Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

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

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

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

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

« Archives, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192

Wikipedia:Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles

What guidance should WP:Disambiguation give for article titles that do not result in a conflict between two or more articles, but which are not inherently unambiguous to a general audience?

Background:

• This content regarding titles that inherently lack precision was added to WP:DAB on June 6, 2015, by SMcCandlish, consisting of a paragraph under "Is there a Primary Topic?", an example under "Deciding to disambiguate", and a summary sentence in the lead paragraph: "Disambiguation may also be applied to a title that inherently lacks precision and would be likely to confuse readers if it is not clarified, even it does not presently result in a titling conflict between two or more articles." SMcCandlish posted a rationale of this addition to the talk page, which received no replies.
• On July 16, 2015, Red Slash removed the main paragraph, with the comment "How does this have anything at all to do with disambiguation?". A talk page discussion between Red Slash and Francis Schonken discussed this removal.
• On July 28, 2015, Red Slash removed the example under "Deciding to disambiguate". On August 6, this example was restored by SMcCandlish and again removed by Red Slash, then, on August 7, restored by SMCandlish, removed by Francis Schonken, again restored by SMcCandlish, and again removed by Francis Schonken. An RFC on the content from that time doesn't appear to have been officially closed, but by my count has three editors in support of the principle of "disambiguation for clarification" and three opposed.
• In February 2016, the lead sentence (the only remaining portion of the content originally added June 6) was removed by Born2cycle, restored by by SMcCandlish, removed by BD2412, restored by Dicklyon, removed by Calidum, restored by Tony1, removed by Calidum, restored by Tony1, removed by Calidum, and restored by Bagumba who locked the page for edit warring. A talk page discussion did not result in any clear consensus.
• On March 23, the lead sentence was removed by Dohn joe, restored by In ictu oculi, removed by Dohn joe, and restored by SMcCandlish. A further talk page discussion ensued.
• With respect to the participants on both sides, the discussion of the proposed guideline so far has generated more heat than light. I'm hoping a straightforward and (pardon the pun) unambiguous RFC can resolve the issue somewhat permanently and put an end to the disruptions to WP:D. Two of the talk page discussions have proposed taking this to RFC, but don't seem to have been able to reach agreement even on what an RFC should look like. As I have not, to my recollection, participated in the dispute, I have done my best to frame it neutrally and been so bold as to just go ahead and post it here. Please let me know if I have missed anything salient in the above summary.--Trystan (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Responses (disambiguation)

• Comment: Parenthetical notes in an article title (unless the parenthetical notes are part of the article title) should only be used to distinguish between multiple articles with the same title. I can't think of a time when I would add a parenthetical dab to a title of an article when it didn't belong, merely to clarify something. Perhaps if some examples of contentious article titles were posted, we could see the nature of the dispute here. --Jayron32 03:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a pertinent concern, since the disambiguation in question is always or at least virtually always done with natural, comma, or descriptive disambiguation (can anyone think of any exception?). For about two years, adherents to parenthetic disambiguation pushed for this at naturally ambiguous animal breed article titles as a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS gambit, and consistently failed to gain consensus for that (see WP:BREEDDAB for partial list of RMs and outcomes).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• No guidance. This kind of guidance is a can of worms - loads of unintended consequences. We should not "pre-disambiguate" an article because "it sounds too generic" or "that doesn't sound like it is an X" or "that sounds too similar to X". If there is an existing encyclopedic topic that shares a name with another topic, there is potential ambiguity, and we refer to WP:DAB's guidance. If there's only one topic, then WP:DAB does not come into the equation. The examples given to illustrate the contested guidance show that. "Flemish giant" - with no context - sounds like it might be a tall person from Antwerp. While this may be true, tall people from Flanders is not an encyclopedic topic. So instead, Flemish giant redirects to Flemish Giant rabbit - a domestic rabbit breed.

  But that's the point - "Flemish giant" redirects to "Flemish Giant rabbit". Why? Because there is no other encyclopedic topic to disambiguate from. Conversely, Algerian Arab is a dab page, while Algerian Arab sheep is an article about sheep. So in this case, "sheep" serves to disambiguate, while "rabbit" does not. If you prefer "Flemish Giant rabbit" for WP:CONSISTENCY purpose or something else, that's fine, but it's not actually disambiguating anything.

  So - there is actually nothing unusual here. Regular WP:DAB questions should be asked of any title. Those questions should not include "Doesn't that kind of sound like something else?" Dohn joe (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"If you prefer 'Flemish Giant rabbit' for WP:CONSISTENCY purpose or something else, that's fine, but it's not actually disambiguating anything." OK, by your narrow definition, this is not actually disambiguating anything, in that there is no confusion what article you want if you say Flemish giant. Note, however, that by a broader definition, quite often that extra word that is "not necessary" does a lot of good in terms of improving precision and reducing ambiguity. Did you look at the railway station example I added? The point is that that minimalist titling that some espouse leaves things looking imprecise, and we have many examples of consensus naming conventions that don't interpret precision and ambiguity in this narrow B2C way. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Projects are allowed to develop naming conventions. They usually are exceptions to the precision/ambiguity criterion of WP:AT - see WP:USPLACE, WP:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies), etc., referenced at WP:PRECISION. So, yes, consistency, or naturalness or some other consideration can override precision. But it should remain an exception that doesn't swallow the rule. Dohn joe (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure projects don't change, supercede, or make exceptions to policy and guidelines. And WP:PRECISION isn't overridden by having the article title "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". People seem to ignore that provision, and treat precision as a negative when they could use a shorter title without a collision. That's the B2C algorithm, and it's nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd never seen Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) until today. I can't believe it exists. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Your singular personal belief is not required to make things exists. The world, and the things in it, exist outside of your consciousness. --Jayron32 05:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

And the world outside the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) basement has moved strongly against this pointless "disambiguation"—WProjects like WP:CANADA and WP:INDIA dropped this silliness years ago. So, what were you saying about "singular personal beliefs"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

And yet, it still exists. Notice how you had a feeling or an emotion (you thought it "silly") and nothing changed. The world works like that: reality continues to keep being real despite you having feelings about it. It's odd you haven't learned that. --Jayron32 16:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't appear to have a point. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What Dohn joe is missing is that Algerian Arab was disambiguated to Algerian Arab sheep on the basis of it simply being naturally ambiguous. It only became a disambiguation page later. His 'So in this case, "sheep" serves to disambiguate, while "rabbit" does not' point is completely invalid. He doesn't appear to understand what "ambiguous" and "disambiguate" means. Neither do many of the other correspondents here. Fortunately, RM respondents often do. That's why Argentine Criollo, Welsh Black, British White, Florida White, and many other such names were disambiguated to more WP:PRECISE titles, despite no other article directly vying with them for the shorter ones.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• No guidance. WP:DAB was created to address a very specific situation – what to do when two or more articles share the same name. Everything else is covered by WP:AT and its spin-offs. For example, I'd consider Flemish Giant to be an inappropriate title (or at least less appropriate than Flemish Giant rabbit) because it fails WP:AT's "precision" criterion ("The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject..."). No extra guidance needs to be added to allow for titles like Flemish Giant rabbit, and any such guidance would be outside the scope of WP:DAB. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Retain the guidance – and this RfC is non-neutral and grossly misleading due to major errors of omission: No policy rationale presented for removal, only false claims that consensus wasn't established. The material describes actual practice at WP:RM for 15 years, and actual requirements of various naming conventions (e.g. WP:USPLACE). Attempts to delete it are based on lack of basic understanding of the word "disambiguation" (it means "to resolve ambiguity"), patently false claims that previous discussion did not happen and that consensus wasn't established, and a minority, extremist view that WP:CONCISE trumps all other article naming criteria in every case, no matter what, despite the clear wording of the WP:AT policy. The RfC falsely paints a picture of a slow editwar. Actual review of the history shows two back-to-back consensus discussions, two different attempts to by parties that the RfC falsely paints as opponents to integrate the material into WP:AT policy itself, normal WP:BRD process and revision, 8 months of acceptance, the two drive-by attempts at deletion predicated on false claims and unawareness of previous discussion, which were reverted by multiple parties. See #Discussion (disambiguation) for details. This RfC, whatever its intent, would reverse much longer-standing portions of multiple stable naming conventions like USPLACE and WP:USSTATION, just for starters, yet none of the affected pages were notified. Three quarters of a year of stability is plenty evidence of consensus, especially after three consensus discussions refined the material to its present state.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Recognize that disambiguation is more than one thing. Keep the guidance, as it deters those who try to use the omission (of recognition of this common practice of making titles non minimally short in order to make them more precise and less ambiguous) to drive toward a precision-is-bad minimality. 2620:0:1000:110A:71BE:75D9:749D:32C9 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That IP is me. Sorry for forgetting to log in, and expressing myself so poorly. The point is that disambiguation of this "unnecessary" sort is used, widely, in wikipedia, and is even encouraged in various naming guidelines and conventions, for the purpose of supporting the WP:CRITERIA or precision and recognizability. Those who argue against this use of disambiguation seem to want to take a very narrow view of what ambiguty is, and put zero value on precision. This approach is epitomized by the decade-long campaign of B2C for "title stability", described by him at User:Born2cycle#A_goal:_naming_stability_at_Wikipedia, where he espouses moving toward a system of unambiguous rules, essentially removing from editors the discretion to make titles more precise or less ambiguous than the shortest possible title that does not have a name conflict. To support this approach he has spent years rewording the recognizability, precision, naturalness, and consistency criteria to essentially minimize their value, leaving concisenss as the main criterion. I find this approach abhorrent. Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There is ambiguity, and there is ambiguity that is relevant to WP:DISAMBIGUATION. They are not the same. Don't conflate them. The only ambiguity that has ever been relevant to WP:DISAMBIGUATION is when two are more titles on WP share the exact same WP:COMMONNAME. --В²C ☎ 21:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

See dictionary material I helpfully provided for you. What you just posted doesn't even parse. Disambiguation is removal of ambiguity. All ambiguity is relevant to disambiguation, and all disambiguation is relevant to ambiguity. Disambiguation doesn't magically refer to "only the ambiguity I want it to mean". You don't get to make up your own version of the language on the fly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• No guidance from disambiguation should be created for article titles generally. If someone is looking for information about the Flemish Goose, which is very large and sometimes referred to as the Flemish Giant, then it is good to have the search box suggesting "Flemish Giant rabbit" as the only possibility before the person clicks and starts reading and is disappointed. Ditto for the Flemish Giant cross-stitch pattern. A recent example of a too-short page title that I came across was Hybrid name, which I moved to Hybrid name (botany) because on the talk page are such comments as "Why is this article written entirely from the point of view of plants, as if hybrid animals don't exist? We need to redress the balance." and the page itself had a tag "The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. Please improve the article or discuss the issue. (May 2010)". The situation has clearly confused a few readers because although hybrid animals such as Ligers do exist, there is no special way of naming them, whereas for plants there is a detailed set of rules for creating scientific names. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Retain guidance as it stands - This isn't even a properly presented RfC. What is the problem with the current guidelines and why does it need to be re-evaluated per WP:PG? All I'm seeing here is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT or something for the DRN (which would be rejected). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• No guidance. I feel that this sort of guidance should be integrated into WP:AT itself, if ever. I've been here on Wikipedia for a long time and I've always understood the WP:DAB guideline to only apply whenever two or more articles have ambiguous titles, and not merely because a non-ambiguous title sounds ambiguous. So such additional guidance that touches singularly on precision should be placed into WP:AT, where a more holistic look at the 5 criteria of good article titles should lead to better titles. Otherwise, the guidance placed on WP:DAB will seek to emphasize precision over the other criteria. —seav (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Injection of some facts and reliable sources, since at least half the respondents here don't seem to understand what "disambiguate" means. It is not a made-up Wikipedian neologism, for "resolve a title conflict between two articles" (resolving such conflicts is simply the most common use of disambiguation on WP; it has never, in the entire history of the project, been the only one).
  1. Definition of disambiguate at Dictionary.com (Random House Dictionary [US] and Collins English Dictionary [UK]): RH: "to remove the ambiguity from; make unambiguous: In order to disambiguate the sentence 'She lectured on the famous passenger ship,' you'll have to write either 'lectured on board' or 'lectured about.'"; Collins: "to make (an ambiguous expression) unambiguous".[1]
     Definition of ambiguous: RH: "1. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer; 2. Linguistics. (of an expression) exhibiting constructional homonymity; having two or more structural descriptions; 3. of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character; 4. lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct: an ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future." Collins: "1. lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct; 2. difficult to understand or classify; obscure."[2]
  2. Definition of disambiguate at OxfordDictionaries.com [UK & US]: "Remove uncertainty of meaning from (an ambiguous sentence, phrase, or other linguistic unit): 'word senses can be disambiguated by examining the context' ".[3][4]
     Definition of ambiguous: "(Of language) open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning: 'the question is rather ambiguous', 'ambiguous phrases' ".[5][6]; "Not clear or decided".[7]. Note that the definition some people want to apply here as if it were the only one does not appear to be a language-related one: "Unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made: 'this whole society is morally ambiguous', 'the election result was ambiguous' ".[8]
  3. Definition of disambiguate at Dictionary.Cambridge.org [UK & US]: "specialized to show the ​differences between two or more ​meanings ​clearly: Good ​dictionary ​definitions disambiguate between ​similar ​meanings."[9]
     Definition of ambiguous: "having or ​expressing more than one ​possible ​meaning, sometimes ​intentionally: The movie's ending is ambiguous. ... His ​reply to my ​question was ​somewhat ambiguous. The ​wording of the ​agreement is ambiguous. The ​government has been ambiguous on this ​issue."[10] "having more than one possible ​meaning, and therefore likely to cause confusion: Many ​companies are ​appealing against the ​ruling, because the ​wording is ambiguous."[11]
  4. Definition of disambiguate at Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary [US]: "to establish a single semantic or grammatical interpretation for".[12]
     Definition of ambiguous: "able to be understood in more than one way : having more than one possible meaning; not expressed or understood clearly; doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness: eyes of an ambiguous color; capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways: an ambiguous smile; an ambiguous term; a deliberately ambiguous reply.[13] "Not expressed or understood clearly".[14]

Shall we continue?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we all know what "disambiguation" means in the real world – however, I think it's one of those words, like "notability", that has acquired a very specific meaning in the world of Wikipedia. In the four years I've been here, I've only ever seen the word used in relation to article-title conflicts. WP:DAB, since its inception, has only ever been about article-title conflicts, and it's the broadening of the scope of this guideline that I object to. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:REALWORLD. The nature of the discussion has made it very, very clear that "we" did not all know what disambiguation means at all. But let's back up and just look at WP:POLICY: "Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-agreed practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense. ... Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." There are entire naming convention guidelines that depend on this kind of precision disambiguation, and it is regularly performed at WP:RM; the "occasional exceptions [that] may apply" are so common they've often become codified as guidelines themselves! Ergo it has consensus, and it should be documented properly. It does not matter that the current draft of the WP:Disambiguation page only addresses title-collision disambiguation. It is not the only kind of disambiguation we do, and it never has been. We can wikilawyer for another year about what that draft says, and it will never change the facts about what Wikipedia actually does. There is no conflict of any kind between the wording you want to remove and actual WP practice, but there would be in removing it. By contrast, changing the WP:Notability guideline to use a broader definition of the word notable would instantly and radically conflict with actual WP practice. Notability here is a precise term of art with a particular definition laid out in detail at the top of that guideline; it's a criterion that causes results (e.g. article deletion). Disambiguation is simply a procedure, an action taken as a result of the application of other criteria, including precision and recognizability, after balancing their interaction with others, like conciseness. It's an apples and oranges comparison, except in that WP:Notability presently directly reflects WP consensus and best practices, and WP:Disambiguation did not until this was fixed 8 months ago; before then, and without the sentence you want to remove for no clearly articulated reason, the page reflects only some of standard WP disambiguation operating procedures, and pretends the others don't exist. All because people don't know what the damned word means. You're trying to disprove my point that some people are mistakenly treating "disambiguation" as some kind of special Wikipedianism, by trying to show that it's some kind of special Wikipedianism.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Just because some people sometimes justify title choices based on real world disambiguation does not mean WP:DISAMBIGUATION is, should be, or ever was about real world disambiguation. Whether real world disambiguation should continue to be tolerated as a factor to consider in title selection is within the domain of WP:AT, not WP:D. --В²C ☎ 21:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Since you're just repeating yourself, I will as well: See dictionary material I helpfully provided for you. What you just posted doesn't even parse. Disambiguation is removal of ambiguity. All ambiguity is relevant to disambiguation, and all disambiguation is relevant to ambiguity. Disambiguation doesn't magically refer to "only the ambiguity I want it to mean". You don't get to make up your own version of the language on the fly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:DISAMBIGUATION deals with how to resolve ambiguities among two or more titles of actual WP articles. When no actual ambiguities exist between actual WP article titles, then there is no need for WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Period. #NotThatDifficult. --В²C ☎ 20:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• No guidance. WP:DISAMBIGUATION has always been, and should always remain, limited to situations where two or more actual articles on WP share the same WP:COMMONNAME. --В²C ☎ 21:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:IAR and WP:CREEP. It generally doesn't matter what the exact title of an article is and arguing about such titles is disruptive. Andrew D. (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• No guidance. Disambiguation was intended only to be used where multiple articles shared the same name. Preemptive disambiguation is unnecessary disambiguation and shouldn't be promoted. Calidum ¤ 02:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Whose intention are you referring to? What about all the cases where it is used to reduce ambiguity and improve precision? Are you saying just define those as something different, not disambiguation? Or you're saying those are bad and we need to stop making titles more precise than the shortest possible title? Dicklyon (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I can't speak for Calidum, but conflating the WP and general meanings of "ambiguous" and "disambiguation" is not helpful, so I'll be precise about which one I mean. The point is that the merits of whether general ambiguity is a factor to consider when there is no actual WP ambiguity with another title is not a matter of WP:DISAMBIGUATION, but something for WP:AT to address. Perhaps it can be justified by WP:PRECISION, as you say. But unless there is an actual url conflict to resolve between two or more article titles, it's not a WP:DISAMBIGUATION situation, period. That's the point here, and therefore the wording in question has no place on WP:DISAMBIGUATION. --В²C ☎ 00:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. But in the past you and others have pointed to this page to justify making titles less precise and more ambiguous. So having this page acknowledge that removing ambiguity has roles other than preventing article name collisions seems like a good thing that should stay. Dicklyon (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Just asking for my own education – could you point me to an example of a discussion in which WP:DAB was cited as a justification for making an article title less precise? DoctorKubla (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's one that opened just today: Talk:...Re_(film)#Requested_move_01_April_2016. It doesn't explicitly cite WP:DAB but relies on the theory that only name collisions matter and that ambiguity is otherwise fine. As you can see, editors other than Dohn joe are pretty much unanimous against this interpretation; maybe some of the other "no guidance" voices here will join him? Dicklyon (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Another open case, not explicitly citing WP:DAB, is Talk:Ron_Walsh_(footballer)#Requested_move_13_March_2016; many primarytopic grabs are of this form; treat the disambiguating information as negative and argue that name collision can be avoided in other ways, so we must move to the more ambiguous title. Dicklyon (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

And here's a classic example from way back in 2008, with multiple editors on each side of the question: Talk:Bronson_Avenue_(Ottawa)#Requested_move; illustrating that editors often want to reduce ambiguity (disambiguate) even when there are not title collisions, and other editors point here and argue that's not OK per disambiguation guidelines. This one went on at great length and closed as "no consensus", meaning that the attempt to make the titles less precise and more ambiguous by citing "Unnecessary disambiguation" failed in that multiple-RM case. Dicklyon (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Stop circumventing policy: Keep what became somewhat stable and take this up through the proper venue for making changes to policies and guidelines, that only in part includes this discussion. A problem I have is that there are errors in thinking and procedure.
  • Note to closing admin: We have long established procedural policy covered under Proposals and Good practice for proposals for making changes to policies and guidelines.

Exemptions like boldly making changes that could be accepted by a broad community consensus, seems to only make confusion and possible perennial discussions on what should be more stable far more often than not. Changing policies and/or guidelines should not be done by edit warring, the apparent practice of BRD, or these "local" only discussions to definitively solve such local editing solutions concerning policies and guidelines. A continued practice of by-passing a procedural policy (protection for any long accepted broad community consensus) does not make it proper, makes a laughing stock of our policies and guidelines, and allows said policies and guidelines to be changed on a whim.

I am in support of retaining what is on the page because we can not right an error by a wrong procedure any more than we should attempt to edit war to create policy. I think this should be closed as consensus to move forward and follow procedure (to be brought up on the talk page), or an admin could move the discussion to the talk page so it can be listed everywhere relevant. The end result would mean leaving things as they are and settling it the right way. This would also reassert that policy should be followed. I would think, from this point, that only Wikilawyers would oppose following policy. Otr500 (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Otr500, I, for one, cannot understand what you're saying, specifically what reasoning justifies "retaining what is on the page". What is on the page is the result of edit warring; the point of this discussion is to decide in a more thoughtful process whether it should be retained or not. This discussion has been publicized at the talk page; previous discussions there did not lead to consensus, so someone thought maybe we could have a more productive discussion here. Again, I don't understand what exactly you're saying, much less why. Please clarify. --В²C ☎ 00:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@ B2C: Read the procedural policy. Because you can't here me (I don't understand "exactly" what you are saying) does not mean that others can't. I thought listing in two places, in bold, would be pretty clear as I didn't use any big words. Keep seemed pretty clear and retaining what is on the page equally understandable so I will assume (and hope) a miscommunication would be in the reasoning.

• • "If consensus for broad community support has not developed after a reasonable time period, the proposal is considered failed. If consensus is neutral or unclear on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal has likewise failed.". A discussion to a conclusion, that might involve an admin, would normally stop edit warring. Editors that find themselves in such a position, especially seasoned editors here to build a good encyclopedia, should self include Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Other_revert_rules to include 1RR (one-revert rule) or 0RR (zero-revert rule) and not use reverts to include team reverts to push a POV. I could expect this on articles but policies and guidelines should enjoy more prudence.

"Stop" means exactly what it states and I can provide a definition if that is unclear. Any "edit warring" began at a point and I saw nobody argue with what @SMcCandlish: stated that there were 8 months of stability. Maybe you missed that or didn't understand, and IF I missed something specifically please point it out instead of not understanding everything. I am stating: There should be no edit warring on policy changes or attempted changes. Clear on that? If not you might consider reading the procedural policy again.

To argue that disambiguation has only one meaning does not make it true and that it should stand alone is not policy. Policies should not conflict nor should guidelines conflict with policy. IF WP:AT needs to mention disambiguation and point to a guideline, to make better article titles, then what in the world is the problem with that. What we have is editors that sometimes have a POV and sometimes promote it the tenth degree and Wikipedia enhancement be damned.

Support for the below mentioned Flemish Giant over Flemish Giant rabbit has proven in many article discussions to be against consensus. To support Flemish Giant (rabbit) has also be shown to largely be against consensus preferring natural over parenthetical disambiguation. To try to ride a dead horse that disambiguation means only one thing just does not make it fact.

There is no need to change Belgian Hare but Blanc de Bouscat would be vague to the average reader. It has become practice (like it or not) to clarify titles like this by adding the breed and without the parenthetical disambiguation. Brackets around a word is not the only determining factor of disambiguation. Die-hard Britannica fans do not like this but Wikipedia does not have to be a sister site. Discussions have shown consensus has moved away from Britannica style parenthetical disambiguation, preferring to add the breed as part of the title, and to naturally disambiguate to prevent ambiguity and have consistency within articles, when we are deciding on an article title. Maybe we should examine the little active but relevant essay Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles? This does not mean that such practice of using parenthetical disambiguation is bad, or against policy, but used as an exception.

Sometimes accepted practice (by consensus) already shows the direction of community consensus, without trying to confuse the issue. Adding clarity so that new articles can follow accepted practice without large debates is not a bad thing. This prevents (as mentioned in above discussions) titles like Beveren (rabbit) (unassessed article with no talk page activity at this time), British Lop (stub class that is not a rabbit but a pig), English Lop (that is a rabbit and not a pig), French Lop (that is a rabbit), from Lop Nur, that is not a rabbit or sheep but a lake, and so articles like Welsh Mountain sheep are more clear (less vague) and differentiate (take away ambiguity that is still to disambiguate) a mountain from sheep.

Real world versus Wikipedia world: It doesn't matter because we are not talking animated or other world characters versus real world people. We are talking clarity versus unclear, precise versus concise, parenthetical disambiguation verses natural disambiguation. Leaning towards concise verses leaning towards precision. This should not be a battle. We use balance to name articles, as well as source and community consensus, and sometimes leaning one way or the other is not a bad thing, actually justifiable, and adding article consistency among titles helps and carries broad community consensus. Disambiguation, in the form of adding a word for clarity, does not mean we are promoting precision over concise. It means we are adding some precision so that the precise title name is more clear and less vague, and follows other like article naming. It does not matter how much we wikiLawyer this it is still disambiguation but I am sure we must because that is what lawyers have to do right?

Mr. B2C stated he can not understand what I am saying, and I hope not because of any personal inabilities. This discussion should be on the relevant talk page. The procedural policy, and I will type slow for clarity, states "Authors can request early-stage feedback at Wikipedia's village pump for idea incubation and from any relevant WikiProjects. Amendments to a proposal can be discussed on its talk page.". "start an RfC for your policy or guideline proposal in a new section on the talk page, and include the "rfc|policy" tag...". "The "proposed" template should be placed at the top of the proposed page; this tag will get the proposal properly categorized". These are ways to prevent edit warring and discussions from taking place, all over the place, as well as to ensure broad community consensus is followed, and so that changes made to policy by consensus is transparent, being on the relevant talk page. Listing a discussion here, as well as other relevant places, would be to point to a discussion on that talk page not have continued splintered discussions in many places.

Or; we can just make this a perennial discussion to be brought up over and over again. A lot of times this does not deter community practices as reflected by broad community consensus, no matter how much we discuss a supposed issue. Here is some fantastic reading: What to do if you see edit-warring behavior and How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars. That is why I stated that a discussion here is not a definitive solution but to gather consensus (not battle) that should be continued on the talk page to effect broad community consensus continuation or change. Otr500 (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

To compress and get to what I think the gist is of Otr500's multi-paragraph, multi-indent-level post above, and cut through a lot of the other chatter here: Eight months ago, WP:DAB was updated to describe actual practice, which is what guidelines are form as a matter of WP:POLICY. There were multiple BRD discussions about the then-long wording. The language was refined, and a short version (the sentence at issue here) was retained. Two thirds of a year later, two editors (B2C and Dohn joe) attempted to delete it on the patently false basis that it had not been discussed. Not only are their facts wrong, they cannot even formulate a cogent reason why it should be removed, just hand-wave a lot, in ways that have confused a few other people into supporting removal of it from its present location, though plenty of others support its retention. Notably, many of those who don't want to keep it where it is right now think it should be moved into WP:AT policy instead. This was also discussed 8 months ago at WT:AT and the decision was to not merge it into AT policy. This is now stable guideline language. A proper closure analysis of this confused and confusing pseudo-RfC should conclude with no consensus to remove the material (since the arguments for keeping it are valid and those for removing it are not, ergo the original consensus to include the material has not changed), and no consensus to merge it into AT policy, because that idea has already been rejected, and no new rationale for why this should rise to policy level has been provided, so again consensus has not changed. There are thousands of things in various guidelines that are relevant to various policies but which remain in guidelines and are not merged into policies, because they are not policy material, but guideline material. This is not mystically different somehow. In absence of any showing that the material does not actually describe long-established WP:RM and disambiguation practice, which it clearly does, the sentence remains in the guideline. Suggesting that it can be removed when it was arrived at through multiple consensus discussions, now that a new discussion to possibly move it into policy fails to come to consensus for that idea, would be patent WP:GAMING. One could just as easily propose that, say, WP:Citing sources should be merged into WP:V policy, and then when that proposal failed to gain consensus, delete the guideline on citing sources! WP does not work that way. Nothing works that way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• WP:Disambiguation overreaches with respect to minimalist disambiguation, at the expense of the reader, at the expense of naming criteria "recognizability", "precision" and "consistency". If inclusion of a parenthetical term helps, it should be used, subject to balancing recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency, and other good things even if not documented. Parentheses should be avoided, but inclusion does not make WP:Disambiguation a trump card. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Aye. I most cases where this comes up, we use natural disambiguation simply because such a phrase exists in the reliable sources already, and the policy tells use to favor natural over parenthetic disambiguation when possible.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Retain guidance – A title like "Flemish Giant" benefits no one. Most importantly, it does not benefit the reader, because it does not clearly define the subject. Shorter titles are not always better. WP:AT does not suggest this, but certain editors continue to the push this notion to the detriment of our readers. It is important that the disambiguation policy does not result in an automatic removal of bits of titles that do not serve to disambiguate from other Wikipedia articles, but do serve to clearly define the topic of the article in line with WP:AT, as Mr Lyon suggested above. The guidance as it stands allows for this to be made clear. RGloucester — ☎ 02:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Retain the guidance. There has been a reluctance among some of the players to see disambiguation in terms of our readers. B2C's long campaign for a narrow algorithm-like solution was an utter disaster. Tony (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Just for those unaware of it, three times (at least) Born2cycle has agitated for concision-above-all-other-concerns changes to article titles policy and RM procedures, citing personal essays of his on the topic as if they were guidelines. In all three cases WP:MFD userspaced them as anti-policy nonsense [15], [16], [17].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Data point Life is too precious to read all the above, but I once was in an argument over Memorial Hall (Harvard University). This other editor said it should be simply Memorial Hall since, at that moment, no other Memorial Hall had an article -- and apparently guidelines supported that knuckleheaded approach. Anything that remedies that would be welcome. EEng 19:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This reminds me of National Pension Scheme. (Surprise! It's specifically about India.) ╠╣uw [talk] 10:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NATURAL policy, the proper titles would use natural disambiguation as first choice. But in both cases ("Harvard Memorial Hall", "Indian National Pension Scheme"), it results in a new ambiguity (which I needn't spell out here). The obvious solution is WP:COMMADIS: "Memorial Hall, Harvard" (adding "University" seems superfluous, per WP:CONCISE), and "National Pension Scheme, India", or WP:DESCRIPTDIS in the latter case, "National Pension Scheme of India". Both "Memorial Hall, Harvard" and "National Pension Scheme of India" actually border on alternative NATURALDIS, and are attested in sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Retain the guidance since the lengthy discussion above and below has convinced me that this is useful guidance to editors in encouraging a better and less frustrating experience for our readers. BushelCandle (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• No guidance as I agree wholeheartedly with DoctorKubla. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Retain the guidance. I am also irked by the Memorial Hall (Harvard University) example provided by EEng and similar ones – articles about obscure things with common-sounding (i.e. wikt:ambiguous) names do benefit from some extra WP:PRECISION. Doing otherwise easily confuses the readers (as the context is often not enough to quickly conclude what the topic is, and matches displayed in the search box do not provide any hint about the topic) and editors (quite easy mislinking) alike. Of course, case-by-case examination is always welcome, but we do not apply WP:CONCISE at all costs. No such user (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I, for one, do not call for applying WP:CONCISE at all costs. To the contrary. I call for applying it primarily as a "tie breaker". When considering all other WP:CRITERIA there is no clear answer, then go with the more concise one. It is that simple. But the main point her is that all this is WP:AT consideration; it has nothing to do with WP:DISAMBIGUATION. --В²C ☎ 20:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Retain the guidance. It's reasonable to note that some titles may be ambiguous or likely to confuse a reader even if they don't exactly match any other titles, and I'm fine with having at least a modicum of text into the guideline to explain this. I understand that some prefer the term "disambiguation" to be defined more narrowly as just the mechanical process of distinguishing between otherwise identical Wikipedia titles, but I don't think that's particularly useful. There can be (and often is) a difference between what's merely technically ambiguous and what's actually ambiguous, and the latter can be a valid consideration when determining the best title for our readers. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Change names The simplest thing to do would be to change the names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinyapple (talk • contribs) 01:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Retain guidance What useful purpose is served by inherently ambiguous titles, even when this is the sole article? Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Retain Guidance Why would we remove relevant information that helps users avoid pointless move discussions. I have seen time and again pointless move requests to ambiguous titles that fail precision.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

And numerous RMs have closed with the opposite result. Calidum ¤ 03:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Not in the case of naturally ambiguous titles. They get resolved one way or another, and this way is much more common that the deleters here understand or admit. (Often a notably different alternative name is available, but when one is not, all that is left is some form of disambiguation).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Retain guidance (and apply with common sense). There are situations where reduction of ambiguity is desirable even though there may be only one article with the title. This doesn't mean every potential ambiguity must be "pre-disambiguated", but we should not prohibit this. older ≠ wiser 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• No guidance; at least, not on connection with disambiguation. If there should be guidance of this sort at WP:AT, that is a different discussion. bd2412 T 17:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • One that was already had about a year ago, and consensus did not agree to import this wording from the guideline. Deletionists don't get to nuke stable guideline wording they don't like by re-proposing failed merges to policy, then pretending that's an argument against retaining it where it was originally. Could kill any guideline on sight with that tactic. Guidelines are guidelines for a reason, because they are not policy material. A simple observation of fact, that WP disambiguates for more that one reason (though one reason is certainly the most common) is not a policy matter, but a guideline matter. It does not tell us to do or not do anything, it describes actual practice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• No guidance: As a user of Wikipedia, even years before I joined, it was clear that the bizarre term "?disambiguate" on Wikipedia meant to figure out the title of the article you were looking for when multiple articles have similar titles. I thought it was some term a bunch of geeks made up, proud of their $10 word a bit like the International Obfuscated C Code Contest. (When I first learned C and heard the term "obfuscated", I was confused, and apparently, that was intentional.) I always assumed there was a better more common sense way to describe how to find the correct title than "disambiguation", but now we just accept it. I read a lot, and I have, never, ever seen the word "disambiguate" used anywhere else, although "obfuscate" sometimes. Good writing should avoid unnecessary $10 words [18]. To find more than one use for this $10 word on Wikipedia is a mistake. The word "disambiguate" needs to be "disambiguated"! --David Tornheim (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• No guidance: this is WP:AT matter, not WP:D matter. A general "non-disambiguating disambiguator" guidance is not a good idea: it didn't get accepted at WP:AT (see ample prior discussion), not a good idea to insert some WP:AT-conflicting guidance into the WP:D guideline. Note that specific naming conventions contain guidance against using "non-disambiguating disambiguators" in certain cases (e.g. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Precision): not a good idea to add some conflicting guidance elsewhere (in other words: this is WP:RULECRUFT, ready to open up endless discussions again). For me WP:CRITERIA suffises, combined with what can be found in naming conventions for specific cases (e.g. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Articles in series implying that some article titles in specific series will contain extensions in a uniform format on top of what is necessary for disambiguation alone). The WP:D insertion under discussion here tries to shift the balance among the five WP:AT criteria: it tries to give the "precision" criterion some sort of over-all advantage over the "conciseness" criterion, contrary to the balance between these criteria in the policy. When such shift of balance would be needed (which I doubt), that should be hashed out at WT:AT and not at a guideline that is not even directly about article titling, and thus tries to get an upper hand over a policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • For clarity: afaics this RfC was not properly notified to WT:AT, not even after unarchiving, despite that it has been suggested multiple times that this is in fact WP:AT matter. So far so good, but then below it is advocated that no "WP:AT/WP:MOS regular (...) should close" this RfC. So please make up your mind: either notify WT:AT and WT:MOS that this RfC is going on, so that said regulars are invited to express their opinion in this RfC, or retract objections that said regulars couldn't close this as uninvolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion (disambiguation)

• More detailed background: Attempts to delete part of the guideline, which was established through standard consensus-building discussion and revision many months ago, are predicated on two obvious fallacies: 1) That "disambiguate" is a made-up Wikipedian neologism for "prevent article title collisions". Check any dictionary; it's a plain-English word meaning "to resolve ambiguity"; doing so to prevent title collisions is simply the most common reason we disambiguate and has never been the only one. 2) That WP:CONCISE is akin to a law, and that the most concise possible name must always be chosen no matter what. Actually read WP:AT policy – all of the WP:CRITERIA are considered, and balanced against each other; the overriding concern is not following any "rule" bureaucratically, but ensuring clarity for readers. The naming criteria "should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others."

  The previous debates about this guidance are misrepresented in the the summary in the RfC, which incorrectly paints it as a slow editwar instead of removal, discussion, refinement, acceptance, then much latter isolated attempts to delete it without a rationale. In the original discussions 8 months ago here and here, Red Slash tried to move it into policy itself at WP:AT (rejected), objections were raised about iit original length (it was shortened), and about particular examples it use (removed); the principal objector was Francis Schonken, on the basis of having made a proposal to rewrite AT in ways that would have integrated this and made various other changes (which did not achieve consensus at AT). After revision, the short version of this material was accepted in WP:Disambiguation without incident since that second discussion. This is standard WP:BRD operating procedure, and this revision and resolution process is how consensus is established. By August, the principal objector, Schonken, was removing attempts to reinserted expanded wording and examples [19] but retaining the agreed short version from prior discussions [20], which had already been accepted for two months. It remained uncontroverted for 6 more months, clearly long enough for consensus to be established, especially in a much-watchlisted guideline we use every single day.

  It was drive-by deleted in Feb. by Born2Cycle, with a bogus claim that discussion didn't happen and consensus was not been established [21]. This is is part of his years-long, tendentious campaign to promote WP:CONCISE as some kind of "super-criterion" that trumps all other concerns – which WP:MFD has rejected three times in a row: 1, 2, 3. The recent attempt by Dohn joe to delete material was predicated on his unawareness of the February discussion (which is mischaracterizing as being against inclusion when it was not) [22], his misunderstanding of previous discussions (see WT:Disambiguation#Restored content on precision cut from lead, which covers much of what I've outline here in more detail), and more false claims that consensus was not established.

  After 8 months of stability, the burden is on would-be deleters to demonstrate what the supposed problem is, and provide actual evidence that WP-wide consensus that such precision-and-recognizability disambiguations are permissible when necessary has somehow disappeared all of a sudden. This RfC, and two editors' PoV against this part of WP:DAB, would undo very long-standing naming conventions that call for this kind of precision-and-recognizability disambiguation, like WP:USPLACE and WP:USSTATION, and fly in the face of years of common sense decisions at RM, like the disambiguation of Algerian Arab (now a disambiguation page) to Algerian Arab sheep, and British White to British White cattle. Per WP:POLICY, the purpose of guidelines is to record actual community best practice, not try to force someone's made up idea about how things should be, like changing the meaning of English words, or preventing RM from doing what RM routinely does. Retaining this does the former, and removing it does the latter, both to pretend the word "disambiguation" doesn't mean what it means, and as to elevate concision above every other criterion, against the clear wording of policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comments (since there seems to be confusion): Wait! You mean I just don't like it doesn't mean we can change things just because? How about used in conjunction with and while ignoring all rules.

We have many policies and guidelines and a single one can not be used in disregard of others. I was under the impression we can not ignore all rules, if it is against consensus, even if we don't like it, unless we can sneak it in under the radar. FYI -- we should not really (according to policy) attempt to make or change policy by using WP:BRD unless we "ignore" the policy on Proposals and Good practice for proposals. The first states: "Proposals for new guidelines and policies require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion to guideline or policy.". The second: "If consensus for broad community support has not developed after a reasonable time period, the proposal is considered failed. If consensus is neutral or unclear on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal has likewise failed.".

Further, the procedural policy explains the process in detail that is located in the second part. A request for comments here is only one part of that process and not a determining factor for an outcome. Some confusion at Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance#Policy discussions seems to be at odds with policy and may contribute to errors. Policy (Good practice for proposals) states the process for any proposed changes to policy:

1)- The first step is to write the best initial proposal that you can.

2)- Authors can request early-stage feedback at Wikipedia's village pump for idea incubation and from any relevant WikiProjects.

3)- Once it is thought that the initial proposal is well-written, and the issues sufficiently discussed among early participants to create a proposal that has a solid chance of success with the broader community, start an RfC for your policy or guideline proposal in a new section on the talk page, and include the {rfc tag along with a brief, time-stamped explanation of the proposal.

4)- A RfC should typically be announced at this policy page (and/or the proposals page, and other potentially interested groups (WikiProjects).

There appears to be some confusion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion concerning sequence or location but policy seems clear.

DAB: Does cover the topic question above as well as WP:AT. Although there are editors that seem to prefer parenthetical disambiguation, or unnecessary use of such on article titles (Britannica style), this has not been established by any broad consensus but more just the opposite according to policy natural disambiguation is preferred and parenthetical disambiguation as a last choice. The etymology of "disambiguation" would be "not unclear" which would be "not clarified". An article title should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.. Recognizable, natural, and concise goes along with this. DAB states: "Disambiguation is also sometimes employed if the name is too ambiguous, despite not conflicting with another article (yet),". Consistency also goes along with these and gives more than one reason why we have Flemish Giant rabbit, Continental Giant rabbit, French Lop, Lop rabbit, Angora rabbit, and so forth. Certainly using the more common name according to references. Common sense is also thrown in there somewhere.

Conclusion: We should not attempt to change or change policies or guidelines on a whim or by any local consensus. The process is made somewhat complicated to prevent easy changes. DAB and AT do a fine job. I think if editors disagree then they should probably follow the above procedures. Otr500 (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The portion of WP:DAB that you quote was added a couple of days ago. A clear consensus in support of this recent addition would neatly resolve the difficulty of having an orphaned sentence in the lead that isn't explained in the body of the guideline.--Trystan (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It's also based on material present in the original, longer version. The WP:GAME here is to keep whittling away at the material in hopes that it can be made to seem out-of-place in its context. If context is restored, it's obviously belongs where it is. This was true 8 months ago, when the context material was originally reduced, on the basis (Francis Schonken's objection) that the example article titles were "unstable". This wasn't actually true then, and 8 months have proven conclusively that it's not true now, so the original rationale to decontextualizing the sentence has evaporated. Better yet, later editors like Dick Lyon have pointed out that entire NC guidelines, like USPLACE and USSTATION, rely on the exact same principle and have for years, so the examples Schonken didn't like almost a year ago were could have been replaced at any time anyway. A challenge against this provision now is a challenge against multiple naming conventions that have been stable for years.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure

This RfC was archived by the bot before having been closed. I would suggest that an administrator close it. RGloucester — ☎ 18:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Shall this long expired RfC ever be closed, or shall it languish here for eternity? RGloucester — ☎ 00:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • All the above effort should have been put into something that actually matters. 217.44.215.253 (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
    • It matters plenty, since dispute keeps erupting about this, on policy and guideline talk pages, and in RMs, and elsewhere. The real time drain is the recurrent disputation, not the attempt to resolve it with an RfC. In the end, this can only reasonably close one way, or be consensus-reviewed without a close (not all RfCs must have formal closure and consensus determination by common sense doesn't require it) in one way: to retain the guidance. Let's review:
      • It's been stable for a year+; the original objections to it were mooted by later tweaks (i.e., objections ceased, and the changes the original objectors insisted on were accepted, resulting in a consensus).
      • We've since learned it agrees with multiple long-term naming conventions that weren't even considered when it was written and which were not taken into account by any objections, then or now.
      • It codifies actual practice that has been ongoing the entire time WP has existed.
      • In just a few topics we’ve bothered looking at, the last two years or so produced somewhere between dozens and a hundred RMs that did exactly what the wording suggested, before and after the wording, and with and without naming conventions behind them. The community gets it, even if some editors do not or will not.
      • The wording was clarified and improved further in response to issues raised by the RfC (though there has been back-and-forth reverting about this [23], [24], [25], followed by excessive rewriting (without discussion or consensus) that has tried to eliminate every trace of the wording at issue, in mid-RfC, as shown in this multi-edit diff; this has been very partially reverted [26] to preserve some hint of the material, pending RfC closure.
      • Nothing at all negative has happened on the basis of this wording despite this RfC languishing unclosed (it has not been over-applied to do stupid things, nor was it applied this way before the RfC, and cases which actually need this sort of disambiguation of naturally ambiguous names have been proceeding as if nothing happened. Or they had been. Now confusion and dispute has arisen in the wake of attempts to delete the material during the RfC; e.g. this other RfC has quite a number of editors in favor of such disambiguation in certain kinds of song-title cases, while others suddenly don't seem to think it is possible/permissible, obviously because of FUD surrounding the WP:DAB wording. [Not all support/oppose at that RfC relates to this matter, however; some of it is about WP:CONSISTENCY vs. WP:CONCISE, etc. But at least half a dozen participants are making arguments clearly rooted in the wording at WP:DAB that some are trying to delete, consensus and process notwithstanding.]
      • The numbers are in favor of retention, though not by landslide, to the extent that is seen as meaningful.
      • The RfC itself is misleadingly and non-neutrally worded (in favor of deletion); the contravenes WP:RFC and requires a closer to account for the bias (or to close the RfC as invalid on its face).
      • Supporters have provided source, policy, and RM precedent backing, while deleters have not. Various opposers to inclusion in the guideline have actually wanted to move it into AT policy (going all the way back to its original inclusion in WP:DAB), but this proposal was already rejected at WT:AT. Re-proposing failed ideas when nothing has changed is a waste of time. And one does not get to delete guideline material by proposing an implausible move-and-merge to policy that is sure to be rejected, then claim that this somehow has something to do with whether it can be deleted from the guideline. By that rationale any guideline could be nuked by proposing a such a doomed move and claiming that the material suddenly had no consensus of any kind.
      • WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, WP:EDITING and WP:CONSENSUS are policy (it does not require some local-consensus's permission to codify actual practice in guidelines; this is what guidelines are for, and no one owns them).
      • Finally, the arguments presented here are far stronger for retention than for removal. The latter are primarily predicated on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, factual errors about RM outcomes, confusion about what disambiguation means, and an insistence, with no basis, that the WP:DAB page cannot possibly be about anything but article title collisions even if the word itself has broader meaning.

In short, there really is no case for removal. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC) [updated 18:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)]

• So, my first request for closure was more than a month ago...doesn't that seem a bit beyond the pale? Would someone close this thing out, please? RGloucester — ☎ 17:52, 26 May 20(UTC)

RGloucheser, there is nothing to "close". The thread was never actually marked as an RFC, even though people started to !vote as if it was. Just stop responding, and the thread will be moved into the archives like any other old discussion. Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was an RfC. The RfC tag is automatically removed after 30 days (i.e. ages ago), when RfCs expire and are meant to be closed. Closure is required, or else there is no resolution to the question asked by the RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 18:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry... my mistake. If you are willing to go with a non-admin, I would be willing to formally close. Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The "automatic" removal - actually a bot edit - is here, and within seconds it was removed from the RfC listings. There is a request for closure at WP:AN/RFC#Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).23Wikipedia:Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles, filed over a month ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any WP:AT/WP:MOS regular like Blueboar should close it. Anyone who regularly works on these policypages is apt to have very strong opinions about how they "should" be, when there is nothing to analyze here but the consensus process, disconnected from what the topic is: Wording was introduced; it was discussed; it was modified by those objecting to it; they stopped objecting after modification, resulting in a consensus; it remained stable all year; someone who did not participate in any of these discussions attempted to delete the agreed-upon, stable text without new discussion or even being aware of previous discussion; multiple editors reverted that; that deletion idea has been discussed, and arguments for and against removing or retaining the wording in some form have been aired; which are stronger, from a WP:POLICY, WP:PROCESS, and WP:COMMONSENSE, especially given that the main alternative proposal is "move it into WP:AT", a proposal that was already rejected in the first discussion? The answer is pretty clear, so even if we don't get a formal closure, consensus to keep the wording has not actually changed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI, it's not at all unusual for a discussion like this to languish without a formal closing statement for months. I suspect that having nearly all RFCs bulk-listed at WP:ANRFC by one editor causes the limited volunteer attention to be spent where it's not truly needed, at the expense of longer and more complex discussions.

Looking at who's been active recently at ANRFC, if you want an admin to close this, then you probably need to hope that User:Bencherlite, User:Xaosflux, User:Coffee, User:BD2412 or User:EdJohnston will have time and interest in reading and summarizing 10,000+ words on this subject.

Also, there's no "rule" against requesting closure for any discussion. ANRFC is "Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure", not "Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for comment". It's not an RFC-specific thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Lots of non-RfCs get listed and acted upon there. "Requests for comment" is only one subsection of "Requests for closure" (though often the only populated one, and people tend to list RfC-like not-quite-RfCs there; it's up to ANRFC admins if they want to reorganize it, and apparently they WP:DGAF per WP:BURO. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Clarification of BIO1E

In the second paragraph at WP:BIO1E, the assassination that led to the start of World War I is given as an example (and the only example) of a "highly significant" event. To me, this suggests that the appropriate bar is whether the event is covered in, or can reasonably expected to be covered in, history books. Others prefer a lower bar, especially for more recent events, that requires only extensive RS coverage and a subjective assessment of the event's impact—an assessment which often takes a short-term view. They would include events that very likely will not be covered in history books. Should the guideline be modified to clarify this point? If so, how? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No response after one week at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).

The sentence in question first gives the example of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand as an example. This was an event with very high historical impact and is widely covered in history books. The sentence then refers to "the large coverage of the event in reliable sources". This would include many events that receive extensive news coverage but have far less historical impact, if any. This is contradictory, creating more confusion than clarity.

Options:

• 1 - Clarify the guideline. Remove the Princip example, replacing that entire sentence with: "The event should have received large coverage in reliable sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role."
• 2 - Clarify the guideline. Add language following the Princip sentence: "Historical significance sufficient for inclusion of the event in history books is not required; extensive coverage in reliable news sources may be enough."
• 3 - Clarify the guideline. Add language following the Princip sentence: "Generally, the bar should be historical significance sufficient for inclusion of the event in history books, either demonstrated or reasonably anticipated."
• 4 - No change to the guideline. Simply affirm that: "Generally, the bar is historical significance sufficient for inclusion in history books, either demonstrated or reasonably anticipated." This RfC will then be used to show community consensus, supplementing BIO1E.
• 5 - Do nothing, the status quo is adequate.
• [other] - Roll your own. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC survey: BIO1E

• 3 or 4 as proposer. I feel that (1) the guidance is inadequate as written, and that (2) the criterion should be historical significance, not simply RS coverage of any kind. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• I support option 2. Something that occurred reasonably recently, no matter how notable the event was, is unlikely to turn up in any history book. If an event has been covered extensively by reliable sources, then I don't see why it matters that it hasn't been covered in history books. Omni Flames (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• I lean towards 4. As it currently stands we see plenty of articles being created with dubious historical significance (e.g. this person came in second in the 2005 American Idol, has never been heard from since; or had a minor role in a soap opera, which nevertheless did something consequential to the plot and got coverage for it, but then had no other significant coverage or played any notable roles). This needs to be corrected and made clearer. What we need to define is a way to establish "demonstrated or reasonably anticipated" - how would you ascertain if an event will be historical and covered in reliable long-term sources, such as books? "History books" should not be taken in the literal sense - I believe this refers to any long-term coverage in the relevant media for that particular subject. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Simply add a non-history-book example, which effectuates the idea of Option 2 without having to change the guidance wording.. Extensive RS coverage, regardless of the publication medium, is sufficient. The idea we can predict what will be in future history books is WP:CRYSTAL. Focusing on "history books" in particular is "medium/genre fetishization" and should be avoided, per the avoidance of it at WP:V and WP:RS themselves and at WP:NOT#PAPER.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC discussion: BIO1E

• What you seem to be asking for is some kind of "super notability", based on what a particular subset of reliable sources have written about (or upon our own subjective opinion of what a particular subset of reliable sources might be writing about at some undetermined point in the future), rather than what we know reliable sources generally have written about. I don't see the merit, nor have I seen any indication that it is established practice so as to justify changing the guideline's description of what practice is. I think you're just reading too much into an example that was probably included for its obviousness rather than it setting the bar that all others must pass. We also already have WP:NOTNEWS, which I think is on point with your concern. postdlf (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The guideline confuses me as written. Unless I'm unusually, almost singularly stupid, which is not outside the realm of possibility, it will confuse others as well. My primary goal here is to eliminate avoidable confusion and the resulting wasted time in discussions. Thus I would ask you to !vote 1, 2, or 1 or 2. If you can't see fit to do that, I included 5 just for you. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse Postdlf's points that this example is chosen for its sheer obviousness, also about 'NOTNEWS'. Real problem is the difficulty in establishing what IS going to be long-term significant. Would a better clarifier be the purely practical one that until the volume of available material requires a seperate article, default should be to not create one? Trouble is too many editors see a seperate article as an endorsement of the individual's significance, rather than the most efficient way to present information IM(H?)O. Pincrete (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• I think there's a bit of a WP:NOTCRYSTAL issue if we start predicting what will be in history books and how it will be covered. Who knows what society will consider important in 100 years? I'd rather keep the example in there, but have an additional sentence to the effect of: "The event should have received extensive and enduring coverage in reliable sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." In other words, it can't be minor coverage (obviously) and it can't be brief coverage (two days in the limelight and then complete silence is exactly what WP:BLP1E is meant to keep out of the encyclopedia). ~ Rob^Talk 14:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That sounds remarkably like option 5. For some reason no one wants to !vote in this RfC, so I'm prepared to let this archive for lack of participation and just continue to live with the ongoing consequences of this lack of clarity.
    The ability to step outside oneself and put oneself in others' shoes is very rare in such decision making. "It's clear to me, with my years of experience, so there is no need for further clarification." Ok then. Wikipedia continues to be designed by the experienced, for the experienced, and the less experienced can just struggle on—or not. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
    • No, I'm more-or-less voting for both an example and clarification away from the use of "future inclusion in history books", which is not currently an option. The wording of 2 prevents me from supporting it. The clarification there is worded in such a way that it still enshrines "future inclusion in history books" as the gold standard (with occasional exceptions for extraordinary sourcing). ~ Rob^Talk 04:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Mandruss, I congratulate you on receiving thoughtful comments, rather than simplistic votes, in response to your Request for Comments. Most people starting an RFC would consider themselves lucky. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

    @WhatamIdoing: The same comments can't be part of a !vote? Ok, I wasn't aware of that, and it hasn't been my experience. And I wasn't aware it was a binary choice, anyway. But thanks all, for the thoughtfulness, and I always consider myself lucky just to be allowed to work at a wonderful place like Wikipedia! ―Mandruss ☎ 01:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• I do not find the guideline confusing and do not think I found it confusing when I first read it. I concede that others may find it confusing and so I support the addition of the clarifying sentence suggested by Rob. I certainly do not think that we should be in the business of predicting how much coverage unpublished hypothetical future history books may or may not devote to a topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• I think this is a difficult area for less experienced editors, especially when they are interested and excited about writing about a recent event. IMO the biggest focus should be on "enduring" coverage, with a specification that editors should have a reasonable expectation of coverage extending significantly beyond the first anniversary of the end of the event. (For example, almost every murder or kidnapping will get a namecheck in a local newspaper on the one-year anniversary, and that's not enough.) This is not so much "future inclusion in history books" as "future inclusion in any reliable sources", which has some CRYSTAL challenges, but it is far easier to predict one year than one century, the 'deadline' has already passed for many events, and it's easy to clean up next year if we guess wrong.
  Also, expanding the requirement to require coverage in non-local sources would probably help. It's easy to find year-long coverage in local newspapers of (for example) individual children with cancer or the mayor's arrest for drunk driving, but that's not really notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:DATERANGE ambiguity and stylistic concerns

I recently initiated a discussion regarding WP:DATERANGE, the MoS guideline that specifies use of two-digit abbreviated years in end-ranges (i.e. 1995–99 instead of 1995–1999) for years from the 11th century onward only. Objections have been raised regarding this guideline before, and now again, with many agreeing with my reasoning for reverting to the old format, but it never proceeds any further. Here are several reasons why the current guideline should be abandoned and reverted:

• Date ranges under the current format can easily be confused for something else entirely, especially for ranges ending in years '01–'12. For example, "2010–12" can easily be interpreted as December 2010 instead of a date range of 2010–2012.
• It looks very unprofessional IMHO. Saving a measly two digits is not worth giving the appearance of using unnecessary shortcuts/slang in a respectable encyclopedia.
• It doesn't read naturally for years in the 21st century spanning the 2000s decade to 2010 or later. This is mainly because years from 2000–2009 are usually pronounced "two thousand and", while years from 2010—present are usually said as "twenty". So a range such as 2000–16 being read as "two thousand to sixteen" sounds ridiculous. This is especially problematic for anyone having Wikipedia read aloud by a text-to-speech program.
• Implementation is inconsistent, since it is only applicable to years 1000 AD+ and to none of the years in the BC era (why not?), leading to more confusion and unnecessary stylistic asymmetry.

I am looking to canvass the wider community to see if there is support to revert to the older style, which preferred permitted the entire 4-digit year for end-ranges. Please indicate whether you support the current MoS guideline or the previous one. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Question: You say the old format, but I've just been looking through the history to find when the format changed, and got tired around October 1, 2007‎ when it was still stating a XXXX–XX format as it does today. How long ago was the change from XXXX–XXXX, and why did it change? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

In 2007, it also said "The full closing year is acceptable, but abbreviating it to a single digit (1881–6) or three digits (1881–886) is not", and this no longer seems to be accepted, except for birth and death dates. It once also specified that date ranges from the first millenium used all the digits (886–889, not 886–89). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

As of February 10, 2012, our own manual of style is cited in this stackexchange question as a "guide" to how to format date ranges - so that's helpful. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 07:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, but what I had meant by the "old" style was the permissing of the full closing year (4 digits), which is now removed from the guide. This removal is what has resulted in the change of 4-digit end-years to 2-digits across thousands of articles over the years, and for any 4-digit closing years in new articles/edits to be changed by someone with a comment citing the MoS. I'd prefer the abbreviated form be discouraged altogether, but as long as the 4-digit form is once again permitted as equally legitimate, that would be sufficient. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 14:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, cool. Cheers. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Crumpled Fire: The "permissing of"??

@Crumpled Fire: I suggest this be converted to a "formal" WP:RfC, so that whatever its results are carry more "weight"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. I've done so here, you and others watching this discussion are welcome to join. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 08:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:MULTI and common simplicity and ease, I suggest the RfC should be held right here. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 12:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Moved to below. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I've refactored the RfC tag to the top, or it will lead to an accidental fork of the "!voting" (a term some object to) into two redundant sections, as people click links to the RfC and end up below it. I almost did this myself until realizing that the comments were in a section above the RfC tag.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem, I was considering doing something similar myself, thanks for the help. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 05:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments on DATERANGE RfC

• Revert to previous style (permit and prefer 4-digit years), per points above. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• I'm in favor of permitting the "full closing year", without requiring it. "In 2006–07, the sports person did something" is appropriate to the subject, even though I prefer "2006–2007" (or even "from 2006 to 2007", spelled out with actual words) for other contexts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  FYI, in case you were unaware, this policy isn't just referring to adjacent years, it's any years within an entire century. In otherwords, "1957–98" is preferred over "1957–1998", which is IMO ridiculous. If it were just "1957–58", as in the common practice used for school years/fiscal years/etc., I'd have no concerns. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 14:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Permit 4-digit years. I can think of no reason to have 2-digit year ranges at all, much less have them preferred. WP isn't paper, so what are we saving by removing some digits? I'm not aware of any increase in understanding by the reader for 2-digit years in ranges, and per above, several possible misunderstandings. I'm saying "permit" rather than "require" only to avoid the same rash of MOS-fanatic changes that caused this dumb situation. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Permit 4-digit years—forcing two-digit ranges is silly micromanagement, and I can see no profit from enforcing it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Prefer or require 4-digit years: I think MOS:DATERANGE permits 4-digit years: "the range's end year is usually abbreviated to two digits". Two-digit years are an anachronism from before the printing press, in the computer age a two digit year cutoff is a kind of database problem. I was taught to not be ambiguous by using 9999 for four-digit years (and 999 for three-digit years, etc.). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Require full syntax: I was considering this from the standpoint of standards, with the weight being on simple continuity i.e. One rule to rule them all. With this in mind I considered a range like "1874 to 1984" which would currently read as "1874–984" if we apply the same logic to the formatting as "1874 to 1884" being written as "1874–84". This is nonsensical, so we need several formatting rules to cover different ranges, which leads to confusion and argument. A one rule solution is to always use the full syntax e.g. "1874–1984", "1874–1884", "874–984", "874–1984" etc.. There can, under this simple single rule, be no confusion or ambiguity. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Previous style (full four digit year required) - We should not be using a potentially ambiguous two digit shorthand.- MrX 03:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Permit both styles, prefer four digit – I wouldn't want to prohibit "1957–58" for school years or sports seasons. It would be nice to come up with a set of simple rules but there are so many exceptions and edge cases I think we need to leave it partly up to editor discretion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Require all digits to avoid confusion and ambiguity; saving two characters (especially in a digital context) is unnecessary. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Leave guideline as it is. This reflects normal English-language usage. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  No it doesn't. Two-digit abbreviations for end-ranges consisting of a period of decades or longer (i.e. 1909–98) are virtually non-existent. The only use of this abbreviated format that I've ever seen commonly is for immediately adjacent years, as in fiscal or school years (i.e. 2008–09), as noted above. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Require all digits: A consistent style for all dates is far more compatible with automated tools, screen readers for the visually impaired, search engines, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Permit 4-digit years, prefer this as default, but leave 4 vs 2 editorial decisions to a case by case scenario. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Permit both styles, prefer four digit per the rapidly accumulating SNOW above. Specifying always four digits is tempting, but two digits is extremely common for consecutive years and other edge cases. Alsee (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Require all digits except for school years or sports seasons and the like Peter coxhead (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Prefer full years – I've had to correct my own edits to the two digit style more than once, and each time I always wondered why I was having to do that. Even if the two digit style is acceptable, the four digit style is more universal. I can't think of any reason in the context of Wikipedia to prefer the two digit style. Expressing a preference is what the MoS does, by the way. There is no matter of "requirement" in it. Editorial consensus on a talk page should still be able to determine specific instances where the two digit style might have usefulness. RGloucester — ☎ 16:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – In this decision, either leave the current default 2010–12 or require the 4-year 2010–2012 format. But whatever you do, don't leave it as a "dealer's choice". IOW, either leave the current, or go to the full 4 year, but don't leave both formats as "acceptable". This should be a binary choice: either choose the current, or choose the former. Leaving as a "dealer's choice" will lead to chaos and edit warring... (On my end, I've gotten very used to the current format, but the "all-4 year" format would probably be "cleaner" across the whole project...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • From below, either A) or B), but absolutely, positively not D), which is just a recipe with dateranges for the kind of minor edit warring over date formats, etc. on RETAIN vs. TIES grounds we have now but probably on a larger scale. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Agreed about D. It's invalid because MOS:RETAIN doesn't actually apply to this. That whole "here's how I personally think the closers should do their analysis" section with the A, B, C, etc. things, should just be hatted as unwittingly disruptive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Require four-digit years per Fred Gandt, IJBall, Guy Macon above. For simplicity, clarity, lack of ambiguity, and for tools that automatically extract meaning from wp. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 17:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Permit both styles... I wouldn't mind requiring "4-digit" for prose, but when it comes to usage in tables, I usually much prefer "1998–99" because it makes the column nice and narrow and there's not all the repeating of 19s or 20s down the column. But then, there are times when "4-digit" is the better choice in tables as well. —Musdan77 (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Permit both styles, preference to two-digit except where ambiguous per nom. Examples: 1965–68; 2010–2011. 🖖ATS / Talk 00:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Require all digits, except for school years, sports seasons, and potentially tables if not ambiguous and the like, for the good rationales given. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Permit both styles, preference for two-digit except where ambiguous I find 2 digit simpler to read, and people employ 'translations' when verbalising the written form, sometimes using the longest, sometimes the shortest form. Pincrete (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Question How does a screen reader read 2000-12 compared to 2000-2012? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, depending on the answer to the question, my vote will be either ****-**** only or 'both allowed'. As an accessibility issue, if screen readers have issues (which I have seen on other websites, but personally have not experienced on wikipedia) with the ****-** format, generally it should be discouraged. If there is no issue, I dont see any reason it shouldnt. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Paging User:Graham87...
    On a related note, I understand that the hyphen (or en dash) between the years is silently dropped. It's possible that spelling it out the connection in words, as in "2000 to 2012" or "between 2000 and 2012", would be best for users of screen readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    • By default, JAWS reads 2000–2012 as "2000 dash 2012" and 2000–12 as "2000 dash 12". NonVisual Desktop Access omits the hyphen when it is present, but when an en dash is there, it reads "2000 en dash 2012" and "2000 en dash 12", respectively. I don't think we should let screen readers determine the guidance here; both forms are exceedingly common, and using "to" and "between" would just not work in many places. Graham87 06:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify: It would say 'two thousand (en)dash two thousand twelve' versus 'two thousand (en)dash twelve'? I understand punctuation is a mess, I am more familiar with braile readers ;) but to me I think the former would be preferable to the latter. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • According to this blog who tested 3 screen readers - punctuation is a mess (scroll down to the table of dashes). Of note, not all screen readers will behave the same. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: per Only in death's concern (above); I think it worth considering that if the abbreviated form is allowed, it should only be so when wrapped in <abbr>...</abbr> tags to assist human and machine comprehension. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 12:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Define full ending year as the default house style, with local exceptions based on discussion of real need (this last part is implicit in the word "guideline" and does not need to be stated). As with any guideline, it would not be useful to say both are permissible and leave it to personal preference; that would be a guideline largely devoid of guidance, and would enable more time-wasting conflict than it prevented. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Require all digits because saving 2 digits is not a huge benefit, having multiple permissible styles gives an unprofessional look, yyyy-yy seems to be more of a US thing that is less commonly used by other countries, yyyy-yy can be confused with yyyy-mm dates, avoids editors toggling between the two formats and one universal rule is so much easier than multiple rules trying to pin down exactly when 2 digits are/aren't allowed.  Stepho  talk  01:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Permit both styles. Retrograde step to insist on all eight digits in all situations, removing the flexibility we currently have. Even in infoboxes and tables? Nuts. Tony (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Although I find the two digit style unnecessary, aesthetically ugly, potentially ambiguous, and arbitrary (Why not abbreviate to 1 or 3 digits? Why not for years before 1000? Why omit the grammatically correct apostrophe preceding the two digits?), I would be willing to support a guideline identical to that currently found at MOS:DATEVAR, which allows the abbreviation of month names "only when brevity is helpful (refs, tables, infoboxes, etc.)". Which is not to say that two digits should always be used in tables and infoboxes, but rather only when a cluttering amount of (three or more) date ranges are present. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 02:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You ask, "Why not abbreviate to 1 or 3 digits?" Do you really not understand why, or is that just rhetoric? The reason is an application of the principle that writing conventions follow speaking conventions. English speakers say and understand year ranges as follows: "1980 to 86"; "1980 to 94"; "2001 to 10" ("two thousand one to ten" or "twenty oh one to ten"); "2005 to 12"; and "2008 to 20." An English speaker would not say "1980 to 6"; "1991 to 4"; or "2011 to 7". Neither would an English speaker say "1980 to 986"; "1980 to 994"; nor "2010 to 012".—Finell 04:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Rhetorical. My point being that it's still arbitrary, especially since the proper grammatical form is to place an apostrophe to denote the omission (i.e. 1995–’99), which is also omitted in our style. That the two-digit form has (limited) common usage doesn't mean our MOS should recommend it; I find it to be bordering on slang. Plus, in common usage, it's usually only implemented for years that immediately follow, i.e. 2008–09, not for something like 1901–87, which is silly and used virtually nowhere else but here. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 10:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

the proper grammatical form is to place an apostrophe to denote the omission—no, that is very much not an issue of grammar. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a stylistic choice based on parallelism to word contraction like "isn't" and "'tis", and it has long fallen out of favor in both actual use and in style guides when it comes to date ranges (probably from ISO's influence). Some still recommend it when an abbreviated year (or longer period) is used by itself ("back in '06", "I grew up in the '80s"), which is a style we don't use here except in quotations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Require full "2001–2012" syntax, which will avoid inevitablly confusing or ambiguous constructions. This matches our treatment of page numbering ("pp. 2001–2012", except possibly in some citation styles imported from off-WP that forbid it, but this seems so rare it need not be accounted for, and I've never once had someone revert me correcting to the longer, clearer format). It also comports with our treatment of other similar ranges of numbers ("sources reported between 2,001 and 2,012 fatalities", not "sources reported 2,001–12 fatalities", which to many will imply some kind of subtraction operation).

  Permit an exception for tables, if and only if all of the following apply: a) horizontal space in the table is genuinely at a premium, b) line-breaking with "2001–<br />2012" would be disruptive to the table layout or sortability, c) the shortened date is wrapped in <abbr>...</abbr> (or the {{abbr}} template for it), and (not "or") d) the table also includes some shorthand dates like "1996–00" and "2012–15" that cannot be mistaken for yyyy–mm dates (i.e., do not end in "-01" through "-12"). A large table broken up into several smaller ones with the same columns, in the same article, would be considered a single table for this purpose.

  No special exemption for sports or any other particular topic, whether they use dash- or slash-delimited formatting by convention. Wikiprojects do not get to PoV-fork their own little local micro-consensus against site-wide norms, as a matter of policy. WP is an encyclopedia; it is not sports journalism or mimicry of it. WP permits some specialized stylization when it does not conflict with general-audience expectations and comprehensibility needs, but rejects it when it does. And no special pleading for "I got here first" editors. We already have way, way too much WP:OWN/WP:VESTED-violating "get off my article!" behavior, over micromanagement of formatting nit-picks. This has to be put to an end, not expanded even further.
   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Prefer the unambiguous all-digits form, with use of 2-digit shortening where space is at a premium and the meaning is obvious from context. For years not aligned with calendar years, such as 2008-09, that's a different matter, and 2-digit shortening in preferred in such cases, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• No uniform rule There is not a compelling case for any one choice. As such, we should let authors decide, and proceed on the basis of MOS:RETAIN. If projects can agree on local consensus for the type of material they cover, that is fine too, but if it results in disputes, MOS:RETAIN should resolve it. Monty₈₄₅ 01:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • MOS:RETAIN cannot actually apply to this, because both styles are not equally appropriate – one of them leads to inevitable ambiguities and confusion. RETAIN only applies when the choice between two+ options is completely arbitrary and makes no practical difference.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Require all digits, with limited exceptions, these being for a "year" that spans two calendar years, e.g. an academic year or a sporting year. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Permit both styles, prefer four digits per most of the arguments above. Four digits is less ambiguous and we don't need to worry about space because WP:NOTPAPER. Kaldari (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Either require full years or allow both. I agree that some ranges are ambiguous in their meaning. Stylistic inconsistency is also another problem. When we have a range that goes from 1990 to 2000 (1990–2000) next to a range that goes from 2001 to 2016 (2001–16), it looks a bit weird. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Prefer four digits, permit two digits for two-year spans. The two-digit format is fine for a school year or TV season, where the meaning is unambiguous; otherwise four digits. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Permit both styles. This doesn't need to be micro-managed. Leave it to editorial discretion. --Trovatore (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Require all digits – The only way this could be more confusing than it is now is if some ranges had two digits and some had four. KSFT^C 18:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Require full years with a few exceptions having all the digits reduces the chance of confusion, increases accessibility, and avoids unnecessary abreviations that just don't look formal. However, the two digit format should still be available for labelling types of years that don't quite match up (sports seasons, chool years, Catholic liturgical year etc.) and in tables and infoboxes where space actually matters. Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Permit both styles as this should be considered on a case-by-case basis per the good points made above. Andrew D. (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
• Decline to Decide this RFC or Retain current guideline, but omit exception for special subject matter. Crumpled Fire states, "Objections have been raised regarding this guideline before" and that "many" (but not a consensus) agreed with his or her position, but obliquely acknowledges that these objections never achieved consensus ("but it never proceeds any further"). The issue was decided by consensus at WP:MOSNUM in January 2014; even then, the topic heading was preceded by "Redux". Crumpled Fire reopened the discussion in early June on the WP:MOSNUM talk page, but got no traction there, so Crumpled Fire brings it here to a different forum. Stability in a style manual is desirable for its own sake. Changing the guideline would require a massive project of revising articles that complied with the existing guideline. If a genuine problem existed, that would justify changing the guideline, but no one has identified a genuine problem. Personal preference for a different style does not, in my opinion, warrant a change to the MOS. Also, does Village Pump want to become the Court of Appeals for the innumerable MOS disputes? I propose that the Village Pump decline to decide this RFC and leave it to the MOS discussion to resolve. Regarding the guideline itself, I would change the current guideline insofar as it makes exceptions based on subject matter (e.g., sports). The MOS guides Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia should not abandon its house style guide because sports (or other publications) follow a different style guide.—Finell 00:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Permit 4-digit years As noted by Curly Turkey, this is silly micromanagement; MOS needs to be in the business of enforcing general provisions such as WP:ENGVAR, WP:CITEVAR, and WP:ERA, not dictating details to article writers. One of those general provisions (already in there) needs to be that we follow naming conventions in article collections; it doesn't really matter whether we have articles on the National Basketball Association seasons for 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 or 2010-11 and 2011-12, but we need to be careful not to have articles on the seasons for 2010-2011 and 2011-12. And coming here is a great way to cut through the dictatorship of the few MOS trolls: we need to break their dominance. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Permit 4-digit years. I would prefer to say require four digits, but the MoS should advise not require. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Prefer two year, permit both - My concern is the literal thousands date ranges used on television pages which are fairly uniform with two years. This includes season section headers. Which reflex could handle it, it would be a large undertaking if for years is required. I prefer two years for season headers personally. There's no ambiguity the ranges imho. If allow both, treat like ERA as mentioned others. Also allow project mos to state a preference per consensus at that project. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Prefer or require 4-digit years. To have the MOS or drive-by editors enforce a specific two-digit form is just ludicrous. Four digits are clear, immediately understandable, and completely unambiguous. The wiki servers are not going to freeze because of two extra characters. If two digits work better in some instances or in some articles, perhaps allow that as well if agreed to by consensus. But don't dictate two-digits -- that's just silly; it's like dictating a serial comma (or no serial comma). Softlavender (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Retain existing format - Requiring the first two digits for ranges in the same century is requiring unnecessary redundancy. I'm not convinced by the argument that "2000-10" is ambiguous and could be read as October 2010, as this is not a format that is acceptable for anything other than year ranges. Most importantly, tables and infoboxes often require abbreviated formats and the existing format caters for this requirement while yyyy-yyyy does not. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The format "2000-10" may not be acceptable to represent "YYYY-MM" according to current MOS (i.e., a wikipedia standard) but it is certainly valid by the ISO 8601 standard that blesses and defines many date formats. DMacks (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

And? WP:ISNOT the ISO. We have a different audience; much of ISO 8601 is intended for machine parsing, not human prose.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Permit 4-year but do not require – for many of the same reasons noted above. There may be situations in which the use of two digits is well understood and appropriate, so requiring four digits in all instances is unnecessary (not to mention tedious instruction creep that would require a lot of changes to exising articles that already use the two-digit format). --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended discussion of DATERANGE RfC

A short discussion was initially had at the MoS/Dates and numbers talk page (the latest of many which went nowhere) regarding the re-introduction of the four-digit endrange year in WP:DATERANGE. When some support was garnered but discussion again stalled, it was then expanded to a discussion and !vote here at the Village Pump, garnering a high level of agree !votes to return to the original style of allowing—or even preferring—four-digit end years (i.e. 2000–2016) instead of the current two-digit end years (i.e. 2000–16) for ranges that occur post-11th century and within the same century.

In addition to the points made and support garnered at the Village Pump, it's becoming clear to me that the general editing public (and likely the general public itself) finds the 2000–16 format disagreeable, as I've already had to revert three instances ([27],[28],[29]) within the last few days of someone changing "2000–16" to "2000–2016" in the infobox for Anton Yelchin (a high-traffic article due to the subject's recent death). As suggested by a user at the Village Pump discussion, I am opening an RfC to hopefully determine once and for all whether the community at large agrees it's time to re-introduce four-digit end years in ranges. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

While if one were writing an informal blog or a company memo, one might not care what date format was used, and not really care all that much if a few people had some difficulty with it, on Wikipedia the fact that alternative styles can be attested to exist does not mean that every imaginable paper-medium style must be permitted, willy-nilly; we have a mission and responsibility to be as accessible to and clearly informative for as many readers as possible. Most of WP:MOS and its subpages consist of best practices selected from a range of possible practices, and selected (especially in favor of clarity over ambiguity, even at the cost of a tiny bit of brevity) by consensus on the basis of experience with what does and does not work well on WP, what leads to continual strife when no firm rule is provided, what WP:COMMONSENSE suggests, and what the preponderance of external style guides recommend. On all four counts, we are pointed toward using the full "2001–2012", not shorthand "2001–12", format. The shorthand style is primarily used in journalism, where saving space is often taken to matter more than clarity, and inside academic citation formats in particular fields, especially those also geared toward maximum compression, for reduced journal printing cost and for expert convenience, at the expense of "lay" readability (e.g. "Jacksom PM, Garcia AG. AmJPsych", versus the "Jackson, P. M.; Garcia, A. G. American Journal of Psychology" we expect here).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, expanding "Jackson" to "Jacksom" is not a form of compression :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Danm it, I cam't blane mobile auto-correct for that ome.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 

For transparency, recording that I'm notifying WP:TV of this rfc as it will impact most pages within the project's scope. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Possible outcomes?

Keep in mind that this policy applies to years 1000–present only, and only to ranges that stay within the same century.

• A) Status quo (prefer 2-digit, no explicit allowance of 4-digit)
• B) Only allow 4-digit end-range years
• C) Only allow 2-digit end-range years
• D) Equally allow both, using whichever is established/the first editor used, and discuss prior to change (similar to CE/AD policy)
• E) Prefer one, but allow the other in certain circumstances (specify details in your comment)

As the proposer, the outcome I support is B, as I see no benefit to reducing 4-digit years to 2 digits arbitrarily in any case, ranges or otherwise, as argued previously. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 14:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This isn't helpful, and should be hatted. Anyone can add another proposed option at any time; you can't constrain people to what you see as the possible outcomes, and it's not your job to steer the closer's analysis. Also, MoS is a guideline not policy.

D has fatal problems, per WP:OWN, WP:MERCILESS, and WP:VESTED; while we do have some article-wide, anti-WP:POINT "don't fiddle with stuff just to fiddle with it" provisions like MOS:DATEVAR, MOS:ENGVAR, and WP:CITEVAR, they do not permit micro-management of something like this, i.e. exactly which formatting of a date, within the variations of a particular DATEVAR, is used in a particular table or whatever. Furthermore, MOS:RETAIN does not and cannot apply here, only when the choice between options is arbitrary and makes no real difference; one of these styles (the "2001-09" one) leads to inevitable ambiguities and confusion, so it fails this test automatically. (Also, it's not really similar to CE/AD, which is not "use whichever one you like best, and thereafter no one can change it without an RfC"; there are contextual rationales to use one vs. the other (e.g. an article on geology vs. an article on biblical historicity.)

I think you should {{collapse}} this subsection, let discussion continue freely, and let the closer decide what outcomes have been proposed and which if any has consensus. Or an admin should {{hat}} it. While I know it wasn't intended that way, it's disruptive to the RfC process. People are starting to insert objections to your enumerated "possibilities" into their original comments, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice about potential overhaul to MOS:TV

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television § MOS:TV "overhaul" planned?

This is just a notice that members of the Television project are considering overhauling and rewriting our MOS, headed up by myself. Nothing is happening until August 2016, but there is a discussion regarding interest in the endeavor which you can find here, and add your signature if you would like to be a part of the effort. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, but please note that MOS:TV is a Wikipedia guideline, not an owned page, a wikiproject advice essay, of WikiProject Television, so it's not appropriate to call it "[y]our MOS". It's part of the MoS. What it says affects a large number of articles that are not entirely within the scope of WikiProject Television, and it's important that it not start PoV-forking away from things like MOS:NUM, etc..  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Deprod by nominator

If someone nominates an article for PROD, and then shortly deprods it without any edits in between or significant contributions afterwards, does that still make it ineligible for PROD? I just nominated the article in question for AfD anyway, but I'm curious about this. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that would count. The issue is whether there were any objections to the PROD, and if the PRODer basically says "never mind" and removes it themselves that doesn't count as an objection in my mind, it's instead as if it were never prodded. postdlf (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This kind of situation was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 12#Different situation. -- GB fan 14:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I now agree with the end of that discussion. If the prod is removed by the editor that placed it, that is not a contested PROD. -- GB fan 14:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's in keeping with other interpretations. E.g., I can still {{db-author}} a page that I created by mistake, even if someone edited then self-reverted their edit from it. Etc. An accidental and self-reverted prod isn't substantive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Drafts in draftspace versus WikiProject subpages

There's been a series of moves and requested moves about various drafts inside WikiProject open at the moment. I was moving a bunch by hand to draftspace but this was opposed and so we had these discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of ancient history - RM request rejecting a move from Outlines WikiProject to draftspace.
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dacia/Drafts/Angustia - proposal to move a series from within Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia to draftspace.
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swami Vivekananda/Drafts/List of educational institutions named after Swami Vivekananda - proposal to move from Wikipedia:WikiProject Swami Vivekananda draft to draftspace.
• Draft talk:Outline of William Shakespeare - return from draftspace back to Outlines.
• Draft talk:Outline of cardiology - return from draftspace back to Outlines.
• Draft talk:Outline of Jesus - return from draftspace back to Outlines.
• Draft talk:Outline of golf - return from draftspace back to Outlines.
• Draft talk:Outline of Star Trek - return from draftspace back to Outlines.

I can't finding any particular policy for when these should (if they should) be moved from their locations as subpages within WikiProjects or in draftspace but I'd like to put a notice here so that we can have some more outside views for the following discussions, even if it is reversing all the pages moves or keeping them where they are. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• WikiProjects own nothing. If they are interested in those pages they can add a banner tag to the talk page, just as any other project can do. --Izno (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Izno Based on this revert including other project is not considered acceptable. Either way, there's a lot of discussions and inconsistency about them so I don't know if an RFC is needed or we just go hap-hazardly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Concur with Izno, as a matter of policy at WP:OWN, WP:BURO, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Also, SmokeyJoe's revert, diffed above, was inappropriate, since he is not the official spokesperson of all those wikiprojects, and the purpose of wikiproject banner templates on talk pages is to identify scope; it's a tagging mechanism for maintenance-side categorization, not a stamp of project turf-warring. "Live" content categories like Category:Ancient history should not be put on article drafts, but it is eminently sensible to wikiproject-categorize drafts, because it helps direct topically-relevant editorial attention to improving them and getting them out of draft state.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• It should not be assumed that any article-focused WikiProject has any interest in being associated with any non-article outline. Outlines have a navigation purpose, but as articles they ir are frequently redundant and/or attractors of original research. This is why they shouldn't be carelessly moved to draftspace, if moved, some more care is needed. The proper place for this discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Outlines. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "but as articles their [they?] are frequently redundant and/or attractors of original research."? DexDor ^(talk) 15:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

DexDor, I mean, thinking of the many old AfD battles on outlines, that "Outline of X" pages were frequently noted to be duplication of "List of X" (not to be confused with notable lists), where both exist to list a large number of related topics. This problem seemed to be worse at the bottom of the outline hierarchy. Separately, some people who seem unfamiliar with WP:Outlines would add explanatory prose excessively, and when combined with the partial knowledge that Outlines are not supposed to contain references, the excessive prose violates WP:NOR. Or it forks article ledes, without attribution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

That isn't clarifying - e.g. what do you mean by "notable lists"? DexDor ^(talk) 06:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

A notable list is a list that meets the guideline section WP:LISTN, the narrow case of "list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", as opposed to the lower bar of Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Appropriate_topics_for_lists. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Move to draftspace - mainly for consistency with how the rest of wp works. For example, if someone creates a (draft) article List_of_bars_in_Fooland then that's probably of interest to 3 wikiprojects (Lists, Bars and Fooland) and should be tagged for those 3 wikiprojects on its talk page, but none of those 3 wikiprojects "owns" that page so it should not be a subpage of a particular wikiproject. Another way to look at this: The Wikipedia (Project) namespace should be for information or discussion about Wikipedia (MOS, XFDs, Signpost...); not content. DexDor ^(talk) 15:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Generally Oppose putting Outline drafts into draftspace. They are not proper drafts, mostly being templated creations; they are not proper articles, and all of them probably belong in Portal Space if not a new dedicated name space. Structurally, they should all be subpages of Portal:Contents/Outlines, but I think they are not because the wikilinks were bothersomely long.
• The above list of linked discussions should be set aside per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive277#Ban_time.3F. Definitely not be considered precedent setting. The central place for productive discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Outlines. Ricky has, in my opinion, got ahead of consensus in doing some things; not a shooting offense but he has irritated some with different styles. The IP is his personal IP hopping troll who started the linked discussions, which were poor both due to being fragmented/unadvertised and poorly initiated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think outlines belong in Portal namespace? Portals (e.g. Portal:Fish) are nothing like outlines (e.g. Outline of fish). Anyway, what namespace (article/portal/outline) non-draft outlines are in is largely/completely irrelevant to the question of what namespace (wikipedia/draft) draft outlines should be in. DexDor ^(talk) 06:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

1. Because the top level of outlines lies under Contents in Portal space, not under Portal:Contents/Outlines.

2. Because outlines do not contain unique content. They should contain minimal prose, if any.

Portal:Fish are nothing like outlines is correct, Portal:Fish is not under Portal:Contents/Outlines

DraftSpace should be restricted to mainspace drafts. Draft proposals do not go in draftspace. Neither do draft templates, categories or userpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Portal:Contents/Outlines

• Update: Of the ones above, they have all been resolved (other than the initial Outlines pages not being moved, they are either in draft or not moved from draftspace). However, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dacia/Drafts/Angustia has been relisted and could use more commentators and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alabama/W. H. Taylor I just started. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of USPS stamp images

A inquiry to the US Postal Service “Integration and Planing Rights and Permissions” division on 9/8/15, case ID 124603003, reported that no prior approval is necessary for use of stamp images in "newspapers, news magazines, news journals and other media,” which I take to mean online encyclopedias, as the inquiry specifically referred to use of USPS stamp images on Wikipedia. However users "must credit the USPS and noting its rights, such as “United States Postal Service. All rights reserved.” and “all aforementioned uses must consist of the unaltered, original image...” — that can be obtained by a download free from the Smithsonian Institute’s Arago:people, postage and the post website, as well as USPS sites featuring the most current issues.

Why should Wikipedia policy continue to bar most USPS stamp images, when it is just a matter of reporting image information in historical context of cultural significance in a Wikipedia article and their use is permitted by the USPS? There need be no fear of Wikipedia becoming a stamp album, any more than there is need to fear WP becoming an art gallery, or a video game promotion by representing images of art or box covers. The key is writing informative encyclopedic narrative directly associated with each image. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The USPS statement clearly does not release the stamp images under an acceptable free license (specifically that it does not allow alteration, which is a requirement we need to call images free). As such, stamps (since a specific year when the USPS was no longer a direct government agency) are copyrighted works and treated as non-free, and since WP's mission is to minimize the use of non-free, we restrict the use of such stamp images unless they meet NFCC. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not clear. How can the images of copyrighted video game boxes and album covers be allowed on Wikipedia and not stamps as a part of informative encyclopedic narrative? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Cover art for a notable published work (one that has its own standalone article) is considered to be an acceptable use of non-free images to illustrate how that work is marketed and branded (even if that is not discussed at all in the article). If there was a stamp or stamp set that was notable on its own (eg meeting the WP:GNG for a standalone article, the same allowance would clearly be made. However, individual stamp or series of stamps are rarely notable on their own, and generally are covered on the topic that the stamp is illustrating to say that the topic was commemorated on a stamp or stamp series. And in that case, one rarely needs to see the image of the stamp to understand that context. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian, I think it depends upon where you want to use an image of the stamp. For example, I see that they have stamps with pictures of spoonbill birds and banana splits, and it's unlikely that those stamps would be appropriate for those articles. However, they also have one of the renowned teacher Jaime Escalante, and it would probably be appropriate to include the stamp alongside a well-sourced paragraph that explains that the USPS printed a stamp in honor of him. The File: page would need to be here (not at Commons) and it would need a {{subst:Stamp rationale}} template, but that is probably an acceptable use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no, that would not be an acceptable use if there already existed an image of Escalante, particularly a free one. If we already know what the person looks like from other media, just using the image of the stamp to show another image and to say that a stamp was made to commemorate him would fail WP:NFCC#1 (if a free image was available) and WP:NFCC#3a (if a photograph existed otherwise). There would need to be more discussion on the specific image used on the stamp sourced in the text to made it an allowable use. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I was assuming that the "well-sourced paragraph that explains that the USPS printed a stamp" would actually talk about the stamp, and that the image of said stamp existed to illustrate the paragraph about the stamp, rather than the article's subject as a whole.  ;-) An unrelated snapshot of the person doesn't really tell you anything about the stamp's appearance, so NFCC complaints on grounds of "we have a different picture of this person" would not prohibit us from using a copy of the stamp to show what the stamp (NB: not the person) looks like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I see the notable test. Most stamps with historical interest are initiated with joint resolutions of Congress, a majority of both House and Senate. Anti-stamp editors have previously objected that the dust jacket of a book on the New York Times best selling list, or a national marketing campaign for a video game make the respective visual representations “notable”. Surely relative to the larger context of U.S. history, a Joint Resolution of Congress commemorating a person, event or place is even more notable in comparison.

The Template:Stamp rationale is, “used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the entity represented by the image”. It is not replaceable image, because "a free use alternative won’t exist.” Further, “there is no possible commercial disadvantage to the copyright holder.” The WP:Stamp rationale was used for the images at Puerto Rico on stamps which now is populated with placeholders since their arbitrarily removal. They were at Commons, why must they be exclusively at Wikipedia? I thought the Foundation policy was to migrate images to Commons. This seems to be a narrow parochial argument against the larger interests of the Foundation for free online access to information.

It is notable that Puerto Ricans and other U.S. citizens from U.S. territories were once excluded from U.S. commemorative stamp notice, while now politicians, poets, actors and baseball notables are commemorated as Americans, rather than an anonymous peon. WP has a project to overcome WP structural bias. Is that the proper venue for that article? Or is opposition just a general bias against stamps in Wikipedia at all, as one editor complained. It seems that the anti-stamp view is not consensus policy, as there is a Template:Stamp rationale. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the act of Congress doesn't make the stamp image notable, but instead lends to the notability of the person or the topic that the act commemorates.

Also, keep in mind that the Foundation wants to encourage a encyclopedia with minimal use of non-free images, those images that cannot be reused and modified by any reuser, so that the work can be distributed freely around the world. Stamps, under the language you quoted, do not fall into that, so their use should be minimized. In an article about the general culture of Puerto Rico on stamps, it would be impossible to illustrate every stamp that has been issued to commemorate that, free or non-free, and where non-free is concerns, on such lists, only one or two representative examples would be appropriate for visual identification. It's not a bias against stamps, since stamps can be used selectively for illustration, just mass representation of stamps without any discussion of the stamp's image importance. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That a republic commemorates its outstanding citizens is a remarkable event in history, the expression of it in a stamp happens to be visual rather than verbal. The visual expression should be seen as equivalent to the verbal. The Foundation encourages the use of stamps by providing a Template:Stamp rationale. It does not want free images of persons, places or events modified on Wikipedia so that the personage is unrecognizable. The stamp image is stipulated as non-free in the policy approved Template:Stamp rationale for each image.

The contrast between the free-use Spanish commemoration of 1492 Columbus in 1892 and the proposed non-free use U.S. commemoration of Columbus in 1992 is instructive to the reader, but denied by Masem's misconstruing of NFCC#1, there is no image of the U.S. stamp available except that of the U.S. stamp, although is is allowed in lower resolution in NFCC#3b. In NFCC#3a, where "Multiple items are not used when one item can convey equivalent significant information" — does not apply as the visual contrast between the Spanish and U.S. stamps is not apparent without the U.S. image. There is no multiple image gallery of the same U.S. stamp in the article.

At Puerto Rico on stamps the history of U.S. postage for Puerto Rico is comprehensive, to meet the standards of a Featured Article classification by WP policy. Masem’s characterization of it being “impossible to illustrate” is simply a unreasonable denial of the work completed. Each stamp is discussed in relation to its importance as representative of Puerto Rico in compliance with NFCC#8. The charge that there is no discussion on image importance is unthinking obstruction of the intent of the Foundation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Foundation did not supply Template:Stamp Rationale. That was a template created on en.wiki that does have some allowed uses but does not mean every stamp image is allowed. It simply helps to make assigning a rationale for a stamp easier by filling in some of the required NFCC information that are common to stamps. The rational and other NFCC aspects must still be valid.

Most of the items listed at Puerto Rico on stamps do not require one to see the stamp to understand the topic. You have plenty of sources to note that various people and places in PR were commemorated by putting them on stamps, and that's as far as the sources go, they do not describe anything of significance of the visual nature of the stamp. As such, one does not need to see the stamp to understand why the person or place was commemorated, nor to understand that a stamp was made for them. That said, we are reasonable in allowing one or two visual examples of non-free in such lists, recognizing many readers are visual readers, so one or two stamp images would be fine under NFCC. But not all those presently marked as "no image available". --MASEM (t) 17:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Every stamp image which is supplied with a Template:Stamp rationale meets the NFCC requirements for usage by #1 and #3a, it cautions the user to the limits of the non-free image, it must be credited to USPS and “All rights reserved”, even as the entire image is used. All elements of NFCC are met at Puerto Rico on stamps for those with the place holder, “No image yet”, including #8, each stamp is "discussed in relation to its importance" as representative of U.S. stamps of Puerto Rico.

Your interest in the descriptions of the visual nature of each stamp and its production at Puerto Rico on stamps is a technical philately one, which does not directly bear on the subject matter of the article, an article that addresses the history, politics and culture of Puerto Rico as a U.S. territory on stamps. But if that is your particular interest, of course it can be admitted as your contribution to the article to expand its coverage of the topic.

The idea that “There are U.S. stamps about Puerto Rico.” would comprehensively cover the topic of reader interest without visual images of the stamps is reductio ad absurdum. At George Washington, readers want to know more than “George Washington was a Virginian” albeit in an absurd sense, that is all a reader needs to know. An article on a visual medium requires visual representations, so long as article length guidelines are not violated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Every stamp image which is supplied with a Template:Stamp rationale meets the NFCC requirements for usage by #1 and #3a," Er, unless I am reading you wrong, you are stating that merely using the template meets the criteria for #1 and #3a - thats incorrect, you have to demonstrate use of the media meets the criteria, then the template can be used as an aide. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• The template only helps towards meeting NFCC#10; #1 and #3 have to be satisified by the actual use and rational entered into the template. The subject matter is how PR has been commemorated on stamps, not the visual aspects of those stamps, so images are secondary and not necessary to understanding the topic. That is not to say no image can be used, one or two representative examples are fair, but without any further discussion of the visual aspects of the stamps (beyond a simple description), particularly with commemorated subjects that already have free images, more images are against the Foundation's goal of minimizing non-free use and our NFCC policy that supports that. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This discussion badly needs involvement from some US copyright experts. Just because the USPS claims rights doesn't mean it actually has them. There's a general principle that materials produced at taxpayer expenses by agencies and other bodies of the US federal, state, county, and local governments is public domain, and caselaw has even extended this to work produced for them by contractors. It's difficult to see why the US Postal Service would be some magical exception. That said, this is not a question I've pursued in any detail (i.e. with Westlaw and LexisNexis access and other shepardizing resources) since the 1990s, so something could have changed. Most of the intellectual property attorneys I know, who have looked into the overall question, are convinced that WMF is being excessively paranoid about copyright in general, and not permitting the community to avail itself of most of its fair use rights, to the detriment of projects like Wikipedia (they theory being that WMF is trying to avoid litigation it could win hands-down but which would still generate legal expenses; some of us would rather WMF fought those fights and did fundraising efforts and outreach to ACLU, EFF, etc. to back them up).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It's rather simple, actually. Up to 1978, the USPS was considered a branch of the federal gov't and stamps issued by them were in the PD by the US-PDGov. However, after 1978, the USPS while still an agency of the gov't specifically had copyright laws apply that works produced by the USPS were now eligible for copyright; see United_States_Postal_Service#Stamp_copyright_and_reproduction.

And no, it's not an issue about copyright, it's about being a free content work. We know we are more restrictive than fair use but that's because we are trying to create a free content encyclopedia. Very little has to deal with how things are classified as copyright or not. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Some of what you say is acknowledged by the NFCC gatekeepers, so that images of out-of-copyright art framed with a USPS border and postage value has been allowed in articles such as battles pictured at Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps. The general usage of the postage places it in the public domain, but I argue additionally that the non-free use Template:Stamp rationale covers us in that it stipulates the USPS copyright, we acknowledge their "All rights reserved", and inquiry to the US Postal Service “Integration and Planing Rights and Permissions” division on 9/8/15, case ID 124603003 concerning use of USPS images on Wikipedia, reported that no prior approval is necessary for use of stamp images for educational, news and "other media". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

My point really is that, from years of doing fair-use legal work (as a policy analyst, not an attorney, but in an office full of intellectual-property specialist attorneys), it appears to me extremely dubious that any copyright claims made by the USPS are valid, and that if challenged they would be invalidated at every court level from District through SCotUS, because all the statutory and case law regarding the American governments' attempts to evade or eliminate fair use to control its own materials has ruled on the public interest's side. Unless, as I said, something recently changed radically. If it has, then an attorney steeped in that caselaw should be advising us (and WP:OFFICE) on these matters. If this has not transpired but there's a danger of it, then a) WMF should not be restraining our exercise of fair use out just out of some nebulous "what if" concerns, and b) should be working with other public interest groups like ensure that taxpayer-funded materials remain public domain. It would be an unmitigated disaster if something like crown copyright arose in the US (and other more open, public-domain jurisdictions that follow the US lead), all because various parties not only failed to speak up, but treated a non-law as if it were a law, and thereby established a de facto anti-fair-use "industry standard" that the courts or legislative bodies decided to enforce (which has definitely happened before – ever heard of sample clearances?).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

See the point I made above: the copyrightability of USPS stamps from 1978 is in the federal code, specifically written in by the Copyright office in response to the Postal Reorganization Act that reflects that the service become essentially an independent agency from the federal government [30]. And again, we are purposely stronger that US fair use not because of any legal issues, but because the goal is to make a free content encyclopedia. Meeting goal assures that we're always within fair use, by happenstance, but no law is requiring us to be more restrictive, it is the Foundation's mission that makes us so. --MASEM (t) 06:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The mission: I buy that; I just think it's a mistake. It's a technical matter, and nothing more: All it requires is some kind of wrapper around or metadata tagging of non-FC material, then any re-users of WP material in bulk, who demand or need truly free content only, can exclude that material as they import and repurpose it. They already have to do that with things like the WP logo anyway. WP's mission as an encyclopedia, and now the most-used information source in the world, is far more important than Stallmanesque libre position-taking by the foundation.

The USPS legal matter: I understand that it's a statutory issue. The point I was trying to make, poorly I guess, is that one of the primary functions of the federal courts, from a civil liberties standpoint, is striking down bad statutes. I spent about a decade helping ensure they did so, and it is mostly action by principled nonprofits that kicks those balls through the goal. The right case would nuke that statute as an invalid attempt to evade public domain by using a quasi-privitization shell game (not very different from attempts that the courts have already invalidated).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

While it is very easy to dismiss that those that can't use non-free can just apply wrappers to get non-free-less content, it still stresses on us editors to make sure we do not rest too heavily on non-free being a presumed allowance, thus creating content that requires the non-free to a point where without the non-free it no longer becomes useful. We should be seeing this as a intellectual challenge to figure out how to write on topics without resorting to non-free as to meet the Foundation's mission. And of course, the less non-free we use, the more we keep our noses clean in any fair use issues. As to the USPS, I do note that the action that the Copyright office set included two other agencies that were transferred from being internal to external, similarly allowing them to claim copyright. And that it was no required that take copyright, only that it existed as an option (which the USPS clearly took). --MASEM (t) 16:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: The use of a stamp for a stamp related article such as Puerto Rico on stamps when it is one of the U.S. stamps on Puerto Rico, demonstrates the use of the media (stamps) is required in the Template:Stamp rationale, “protected by copyright, therefore a free use alternative won’t exist”. That is, making the article into a literary discourse of the fine arts uniquely associated for each stamp image is not a requirement for an article on the stamps of Puerto Rico which addresses its American history, politics, economy and culture on stamps. But images of each of those stamps is a requirement to be comprehensive so as to meet the interests of a general reader.

@Masem:The use of postages stamps “to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp’s design)…qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.” The visual aspects are not required to be addressed — those are explicitly excluded. Even when they are, the stamp images are removed capriciously. In the article Puerto Rico on stamps, the image of the Julia de Burgos stamp notes that it "features the poet with blue water flowing behind her, evoking one of her best known poems, “Río Grande de Loíza,” a sensuous ode to the Puerto Rican river where she was raised.” — Yet that image was also removed.

@WhatamIdoing: All copyrighted images are removed, even though they meet the ten NFCC requirements and satisfy the Template:Stamp rationale. One or two are not allowed due to editors blanket removal when they misconstrue the NFCC criteria. An article on stamps can use stamp images. To simply assert it is “impossible” to comprehensively discuss Puerto Rico on stamps to meet the interest of a general reader ignores the editorial contribution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Remember that the Wikimedia Foundation and en.wiki's are purposely more restrictive than US fair use law to encourage the avoidance of non-free and the use of free content in its place, so it doesn't matter what fair use would allow, and we do not simply allow for images of things for causal illustration; there must be a reasonable purpose beyond decoration. I know you and I have discussed the de Burgos stamp before since I remember that the language about the imagery would justify it. It is true that it looks like an editor removed all the non-free without question and as they were not readded the files were deleted as orphans, but it is reasonable to readd only the de Burgos stamp image, just that you can't justify all of the others under NFC allowances. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The community should resist and undo this WMF angle to the extent that it can, because it's ultimately inimical to WP:ENC. One of the principal criticisms of WP as a usable work is the dearth of images. A less frequent but more serious one is our reliance on natural history images and the like from 1800s publications, many of which are grossly inaccurate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

As long as they are footing the bill for the services, we're bound by their goals. You're welcome to freely fork en.wiki and make the it more amendable to fair use, but as long as we're in the WMF's sandbox, we have to abid by their rules. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

This last Masem post may be the key to his misunderstanding the article, Puerto Rico on stamps and others like it. The purpose of the article is to convey the information about U.S. postage concerning Puerto Rico’s history, politics, economy and culture in its American identity since 1898. That requires showing images both free-use and non-free use, before and after 1978, in order to satisfy the interest of the general reader, which is a Foundation goal. Images for the visual medium such as stamps is as important as referencing multiple speeches for in a politician's biography. It is not sufficient to say, "Lincoln made several important speeches," the speeches demonstrated as important to the subject should be illustrated individually with direct quotes from each. Visual media should be illustrated with each important stamp image related to the subject.

Masem said, We do not simply allow for images of things for causal illustration. No, NFCC is misconstrued if each stamp image is imagined to be “casual" in these articles, when the accompanying text demonstrates the importance of each one to the subject matter of the article in accordance with NFCC#8. There is no Foundation goal to restrict the subjects of the encyclopedia to only subjects with free images, as non-free images for video games and music albums abound, without the notability conveyed by the Congressional joint resolution for each stamp and the public domain usage of hundreds of thousands of issues for each stamp prior to its illustration here with a WMF sanctioned Template:Stamp rationale. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

First the WMF has had nothing to do with the Stamp rationale template. It is a template made by editors on en.wiki and that's it, and even then I'm not sure if that was made with consensus or not. Nothing more. Just because it exists does not validate any stance by the WMF or that it was authorized by the WMF.

Second, the article you are presenting is not talking about the importance of the stamps themselves, simply the importance of PR and various people and topics from it that were deemed important enough to be put on stamps. No part of that requires any imagery whatsoever to understand that PR has been memorialized on various stamps - sources are used to validate that these stamps were commemorated. Only in a few isolated cases has there been any specific discussion from the sources of what imagery went on the stamp itself, and those seem only to be one or two lines of prose, nothing in any great detail. It shows that the stamps themselves are not important, only that PR-related people and topics were deemed important enough to be put on stamps. (If you don't have a source to say that the stamp was issued to commemorate that person/topic and are using the image as proof, that's original research and unacceptable, but I don't think that's the situation here in this case).

Of course, we do encourage the use of images to illustrate articles, but now we have to consider that WMF wants to minimize the use of non-free and our NFC policy abides by this goal. This does not restrict free images, since that's explicitly meeting the WMF goal. But non-free images must be used with extremely caution in this case since one does not visually need to see the stamp to understand that a stamp was made to commemorate that person. This is basically the case outlined in WP:NFC#UUI #9 (keeping in mind these are not all-encompassing rules but examples of how NFC applies) A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary. You do not have any significant sourced discussion of the stamps themselves (beyond the fact that they were printed) for these stamps outside of de Burgos' which describes why the imagery for the stamp was selected. So that's only one clear non-free allowance. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: It's all about fair-use rationale. USPS stamps since 1978 are copyrighted, and therefore cannot be used on Wikipedia except possibly in the infobox of an article about that specific stamp (same as the fair-use rationale for album covers, video covers, and book covers, only on the article strictly about the item -- in this case stamp -- in question). You can't use a copyrighted stamp on an article about the subjct the stamp depicts -- only on an article about the stamp itself. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philately#Stamp_images and [31]. Softlavender (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Its all about using the Template:Stamp rationale as specified in your link Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philately#Stamp_images. Further, USPS gave Wikipedia permission to use USPS images without prior permission as "other media" by the Integration and Planning Rights and Permissions case ID 124603003 of 9/8/15. In addition, we have WP:NFC#UUI#9, However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary. Each stamp itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, so WP:NFC#UUI#9 makes it appropriate to use the image of each stamp if placed inline next to the commentary. Again some misunderstanding: the stamp images do not merely illustrate the article topic, they are the article topic.

@Softlavender: For example, the subject of the article Puerto Rico on stamps is not about Columbus discovering America, it is about Puerto Rico on U.S. stamps, which encompasses the U.S. 1992 commemoration stamp of Columbus discovering America. WP:NFC#UUI#9 justifies use of the stamp image if placed inline next to the commentary, because the stamp itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article.

@Masem: The Columbus commemorative is about Columbus’ landing at Puerto Rico. That is not original research as you have supposed, it is as sourced to the Smithsonian Institute’s Arago website, which sources the USPS. Generally, WP allows single source attribution from reliable secondary sources, without the need for multiple citations of their sourcing. The sourced discussion on the stamps generally encompasses the commentary provided by USPS, which is a reliable source for information about its stamps in general circulation, as is the Smithsonian Institute's Arago website. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

For images to be called "free", we require that everyone has the right to use and modify the image. While the USPS may have granted Wikipedia this right, it clearly does not extend to reusers, so these images are still non-free.

Your article is not about the stamps, but about the people and places that are represented on the stamps. An article about a stamp itself, specifically would be something like Inverted Jenny. It's subtle but important difference that is critical to understand why you must limit the use of non-free on that article. You have no commentary about the stamps that is not otherwise about the person or place on the stamp; in contrast, the Inverted Jenny has only the briefest info about the plane on it and the bulk on the stamp's history and legacy, something not at all present in the PR stamp article. --MASEM (t) 12:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The Template:Stamp rationale stipulates that the images in use are non-free, and it addresses the legal technicalities required of Wikipedia to use them in articles. Narratives including a stamp with sourced discussion in the article can use the image with the Template:Stamp rationale according to WP:NFC#UUI #9, "Images that are themselves subject of commentary." I have stipulated that the article is not about each stamp itself, but the article is about the U.S. stamps of Puerto Rico from 1898 to present as addressed in sourced article narrative, which includes those stamps issued after USPS began printing them in 1978.

The Inverted Jenny stamp article is one of the stand alone “notable postage stamps” which are notable for their errors. Other than appealing with readers in a narrow interest in technical lithography errors in postage stamp mass production, they are described with the same information as that found at Puerto Rico on stamps, but with the additional technical information related to pane size, number issued, reproduction process, inks and adhesive.

I have explained my rationale for omitting these technical philately details for an article devoted to the U.S. stamps about Puerto Rico, but a philatelist is welcome to add the information. That the article is not a technical article on lithographic errors does not take away from its historical interest to the general reader. It is an article which is “not about the stamps” in the sense that it is not about the stamp production errors. But the general reader has a broader interest including the historical context of the people, places and events which are nationally commemorated. For example, the Smithsonian Institute's web page on stamps is Arago: people, postage and the post which mostly includes stamps without errors. The notability for the majority of stamps featured there comes from the joint resolution of Congress commissioning them and the national usage of hundreds of thousands issued for public use. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Summary for USPS images

• The USPS endorsed the use of the Template:Stamp rationale in that its use in a WP article of “other media” stipulates in the template the USPS copyright and “all rights reserved” criteria, see USPS “integration and Planning, Rights and Permissions” division case ID 124603003 of 9/8/15 responding to an editor request for use of its stamp images in WP stamp articles.

• The proposition that a stamp article substitute stamp images, which have no free-use equivalent, with free-use images other than stamps, does not meet the test of writing to a general reader interest in the historical context of stamps such as Puerto Rico on stamps. The Template:Stamp rationale filled out for each stamp image meets the requirements of NFCC#1 which allows non-free stamp content to be used when there is no stamp substitute. The proposition that the completed Template does not meet the requirements it is written to meet, because there are requirements to meet in the Template -- is circular reasoning.

• The proposition that the article on Puerto Rico with a stamp image or two for illustration satisfies the visual interest of the general reader for knowledge about the U.S. stamps of Puerto Rico from 1898 to present dismisses the visual interest of stamps. That interest is not truncated at 1978 with the creation of the USPS. Each stamps' notability springs from the Congressional Joint Resolution commissioning them, and their general use in the public domain in the hundreds of thousands. The general reader has an interest in stamp articles by subject. The Australian post office estimates there are 22 million stamp collectors worldwide [32], Linn’s stamp magazine estimates over 5 million collectors in the U.S. alone with a particular subject interest.APS Topical stamp articles have a greater notability and general reader interest than narrowly marketed video games featured at Wikipedia, each illustrated with a non-free image box cover, for instance.

• Each stamp at Puerto Rico on stamps that is accompanied with sourced commentary can be appropriately illustrated with a non-free use image according to WP:NFC#UUI#9. Topical articles on stamps with sourced commentary describing each stamp and their significance meet NFCC#10. The proposition that they are unsourced with a citation to the Smithsonian Institute’s Arago webpage is specious; the Smithsonian Institute is a reliable source, the USPS stamp commemorating Columbus in 1992 is about Columbus landing at Puerto Rico, for instance, as sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability guidelines and policy for eSports

I am wondering if it might be a good idea for the community to consider a notability guideline for eSports, in light of the increasing number of articles being created about teams and competitors. Unlike most sports, there is no guideline under Notability (sports), so at the moment only general biography rules seem to apply. A nomination - that so far is a keep - at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rekkles has suggested that we need a "serious evaluation of all esports articles" and certainly it does seem like a field that is growing and so we should at least have guidance on. Thoughts? KaisaL (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Speaking from the stance of the video games project, compared to athletic sports, the amount of coverage esports gets is still very low and weak. Whereas athletes that achieve some level of professional play will likely get coverage due to the volume of sources that cover traditional sports, this simply doesn't exist yet for eSports, so the best advice is to stay with the general notability guidelines. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that eSports is still minor in the mainstream, but it doesn't change that the number of articles being created for players and teams is increasing. By our very nature, we're more likely to attract content on the sport. We have specific guidelines for rodeo and curling, and a lot more editing comes into the eSports topics - so it may still be a good idea to create a guideline to be added to the sports topic. Just at a glance through the categories, it is very contentious as to how a lot of it would do at AFD or whether individual players are relevant. KaisaL (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I brought up the issue with the drastically low-quality of eSports articles to Drmies a couple days ago. ESports as a whole is appropriate to keep on Wikipedia, but we at this point have hundreds of low-quality articles, with many featuring dubious notability, that largely are relying on Daily Dot and Liquipedia referencing- the second being a serious no-no, for as referencing is concerned. We must find an effective way to comb through these articles are either fix them or toss them, as the whole topic is running counter to Wikipedia standards. Furthermore, we have a number of categories and navboxes featured on these pages that contribute next to nothing, other than adding to the enormous pile of vague categories. I'd say with the number of eSports player articles, one could click at random on them and almost certainly find what I'm saying to be true verbatim. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

As with any other SNG, one should be tailored to reflect the point where we can presume a subject has achieved the necessary coverage in reliable sources to produce an article. I guess the first step is to consider what sources are reliable, given eSports really doesn't appear in mass market media all that much. What absolutely should not happen is to just say "appeared in random event x or is popular on reddit" = notable. Resolute 23:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of picking out some articles, almost at random, to demonstrate the issues with the content:

1. Lustboy - Won a professional championship as a "support player" in a team and is now a "strategic analyst" in a national league. All sources from Daily Dot. Does winning the championship justify inclusion, or is a support player not important enough? Is a strategic analyst a notable role? Without an expertise of eSports and a guideline it is very difficult to know.

2. FORG1VEN - A player for a League of Legends team that is "off of the starting roster due to lack of motivation". This almost reads like cruft, but there's a reference pointing to ESPN too.

3. Origen (eSports) - A team that finished "3rd-4th" in a League of Legends world championship. What criteria should a team have is a question we haven't really asked - in some sports you need to be winning things and is eSports important enough to include everyone?

4. League of Legends Master Series - A professional competition with a large prize fund, but no real reliable sources. How much coverage does an eSports competition need to be notable, or is being professional enough?

This is just a few examples I've plucked out for a feel of the current content, but there's plenty that are a lot more contentious, and only a few that are clear cut keeps (typically those notable for more than competing in the competitions, so those without a following and press coverage). KaisaL (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• There was a long and oft-caustic debate several years back with "eSports" advocates trying to get a set of guidelines written into WP:NSPORTS. Editors from the various sports WikiProjects were all but unanimously opposed, with the consensus being that they are not actually "sports" -- the wishes of their fans notwithstanding -- but games, that they could always get an independent set of guidelines created, and failing that could rely on the GNG.

  That being said, any set of proposed guidelines for presumptive notability ought to come with ironclad, demonstrated evidence that someone who meets those guidelines will likely meet the GNG. Given my own experiences with AfDs involving "eSports" figures, the overwhelming number of sources proffered as "reliable" tend to be their inhouse blog- and fansites, and I'm concerned that guidelines will reflect "We think this is important" or "ZOMG I love this game so much anyone who's good at it must be a figure of legendary repute!" more than any extant standard of notability. Ravenswing 00:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

  • That particular discussion can be found here, for reference.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Whether or not eSports are a form of "sports" is a side issue: at that time, the regular followers of sports notability guideline did not feel particularly suited to develop rules of thumb for notability of participants in eSports. But as long as the guidelines are reviewed by the general community of editors, they can be formed and maintained by any suitable group, such as the video games WikiProject. isaacl (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• One of the "regular" guidelines for sports notability is "participated in Olympics" or such events. I don't see how we have such a thing here--the events are much less selective, and there are no national committees (the plethora of flagporn on all those articles notwithstanding). I agree that articles on Daily Dot don't amount to notability: it's a niche publication, explicitly. The Rekkles article has better sources, but (and I raised this at the AfD) whether those sources provide the extensive coverage required by the GNG is a matter of discussion, and I am of the opinion that they don't. What's happened with these articles, these hundreds of little biographies and dozens of big, fat, directory-style articles on the teams, is that notability is presumed. BTW, MMA, which is also a kind of a sport, I suppose, was able to draw up guidelines, and the MMA articles have not been brought up in any forum that I know of recently, so it can certainly be done. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• I've just been making articles for things that get coverage in, among other sources, The Daily Dot, TheScore eSports, and ESPN, and from there those articles should meet WP:GNG. From what I've seen, because the landscape of esports is constantly changes, achievement based notability requirements like those in WP:NSPORTS may not work very well. More specifically, making requirements like "players are notable if they have won the League of Legends World Championship" may not work because while the winners of the most recent tournament are notable, because League of Legends was much smaller in 2011 not every player on the 2011 championship team seem to be notable. --Prisencolin (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see how getting written up in Daily Dot or on theScore adds up to notability via the GNG. Do any of these publications matter? Are they reliable, but also, do they have weight? Are they considered to be independent of their subject matter? ESPN isn't, for instance; they depend on the sports they present in all kinds of ways. The landscape of eSports may be changing, but so is that of death metal and Barbie collecting, and neither of those get every participant written up without some kind of standards. For death metal, for instance, WP:NALBUM, WP:NSONG, WP:NBAND still apply. So, if it's a sport, sport guidelines should apply, for instance. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Those publications appear to meet requirements to be reliable sources, and can thus help an article pass WP:GNG. Beyond this whether or not the websites or the topics they cover have any lasting significance to humanity is up to opinion.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, informed opinion. And "appear"--yeah, I don't know. Can you prove that they have reliable editorial boards? Do they publish writing by recognized experts and journalists? Are they truly independent of the topics they cover? I don't know who argues that ESPN is truly independent, for instance; I'd love to see that evidence. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
        • According to its website the Daily Dot was nominated for a Digday Publishing Award, has also received acclaim from other news agencies and has a large writing and editing team.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I don't think there is a dispute regarding ESPN being a third-party source, and I think its analysis can be fairly called independent. However its sports coverage, just like most mass media sports journalism, has an entertainment role, and so not everything reported can be considered to be indicative of meeting Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. isaacl (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
          • There was a discussion about TheScore eSports here.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

So, moving forward: Where do we go from here? Would a formal RFC be an idea here? What are we thinking in terms of guidelines? My thoughts at the moment are that there's three directions we could go in:

1. eSports articles needing independent coverage outside of specialist websites, so only players with significant coverage not exclusive to niche websites covering the sport and related topics;

2. A general rule that certain achievements are a sign of notability (as with, for example, junior gymnastics) - like winning a professional competition of a certain standard solo or as a main part of a team. (Or this could supplement point one.)

3. A decision that the status quo is reasonable, and that all participants in professional competitions are eligible for inclusion.

Obviously we'd need to discuss these, but the general hunch I'm getting - from participants so far here at least - is a concern at the amount of references to The Daily Dot and The Score, and I would agree that their suitability in defining notability is questionable. KaisaL (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• There are more reliable sources than just The Daily Dot and TheScore, and there are also many foreign languages sources that I listed at User:Prisencolin/esportsnews--Prisencolin (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the problem is that so many of these sources are specific to eSports, so they may be reliable within the eSports community, but they don't necessarily prove the notability of eSports articles on Wikipedia. An earlier contributor made an allusion to death metal, in that there's many death metal blogs and websites, but that doesn't automatically make the bands that they cover notable. Some of this sources, certainly, have names attached that make me think they could be useful, like Yahoo! and ESPN.

The key point I would make is this: With most sports, they have their niche websites and blogs, but then they receive coverage on more general websites too. So for Formula One, there's websites like F1 Fanatic and James Allen on F1, but there's also the BBC and national newspapers and so on. It's the same for football, cricket, baseball, and countless others. The question for me is, where is this wider significant coverage beyond websites like Blog of Legends and The Score eSports? I do not dispute their reliability for facts and figures, but I do dispute it for proving that these articles are notable.

This is exactly what we need to explore, else we'll end up with articles for every eSports player and team that these specific websites cover. I personally don't feel that coverage on these should be enough, and that only major competition winners and those with substantial wider coverage should be included, but an RFC or similar process should decide these guidelines.

Your input is massively valuable by the way as you clearly know the topic well. KaisaL (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but just wanted to point out that neither Blog of Legends nor TheScore eSports specialize in eSports coverage; Blog of Legends is owned by FanSided, which covers general sports and entertainment, and is in turn owned by Time Inc., the holdings company of Time magazine, among other publications. TheScore publishes a general sports score app and news webste, and a fantasy sports game.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Going back to the question, the reasoning for having the subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG) like NSPORTS is to spell out conditions where if a topic has met some milestone, there will likely be sufficient sourcing that already exists or will come to exist to have that topic meet the GNG eventually. For example, a Nobel prize award winner routinely gets several articles after the award is named that detail their life and contributions, if this has not already been documented, so an SNG saying that Nobel prize winners are presumed notable works. In sports, a broad line is drawn for those that have in professional games, as to get to the professional level they likely have had to performed exceptionally at lower leagues (college or minors or equivalent), and the volume of coverage of those sports in reliable sources is still high such that these players will be documented there, if not from their current career. These SNG don't need to be 100% accurate in the source availability, since we're only making a presumption of notability, but they need to be the rule with only few exceptions.

The problem then with eSports is that we don't have enough time or sourcing to go on to assure that if an eSports player makes it to a certain level that they are going to have sources sufficient for GNG in the future. It's probably far too early given how new eSports is relative to other sports to be able to make a fair assessment of what "rules" work to make an SNG case out of. Hence that the GNG is a safe backup, and that then leads to the discussion of what are reliable sources for eSports, which is a fair but separate question. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

GNG is a safe bet. I would say a good start for examining what is reliable is to see what pages utilize Liquipedia, which is a completely unreliable source. I fear two things from this discussion. The first is that we will simply find ourselves losing interest or going in circles, as I proposed an evaluation of esports about a year ago and it accomplished nothing, as nobody even began to comb through the articles with proper scrutiny. My second fear is that we'll try to reach a resolution for esports standards that will be inadequate, in comparison with general Wikipedia policies.

I believe the million dollar question is, how do we ensure that every esport article is reviewed for being up to par? There are hundreds that are probably eligible for deletion as of now, so it's a monumental task to bring the project up to snuff. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a good argument Masem, however I would have one point to make regarding it: The fact that eSports is so new and in its relative infancy only supports the notion that blanket inclusion of professional players and teams is probably not appropriate at this time. I do not feel we can allow wide inclusion simply because of the work involved with checking sources. Some basic guidelines, even if they aren't quite as inflexible as something like WP:NFOOTY, would be a great help in deletion decisions. One other thing, too: I personally feel a good half of the eSports players on Wikipedia could reasonably go to AFD and be expected to fail. Such a flood may not be helpful, and we've encountered issues with that sort of thing regarding schools and Pokémon among other topics in the past. KaisaL (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe the million dollar question is, how do we ensure that every esport article is reviewed for being up to par?

This part isn't hard. The vast majority of new (and old) eSports articles are by Prisencolin, so if we make it clear that new (and old) eSports articles need to be sourced to vetted reliable sources, with no unreferenced content in biographies of living people, then the fight is already over. Hopefully this would mean Prisencolin going back to correct previous articles before the rest of Wikipedia was as firm about the sources being used. czar 18:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't have time to wade through the proposals above but I wanted to add that this has been discussed at WT:VG for some time. Instead of following Prisencolin's list of sources, I would encourage you to look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 14#eSports revisited and the related/linked threads, where the sources had at least a modicum of vetting. I don't think we need an automatic bar set for eSports players—I think a surprising amount of them meet the GNG, mainly surprising because few expected so much coverage so fast. An automatic bar would undoubtably lead to even worse articles, like the lowest ranks of any of the athletic notability guidelines, as player articles will/will not be created for the major teams regardless of their actual coverage. So I'd scrap that idea to focus on the GNG. I think there is a question of whether a player is notable if their only coverage is in the Daily Dot. If Daily Dot is presumed reliable, and I believe it is, the only case for not having such an article would be that Daily Dot-exclusive coverage (with no other outside coverage) is not significant coverage for the GNG. Feel free to make that argument if it's convincing, otherwise the most obvious way forward is to check whether each article is significant in WP:VG/RS-vetted sources. Also I'm interested in these "hundreds" of deletion-worthy eSports articles—care to share examples? Because I've been following their creation and while their quality is low (prose copied from another cc-by-sa encyclopedias) and their sourcing needs cleanup, the majority of them do pass the GNG, at least sufficiently so that they would live through AfD noms. I am, however, glad that this content area is finally getting some attention outside the project. Please ping me if I can be useful.  czar 18:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: I would support a requirement for coverage outside of The Daily Dot and eSports sources, with the usual requirements (substantial, significant) for that. That would remove any competition requirements while those are in their infancy, but mean they need to be notable beyond niche eSports circles. I think this might be worth drafting into some sort of remedy to maybe add to Wikipedia:Notability (sports). As an aside, if the same user is creating a lot of the articles, we're kind of going off their judgement, and as the area grows - and from past experience - that doesn't end well. Certainly Prisencolin is the most vocal in AFD debates about eSports. As for there not being many that are debatable, the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FREAKAZOiD being so contentious is a sign that there's a few to look into, and my list at the beginning of this debate has more samples. FREAKAZOiD is one of the better sourced and even he's got delete proposals, so the area could easily fall victim to a particularly proactive AFD lister if some guidance isn't put in a place. A list of reliable sources on the WikiProject probably isn't enough, so I'd go with the outside coverage requirements for now. Sorry for the long reply. KaisaL (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

eSports proposal

• Proposal. Ok, per Czar and other comments, here's a starter - I'm not suggesting it's added exactly like this - for an addition to Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Thoughts?

eSports:

1. eSports subjects (competitors, teams and competitions) that have received substantial coverage via significant reliable sources beyond the eSports community and media are considered to be notable;

2. eSports subjects that have only received substantial coverage via The Daily Dot, The Score eSports and similar sites are not considered to be notable;

3. Competing in a professional competition is not considered to qualify a subject for inclusion on its own.

This definitely still needs work but it's an idea for starters. Pinging: @DarthBotto:, @Prisencolin:, @Drmies:, @Ravenswing:. KaisaL (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Haven't made up my mind yet about these, but I do object to the guideline's inclusion into WP:NSPORT without broader consensus, since a lot of people just don't consider video games a sport.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, shall we discuss the guidelines and then worry about where to put them later? They're not going to be added overnight, but at least we're finally trying to gauge a consensus on them. KaisaL (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'd simplify as "Significant coverage for separate articles on eSports players/gamers requires coverage outside of dedicated eSports sources (e.g., The Daily Dot, Red Bull)." That seems to be the heart of the discussion above, at least. A discussion at WT:VG could lead to its inclusion in the video games WikiProject guidelines and you could RfC all the way to another notability guideline if you want. I don't think it needs more clauses than that (I don't think we need a site-wide verdict on whether eSports are sports—sounds like a waste of time). czar 23:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this wording would have the effect of not including teams, which are just as potentially troublesome, because by stating "separate articles" it might suggest they can be covered in a team article. Players, teams and competitions should ideally be covered and all should require coverage outside of the decidated eSports sources. The other problem is that this might make The Daily Dot - we seem to have a degree consensus that this is a problematic site - seem legitimate as it isn't purely for eSports. I think it's important to give examples. The list also conforms to the existing notability formats and, with the greatest will in the world, restricting this to a WikiProject guideline might make it less likely to be effectively referenced in notability debates. I'd like to see it in one of the proper guidelines. I think WP:NESPORTS or siimlar would be a good abbreviation. KaisaL (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

But, perhaps, to avoid this becoming essay length might we look to develop a consensus on these generally being a criteria rather than the technicalities just yet? If we can agree on the points broadly we can look into drafting and where they'd be put later on. KaisaL (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Examples are fine—added above. Another angle to consider: I suggested starting with a local guideline as a band-aid for now, but the wound is really the larger point about niche topics and notability. This is really a discussion about what constitutes significant coverage for the general notability guideline and whether several sources from a vetted but niche source together constitute notability. This is like a local/regional paper publishing several articles on a local business, or several low-grade indie film magazines with editorial staff publishing on an indie film, or several mobile-only games websites publishing on indie mobile games—what kind of line is being drawn about the types of noteworthy coverage considered in deciding whether a topic is independently notable for its own article, if we are discussing drawing a line at not including articles that have only been covered in The Daily Dot? czar 23:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we'd be saying any sort of coverage that would meet the usual sort of biography guidelines, we don't have to be too over-specific there, the rest of notability is well-established. KaisaL (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Separately, I think we all would welcome outside opinions on whether The Daily Dot, TheScore, PVP Live, etc. have reputations for reliability in the first place. There are a variety of venues for such a discussion: here, WP:RSN, WT:VG, WT:VG/RS... czar 23:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

In my view every single one would come under point two in my list, requiring coverage via reliable sources outside of the eSports community and media. KaisaL (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

But if an eSports-specific source isn't reliable in the first place then the conversation would be over before it begins czar 23:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, however it can also be reliable but not enough. Yahoo! has an eSports section, for example; We'd say Yahoo! is reliable generally, but if their coverage is confined to their eSports section and niche coverage of competition outcomes there, that wouldn't necessarily be enough. Also, making these sorts of notability criteria makes it less likely we'll be constantly debating the reliability of sources and relevance of them as well. KaisaL (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• I would staunchly oppose the inclusion of any such guideline into NSPORTS. My view from the 2011 RfC hasn't changed, and I'll be happy to quote myself: "Playing video games /= "sport," no matter how much their partisans hunger to be considered Real Athletes ... This recent flurry is by no means the first attempt to claim that video gamers are "athletes" and should be covered by WP:ATHLETE. It won't be the last." Prescient of me.

  That being said, I don't think this proposal does video gamers any favors. It doesn't set up any level of presumptive notability beyond the GNG, and its only stipulations are restrictive. Surely there must be some championships, some level of dollar earnings at which participants can reasonably clear the GNG. Ravenswing 04:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the last part of your point is a lot of the problem - you're raising championships and dollar earnings, but we really have no precedent or prior discussion, so it's difficult for it to be referenced or used as any sort of criteria. My view is that eSports is in its infancy to such an extent that winning a competition alone should not be enough, but the biggest winners are likely to satisfy the criteria by other means. KaisaL (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, KaisaL; I agree that there hasn't been. But it seems that most of the editors involved in this discussion aren't video game experts, and people are commenting here less out eagerness to set forth new and accurate criteria than out of grim determination to clear up ongoing messes at AfD. This isn't the way to go about it. Criteria should be developed by people out of the video games WikiProject, they should be well tested to gauge whether those who meet the criteria are likely to meet the GNG, and all that legwork should be done prior to a formal proposal being raised here or anywhere else. Failing partisans doing that work, I'm entirely comfortable with continuing to rely on the GNG. Ravenswing 13:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the input of experts on eSports and video games is important. However, and having seen this happen in the past, purely having the debate between those especially invested in a field without outside input can lead to a natural bias. I suppose you're right that, if this subject were being discussed actively between those parties now with a specific view to establishing guidelines and recording a consensus, there would be no need for input generally at this stage. I have purely taken on a role here intending to kick start the debate, an advocate for the discussion in a way; This discussion is almost certain to fizzle out for the archives, and my most recently nominated articles for AFD are receiving a response that is going to make it difficult to gauge a consensus on the wider issue from those too. As such, I just hope that the WikiProject and the "video game experts" you refer to actually have this debate before the topic grows much further. I hope this makes sense. KaisaL (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• I honestly believe that GNG does the job already. I mean, I wouldn't be opposed to having this included, so you can count my input as Neutral, but conditional; I insist that there's a tighter leash on this topic, unlike all the previous attempts to fix this particular WikiProject, where people claim they have consensus, but nothing's changed. Implementing these rules may save a number of articles from being deleted, but if it's decided that it's not in favor of the project, I will insist that GNG is followed to the letter. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 08:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment This debate, closed a few hours ago, is an interesting case to reference here. It went to a delete, but a brief discussion of the reliability of sources about eSports occurred; Prisencolin listed a number, and The Daily Dot particularly was disputed by the other user. The AFD went to a close, and this was an eSports topic with an above average amount of external coverage. It could be quite easy to nominate a lot more on similar grounds.

The two key problems I see with just using WP:GNG is that the reliability of the sources that most of our eSports content references is disputed, and will continue to be in debates, and secondly that we have passed no community judgement on this coverage of eSports as a whole. Is an article on a sub-section of Yahoo! dedicated to eSports about the outcome of an event or somebody changing a team, for example, enough to give them notability here? Someone will say yes because it's Yahoo!, and others will say no because it's an area dedicated to the subject. For me, at this time, it's akin to saying that The Non-League Paper is enough to qualify a footballer. However what is unfortunate and may doom this debate, sadly, is that we seem to be more caught up on whether eSports is a sport and not on the actual criteria. The only other solution may be to simply start sending articles to AFD, and see what precedent forms. KaisaL (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

If anybody wants to know, I talked to the deleting admin, and he's allowed fFREAKZOiD to go to WP:DRV.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to currently including any notability guidelines specific to esports at this time, allowing the GNG to do its job, only because the topic is in its infacy and it is impossible to determine if any of these will, the near-majority of the time, lead to GNG-type coverage. Maybe after a few more years we'll be able to make a better assessment, but now is too early. Note that GNG does allow RSes that are not necessarily universally accepted as RSes for any topic and allows subject-specific ones as long as elements like editorial control and fact-checking stand, so while The Daily Dot, for example, I would avoid for some topics, does seem appropriate for the context of eSports. It should be kept in mind that GNG requires significant coverage, and BLP1E still stands, so if all we can do is talk about one win a player has, that's not sufficient for GNG. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The use of The Daily Dot is certainly contentious, as it the use of many of the sites most regularly referenced. I am inclined to test the AFD waters further because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FREAKAZOiD going to a close - that was an article with references - suggests to me that we have huge swathes of non-notable eSports content. I had thought a better solution might be to establish some guidelines, but if that isn't going to be the case, I don't think it's fair to just let the content stand unchallenged due to a perception that a topic is in its "infancy" (which is anything only serves to promote the notion that individual players and teams shouldn't have articles unless they're somehow notable for major events with reach beyond the eSports niche). KaisaL (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated four eSports articles for AFD: Happy (video gamer), Lustboy, FORG1VEN and Allu (gamer). KaisaL (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

That was a bad close of Freakazoid: 3 deletes, 1 redirect, 2 keeps and a 'neutral'. Given two of the delete arguments were 'this isnt notable outside of egaming' - not a valid argument if it satisfies GNG, and 'doesnt satisfy GNG and per 1e' - when the numerous sources listed indicated both it wasnt a 1e (admittedly they were most notable for a particular event) and that it had general coverage for the area. You have at most, 'no consensus' to delete there given the weight of arguments on both sides. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Though I would argue that the Freakazoid afd is a bad example to base the discussion of notability of esports players around given that the only real aspect was the player's role in a bullying incident at an esports competition and less about their skill/player achievements, so the weight of BLP1E readily applies here (justifying the AFD as delete for that purpose). --MASEM (t) 14:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

For BLP1E to be valid (and also the reason its not used that often sadly) it has to be the *only* reason for which they are notable. In this case primarily it was because of that incident, however since sources were presented which were unrelated to said event, it cant be said their only claim is because of that. BLP1E is very difficult to use to get stuff deleted precisely because keep voters will generally find some other coverage unrelated to the event, or will claim the event had wider implications etc. I have lost count of the number of times its blatantly ignored over the flimsiest of excuses. Dont get me wrong though, I dont think its a huge issue if the article stays or goes, however the delete closer listed no reasoning and failed to address the arguments either way (generally required in a close-run delete/keep). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I suspect if you have issue with the close it would be best to take it up with the closer, Kelapstick. My reference to it was simply to point out how even articles with a bit more to them than niche eSports community coverage are disputed under the criteria we have for GNG and BLP1E, and the way that general criteria are being used only serves to strengthen my view (in my opinion, of course) that we need some more specific guidelines. KaisaL (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The notion that esports related sources should be disqualified from esports related articles is just nonsense. There are plenty of topical publications for whom their topicality doesn't, and shouldn't, disqualify them from reference. There may be particular problems with particular sources, but a blanket disqualification is obtuse at best. So long as they are WP:INDEPENDENT sources, and the only interest they have is publishing content that people want to read (like everyone else), whether they concentrate on a particular area of interest is irrelevant.

Compare disqualifying Billboard, Vibe, or The Rolling Stone from music related articles. ESPN has been discussed, and I think it would be absurd to suggest that coverage by ESPN didn't lend itself to the notability of an athlete. So why should it lend itself less so to that of a player? Even more so to WSJ, USA Today, and the like that other's involved in the conversation have been referenced in.

Remove the mostly if not entirely arbitrary ban on a swath of relevant sources and the proposal says nothing. Oppose on the grounds of capriciousness and inanity. TimothyJosephWood 01:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If it can fill up stadiums, make it's participants millionaires, make mainstream publications like ESPN take it seriously and with it's rising popularity among adolescents that it's only a matter of time before this discussion is obsolete but i strongly think X Games gold winners in e-sports should get the nod. I also think it's worrying that people with admitted ignorance, dismissive attitudes and belief of shock at the existence of the subject get to decide what it and is not notable in a field. Specialist websites are also used in most other cases too like Rolling Stone etc, as a fan of Death Metal sources like Metal Hammer are normally used, we can't expect the New York Times to report on everything can we? GuzzyG (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability is not based on popularity, though popularity can potentially lead to notable coverage. The field of eSports is clearly notable, but right now, for players, its hard to tell. As a relevant example, reality television is huge and here to stay, with similar prizes to be won and even larger audiences at times, but we don't cover every player or winner unless there is notability beyond their appearance on the show (eg someone like Susan Boyle or Rob Mariano). --MASEM (t) 01:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd support reality television winners, I made this comment a while ago on this subject and i think it suits it well. "I've noticed there's a alot of subconscious thinking on this encyclopedia that's associated with things that are seen negative in society like reality television, e-sports, porn, beauty pageants, criminals, mass murderers, internet personalities (memes/youtuber), heavier more extreme music (black metal, deathcore etc) and graffiti/street art, you're probably thinking "these are not important/shouldn't be notable/i just don't get it" but that's the point, there' just some notable things in these subjects that's not going to be reported in the mainstream media and where we should start looking in specialist media or we lose our viewers to sub wikis which i think is a waste. (notice there's specific guidelines that block these types of things?) It's a bold prediction but there should honestly be a relook at the qualifying criteria to online entertainment (youtube) and electronic sports as i can only imagine as this current generation gets of old age and is common to this type of thing that it will be the norm. I know some might want to resist that but it's a fact. Yes playing games and being notable at it may be odd to us but i'm sure dunking a ball in a hoop would be odd to some too." i don't think every player should get a article mind you but when it comes to winners of their equivalent of a world championship i do. GuzzyG (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not about the topic being "negative". In fact, the success of the WikiProject Pornography to find a way to create encyclopedic bios for an industry that is looked down upon society is a counterpoint. What we have to recognize is that we are limited by what is covered in RS, and many traditional RSes shy away from these topics. There are bound to be more "new media" sources that will come in the future that will meet our RS definitions then, but they aren't there now, and there's no reason to make special cases in terms of subject specific notability guidelines, only to review RSes to show how the GNG can be met. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd consider The Daily Dot and ESPN a reliable source, would you not agree? I'd also consider winning a medal in a competition like the X Games being notable. I just think that the mission of this site should be to cover notable things in every field, if you win a world championship in a field you get an article if you get nominated for the top award in your field you should qualify. I'm not a fan of sending people to a different place to get information that is source able (The Daily Dot). That's a general site issue though so with these current guidlines i can see that these e-sports players might not pass GNG, i just think that specialist media should be included and encouraged. Then again i have a Excel sheet of over 50, 000 people that should qualify but are bogged down by some ridiculous guideline so it could just be me. GuzzyG (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• My two cents I've mentioned at WP:VG in the past as well - I think the WP:GNG is sufficient at this point, I think the problem more lies in who is writing and maintaining these eSports articles. Much of the core, experienced editors at WikiProject Video Games just aren't all that interested in it (myself included). As such, many of the articles are being created and maintained by relatively inexperienced editors, or ones with extremely lenient interpretations of the GNG, RS, and significant coverage. I think that if/when more people just get more involved, we'll naturally be able to start weeding out some of the garbage out there. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Apologies for length.

@Masem:, it seems, at least to me, that the actual special case is not allowing these sources to weight in on notability, but trying to establish an arbitrary guideline disqualifying them for no apparent reason. I'm only commenting on the League of Legends players, because I don't really follow CS:GO or Starcraft, but looking at the three recent AfDs for league players that partially started this thread:

• Rekkles: 13 sources including USA Today and WSJ already in the article. News searches (WP:BEFORE plz) find further mention in Yahoo and ESPN. You can add the team's official site to the list as a primary. This is in addition to what appears to be probably thousands of hits for outlets that cover esports in particular in multiple languages.

• FORG1VEN: Currently poorly sourced, that's a given, but does include coverage by ESPN. Searches find Yahoo. Official ruling by Riot, which in this case is not simply a game developer, but the officiating organization, so is the esports equivalent of a ruling by FIFA or the NFL. There is substantial corresponding esports coverage pre and post ruling, as well as a good deal of esports coverage regarding his exception from Greek military service.

• Lustboy, currently a stub. Searches find ESPN coverage of him as a coach, and a half dozen other ESPN articles. Looks like he got passing mention in Forbes. I see a dedicated spotlight bio by Riot. And again, all of this is in addition to scores or more of esports outlet coverage.

So, at least for these three individuals, there seems to be no shortage of sources. If we do need a policy beyond WP:GNG these article are patently bad examples of why. Beyond this, there's been, as far a I can tell, no substantive argument as to why esports outlets should be a special case other than ones that seem to boil down to "I don't particularly care for it," "I'm not familiar," or "I'd really just prefer to get rid of a lot of these articles on people I don't personally recognize." TimothyJosephWood 13:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Your comments are kind of what I'm getting at in my comment above. Your examples show an extremely lax interpretation of our notability standards. For example, general consensus is to avoid Forbes "Contributor" written articles, because they're not of the same caliber of actual Forbes staff writers - they're semi-professional bloggers with a history for making mistakes or controversial claims. WP:VG consensus is generally not to use them. Your example of the ESPN source for "Lustboy" is pretty weak too - sure ESPN is a reliable source, but is that really significant coverage for Lustboy himself? Its a very short article, with very little about it in regards to Lustboy (most is about the team, not Lustboy). I think you're setting the bar a bit too low, as are the article creators, and that's why they keep getting sent to AFD... Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The particular forbes contributor writer is John Gaudiosi and according to his self written biography: "I've been covering the video game space for 20 years for outlets like The Washington Post, Reuters, CNET, AOL, Wired Magazine, Yahoo!, Entertainment Weekly, NBC, Variety, Maxim, EGM, and ESPN. I serve as EIC of GamerHub.tv and co-founder of GamerHub Content Network, a video game and technology video syndication network that works with Tribune and DBG to syndicate game videos and editorial around the world. I also cover games for outlets like The Hollywood Reporter, IGN, Geek Monthly, CNN, DigitalTrends and PrimaGames."--Prisencolin (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that notability is more than just being named in a source -we are looking for significant coverage across multiple sources. Most eSports players are listed as winners, but that's not significant coverage, instead we're looking for more to write about beyond the player's record. (Rekkles' mentions in the USA Today article are just about the minimum that we're looking for). If this is typical of the current type of coverage of players, then there's no way we can asset a subject-specific notability guideline since there's no assurance the GNG can be met on a regular basis by winners. But the GNG itself remains just fine for notability, as long as issues with sourcing and reliable sources (as Sergecross alludes to) are met. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, I'm going to have to salt your argument about the people here being ignorant to the topic, so they are not in a position to lend input, as I myself was in the upper management of several prominent esports organizations between 2008 to 2014, and I was the person who brought this issue up with Drmies in the first place. ESPN is terrific and reliable source, but most of the articles in question use it as a source to describe teams and not the players themselves and even then, its presence is light. On top of that, the articles up for deletion are being dared to present the content and reliable sources that will bring them up to par, but they've thus far failed to do so. Even upon independently researching the players, there was next to no content about game-changing transitions that unreliable sources could present. I mean, is there anything encyclopedic about FORG1VEN, aside from his business with H2k-Gaming and facing a ban? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

There's been a real failure on both sides to define exactly what "encyclopedic value" even is. In any case, broader ideas of what does and does not belong on Wikipedia are probably discussion for another time. Consensus is that many athletes and competitors of other types of games belong on Wikipedia, so therefore why can't video game player, provided they have enough coverage in sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Not a single person has argued that articles on video game players don't belong on Wikipedia. Not a single person has argued that video game players inherently lack encyclopedic value. Ravenswing 03:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

DarthBotto has been continuously questioning whether certain types of content are encyclopedic, like here. That's what I'm alluding to.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

DarthBotto has said that eSports is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia, so I agree with Ravenswing: there's no attempt to argue that even with appropriate significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage in reliable sources, this topic should not be covered. isaacl (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have been wondering about somekind of "inherent encyclopedic value" concept for quite some time as well, be it for webcomics or Overwatch porn, so I simply decided that if something is described in words by a reliable source, it is likely to be considered interesting and worth including. The same should go for esports-related topics. The biggest issue in my eyes is that there only seems to be a small set of reliable source frequently discussing the topic. That makes it unclear whether every single thing that The Daily Dot writes is worth repeating on Wikipedia. If the same information is provided by multiple reliable sources, its inherent value is much clearer. The field of said sources is irrelevant, as long as the actual staff is different. ~Mable (chat) 08:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the latest developments at AFD

The ongoing AFD debates on a number of players have had some quite back-and-forth discussions about eSports sources, the importance (or lack thereof) of competing in or even winning professional competitions, and whether passing mentions in articles about teams confer notability. There's also been some less savoury stuff about whether those that aren't experts on the topic have a right to an opinion (which is less up for discussion - they very much do per the way Wikipedia works). I am finding that the community is, indeed, torn on a number of questions:

• What constitutes a reliable source for eSports coverage?
• How important is competing in a professional team competition?
• Should professional eSports competitions carry the same weight as other sports (classification disputed) in considerations of notability?
• Does coverage of a team that mentions a player briefly confer their notability as an individual?
• How important is generic coverage (firings, hirings, competing, results) in establishing notability on Wikipedia?
• Is one or two passing mentions via well-established mainstream sources enough to justify an article?
• What constitutes significant coverage within an acceptable source?

I'm not asking for answers to these questions - consider them hypothetical - but they do give us a feel of the clear split. Furthermore, that split isn't a case of experts versus outsiders, but is happening between contributors to the video gaming WikiProject. The current AFDs are all going to wind up contentious and I think we'll end up with a couple of them going to a no consensus. Some of this is a sign of differing interpretations of WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E, WP:RS and other general Wikipedia guidance. But some of it is a clear sign that a fuller discussion does need to take place about eSports topics - particularly those on individuals - else I wouldn't be surprised to see many more of the articles we have going through the AFD process, and that doesn't seem productive (even if it is appropriate when doubts exist on any topic). KaisaL (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• For my part, it seems strange to me that some of these elements are in dispute at all (although I do agree they are points of contention in the recent AfDs). I certainly do agree that "eSports" are prominent enough to have notability standards, but those standards do not yet exist, so no argument along the lines of "People who've participated in X competition should be notable!" or "People who've coached X team should be notable!" can be sustained. The GNG is unambiguous that fleeting mentions, however prominent the sources, do not count towards notability. WP:ROUTINE is unambiguous about generic coverage not counting towards notability. Ravenswing 17:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Although there are dissenters, a number of your questions have a current consensus view in the general English Wikipedia community:
  • Coverage of a team does not meet Wikipedia's standards of inclusion for the individual team members.
  • Routine coverage such as you listed does not meet Wikipedia's standards of inclusion.
  • Passing mentions do not consist of significant coverage and do not meet Wikipedia's standards of inclusion.
• Regarding participation in competitions, although there are various subject-specific guidelines that list these as rules of thumb that suggest an individual meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, they do not set a new bar for inclusion. Wikipedia does not use achievements as a standard for inclusion: significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources is required. The rules of thumb are just indicative that appropriate coverage can be found, given enough time to locate them. isaacl (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:NSPORT, which seems most applicable, does appear to set some variety of "new bar" for the particular areas it covers. Per the guidance, subject must either meet WP:GNG or the criteria of NSPORT. Even if it is officially just a rule of thumb, it is often used as a hard standard in practice. TimothyJosephWood 19:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The first sentence, second paragraph, and third paragraph of the sports notability guidelines page provide details on the relationship with the general notability guideline, as well as the associated frequently asked questions page, which explicitly states that the guidelines do not create new criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. This has been agreed upon by consensus since the inception of these guidelines and periodically since. If closers of articles for deletion discussion are ignoring this consensus, it's unfortunate. isaacl (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • It doesn't, really, and that's a misconception editors active on sports WikiProjects have to correct at AfD all too often. The whole purpose of NSPORTS criteria is to set forth achievements by which a player is highly likely to meet the GNG. A bunch of us consistently vote to delete at AfD if a player technically meets a criterion if after diligent search we can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Ravenswing 03:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• The article Karrigan was just WP:A7 speedily deleted by @Nyttend: after it had been in mainspace for over a month. Perhaps he wants to share his thoughts here?--Prisencolin (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• This article merely said that he was the "in-game leader" for an e-sports group, mentioned a couple of other groups of which he'd been a member, and noted an immigration hiccup that he'd encountered. It didn't demonstrate any evidence of real-life importance. Of course, A7 shouldn't be used on someone who's demonstrably notable, but it provided no secondary source coverage. This is distinctly not the kind of article that should be retained: barring solid coverage in solid secondary sources, professional video game players should be treated like anyone else. WP:ATHLETE provides for keeping professional sportsmen because they routinely get coverage in secondary sources, and it would be unhelpful to have notability-based deletion discussions for individuals who are almost certain to pass WP:GNG and unhelpful to have the occasional hole for that rare individual who doesn't otherwise pass GNG. Professional video game playing is new enough that there's no parallel to secondary sources such as Category:Baseball books, Category:Boxing books, Category:Association football books, Category:Olympic Games books, etc. Perhaps those sources will start to appear in coming years, but in the absence of extensive sport-wide reference works and other comprehensive publications, presuming these folks to be notable (or even A7-exempt) purely because of their video game accomplishments is fundamentally incompatible with WP:BALL. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the proper procedure to do this but I would like to request the article back with an AfD if needed. The subject is one of the top Counter-Strike players in the world, and just look up "Karrigan" on the web and you'll find many secondary sources about him. Oh and there is coverage of him outside of just the teams, this article found on Sport1, for instance.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Prisencolin, you may open up a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2

This proposal is broadly modeled after WP:NSPORT. Whether you consider this a sport in some broad philosophical sense isn't important, the continuity is in the competitive aspect as it defines notability, as well as the established history of using this type of guideline to determine notability in a range of competitions. Whether a guideline in this area is incorporated into the actual text of NSPORT is equally unimportant.

• An attempt is made to define esports, and is largely done in an effort to remain as analogous to athletic sports as possible. The goal is to exclude as many newcomers or fads as possible, while providing a criteria where areas generally recognized as legitimate (namely Starcraft, League of Legends, and CS:GO) will easily qualify.

• Emphasis is given to the exclusivity of high level competition. An appropriate level of competition should rightfully exclude the vast majority of players, which is what lends notability. This policy anchors this to national level tournaments or higher, in lieu of attempting to specify particular tournaments for each game, and this may not be possible in a policy that would have any longevity. My understanding is that most large tournaments take place on the multi-national/regional level, and so this is a standard that will set a bar easily met by established competitions, and yet easily exclude amateur and semi-professional play.

• Further emphasis is given to continuity of participation. This is a departure from NSPORT, as single event participation in a sufficiently high level event (however unlikely without an extensive history), qualifies individuals in many NSPORT guidelines. This is done to further restrict the potential field and weed out minor players.

I have attempted to be broad enough to apply across games, and specific enough that there will be clear instances where individuals will objectively qualify and not qualify. Improvement can almost certainly be made, but hopefully this is a substantial starting place grounded in similar accepted policy. TimothyJosephWood 19:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Individuals participating in electronic sports/professional video game playing are presumed notable if the following criteria are satisfied:

1. The game being played qualifies as an esport or is otherwise included in high-level, professional competition. Consider the presence of the following:

• Significant barriers-to-entry: Participation requires an extended successful amateur play, extended successful semi-professional play, corporate sponsorship, unusually exceptional ability, or similar requirements which prevent the vast majority of players from participating on a competitive level.
• Status as a spectator event: high-level competitive play consistently draws a substantial audience of viewers as a form of entertainment, especially as events which are broadcast live. Competitions are regularly held in venues designed to accommodate a live viewing audience.
• Codified governing rules, formulated, maintained and enforced by an officiating body
• Regular national, regional and global tournaments including an escalation of the barrier-to-entry which ensures that even significant portions of those who play the game professionally are not admitted to the highest levels of competition.
• Regular media coverage of events and players
• Large consistent base of amateur players. Qualifying games should typically be stable among the most played games globally.

2. The individual has participated substantially on a professional level. Consider the presence of the following:

• The individual consistently participated and was successful in major competitions on the national, regional or global level.
  • Participation in competitions taking place at lower than a national level may only be considered if it garners coverage comparable to that typically given to a competition taking place at the national level or higher.
  • Participation solely in competitions below the national level, even extensively or highly successfully, will most likely not qualify the individual under this critera, barring extenuating circumstances.
  • Individuals with single or very few instances of participation or achievement should typically not be considered notable unless there is reason to expect their continued high-level participation, such as admittance to an established franchise with an extended contract
  • Individuals with a history of participation in global-level competition will typically meet this standard, regardless of whether they have won at this level.
  • First place finishes do not automatically qualify an individual. Neither do successive lesser place finishes disqualify. Rather, career performance should be considered as a whole to establish the degree of overall success.
• The individual consistently earned substantial income from sources related to their competitively played game.
• The individual has achieved other milestones related to their competitive play including:
  • Being admitted to a high-profile franchise
  • Receiving honors related to their participation
  • Was involved in other achievements of a historic value

• Oppose I'm sorry, but not at all. I admire your passion for eSports and certainly you have been a strong voice in the ongoing AFD debates about this, but it is not football, baseball, hockey or a sport of that ilk. Being successful in "major competitions on the national, regional or global level" is an unthinkable level of inclusion for an area with such limited mainstream coverage, and especially when those major competitions are still broadly so niche and receive only specialist coverage the vast majority of the time. Simple "participation substantially on a professional level" is even more so. As for defining a criteria by "being admitted to a high-profile franchise" and "substantial income from sources", those would be dubious even for a genuinely top-level sport. The only thing I could possibly support in terms of competition level for such a niche field (as it is right now) would be to allow winners of the most significant global competitions to have an article, as we (for example) have for gymnastics. But then those winners are often teams, so the individuals should really be merged to those team articles if their only notability were that competition play. I really just think this is a criteria better suited to an eSports Wikia than Wikipedia. KaisaL (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, besides a rewrite of the main League article last year, I haven't contributed to this area at all prior to this. What about settling on world level competition? This seems to be ubiquitous in NSPORT. I didn't even know badminton had a world championship until today. Is that a minimum that could potentially be agreed upon?

As to the franchise and income clauses, those are meant mainly to be exclusionary...as in...if you don't do this full time we're not even going to have the discussion. They both can be removed. I have no objection to that.

I realize you may be against the topic generally. Like it or not there seems to be hundreds of these articles. I actually started to list them and stopped straight away. I'm not sure that the argument they are inherently less notable than badminton or curling really stands muster. So I'm trying to find some kind of middle ground that can be agreed upon. TimothyJosephWood 21:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well there's multiple parts: we have the leagues, the seasons, the teams and then the players. For some "major" sports, the players are generally notable based on a small number of games played. For college football, the league, teams and season articles are but not players. For others, it's more of a mix. There's a middle ground on all of them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well do in fact have articles for some current D1 college football players, just not all of them obviously.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

There may be hundreds of articles, and a large number of them may be of dubious notability. There's four at AFD right now and not one of them is proving to be a clear-cut keep. Badminton and curling are Olympic sports so I would say they're absolutely more notable than eSports at this time. My personal opinion is that a maximum for meeting the notability criteria by way of competition is winning a major individual competition; I wouldn't even say being part of a team that wins a major competition, that should qualify the team and not the player. I would personally say that any guidelines should be focused instead on what constitutes significant coverage for this field, which is what my initial proposals attempted to address. KaisaL (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

What of players who play for multiple notable teams? The teams are just franchises, or in Asia and increasingly the US, just glorified extended corporate sponsorships. It's rare cases where any team goes a season without significant roster changes. TimothyJosephWood 22:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No current esports team is really a franchise or a larger organization, so the particular word should probably be replaced with just "team".--Prisencolin (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Samsung Galaxy Blue/White, SK Telecom T1, Jin Air Green Wings, SBENU Sonicboom, ROX Tiger (Guongzhou Huaduo Network Technology, LLC). In the US, TSM and CLG are multi-game esports organizations. None of these are a group of five guys who like playing together and when they decide to stop the team ends. They are franchises proper. TimothyJosephWood 23:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, for bands for example, the members almost never have their own articles unless they've received substantial coverage or achieved significant success separately. But I don't feel that simply playing for two teams is enough in this sport either, it's just not important enough yet. And, I've not really delved into teams but I'm sure there's issues with some of those too. KaisaL (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to be online much for the next few days (I'm sure you'll be delighted by this!) but I think I've made plenty of quite clear arguments by now anyway. I feel consensus on this whole issue is going to be very hard to come by and so we might indeed be debating WP:GNG for years to come at AFD. KaisaL (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Freaking Oppose: That's an impossibly vague set of criteria. What's "substantial income?" What's a "high-profile franchise?" How broadly do you define "honors?" Do consider that over the years, the various SNGs across Wikipedia started out just as loosey-goosey, and keep on being tightened and tightened, as editors hellbent on saving their creations claim that a collegiate "Academic Rookie of the Week" award constitutes a "preeminent honor," or that having had a speaking line in two Oscar-winning movies constitutes a "significant body of work." Ravenswing 04:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Starting out with something "loosey goosey" and then tightening was kindof the point. And I would appreciate quite more strong opposes so long as they include specific parts people take issue with. Eliminating the honors is perfectly fine. It is vague and there isn't an obvious way to fix that. The goal of the income portion was to categorically eliminate everyone who may play in local tournaments but don't do is as an actual job. What do you think about language saying that players should have played full time? The focus being on categorical elimination of those who don't, not categorical inclusion of those who do. TimothyJosephWood 10:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Consider changing to: "Full-time players: While not all full time players will be notable, those who play competitively on less than a full-time basis will generally not meet notability under this guideline. This includes students who play competitively as part of a scholarship." TimothyJosephWood 12:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Manchester City sign first esports player

Here, for information purposes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Should we remove Commons templates if the same link has been set up in Wikidata?

There don't seem to be specific guidelines about whether it is recommended to treat links to Commons the same way that other-language links are treated (and another editor has called me out for what I was doing). Wikipedia:Wikidata#Migration_of_interlanguage_links states that "In general, it is best to remove interwiki links in Wikipedia articles once they are associated with Wikidata." However, as the page name indicates, that recommendation is about interlanguage links only. There are already a lot of Wikidata entries that connect EN Wikipedia to Commons. Question is, is that yet the new, proven method? Is it recommended to make those Wikidata entries and remove the templates that link to Commons when they exactly reproduce a link that is in Wikidata? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I would say not to remove links to Commons categories or galleries as there is not always a 1:1 link between an article subject and those pages on Commons, and a box highlighting the presence of additional media about a subject with a direct link is a conceptually (to me at least) different thing to an indirect link via a page full of dry facts and metadata about the subject where the link to Commons is neither prominent nor consistently located (and I say this as a Wikidatan). Unless and until the Commons templates can be and are generated from Wikidata (with a many-many relationship) then imo there is still a need for the local manually added templates. Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm convinced. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

What's more, a {{commonscat}} or a {{commonscat-inline}} placed in its normal spot is much more prominently located than a sidebar link; editors and other frequent readers are conditioned to expect a Commons box at bottom right, and its absence tends to indicate that there isn't a relevant Commons page, so treating a link to Commons like a link to Wikidata would be confusing. Moreover, Commons boxes/inline links should be treated like boxes/inline links for other projects; I doubt that we'll be sending Wikinews reports, Wikispecies documentation, etc. to the sidebar. Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

MOS:TITLE: Classical Music: Minor/Major Works

Hi all, please can you take a look at Talk:Wedding Day at Troldhaugen#Major Work? and give your thoughts if you get a chance. Thanks. :) ‑‑Yodin^T 16:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy

Please see Wikipedia:Request for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy for an RFC concerning the use of 'Extended confirmed protection'. –xeno^talk 20:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Notification of RFC for Korean MOS in regard to romanization

Should we use McCune-Reischauer or Revised for topics relating to pre-1945 Korea? Those inclined, please contribute here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Requesting comments on requested move: ESports

FYI

 – Pointer to discussion elsewhere.

The present name of the article (on a general topic, professional video-gaming competition) coincides with a commercial trademark (in that market sector).

Over the last year, there have been 6 or so requested moves and other renaming discussions at what is presently Talk:ESports, most of them poorly attended, with mostly WP:ILIKEIT votes, mis-citations of policy where any was mentioned at all, and closure reasoning problems (while only one was an admin close), resulting in the name flipping around all over the place.

I've opened a multi-option, RfC-style requested move at:
     Talk:ESports#Broadly-announced and policy-grounded rename discussion

It presents four potential names, all with some rationale outlines provided.

Input is sought from the community to help arrive at a long-term stable name for this article, based on actual policy and guideline wording, and on treatment in reliable and independent sources (i.e. not blogs or "eSports" marketing).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "cannot edit own talk page" and "email disabled" from block settings

I don't feel that administrators should have the technical ability to remove a blocked user's ability to edit their talk page or email other users. If a user is blocked from editing, I believe that they should be allowed to file as many appeals as desired. If a user is blocked and thinks that the block doesn't relate to what they have done (the punishment doesn't fit the crime), they could evade the block, be scared and afraid to communicate with administrators upon return, or, at the worst, sue Wikipedia or Wikimedia because they feel as if they were deceived by "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I've seen it happen on other websites not operated by WMF, and I don't want it to become a problem on Wikipedia.

I would be willing to make a couple of exceptions to this proposal:

• If a user has filed 5 appeals that have all been declined, talk page access can be removed for a short period of time (not the entire length of the block, unless it's only 24 hours)

• If a user has been sending spam or otherwise inappropriate emails, a change could be made to the blocking form that would enable the option of "Prevent this user from sending email to X user(s) while blocked", which a field to enter one or more usernames.

Sockpuppetry is becoming a large problem on Wikipedia, and in my opinion, a lot of the time, a user's evasion is triggered by the subtraction of their ability to appeal, and they want revenge or just want to be able to edit again. If we allow users to appeal freely, noted the exceptions above, I think block evasion frequency numbers will go way down. 73.114.22.215 (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Things are fine as is, our policies defend us against any such ridiculous lawsuits. If there are legal issues you can always contact the foundation through regular mail. These blocks aren't given to just anyone, they are deserved, and I've never seen anyone get one that wasn't. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@CFCF: I'm not just talking about the legal issues - that's only one concern. All of my other reasons also have purpose. Also, I strongly disagree with the statement that blocks are "deserved". Given Wikipedia's slogan, a lot of users won't think that they even exist, and then get angry when one is implemented against them.