nature, for the purposes of the safety of editors. I am proposing that similar measures be implemented for the English language site for at least until the end of military activities. The justification for this move would be to help with preserving the privacy, and security of editors in an environment with potential increased risk. Specifically, this would be a temporary addition to the WP:RVDL criteria, focused on the removal of editor usernames/IP, as well as edit descriptions which mention users.

Interested in hearing what people think 222.154.81.234 (talk) 10:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Articles directly related to the Russo-Ukrainian war on en.wikipedia should be extended-confirmed protected due to the general sanctions in place, therefore no IP editors should be able to edit such articles (though they can still make edit requests on talk). For registered users, it's generally left up to them how anonymous they want to be. In the case of someone who's already "out" and at risk, I wonder whether editing this area would be legitimate grounds for using an alternate account? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. In general, I would agree with the use of extended confirmed protection, although this may possibly make the use of alternative accounts difficult.

For already involved users, perhaps still extending the RVSL criteria to include requests is still an option. Still think that the original proposal stands as registered editors with more contributions have a higher chance of a breach of personal privacy. 222.154.81.234 (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Including @Ad Orientem and @Primefac in this conservation 222.154.81.234 (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not opposed to this in principle. However, I am concerned about the logistics. How is this going to work? We are potentially talking about a lot of articles, some of which are edited with great frequency. How do we determine who qualifies for having their IP or account name revdeled? This could potentially create a great deal of work for an admin corps that has been slowly shrinking for many years and some believe is already understaffed. And lastly I need to point out something inconvenient, that even someone as technologically challenged as I am understands. Revdel is not an especially effective shield against against persons or entities with strong technical skills or tools at their disposal. If you are trying to protect an editor's identity from the Russian secret police, I doubt revdel would be even a speed bump for them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem I believe Wiki Ru space utilise a bot/script to perform these actions, but this is likely to be quite demanding on resources. Perhaps it may be worth cross talking to find out more how this is done. Alternatively, this could just be considered a potential option for those who feel need it.

Regarding your last point, I would say that the scope of this policy would strictly be limited to that of general privacy and prevention of lower level doxxing, as opposed to anything on a nation state level. 222.154.81.234 (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Including @Oleg Yunakov and @Neolexx as they may be able to provide more information in this regard. 222.154.81.234 (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, a good start would probably be the three English Wikipedia articles listed here

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/ru/c/ce/558144-HB.pdf

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/ru/4/44/633973-HB.pdf

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/ru/b/ba/558145-HB.pdf 222.154.81.234 (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

My tech skills likely peaked with the advent of the electric pencil sharpener so I am not a good candidate for anything involving the technology aspects of this. But FWIW I am not opposed to the idea or the proposal for a narrow modification of WP:CRD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely would be grounds for a WP:SECURESOCK Jack4576 (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, although this proposal would be largely for edits that have already been made, hence the addition of criteria in WP:CRD. 222.154.81.234 (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Reading with interest as someone who has had concerns related to this. As a professional opinion I would like to emphatically second the point about it probably not being possible to protect editors from a determined state actor.

I don't see SECUREALT as being much help however. What good is that if my user page would have to say "btw I am also so-and-so when I am discussing Putin's offshore bank accounts?? Get out ;)

With no knowledge whatsoever of the wikipedia backend, however, I wonder if there could be some script that scrambles or obfuscates editors signatures, which would be identifiable by regex, yes? The challenge I see is how it would be possible to hold a discussion on the talk page, but maybe something could be done with cookies? That's a bit out of my actual expertise, which is more big-metal WANs. Just a brainstorming suggestion Elinruby (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem Any idea how we could get this to the attention of the arbitration committee, with the somewhat urgent nature of English language articles being listed?

It seems quite feasible for an implementation based on WP:RVDL. In order to lessen the burden on administrators this could be a fairly narrow modification of the deletion criteria, potentially operating on an opt in basis. This would help in the case of accounts that have already contributed to pages in some manner, and thus may not have the advantage of a sock account. 222.154.81.234 (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not quite sure whether we (ArbCom) can make amendments to the RevDel policy like that; if anything the community would need to demonstrate that it is a desired thing (at which point it might as well just be implemented). Primefac (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think SECURESOCK is likely the best option until/unless the community agrees to a more tech focused solution. Anyone needing it could quietly contact an admin and I am sure most would be more than happy to grant EC status to a an alt account and post a note on their user page explaining that it is an alt account created for legitimate reasons. I used to have an alt myself for situations where I might have to use a public computer, but I never used it and have long since abandoned it. If memory has not failed, I think I actually blocked it as a security precaution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Anonymity or registered users is immensely important for many many reasons. This proposal (at least with respect to registered users) seems to ignore that or dilute that concept. North8000 (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Although it's normally acquired automatically, extended-confirmed status can be granted to anyone, such as a SECURESOCK vouched for by its main account in a private message. It will be obvious that the sock is a legitimate alt of a regular editor, but not which one. We could even have an admin place a template on its user page, or add an entry to a protected list, to mark it as such. Certes (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

If it's a matter for individual admins, then it probably doesn't require any policy change. Personally, I think getting involved, however peripherally, in a conflict where all sides are very much playing for keeps is above my pay grade and better left to the WMF office.. Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

NJOURNALS again

For context, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_183#NJOURNALS_essay_under_discussion along with WT:NJOURNALS and its archives.

A new Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academic_journals)#RfC_on_notability_criteria dropped. Would love to see if any watchers here may have any way to help.

jps (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC on GENDERID in BLP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the content guidance addressing the former names of transgender or non-binary individuals stay in MOS:GENDERID and be expanded to include deceased individuals, or should it be moved to WP:BLPNAME and the MOS entry reduced to style? If it should move to BLP, a further question of scope is included. An oppose !vote keeps the status quo. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 - Expand MOS:GENDERID to deceased
Add this paragraph to MOS:GENDERID: For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary, reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.

Option 2 - Move content restriction to WP:BLPNAME with normal privacy exceptions, and revise down MOS:GENDERID

Add this paragraph to the end of WP:BLPNAME: It is reasonable to assume that a transgender or non-binary individual would not want a former name disseminated, and it should be removed unless the person was notable under the name, it has been widely published by reliable sources, or it may be reasonably inferred that the individual does not object to the name being made public. Revise MOS:GENDERID to remove content restrictions and other cleanup: Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. It may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. When the former name or gender is not included in the article, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included. Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.

Option 2a - Move content restriction to WP:BLPNAME with only exception for notability, and revise down MOS:GENDERID

Add this paragraph to the end of WP:BLPNAME: It is reasonable to assume that a transgender or non-binary individual would not want a former name disseminated, and it should be removed unless the person was notable under the name. Revise MOS:GENDERID to remove content restrictions and other cleanup (same wording as Option 2): Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. It may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. When the former name or gender is not included in the article, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included. Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.

Background RFCs and proposals

It would be very helpful to read the closing of two recent RFCs, one closed 7 June 2023 and another closed 20 July 2023. See also extensive discussions of proposals for this RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 2 - As nominator, I have to point out the elephant in the room, that "Gender-related topics" are identified as an example of Civil POV Pushing, a problem that ArbCom has had a "difficult time dealing with". The current MOS:GENDERID seems to be an example of regulatory capture, where those invested with their POV have been successful at expanding the MOS to inappropriately include content restrictions that violate WP:NOTCENSORED without any clear policy-based justification. Supporters of the last two RFCs seemed to support expanding restrictions out of "dignity", "respect", and the subject's "wishes". I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of BLP, and it has a justification for removing unencyclopedic content for living and recently deceased individuals, but there is currently no policy to justify expanding privacy protections to long-deceased individuals. It would require some form of new policy and it is far beyond the scope of the MOS. The Wikimedia Foundation made a Resolution with the advent of BLP that urges us to take "human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information". In that spirit, I propose enshrining the privacy protection for transgender and non-binary people into BLP and out of the MOS, using the normal privacy exceptions of when the person was notable under the name, it has been "widely published by reliable sources" (wording here is debatable), or the person does not object to its dissemination. In the process I also proposed a cleanup to MOS:GENDERID that reduces it to style-only. As a courtesy to avoid a second RFC, I included option 2a for those who want BLP to have the more restrictive language of only notable former names. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural close as this RfC is too convoluted to reasonably reach consensus. The community has been through multiple lengthy discussions on related topics, and it would be better to start on the right foot. The OP has received, as far as I can tell, universally negative reception to this RfC format at WT:MOSBIO. There are many issues, chief among them being the way that Options 2 and 2a are presenting a change+move combo that obfuscates the ways it would devastate the guidance currently in GENDERID. I have sincerely tried, and I cannot envision a way that this makes more sense than separately considering changes and moves. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural close as failure to do WP:RFCBEFORE. Editors are currently working out an RFC over at the talk page for MOS:BIO. This exact RFC language was proposed there and got no support. Actually starting it is clearly an attempt to jump the gun of that discussion. Loki (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural close per Firefangledfeathers. This RfC is not yet ready. There are multiple outstanding unresolved issues that have been raised by many editors in the discussions at WT:MOSBIO, including that this RfC is asking questions about text that had not yet been finalised in other discussions, and that both options 2 and 2a are incorporating significant changes to the scope of the guideline that are wholly separate to moving portions of it to BLP. There is also at least one other proposed format for an RfC on these issues, that seems to have slightly stronger support as it more clearly delineates the scope of what is being proposed here. As those discussions are still ongoing, this clearly fails WP:RFCBEFORE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  As a prime and easily demonstrable example of why this is not ready, when Cunado presented a version of this two days ago, I questioned whether option 1 was mutually exclusive of options 2 and 3 of the draft (options 2 and 2a of this live RfC) as on the surface the two of the three choices are fully compatible. Cuñado responded asking if it would be helpful to include in the preamble that option 1 can be combined with other options to enshrine an MOS-based policy about past-RDP deadnames?. I replied with a maybe, and raised the point that it might be better assessed as either a separate RfC or a separate question within a multi-question RfC. None of that feedback has been actioned here, and options 1, 2, and 2a are presented by Cuñado as being mutually exclusive.

  For those who wish to read more, there are a multitude of other issues that have been raised in the (up to now) ongoing discussions at WT:MOSBIO. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#GENDERID in BLP is the most recent discussion, however the TNT on GENDERID, and WP:BOLD restrictions on the use of deceased transgender or non-binary persons birth name or former name are also of relevance here for why this is not yet ready. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural close: This RfC‘s scope is just too broad (and context is changing as we speak) to reach consensus, as others have pointed out. On a side note: I think the flexibility afforded by GID being a guideline (and not policy) is quite important at the moment, as evidenced by the RfC I opened on the MOSGID talk page, where most feedback boiled down to „editors making reasonable case-by-case decisions is better than trying to account for edge cases here.“ Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 19:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural close As others have pointed out there is an ongoing discussion about this and this RfC is completely jumping the gun on that with no support. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural close with a minor “trout” to Cuñado for rushing the gun and not listening to input and requests when formulating this. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to remove "rearrangement of text" from definition of minor edit.

It is currently suggested on Help:Minor_edit to mark rearrangement of text without modification of the content as a minor edit. I am suggesting removing this, because content prominence management is more controversial than ever before with only the lede showing up by default on mobile browsing and the desire of interested editors to control prominence of contents. The location of text within article can often be a highly contentious dispute even if the meaning doesn't change and I am suggesting no longer recommending rearrangement of text as minor. Graywalls (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - per Graywalls' statement, the location of text can be significant. Also not that the "rearrangement of text" is only mentioned in the "rule of thumb" last paragraph, but not mentioned in the preceding descriptive text. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Assuming you're referring to the last paragraph of the lead, the issue is that the rule of thumb mentioned there isn't restricted – as it should be – to non-contentious edits. Suggest adding "non-contentious" to the opening words, so that the sentence reads A good rule of thumb is that non-contentious edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content should be flagged as minor edits. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  The original phrase "rearrangement of text without modification of the content" seems self-contradictory, as one cannot "rearrange" something without modifying it. The original wording is nonsensical. I presume what was intended, was "rearrangement of text without modification of the meaning". Mathglot (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think it is intended to mean "without changing any non-space characters". But, regardless, the whole page is so unclear it's not surprising that editors disagree about how to use the feature. I Oppose the proposal as written and also any broadening the scope of minor edits to "without modification of the meaning". But I Support a collaborative effort to re-write the page entirely. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support — There are quite a few edit wars over the placement of text. A particularly prevalent example is when text is moved in and out of the lead section. Zero^talk 09:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. In addition to my proposal above, it would help a lot if it were to be stated clearly somewhere on the page that moving text between the lead and the body of an article, in either direction, never counts as a minor edit. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't have to involve movement between body and lede to be major. There are multiple ways within the body to move things around so flattering items are placed prominently while unflattering things are buried in the haystack. An example of reputation management edit by a suspected public relations editor is changing the arbitration break, such as changing from 2010-2020, 2020 to current: to 2010-2015, 2015-current in order to make unflattering things go away from the latest history section. Graywalls (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as per MichaelMaggs's concerns. While there are certainly contentious movings of text, an awful lot of what I see is things like fixing the order of a alphabetized or date-based list, where small errors are common and the minor status is appropriate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Apparently having information in the second section of the lead instead of the first sentence can be equivalent to covering for rapists[1] and protecting convicted child molesters/rapists[2], so it is clearly not minor. There can be an exception for rearranging alphabetically, by date, or similar neutral criteria. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The purpose of minor edits is to mark changes that have negligible chance of creating controversy. While rearranging text might be controversial in some cases, in many cases, it's indeed a minor edit. Moving content into or out of the lead probably shouldn't be minor, but moving a clearly misplaced paragraph between sections is a textbook minor edit. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I have seen huge edit wars over “minor” edits. Thus, there are times when I think we should scrap the entire system of classifying edits as major or minor. It isn’t serving it’s intended purpose.

Then I remember how many times I have seen bad faith editors attempt to “hide” major changes by marking them as minor, and I realize that the marking is useful in a way NOT intended - it tells me that I need to pay EXTRA attention to any edit so marked. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Took the words right out of my mouth. The only time in practice that "minor" edits can be ignored is when they are performed by the small fraction of long-standing editors one has learned to never play this type of game. Zero^talk 05:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, editors who are working professional in the capacity of client marketing communications and prominence management are excellent gamers of system. Graywalls (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support If editors are "fixing the order of a alphabetized or date-based list, where small errors are common", then sure, mark those edits as minor; but the 'good rule of thumb' sentence shouldn't state so plainly that "rearrangement of text without modification of the content should be flagged as minor edits" (emphasis mine), since possible WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT violations will be marked as "minor". Per WP:NPOV: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including ... prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements.... Some1 (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (but support potential rewrite) First of all, if the major/minor distinction is important, then the mobile platform should support it. Second, when I rehab bad machine translation, word order is a big part of what I am fixing. Usually this is within the same sentence mind you, but I think there aren't enough use cases in the proposal, and it *is* "rearranging text". Third, I too have seen SEO-like efforts to get certain things in the lede, and support specifically excluding moves into and out of the lede from being called minor. Those are not minor edits. If it comes to rearranging sentence order or paragraph order, at best this is a rewrite for organization and probably not minor either, but that's discussable, I guess. Really though, if the mobile platform doesn't need it why does anyone else? Especially as it's so often abused. Elinruby (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

If in doubt, it should always be a non-minor edit. Not being able to flag as minor is not an issue like those who edit for PR purposes that intentionally utilize minor edits to evade scrutiny and reduce the attention their edits get. We're increasing seeing things like name drops, office locations, as well as awards/accolades/honors in lede, because these are often things article subject wants to highlight and be part of the first impression. Graywalls (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand the problem and when I saw it, it was a determined attempt to insert into the lede a claim being actively touted by Russian propaganda outlets, so yes, I understand that SEO is often at work with these. My suggestion however is still to rewrite the wording, but in a different way rather than making a blanket prohibition.

As far as the mobile platform goes, I also get it that the stereotype of mobile users is not good and may in some cases be justified. I just...see so much drama over this on the dramah boards that I can't help but ask why the 'minor edit" distinction is needed. Of course you and I know that it avoids wasting editor time, but that's not a priority on en-wikipedia, is it? But don't let my cynicism hijack your thread. I think the wording should change, just not the way you are proposing. Are you specifically interested in the lede moves, or can you enunciate another situation where this is a problem? Elinruby (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose but I think Mathglot got it right to suggest, "rearrangement of text without modification of the meaning". When I read the text in question, I see it as rearranging within the same sentence, like moving, "spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text" to "formatting changes, rearrangement of text, or spelling corrections". I would mark that as minor. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  So you'd support it with re-write? Graywalls (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  If I'm reading the room right, you correctly identified a problem and it seems like changing "content" to "meaning" in the sentence is a no-brainer that addresses most of the issue. Removing "rearrangement" is split. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support I had always taken "without modification of the content" to mean changes to white space. Would oppose an expansion to "meaning". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, but alter the text to "rearrangement of text without modification of the meaning" to repair the nonsense. Even though I would probably only mark it "minor" when done within the same sentence and had considered recommending inserting "...in the same sentence", on reflection I think that's too restrictive, and it would be better to leave it out and let such things be decided by consensus on a case by case basis, as long as it's clear that the slightest change to meaning means it is not minor. Mathglot (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Throw the whole system away It's my experience that this topic always causes more heat than light. There are some examples above about how minor edits may draw even more scrutiny, and I remember this entertaining ANI thread where someone got yelled at for marking page moves as minor, when it turns out that MediaWiki always marks page moves as minor. And Twinkle automatically marks revision restorations rollbacks are marked as minor, which is probably one of the least minor edits one can make. Ironically, I just did a bunch of copyediting on an article yesterday and the only edit that I did mark minor was rearrangement of text, so idk. If people still really think this is valuable, then in my imaginary techno-utopia, a bot would perform semantic analysis on each edit and do the marking for us. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  I've long since stopped marking anything I do as minor. I know it's just one click on the checkbox, but even that minimal amount of effort doesn't seem justified by the pointlessness of bothering. RoySmith (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  There was a discussion about getting rid of "minor" last March/April, but reactions were mixed. Schazjmd (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Twinkle doesn't mark my restore edits as minor, and my configuration shouldn't be anything special. See here. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  You're right; I meant the default rollback functionality that rollbackers have, which I erroneously conflated with Twinkle's simulation of such. It's documented on the rollback page that these actions are all marked as minor; example here. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Throw whole system away. I've brought this idea up before at Idea lab. There is a sizeable fraction of editors when asked who are ready to scrap the whole idea of a minor edits and that's very promising because as I explained in the thread, it is a software design mistake. Unfortunately, removal of features in a community project faces an uphill battle because there's something like "feature inertia" where once a feature exists it's hard to remove it without upsetting some people. But overall I think the editors in favor of keeping the minor edit feature made pretty weak arguments why. Since the idea that the minor edit box should be removed is still novel idea and not often brought up, I think the concept needs to be seeded around more before any action is likely to occur; otherwise, it's too shocking a change and there'd be many people opposing by knee-jerk opposes or very hollow "I use it" arguments. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Jason Quinn, on the assumption that getting rid of it isn't possible, would you be interested in a system that restricts is availability to more experienced editors? Alternatively, we could request a config change so that minor edits aren't hidden by default. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Even if it's limited to experienced editors, it needs to be a revokable privilege for them as well. But just doing away with it may be better. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, edits marked as hide from scrutinyminor should not be hidden by default. —Kusma (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: No. I don't think it should be restricted to experienced users. The problem with the minor edit checkbox is fundamental: It's just an ill-defined semantically-relative concept. Even when well-used "correctly" by an experienced editor, the edits they mark as minor my not be viewed as such by others. The minor edit checkbox is mostly the illusion of a feature and does very little useful. This idea of limiting its availability would make it less prevalent on the project and perhaps slightly increase its value when used but not solve any of the core issues it has. If anything I fear such a change would just prevent its eventual removal. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  The main use seems to be hiding simple reversions from watchlists. (I have that setting disabled, so I still see them.) There seem to be some people who appreciate this, but it might be possible to hide the button for manual reversions and still allow it for bots or Twinkle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support – Even moves within paragraphs establish context that wasn't there before, and such edits can stand to be scrutinized by other editors, even though I'm usually making such moves in articles that have real coherency problems and don't provoke POV disputes with such edits. My edits are limited to being marked as minor when they are bot-assisted, such as with JWB, which seems to be a convenient use for the tag. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, the definition of "minor edit" should be made to conform to reality: A "minor edit" is one where the "minor edit" checkbox has been ticked. I don't think this is a useful feature, but we should not waste any time on it. —Kusma (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Throw whole system away. The cognitive load costs of the system outweighs the minor benefits (pun not intended). It's really only marginally useful when filtering the contributions of a non-bot editor you already trust who also happens to make a lot of minor edits, which does happen but is very rare. I agree with some of the discussion above making the ability to mark edits as minor a grantable and revocable privelege. —siroχo 09:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Throw the whole system away The minor edit thing has always been pointless, and a pointless source of drama, for all of Wikipedia's history. It's only purpose is to give people a reason to attack people who don't follow arcane and pointless rules about its use. If it didn't exist, nothing bad would happen except that people would stop having a reason to complain about its misuse. --Jayron32 11:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:TOR is weird

Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor only gives advice to registered users. For unregistered users, they need an account but can't create one. However, the relevant section tells them to follow the same instructions under the section 'IP block exemption'. Only registered users in good standing can request IP block exemption, so the section is completely useless.
WP:WPCP have been inactive for a long time and the setup instructions are complex; There is only one server and one server admin; I don't expect that the admin can respond quickly. This section is also essentially useless.
Although the section 'Alternative proxies' says that many proxies are only soft-blocked, it is still very hard for users to find such. Essentially useless.
So I wonder if the WMF really care about the unfair blocking of new and unregistered users. IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 02:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit of compromise to keep the volume of advocacy & public relations editing from multiple terminals under control. Graywalls (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

BOTPOL and LLM-assisted editing

I have found at least one editor who appears to be making rapid gnoming edits by using ChatGPT or equivalent to generate wiki-markup. I'm basing this on the speed at which a new editor is ostensibly reading and reformatting articles. As best as I can tell, BOTPOL does not explicitly prohibit this, as they haven't introduced errors AFAICS, and haven't made purely cosmetic changes; most changes are adding links.

I haven't named the editor because this isn't the forum to discuss their conduct, but I would appreciate thoughts on whether this is against current policy, and if not what our response ought to be. It concerns me because the volume of edits this could enable is likely to swamp our ability to check, even if most individual edits are fine. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anybody can know unless we see the user or examples. Is the bot free to use? Does the user take requests? Seems like GenAI would be ideal to tweak for auto-templating and auto-filling of citations, which I've spent literally hours doing by hand. Tons more ideas limited only by expense. Nothing wrong with the use of GenAI to make a bot; un- or inadequately supervised bots, as well as making large-scale changes in general, are already covered in existing policies. SamuelRiv (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOTPOL has nothing specific to say about using LLMs, any more than it has anything to say about whether you should use Python. It looks like you've already evaluated most of what it does cover.

Outside of BOTPOL, there have been discussions specifically about LLMs on the Village pumps recently which may have something to say on the use of that. Anomie⚔ 11:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, what makes you think that this involves ChatGPT instead of a forked (or just old) version of AWB? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: It's ostensibly a brand new user who lacks AWB permissions, and the links added include ones that a competent AWB user would avoid for overlinking reasons. I also tested the capability of ChatGPT to produce the relevant markup, and it was trivially easy to do. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

AWB is open source; you can (and people have) change it however you want, including to not care about permissions, though if that were the method, you probably wouldn't purposely remove or break the existing anti-overlinking code. A home-grown script, on the other hand, might not include such content.

Wikitext follows sufficiently regular patterns that you would expect any LLM to be able to mimic it, but you also wouldn't expect any LLM to know which articles exist at the English Wikipedia (which would make linking difficult). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

This Guy Whitewashes Wikipedia Pages

• https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The story you linked to is 4 years old. What's it with VPP? SWinxy (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@0mtwb9gd5wx what already proposed policies and guidelines or changes to existing policies and guidelines are you trying to discuss here on the policy pump? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Language at WP:UPNOT

There's a sentence there that reads "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor". Intrepretation of this seems to be a bit vague in terms of whether someone can actually act unilaterally or not for something they percieve as extremely offensive per Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents#Did I do the right thing here?. I figured this might be suited to a broader community discussion if acting on said language is actually generally discouraged. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, trying to police other's userpages generally just creates more drama than it's worth. The issue of "offense" also tends to be fairly subjective. You get a whole bunch of people adding a "Kashmir is a part of India" userbox, and you're liable to create a crap-storm that burns ANI to the ground. I just don't think it's worth a whole lot of community time to try to clean up userpages unless (operative word) they are being otherwise disruptive. Obviously there are especially egregious cases: "Kill All [insert group]", "I Support Child Pornography", things that are probably themselves illegal in most jurisdictions, including the US where the hardware sits. GMG^talk 11:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify, I was thinking that stating that one enjoys a work widely described as transphobic (What is a Woman?) would qualify as "extemely offensive material". I got the impression that community consensus isn't as strong for that being as clearly cut offensive as hypothetically speaking, stating that one enjoys a work like the The Turner Diaries which is widely described as racist. Unless the situations are different enough that a comparison would not be valid. But considering the universal code of conduct includes discrimination based on gender/gender identity or based on a contributor's race, it seems to be a fair enough comparison to note if we treat transphobia and racism differently. Or is indicating support for a work that espouses those ideas not quite the same thing? Would unilaterally removing content in both of those situations still kind of be a grey area? I was thinking if it's the latter, the phrasing at the actual policy page should make that more clear or give different advice. What counts as "extremely offensive material" exactly and when should someone consider not removing it? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that "extremely offensive" can be subjective. Especially when it comes to culture war issues like in the case you linked, as a major tactic in the culture war is people on both sides taking extreme offense over any indication that people disagree with their viewpoints to further the polarization. Anomie⚔ 12:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

So if these judgements can be especially subjective, maybe the language at WP:UPNOT should be changed somehow to reflect current community norms? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

But how to you legislate subjectivity in detail, especially with creative works? As a modern counter-example, Tarantino has made a few movies that are deeply and intentionally racist, to the point of people crying on set because they were reenacting visceral scenes of slavery, like...actually in the hot sun...actually in a cotton field. Django specifically inspired a lot of controversy, but...it's also won two awards from the NAACP and one from the African-American Film Critics Association. GMG^talk 13:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I think there has to be a line somewhere, or how else would we define disruptive edits about contentious topics that lead to blocks? I'm not sure how one would go about legislating subjectivity, but I do genuinely think that there should be something nuanced about how to approach situations like this if the general community consensus ends up being to not do what I did. It's not that great for a PAG to suggest a course of action that isn't in line with community norms – it sets people up for failure and more drama. That's why I think some sort of clarity for the language used at WP:UPNOT would be useful. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe something like an explanatory note saying that what counts as extremely offensive can be subjective? Or that it may be best to try other methods first (like what was suggested in the ANI thread)? There has to be something we could say that'd suggest a course of action more in line with community norms. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this is probably broadly covered by the text above the table, and the general principle that the WP weapon of choice is just talking to somebody if you see an issue. Most people are generally accommodating and don't intend to give overt offense. GMG^talk 21:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it, though? I feel like reasonable people can read that text above of the table and come to the exact same conclusion as I did, especially considering the comparison to indicating support for racist ideology. I'm not completely close-minded, Pecopteris's comment is the closest I've come to feeling like there might be some way of more clearly outlining what's considered an okay lassez-faire action from any one individual editor and what isn't. I think you raise an interesting point in regards to how someone could enjoy/support a work without nessecarily endorsing its core themes...

As an example, I grew up as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm incredibly familiar with how what is considered offensive can depend on a lot of factors. I'm genuinely curious how to reconcile differences within the community with mutual respect for all parties. Given what's stated here includes "People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns", I guess my question then goes into what happens when someone's beliefs contradict that? What is a Woman? is well-known for its speech in which Walsh says: "You are all child abusers. You prey upon impressionable children and indoctrinate them into your insane ideological cult, a cult which holds many fanatical views but none so deranged as the idea that boys are girls and girls are boys."[3] This response is in regards to the school board creating a policy that respected preferred gender pronouns. I suppose its possible I'm reaching too far here? Or maybe I'm not communicating what I'm thinking clearly enough? Am I really the only one seeing things this way? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• My thoughts - I actually appreciate it when an editor includes potentially offensive material on their user page. It alerts me to the potential that the editor in question may not be able to maintain a WP:NPOV on a particular subject. It is helpful to know people’s biases upfront. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  I second @Blueboar's remark. I would also like to add the following perspective:

  The Wikipedia project, I think, could be summarized as "bringing together a community of people from around the world to create an open-source encyclopedia that reflects, to the greatest degree possible, the sum total of reliably sourced human knowledge". Is that not a fair summary?

  With that in mind, I think our community standards should not only reflect the "norms" and socio-cultural beliefs of those who are currently active here. Instead, the community standards should create an environment such that any human being on earth that wants to contribute to this project should feel like they are valued and welcome to participate, regardless of their cultural background or views on certain subjects.

  That includes LGBTQ+ folks, like myself. It also includes folks who are religious or otherwise socially conservative and watch things like "What is a Woman?". Within reason, community standards need to allow for constructive contributions from all types of people, including those who have personal views we find deeply offensive.

  From that perspective, removing a userbox that says, essentially, "I like 'What is a Woman'" because it's "deeply offensive" makes about as much sense as a deeply religious editor removing a "pro-choice" userbox because they find it "deeply offensive". I think @GreenMeansGo is on the right track here:

  • remove content that is illegal or discusses things that are illegal like CP
  • remove "Kill all the X" or equally direct calls for real-world violence
  • remove anything that's a personal attack against another user (like a user dedicating their userpage to direct bullying of another editor because they're trans, for example).

  Outside of that...I say let people have their views, and express them to a reasonably measured degree, as with the use of userboxes. As long as they're constructive editors. If they're trying to POV push those views into mainspace articles, we already have strong safeguards against that. I don't think this subjective piece of language, "deeply offensive", adds much of value to Wikipedia, and its use and interpretation seems to cause discord in the community that would be avoided with a more laissez-faire attitude. That's my (possibly offensive) POV on offensive POVs. Good day. Pecopteris (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC (WP:UPNOT)

Is the current language at WP:UPNOT reflective of current community norms and the Universal Code of Conduct, or should it be changed in some way? In particular, the content that states: "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor." Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• No - change or remove - First of all, thanks for opening this RfC, @Clovermoss. I think it's very good to clarify this issue. I will copy/paste most of my above comment here, with minor modifications. I look forward to reading the ensuing discussion.
  The Wikipedia project, I think, could be summarized as "bringing together a community of people from around the world to create an open-source encyclopedia that reflects, to the greatest degree possible, the sum total of reliably sourced human knowledge". Is that not a fair summary?
  With that in mind, I think our community standards should not only reflect the "norms" and widely-held socio-cultural beliefs of those who are currently active here. Instead, the community standards should create an environment such that any human being on earth that wants to contribute to this project should feel like they are valued and welcome to participate, regardless of their cultural background or views on certain subjects.
  That includes LGBTQ+ folks, like myself. It also includes folks who are religious or otherwise socially conservative and watch things like "What is a Woman?". Within reason, community standards need to allow for constructive contributions from all types of people, including those who have personal views we find deeply offensive.
  From that perspective, removing a userbox that says, essentially, "I like 'What is a Woman'" because it's "extremely offensive" makes about as much sense as a deeply religious editor removing a "pro-choice" userbox because they find it "extremely offensive".
  I think the following would be reasonable guidelines:
  • remove content that is illegal or discusses things that are illegal like CP
  • remove "Kill all the X" or equally direct calls for real-world violence
  • remove anything that's a personal attack against another user (like a user dedicating their userpage to direct bullying of another editor because of their identity or beliefs, for example).
• Outside of that...I say let people have their views, and express them to a reasonably measured degree, as with the use of userboxes. As long as they're constructive editors. If they're trying to POV push those views into mainspace articles, we already have strong safeguards against that. I don't think this subjective piece of language, "extremely offensive material", adds anything of value to Wikipedia, and its use and interpretation seems to cause discord in the community that would be avoided with a more laissez-faire attitude.
  That's my (possibly offensive) POV on offensive POVs. Good day. Pecopteris (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  remove content that is illegal or discusses things that are illegal like CP flatly wont work as a hard-fast rule in that wording. Cannabis is illegal at the state level where I live, and even if you live in a state where it's legal, it's still illegal on the federal level. Being gay is illegal in a third of the world. If we think that's not going to be somehow equated with child pornography...go ask one of those countries because it very much already is. GMG^talk 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes it's OK I guess. (Summoned by robot). First off I'd like to hear what practical operational problems of a large publishing concern (which is what we are) are solved by this.
  IMO the passage should actually be a lot stronger, like "expressions of political and cultural ideology are not allowed" or something, as "I am a (American) Republican" or "I am a (American) Democrat" adds little or nothing useful to the project and are just going to alienate some people and and attract others (and all we need is bunch of Democrats or Republicans etc. getting together to work on articles). If get a request for help or cooperation from someone who has "I like Trump" on her userpage, I'm likely to tell her to fuck right off rather than helping or cooperating. Like it or not that is how enough people roll to matter. So tell me how allowing her to put that on her userpage is helpful to the project.
  The Wikipedia has an ideology, and a strong one, and and a radical one in terms of history and, to a good degree, present times: the Wikipedia is an Enlightenment institution. As such we obviously favor sourcing to observable facts rather than authority, but along with that the other enlightenment values are baked in -- liberty, democracy, natural rights, toleration (but see Paradox of tolerance) and so forth, in general. I would have to say that there's been a progression in Enlightenment thought since the 17th century to cover changing situations, and the direction of this progress is pretty obvious: in favor of female equality rather than against it, in favor of racial equality rather than against it, in favor of a broader acceptance of sexuality rather than a narrower one, and so forth.
  All this being so, people who are against democracy, natural rights, toleration, racial equality, and so forth, just aren't welcome here. (For some purposes; I mean anyone can work here, even a Nazi, if we don't know they're a Nazi and they keep it themselves and work on articles about motor sports.) Somebody's got an "I like [some crypto-fascist politician]" statement, I want her gone, or at any rate far away from articles on politics and culture and history etc (which there's no mechanism here for that and it'd mean constant policing) Because "determining facts without fear or favor and stating them without regard to effects" is an Enlightenment value, not an authoritarian or monarchist or theocratical or fascist one.
  But neither do we want to allow Social Democrats but not conservatives state their beliefs. Just, we shouldn't have any of that. We should have a stronger statement IMO, but certainly not a more watered-down one. Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  The operational problem I was trying to solve was whether the phrasing in that guideline reflects actual practice given that everyone has told me up to this point that I shouldn't have actually edited that person's userpage even if the end result would've likely been the removal of said content, just not from me. I thought this had a broader impact and that it'd be a good idea to clarify what someone's expected course of action actually is if it's not what the guideline says you can do. As I said before, it's setting people up for failure. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think this is a good contrast to what I said. I do agree that an outright ban on any expressions of political, social, and cultural ideology would be more reasonable than the status quo. In my view, that would include "This user is a Democrat", "this user is a Republican", "This user is conservative", "This user is LGBTQ+", "this user is pro-life/pro-choice", "this user believes that Black Lives Matter", "this user believes in the U.S. Constitution" - all of it, gone. I've seen some support for this elsewhere.

  From my POV, that would be a bit excessive. No, Wikipedia's not a social network, but it is nice to give users the opportunity to express something about who they are and what they think about the world. In moderation, it's a fun, harmless bit of community building. I have no problem with someone saying "this user is trans", "this user is pro-choice" or "this user is a Marxist", but it's not really tenable to allow those, but not allow "this user likes popular conservative movie X". Allow it all, within clear, objective guardrails like the ones I suggested, or ban it all. That's my two cents. I'm going to back off now so that I don't monopolize the conversation. Pecopteris (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'll think I'll take a step back from the conversation myself. I will be responsive to pings and direct questions, etc. But generally I've kind of made it clear what my perspective is and said more than enough. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Hmmm... interesting but a little too extreme, in my view. I agree that the current phrasing is untenable, however (as what I find "extremely offensive" probably differs from what you find "extremely offensive", and so on.) Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• I think the userspace police are more of a problem for Wikipedia than the offensive userpages are. I would favour toning down or, ideally, simply deleting UPNOT.—S Marshall T/C 08:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • This is also the position upon which I have settled. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes: for instance, a lengthy text encouraging violence against Jews can be removed by any editor without discussion. The wrong application here (stating that you like an anti-trans propaganda film does not rise to this level) does not make the guideline wrong. — Bilorv (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Change "offensive" is too open for interpretation. Model WP:UP#POLEMIC after WP:ATTACKNAME. Restrict removal right to admins – when something is bad enough to require removal, chances are it is bad enough to warrant admin attention. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• No, the current status is not acceptable and should be changed, specifically per the option offered in this RfC, i.e. the sentence "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor" should be deleted.
  We should allow in users' pages a far more free expression of ideas, opinions, and stances. (And, yes, I'd never object to, and, of course, would never remove content that shows the user holding "extreme" political or social values, e.g. that they are fascists, communists, anarchists, nihilists, etc. Note, please, that these examples are what most people, per polling, consider "extreme" views. I'm not equating fascism with other ideologies.) For one, it would occasionally help the work here tremendously. E.g. I cannot understand the stubborn efforts by user XYZ to glorify some SS butcher. checking his user page I find a plethora of 88's. This simplifies things: I can try and keep that user away from, at least, fascism-related lemmas.
  It's instructive how messy the conversation gets when we try to censor users' pages but "not too much" and particularly not much when the pages contain material with which we disagree though not excessively, e.g. "I like Trump," but we want to censor when they contain material we find abhorrent, e.g. "I like Merloni." Take a look at the discussion between Herostratus and Pecopteris, above. Yet, freedom of expression of personal opinions is specifically about opinions we find abhorrent. The so-called paradox of tolerance is essentially a weak argument against the position adopted in the United States' Constitution Bill of Rights, a position we should at last adopt here, too, or at least get nearer - as far as users' pages is concerned.
  A side note: Fellow users such as Herostratus see Wikipedia is as "an enlightenment project". Ours is an post-Enlightenment era in which the values of that movement have spread and taken root in most places on Earth, in general. And Wikipedia is a project that does not promote nor allow obscurantism, dogmatism, or fanaticism. And by having Wikipedia standing in a de facto opposition to the resurgence of the latter phenomena, we can rightfully claim that the project itself acts as an instrument of human progress. Such an opposition would most emphatically be amplified through more freedom of expression, a major aspect of the ert=a of Enlightenment.
  But I digress. -The Gnome (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment In general, I agree with Random person no 362478479. Wikipedia is still the encyclopedia anyone may edit. If something posted on a user page is not liked, inform an admin or start a community discussion. More conflict and problems will be caused by giving any user the right to go censor another's user page than by restricting it as suggested. Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep the status quo. Editors should be able to remove anything at sight which is comparable in intensity and offense to anti-semitic rants. Changing the policy could risk our ability to do this speedily. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with Random person no 362478479. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Status quo It is quite impossible to itemize all of the ways someone could post something abhorrent on their user page. The current language is fine, if you put something horrifying on your user page, expect it to be removed by anyone. --Jayron32 16:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• No. I have number of thoughts on this matter:
  • User pages are not highly ranked by search engines, so the potential for widespread dissemination of offense is low.
  • There is a fairly strong norm against editing someone else's user page without their permission. Having your typos and formatting issues corrected may be welcomed by some, but when the edit is motivated by a disagreement (as in, a disagreement over whether the given content is offensive or not), it's a heavy-handed intervention of the kind that only admins should be doing.
  • Offensive is in the eye of the beholder. WP:NOTCENSORED covers this persuasively. UPNOT implies NOTCENSORED "relates to article pages and images" only, but (a) NOTCENSORED does not actually include the "only" part, and (b) even if it did, it shouldn't, because it's sound advice for all content across the whole project. There can be a very fine line between removing offensive content, and policing beliefs.
  • UPNOT talks about bringing the project into disrepute. Policing of beliefs will most certainly bring the project into disrepute.
  • It is extreme hubris to think that our current intellectual milieu is optimal, has all the morally-right answers, and can objectively identify offensive content. If we enact policies which have a chilling effect on heterodox thought, we will invite a purity spiral, we will become institutionally blind to the diversity of perspectives that exist in the world, and we will thereby fail in our mission to build an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view.
  • Using userboxes to out yourself as a holder of abhorrent beliefs is probably quite helpful in attracting scrutiny and alerting the community to your potential for POV-pushing. Better to have that information out in the open.
  • Nevertheless, I don't want to see user pages become some kind of "free speech zone". We don't want to see the extreme fringes of trollsome garbage. But drawing the line requires judgement, and so we must choose our judges. I'd be OK with admins having discretion to remove such content. But I think that removal should almost always be on the basis of an associated disruptive behaviour, not the content in isolation. It's not inherently disruptive to state an opinion that others find unpleasant. Block behaviour, not beliefs.
    • Digression: Ideally, we would disallow all statements of allegiance and identity. Editors would be disembodied spirits unshackled from corrupt and earthly concerns. But alas, editors are human...
• In summary, and on balance: change the offending paragraph to Material supporting disruptive behaviour may be removed on sight by any administrator. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• No change. It's common sense to allow anyone to remove content that's extremely offensive person, over and above ordinary material likely to cause some degree of offense. It's highly disruptive and puts us into disrepute, akin to vandalism, which is also removed as soon as possible. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• No change - I think the key word that was missed in the nominator's interaction was "extremely". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Wrong question What are the "community norms"? Should the UCoC really be twisted so far as to apply to the situation that led to this RFC? The real issue behind this RFC seems to rest on those questions, not on the content of WP:UPNOT. The discussions at ANI and the pre-RFC section above both seem to have disagreed that "community norms" would support the user box in question being considered "extremely offensive" to fall under WP:UPNOT, nor has there been much agreement to the idea of bending the UCoC to that extent.
  As for the question asked, both the "extremely offensive" part called out and the part about "Very divisive or offensive material" in the table seem open to this sort of issue, and seems to come up time and time again when people with one viewpoint (and usually a belief in the paradox of tolerance) see a userbox supporting the opposing viewpoint. Anomie⚔ 19:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Status quo ± clarification sentence: I would avoid editing other people’s user pages but some things are so offensive they should not be on Wikipedia. While "offensive" may be subjective, we already accept that some things will be removed for that reason. WP:CFRD states that "grossly offensive" edits may be redacted. Perhaps we should have a clarification sentence regarding what sort of material can be summarily deleted by any editor (as opposed to needing input from an admin or wider consensus, or asking the author to remove it themselves). I would suggest that if an editor expects that the material is so offensive the edits could be redacted then they should feel able to delete it. Mgp28 (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Or continuing that thought, maybe we could change the word "extremely" to "grossly"? Mgp28 (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• No change - However if material is removed that is not "extremely offensive" then the change should be reverted and remover warned, or dealt with appropriately. Our real issue is to determine what "extremely" means. in our case example, liking a film is not offensive, even if content of the film offends some people. So that should not be removed based on that rule. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Quick comment: I don't think it's necessary to mention the Universal Code of Conduct in this RFC. That could potentially make a simple question more complicated. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, but it should be made even stronger. Wikipedia is not a social media platform, and users do not own their userpages. The inclusion of anything on Wikipedia should be contingent on whether it benefits the encyclopedia. Contentious content on userpages does not benefit the encyclopedia, but it does harm the collaborative environment that we need, and it's something that should be considered from the perspective of editor retention. There's a reason why they say you shouldn't talk about politics or religion at the dinner table: it invites conflict and creates bad blood. If you want to talk about these things online, good for you. Go start a blog. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, and I agree with the comment just above mine. I missed the ANI that prompted this as I was on a short holiday, but the relevant editor had previously been final-warned by me for transphobic language in edit summaries (relevant edit my warning), something which appears to have been missed in that discussion. Black Kite (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Current language seems fine to me. People should just not assume that anything potentially offensive is "extremely offensive". —Kusma (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Not out of compliance, but modify language - I like the suggestion in discussion above that a second sentence should be added highlighting "what is "extremely offensive" can be highly subjective and further complicated by the intent of the editor."

RfC: Automatically semi-protect Today's Featured Article

Should WP:SEMI be amended to add something to the effect of "Today's Featured Article (TFA) is always semi-protected from the day before it is featured on the Main Page through the day after."? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Rationale: This is a change that's already been brought into effect on most days thanks to the valiant efforts of Courcelles, and one that is long overdue. While in the early days of Wikipedia people might not have known that it was something any old schmuck could edit, these days it's such a cultural mainstay that the benefits of letting our "parlor" be accessible and tweakable by all is far outweighed by the costs of letting vandals replace our most visible page with "poop shid fard xD". I understand that the FAC crowd can run into issues of stodgy Toryism and that can possibly motivate opposers, but the months-long "trial run" of Courcelles already semi-protecting TFAs a day in advance has caused no complaints and no major issues, and saved many headaches from vandal-reverters; those good-faith editors who are needed to mildly tweak articles that have already undergone rigorous review can wait until they become confirmed.

All in all, this is something that should have been done years ago and has already has local consensus at TFA. Hopefully the fire has gone out of this decades-long debate, but in any case I feel like it is high time to implement this change. (Also, any specific details like how long it should be protected outside of its Featured Day is fine; I don't want the best to be the enemy of the good here.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Some relevant links. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TFA Protector Bot 3, prior RFC for a trial, and some analysis of that trial. Courcelles (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per User:TFA Protector Bot/Semi-protection trial, as I discussed at WT:TFA. Some prominent examples there:
  • Yusuf I of Granada received four oversighted edits in four minutes before being semiprotected
  • Streets (song) received six revdelled edits in one minute before being semiprotected
  • Rachel Dyer (semiprotected for the second half of its TFA period) received three oversighted edits and 14 generic vandalism edits in its unprotected period
  • Between every not-automatically-semiprotected article in the experiment, there were thirty not-reverted-that-day edits by IPs and non-autoconfirmed editors, of which six were removing vandalism (this is a quick hand count, and the page isn't easily structured for one, so this might be off) -- meaning the net of "not directly caused by vandalism" IP edits productive enough not to be reverted the same day was below the number of pre-semi vandal edits in just these three articles
• I think the results of that experiment alone make a clear case for the benefit to the project and the relative lack of collateral damage. This is just treating edits by their raw 'outcomes' -- other specific complaints, such as the number of complaints in the WT:TFA thread about graphic sexual vandalism in particular, strengthen the case. Vaticidalprophet 21:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  In fact this recent me doing it manually started because hardcore porn stayed in a TFA for too long. Courcelles (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm supporting anyway, but two of your three examples fail to prove your point - if the vandal was willing to game autoconfirmed to post more oversightable/revdelable edits after manual semi-protection was applied and force the TFA to be ECP-ed then the outcome would not have been very different had the bot applied semi-protection, as you can see from the cases where the bot did semi-protect around the same time. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support the rare useful edit we might get is not worth the cost of showing readers grossly vandalized articles. Courcelles (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. TFA's have always been suspect to vandalism and other nonsensical edits for as long as I have been editing, and semi-protecting for a few days will go a long way to clear up this issue. The Night Watch (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support as a sensible measure to protect the readers' experience. Schazjmd (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This has been long in the works, tracing back to the pending-changes trial two-and-a-half years ago at this point. The anti-vandalism benefits of semi-protection are clear, and I'll leave it to others to analyze those. But I want to focus in on the potential downside, which is that, as the "encyclopedia anyone can edit," we want to keep editing rights as open as possible to invite newcomers. As someone who focuses on newcomer aid, this is something I care about a lot. And I submit for consideration that a TFA is a terrible place for a newcomer to start editing. TFAs are high-quality, recently updated featured articles. By definition, they are considered essentially complete, and to the extent that they have flaws, they are generally things that only experienced editors can spot. So what is the newcomer experience editing them? It's the experience of changing something, and then getting rapidly reverted, because the thing didn't actually need changing, since it's a featured article. That's a bitey experience, no matter how polite the revert. So semi-protection is not just a boon for readers, who will encounter less vandalism, and for experienced editors, who will have less to patrol, but also for newcomers, who will be redirected toward friendlier waters to dip their toes into editing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Clearly sensible proposal. SportingFlyer T·C 22:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support. Abso-bad wording-lutely. Prevents LTAs and just random teenagers from vandalizing a very highly visible part of Wikipedia. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 22:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• I'm in favor of this, but let's not anybody fool ourselves - it won't decrease the total amount of vandalism, and maybe not even the number of times our readers see vandalism; it's going to make it harder for us to find and revert. Some of it'll spill over to pages linked from TFA; some to other pages linked from the main page; some of it to random pages where - if Cluebot or some pagewatcher doesn't happen to revert it - it might stick around for days or weeks. —Cryptic 22:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Most vandalism is opportunistic, not complex LTA subterfuge plots. (I remember in sixth-grade-equivalent, my class was reading an article and I kept seeing vandalism coming up on it, and reverting it manually/longhand from "aha! I read a page about this, I know how to fix this"; a patroller who could act faster was very confused to come across what looked like an IP self-reverting, because all the vandals in this case were my classmates.) I'm very familiar with two of the other big-four processes (DYK and OTD), and vandalism rates for them are consistently much, much lower than TFA vandalism stats. I don't think we'll see massive overspill in the same way that most bored kids looking at an article in class are vandalising it, and not going out of their way to vandalise the third article linked instead. Vaticidalprophet 22:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per above, as it seems that many TFAs already require semi-protection because of edits that need oversight, revdel, or rollback. There might be a possibility that the vandalism would just spread onto articles that are linked from the TFA blurb, but it is clear that semi-protecting the TFA would halt the worst of the damage. For example, on 23 Wall Street, it only took 14 minutes for someone to vandalize the infobox with a sexually explicit image (warning: NSFW). And somehow that edit is still fully visible in that article's revision history. Imagine how much worse it is for articles where the vandalism is so bad that it has to be RD'd or OS'd.
  I also agree with Sdkb that "a TFA is a terrible place for a newcomer to start editing". By definition, a TFA should showcase the very best work of Wikipedia, but we also encourage people to be bold, which sometimes creates a conflict. In my experience at least, newcomers' edits to TFAs often create errors even if they're editing in good faith, like this edit which created a run-on sentence that stayed for an hour. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. (EC) I help administer the main page and patrol WP:ERRORS. The issue of TFA vandalism has been brought up often enough at Errors as well as at WT:TFA that I'm all too aware for the need to be proactive in this area. Our most visible articles should simply not be available to vandals during the short period of being on the main page. Schwede66 00:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Quick comment: Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the RFC statement don't seem particularly neutral and brief to me, and it may be better to move those to a support !vote. WP:RFCNEUTRAL. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support, largely per my thoughts here. "The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit" does not mean that all articles can and should be free for anyone to edit at all times. Recent FA promotions should ideally be in good enough shape that editing by brand new editors isn't need while its on the main page; most of the prose work I've seen done to TFAs on the main page is really just a net neutral at best and a net negative much of the time. If we're really going to say as an encyclopedia that the content writers matter, than we shouldn't be taking what is theoretically some of the best and hardest-worked content we have and blinding subject it to an open season for vandalism. Hog Farm _Talk 02:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, good point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support since admins have been doing this unofficially for some time, in response to lame vandalism, without the protection being a problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  How would you know if a semi-protection was a problem? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  If there were useful suggested edits showing up on the talk page, that would be an indication that semi-protection has a cost. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Has anyone actually done that analysis though? I didn't think to when I wrote the trial report, although I guess that there weren't that many edits obviously per talk page edit requests. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support I was skeptical of this early on, even as I was writing the trial report (which I apologize for dropping the ball on and never finishing). What finally convinced me was Sdkb's comment above, that editing the TFA would fail to provide a desirable or representative experience for new good-faith users, so all of the necessary effort separating wheat from chaff is wasted even from an idealistic perspective. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Support, prefer Pending Changes Protection Instead. I second the concerns that many of the above editors have raised, though I do think that it is worth considering the possibility of semi-protecting TFA could raise the possibility of contradicting how anyone can edit Wikipedia, even if technically creating an account and staying for 10 days makes it anybody. There is the potential that this could discourage new editors from joining. It's a potential false pretense which could discourage. I would suggest we look at pending changes protection instead to mitigate this concern, as still reasonable good faith edits could be made with reviewer approval, while still allowing new users to contribute constructively as per our mission. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Pending changes protection has been shown to not work well with heavily edited pages due to the amounts of edits that can accrue if the page is not constantly watched. I don't think pending changes would work well in a potentially high-volume situation like TFA and would probably end up causing several new problems while doing little to alleviate the current ones. Hog Farm _Talk 02:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  • PC was tried for this in 2021 after initial support in an RFC. But when it came time to evaluate, a bunch of people ignored the trial entirely and just opposed on principle (along the lines of Hog Farm's comment just above) with no supporting data. That RFC concluded that people would rather try semi-protection, which eventually happened, and now we're (finally) evaluating that trial here. Anomie⚔ 11:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support, I'll be quick and brief for now since I need a bit of time to formally gather my thoughts. This is clearly needed and already technically done unofficially by admins. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 02:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support TFA has often suffered high amount disruption sometimes even through semi-protection, hopefully the disruption will be reduced thanks to semi-protection. Lightoil (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support It's a balancing act. Preemptively protecting pages is not something that should be taken lightly, but we should also not entertain routine vandalism of what is supposed to be "Wikipedia's best work". I would also agree with Sdkb that, save for a few cases, it is probably in the best interest of everyone involved that protection be applied. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 04:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support—appears slam-and-shut per User:TFA Protector Bot/Semi-protection trial. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - seems like a self-evidently good idea, which has already been implemented with good results. Community consensus for this course of action seems overwhelming and essentially unanimous. Pecopteris (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support As explained above, inviting new editors to tweak a polished TFA will not help those new editors. Also, it is not productive to feature a highly visible vandal magnet. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Can't really see a downside, as long as the unprotecting stays automatic as well. Lulfas (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Snow close as support. There's no realistic chance that this will fail, and rightly so.—S Marshall T/C 07:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Actually I believe this did fail in the past. Or maybe I'm thinking about something else. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 10:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  It seems it did often enough to get added to WP:PEREN. Good example of WP:CCC I guess, but IMO this should still run for longer than a few hours. Anomie⚔ 11:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Should have happened a long time ago. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support as proposer :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support, leaving TFA open to general editing looks like a net negatove. Semi is much better than Pending Changes (which is just frustrating to everyone involved). —Kusma (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

AFD discussion related to previous VPP discussion

See here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Nippon destinations FOARP (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)