Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.

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

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

WP:BRD as essay

As far as I can tell, there is pretty wide agreement that WP:BRD is a good thing, that things work a lot smoother when it's followed by all parties. Why, then, is it defined as only essay? When someone deviates from BRD in a contentious situation, and someone else calls him on it citing BRD, and he says, "Well, that's only an essay", what are the appropriate response and reaction to that? Do we have to go to talk just to establish consensus that BRD is to be followed? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD is supposed to limit edit warring, but still encourage editors to be bold. As when you're bold, and it turns out to be good thing when it's discussed, it stays in the article. But if you're bold, reverted, and then you discuss it (WP:BRD), the real reason it was excluded begins to come to light and you attempt to convince the other editors that it would be beneficial to add to the article. Why it's not a policy or a guideline is because it has not passed a formal RfC to make it such. I'm not exactly sure of the process of adding a new rule or guideline, but I'm iffy on including it as a guideline or a policy. Just because of unforeseen circumstances and consequences which my mind seems to be missing atm. Tutelary (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD doesn't work very well for contentious content, while there is some ambiguity whether or not to discuss before reverting. If each contending party only comments on the talk page after reverting, well, what you get is a thinly veiled edit war (and WP:BRD has been used in defence of such practices). I'd deprecate WP:BRD rather than uplifting it to guideline. Also, there is a viable alternative, the flow chart pictured & explained in WP:CONSENSUS#Reaching consensus through editing. WP:BRD could be made a shortcut to that policy section.

Otherwise said, the current WP:BRD will not become more than a somewhat dubious essay, as long as its position w.r.t. consensus-seeking (or: its positive effect in the frame of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution) remains unclear. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read WP:PGE, and remember that BRD itself tells people that they shouldn't use BRD all the time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:PGE is a good example of an environment that, in its desire to be flexible, seems designed to encourage counterproductive and self-defeating conflict. Aside from perhaps MOS matters, there isn't clear guidance on much of anything, the rules themselves are largely matters of opinion and interpretation. But I suspect I'm not the first person to have figured that out, so I'll leave it there. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why I believe BRD should become part of the edit warring policy.

It helps to stop edit warring.
It encourages discussion of controversial edits.
It leads to establishing consensus.
It establishes collaboration by stopping contentious solo editing.
It's nearly always the only known method for figuring out exactly who started an edit war, and the exact diff for when it happened. (The edit which starts an edit war is well before 3RR.)

While it's good to write "follow BRD" in an edit summary, because BRD doesn't have the weight of policy it's often better to also write "don't edit war", because that is the consequence of the first violation of BRD.

It's spelled BRD, without exception, and it's that second B in a BRB sequence which is the first shot fired in an edit war, and that second B should not have happened. I have seen many admins wisely use this sequence of events to pinpoint the most guilty party in an edit war. They don't even have to cite BRD, but can with certainty say "You started an edit war here (diff), and you failed to edit collaboratively. That's very disruptive." Determining "who started it" does matter.

Sure, there are exceptional situations where BRD isn't perfect (the same applies to all our PAG), but it usually works as intended, and that's important enough to give it policy status. That's why I'd like to see it become part of the edit warring policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a list of reasons why we shouldn't:

It discourages improvements to pages by favoring the status quo ante. The reverter's dislike of your changes is privileged over the good-faith contributions of the bold content creator. Change is bad.
It encourages WP:OWNership by giving the reverter an unfair advantage: you can make a bold edit (or even a timid one), but if I revert it, then all subsequent edits by you (even if unrelated) will be thrown in your face as proof that you're "not following BRD". This is very handy if I want to make sure that nobody else gets to edit "my" article.
It does not require the reverter to do anything except revert. As a bold editor, you can show up on the talk page, but there's nothing requiring the reverter to participate in discussions, to explain why I reverted you, or to be reasonable or collegial.
It encourages needless discussions on talk pages instead of collaborative editing and efficient use of edit summaries. Example: Someone added a line, an editor made a good partial reversion, I reverted it for reasons that seemed good to me at the time, and my edit was re-reverted by someone who knew better than I. By my count, that's BRRR, with zero talk-page discussion, and definitely a good, efficient outcome.
It leads to reverters claiming that bold editors are not allowed to make any other changes unless and until you can document "consensus" (defined as their personal agreement) on the talk page. This is very handy if I'm a POV pusher who thinks that the status quo ante is The Right Version™.
It prevents collaboration by encouraging the second editor to revert instead of to offer their own bold adaptation of your edit.
It's never necessary for figuring out who started an edit war, and often not useful. Look at the example above: I count it as BRRR, but you could also legitimately count that as BBRR, especially if you noticed the dates on those first two edits, which are more than two years apart.
It assumes that there are only two editors. In fact, BRD explicitly encourages bold editors to focus on the objections of a single person instead of trying to please an entire group. My example shows four.
Reverters don't read BRD. WP:Nobody reads the directions in general, but reverters, taken as a group, really don't seem to understand BRD. BRD is advice written for experienced editors who are trying to find a path forward when things are stuck. The steps are: make a bold edit, wait until someone objects, and then find out why that specific person objects before trying to edit again. Some reverters hear about BRD, never quite bother to read the page, and somehow conclude that BRD requires them to revert bold changes that haven't been discussed (even when they agree with the changes!).

I could go on, but I doubt that it's necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, if BRD is a bad thing, then an enormous part of the real-world community hasn't gotten the memo. If there is community consensus against BRD, then a big note needs to be added to the top of WP:BRD: This essay is contrary to community consensus. Please see X instead. Yes, you would think its mere-essay status would be enough, but it's clearly not. If community consensus does not exist, I can't think of anything more important than seeking one, as difficult as that may be. You can't allow alternate sets of laws to exist and expect a community to survive very long, let alone thrive. We must agree on the ground rules. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do agree on the ground rules. The ground rules are in the policies WP:Editing policy and WP:Edit warring. BRD is merely one of many, often equally valuable, ways of complying with the actual policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur with Francis Schonken and WhatamIdoing on this. BRD is overrated, because it's too easily gameable to sugar-coat an editwar. It's been my experience that a large number of combative, PoV-pushing, WP:OWNish editors refuse to abide by it, when they're they one trying to make a controversial change, until essentially forced to by 4 or more editors shouting them down, while the same editwarrior will insist on BRD, and revertwar incessantly against changes they don't like, always declaring that not enough D has happened to satisfy them. BRD is too often a tool of, not against, strife. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that BRD is both widely used and widely contested, resulting in a ton of counterproductive conflict. WhatamIdoing asserts that we agree on the ground rules, but it's obvious enough that we as a community do not. You can say all day that those who misapply BRD are simply wrong, but that does very little to address the conflict. There must be clear community consensus on this, and that consensus must be made clear to all editors. The amount of conflict is all the evidence I need that the ground rules are insufficiently clear and inadequately communicated. I think a majority of editors will attempt to follow the ground rules as they understand them. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be policy; policy is something that should always apply. Even a guideline is probably too strong. Quite simply, BRD is very good advice, but there's far too many exceptions for it to be given enforceability. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, I'm not quite sure what problem you're thinking of. I tell you that we have two widely supported policies that lay out the ground rules for editing. You say that we don't agree on the ground rules. Exactly which rules (or non-rules) are we disagreeing about? Do you think some editors disagree with the WP:Editing policy? Do you think some editors mistakenly believe that WP:BRD is a policy? Which ground rules are unclear and/or uncommunicated? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence at [WP:Edit warring#What edit warring is] states, "Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle." Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That sentence needs to be fixed. The "D" in BRD is not silent. Bold-Revert is not the same thing as Bold-Revert-Discuss. (Also, it might not be BRD at all; it might instead be Bold-Revert-Revert-Revert-Revert-Block, or Bold-Revert-Give up, or Bold-Revert-Timid, or several other patterns.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the most part, WP:BRD is being misused by the edit warriors themselves - basically, tell the other person to WP:BRD while I revert this ten more times. It also contradicts some of our other policies, by favouring the status quo instead of favouring verifiable and reliably sourced information presented in a neutral manner. One could re-insert factually wrong info and cite WP:BRD. I'm also seeing that those who hide behind WP:BRD often never start the discussion as they have no intention to discuss anything, beyond jumping onto a page and claiming to WP:OWN it. Sometimes, I´m even seeing WP:BRR in a format where someone boldly adds info, the next editor reverts it and then (as the second 'r') removes a huge chunk of the existing article, either because they don't like the article's topic or they have an axe to grind. We already have policies on consensus. They accomplish nothing as every edit warrior assumes their version is "consensus" and the other editor's version is "vandalism", COI, "sockpuppetry", "disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT" and whatever else comes to mind. Add another policy to the mix and it becomes just another stick with which to browbeat editors during edit wars, while doing nothing to improve collaboration. It's a road paved with good intentions, but I fail to see what problem will actually be solved by making this a policy or guideline. K7L (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wouldn't worry, there's very little danger of that happening. I just look at rampant counterproductive conflict and instinctively want to eliminate it. Clearly, placing all the blame on the people involved—saying, "Well, there wouldn't be a problem if only x would stop doing y"—is not working and is never going to work; years of experience tell us that. My conclusion is that something needs to change in policy, in the system. There's nothing more important than that, but I see nothing being done aside from endless circular discussions that go nowhere. Like this one, for example. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support elevating WP:BRD to a higher level of authority. The fact is that it is already de facto policy, because a bold move made in good faith by one editor and reverted in good faith by another should never be reinstated without some discussion to iron out the dispute. If one editor makes a bold edit, another reverts, and the issue is then abandoned, this at least suggests that the editor abandoning the issue is either not paying attention to the consequences of their bold edits, or is not willing or able to defend the propriety of the bold edit. bd2412 T 23:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really believe that "never", then I will conclude that you have not looked at the diffs I gave as an example in #4. (Also: I don't suppose that you've ever seen any good-faith BLP violations? "Never" means that you can't boldly correct a BLP violation, get it reverted by a POV pusher or a careless editor, and then re-remove the BLP violation, unless you have the time and ability to start a discussion. I suggest that you consider a word other than "never".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Guidelines can be deviated from with good cause. Even policies can be deviated from with good cause. You could even explicitly state in BLP that it trumps BRD. There may be good arguments against guideline status for BRD, but the need for flexibility is not one of them. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promote the page. It deserves it. Brangifer has explained very well. --Tito☸Dutta 16:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR and Comparison of Foo articles

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Wikipedia contains many articles of the style Comparison of Foo, where Foo may refer to (eg) a class of software, or a method of engineering. Many of these articles are broadly unreferenced. Almost always the features list when comparing Foo Vendor A's product with Foo Vendor B's product are entirely unreferenced. By definition these are WP:OR. They have come from research performed by the editors maintaining the articles. Often even primary sources are not offered. WP:PRIMARY suggests that this might be a valid place for them to be deployed.

I recall putting one such up for AfD once, or offering an opinion in such an AfD. I can't recall what or when. It was stoutly defended with arguments such as "But it's encyclopaedic!" not exactly policy based.

So, my question is, how does Wikipedia not apply a policy requiring no original research to obviously useful but broadly unreferenced Comparison of Foo articles? Why are they deemed to be acceptable by consensus when the No OR rule is created by consensus? Fiddle Faddle 23:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because sometimes the consensus is to follow our WP:Ignore all rules policy. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of late to the party, but a bot asked me to weigh in, and, basically, I have to strongly agree with Timtrent (Fiddle Faddle). Ignore all Rules is just recipe to add crap and do nonsense without any logical reason for doing so. It's the last refuge of people who know they shouldn't be doing something but emotionally want to anyway. Wikipedia should be better than that. There may be some comparison topics with solid reliable sources establishing notability. Otherwise they should be deleted outright, like any other article that fails to meet basic standards. DreamGuy (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think such articles should be strongly discouraged. They are usually very badly sourced, and full of original research and synthesis. They are also frequently thinly-veiled advertisements "Wowzerz! Product A can do foo, bar, and baz but Product B can't do any of those!" My opinion is that such articles need to be viewed very skeptically, and should only generally be allowed if there are substantial, neutral sources that explicitly compare those products. Reyk _YO! 00:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Although useful, they probably should be discouraged somewhere if they are not verifiable and notable. Some of these topics are regularly covered in reliable sources, and articles that compare/contrast a range of competing products are fairly common in tech journalism. However, topics which receive no coverage probably should be nominated for deletion. If someone wanted to, they could probably write/rewrite some of these articles to paint an extreme POV, such as prominently highlighting multiple missing features in popular software products. This is definitely a problem, but I guess existing due weight concerns can alleviate it. That, of course, depends on the existence of coverage reliable sources, which is something that we have established may not exist for some of these articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moves from Main to Draft: Namespace

I am perplexed by this. Take the following situation:

New user creates an obviously poor article in the main namespace, so poor that WP:AFC reviewers would have pushed it back for improvement instead of accepting it. It is an obvious failure, perhaps unreferenced WP:OR. Prior to the Draft: namespace existing it would be an obvious CSD candidate (if a relevant category existed) a PROD, or AFD.

A wise admin might well have userfied the material after/in place of deletion, but deleted the item form the main namespace

Now we have Draft: what are the rules?

May only admins move main namespace articles to Draft:
As a non admin, may I do it?
Under what circumstances may such a move take place? Must a discussion happen to empower the move? May it be done when it seems reasonable, or must we have a formal consensus each time?

When you examine this please look at it from the perspective of being a caretaker of Wikipedia's portfolio of articles, and then look at it as if you were that new user. Will your thoughts be different depending upon where you view it from?

What are the rules, here? Fiddle Faddle 09:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has the bad article been deleted?

If not, then simply improve the article (it sounds like a total re-write is in order).

If so, then I think the best option would be to act as if the previous (now deleted) article never existed... start over from scratch and create a completely new article that happens to be about the same topic as the failed (now deleted) one. I would suggest starting with a "draft" in user space - Work on that "draft" (to the point where you think it would survive an AfD challenge.)... and when you think it is ready for prime time, it can simply be copied over into main space.

The only question is what title to give the new article... If you want to use the same title as the failed (now deleted) article, you may need to ask an admin to "free up" the old title for use by your completely new article. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboar: Your advice is sage, but I think I am asking a different question from the one you are answering. "The" article is a theoretical article, so does not exist as a specific example. Fiddle Faddle 12:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would stand even for a theoretical article.... how you deal with the issue of a poor quality article depends on whether the poor quality article has actually been deleted or not. If so, then the solution to is to start over and write a new reasonably good article on the topic. If not, then the best solution to a poor quatlity article is simply to fix whatever is wrong with it.

If, on the other hand, a deletion is pending (ie the article has been nominated for deletion, but has not yet been deleted) then we have a choice... we can either 1) simply let it be deleted... 2) keep and try to fix it in place ... 3) userfy and let the article creator try to improve it... or 4) move it to draft space in the hope that multiple editors will be able to improve it. Which of these options is the most appropriate, however, depends on the specific article. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The instruction you want is at WP:Drafts#Incubation, "* Articles are incubated as a result of i) a deletion discussion, ii) an undeletion request, iii) userification, or iv) a bold move from article space." Like other bold edits, other editors may have differing opinions. Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfication is generally only appropriate where there has been a single editor to the substance of the article. Draftspace is the better repository for articles that have had multiple substantive editors. bd2412 T 00:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

narrow vision

search for background on a non profit organization ISIS only led to an article with funny links ... if your idea of ISIS is so important to you give it a bold link but dont leave out information which might mean something to others too ... this has definitely changed my view about WIKI in general ... thanks for this eye opener ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.39.71.203 (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which ISIS non-profit are you looking for? There are multiple non-profit organizations known by the acronym ISIS, you can see some of them at Isis (disambiguation), so I'm not sure which non-profit to direct you to. Can you give us more information about which one you are looking for? Do you remember what it's un-abbreviated name was? --Jayron32 00:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that some degradative assumptions in the structure have created a mess here. We redirect ISIS and ISIL to one page, which necessarily has a more confusing hatnote, which redirects people to Isis (disambiguation), where upper and lower case are confounded. Also, "disambiguation" is not exactly basic vocabulary, and I admit some skepticism as to whether it even counts as an English word, making that navigation more difficult. Conceivably we could have some technical solution, like making ISIS not a redirect but a page that transcludes Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant after an ISIS-specific hatnote, going to an ISIS-specific disambiguation page that doesn't contain, or only transcludes at the end, the Isis disambiguation. Wnt (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and Dictionary.com think it's an English word. That usually has to suffice for me, as I don't have a copy of the OED. ‑‑Mandruss (t) 19:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good research; still, the latter two trace its origin to around 1963, which puts it kind of on the same level as "grody" and "twerking". I bet some people look at that jargon and don't even have a thought to what it means. Wnt (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"McCarthyism" dates to 1950, which puts it kind of on the same level as "cool it" and "back seat bingo". ‑‑Mandruss (t) 21:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most people looking for "ISIS" right now porobably do want the article on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (it's been one of the top 25 loaded Wikipedia articles for a while now); anyone who wants something else can follow the link at the top of the page to the relevant disambiguation page, where what they are looking for can be found (if we have an article about it). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC regarding the issue of article bias

Please comment on this RFC regarding bias issues in the article on the Gamergate controversy. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using RSSSF as a source

Hello everyone. I'm a regular editor at esWiki. Over there we're having a debate about the use of this site as a source for articles. I think I speak for many users over there when I say that your opinion on this matter would be helpful to resolve this dispute. I don't intend to bias your opinions so I will keep this message short.

The question would be: Taking into account it's editorial policy and process, can RSSSF be regarded as a reliable source?

If you need further information I'll be glad to answer.

I would appreciate any opinions. Thanks in advance. Facu89 (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This question should be asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- Gadget850^talk 01:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just did.--Facu89 (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"is" a television series?

We have a practice of referring to past TV series in the present tense. For example, "Nowhere Man is an American television series that aired from 1995 to 1996 starring Bruce Greenwood..." (emphasis added).

WP:TVLEAD: "References to the show should be in the present tense since shows—even though no longer airing—still exist, including in the lead (e.g. Title is a...)."

Do we do this for serials in any other media after they have ended and are no longer being produced, despite their continuing to "exist"? In my cursory search, we do not. Many things technically still exist in one form or another, and it's both excessively pedantic and rather inexplicable to single out TV series for this sort of present-tense treatment.

Wikipedia has an important tradition of sticking to common phrasing as opposed to rabid technical accuracy, especially in article lead sections. Serials are generally referred to in the past tense when they are no longer being produced, including TV series, because when we say something "is" or "was" a serial, it colloquially communicates its production status, at least in the English language. Publications generally refer to them that way, and Wikipedia shouldn't reinvent this.

I can understand using present tense in other areas of an article on a TV series, for example saying that the series "features a character named Marianne". Aspects of past TV series are often described this way, and it could become confusing to require that all wording throughout an article be strictly past-tense. However, at least the lead sections of past TV series leading off with "...is a television series," or similar, is awkward, and its immediate effect until one reads further is to depict the show as currently airing. equazcion → 11:18, 30 Oct 2014 (UTC)