Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab Miscellaneous 
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 Village pump (proposals).
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.

« Older discussions, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145

RfC: Revisiting the perennial US/U.S. debate[edit]

Should MOS:US (WP:Manual of Style#US and U.S.):

  1. Retain its current wording (after some reverting), arrived at several years ago, and stable until October 2017, and stable since then?
  2. Use the newest (recently reverted) version, implemented in a lengthy October 2017 consensus discussion?
  3. Revert to its even earlier wording, which was stable though the early 2010s, despite frequent debate?
  4. Say something substantively different from any of these?

00:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The central matter is whether "US" or "U.S." is the dominant spelling in current (not historical) North American English, across all style guides and reliable sources (i.e., not limited to a particular genre or field). The previous discussion involved detailed source review to answer this question. The current version, based in MOS:COMMONALITY without citing it, relies on "US" being demonstrably dominant; so does the (reverted) newest version, explicit about COMMONALITY; while the MOS:ENGVAR idea suggested in the old version depends on the opposite (ENGVAR only applies to a consistently dominant usage in a country).

The issue raised, for editing, is this: the current version gradually favors "US" over time, and the newest version does so more explicitly, while the old version would keep "U.S." indefinitely in most articles that use it.

Current version (dates to mid-2010s):
US and U.S.

In American and Canadian English, as elsewhere, US has become the dominant abbreviation for United States. However, U.S. (with periods [full points] and without a space) remains common in North American publications, especially in news journalism. At least one major American style guide, The Chicago Manual of Style (since 2010), now deprecates "U.S." and recommends "US". Because use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article, use US in an article with other country abbreviations, and especially avoid constructions like the U.S., UK, and USSR. In longer abbreviations (three letters or more) that incorporate the country's initials (USN, USAF), do not use periods. When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective (France and the United States, not France and the U.S.). Do not use the spaced U. S. or the archaic U.S. of A., except when quoting. Do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical/formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes and FIFA country codes).

Newest version (2017):
US and U.S.

US is a commonly used abbreviation for United States, although U.S. – with periods and without a space – remains common in North American publications, including in news journalism. Multiple American style guides, including The Chicago Manual of Style (since 2010), now deprecate "U.S." and recommend "US".

For commonality reasons, use US by default when abbreviating, but retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it. Because use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article, use US in an article with other country abbreviations, and especially avoid constructions like the U.S. and the UK. In longer abbreviations that incorporate the country's initials (USN, USAF), never use periods. When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, US (or U.S.) may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective (France and the United States, not France and the US). Do not use the spaced U. S. or the archaic U.S. of A., except when quoting. Do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical and formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, FIFA, and IOC country codes).

Early version (early 2010s):
US and U.S.

In American and Canadian English, U.S. (with periods [full stops] and without a space) is the dominant abbreviation for United States, though at least one major American style guide, The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.), now deprecates U.S. and prefers US (without periods). US is more common in most other national forms of English. Use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article and congruent with the variety of English used by that article. In longer abbreviations (three letters or more) that incorporate the country's initials (USN, USAF), do not use periods. When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective (France and the United States, not France and the U.S.). Do not use the spaced U. S. or the archaic U.S. of A., except when quoting. Do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical/formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes and FIFA country codes).

Please avoid empty WP:ILIKEIT / WP:IKNOWIT comments, as well as wikipolitical arguments about why we have/shouldn't have a style guide, whether a wikiproject should/shouldn't "own" articles in its scope, etc. Please stay on-topic.

This is a procedural RfC suggested by someone else, though dispute since the 2017 change has been minimal. A footnote about inconsistent journalistic usage was elided from the current-version and newest-version copies above, for brevity.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No preference version
US and U.S.

US and U.S. are commonly-used abbreviations for United States. U.S. – with periods and without a space – remains common in North American publications, including all works of the United States government and in news media, while US is more often used elsewhere.

  • When used as a noun in article prose, prefer United States (avoiding either abbreviation) for better formal writing style. This also avoids mixed-use constructions like the U.S. and the UK in favor of the United States and the United Kingdom, and provides an opportunity for commonality.
  • As an adjective in article prose, either US or U.S. may be used, but don't mix dotted and undotted within the same article. Generally speaking, U.S./U.K. is appropriate for American or Canadian English national variations, and US/UK for others. Prevalence in reliable sources can also be used to determine which to use. Use of either style should be retained in existing articles that they have been established.[a]

US should always be used in tables where other ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 two-letter country codes are in use. Longer abbreviations that incorporate the country's initials (USN, USAF) never use periods, but partial constructions like U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force may. Do not use the spaced U. S. or the archaic U.S. of A., except when quoting. Do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical and formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, FIFA, and IOC country codes).

Well if this RFC is actually going forward limited to only handling of US/U.S., here is the version I suggest, which does not prescriptively prohibit either style, but gives guidance to avoid the abbreviation for commonality. It recognizes that both dotted and undotted are commonly-used and acceptable, and that neither is a default nor forbidden. This will prevent edit warring and also prevent editors from being sanctioned for following a style they've know their whole lives. I intend to present an expanded form of this sometime in the future to cover other geographical acronyms (like Canadian English frequent use of dotted geographical acronyms like P.E.I., B.C., etc.). -- Netoholic @ 04:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ This section has changed in the past and may change in the future, mass-changes to articles should be avoided.

Comments on US/U.S.[edit]

  • I rarely see the spelling here in the United States as "US", it is usually USA or U.S. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    This is not a vote. Do you have some reliable sources on frequency, or the recommendations of modern style guides to cite?  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Use the newest wording (i.e., revert to the status quo ante of the last consensus discussion), with current wording as second choice. They are based on overwhelming evidence that "U.S." has not been dominant in North American English for quite some time. Of those publishers who do use it, they are not even consistent with each other (e.g. some newspapers insist on it in headlines but use "US" in running prose, some do exactly the opposite, some use one everywhere, some the other). There is no WP:ENGVAR case that can be made, and the wording in the old version is just patently false. While MoS is not an article, it's grotesque for us to put disproved nonsense in it to advance nationalistic editwarring over a punctuation mark. The newest wording is more practical and will result in less disputation; the current reverted-to wording produces some conflict; the old one was a battleground generator.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC); revised: 08:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I Object to how this RFC was opened. The question is not simply "US vs U.S." but about handling dotted acronyms in certain regional variants of English (per WP:ENGVAR). For example, the preeminent Canadian English style guide The Canadian Style uses dots for all geographical acronyms, such as P.E.I. and B.C.. This RFC was opened with the intent of presenting this question in a limited way and the format of the RFC was not agreed to ahead of time. Calling this "revisiting" a "perennial" discussion in the title of this header betrays the opener's total lack of impartiality on this matter and poisons the question (see WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCST). SMcCandlish's also framing how he wants responses to be made (referencing ILIKEIT) and is already WP:BADGERING here. I'd like to see this RFC speedy closed until we can get a neutral presentation of the actual changes being suggested. -- Netoholic @ 03:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC) I'd like to point out that the opener has taken the opportunity to lay out much of his main arguments within the lead section of this RFC itself. This is just not how to hold a neutral RFC. -- Netoholic @ 04:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    A long thread of responses to this objection has been refactored into the extended discussion section.
  • Gut feeling (no RSs, punctuation is ignored by google and ngram), that excessive/unnecessay dot use is decreasing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Google Books ngram Viewer - up to 2000: I did just now take a look at this in the Google Books ngram view. In that tool, "US" and "U.S." are aggregated to "U.S.", so cannot distinguish using the out-of-the-box functionality. Link to the ngram query. This analysis does show "U.S./US" > "United States" >> "USA" > "United States of America". Seems "U.S./US" overtook "United States" a bit after 1980, before which "United States" prevailed over all other forms. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
      • 1950 to 2008 - changed the analysis window to 1950–2008 and found the order of use unchanged between 2000 and 2008. I tried to take it to 2018, but 2018 was auto-replaced with 2008; appears this is as recent as things go. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Whatever the balance of sources, it is clear that modern usage within American material varies to the extent that neither formulation can now be considered integral to American Engvar. As additional sources I would add that the CNN International website uses 'US', as did all the Olympic bid documents from the LA28 committee (I would be interested to know whether CNN's domestic website uses the same, i.e. it's now its house style, or not, i.e. they use unpunctuated style for an international audience?). I'm with SMcC in seeing a trend in this direction for acronyms generally (punctuated style for longer ones like UNESCO died years ago). Outside America (possibly excluding Canada as mentioned above), unpunctuated appears much more common. On the basis of Commonality, ease of reading, and consistency with other acronyms, I would support the current wording. As an aside, I always wondered why USA is deprecated in WP when it is widely used elsewhere; for example I saw it recently in a document submitted to the UN by the US government? MapReader (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    @MapReader: You may be interested to know that the US site (heh) uses "U.S." in the site headings, but article headlines still use "US". — AfroThundr ([[User:|u]] · t · c) 14:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    The headlines and the bodycopy at use "US"; it's their menu system that uses "U.S." Deets below.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • My take: the entire question is not worth the amount of time and angst we spend on it. I don’t think it matters whether we abbreviate with dots or not, as long as we are consistent within a given article. If the article is consistent... don’t change it. If not... first person to make it consistent “wins”. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems to me (from my personal observations of usage on the 'net) that a majority of people in the United States use the "US" form, while "U.S." remains the canonical form in government and legal contexts. Internationally, "US" is unquestionably the dominant form. Perhaps we should stick with the current (after reversion) text, or use the newest version with a note that articles regarding government or legal topics are still allowed to use the older form. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 14:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    That last bit wouldn't be necessary. We don't need the spelling variance except in citations (legal citations take highly specific forms, varying by jurisdiction), because citation style is governed by WP:CITEVAR; that is, a citation can diverge from MoS style in such nit-picks if the citation format requires it. The fact that "U.S. Department of Justice", following Government Printing Office Style Manual style, is what the DoJ itself uses doesn't require anyone else to do so; thus: [1], etc. And WP in particular really doesn't care about "officialness", per WP:OFFICIALNAME.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    My personal favourite WP:OFFICIALNAME is the 1958 U.S.-UK Mutual Defence Agreement, in which they diplomatically used two types of English in the official abbreviated name. Unfortunately, our MOS:ACRO does not permits this form. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    If it really were the official title of the document, then it would be permitted, under MOS:TITLES. But it clearly is not the title; it's a Wikipedia-invented WP:NPOVTITLE, a made-up descriptive phrase.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    It's not a Wikipedia invention; it's the WP:COMMONNAME. eg [2][3][4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • To a large extent, I agree with what Blueboar said: this is a trivial issue. I'm inclined to say that the evidence does point to using US rather than U.S. as a preferred form, and treating the stable form of an existing page, so long as it is consistent, similarly to the way that we treat WP:ENGVAR. Consistency within a page seems most important to me. As for the three wording options above, I find the newest version, with its opaque reference to "commonality", to sound like it was written by a committee, whereas the current/recent version seems to me to be better written and not significantly different unless one counts angels on heads of pins. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    It's definitely a trivial issue, but when people revert-war between three versions and demand an RfC, it's probably time to have an RfC. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    Meh... When editors revert war over trivial things like this, the solution is to strongly chastise ALL those involved for disrupting the project. It always takes two to revert-war. If BOTH are suspended for a day or two, the message will be clear... don't revert-war over trivial things like dots. Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    Strange as it may sound (or maybe not), I think the genesis of the most recent dispute over this point comes out of the disputes over US (U.S.?) politics, with the attendant battleground-ing. FYI, there is even a request at the admin requests for closure to have this discussion speedily closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    Use the current version. I see that other editors are using bold font summaries. Therefore I'll spell out that I think the newest version is badly written so I prefer to use the current version. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Use the newest wording: this is clear and consistent. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Use the newest wording: I think this version is the clearest -- Whats new?(talk) 04:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Use the newest wording — If you step back and look at it, MOS:ABBR specifies initialisms should not be rendered with periods. Of all the initialisms that are sometimes rendered with them in various srouces, what is it about U-dot-S-dot that justifies it having been codified as an exception? It can't be WP:ENGVAR because it's not a case of vocabulary, spelling, date formatting or grammar... which are the four listed areas ENGVAR covers. Whether to use periods for initialisms is a matter of style and that's just not covered under ENGVAR. All the arguments that we should follow sources and represent/allow the diverse usage in the "real world" are irrelevant because we don't follow an overarching "use whatever style you want as long as it's consistent" mandate, or else there would be no MOS. We regularly switch out curly quotes for straight ones (MOS:CURLY), hyphens for dashes (MOS:DASH), single quotes for double quotes (MOS:SINGLE), and change whether periods go inside or outside quotation marks (MOS:LQ). We've observed that outside the United States, there is a clear preference overall for initialisms without periods. We've observed that in two countries (the United States and Canada), there is mixed usage, with many arguing that the trend is towards dropping periods. So unless ENGVAR's reach is much more broad than it reads, the entire notion there should be any exception for this one specific initialism seems pretty odd. If US gets an exception, why not PEI, BC, NATO, etc. etc.? No doubt there are people in the UK who prefer it be written "U.K." (and sources that render it that way) but there isn't an entire section in MOS devoted to carving out "U.K." as a sacrosanct rendering meriting an exception. Really the discussion should include the notion of tossing enshrining any exceptions for one initialism out completely, but since that's not on the table, the newest wording—which strikes a balance between resisting wholesale removal of "U.S." and making it clear that new material should adopt the MOS:ABBR guideline as a default—moves towards a clearer state of affairs that doesn't privilege the rendering of one term over any others. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Use the newest wording, which is quite clear and explicitly includes language against edit-warring to change it back and forth. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Stick with the current version, Use neutral wording, but like Netoholic, I object to how this RfC has been handled, and think it should be struck as not neutrally worded or opened. The "newest wording" is unacceptable as it implicitly disallows use of "U.S." in any new article going forward. --IJBall (contribstalk)
  • I agree with others who have expressed that this is more trouble than it is worth. MOS wars in the past included the incredibly important difference between a hyphen and a dash, also known as the battle of tiny horizontal lines. Today it’s another issue that doesn’t really effect the overall quality of Wikipedia for the reader. (remember the reader? the person we’re all doing this for, not for ourselves to push our preferred rules of The Way Things Ought To Be?) and agree with Blueboar that consistency within individual articles is enough of a standard and also that anyone who edit wars over this in mainspace or MOS gets a swift kick out the door. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    Sure. The reason this is being RfCed at VPPOL is because of editwarring over the wording. The triviality of the subject should not lead to such drama, so we should just put it to bed and move on.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Use the newest wording Per Beeblebrox. I am haunted by MOS:DASH, in which the MOS broke links all over the place, forced the development of special editing tools, and remains a pain that just won't go away. My other fear is that the adoption of this RfC will be touted in the media as another instance of Wikipedia's anti-US bias. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Use neutral wording: if strong advice is not being offered as to which style a writer should adopt, it should be left at his own discretion--ie, there should not be thought-swaying either way by the MoS. We have failed to reach a consensus as to whether or not 'U.S.' should be depreciated (or we had the last time I was involved), deciding that it should be an individual decision. But, under no circumstances should 'U.K.' be accepted, or encouraged in any way: it is not a common style in the UK itself, and the American style guides seem to be moving away from it (even if my iPhone obsessively adds the points). I completely agree with the current 'do not mix ...' guidance, which seems to have caused reasonably few problems that I have encountered, and offers some clear direction to copyeditors as to how to deal with "style mixing". Sb2001 23:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter whether we use the dots or not. Just block people who edit war over it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think an external issue really matters here; after all, it's not something major to the reader so long as they can comprehend the article. In short, I agree with Hawkeye7 et alii, who note that consistency within articles means more than some lines of text in the Manual of Style. (Because, ultimately, that a reader gets the information they want is our end goal, right?) That being said, I do not believe that consensus regarding the implicit or explicit deprecation of any one style vis-à-vis another can be found, and, really, the MOS issues are a bit arcane, to say the least. Anyway, to stop rambling on, I agree wholly with Sb2001: use the neutral, no preference wording. Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The magnitude of the debate about this is excessive compared to the magnitude of the underlying dispute. Seriously guys, it doesn't matter that much, and we should stop arguing about this and go build an encyclopedia. Support whatever option puts this most firmly to bed permanently. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Use the newest wording: Mainly because it is the consensus from a lengthy and reasonably recent discussion (I'm taking SmC's word for this), but also because it is unambiguous. Current version arbitrates nothing except in articles that have other country abbreviations. I don't actually like the newest wording because 1) it makes the preferred style depend upon the history of the article, which defies the purpose of a manual of style; and 2) it introduces unnecessary ENGVAR - there's clearly a common version acceptable everywhere. But I can accept consensus is against me. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion of US/U.S.[edit]

  • Here's a copy-paste of my sourcing run from the last round of this discussion, for those who don't want to go look in that thread:
RS citations, with direct quotes (and analysis by SMcCandlish):

I'll get this started, using the stack of style guides closest to my desk (leaves out some stuff like Scientific Style and Format):

  • "10.4", "10.33". The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.). University of Chicago. 2010. pp. 489–490, 500:. 10.4: Periods with abbreviations. ... Use no periods with abbreviations that appear in full capitals, whether two letters or more, and even if lowercase letters appear within the abbreviation: VP, CEO, MA, MD, PhD, UK, US, NY, IL .... 10.33: "US" versus United States. In running text, spell out United States as a noun; reserve US for the adjective form only (in which position the abbreviation is generally preferred). See also 10.4. US dollars, US involvement in China, but China's involvement in the United States.  It has a side rule to use "U.S." in publications that use "traditional" US state abbreviations like "Ill." and "Calif.", but WP is not one of these, and CMoS recommends against the practice anyway. This edition's material on this is a reversal from the 15th ed. which still favored "U.S." Notably, MoS began when CMoS 15th was current, and has seen extensive revision over time to match the 16th (as it has also been being updated to match post-2010 editions of New Hart's Rules / Oxford Style Manual and Fowler's, etc., as the rest of the world does.
  • "10.31", "10.32". The Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.). University of Chicago. 2017. pp. 573–574, 585–586:. 10.4: Periods with abbreviations. ... Ues no periods with abbreviations that include two or more capital letters, even if the abbreviation also includes lowercase letters: VP, CEO, MA, MD, PhD, UK, US, NY, IL. [Also has the previous edition's rule to prefer "U.S." with "Ill." abbreviations.] 10.31: Abbreviating country names. Names of countries are usually spelled out in text but may be abbreviated in tabular matter, lists, and the like. [Recommendation to consult dictionaries for abbreviations rather than making up new ones.] ... Certain initialisms, on the other hand, may be appropriate in regular text, especially after the full form has been established .... 10.32: "US" versus "United States." Where necessary, initialisms for country names can be used in running text according to the guidelines set forth [in previous sections about overuse of abbreviations, etc.] Note that, as a matter of editorial tradition, this manual has long advised spelling out United States as a noun, reserving US for the adjective form only (where it is preferred) and for tabular matter and the like. In a departure, Chicago now permits the use of US as a noun, subject to editorial discretion and provided the meaning is clear from context. US dollars, US involvement in China, China's involvement in the United States or China's involvement in the US.  Brand new edition; hasn't had much real-world impact yet. CMoS has clearly softened on its stance about nouns.
  • Burchfield, R. W., ed. (2004). "acronym". Fowler's Modern English Usage (Revised 3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 17–18.  Gives no explicit rule, but uses "US", "UK", "USSR" style throughout, and says of things like "U.N.E.S.C.O." that this is an intermediary stage in adoption of an acronym. This material is a bit dated; we don't actually do it that way any longer; a newly introduced acronym will appear as SNRKL not "S.N.R.K.L." in most publications. Burchfield also favors the confusing practice of writing some true acronyms as if words and capitalizing their first letter even if they're not proper names, e.g. "Aids" for AIDS; this practice seems not to have caught on except among some British/Commonwealth news publishers, and I think one or another of the stylistically weirder American publications (New Yorker, maybe? New York Times, but not consistently).]
  • Butterfield, Jeremy, ed. (2015). "acronym". Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 16.  Uses essentially the same wording as Burchfield's edition.
  • "1.6: Abbreviations". MLA Handbook (8th ed.). Modern Language Association. 2016. p. 95. Use neither periods after letters nor spaces between letters for abbrevaitions made up predominantly of capital letters: BC, DVD, NJ, PhD, US.  Has no noun/adjective rules but urges (on the same page cited here) reserving abbreviations for tabular data, citations, and other compressed material.
  • "8.3: Geographic Names". MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Writing (3rd ed.). Modern Language Association. 2008. pp. 264, 269. [S]pell out in the text the names of countries, with a few exceptions (e.g. USSR). In documentation, however, abbreviate the names of states, provinces , countries, and continents. [List of abbreviations begins] ... US, USA: United States, United States of America  Does not include "U.S.", nor a noun/adjective rule.
  • "7: Shortened forms". Style Manual of Authors, Editors and Printers (5th ed.). Australian Government Publishing Service. 1994. pp. 107, 116–117. 7.5 Abbreviations that consist of more than one capital letter or of capital letters only are written without full stops: ACT, RSPCA, PhD, GPO, IBRD, USA. ... 7.7: Acronyms ... Acronyms are written without full stops. 7.67: The names of countries, except for the former Soviet Union, which is usually designated USSR, should be spelt out in general text. For example: The United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Japan have agreed ... not The UK, the USA, Australia, NZ and Japan have agreed .... For text, this rule should be waived only in heavily statistical or greatly condensed scientific work. 7.68: In text that uses many shortened forms, the standard abbreviations for name of countries may be used adjectivally: UK tariffs have ...; In her study of NZ foreign policy ..... 7.69: Standard abbreviations for names of countries are used in tables, figures, notes, references and bibliographies, where space considerations are important: UK, USA, Statistics Act 1975 (NZ), s 37.  There may be a newer edition out now; last time I looked it was still in production, but that was a few years ago.
  • Hull, Christine A.; Huckin, Thomas N. (2008). The New Century Handbook (4th ed.). Longman / Pearson Education. pp. 810, 872. 48d: Avoid common misuses of periods. ... Do not use periods with acronyms and other all uppercase abbreviations. [Emphasis in original.] The recent trend is not to use periods with common abbreviations for states, countries, organizations, computer programs, famous eople, and other entities: CA, NOW, MIT ... USA, MS-DOS, JFK ... HTML, AAA .... 56e: Avoid most other abbreviations in formal writing. Place names, including the names of states, countries, provinces, continents, and other locations, should not be abbreviated except in addresses and occasionally when usd as adjectives (for example, in US government).  Uses dot-free acronyms throughout, except for latinisms (e.g., p.m., i.e.). Specifically illustrates
  • Waddingham, Anne, ed. (2014). "10.2.4. All-capital abbreviations". New Hart's Rules (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 174. Acronyms and initialisms of more than one capital letter take no full points in British and technical usage and are closed up: TUC, MA, EU .... In some US styles certain initialisms may have full points (US/U.S.).  There isn't an adjective/noun usage distinction maintained in New Hart's.
  • Ritter, R. M., ed. (2005). "10.2.4. All-capital abbreviations". New Hart's Rules (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 170–171. Acronyms and initialisms of more than one capital letter take no full points in British and technical usage and are closed up: TUC, MA, EU .... US English uses points in such contexts: U.S., L.A.P.D., R.E.M.  This was wrong even when it was published; the two leading US style guides (CMoS for academic writing, and Associated Press Stylebook for journalism) were already condemning this, and dominant usage of "LAPD" is provable in seconds [5] by an N-gram constrained to US English and the decade leading up to publication of Ritter's book. Ritter's comment appears to be material left over from the 1980s Hart's Rules, when it might have been closer to accurate. "REM" in the sleep sense has been absolutely dominant without periods for decades [6], and in the case of the band name, it's a proper name (also from the '80s) styled however the band likes (the band consistently used the dots, but the press did not [7]).
  • Garner, Bryan A. (2016). "U.S.; U.S.A". Garner's Modern English Usage (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. As shortened forms for United States, these terms retain their periods, despite the modern trend to drop the periods in most initialisms. ... U.S. is best reserved for use as an adjective <U.S. foreign policy> although its use as a noun in headlines is common. In abbreviations incorporating U.S., the periods are typically dropped <USPS>, <USAF>, <USNA>.  Garner seems (at first; see next entry) the primary hold-out in the style-guide world for "U.S.", and does not even acknowledge the usage shift, or that non-US usage might differ. This is weird because the current edition is taking pains to be more descriptive (even extensively using N-gram data) with hundreds of entries updated with usage-shift info; this entry was not updated. Whether this represents Garner not getting around to it or studiously avoiding it is anyone's guess. Despite being published by Oxford, this is a thoroughly American work, and Garner is not a linguist but a lawyer, steeped in legal writing (he's the editor or author of various works on legal writing); it's a register that in the US always uses U.S. except in longer acronyms like USAF. See next entry, however.
  • Garner, Bryan A. (2016). The Chicago Guide to Grammar, Usage, and Punctuation. Chicago University Press. p. 388. 537. Use a period to indicate an abbreviated name or title. (The salutary trend, though, is to omit periods with acronyms and initialisms—hence BBC ...)  I looked at every page the index said had anything to do with abbreviations, acronyms, initialisms, the period, proper names, and proper nouns. There's nothing about "U.S.", nor did I see it used in the prose while skimming, and he uses "UNESCO"-style throughout. This may be evidence that the entry in GMEU, above, simply didn't get updated since the last edition, or it may reflect editorial changes made by someone at the respective publishers; no way to really know.
  • Williams, Malcolm (1997). Bucens, Vitalijs, ed. The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing (Revised and Expanded ed.). Public Works and Government Services Canada Translation Bureau / Dundurn Press. pp. 20, 25, 30, 55. 103: Periods. In recent years there has been a trend toward omission of periods in abbreviations. This is particularly true of scientific and technical writing, but the practice has been spreading in general writing as well. a) Do not use periods with the following: [Emphasis in original.] ... abbreviations or acronyms consisting exclusively of upper-case letters or ending in an upper-case letter (except those for personal names, legal references and most place names), e.g.: NAFTA, PhD, YWCA, UN, GST, MiG, CTV. (b) Use periods with geographical abbreviations, e.g. B.C., P.E.I., but not for the two-character symbols recommended by Canada Post . This appears to be self-contradictory, since the CP two-letter symbol for British Columbia is in fact BC. This seems to imply using U.K., U.S., etc., but US is used on p. 30, then U.S.A. on p. 55. So, I give up on what they really want. Regardless, it doesn't actually appear to reflect typical, current Canadian style (it is 20 years old); I lived there in 2005–2006, and did not regularly encounter "U.K." and "U.S.A."
  • "Chapter 4. Abbreviations". Editing Canadian English (2nd ed.). Editors' Association of Canada. 2000. pp. 51–52. Geographical designations: ... 4.19. Abbreviations for names of countries can be used in special circumstances (tables, charts, lists). In text copy, names are usually spelled out.  ECE provides no rule against using dots, and illustrates US/U.S. and UK/U.K., even USSR/U.S.S.R.. However, in the preceding sections on acronyms (§4.8) and initialisms (§4.9) it uniformly illustrates all of them without dots, a clear preference. It has no noun/adjective rule.
  • Hacker, Diana (2006). "38a. The period". The Bedford Handbook (7th ed.). Bedford / St. Martin's. p. 423. In abbreviations: ... A period is not used with US Postal Service abbreviates for states .... Current usage is to omit the period in abbreviations of organization names, academic degrees, and designations for eras.  So, doesn't state a country rule, but illustrates use of US.
  • AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors (10th ed.). American Medical Association / Oxford University Press. 2007. pp. 334, 451. 'When not to use a period: ... [D]o not use periods with honorifics (courtesy titles), scientific terms, and abbreviations .... JAMA, NIH ... 14.5: Cities, States, Counties, Territories, Possessions; Provinces; Countries. At first mention the name of a state ... or country should be spelled out when it follows the name of a city. [Elided long note that JAMA doesn't do it with "United States" after US places only because its readership is largely American.] ... Names of cities ... and countries should be spelled out in full when they stand alone. ... Abbreviations such as US and UK may be used as modifiers (ie, only when they directly precede the word they modify) but should be expanded in all other contexts. The authors surveyed representative samples of urban populations in the United States and United Kingdom according to US and UK census data.  Uses "US" throughout. [Aside: This passage is, incidentally, proof of use of ie for i.e. in a US style guide; along with frequent use of i.e. in British publications that aren't newspapers, that kills the bogus ENGVAR argument for ie that we were seeing here about a month ago.]
  • "4. Abbreviations". MHRA Style Guide (Third [corrected] ed.). Modern Humanities Research Association. 2015 [2013]. p. 31. 4.4: Use of full stop ... Full stops are omitted in capitalized abbreviations or acronyms for: ... (b) Countries, institutions, societies, and organizations (none of them italicized): UK, USA, BL, BM, UNAM ....  [Aside: This publication is proof of use of Oxford spelling ("the Oxfrod -ize") in British publications besides those of Oxford University Press. It also calls for Latinisms to retain dots when abbreviated: i.e., e.g., and so on]
  • Style Guide for Business and Technical Communication (5th ed.). Franklin Covey. 2012.  Self-inconsistent and confusing. The chapter on abbreviations gives all acronyms and initialisms in RAM and GNP style, but in an abbreviation list wants to not only use U.S. but to use U.S.A. to mean United States of America versus USA to mean United States Army; that's a "diff-caps" approach that is far too assumptive of the reader being in lock-step with the writer's intent for us to use it here.
  • American style guides dating to the 1990s and earlier are more apt to use (and sometimes have a rule in favor of) U.S., e.g. the ACS Style Guide from that era.
  • In academic American style guides this appears to be rare now; the only semi-recent one I can find so far in favor of U.S. is Publication Manual of the APA (5th ed.). American Psychological Association. 2001. . It otherwise uses UMI-style acronyms/initialisms throughout (it gives U.S. as a special exception). It also has the adjective rule for it. No idea what the more recent edition says; the 6th dates to 2009, and I have one around somewhere.
  • US legal style guides use U.S. consistently, because this is the style required by most of the courts that have issued style requirements for legal filings, and is also the preference of the US Government Printing Office's manual, which means that regulatory agencies (which whom lawyers often have to communicate) also use it.
  • I found one 2005 work, The Cooper Hill Stylebook, 2nd ed., still advocating dots in all acronyms and initialisms.
  • Strauss, J.; et al. (2014). The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation (11th ed.). , doesn't appear to address the matter, though it seems to give acronyms and initialisms throughout in no-dots, all-caps, no-spaces style.
  • The AMA Handbook of Business Writing'. American Marketing Association. 2010. , appears to be agnostic on dots with initialisms and acronyms, and doesn't address country names in particular.
  • American journalistic style is all over the place, and contradictory. (British/Commonwealth is not; it's all "US" or "USA".) Many news publishers (especially those who employ all-caps headlines) use U.S. in headlines but not in running text; others use U.S. all the time; others don't use it at all, including most non-North American news publishers.
    • "U.S.". Associated Press Stylebook (2015 ed.).  (arranged alphabetically by entry, which is more specific than page numbering; 2015 is the most recent edition I have) strangely recommends to use U.S. in body copy but US in headlines (probably because it recommends against all-caps headlines but for maximal headline compression).
    • The Wall Street Journal Essential Guide to Business Style and Usage. 2002. , says to always use U.S. and never give United States, except "in quotes or for special effect". That's obviously not an encyclopedic writing style.
    • The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (5th ed.). 2015.  (arranged alphabetically by entry, which is more specific than page numbering), which says "U.S. for United States, but only in headlines, summaries, tables and charts, and when unavoidable in picture captions." Seems like AP Stylebook, right? But then it insists on URL but U.S.A.I.D., U.S.S.R., V.A.; then VC and VCR; but a surprise dodge to Unicef and Unesco, yet U.N.; and finally has a total meltdown: "U.N.AIDS (no spaces) for the United Nations program on H.I.V. and AIDS." Wow. There's just no rhyme or reason to this at all. Pretty much no one else in the world would contemplate writing "U.N.AIDS", much less "H.I.V. and AIDS", or "U.N." then "Unesco".
    • "Reuters Handbook of Journalism". Reuters. 2017. abbreviations. Retrieved 8 October 2017. Generally, omit full stops or periods in acronyms unless the result would spell an unrelated word. Most abbreviations of more than two letters do not take periods. But use periods in most two-letter abbreviations: U.S., U.N. (Exceptions include: EU, UK).  That's an idiosyncratic house style.
    • "BBC News Style Guide". 2017. Grammar, spelling and punctuation section. Retrieved 8 October 2017. . Uses "US President James Tucker" [a hypothetical example, obviously]; advises "UN, Nato, IRA, BBC"; this is consistent with typical British press usage ("US" not "U.S.", but treat pronounceable "word acronyms" in Aids and Unesco style), which can be verified with online style guides from The Guardian, The Economist, London Times, etc.; I'm not going to include them all individually.
  • News search: Just doing a Google News search clearly demonstrates a preference for "US" even in American publications, though (as noted above) particulars vary all over the place, with "U.S." sometimes used in main text but not headlines, or vice versa, or not at all, or in both.
  • Google Ngrams can't be used for this to check out book usage, unfortunately, as they processed "U.S." and "US" as synonymous and merged them.
  • I recall from previous digging that some business-English guides other than that of the Am. Mktg. Assn. also favor "U.S." Marketing ones, which are otherwise similar on many points, tend not to, because they deal with a lot of fancy logo typography, and know that dots in abbreviations in signage and ads impair quick reading when they're superfluous.
  • Sabin, William A. (2005). "When to Use Abbreviations". Gregg Reference Manual (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill. p. 146.  Has no explicit rules that are relevant here. Illustrates and consistently uses no-dots upper case for most acronyms and initialisms: IBM, ZIP, AIDS, CT or CAT scan, URL, CST and EDT, NAACP, SEC. Makes conventionalized exceptions for a few things: Ph.D., laser, a.m./p.m., A.D./B.C.; wants dots after Co., Inc., Ltd. However, does use "U.S." in several examples (at least some of them quoted material).
  • Faigley, Lester (2012). "50b. Acronyms". The Penguin Handbook (4th ed.). Boston: Longman / Pearson. pp. 680–682. Punctuation of abbreviations and acronyms: The trend now is away from using periods with many abbreviations. In formal writing you can still use periods, with certain exceptions. Do not use periods with: 1. Acronyms and initial-letter abbreviations: AFL-CIO, AMA, HMO, NAFTA, NFL, OPEC. 2. Two-letter mailing abbreviations: AZ (Arizona) .... 3. Compass points: NE (northeast) .... 4.) Technical abbreviations: kph (kilometers per hour), SS (sum of squares), SD (standard deviation).  Entire section illustrates all acronyms and initialisms in AIDS, NASA, etc. style (except for assimilated-as-words acronyms like laser, and Latinisms like i.e.). Doesn't make an exception for US, or address it directly.
  • Faigley, Lester (2015). "47b. Acronyms". The Brief Penguin Handbook (5th ed.). Boston: Longman / Pearson. pp. 519–521.  Exact same text on this material as in the larger previous edition.

This is just a start, though it took several hours and I'd rather not do more unless really necessary.

Conclusion so far:
"US" is dominant in English generally. "U.S." is still present aplenty in North American writing, but its usage is wildly inconsistent in American news publishing (even opposite from publication to publication as to whether it's used in headlines vs. body copy), now eschewed in academic publishing (what MoS is almost entirely based on), though found consistently in US legal writing. There's no recent style guide evidence that the dot-bearing spelling is preferred in Canada (the stuff that favors it is also from the '90s); the 2000 Canadian source doesn't favor "U.S." The rule to abbreviate adjectival but not noun use is common but not universal, and may be eroding (CMoS thinks so); however, various guides that do not have this rule instead do not want country names abbreviated at all except in tables, citations, etc. Some just do not really care, though. [Side observation: All these sources in favor of acronyms and initialisms in the form UN and FBI are also in favor of no dots in PhD and other degrees and titles. A semi-recent RfC on that closed without consensus as I recall, because no one did the style-guide research. If it comes up again, the sources in the above list can be used to ensure a closure with consensus for dropping the extraneous dots.]
 — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  01:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC); updated 08:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I've changed the hatting note to reflect that this is no simple list of sources and quotes, but also includes SMcCandlish's analysis and viewpoints. -- Netoholic @ 05:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure. I don't see what the point is, when if you actually read the material this is obvious; but whatever you like.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thread in response to Netoholic's objection relocated here to keep the comment section un-mired.

  • I understand it as a special case--a proposal that regardless of any general rule about initialism, that in US contexts we should use U.S. (Personal preferences vary--10 years ago I would have written U.S. as a matter of course, but now my own writing tends to have UK style for this. I think that in fact may not just be personal, but reflect a general trend in the United States to use the simplified UK version of initialisms. I think it's rational to discuss special cases for the most widely used instances. I'm not expressing an opinion of the actual merits; just that I do notthink the proposal disruptive or biased or even inappropriate. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    This is not, though, an issue just of handling of US/U.S., no matter how many times SMcCandlish tries to frame it as such. Yes, there is probably an everyday use trend toward dropping dots, but we're concerned about formal writing style - not what shortcuts people use in the age of smart phones and instant messaging. No one (I think) is advocating that we switch to using dots - only that dotted acronyms for geographic locations be considered acceptable use and not dismissed out-of-hand because others use a different style within their WP:ENGVAR. -- Netoholic @ 05:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    Anyone can open an RfC about anything they want, and the one I've presented is factual and balanced. Asking someone for evidence isn't "badgering", it's standard operating procedure. Your issues were not even clearly articulated, but mostly just circular argument and days of throwing shade at an October 6–17, 2017, detailed consensus discussion simply because it didn't give you the answer you like. My concerns are clearer: either the 2017 consensus holds, or there's something wrong with it, so let's settle it. This is perennial; editors been arguing about it the entire time MoS has existed. The 2017 discussion happened and concluded as it did because there is now sufficient RS evidence to be certain. We cannot keep re-litigating this until the end of time. I included an "other" option for you and anyone else with an alternative idea (people tend to object to binary choices). It's perfectly normal to remind people to stay on topic and avoid the arguments to avoid if they are commonly presented at a particular type of RfC and tend to trainwreck them.

    Moving on: there is no ongoing dispute about "UK" vs. "U.K.", etc. This has been covered by MOS:ABBR for over a decade without strife or contention. There's a very stable site-wide consensus to present acronyms/initialisms in "UK, HIV/AIDS, USAF, and UNICEF" format, not "U.K., H.I.V./A.I.D.S., U.S.A.F. [even the USAF doesn't!], and U.N.I.C.E.F." format (nor in daft journalese like "Aids and Unicef"). There is no open question about this, only about "U.S.", because some Americans doggedly insist on this mid-20th-centuryism despite proof that it's no longer dominant usage even in American publishing. And just because the "P.E.I." style exists at all doesn't mean it should be used here instead of "PEI". It is not an ENGVAR matter, since there is no nationwide consistent norm to use that style anywhere in the anglosphere any longer. — SMcCandlishan American ¢ 😼  06:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

    "there is no nationwide consistent norm" - If this is the case, then we of course must allow either method to be used. Only if undotted WAS a national norm could we even begin to discuss limiting our MOS in accordance. For articles that are written in American or Canadian English varieties, both methods are common and acceptable. That is enough to say that we should not (and in practicality, can not) enforce one over the other. And please stop attacking people who use this method by saying they "doggedly insist" - you're being exclusionary of writing styles which are common in English varities other than your own. This is not in the spirit of WP:ENGVAR. It is perhaps a mistake to frame ENGVAR as "national varieties" when regional differences exist within nations... but if you're going to focus on "national norms", then we must give high weight to the style guides produce by national bodies such as The Canadian Style (in use by the Canadian government) and the works of the United States government such as the GPO Style Manual (and guides by National Archives,, Office of Energy, EPA, NASA, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Congress, Supreme Court). Don't guides used by national governments adhere to (or define) national norms? -- Netoholic @ 07:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    MoS says nothing like that whatsoever. ENGVAR applies when there is a consistent national norm, e.g. colour/color, tyre/tire. Otherwise, a general MoS provision doesn't have an ENGVAR exception. MOS:ABBR is a general provision, to which you're seeking "special exceptions" and now you're insisting on it with the basis that they're not consistenly used in sources. This just doesn't track, sorry.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    Don't guides used by national governments adhere to (or define) national norms? -- Netoholic @ 09:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    No. I originally responded to this with a run-down of what style guides have any real impact on broad usage and on Wikipedia. I've since refactored that to Wikipedia:Identifying and using style guides. Government style guides determine bureacratese/governmentese/militarese (regulatory language); they also tend to affect legal style a little (a field with its own manuals), and business writing to an extent (which also draws heavily on journalism/marketing style, of course). And that's about it. I've never in my life heard of a English class recommending the GPO Style Manual, for example. It's a quirky style, full of excessive capitalization and a hatred of hyphens, commas, and much other punctuation.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC); revised: 22:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The "neutral" proposal does include 'Generally speaking, U.S./U.K. is appropriate for American or Canadian English national variations', which I may suggest is advocating that 'U.K.' is acceptable. I do not see 'U.S.' as being the same as 'U.N.I.C.E.F.'--one is an acronym; the other an initialism. My personal preference is for the so-called "journalese" 'Unicef', but I recognize that there is little chance of that viewpoint being adopted. Having just come back from a six-month break, I had rather hoped that the argument would have moved away from combining these two issues. There is compelling evidence for 'US' rather than 'U.S.' If editors choose not to take notice of it, we must offer them a clear choice, rather than trying to prompt them into selecting one style over the other. Sb2001 00:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not certain what you mean. If they're offered a choice, then they'll have to select one style over the other. I think you're indicating that MoS should recommend something specific rather than present a choice for such selection.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Not at all: I am stating that it is unreasonable to offer a choice and present one side as being more "logical" than the other. Ie, neutral wording should be used in order that it does not appear that decision making is being swayed. Of course they have to make the choice; that does not mean that we have the right to influence it when no decisive conclusion has been drawn on the "US v U.S." issue. Sb2001 15:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Where's that coming from, though? No one's made a logic argument. There's a practicality one, and a how-well-does-it-reflect-reality one, but those aren't arguments about the intrinsic logic of either style. Punctuation is pretty arbitrary, and it shifts over time. That is, after all, why this debate even exists; the usage has shifted over about the last 30 years.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps 'logical' was the wrong word ... I'm not talking about which is the "better" one--if it were up to me, I would discourage people from using 'U.S.' The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with a completely unresolved debate, and one which I doubt will be resolved in the foreseeable future. If the MoS does not favour one style, it should not be presenting one-sided wording alongside it. That is the only point I am actually making here: if, amongst ourselves, we are unable to decide, we must actually leave it at the discretion of the individual. Sb2001 00:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
It does favor one style; see MOS:ABBR. We were making a single, lone exception for a while for "U.S." on the assumption that it was dominant in current American writing, but this turns out not to be true for some time now. It's not a "completely unresolved debate"; the sourcing is firmly in favor of "US", and so has MoS been for several years (both the current and new wording) until someone decided to try to rewrite it to suit their preferences, against the last rather comprehensive consensus discussion on the matter. We're not unable to decide amongst ourselves; the response so far has overwhelmingly been in favor of either the new or current wording, not the early 2010s wording.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Update: The Chicago Manual of Style 17th ed. (2017) wasn't included in the original source run (I didn't have it yet at the time). Despite Netoholic's strange claims to the contrary [8][9], it's almost word-for-word identical to the advice in the 16th ed., never even mentioning "U.S." except in the context of old-style envelope addresses using traditional state abbreviations ("Mass., U.S.", "Calif., U.S."). Here's the full relevant text:

The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed. (2017), University of Chicago Press, ISBN: 9780226287058

10.4 Periods with abbreviations.
3. Use no periods with abbreviations that include two or more capital letters, even if the abbreviation also includes lowercase latters: VP, CEO, MA, MD, PhD, U, US, NY, IL.
4. In publications using traditional state abbreviations, use periods to abbreviate United States and its states and territories: U.S., N.Y., Ill. Note, however, that Chicago recommends using the two-letter postal codes (and therefore US) wherever abbreviations are used....
10.28 Abbreviations for Canadian provinces and territories. ... may be abbreviated in bibliographies and the like—using the two-letter postal abbreviations, which have the advantage of applying to both the English and French forms. AB [=] Alberta; ... PE [=] Prince Edward Island ....
10.31 Abbreviating country names. ... Certain initialisms, on the other hand [i.e., in lieu of spelled-out names], may be appropriate in regular text, especially after the full form has been established.... UAE (United Arab Emirates), US, UK, GDR ....
10.32 "US" versus "United States." ... Note that, as a matter of editorial tradition, this manual has long advised spelling out United States as a noun, reserving US for the adjective form only (where it is preferred) and for tabular matter and the like. In a departure [i.e., from the 16th ed.], Chicago now permits the use of US as a noun, subject to editorial discretion and provided the meaning is clear from context. US dollars; US involvement in China; China's involvement in the United States or China's involvement in the US.

I skipped 10.27 (US states and territories) because it gives the same advice (two-letter postal codes, no dots) as 10.4 and 10.28. This is the same advice as in the 16th ed. (2010), aside from a few copyediting tweaks, and the new "In a departure" note, quoted above.

 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

"except in the context of old-style envelope addresses" - THAT is the very meat of this issue. We're NOT talking about data tables that might use either a list of state/province postal codes or that use ISO two- or three-letter country codes. The question at hand is handling of abbreviations in running article prose, for example when an article mentions "actions of the U.S. Navy", "information regarding P.E.I. officials", "historical sites in Vancouver, B.C.", or "U.S. Interstate 787 which terminates in Albany, N.Y.". This is exactly why this RFC needs to be called off and re-thought... the scope doesn't seem to be clear to its opener. You seem to be trying to argue that should be using postal codes in these scenarios. -- Netoholic @ 09:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
We already have a whole guideline page on this, MOS:ABBR, and it's clear on this: WP gives acronyms without the dots. It does not matter that a style with dots is attested; it isn't the style we use. You wanted an RfC about MOS:US, after briefly revert-warring [10][11] (after objections [12]) to change it without discussion – and accusing others of having done so when there was actually a large consensus discussion about it before you arrived. Now that there's an RfC, you've switched gears and want to change our entire treatment of acronyms? No. That is not this discussion. You can go start a new RfC on that, because it's a radical change to how WP has been written for about 17 years now. That belongs at WP:VPPRO, being a major proposal, not a minor P&G clarification.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Is it clear on this? "WP gives acronyms without the dots" seems inaccurate because I see several places where U.S. is used in the examples: "New York is in the U.S.", "U.S. Central Intelligence Agency" and "U.S. government", "Great Northern Railway (U.S.)". #Miscellanea and #Abbreviations widely used include several acronyms with dots (lower-case ones and compass directions). As an aside, why does this page give advice to "please create redirects that contain (US) and (U.S.)" but not the same advice for (UK) and (U.K.) or any other geographic abbreviation? I have never heard of anyone actually doing that in either case, but its just weird how one is singled out. -- Netoholic @ 10:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Because "U.S." is a permissible exception (depending on context) by long consensus. That doesn't mean "U.K." or "P.E.I." are. There is no wording contemplated in this RfC or in any of the editwarred-over versions at MOS:US that make "U.S." never permissible. But nor do any of them make U.S.S.R. or H.I.V./A.I.D.S. permissible; "U.S." is a one-shot variance and only because of constant bickering about that one initialism. What changed (in order) was that "U.S." stopped being mandatory in US English articles something like a decade ago (but was to be left alone if already used), then stopped being mandatory to never change in a US English article that already used it (i.e., it became desirable to normalize "US" to match "UK", etc., if present) a couple of years ago, finally to "US" being actively favored for MOS:COMMONALITY reasons. It strikes me that the RfC isn't even covering that version; I should probably add it for completeness since it was the most recent. I was so used to the version I listed as "current" that I didn't even notice.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
"permissible exception" ... "only because of constant bickering about that one initialism". Wow. To frame this in that way. Wow.-- Netoholic @ 12:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Clearly demonstrable; just read the past discussions [13]. You'll find a marked lack of drama and demands for, say, "U.K." or "N.A.T.O." or "M.S.-D.O.S." Only for "U.S.", and perpetually strident, grounded in a mixture of traditionalism-based emotion and claims that it's the dominant style in US writing, a notion that's been conclusively disproved.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Derp. I actually did have the 17th ed. in the original source dump, but mislabeled it 16th. Sorry for the duplicate cite, folks.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @MapReader: Yes, (accessed from a US IP address) consistently uses "US" both in headlines and in running prose. As for "USA", I'm not really sure why MoS is against that TLA. It predates my arrival on the scene in 2005, I think. Arguments I recall are: 1) it's redundant, since US is shorter; 2) it's not normal US English except in particular circumstances (i.e., it's largely an exonym imposed on the US, like referring to all of the Netherlands as Holland, or trying to tell to rename their München article to Munich. 3) it's ambiguous, because it's the standard acronym of the United States Army (though for most purposes the ambiguity runs the other direction; WP shouldn't refer to the US Army as "USA" except in a reference in its' own main article's lead as a MOS:BOLDSYN). There were probably others.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    @AfroThundr3007730: CNN's not even long-term consistent on "use U.S. in headlines", and appears to have abandoned it cmopletely without revising old articles. "U.S." appears to have been their traditional style several years ago. All the new material appears to use "US" throughout, headlines and all. Every recent (like this week) article with the abbreviation in a headline uses "US" so far as I can see: [14], [15], [16], [17], etc. I'm reaching these via an American IP address, and have "Set edition preference: US" (at page bottom). However, uses "U.S." in its menu system [18]. This seems to be a conflict between their editorial department and the IT/e-content people running the website (who may really be some company of contractors).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • So what is clear is that is not clear cut...... so best to leave this up to editor discretion at each article.--Moxy (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Moxy: I don't follow your reasoning. We know for a fact that some people do acronyms in "ABC" form, and others use "A.B.C." form. MoS settled on ABC form, to match the majority of style guides and other real-world usage. A single exception was carved out, "U.S.", on the basis that it was a dominant, special, usage in the United States. Source research 16 or so years later disproves the rationale for the exception; it's no longer dominant, and US style guides are turning directly against it. So, why – for that acronym alone – would losing "special" status amount to "do what you like, article by article" rather than "do what MOS:ABBR says" like all other initialisms? Especially after multiple consensus discussions conclude in favor of "US"?  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    Not sure how realistic it is to suggest that 'USA' is an imposed exonym, given its regular chanting by US sports fans at pretty much any international sporting event? MapReader (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    Sure. It's not my argument, just one I've encountered in various forms. The reasoning basically seems to be along these lines: "Most Americans and American publishers don't use that; it's an old-fashioned thing that we retain in a few stock phrases and some special circumstances, but it's not general usage. Non-Americans using it is like Americans insisting that Thailand still be called Siam." I'm not sure I buy it either, but the viewpoint exists. PS: The sports codes are set by the sport governing bodies like IOC and FIFA. They're also abbreviated noun phrases (USA for the entire country name with "of America"). This might be an argument to use "USA" in such a grammatical circumstance: "China's relations with the USA" versus "US interference in China's markets". But style guides mostly suggest using a non-acronym: "China's relations with the United States", and a US/USA rule would be fiddly and widely ignored.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Blueboar and Tryptofish: US-politics-related shenanigans for this last round of squabbling may be behind it, ultimately, in that this seems to have been sparked by an AWB spree to force "US" widely (I haven't tried to track down the rationale, if any, provided for that). But the RfC demander's concerns are way broader, and seem to actually be grounded in a Canadian demand to use "P.E.I." for Prince Edward Island (though that's not the .ca postal code for it, and we don't normally abbreviate such things except in tables anyway).

    History-wise (and without getting into dramaboard-style diffs), what I see is a bold change (mine) led to a long consensus discussion last year. The resulting version (refined from bold one) was stable after that. No one seemed to care. An editor, irked by a mass change to "enforce" that version (which should have been taken to ANI as a WP:MEATBOT matter) showed up and boldly started rewriting it radically without discussion; someone reverted that; rewriter then tit-for-tat reverted to an older version closer to their preferences. Only one editor appears to have edit-warred and short of 3RR, just 2, to get rid of the newest of these three drafts, after someone already objected to their removal the first time. Only then did discussion ensue, but with the revising bold editor complaining about how bold the previous version was (even though it was really the product of a consensus discussion), and wanting an RfC. But then that discussion turned circular with extraneous stuff that's basically a challenge to the existence of MOS:ABBR. I opened the RfC on the narrower question, since we generally don't nuke entire guideline pages.

    The one who wanted the RfC is upset that their particular (basically off-topic) issues aren't addressed by the RfC but I don't think they can be. The way to try to get rid of WP having a preference for "UNESCO on HIV/AIDS in the UK" style, to permit "U.N.E.S.C.O. on H.I.V./A.I.D.S. in the U.K.", is to have a separate RfC about a major change to MOS:ABBR. And such an RfC would fly about as far as a lead dirigible.
     — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

    • Again, my take on all of this is that arguing and edit warring about dots is disruptive... and I think we agree on that. However, I think we disagree on the solution. Your solution seems to be: let’s iron this out and make a rule. My take is that trying to make a rule is what has CAUSED most of the disruption. My feeling is that if some editors want to write “U.S.” or “P.E.I.” (or even U.N.E.S.C.O.) ... let them. As long as they are consistent WITHIN any given article, most readers won’t even blink. Trying to formulate a site wide rule on this has ended created MORE disruption than being flexible would cause. So, my solution is: Don’t have a firm rule... say that both forms are allowed. Intentionally devolve the choice to the article level. And if editors edit war ... call them to the carpet for EDIT WARRING, not for violating the style rules. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
      I am pretty sure a lot of editors would blink if some started spelling out acronyms like UNESCO and UNICEF with lots of dots! MapReader (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
      Or even U.K., U.A.E., and U.S.S.R., for those who like to draw a distinction between word acronyms and initialisms.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    • The U.N.E.S.C.O. and H.I.V. thing is a strawman/red herring used to throw silliness into the mix, to discredit the opposition. No one is suggesting going to that here. The area of concern is not about organizations or other initialisms but with regards to geographical names only, which are dotted often because you are mixing multi-word name acronyms with single-word name shortenings like listing Canadian provinces P.E.I., Sask., Man., B.C., and such. -- Netoholic @ 16:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
      That doesn't make any sense. "Prince Edward Island" and "British Columbia" are multi-word, exactly like the expansions of UNESCO and HIV. If you don't like the UNESCO example because it's a "word acronym" pronounced as a word instead of a series of letter, try HIV, as well as FBI, CIA, GDR, USSR, and a million others. It simply is not contemporary style to write these with dots in them. "U.S." has lingered longer in that form, but it's not the dominant style even the US today; we have no reason to make a "magically special" exception for it. There is no away around this. I don't need to "discredit" you; your traditionalism-based argument simply doesn't stand up. The fact that you can find a couple of style guides that still permit this use is irrelevant; they don't recommend it, and even if they did, they'd still be a minority. "U.S." in North American English simply doesn't rise to the level of national style as, say, colour versus color in British English. No amount of wishing that it were an ENGVAR matter will make it one. If WP had been around in 1983, you would have had an actual case to make. Times change and languages change with them.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Hawkeye7: What media reports touting WP's supposed anti-US bias? How can that possibly square with WP being massively dominated by US editors, and the principal complaint about our coverage being that it's heavily US-centric (and Western-centric, and male-centric, and liberal/progressive-centric)? And how could using a consistent "US and UK" spelling be "anti-US bias" when major American publishers and style guides also use "US"?  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    Last time round it was over our acceptance of non-US spellings. WP is not dominated by US editors; WMF is. During the Paralympic Games we gathered a lot of statistics on who was editing and where, and while six of the top ten articles by edits were the country-at-the-Paralympics articles, the US did not figure, demonstrating that US editors were actually a minority. I thought I was agreeing with you on this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Retain guideline ... but also provide correct information. (1) "US has become the dominant abbreviation for United States." "Dominant"? This is an opinion without substantiation. (2) What's attributed to The Chicago Manual of Style should be revised. The CMS does not deprecate ""U.S." and recommends "US"." What CMS actually says is:

Chicago style is USA (without periods), but we also accept both US and U.S. Other authoritative style manuals and dictionaries vary in their recommendations.

If a style manual is going to be referenced in WP:MOS, it should be referenced correctly. Neutral wording is best when the subject is not conclusive. Pyxis Solitary 09:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
No page or section cited. Where are you getting this from? The wording you're giving simply doesn't appear. I've quoted in complete relevant text with section numbers (which are consistent between print and electronic editions) of all the applicable material from CMoS 17, and will do so again below. You appear to actually be quoting staff blog material from, specifically copy-pasting from this page; the cross-references it provides (§§ 10.4 and 10.33) do not say what that post says they do, and I've quoted what they actually say verbatim, below. I.e., the website material is contradicting the actual book; the post appears to have been unrevised from the 15th edition (since the 16th says what the 17th does, except, as noted below, in one spot). Their forum even indicates complaints that the book doesn't address "USA/U.S.A." (see second entry here).

Here's what the book actually says:

10.4 Periods with abbreviations.
3. Use no periods with abbreviations that include two or more capital letters, even if the abbreviation also includes lowercase latters: VP, CEO, MA, MD, PhD, U, US, NY, IL.
4. In publications using traditional state abbreviations, use periods to abbreviate United States and its states and territories: U.S., N.Y., Ill. Note, however, that Chicago recommends using the two-letter postal codes (and therefore US) wherever abbreviations are used....
10.27 Abbreviations for US states and territories. In running text, the names of states, territories, and possessions of the United States should always be spelled out when standing alone and preferably (except for DC) when following the name of a city.... In bibliographies, tabular matter, lists, and mailing addresses, they are usually abbreviated. In all such contexts, Chicago prefers the two-letter postal codes to the convention abbreviations. Note that if traditional bbreviations must be used, some terms may not be subject to abbreviation. [... A table is follows illustrating the difference, with examples like NE versus Neb. or Nebr., and showing not to abbreviate short ones like Ohio in the latter style, only in the postal code style, OH.]...
10.28 Abbreviations for Canadian provinces and territories. ... may be abbreviated in bibliographies and the like—using the two-letter postal abbreviations, which have the advantage of applying to both the English and French forms. AB [=] Alberta; ... PE [=] Prince Edward Island ....
10.31 Abbreviating country names. ... Certain initialisms, on the other hand [i.e., in lieu of spelled-out names], may be appropriate in regular text, especially after the full form has been established.... UAE (United Arab Emirates), US, UK, GDR ....
10.32 "US" versus "United States." ... Note that, as a matter of editorial tradition, this manual has long advised spelling out United States as a noun, reserving US for the adjective form only (where it is preferred) and for tabular matter and the like. In a departure [i.e., from the 16th ed.], Chicago now permits the use of US as a noun, subject to editorial discretion and provided the meaning is clear from context. US dollars; US involvement in China; China's involvement in the United States or China's involvement in the US.
10.33 Mailing addresses—postal versus standard abbreviations. Standard abbreviations preferred by the US Postal Service (first column) are in all caps and do not use periods; these forms are most appropriate for mailing addresses. In tabular matter and the like, Chago prefers the form of abbreviations presented in the second column. ... In running text, spell out rather than abbreviate. [... Table provides examples, e.g. AVE versus Ave., BLDG vs. Bldg.; none of these pertain to placename abbreviations like US or PEI.]

— The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed. (2017), University of Chicago Press, ISBN: 9780226287058
This is the same advice as in the 16th ed. (2010), aside from a few copyediting tweaks, and the new "In a departure" note, quoted above.

PS: The dominance of "US" isn't "unsubstantiated"; see #RS citations above. If you want to prove a counter-claim, Pyxis Solitary, you have a tremendous amount of sourcing to do, with works somehow more authoritative than those already cited; I don't see how that could even be possible.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


  1. Why did you edit my comment? Why did you alter my comment by removing the quote frame? Where in WP:TALK does it say that a quote box is discouraged or is not appropriate?
  2. What do you mean "Where are you getting this from?" Click on the CMS FAQ link I included when I quoted CMS and you'll see it.
  3. You quote the CMS publication as if everyone has a copy of the book. I'm not going to buy one just to double-check that what you're quoting is precisely what appears in it. Provide a link to those sections. It's not available online? Then I take what you've posted with a grain of salt.
  4. "the post appears to have been unrevised from the 15th edition (since the 16th says what the 17th does, except, as noted below, in one spot)". Scroll down to the bottom of the webpage I cited and you will see: "The Chicago Manual of Style 17th edition text © 2017 by The University of Chicago. The Chicago Manual of Style 16th edition text © 2010 by The University of Chicago. The Chicago Manual of Style Online © 2006, 2007, 2010, 2017 by The University of Chicago." That's what CMS has published — that's what CMS says.
  5. You are trying to push your position down everyone's throat. Provide a reliable source that can be verified by everyone. When it comes to MOS, quoted content from a book that many if not most Jane and John Does don't have at their disposal is insufficient validation.
  6. Life is short, and since you took it upon yourself to lord over my original comment ... this is the last time I am going to respond to this topic. Shame on you. Pyxis Solitary 12:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Generally speaking, we trust editors to be honest about quotations. Complete? Well, maybe not always. But honest about the parts that they type. We do this partly because we're fond of WP:AGF, but also experience has shown that that experienced editors are reasonably smart about their self-interests, at least to the extent of not wanting to get caught in an outright lie. You might not personally happen to have a copy of CMOS at hand, but plenty of other editors do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
And can you imagine me of all people lying about the content of a style guide, when half the people I argue with have the style guide? LOL. I would have be possessed by Donald Trump to do that. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I think this all demonstrates that CMOS is not consistent on the issue, as the website FAQ doesn't match the printed book. This could mean that either is wrong, or that there has been a change since the publication of the book. I don't think it matters which is which - either its inconsistent or wrong - neither of which point to a reliable source on the matter. -- Netoholic @ 03:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Does it really matter what CMOS says? We are not bound by the CMOS. Sure, it is nice when our guidance is in sync with what other style guides say, but ultimately our guidance is based on our own internal consensus. That consensus currently seems to be to allow both “U.S.” and “US” (but whichever is used, be consistent within an article). This is supported by actual practice at the article level (whenever there are undiscussed attempts to change from one to the other, they are quickly reverted... and it goes both ways). Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    It is just one source among many, though a high-quality one on this particular micro-topic  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
To take these in numbered series:
  0. Why are you picking fights about talk page trivia, and pretending people who disagree with you are dishonest? No one cares about the former or will buy the latter.
  1. I didn't edit your comment, I editing the disruptively obnoxious framing around it. Your posts are not magically more important than everyone else's that they need to draw attention to themselves with huge visual gimmicks. The talk page guideline permits refactoring of this sort. Taking a "There's not a rule against what I want to do" approach is wikilawyering. It doesn't mean "I can do it no matter what and no one can stop me." Other editors are permitted to refactor within reason. You do not own a talk page you post to, not even your user talk page.
  2. It's called a rhetorical question, which is obvious, since I answered it myself in the sentence that followed.
  3. That's a serious failure to assume good faith. See also Verifiability policy: No one has to buy a source for you, and sources being available online for free is not required. You also seem to be unaware that discretionary sanctions apply to style/titles-related policy discussions, especially with regard to casting aspersions without evidence or otherwise excessively personalizing such disputes.
  4. You're sorely confused about what The Chicago Manual of Style is. It's a book, available in paper and (for a fee) online, with identical text. The webpage you cited is not the CMS or part of it, it's part of the staff-written Q&A blog materials about the CMS, at the CMS website. You also don't seem to understand that a copyright notice applied by a script to an entire website has nothing to do with the last time the content in a page on that website was substantively updated. "That's what CMS has published" is not a sensible statement. The CMS is a publication. The publisher is the University of Chicago Press (also the publisher of the website). It's like mistaking The Magical Mystery Tour for Apple Records, or confusing Game of Thrones with HBO. "That's what CMS says" is a demonstrably incorrect statement, though I ascribe this to the above-mentioned confusions, not to any intent to deceive. You actually do appear to believe what you're saying, despite all evidence presented to you that you've erred.
  5. Source already provided. If you don't want to buy the book, get it from interlibrary loan for free, or just look at a copy in your local bookstore. Or just ask anyone else here who has a copy to look for you. Providing sources and challenging false statements isn't pushing anything down anyone's throats, it's providing sources and challenging false statements. It's much of what we do all day every day here.
  6. Yes, life is short. See point 0, above.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I said I would not respond to this topic again. And I'm not.
    However, this thinly-veiled attempt by SMcCandlish to intimidate me in response to my 9 July 2018 comment in this discussion is a form of harassment. I've responded to this misbehavior on my talk page.
    I suggest that this discussion be closed until another editor that is not so obviously personally vested in the subject creates a new but similar topic. Pyxis Solitary 04:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what to make of a "this is the last time I am going to respond" statement followed by a response that says it's not a response and reminds us there will be no response then also points us to another response in user talk. That seems very unclear on the concept of not responding

    A {{Ds/alert}} template is not a threat or intimidation, or anything like WP:Harassment. This template (and this template only, without modification) is required by ArbCom to be delivered (not more frequently than once per year) to anyone whose editing seem to indicate they are unaware of the discretionary sanctions (DS) that apply to that particular topic area. It is awareness notice, not a threat or an accusation. I made it very clear when posting it that it had nothing to do with any action I would take myself. Per your request, I have closed this discussion, since it is off-topic anyway.

    If you don't like the template and its wording, see fortuitously ongoing discussion at Template talk:Ds about revising it. If you don't think these templates should be necessary but that DS should still apply, try raising this at WT:ARBCOM. I have tried several times to get rid of this bureaucracy, but ArbCom always refuses or ignores. If you don't think DS should apply to MoS at all, join the club. I tried to have them removed about two weeks ago and ArbCom unanimously refused. We're stuck with it, at least for now. If you have an issue with me personally, use User talk:SMcCandlish; it's what user talk pages are for, not what Village Pump is for. If you plan to respond with grandstanding of this sort every time someones leaves you a procedural notice in user talk, you're going to find that will not go over well.
     — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(1)You are in no position to deliver an ArbCom notice to me about my 9 July 2018 comment -- specially since you're so emotionally involved.
(2) "Per your request, I have closed this discussion. You know very well that the "discussion" is the topic, not my comment. Pyxis Solitary 06:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment: How about avoiding U.S: and UK altogether? We can easily write United States and United Kingdom without wasting ink. --NaBUru38 (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Doing this is what most style guides recommend, at least for noun usage ("Relations between Canada and the United States") but many like the abbreviation for adjectival cases ("US sanctions on Cuba"). Chicago Manual, weirdly (given its traditionalism) has now started "permitting" the abbreviation in noun use, as do the journalism style guides. Real-world usage isn't consistent. I think people will object that always having to use "United States" (and thus probably also "United Kingdom") will be onerous and pedantic. Even among those who don't mind it in running text, we'd still have the issue tables and other circumstances where the short form would often be desirable.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Should WP:TWL be allowed to acknowledge the services they have partnership with in our articles?[edit]

This is a follow up to User_talk:CitationCleanerBot#Via. According to Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs), they put citations like

by the reasoning "It wasn't used to advertise the service; it was used to acknowledge the access provided by Project Muse to certain Wikipedia users." This is apparently to comply with partnership requirements where they have gained personal access to pay-for-access databases (in this case Project MUSE) through The Wikipedia Library, where in return they need to mention in our articles that they had made use of Project MUSE.

Should the practice be allowed to continue? Or under which condition should |via= be used? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

TWL discussion[edit]

Disallow: This is something that is a textbook WP:SPAM/WP:PROMO situation. Citations exist to verify our material, not advertise pay-for-access academic services. While we have links that often point to paywalled ressources, such as DOIs in our article, those are vendor-neutral identifiers are there to help identify the citation. WP:SAYWHERE is clear about this:

The advice to "say where you read it" does not mean that you have to give credit to any search engines, websites, libraries, library catalogs, archives, subscription services, bibliographies, or other sources that led you to Smith's book. If you have read a book or article yourself, that's all you have to cite. You do not have to specify how you obtained and read it. [emphasis mine]

The following

  • Esmonde, Margaret P. (1981). "The Good Witch of the West". Children's Literature. 9 (1): 185–190. doi:10.1353/chl.0.0112. 

fully complies with WP:SAYWHERE, and links to Project MUSE resources in a way that does not unduly promote a commercial service. Further, using the URL to further link to the paywalled Project MUSE is fully redundant with the DOI, and discourages editors from finding non-paywalled versions of the paper.

Things like

are ridiculous.

This is a horrendous practice, and one that needs to end now. If Project MUSE wants attribution in some way, that can be done in edit summaries, or via the talk page. Not in the main bodies of our articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment to be clear, I have been formatting citations in that manner because I understand that that is what TWL requires. I see the concern about being promotional, but as we routinely link to sites that are inherently promotional (official websites, twitter accounts, paywall protected newspapers, newspapers that don't have paywalls because the use ad revenue which eventually comes from consumers, etc) I'm not overly worked up about this. All I would like is to continue to be able to use these resources to provide more reliable and detailed information, which is what this should be about. If the community compels TWL to remove this requirement, I'm not remotely bothered. Vanamonde (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • TWL Comment Just to clarify, using the |via= parameter is not a requirement of citing resources obtained through The Wikipedia Library, and the citations found on the old signup pages (e.g. Wikipedia:Project MUSE) are only a suggestion for a fully formatted citation. I can absolutely see how the text there makes it seem like more of a requirement, however, and I’ll rewrite that section to make it clearer, in addition to the note that is already present.
As far as I’m aware, the parameter was initially added to these citation examples simply because it was present in the citation templates and has uses in cases where the URL doesn’t point to the location the source was found. It’s also useful because it saves you mousing over or clicking a URL to know where the citation is from. Ultimately though, the discussion about whether the parameter is useful is unrelated to TWL.
We’re not concerned whether this parameter is kept in the suggested citation style or not, and are happy to change it based on the outcome of this discussion. Given that the parameter isn’t a requirement of using TWL, however, I’d suggest reframing the discussion around whether use of the ‘via’ parameter is desired in any context. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm very glad to hear this is not a requirement. However, Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Publishers specifically mentions, in the "Exposure and promotion", "Publisher credit using the |via= parameter of our citation templates". Maybe this is the source of confusion? Or possibly pages like Wikipedia:Credo/Citations and other similar pages? If this isn't a requirement, those pages should be updated to de-promotionalize those services. Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs), what led you to believe that using |via= to 'credit' Project MUSE was required/encouraged? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@Headbomb and Xover: The instructions in question are the ones found at Wikipedia:Project MUSE, which say, among other things, that editors should "provide original citation information in addition to linking to Project MUSE resources" and "Cite resources in line with the citation examples provided below or with the examples provided by Project MUSE" (the example in question uses the |via= parameter. The version of the instructions that existed when I received access was even more definitive about this. Vanamonde (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @Headbomb: If you're going to be opening a policy RFC, please at least try to frame it neutrally. The above is closer to a diatribe and I would really rather strongly implore you to retract it and try again once your apparent indignation has had time to recede a bit.
    Second, The TWL partnerships do not "require" much of anything. The TWL effort suggests that per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT you use |via= etc. in a specific way for sources from that particular archive or service when appropriate. So when you access a journal article through a third party service—rather than on paper in your local library or directly from the publisher—you specify that you're citing the copy provided there rather than an original. The TWL example citations have been formed based on SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and are intended to be used in accordance with SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, including their mostly being optional and when it is not appropriate to include such |via= parameters.
    By all means lets discuss the finer points of how we should apply SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT to the TWL resources, but please don't let your knee-jerk reaction based on limited (and obviously skewed) information turn that discussion into a pointless drama fest that will achieve nothing but tarnish the coordinators and other volunteers working very hard to improve the encyclopedia. Please. --Xover (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The RFC is framed neutrality. My !vote expresses my opinion. Nothing wrong with that. You're welcomed to make a support case if you have one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, see, the problem is you've set up a strawman (just about zero of the assertions and underlying assumptions in the current RFC framing are true) and now you're asking me to argue against it.
I have no objection what so ever to discussing how TWL should recommend that citations to sources that happened to be accessed through a TWL partner's donated access be done. Nor to discussing how SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies to cases like these (of which some, but not all, sources made available through donated partner services are examples, but in no way unique in that regard). Nor to discussing the purpose in general, or finer points of application of, the |via= parameter. I might even have some opinions on some of these issues (then again, probably not enough to argue about them). You want to do any of those things, have at it. Heck, if for some reason you need my help with any of those, I'd be happy to step up.
But we can't have any of those discussions, at least not productively, in an RFC framed in an inflamatory way (That is, "in a way that is likely to have the effect of inflaming", not "in a way intended to inflame") and based on incorrect information. So, again, please—please!—reconsider: either by reframing the current RFC, or by withdrawing and trying again when you're less outraged by what is incorrect information! --Xover (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Allow when it adds something. E.g., we routinely use |via=Google Books for books that Google is providing snippet views of and other "digitally digested" content, because we are not looking at the literal book itself and cannot, e.g., be 100% that the book's original text, pagination, etc. were preserved correctly by Google's OCR and other munging. We don't need to use it for old-book scans that Google hosts, because they are exact photographic facsimilies (often including the library cards :-). It's useful to say that you got a journal article via a particular journals database, because you are not literally reading the actual journal, but a PDF prepared from submitted content not a scan, or an HTML text-and-images relayout, or something like that (sometimes it's even a pre-print copy which may be pre-peer-review, too – same goes for arXiv), not a photographic facsimile.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah that's fine, I'm not arguing for a blanket ban on |via=. I'm only talking about cases where there's no URL given, when things are redundant with links that are already provided by identifiers, or that the reproduction hosted by Database X is a faithful reproduction. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Edit the template. The "via" parameter is plainly dangerous, because it advertises random third parties. I don't get the argument that it isn't as bad if you're talking about Google Books, either. But, we also have a duty to the readers to help them access the material. So we should change the template as follows:
  • All "via" links should display the same text -- "access notes". This avoids any appearance of spam, and can be a neat, regular format. The "access notes" would be a link, of course, and could be set off with a cute/recognizable box using inline CSS: access notes or some such. And the links, naturally, go to different places depending on the via=parameter.
  • All "via" links link to pages in Wikipedia space, e.g. WP:Access help/Project MUSE. The template can even be designed for reverse compatibility to process the links it receives to add the WP:Access help/ part so the existing via link texts go new places, but new links should name a WP: space page directly (and thus not be altered). The reason for this is that Wikipedia articles are "WP:NOT#HOWTO", whereas what access help should be is absolutely, completely, one hundred percent HOWTO. That's an unacceptable philosophical incompatibility. We want to tell readers any and all options to get access when via= gives a particular mechanism, but are interested there in nothing else about it.
  • Our WP pages should then each explain their particular "via" mechanisms for the readers, including whether they can become editors and apply for access, or pay for it, or try to get lucky with an inconsistent server (I'm thinking Google Books) using any legally acceptable trick like using a VPN or TOR. (Actually I don't know if this works ... obviously the composition of these pages will be the topic of some specialized expertise and debate)
Wnt (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
That forgets one thing: WP:TWL is an editor resource, not a reader resource. The way to help readers access things it to find free-to-read resources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@Headbomb: No, I didn't forget that. If we have a Wikipedia-space page on MUSE we can tell readers they don't easily get access via this route. But we can also point out that they can ask editors about it. And of course, any Wikipedia reader can become an editor -- it's never to be ruled out -- so TWL is at least nominally an access mechanism. I am actually not sure how TWL plays with WP:WRE -- are there TWL editors listed under the latter, or can you request copies of specific resources via that means? The distinction between "interlibrary loan" and "piracy" is utterly mythical and of paramount legal importance. Wnt (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • TWL Followup Just a note that I've reworded the old signup page template to make it clearer that there's no required citation style or parameter usage, and also reworded or removed explicit mentions of the via parameter elsewhere. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Allow - I liken it to a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license—it serves to benefit the project. Atsme📞📧 16:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that the "via" information is most useful when you consider it as a 'warning' about the URL, similar to a PDF icon after an external link. To that end, I think it would be better if the citation looked more like this: "The Good Witch of the West (via Project MUSE)" (etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ditto WhatamIdoing. It's just more context for the citation. I have a weak disinclination to support reformatting the link to say "access notes" since requiring a separate click defeats the point of having that handy context (they can just click the link itself and see where it takes them, after all). If it were a requirement that it be formatted a particular way, that would be one thing, but it sounds like it's not, so it's just using the template as it's intended. I'll add that I also don't have a problem with TWL encouraging people to use it. This seems along the lines of "remember to include the title of the publication when you cite it". If reminding people to use the procedures/templates they should/could be using anyway indirectly helps more people get access, that seems like a win. It's when it becomes mandatory that it's a little more uncomfortable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Disallow all paywalled links and |via= notices, except when they add something for the reader (e.g. Google Books preview) AND when that wouldn't be already linked through DOI/PMID etc. We're not an affiliate site. There's already an annoying amount of paywalled links (e.g. Highbeam) to newspaper articles that are readily available for free from the newspaper website or BTW I was less than impressed the Project MUSE's crappy primary-sourced, unreadable Wikipedia page. What do they offer that we should bend the rules for? I'd rather do this for arXiv, the awareness of which the readers at large could actually benefit from. DaßWölf 00:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Allow this is completely unnecessary, we shouldn't hide where a source came from, if its available freely then the ref should be altered to point to the free version, overall this is a bureaucratic instruction creep, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Disallow rather obviously. We wouldn't add "via=through library X in city Y", even though that may well be how the person who added the source acquired the information (never mind "through Amazon" if one bought the book there!). The article should not have information about "who" added something or "how" they acquired their copy of the information specifically. Stuff like this may at most belong on the article talk page, although even there it seems unnecessary. Fram (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    • There's also a big problem here that if we remove attribution to the archives they will remove free archive access through the Wikipedia library that many of us use and who cannot afford the expensive subscriptions. Also if a source is available from a library they can order it from out of the region/state whereas an archived link may be the only accessible point of entry so it seems contrary to attribution to hide that information from the public. Also if they are regular editors and see the archive they may be prompted to go to the Wikipedia library and request access, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm not concerned about archives deciding to quit supporting Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. I think that's an unlikely outcome. The bigger problem IMO is sending readers to this type of website without telling them where that link goes. In this case (unlike with a direct link to an academic journal), there's almost nothing in these big archives that couldn't be found through some other provider. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Daß Wölf makes a good point. --Nemo 12:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Should the "In wrestling" section be removed from professional wrestling articles?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
  • Summary:--There is a very strong policy-weighed consensus in ☑Y favor of the proposal.
  • Details:--
    • Firstly, I agree with a participant that a lot many arguments on the side of opposition seem to border on variations of WP:ILIKEIT, "lots of people find this useful", and "it was here for 10 years so it shouldn't be removed" and that has not changed throughout the course of discussion.
      • None conform to our currently-accepted-policies and accordingly, they have been assigned a very less weightage.
      • Furthermore, in light of the mentions in various off-wiki forums, SPAs have been dealt with in an equivalent manner, shall their arguments are not derived from our policies.
    • Many have argued that these section(s) have essentially turned into cruft-magnets, attracting truck-loads of content without any emphasis on our core tenet that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and goes contrary to our policies of assigning due weight et al. That any well-crafted criterion of inclusion (gauging the notability of a move, whether it is a signature move or not etc. ) is practically absent compounds the problems.
      • I do not see any good rebuttal as to the veracity of this point.Many regulars have conceded that most of the stuff contained in these sections, are indeed violative of the aforesaid policies.
    • Notwithstanding that, another salient argument has been raised on those moves, theme songs et al, which might be very less in number but notable and hence, suffer from the execution of these policies.
      • As some have noted, the proposal explicitly mentions in favor of its notable content being contextualized in prose when appropriate.I will also note that whilst the definition and ambit of notable looks to be much-disputed in the context (as an automatic corollary of scarcity of independent source(s) mentioning these stuff:-)), this quite-excellently cover(s) up the issue.A succinct summary of the sourcing-issue(s) may be read over the contents of this edit and I am not convinced that ground-situation is any better.....,
      • As to the debates surrounding 'prose vs a bullet' , (for the content that is salvageable), a head-count and a extremely well-written argument leads to the call.
    • A very good analysis, as described over this thread sheds further light into the amount of difficulties, as to sourcing and the current mess.
On a miscellaneous note......
If you are writing a wall of text and/or something with colorful mentions of oligarchists, massacres, speak the honest to God truth, if your attack me for speaking the truth! Learn some common sense, people! and what not, be pretty sure that a majority of closer(s) will not even bother to go through the remaining contents of your post.So, spare your and our time(s)...........
  • Signed by WBGconverse 14:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC) at 14:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The "In wrestling" section has been a standard part of professional wrestling biographies for over a decade. It covers mostly character information in a bulleted list format. On May 24, 2018, an editor raised an issue with the section's vague heading to WikiProject Professional wrestling (see WT:PW#In wrestling). The next day, renaming the heading to "Professional wrestling highlights" and adjusting "Championships and accomplishments" into a subsection beneath it was proposed. On June 3, it was considered to have reached consensus after the 5 participants agreed unanimously. In the weeks that followed, a few editors disapproved of the new heading, as well as "Championships and accomplishments" being turned into a subsection. On June 24, clarification of which heading to go forward with was requested, where an additional option to remove the section entirely was proposed. On June 28, the discussion was closed after 10 editors participated, with an "overwhelming consensus" to remove the section but rework any content deemed significant into prose, potentially into a "Professional wrestling persona" section (see WT:PW#Trying to gain clarity (closed)). The changes were immediately enacted into hundreds of articles, causing news of the changes to be spread onto online professional wrestling communities. Many new editors voiced frustration over the removal, with some reverting the changes.

Below is the style recommendations for this section, taken from WikiProject Professional wrestling prior to its removal:

"In wrestling" recommendations per WP:PW/SG

An overview of notable character information is compiled in a bulleted list format. This initial section should be limited to finishing moves, signature moves, managers (and/or wrestlers managed), nicknames, entrance themes, and wrestlers trained. Any taunts, gestures, or other descriptions are better suited for the article prose.

Example of highlights list
  • All items should be sorted alphabetically. An exception is with entrance themes, which can be sorted chronologically if date ranges are sourced.
  • For signature and finishing moves, there must be one reliable source explicitly mentioning that it is a signature move of the wrestler. One reliable source merely mentioning that the wrestler performed the move is not enough.
  • A specially named move should be italicized, with the regular name following in parentheses and wiki-linked.
  • {{Cite episode}} should not be used for citing moves as commentators often call moves wrong or do not give full technical names, leading to speculation.
  • Track names in entrance themes should not be wiki-linked to articles about the compilation albums on which they are sold, unless the article contains further information on the track itself (not just name, number, and wrestler who used it).

This proposal seeks to remove the "In wrestling" section, with the possibility of any of its content that is deemed significant to be contextualized in prose. Much of the information contained within this section would be lost. The content most likely to be reworked is certain Finishing moves, Nicknames and Wrestlers trained. As it stands, Managers are already expected to be covered in prose, primarily in the "Professional wrestling career" section. If necessary, reworked content can be placed within the existing "Professional wrestling persona" section (see WP:PW/SG#Professional wrestling persona).

Below are diffs from various articles, showing before the section's removal, after the removal, and some with content reworked to prose:

Proposal: Should we adopt a default approach of omitting the bulleted list "In wrestling" section, in favor of its notable content being contextualized in prose when appropriate? Prefall 14:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


  • Yes To reiterate my comments from the original discussion, this has long been the most problematic section in professional wrestling biographies, even more so than "career". It is a magnet for cruft, with a majority of edits coming from new or inexperienced users. It has devolved into a database of items ever associated with the wrestler, often poorly sourced at best or outright original research at worst. Even when "properly" maintained, the content itself is mostly trivial, adding very little to the understanding of the subject. Any significant material from this section can be framed more effectively in prose, alongside any additional character or performance information. Prefall 14:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Looking at the examples you included, the page is much more encyclopedic. List a number of moves which someone has done has no value. The way it was reworked to explain the basis behind it and put it into context is a much more encyclopedia appropriate way to discuss the identical information. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No Content should be condensed and trimmed to essential moves, a bare minimum of Finishing Moves. I believe theme music section should remain untouched, as there is no real alternative to it. Other sections like Nicknames and Managers aren't that essential. The "In Wrestling" section (I'm not attached to that name) can be bloated, but should not be outright removed. It should be improved. (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Fixing what was not broken. Restore each page to it's previous incarnation and figure out a new format that works for everyone, not just the neckbeards from WP:PW. Endlessdan (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Could we please try to be civil here Endlessdan? Would this discussion fall under "professional wrestling broadly construed"? If so we should probably mention that Pro Wrestling as a topc is under General Sanctions so no one is surprised.  MPJ-DK  20:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes The old format had several issues. Now, I think it's better and follows Wikipolicys. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No The 'In Wrestling' section should be at worst condensed. I would suggest removing 'Signature moves', 'Nicknames' and 'Managers'. The 'In wrestling' section is generally informative and missed on pages it has been removed from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No A wrestler's moveset is not "trivial information". Some wrestlers like Daniel Bryan and AJ Styles used to have an unnecessarily long "In wrestling" section, but that can be fixed by limiting the moves to finishing moves and notable signature moves, and removing "nicknames", "managers", "wrestlers managed" and "wrestlers trained" from the section. Removing it altogether rather than fixing it is lazy. Most of the time the wrestler's moves will not be mentioned in the articles, or be mentioned in awkward sentences like "Asuka uses a crossface chickenwing with bodyscissors as a finisher and calls it the "Asuka Lock"", that break the natural flow of the text, and essentially, is just an overcomplicated way of doing exactly the same thing that the bulleted list was doing. Very few wrestler's gimmicks are connected to their finishing and signature moves strongly enough for it to be worked in a prose, and in these particular cases, it can be worked in the prose while also keeping the "In wrestling" section. We should fix what was wrong with the section, not lazily remove it. BLXCKPXGX (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
So, where is the limit? What makes a signature move notable? Why Nicknames, managers should be deleted? Just because you say so? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
What makes a finishing move more notable than signature moves? Because they end a match? How is is that more significant? Just because you say so? (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
BLXCKPXGX Said we should limit the section to finishing moves and notable signature moves. My question, what is the diferent between a notable signature and a no-notable signature? That's one of the many problems the section has. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Using Triple H as an example, the Pedigree, the spinebuster and the high knee are notable moves. The running clothesline and the abdominal stretch are not. The Tombstone, chokeslam, Last Ride, Old School, etc. are notable Undertaker moves, the Fujiwara armbar and the bearhug are not. And I suggested removing "nicknames", "managers", "wrestlers managed" and "wrestlers trained" to trim down the section, not that I want it, but many are saying the lists were full of trivial information, so leaving only the essential, and what's hard to work in the prose (theme songs) could be the solution. BLXCKPXGX (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
That's your point of view, your own criteria. For example, you say "Abdominal stretch isn't notable", I say "Abdominal stretch is notable". We need a criteria for all of them. If a move is signature, we need a source saying "this move is signature". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I think we all agree that the spinebuster is a notable Triple H signature move while the abdominal stretch isn't. What criteria am I using? I'll be honest, I don't know, I just know that one is an iconic part of his arsenal and the other isn't. But if we're working it in the prose, wouldn't we have the exact same issue? The user below said: "if, say, John Cena's theme song entrance theme is notable, we'll note it, of course, but in the proper section under "Professional wrestling career", or, "Music", or wherever." What's the criteria used to mention "My Time is Now" but not "Slam Smack" in the text? Or are we just mentioning everything? Which, again, is just an overcomplicated way of doing exactly the same thing that the bulleted list was doing. BLXCKPXGX (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
If it's a "I just know" situation, then you must keep in mind WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:ILIKEIT. oknazevad (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, do so: per Galatz, we don't need long lists of information that serve no real purpose; per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:IINFO, if, say, John Cena's theme song entrance theme is notable, we'll note it, of course, but in the proper section under "Professional wrestling career", or, "Music", or wherever. HHH Pedrigree, in the discussion below, also laconically summarizes my beliefs regarding policy and the "In wrestling" list. To close, I'd like to quote WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." I believe the "In wrestling" list-sections most certainly fall under that distinction.
    Addendum: perhaps the revival of the Pro Wrestling Wikia might be better for pro-wrestling fans? Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Javert2113 - The Pro Wrestling Wikia never went away, and is still updated... Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I didn't know that. Strike above word "revival", replace with "continued updating". Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I used to update a bit on there. I'm sure the wikia would love aditional editors. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
That is not true, Lee. that is way outdated! I looked there but guess what? It is wrong! For example, that [still] lists Bianca Belair’s theme as "We Do It Better" (WWE; 2017-present) & Lacey Evans’ theme as "Bad Girl Good Boy" by Kimberly Korn (NXT; October 20, 2016 – present) but before it was taken down Wikipedia said that Bianca Belair’s current theme is really “Watch Me Shine” by CFO$ & Lacey Evans’ is “Like a Lady” by Nancy Rowland….those songs, which, by the way, are not on WiKia are, in fact, on iTunes. So how can you deny the actuary of that? That is just an example which proves that Wikia is not updated regularly.OnlyRealSpike (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, Admittedly I'm not involved with this project but the section comes across as very problematic to properly source, as well as arguments of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Additionally, the section doesn't come across as particularly 'encyclopedic', but that last one is just my opinion. ToastButterToast (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No. If it attracts cruft, the solution is to remove the cruft. If some of it is the result of original research or synthesis, then (a) try to find a reliable source for it, and, if that doesn't work, then (b) remove it. Isn't that how everything on Wikipedia works? Taking a look at Bret Hart's article, 32 moves were listed (2 finishers, and 30 signature moves). I think the list could easily be trimmed to six--Finisher: Sharpshooter; Signature: Second rope elbow drop, Russian legsweep, Sidewalk slam; With Jim Neidhart: Hart Attack. I totally agree that almost all of the rest are moves he used, sometimes consistently, but that very few of the others are important for an understanding of the character. If we can source these six, we've got something worthwhile and in keeping with policy. However, there's no need to delete an entire section from thousands of articles because some have become bloated. In many cases, this has led to a "policy based" deletion of sourced information where no problem ever existed. As for the other sections, I can't speak much about Entrance Themes, since I've never cared much. I think it would be better for people who are more invested in the topic to consider the importance, although I will say that I am concerned to see so many people pushing for elimination because "it's just not important". There's really no way to measure that, and Wikipedia is full of information and articles that are important only to a select group. I'm never going to read about Finnish equestrians, but I would assume that Wikipedia has a bunch of information. Just because I won't read it doesn't mean it's "just not important", though. I'm also not particularly concerned about the "Nicknames" subsection. Some of it seems valuable, while others were used a handful or times, in a single interview, mentioned once on Twitter, etc., and obviously have no place. To use that to justify removing "The Rocket" or "The King of Harts" from Owen Hart's article is obviously an overreaction, although these may work just fine in the prose. The other subsections involved, however, are ones that I find particularly useful (and I know that there has been a lot of negative reaction to the claim of being "useful" lately, with people pointing to an essay about arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. There's nothing binding in that, however, and there is no need for paranoia about people finding the content useful--there have been a lot of disparaging comments about "fanboys", but it's important to note that (a) wrestling fans aren't less important or worthy of respect because they choose to watch a television show that they are aware is not real, and (b) not everybody who reads or edits the articles is an obsessed teenage boy. I'm certainly not a teenager, and I don't watch wrestling. I do, however, have multiple academic publications about professional wrestling. While doing this research, I have made much use of the "Managers" and "Wrestlers Managed" subsections. This has provided a valuable quick glance at a wrestler's career that can then be delved into with reliable sources to discover valuable information that is not necessarily covered in the article. Rewriting these sections as prose would make them difficult to navigate and would often provide choppy, list-like sentences. Certainly, for managers, it's essential to an understanding of the character to have a clear (and well-sourced) list of the wrestlers they have managed. And, on both sides, I would say it is important to keep it under control by leaving out one-time appearances. For example, on the Jake Roberts article, it listed Alice Cooper as a manager. Because this was a one-time deal done to publicize an event, it would fit much better into the prose when discussing Roberts's appearance at WrestleMania III. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Well, here's my two cents. Which I already gave in the Pro Wrestling Talk Page, so I guess I'm up to four cents? Everyone appears to have jumped the gun, deleting the section before assessing what separates data they consider unimportant from that which is, and I'd like to remind everyone WP:NODEADLINE. No editor appears to dispute that wrestling moves possess encyclopedic significance; currently finishing moves are to be added in prose in recognition of their relevance to the wrestler. However, what quality lends a wrestling move significance remains unanswered within the style-guide or discussion. What specific guideline a signature move as a piece of information violates within WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which a finishing move to be included in the 'Wrestling Persona' sections does not violate has not been adequately identified. Finishing moves are important, but the quality making them more important than a signature remains vague. These distinctions appear arbitrary. Arguments abound that the sections themselves sections tend to contain OR, poor sourcing stemming from frequent fan edits, that a signature is pure WP:FANCRUFT, or that removing it grants a more encyclopedic aesthetic. And each of those may be true. But those are individual violations to be removed on a case-by-case basis; their existence does not demonstrate why all information attempting to be included is not material an encyclopedia should provide. Someone using original research to include a wrestler's frequent use of a piledriver should be removed, it's original research. But whether a piledriver is pertinent information for a wikipedia article is an entirely different question, and one that has not been answered. Discussion of the value or significance of content does not appear to have driven the removal conversation; no rationale has been solidly agreed upon regarding why a move might or might not be important information. Worse, the wider use of the Wrestling Persona alternative opens up up identical WP:FANCRUFT and Original Research concerns the 'In Wrestling' section was deleted for, but this too appears to be ignored. (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC) (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Yes Remove - over the last 10 years this has failed miserabily - crufty, trivia, edit warring over a move is a "leg lariat" or "a kick", false information inserted, Original Research etc. It's a mess and there is no way anyone can persuade me that a wrestler has 25 signature moves. Nicknames were a mess, too - someone was called a "toolbag" one week and it's an official nickname on Wikipedia and so on - it is the single most abused and edit warred over section.  MPJ-DK  20:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Why don't we fix it then? Removing it rather than fixing it is lazy. No, no wrestler has 25 signature moves. There is no reason for the Fujiwara armbar to be listed as a signature move of The Undertaker for example. Limit the moves to finishing moves and notable signature moves, and remove "nicknames", "managers", "wrestlers managed" and "wrestlers trained" from the section. Just remove all that's trivial, there is no need to gut the entire section. BLXCKPXGX (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a part of the clean-up effort here and their perspectives may vary, but the problem I see there is that there is no empirical, WP:WEIGHT-based way of deciding what content is important or note-worthy, which means the fields become a constant source of attraction for subjectivized tinkering; no consistent approach can be applied and the section remains a perpetual site of either edit warring or entrenched debate, since the content added is always the product of fan metrics (which are highly variable between these devoted fans), rather than something pulled from reliable sources (which is disallowed as a matter of policy anyway, and further reason to avoid an approach that encourages it). Snow let's rap 22:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Some editors have been trying to fix it for 10 years, with reverts and IPs and fans adding stuff, no good guideline for inclusion etc. It's not like some people haven't tried. MPJ-DK  22:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes (edit conflict) This section was horribly trivial for ten years. There were no criterion for inclusion, resulting in users adding movees or nicknames that were used once (see this article on, where AJ Styles is called the "Georgia Pitbull" for the first and only time, resulting in it being added to his nicknames). Nearly every single technical name for moves were WP:OR. It was overly crufty and broken to the point of no return. The main counterarguments I'm seeing are WP:ILIKEIT, "lots of people find this useful", and "it was here for 10 years so it shouldn't be removed." Prose for the notable moves is a much better alternative. JTP (talkcontribs) 20:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, Support - This seems like a reasonable approach and the one which is most broadly consistent with a number of guidelines and MoS recommendations (WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROSE most prominently). Furthermore, the topic matter of pro wrestling has been put under general sanctions now, so without some broad community consensus backing them up, WP:HERE editors working on clean-up in this area would find their efforts slowed to a crawl by SPAs and socks jumping around abusing multiple accounts, flaunting the sanctions while regular good-faith editors obeying the rules would not be able to violate 1RR restrictions. The clean-up brigades therefore have a reasonable request in wanting to establish clear guidelines for what type of formatting is generally expected for these articles. They at first attempted to create this guidance at WP:PW but they were informed that WP:Advice pages prohibits that. So they thereafter diligently constructed this proposal and brought it here for wide community vetting and hopefully approval. Given that I think their approach is the option which is most consistent with actual policies and MoS guidance, I can support it, even though I am generally very wary of default approaches.
And on that last topic, it is worth noting that the proposal does frame this as a default approach; WP:LOCALCONSENSUS would still apply on any article and a discussion on a talk page for a given pro wrestler's article could still adopt another approach. What a support consensus in this discussion would mean would be a simple shifting of the burden; the clean-up crews could begin shifting the content towards a WP:PROSE approach and be able to point to this discussion if asked to make a prima facie case for consensus; local editors would then be able to propose rebutall arguments on the talk page, but the burden would be upon them to establish a clear consensus for an exception. That seems like a very reasonable way to balance the local and community consensus issues here and allow the needed clean-up to take place. Wikipedia is not the place for all possible content and I have become convinced by the editors undertaking the clean-up here that this is a necesary first step to pairing down the articles in question and making our coverage more consistent with our general encyclopedic standards. Snow let's rap 21:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes/Remove These sections seem to be fancruft. From a policy perspective it is likely most of the material is WP:UNDUE from the point of view of an encyclopedia. In fact all of the 'in-universe' stuff needs to go except for those events/elements which break out into the universe of real-world reliable sources. Jbh Talk 21:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No/Reinstate Partly I agree that the Signature move list was way too long and unsourced. However I believe that the Entrance music and especially the Finisher sections/lists are fairly easy to implement and properly source. Entrance musics are easy to source with VODS, as are Finishers. Finishers by definitions are moves that quite frequently finish that respectives matches. Not one or two offs, frequently. For example: Sami Zayn's Blue Thunder Bomb is pretty much his signature move but doesn't finish matches: Should probably not be included. His Helluva Kick does finish his matches on the regular and should be included. So in summary: Remove the Signature Move section, keep the Entrance Theme and Finisher sections. I have no opinion about the Manager section one way or another. DrJackl (talk 22:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)DrJackl (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • NO I already gave enough suggestion directed to people want to rollback this change, so It appears "the small group" have jumped the gun, deleting the section before allowing proper outreach to many users to help improve. 10+ years this section been alive. This change should never been jump into removal or else we wont have this.

Returns this good section the only option to end this rockus. Colton Meltzer (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • NO It’s a handy resource for people who may, for whatever reason, need a quick and easy answer to a question about any number of pieces of information and there’s not a suitable second best place to go online looking for it. In my opinion, removing this would be along the same lines as cutting track listings from albums or trying to work the name of each song into the article about the album. Part of the point of an encyclopedia is to be able to quickly dig up an easy answer to something and abundance of cruft or not, this section largely provides that. Evalas618 23:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • NO For some then championship section is much longer then their moves, music, etc. Why remove that but keep the long championship listings? I for 1 want to see someone's moves & want to look up their music & some have won every single championship in every company they have been in! Who needs all that? I think their moves & music is more important then their endless championships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:81DD:D18E:1485:114A (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)2602:306:CCE0:8550:81DD:D18E:1485:114A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • No - I've been mostly retired for numerous years now, both as a user and an admin, but on this matter would like to give my opinion. Years ago, many many years ago, the question was asked over spoilers for pro wrestling over whether it was an entertainment program or a sport (as in did an event transpire when it occurred in front of a crowd, or when iot was broadcast on television). Wrestling is a carny business, its stupid and illogical and amazing, and part of the story is in the moves and the abilities of the competitors. To catch this in pose, over decades of a career, is impossible especially as times change and without the text reading like a grade schooler trying to pad the word count. This is because the stories in the matches aren't limited to a single move, it's a number of them that build to a particular style. Some things are generic yes, but some things are not and knowing these and what they are is part of the knowledge base for wrestling. Could the In wrestling sections be cleaned up? Undoubtedly yes, but the accusations of cruft and that of diminishing value is as blinded by wall gardening as the inclusionist accusations are. Not everything fits into a narrow box of "is trivial" or "is not trivial" nor can making things have a sweeping removal ever be done without uproar occurring, and to then pass off the uproar as fly-by-nighter-johnny-come-latelys is to ignore the readers of wikipedia at their own peril. Wikipedia is a force for good, but sweeping changes made by 8 people is inevitably going to cause a problem, and its not like these 8 were arbitrators. If things need to change they have to change, but what has happened here was clearly wrong and to much "us vs them" rather than actually looking at why these sections existed without one side reducing it to WP:USEFUL and the other WP:CRUFT. They have their place, they are important, and all-or-nothing is not the way we do things. At least not when I was here. –– Lid(Talk) 00:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wasn't going to comment originally, just let everyone have their say but I've seen a couple of additional comments and I just wanted to address something. To Lid and those expressing their opinion "per Lid" 2600:6C63:647F:DA77:0:85BF:75CB:B9E9 - great speech, very passionate. Just a couple of things, 1) the "remove the section" believes have stated more than just "it's cruft" - in fact, they have stated many guideline/principle reasons why they feel that information should not be presented in a bulleted list. You yourself did not, in fact, give any guidelines either but did explain that moves are important to a wrestler (as a lifelong wrestling nut I agree) and that the "changes over time" are hard to capture in prose form. I would also like to address the commons misconception that anyone who's for deleting the "in wrestling" section just want that stuff deleted, it's been said over and over again that our suggestion is that if it can be verified by reliable sources it should be written in the actual prose, nowhere has it been said to eliminate anything that passes that guideline. So "Per Lid" commenters are agreeing with the statement "it's hard to write it in prose form". Just so that the "Per Lid" commenters realize that.  MPJ-DK  23:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, remove Professional wrestling articles are now under strict sanctions because the broader editing community was fed up with the constant bickering and edit warring, and the inclusion of large amounts of unsourced trivia and "in universe" content in those articles. I have been very impressed and gratified at the work that many pro wrestling editors are doing to clean things up. I agree completely with Snow Rise that going back to the old ways now would severely interfere with this essential cleanup campaign. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Besides the maintenance issues.. look, even if you could guarantee these would be properly maintained, this type of list is still the definition of cruft. Minutia that is only of interest to the hardcore fan, that does not actually give any additional insight on the subject of the article in a broader sense. --SubSeven (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, remove. A trivia magnet bullet list with no clear inclusion criteria is possibly the worst way to present information about a character's persona. I've seen numerous complaints at the WT:PW discussions that it is needed for video games' "create a wrestler" feature. That is totally not what Wikipedia is for! Pro wrestler biographies have a weird double job of being both a biography of the performer and an article about the character. But it is WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Nor is it WP:IINFO. These sections just don't work well. Prose is a better format, and allows for context, which serves the Wikipedia purpose of being a general interest encyclopedia better. oknazevad (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Nuke from orbit, destroy entire section immediately, and on the off chance anything worthwhile is lost, it's worth it because it might attract CRUFT!!!! seems like a poor choice. Whatever the ultimate consensus is, I would submit that this option is by far the worst. There's no WP:DEADLINE and no need to WP:BITE new editors. Deltopia (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't get the "Deadline" argument - if a consensus is reached to remove them, who cares if some people go through and remove them quickly or make a five-year plan to hunt them all down? That's just a stall tactic by those who do not like the consensus - if consensus is to allow it I could use "deadline" to stall any work on readding the content? Sorry I was not going to comment in general, but this does not make any sense to me. And if we remain WP:CIVIL no newbies would get bitten, that's not WP:AGF my good chap.  MPJ-DK  02:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen much in the way of articulated policy or guideline-based reasoning for removal of this content, besides one reference to WP:OR. WP:NOT here and there, but those references are a stretch. Does someone want to lay it out? Conversely, I also see little on the keeping editors. Is there a reason we should keep the content, grounded in policy/guideline? --Izno (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - These sections invariably attracted cruft and WP:OR. This is what Roman Reigns' section looked like. The moves list is a very typical example; sources almost never actually describe "Signature moves" so the solution has been to provide multiple sources which show the wrestler used the move a couple of times. This is a blatant case of WP:SYN. Theme songs are also rarely notable enough to get mentioned in WP:RS, so the solution has been to link to iTunes. A good rule of thumb is that if RS don't mention it, then it's not worth keeping around. Everything worth keeping should already be in the prose or could easily be worked into it and anything lost had no place in the encyclopedia to begin with. I recently brought Bobby Heenan to GA status and was surprised to see that almost everything in his "In wrestling" section (every nickname and all but a few of his less notable pairings) was already in the prose! The section was simply superfluous! LM2000 (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No - While the section could use cleaning up, I disagree with outright removal. The information is valuable and useful, and the list format is the most efficient method of digesting the information. Removal of the section may follow the letter of the law, but I feel it ignores the spirit of it. Removal of the section may follow some arbitrary rules of conduct, but I feel it goes against the idea of what Wikipedia is. I'm disappointed with the decision to remove a valuable section that I use on many occasions. I feel that if Wikipedia is no longer interested in providing knowledge to the masses, I am no longer interested in supporting Wikipedia. (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No - To generally summarize what I posted on the talk page, I feel that the prose compromise is insufficient and needlessly complicates what is a section with use and that has encyclopedic information in it (nicknames of a wrestler, important moves, theme music and wrestlers trained come to mind as well as falling under this category in my view). Prose runs the risk of becoming convoluted in nature and removes the intended resourcefulness of its own self. A prose page for all wrestlers will be hard to do and become more difficult to parse through for information. The length of move-sets has long been a problem and I also believe, despite supporting the keeping of the 'In Wrestling' section, it should be managed at a level and/or trimmed down, but provided information for key moves to a wrestler and additional encyclopedic information is well-cited and reliably-cited, I see no reason to move this sort of information into a prose block. It removes convenience for user and editor and I don't see a reason to do that and remove a chunk of information that I would consider to be worthy of inclusion on this web encyclopedia. In conclusion, I believe sweeping removal (or at the very least dramatic change) of long-standing content that has merit for being in these articles in the first-place is not the way to go about this matter. NotAdamKovic (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No with condition - These lists do often turn to WP:FANCRUFT about which wrestling moves are notable and which are not. Some of them even have concerns about whether the wrestler actually did the move, because they did a variation of it or something like that. However, with stringent enforcement of Reliable sources, adhering to standard procedures when material is challenged, and Wikipedia's policy on WP:DUE weight, these moves do have relevance within the realm of wrestling. A wrestler may be well known for doing a certain move as part of their cliche or personality. If they are well known for doing such, we should be able to find sources to that effect. We also need to enforce the No original research policy if this is kept. I'm overall in favor of keeping them if these Wikipedia policies can be enforced on these articles. Tutelary (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but wouldn't this information be best placed in prose? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Moves that are significant to the wrestler's identity, with good sourcing, should be added to the prose, not put into a list. --SubSeven (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - There is no definition of what a signature move is, and there is no official guide that describes what the technical moves are. Therefore all move lists are WP:OR or a violation of WP:SYNTH. Finishing moves are important to the characters, but prose can help provide context that a bullet list lacks. Managers can also be listed in prose with context such as dates and promotions, which provides more info than a straight bullet list. Entrance themes are important to "some" characters, and that too can be included better in prose with an explanation of "why" it is important to that character. The majority of the information in the "In wrestling" sections was impossible to source, so trimming the lists down to what can be properly sourced would result in some very short lists. I don't see how a short context-less list is any more accessible than prose. Nikki311 09:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. People who want to have an in-universe article should use the wrestling wikia. This information is not encyclopedic. Natureium (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No - While some wrestlers may have long lists of moves, to argue that finishing moves are irrelevant to a wrestler is ignorant. A finishing move, and by extension signature moves, are keys to a wrestler's in-ring performance. This is even more apparent with historical industry changing moves, whether it's now common moves that used to be big moves in previous eras, like the German Suplex or the Brainbuster, to something like the Orange Crush, Burning Hammer, or Emerald Flowsion. I think the scope of this argument has been focused to "Roman Reigns' list has an armdrag on it" (or whatever) and isn't taking into consideration the effect this would have when talking about wrestlers in the context of wrestling history. You can't have an article about Ric Flair without the Figure 4 Leglock. Should these lists be concise, cited, and logical? Sure. But they should not be removed as a whole. Bonevoyage (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Bonevoyage (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
As we said one hundred times, if a move is notable and important, we can put in a career or wrestling style section. Lou Thesz includes the creation of the powerbomb in the introduction. Same as Fujinami Dragon suplex and Dragon sleeper. Try to find a source and include Flair's finisher in the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
-Sorry I didn't realize only new opinions were allowed in this discussion area. Bonevoyage (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
He didn't disregard your opinion. We have always maintained that if something is significant to the performer and can be reliably sourced, such as Flair's figure four leglock, then it can be included regardless of this section's removal. This proposal itself even mentions that certain finishing moves are likely to be retained. Flair's article may not have been updated to include that detail yet, but you can WP:FIXIT yourself, if you'd like. Prefall 21:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Like someone's theme music isn't "significant to the performer"? I think it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:418D:E52E:5D61:A083 (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - Like mentioned before, some content can be added to the prose, not put into a list (like finishing moves, managers, "some" entrance themes), but stuff like the signature moves has no clear definition and the nicknames bit is a huge clutter. Really disappointed with the section, even from a long-time pro wrestling fan. 2A02:2F0D:D00:C00:463:23AB:1E16:D947 (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)2A02:2F0D:D00:C00:463:23AB:1E16:D947 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Yes - If such content is based on reliably-sourced in-depth coverage, then there should be material for more than a bullet point list. If it is not based on reliably-sourced in-depth coverage, then it doesn't need to be included. The effort that would be put into stopping clean up on this general site should instead be used to fix and maintain specialist sites like the wrestling Wikia. I don't see why we should apologize for making people read actual prose with more than four words per line instead of lists that are utterly meaningless to non-fans. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No, but change the name The debate was originally about whether the In Wrestling section should be renamed to something else, since many felt the subheading was very vague and didn't accurately represent what the section was about. As far as I'm concerned, the idea of deleting the whole section wasn't brought up until few days before the consensus vote. The vote lasted a couple of days and was closed after an "overwhelming consensus". I feel like the decision was made in a WP:RUSH and as can be seen by the amount of discussion it has led to since then, there are a lot of people who oppose the change. I wholeheartedly agree that the section should be renamed to something else. "Professional wrestling highlights" and "professional wrestling details" were two of the suggestions for the new name. Removing the whole section, however, is not the answer. When it comes to working the contents of In Wrestling into the prose, I'd say that would affect readability, and sometimes a simple list is a better option. It's stated in WP:TRIVIA that "a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information", and I would say that's the case here. Professional wrestling is a combination of theatre and sports, and the finishing moves or entrance theme musics of wrestlers are just as important as championships and other accomplishments. None of this information is trivial in context of wrestling. Another cause of concern amongst the most active WikiProject members seems to be that the section gets edited a lot by people who believe every single move ever done by a certain wrestler should be included in the article. It's unfortunate that this happens, but I don't think WP:SUSCEPTIBLE is a good reason to remove the whole section just like that. Many of the professional wrestling promotions' websites, including World Wrestling Entertainment and New Japan Pro Wrestling, do have a plethora of articles and wrestler profiles listing their finishing moves and entrance music. Those websites can and should be used as sources, and the list of moves can be limited to their signature moves. Not every single punch and kick needs to be listed. All in all, I believe this consensus relies too much on Wikipedia's imperfect policies and guidelines. Sometimes accessibility and informativity should be put ahead of those guidelines (WP:RAP). In my personal opinion, the decision should be reverted, the section should be brought back and the WikiProject should focus on renaming the section and clarifying what moves, nicknames and themes should be included on the list. Kanavarras (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
You say “Many of the professional wrestling promotions' websites, including World Wrestling Entertainment and New Japan Pro Wrestling, do have a plethora of articles and wrestler profiles listing their finishing moves and entrance music. Those websites can and should be used as sources, and the list of moves can be limited to their signature moves.” but that just is not true. Where, exactly does WWE list superstar theme music? The fact of the matter is you can’t say because they don’t! Wikipedia was the “only reliable” place that ever did!~~The Greatest— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cce0:8550:d424:64a0:7b5c:a6e5 (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2018‎ (UTC)
First of all, no need for the hostility. If Wikipedia is the "only reliable source", then it isn't a reliable source at all, since Wikipedia relies on other sources for its information. However, WWE actually has a record label named WWE Music Group. They compose and release most of the wrestlers' music by themselves, and those releases can be found on Amazon and iTunes. They also have a VERIFIED YouTube channel. All the music on artists' album pages (here's an example with Britney Spears) use similar sources, so that shouldn't be a problem. Kanavarras (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If Wikipedia is the only place that listed them, that's a very good indication that it's not a notable concept and shouldn't be included in the articles. --Ahecht (TALK
) 13:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Where else is? The only other place that had/has it is way outdated & is missing current/new content! Content that was, in fact, on Wikipedia before it was taken down! So if Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source then where, exactly, is? That right here makes it the **most** reliable source! What part of that is so hard for you to understand? If it can’t be found on Wikipedia when where **can** it be found? Furthermore, it has been on Wikipedia for 10+ years so why take it way now? That makes no logical sense whatsoever!~~ The Greatest— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cce0:8550:d424:64a0:7b5c:a6e5 (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2018‎ (UTC)
Firstly you are violating Wikipedia:SIGLINK by not properly signing your posts. Second, everything on Wikipedia must be independently verifiable, see WP:V. If the only place you can find this information is on Wikipedia, then its not verifiable, and therefore should not be kept on wikipedia, regardless of the outcome of this discussion. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I am signing my posts (now). Don’t you see “~~The Greatest”? I may not be signing them the “official” way or how you want them signed but I am signing them the way I am going to with the was I have been treated! If you have a problem with that then tough crap….“~~The Greatest— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cce0:8550:d424:64a0:7b5c:a6e5 (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2018‎ (UTC)
If you wish to contribute to this discussion, Wikipedia has certain requirements for signing posts, and for what the signatures must contain. Sign your posts by using four tildes (~~~~). If you want "The Greatest" to show up as your name, you should register an account with that name first by going to Special:CreateAccount. It literally only takes a few seconds, as all you have to do it enter your desired username, your desired password, and enter the CAPTCHA text. You don't even have to provide an email address. --Ahecht (TALK
) 16:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No, unless a policy is put in place to replace the section with prose on each relevant page before deleting the information outright I am okay with the section being removed in favour of a "wrestling style" prose section, or something of the sort, but I feel like the sections were basically deleted based on the opinion of a few people with very little way for the general public to even know the debate was happening without digging into a sub-page deep in the editor's side of Wikipedia, a place which not many people generally end up, which has resulted in the information just ceasing to exist. No-one deleting it is making any effort to replace it with a more appropriate format, they're just deleting information outright, which is the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:CC03:AC00:8947:847:85E3:DD23 (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC) 2001:8003:CC03:AC00:8947:847:85E3:DD23 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Well, there was a consensus for it's removal, so it was removed. Then there was a conversation over it's removal, and now we are here. The information is not lost, as it will always appear on the history tab; and can be turned into a real section. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
NEUTRAL; no longer have an opinion either way GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The above procedure would be simply moving a list of what is usually meaningless cruft into prose (The "Professional Wrestling Persona".) Most of these article are filled with examples of WP:FANCRUFT for every move that the BLP has ever done is "sourced" with a reviewer stating that the move was used. Personally, I'm against meaningless information like this being included in an article. The arguement against the removal of this information are generally based on WP:ILIKEIT, or a confusion on what wikipedia is. Important information should be easy enough to turn into prose. Some pieces of information, such as Jeff Hardy creating his own theme song in TNA, or Petey Williams inventing the "canadian destroyer is information that could very easily be changed into prose. Information on who a person has been managed by (Even if sourced) is irrelevent, unless they were a long term manager, in which case, this should be in this section, or more likely the career section. Information on moves used is no more notable than a list of ways that Lionel Messi attacks during a football match. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Less so, if you ask me since a) Messi's approach to the ball has actual impact upon his game, and b) the number of ways in which he can approach the ball can be summed up as a relatively closed class of options due to competitive constraints, whereas a pro wrestler's moves a) are completely arbitrary and chosen for theatrical effect, and therefor b) are a completely open class of ever-shifting and potentially infinite options that will invariably add up to mammoth proportions. There's also the rather critical policy matter that Messi's techniques are the subject of substantial WP:WEIGHT of coverage in WP:reliable sources, discussed in encyclopedic context, whereas "finishers" or whathaveyou are not a substantial part of what WP:reliable sources have to say about professional wrestlers and are simply added at the whim of whichever fan would happen to be editing the "In wrestling" section that day. Snow let's rap 13:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree. But I was using the simile pretty arbitrarily. In fact, WP:FOOTY has a "playing style" or "Style of play" for this type of entry, which is what the "Professional wrestling Persona" section would be similar too. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No per Lid and others. (Summoned by bot) This information is clearly of great interest to many people, based on comments here of those who don't want to see it disappear. If these topics have WP:WEIGHT in RS reporting on wrestlers, then Wikipedia should present that information in some format. Also, if these sections attract "cruft" from new editors, surely that is an opportunity for us to welcome new content-creators in a non-bitey way. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think WP:ITSUSEFUL / WP:ITSINTERESTING works here. It's one of the reasons why professional wrestling articles have been swamped in immense WP:INUNIVERSE detail for such a long period of time. This is also not a simple matter of weight given by reliable sources. When it comes to wrestlers in popular promotions, such as WWE, practically every performance in their career will be covered ten times over in routine coverage from reliable sources. This can range from hundreds to thousands of matches, all with detailed writeups of each move performed during them. One of the major issues with this section is trying to discern which of this information is actually worth noting. This also does not delve into the WP:SYNTH / WP:OR issues with many of the moves performed (as discussed in the section below). To cite the Daniel Bryan and A.J. Styles examples from the proposal, they show just how excessive and problematic this section can become. Prefall 09:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No Just try again to source it properly, exactly like we attempt (and often fail at) with prose. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:21, July 15, 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, anything encyclopedic should be included in well-sourced prose. I agree with Prefall's first post and the one above mine. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No, but condense and source the content. This is not WrestleCruftPedia. See MPJ-DK's excellent post at the top of the #Example of the "Keep" vote with strict WP:V verification. subection, below.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • comment - Anyone who says "keep" should provide their input on when something is notable enough to include - signature moves, nicknames , managers and theme music has gotten very crufty and trivial over the years. If we keep the section we need a good, CLEAR guideline for everyone so that it is easier to maintain.  MPJ-DK  19:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
When a reliable source notes a move is a certain wrestler's finisher, that move is notable and suitable under Finishers (with a bullet and citation). Same deal with managers and the Manager section, signatures and the Signature section, all the way down. No synthetic local excuses like "If four sources call it a move a wrestler does, it's a signature move" or "Accompanying someone to ringside makes you their manager" or "If your finisher looks like something a New Japan guy did on a tape you watched, that means he trained you."
Just plain and transparent verifiability, the sort that's currently sorely lacking in wordier cruft like "In the ring, Monsoon dominated opponents with vicious chops, the dreaded Manchurian Splash, and his signature move, the Airplane Spin". Fortunately, nobody bothered to rename and delete his In Wrestling section, so even complete rubes can still easily and quickly see the simple truths those long-winded lies are roughly based on. Would you keep the unsourced format for matching the style of what you think people want, or delete the sourced list for merely resembling the type of place that's fooled you before? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, July 16, 2018 (UTC)
  • NO The old In Wrestling section should've been left as it was, and should be reinstated. Condensing the information is one thing, but to remove it completely was a ridiculous decision. I've used that section as a reference for years when reviewing information about wrestler's current and past entrance themes and move sets. It was both informative and fun to skim over every now and then; especially when a wrestler debuted a new theme, as this was sometimes the quickest and easiest place to find the name of the song or artist. As for trying to work the information into the prose, this seems like an equally ridiculous amount of work to people who will now have to go through and try to eloquently write that information into the prose in an effective way, as well as to anyone who came to these articles specifically to find that information; they'll now have to skim through paragraphs and paragraphs of information for something that they could once skip straight to. Reverting it to how it was is much easier on everyone.--MignightDaybreak (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)MignightDaybreak (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Yes. Things like signature moves might not be the extreme point of trivia, but they're not hugely far. Bulleted lists can be a good idea in some situations, but that's only when the relevance of those items is obvious, e.g. the article about a geographic subdivision (like a U.S. county) ought to have a list of its towns, because nothing really needs to be conveyed about the towns aside from their existence there, and virtually everyone knows something about local government in their country and will understand why the towns are mentioned. However, tons of us are agnostic about professional wrestling; we may wonder why "European uppercut" and "Cobra clutch to a facedown opponent" will matter and why those moves are listed when others aren't: are other moves less significant, or are they not signature moves, or does this character have no other moves at all, and what's a signature move anyway? If you're reading Beaver County, Pennsylvania and you see that Aliquippa is a city in the county, you don't need to be told anything about Aliquippa or city to understand its inclusion, but non-wrestling readers will need explanations that a simple list can't give. And finally, when converting stuff into prose, be sure to use reliable sources. I see that the Daniel Bryan article lost sources like [19], YouTube, [20], and [21]; those are primary sources, as they're either raw numbers (Cagematch) or reports derived from the event itself, not secondary sources that are distilled from the primaries. None of these is written by scholars in the field, which for professional wrestling would be something like film studies or media studies. If you can get solid, reviewed sources of this sort, by all means provide a prose section covering these aspects of the wrestler's career. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Dave Meltzer, Bryan Alvarez and Wade Keller are among the closest things wrestling has to noted scholars. That's not to say it always trickles down to their whole staff, but PWTorch and F4Wonline are still generally top dogs on the topic, something like Sports Illustrated or Vanity Fair are to their niches. Setting the bar higher than that would kill off almost all wrestling articles and seriously starve what's left. If they're good enough for our featured article, they should be good enough for other things one doesn't learn at Dartmouth. That said, they were used improperly in synthesis at Daniel Bryan's list (and others); can't hold that against them. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, July 16, 2018 (UTC)
  • No - The "In wrestling" section was incredibly useful. I looked up wrestler's finishers on Wikipedia on a monthly basis. When you want to know a wrestler's current or former finishing moves, a bulleted list in a dedicated section is much easier to use than trying to find it in prose. Prose can easily miss information. Using the above example of Daniel Bryan's reworked page, the added prose talks only about his submission finishers; there is not a single mention of his running knee finisher, which he uses frequently. Even if you disagree with my stance that the information is better presented in a bulleted list, having the information presented in a bulleted list is infinitely better than having the information missing. If the "In wrestling" section must be removed, then a mass removal without replacing the information is absolutely not the way to do it. The Bludgeon Brothers have finishing moves called "The Bludgeoning" and "The Reckoning". If someone wants to know what each of those moves are, that information is no longer available on Wikipedia, because it was simply deleted without re-adding it as prose. The removal of the "In wrestling" section is both the wrong thing to do and the wrong way to do it. --Curseofgnome (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Curseofgnome - This isn't a conversation on how to remove the information. If there is missing notable information (Such as Bryans running knee lift), that can be sourced, you can simply add it (See WP:SODOIT.) However, it does need to be sourced. The issues with some of the move names, is that they can't be reliably sourced. They break WP:SYNTH, which is a big pillar of wikipedia, by adding two references, one that says they use a finisher (by name), and then another by the move itself (common name). However, this is incredibly bad. If a "professional wrestling persona" section was created for the Bludgeon Brothers, then those moves could be added, if the moves are sourced. I should mention, most of these articles are WP:BLP articles, and any information that is poorly sourced should really be removed, regardless of the consensus here. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, but cull signature move sections. One of the reasons I left Wikipedia is because I became exasperated with blanket solutions to groups of issues that required individual solutions, and the tendency to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater that came along with those blanket solutions. And in this case, the issues with the 'signature moves' subsection are taking over the discussion and editors are trying to apply overly-drastic solutions to all pro wrestling articles. The signature moves sections are mostly a train wreck with little hope of fixing them - for example on the Gran Metallik article, for most of his signature moves that were sourced, the source merely said that he used them in a match, not that they were signature moves. And there's very little chance of finding a reliable source that claims a move as a wrestler's signature move for most wrestlers. Yet if signature moves are deleted wholesale, that leaves no room for things like Bret Hart's Russian legsweep and middle rope elbow drop (which could be sourced because they're part of his 5 Moves Of Doom), or The Rock's spinebuster (as the setup to to the People's Elbow). The prose sections are nice when possible, but they won't be possible for any but the most prominent wrestlers of all time. (And I'm making my first edit since 2013 because I found out about this through a thread on Gamefaqs). (And I sincerely encourage all these motivated, disappointed editors who liked the signature move sections to roll up your sleeves and start moving the material over to the pro wrestling wiki). McJEFF (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Bit funny how even with more than 30 moves, Wikipedia still managed to overlook a full half of the two in this source. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:42, July 17, 2018 (UTC)
It should be noted that wrestlingdata is not a reliable source for moves, only for uncontroversial claims, see WP:PW/RS. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Nowhere on that page does it note anything about moves. Just says use with caution, mainly for uncontroversial claim. If it's giving attendance as an example, and we know attendance figures are often disputed betweeen promoters and reporters (some more often than others), we can deduce that Gran Metalik's moves are even less controversial. Cases may arise where one source disputes another's claim about whether or not a wrestler used a move, but I can't remember ever seeing that happen. Regarding conflicting information about this man's clothesline, we'll cross that bridge if we come to it. The general controversy here is simply among regular people and pertains only to the inclusion of moves on Wikipedia; it does not carry over to claims about the moves themselves. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, July 17, 2018 (UTC)
One of the solutions for this, is a prose version of the section, where clearly notable information could be written into the "persona" section. If a move is very easily sourced, and is clearly notable, then it can be mentioned here. The main issue with the section is that the information is baseless, and rather irrelevent to the WP:BLP for the article. What's the point of saying what moves the person uses, if it isn't expanded on? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes; Wikipedia does not need to include all the information that exists. There are no similar lists for other types of performance artists, and anything like this for other performers would be deleted as fancruft. (Imagine allowing things like lists of best high notes at live performances for every singer in popular music…) Just because there are secondary sources for this particular sort of trivia does not mean we need to have standardized sections for this trivia. Jc86035 (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • If this were in a video game article, it would removed per WP:VGSCOPE. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No Absolutely not there's quite a few people who came to find this place to complain about the sudden information loss caused and I've talked to a few outside of here who are absolutely disappointed. It was a guide that gave you a quick and dirty rundown for casual viewers. Granted it was sloppy and could have been formatted better, but it was a very useful guide to learn about what a wrestler does really quickly. You could gain so much insight into their style in a couple seconds and what that wrestler is looking to do. A lot of people are upset and I'm included in this. Seriously, you get an understanding of 'oh he's got a DDT so when he goes for the front headlock he's looking for that and I should get on my feet when it's cinched in. Long story short: You don't just rip useful things out because they are ugly. Find a better way to present it if you must, but to know the cornerstone of a wrestler's moveset without mulling through a long article (which may not mention it) is important. Klichka (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't designed to provide this type of information to fans. See What Wikipedia is not. It's not because it's ugly, it's due to the fact this type of information is WP:FANCRUFT, excessive information that doesn't help the reader learn about the subject. Simply denoting that they were once managed by Jimmy Hart, or that they do a brainbuster finisher doesn't help the reader learn about the WP:BLP involved. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I have to object to your assessment. The finisher tells me exactly what they are shooting for, what kind of setup to look for when I watch the wrestler for the first time. Also, some wrestlers are defined by their moves. Jake The Snake is defined by that DDT, he innovated it, in a few seconds I can learn that the pinfall after a DDT means something without having watched him. I can learn a hint that Hulk Hogan had an altered moveset in Japan. Quite a bit of wrestling psychology has been based on the idea of two wrestlers trying to get their finisher in. For quite a few people you're kind of talking about what they are about. Klichka (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Read the Roberts article, the lead "he was known for ... his invention and use of the DDT finishing move". The info you're missing is in the first part of the article. If not, you can create a pro wrestling persona section and include it, like I did with Vader o Lesnar. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes I started this so feel I should comment here. My original request at the wikiproject was not to have it deleted, I was just looking for a solution to a problem that I saw as an outsider. Deleting the section is a valid solution to that problem, as would have been renaming, and I was pleasantly surprised to see the wikiproject take my concerns seriously. I think some of the No !voters above are missing the point of this discussion. It is not to blanket remove the information from wikipedia, it is to remove the information that is not (or poorly) sourced or not notable in the context of a biography. The rest will be incorporated into the prose regarding their career. Sure there may be a bit of disagreement on what is notable or even what constitutes poorly sourced, but that is what talk pages are for. This is normal editing practise and always improves the encyclopaedia. I feel this has been a positive step for a wikiproject and area that has been much maligned recently. AIRcorn (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually, I would suggest that you have missed the point of the discussion. I don't know that anybody is pushing for keeping all of the information. I think the moves should be trimmed--drastically, in some cases. One of the big objections is to the prose format, in which information is much harder to find, not to mention the fact that the wholesale removal of the content from thousands of articles would mean that a prose section would need to be written for thousands of articles. The section functions well now, and the biggest arguments being used against it are cruft and verifiability. However, when the solution to remove the cruft and source the content is discussed, that's still not good enough, for some reason. It's absolutely baffling--I have written for dozens of actual encyclopedias, yet Wikipedia is the only place I've written for in which editors are concerned that the content might be considered useful or easy to read. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. The section tends to lean towards trivia and is quickly cluttered with signature moves which hold no major importance, significant finishers and signatures can be incorporated into the new (better referenced) "Wrestling persona and style" section. Greyjoy talk 06:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • STRONG NO. I joined Wikipedia and instantly associated myself with the WikiProject Professional wrestling, during the climax of the Yes! Movement, a period where professional wrestling had a high reputation, and this was halfway into this decade long precedent for the highly inclusive and useful "in wrestling" section. However, a mere four years later, a group of deletionist/exclusionist Wikipedians who hold bureaucratic, asinine control of a WikiProject that tens of thousands of fans, if not even more rely on for useful information, including the "in wrestling" section, had a very oligarchic discussion selling out to their deletionist/exclusionist policies and choosing to remove the section and alienate the thousands upon thousands of fans who relied on it for CAWs, understanding a performer's wrestling style, knowing who managed who, what music he came out to, and so forth. I spent all last night reading all about it and what people have said, and this is what I have to say about it. This was a poorly thought out move made by selfish Wikipedians who only care about their deletionist/exclusionist views and obstructing free knowledge, at the expense of the greater good who read articles for information like these. I just don't see why the use of inclusionism would hurt in this case. An example of inclusionist thought supporting the "in wrestling" section is a quote from site founder and fellow inclusionist Jimmy Wales, who stated "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Many people come to Wikipedia for this information because of the site's high reputation, easy access, and visibility. It would be much harder to find this information on another site because this site is more clean and visible than another. If the information is benefiting many people and its exclusion is hurting many people, whats the point of excluding this information. Trivial and fancruft? Sure. Does that make it excessive and unnecessary? In this case, hell no! In some deletion reviews, despite a vast majority saying delete, sometimes a redirect vote or two opposed to the majority will result in a inclusionist redirect due to there being "plausible target" for one. I feel that keeping the "in wrestling" section, despite its deletionest-regime policy issues, has "plausible target" for the hundreds of thousands of fans who relied on this information in the articles who are now alienated and outraged because of a few deletionist's bureaucratic, authoritative decision that disregarded the needs of the readers. Putting it in prose will exclude lots of information and make knowledge that was once easy and helpful become hard and impossible to come by. And do not come at me with this "fancruft" and "ilikeit" policies, because I am sure as hell not selling out to these deletionist/exclusionists who are going against what Wikipedia stands for and killing it's heart and soul. The only reason this happened anyway is because of the backstage deletionist policies of Wikipedia. I cannot assume good faith about these oligarchists because they only care for their views and not the people's, and they've pretty much caused a situation similar to those like the beating of Rodney King and the 1992 Los Angeles Riots, the 1770 Boston Massacre, the Ferguson Shooting of Michael Brown, the Death of Freddie Gray resulting in the 2015 Baltimore Riots, the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, the Death of Eric Garner, the protests and outcry regarding Donald Trump and his policies, and so forth, except that this involved the "murder" (deletion) of a section titled "In wrestling", and the Internet Wrestling Community is providing harsh backlash to the decision, yet the deletionists ruling over it don't give a fuck and only care about their needs opposed to others. And no, I'm not being uncivil, I'm just passionately delivering my and many other's opinion regarding this matter. I appreciate all of you taking the time to read over this. Please consider it. That is my speech, titled "A Modest Wrestling Information Proposal'. DrewieStewie (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • DrewieStewie so first of all it is disheartening to read such an uncivil response, especially one that paints a group of people who are all regular editors of professional wrestling articles - you know those articles that really help you understand a wrestler to know that Some NXT guy is using CFO$ "Insert name here" theme. Your hostility undermines your point and surprises me that the removal of entrance themes etc. draws such a vitriolic response from readers. On the other hand it does seem to draw a lot of readers to actually edit Wikipedia for the first time, maybe it'll draw them to actually edit in the future. Also Trivial and fancruft? Sure - that is a large part of the "delete" view right there, both of which are discouraged on Wikipedia. The "keep" contingency seems to think that Wikipedia is just this bucket that anyone can fill with any and all information, like a hippie society there are no rules, just a free for all. That's not what Wikipedia is, that's not what "Jimbo" or anyone else who've helped build Wikipedia are saying.  MPJ-DK  10:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • DrewieStewie's comments above may be the most disgraceful that I've seen in all my time here on the encyclopedia. I'd consider taking this to WP:ANI but I think there are enough admins on here to handle it if they choose to. Please remember that general sanction now apply for pro wrestling. We can disagree on whether or not it's best to reshuffle bullet-points into the prose but you cannot compare the other side to racists and murderers. Good grief!LM2000 (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Drewie, since you have presumed to speak the mind of the venerable community elder Jimbo Wales on this matter, I will do him the courtesy of a ping--which is more useful to our purposes here than a link to his article (believe it or not, we know who he is). I understand that you have mentioned below that you authored that message in a heated state, but while you have admitted that some of the tone of your message was ill-considered, I must respectfully suggest that perhaps you need to consider how solid your reasoning is as well, as with that Jimbo-based line of commentary. Because I'm not aware that he has ever self-identified as an "inclusionist"--boy am I tired of that dichotomy, regardless--and parroting his most famous quote, the mantra of the project, doesn't really prove (or even suggest) where he falls on spectrum of editors on such matters. We all believe in the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and we all accept that it should touch on the many disparate avenues of human experience, inquiry, and endeavour. But it is just as manifest and widely accepted a principle that the encyclopedia is not all things that all people want it to be, nor can our coverage of a given topic be all inclusive of everything every editor wishes it to be. That's just clearly an infeasible approach. So the community has developed a rather detailed framework for deciding what should come in and in what format, with the caveat that individual circumstances often require further nuancing. Keeping fidelity with those policies does not make an editor an "inclusionist", nor a "deletionist", but rather just someone who has faith in the idea that our collective pragmatic wisdom is better than the sum of its parts and, absent really compelling reason for varying the approach of policy (that is, community consensus) in an instant case, we ought to opt for consistency in following said consensus. Snow let's rap 13:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I'm afraid my comment will probably not shed much useful light on anything, but here goes. :-) I think that lots of things should be in Wikipedia, and some things should not. I'm neither an "inclusionist" nor a "deletionist" by nature. I like to call myself an "eventualist" which means that if we get something wrong today, we'll probably get it right eventually. But what I do think is that we are far more likely to get it right sooner rather than later if we all pause to listen to each other, if we actually "try on" the other person's "shoes" so to speak, before we get too heated. For many of the most difficult questions of inclusion or deletion of any particular thing, there are plausible arguments on both sides, and we have to weigh up the balance thoughtfully. We won't always agree, but when we pause to realize that those who weigh things differently are probably not being horrible people, we're more likely to be wise on our own weighing. Separately, Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem is a fun read, whenever someone wants to cite me as an authority for anything other than "Please everyone relax a notch or two, and let's be kind to each other and have fun."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

MPJ-DK, LM2000, and Lee Vilenski, I sincerely apologize for coming off as overly harsh right there. I was in an extremely bad mood over something in my private life that isn’t appropriate to share on here, and while I’m still a little upset, I’ve regained my composure. I’m also apologising for my harsh attacks and overly political comparisons. But anyway, a much nicer and not so controversial way to put it: while it is trivial and cruft, I feel it is relevant and reasonable to enough people to not be “fill-up bucket” type information either. That’s the basic jist of it, no politics included. It’s safe to keep everything I said up there, as I’m not gonna try to hide or deny and be honest about what I said. But I do want to make clear more than anything, I apologize for my extremely uncivil, pissed off response. That totally isn’t me. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Don’t apologize at all! Every single thing you said it true! They don’t like that the truth is coming out & they have nothing to hide behind! All they got to do to “fix” it is bring the “In Wrestling” section back & this would all be over! They know it but they refuse to accept the truth!OnlyRealSpike (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

OnlyRealSpike I mean, I totally agree. I agree with what you said too below. I just didn't want to cause any more trouble and put my account at risk though. I stand by many of the stuff I said, but I feel retrospectively that doing stuff such as comparing these otherwise innocent humans outside of this problem to grim real life events was just simply a step too far and inexcusable on my part. You feel me?— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrewieStewie (talkcontribs) 09:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Harsh, yes, but it was needed to get their attention. They want to compare apples to oranges & you just brought real-live to it & it makes them mad. You called them out & got under their skin. But I am sick & tired of them saying 1 thing (calling this a “discussion”) but they already did what they are “talking about” doing! They got the cart before the horse & that is ass backwards! If you knew how I had been treated from the start (before I registered & was just my IP address)….got called “trivial” & “insignificant”, got blocked for a week & just got back I couldn’t care less if they like what I say….don’t hold back, I speak the truth & they despise me for it! This whole thing is nothing but a scam & it pisses me off!OnlyRealSpike (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I think we're getting dangerously close to Godwin's law territory here. --Ahecht (TALK
) 13:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Ahecht - Godwin's law may only be half of this. I feel like we may be near to dividing by zero Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
To paraphrase one legendary wrestling announcer, this place has literally gone bananas!LM2000 (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
What is IP (as in "IP address"? A separate point: i never noticed that there was a page of Wikipedia abbreviations even though I have been editing for years: access to and information about the mechanics of Wikipedia editing is very hard to come by in many cases. The Village Pump is the best part, since PEOPLE instead of text that is hard to find provide information. (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Internet Protocol, the format of messages on the Internet. An IP address is the number which is found by translating a name such as When you edit the system needs to record who has edited, and if you are not logged in it uses the address of your computer, in your case which is trivial to trace to Glenview. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No Yes, but replace with the "professional wrestling persona" section. Some information naturally lends itself to being displayed in list form rather than prose. "Finishing moves" are a staple feature of biographies on wrestlers - try finding a wrestler's biography that doesn't mention them. And, as this discussion illustrates, this information is clearly of interest to a significant subset of readers. Issues around sourcing and presentation are not a valid rationale for purging the information altogether. McPhail (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
For any neural networks or staunchly literal humans trying to follow along at home, an abundance of information in a particular set of resources is not a valid rationale for aiming to isolate and utilize less-informative resources in this unending pursuit of knowledge. You will just run into a loop that way. What my rhetorical friend here is "trying to say" ("as they say") is: Try finding a wrestler's biography that does mention them (them being the moves). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, July 20, 2018 (UTC)
And for the smaller minority of wrestling/true crime fans who also happen to read too far into things, don't let my esteemed colleague's adoption of The Zodiac's signature fool you: The man behind the murders has long since been murdered and the man of a thousand names has't terrorized a New York subway station with deadly laughing powder in years. McPhail has voted my way on certain issues, so I won't stand for potential rabib mobs attacking him for giving his position a second thought! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, July 20, 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe notable moves and managers of the wrestlers should be added in prowse as opposed to having it in a section called In Wrestling or Wrestling Persona. For example, it's notable that Paul Heyman managed Brock Lesnar while its not as notable that Coach managed Mr Perfect. Same thing with the moves, notable moves that should be in prowse are Hulk Hogan's leg drop or Shawn Michael's sweet chin music. A rarely used rope suplex used by Crush for example would should not be included in prowse. If they insist on the In Wrestling or Wrestling persona sections then a fair compromise would be to add the In wrestling or Wrestling Persona info to the infobox. I don't know if that was brought up but it should be. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
JC7V7DC5768 - I think you've misunderstood. Prose is the concept of written text, so we are proposing to move notable information from the list, and move it into a well sourced, well written section called "Professional wrestling persona." other things, as you've discussed above that isn't notable to be removed.
Hi Lee, thank you for your reply. I am 100 percent for removing the In Wrestling/Wrestling Persona section and adding the notable info from that list to the article in Prose. The infobox idea was just a last resort idea just in case this village pump decided to keep the In Wrestling/Wrestling Persona sections. I would prefer ,as it stands to go the prose route.JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think many people however, would be particularly for putting this type of information in the infobox. To me, that seems even more crufty than having a section for it.Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. Fancruft. Time to get some consistency and Wikipedia standards acknowledged, and if the information can't be found anywhere else, then it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, absolutely. The argument made above, that "if it attracts cruft, the solution is to remove the cruft" is mistaken; the section doesn't 'involve' cruft, it is cruft. I don't wonder that ten years of efforts to clean up that type of material have been doomed, and I believe they always will be. Inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 08:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC).

Wrestling discussion[edit]

I do NOT like that the “In Wrestling” section listing “Fishing Holds”, “Signature Holds” & “Theme Music” has been removed! I am trying to look up some wrestler theme songs & that has always been my go-to for looking it up but that is impossible to do when they have been removed! Where else can that be found? NOWHERE AT ALL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:81DD:D18E:1485:114A (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but that's not what Wikipedia is for, to be your go-to source for information deemed trivial (and usually poorly verified) by Wikipedia editors. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't understand how this information is "trivial". Wikipedia should absolutely be your "go-to source", why would you want to send users elsewhere by making this vital information pertaining to a wrestler's character much harder to find? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Worth noting that /r/SquaredCircle on Reddit and possibly other professional wrestling communities are now aware of this discussion. Prefall 18:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yup, sorry to keep dragging this out for you guys. We value the information a lot though, and see a lot of encyclopedic value in it. (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
That's alright; I for one appreciate that the original comment of that Reddit thread does make an effort to contextualize matters and encourage involvement here to conform to our local rules. Predictably, a fair number of people participating there are instead encouraging or demonstrating proclivity towards more disruptive attitudes and tactics, but if they arrive here looking to effectuate that approach, they will find we have significant mechanisms in place to put onerous, uncivil, tendentious, or generally disruptive participants outside of the discussion entirely. I do think that it is likely that the closer of this discussion will take into account that a lot of opposing !votes come from WP:SPA's and factor that into their analysis of the consensus, but so long as SquaredCircle's community members come here to share their opinions in a cogent, civil, and principled manner, they are welcome and will be heard out. Snow let's rap 23:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
You guys kept saying people coming from other sources because they were told to. I ultimately disagree, as i see it the majority came here on their own will, because they saw this important information of Encyclopedia section "IN wresting" missing,so they found own way to this discussion/vote/security. Colton Meltzer (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I find that somewhat improbable, given how byzantine Wikipedia projectspace is for a newcomer and the fact that at least four of the above accounts that I've checked were registered immediately after the SquaredCircle call to arms. But it doesn't really matter: everyone is welcome to comment here, provided they follow the rules, treat others civilly, keep comments focused on the matter at hand, and at least make an attempt to understand how community consensus works on this project. Snow let's rap 21:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

As I saw in the previous discussion, the In wrestling section has some policies against it. Finishing moves, sources don't include the technical description of the move, so it's OR. Signature moves it's clearly OR since it's hard to find a source saying "signature move". At the end, we made SYNTH (he uses the move X times, it's signature) Nicknames, people includes every YouTube video or promo as nickname (I removed severals and I find again in the article some days later). Entrance themes, for me it's pure trivial. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Soumds like there has to be Wikia-wikis about this stuff somewhere? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The Pro Wrestling Wikia could work, though it is poorly upkept and a majority of it is copied from here. JTP (talkcontribs) 22:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Entrance themes are part of the character portrayed by the wrestler. Further, change in entrance music also signifies major changes in the character being portrayed. Similarly to articles about musicals or other theatric performances, the music is certainly not trivial (e.g., Cats_(musical)). Secondly, the finishing moves are also part of the character being portrayed. Again, if a character omits or adds certain moves which in general finish a match, these changes indicate change in the character being portrayed. Furthermore, one important part of storytelling is whether the wrestler innovated the finisher, and if another wrestler adopted this finisher from their trainer. If anything, there should be more information regarding the finishers pertaining to the evolution of the character, in particular if they are the innovator, or whether the move was passed on from someone else. All these details are historically significant not only for individual characters, but for the wrestling performance as a whole. In general, it is my opinion that articles about wrestlers should not be treated as articles about athletes, but rather as articles about fictional characters. JackKasket (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • So here is my counter, if it's so important would a list actually help inform the reader of any of this? I don't see where a list convey the "historical significance" that you mention.  MPJ-DK  03:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would argue that a timeline would be the optimal representation, similar to Carcass_(band)#Band_members. However, maintaining this would be a nightmare, in which case the second best option would be Current/Past lists. Basically, treat this information similarly to other performance arts.JackKasket (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • How is someone's theme music & move set any different then the number of championships someone has held? For many of of them, their championship listings (in every single promotion they have been in) is much longer then the theme songs they've had & moves they've done. So why take out (all of the) the theme songs & moves but keep (all of) the championships? If you keep the championship reigns they you should also keep the theme music & move set....that just makes logical sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:418D:E52E:5D61:A083 (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Championships and awards typically receive far more coverage in reliable sources and are generally more notable to the subject. Entrance themes rarely receive any coverage, which is why most of their inclusions is supported by an iTunes Store link or a database entry (which does not establish notability). Sidenote, signature moves is not intended to be a "move set"—a common misconception and one of the reasons it is better left omitted. Prefall 13:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Let me ask this: say,, if, for example, someone wanted to have (or has) wrestler theme songs on iTunes. Now, let’s say they want to list them in chronological order (starting with Seth Rollins’ 1st theme & ending with his current theme, etc. with other wrestlers). The same holds true with TV programming (Raw, SmackDown, NXT, etc.) or PPVs & so on. Where would people find them, if not on the wrestler pages where they’ve been? You can find the TV programming opening theme. But where is that on the wrestler pages? Please don’t tell me on the “WWE Music Group discography” page because that is only a listing of when the songs were released on iTunes & only those that were released by WWE’s musical department, not if a Kid Rock song is used, etc. Is that not reason enough to keep it? Is that not a historical reference of the character’s development? Why is it not an issue to list the TV show themes but it’s a problem to list the wrestler themes? Someone may want to know what theme song(s) A.J. Styles used when he was in TNA & not just his championships! As for awards/accomplishments, who cares how may times he has been Pro Wrestling Illustrated or Wrestling Observer Newsletter’s Wrestler of the year or in match of the year or how many times he’s won a “WWE Slammy”. Furthermore, a Slammy is not really an award par-say but a gimmicky thing. What about Booker T (or anyone else, for that matter) being listed with a “Hall of Fame” award where there isn’t really a hall of fame? That, too, is a gimmicky thing but it’s still listed? So how are championships & accomplishments really any different then theme music & moves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:418D:E52E:5D61:A083 (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument...if you want to start a discussion to remove than section go ahead, but that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes it does! It has EVERYTHING to do with it! It is ABOUT a segment the content THAT IS BEING removed as opposes to contest that is being kept! That makes it VERY relevant to the matter at hand! Furthermore, let me also draw your attention to parts of the very article: “these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes”, “legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought or consideration” & “it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged” which is exactly what you have done! Therefore, I do make a very valid point! Man, I hate when I’m right…. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:418D:E52E:5D61:A083 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate discussion as much as the next guy, but can we at least keep it civil? Snarky comments like "Man, I hate when I'm right" irritate others and are downright rude. Thanks. JTP (talkcontribs) 19:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
When Prefall made a overhaul, i agreed with the changes (except for "In Wresting") as stated on previous posts discussion with reasons. This right here, almost like "Donald Trump wins the 2016 President Election fairly" Where this In Wresting section was removed fairly anger many many people. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I am not trying to be snarky - I am being sarcastic, there’s a difference. You my thing me saying “Man, I hate when I'm right” is snarky, but I think being told my comments/opinions “is not a valid argument” is snarky. I quoted an article - apparently intended to discredit my comments/opinions - that clearly states not to do what was done to me. How, exactly is THAT not being snarky? You want to talk about being “civil”, since when was it a crime to make a sarcastic remark when I am being insulted? Isn’t THAT “downright rude”? If I am going to be attacked I am going to fight back so please don’t accuse me of being “snarky” but let others be rude to me & insist on how “wrong” I am - just because someone does not agree with me does not give them the right! I make very valid points, rather or not you or anyone else like them or not! I stand by every single word I said - theme music should NOT be removed & nonsense like Match/Superstar of the Year it kept! You may call this “snarky” but I don’t care….prove me wrong (the entire statement, not just what should/shouldn't be removed)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:418D:E52E:5D61:A083 (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Championships are gimmicks too. Slammy Awards also have numerous categories that have been legitimately fan voted. Anyway, the difference is that these items typically receive far more coverage than much of the content contained within the "In wrestling" section. But if you think other items should be removed too, a separate discussion can be created.
Most entrance themes are simply not significant to the performer and thus do not receive much coverage outside of a retailer listing or "listen now" link. A catalog of entrance themes being WP:USEFUL is not the greatest argument. WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information comes to mind. Now, if a theme is actually significant to their persona and has received notable coverage, it can still be written into prose. A couple examples is Steve Austin's "glass shattering" soundbyte ([22][23][24]), or Triple H's use of Motörhead and friendship with frontman Lemmy ([25][26][27]). Prefall 22:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I reiterate my previous point: “what if someone wanted to have (or has) wrestler theme songs on iTunes. Now, let’s say they want to list them in chronological order (starting with Seth Rollins’ 1st theme & ending with his current theme, etc. with other wrestlers). The same holds true with TV programming (Raw, SmackDown, NXT, etc.) or PPVs & so on. Where would people find them, if not on the wrestler pages where they’ve been? You can find the TV programming opening theme. But where is that on the wrestler pages? Please don’t tell me on the ‘WWE Music Group discography’ page because that is only a listing of when the songs were released on iTunes & only those that were released by WWE’s musical department, not if a Kid Rock song is used, etc.” I think that is that not reason enough to keep it! Like I had asked before, “Why is it not an issue to list the TV show themes but it’s a problem to list the wrestler themes? Someone may want to know what theme song(s) A.J. Styles used when he was in TNA & not just his championships!” Therefore, I beg the question: if someone can’t look up somebody’s theme on Wikipedia anymore, then where EXACTLY can they? From what I have seen, NOWHERE WHATSOEVER! Wikipedia is the ONLY PLACE that someone has EVER been able to locate that information! Taking that away is completely unacceptable!
Then they can go on the wrestling Wikia. I'll reiterate the point that Wikipedia only summarizes stuff that other reliable sources have published, so the fact that it doesn't exist elsewhere is a perfect argument against including it here (see also WP:ITSUSEFUL). --Ahecht (TALK
) 20:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I don’t care how “insignificant” you think theme music is or how “significant” you think championships are! Have you ever thought that theme music MIGHT VERY WELL be significant to people that WANTS to know that stuff? Bet where do you expect them to go to get that information? Just because it isn’t significant to you does not give you the right to dictate that it can’t be to someone else! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:418D:E52E:5D61:A083 (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I beg the question: if someone can’t look up somebody’s theme on Wikipedia anymore, then where EXACTLY can they? Some have recommended that this content would be much better suited for a fan Wikia, such as the Pro Wrestling Wikia. This extends beyond entrance themes too—for a lot of detailed information that is not hosted here. Prefall 23:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
That is WAY OUTDATED! I saw the posting you are talking about & I already looked there but guess what? It is WRONG! For example , there are SEVERAL that I have seen that are NOT accurate! That [still] lists Bianca Belair’s theme as "We Do It Better" (WWE; 2017-present) & Lacey Evans’ theme as "Bad Girl Good Boy" by Kimberly Korn (NXT; October 20, 2016 – present) but before it was taken down Wikipedia said that Bianca Belair’s current theme is REALLY “Watch Me Shine” by CFO$ & Lacey Evans’ is “Like a Lady” by Nancy Rowland! That is JUST A SMALL EXAMPLE of MANY which right there in itself PROVES that you have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what you are talking about regarding that site! I did not pull that out of my butt so clearly you can’t even get your facts straight! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:418D:E52E:5D61:A083 (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Then go fix that specialist site instead of mucking up this general one. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, your behavior including SHOUTING IN ALL-CAPS is uncivil bordering on disruptive. Please stop.--WaltCip (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Because I am not a “specialist”….but apparently you think you are if your attack me for speaking the truth! Learn some common sense, people! Oh, that’s right, I forgot….common sense ain’t too common anymore - people are stuck on stupid….
Maybe I gotta use all caps to make a point because clearly nobody is smart enough to understand what is clear as day right in front of their faces….it’s enough to make me sick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:418D:E52E:5D61:A083 (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok, not withstanding my defense of your questionable all caps habit below, the actual content of your comments is getting increasingly incivil; I would like to direct you to WP:CIV which you will want to read before commenting further here. Civility is one of our five pillar policies in this work space and you will find we take it very seriously. Not only are the liberal "you are so stupid" comments pretty much guaranteeing that anything you have to say about the content is being discounted whole-cloth, but you are very likely to find yourself banned from further participation if you keep it up. We have a low tolerance here for people who bring "more heat than light" to content discussions and the community just recently decided to put the topic area of professional wrestling under WP:general sanctions, because you are not the only visitor from a wrestling community who has shown a refusal to avoid speaking abusively to other contributors here. General sanctions being in effect means that the fuse you light with unkind terminology is shorter than normal and will lead to a block quite quickly if you can't show the self-control necessary to discuss matters without resorting to insults and other WP:personal attacks.
That addressed, I think you should know that when Ian references "specialist" Wikias, he was not talking about platforms that require any more technical knowledge than Wikipedia does, nor expert knowledge of pro wrestling. Wikia is like Wikipedia (created by some of the same people in fact): it is open source and mostly community run. Everything that has ever been added to Wikipedia regarding pro wrestling could be replicated there. What we mean when we say "specialist" is that Wikipedia was never intended to be a wharehouse for all possible information on a given topic. Our objective here is not to preserve every bit of human knowledge on any given topic, but rather to provide an encyclopedic summary of encyclopedic topics. Let me elucidate with an example: let's say you like to play video games. Would you come to Wikipedia to find out how to play a given game? No, you'd come to Wikipedia to learn about the release date or critical reception or development history of the game, but you'd go to a Wikia to learn how to navigate the water level without putting your foot through the TV.
That is what others are talking about here when they suggest Wikia as a place where you could relocate this information, if you were so inclined. And if you aren't willing to pitch in to preserve this content that you feel is so important, then perhaps its not really that important--and demanding we cater to your needs is a tad bit of an entitled way to look at this situation? I knew very little about the technical side of this project when I started editing on Wikipedia, but I kept at it and I'm proud of the content I have created and maintained for the benefit of this with an interest in the topics I can help make available. It doesn't happen over night, but only you can decide if it is worth the effort. Meanwhile, we have bigger fish to fry with regard to maintaining our articles than "Oh, all caps guy liked that The Impalanator once entered to ring to Fat Bottom Girls and ended a match in 1998 with a triple-suplex. Guess we have to rethink this whole thing." That is perhaps appropriate for a Wikia index, but not useful summary information for an encyclopedia article.
When I was reviewing that SquaredCircle page, I noticed that the group had something like 356 thousand subscribers--twelve thousand were online WHILE I WAS READING IT. (See, a little emphasis in moderation goes a lot farther). If just one in a hundred of those subscribers has some Wiki-editing experience and/or a little bit of patience and time to give to a community project (rather than wasting it yelling "idiot" at us here), then that is 3,560 editors for your new project! Do you know how much work that number of editors can get done in short order? In all of the physiology and cognitive science articles I work on, I bet there are fifty total regular editors that I would recognize as reliable editors working in those same areas, if that. Maybe we're not the ideal targets on which to spend your considerable energy and motivation to maintain this informations somewhere in an organized and centralized manner? Snow let's rap 04:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as how the consensus was achieved to remove the "In wrestling" -section altogether? On one hand, editors are arguing that the information is mostly/all trivial, which I disagree with. On the other hand, editors are focusing on the difficulty of maintaining that section and cruft that it attracts (as opposed to the content being trivial). These two reasons seem contradictory in the sense that I do not see any evidence of a consensus being achieved that would justify the sudden removal of the section from all articles. JackKasket (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
The consensus in question does not yet exist; that is the purpose of the present thread. It may be that you will find some more information about the original thinking behind these reforms at WP:PW, where the original discussion took place. However, because that space is a WP:WikiProject the editors who originally responsible for promoting this change in approach where told that they would have to host a larger discussion before this could become a default approach for all wrestling articles. This is because we have a policy here (WP:Advice pages) which prohibits WikiProjects from unilaterally deciding on changes to be applied over a large number of articles without broader community input/vetting (many years ago we had some WikiProjects which tried to create default rules for every article they felt was in their purview and it got to be quite disruptive). However, if a consensus approach arises out of this discussion, it will be considered a valid default approach for all wrestling articles; variations will still be allowed, but editors will have to meet a much higher burden of proof / win an explicit WP:LOCALCONSENSUS discussion on individual articles in order to ignore this default rule, and that will be very difficult. And because WP:General sanctions will be in effect on those articles, admins will be able to sanction those who disruptively ignore the consensus established here. In effect, this discussion will have almost (but not quite) the effect of a WP:GUIDELINE. If this is all a bit confusing and byzantine-seeming, trust me that you are not alone in that. This is a case of what I would call "advanced" (or at least intermediate) policy work; I would expect that even some very experienced editors might be confused about how this whole thing unfolded and what the impact of this discussion is; if I have failed to explain the matter in a way that makes sense, let me know and I will attempt to clarify.
I agree that there do seem to be multiple competing theories as to why the "In wrestling" section should be traded in for a conventional prose section (as indeed there are multiple theories asserted by those who see value in it, although not all of them very well based in our policies). In addition to the arguments you note above, there is also a feeling amongst some respondents here that WP:PROSE is controlling; in general, we expect content on the encyclopedia to be written in full prose that allows for contextualizing information, where possible. There are also WP:V arguments regarding removing the content, but I am not won over by those; there are many cases with regard to entertainment media where we allow the subject to be its own self-verifying source (plot summaries, for example, usually do not need to be verified by an independent source). However, there are legitimate WP:WEIGHT concerns. Personally I do not see why the WP:TRIVIA and WP:CRUFT-attraction arguments are mutually exclusive, so you'll have to further clarify for me why you do. I also think both the WP:PROSE and WP:WEIGHT arguments raise valid concerns. However, even if some of these different concerns were in conflict with one-another, they could still all point us in the same general direction (imagine you have three legislators in an assembly; one wants to lower the speed limit in municipal areas for safety reasons, another because of the wear on infrastructure, and the third because they want to curb greenhouse gases; they don't all have to have the same motivation in order to stand on the floor and advocate for a change, and the circumstances are similar here). The WP:CLOSER of this discussion (which in this case will probably have to be an admin) will have to find a way to interpret a general consensus from the disparate opinions provided here, weighing all of the opinions, trying to find common ground amongst them, and considering them in light of previous community consensus and already established policies and guidelines. In doing so, the relative numbers of editors supporting one approach or another will be considered, but they will not be strictly determinative of the outcome; the closer can reject a statistically more numerous perspective if they find there is good reason (for example, if the outcome would conflict with a policy that has even more community support), although that is a very rare outcome. The discussion could also be resolved "no consensus", which would be a very bad outcome in this case, as it would leave everybody hanging in limbo and locked in dispute over the appropriate format of these articles even as they come under general sanctions--a recipe for disruption and rapid-fire sanctions.
I hope there is more clarity in this reply than overwhelming bureaucratic project-speak. Again, if I can do anything to make matters clearer, please say as much here or on my talk page. Snow let's rap 07:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I'll have a gander on the surrounding discussions as well. JackKasket (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ehh, I'm sure you and I are not the only ones who would rather they didn't do it, but there is absolutely nothing anywhere in policy or community consensus that says it is incivil or per se disruptive to use all caps, and I wouldn't hold your breath on that ever changing, because flexibility in expression is a value that has a lot of currency in this community, for good and ill. WP:TPG does (wisely) recommend avoiding all caps as "good practice", but there's no requirement.
Personally, I've always found strong reactions to all caps to be puzzling. It is often analogized to shouting because it was often used that way stylistically in written dialogue (not so much literature as often as comic pages and such), but that doesn't mean it actually has the effect of shouting. There are reasons shouting is often considered obnoxious in many contexts; at it's loudest it can actually physically hurt your ears and even at lower volumes it has a physiological stressing effect on people. But neither of those things is true for all caps; in order for it to have an effect upon another person, it has to be mediated through a recipients psychological filter. Meaning it only causes an elevated state of arousal from with participation by the recipient; as opposed to actual shouting, which causes this response rather instinctively regardless of a strong interpretive outlook on the part of the recipient.
Anyway, returning the behavioural policies, I don't think it is fair to describe the all caps habit itself, as regards any firm community consensus, as "uncivil bordering on disruptive". Obnoxious and self-defeating seems accurate though! I would say that it's more the content of what the IP is saying that is getting closer and closer to uncivil, not the way they are saying it. Snow let's rap 03:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, so I suppose you are going to say I was never attacked? I am not allowed to fight back & defend myself when **I** am attacked 1st? Take a look at all the insults & rude comments thrown my way **before** I ever said anything! As I’ve said before to someone else - get your facts straight!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cce0:8550:d424:64a0:7b5c:a6e5 (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2018‎ (UTC)
Just because people don’t like what I say or how I say it doesn’t make it any less true….I speak the honest to God truth - always have, always will!~~ The Greatest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:D424:64A0:7B5C:A6E5 (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Man, I'm on your side of the argument but you're being illogical, stubborn and toxic. Please. Jcw91 (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


Where did anyone actually say anything about you as a person? Quote something. Presenting logical arguments that you happen to dislike, pointing out problems with your attitude and behavior, and pointing out problems with your arguments are not the same as actually attacking you. Users have repeatedly asked you to behave in a civil and mature manner and if the next response I see from your IP range is anything but that, I'm going on ahead and blocking. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Did I say “as a person”? No, I am being attacked by my comment & opinions! Do you really think it is acceptable to say someone’s comment/opinions are “is not a valid argument” (Galatz - 15:52, 11 July 2018), are “snarky” & “are downright rude” (JTP - 19:56, 11 July 2018) “are simply not significant” & “is not the greatest argument” (Prefall - 22:48, 11 July 2018) & therefore don’t matter? What if I find those to be rude personal attacks? Is that “acceptable” & “civil”? No, that is not! Yet I am going to be accused of it? That is laughable to me! If people aren’t going to be “civil” & respectful with me why would/should I be “civil” & respectful with them?
Am I over reacting? Perhaps but I am going to defends myself regardless of if anyone likes it or not! Don’t blame me when I did not “fire the 1st blow” so to speak - I am just firing fire with fire, that does not make me the bad guy that everyone is making me out to be just because they don’t agree with my stance! You say “Presenting logical arguments that you happen to dislike, pointing out problems with your attitude and behavior, and pointing out problems with your arguments are not the same as actually attacking you. Users have repeatedly asked you to behave in a civil and mature manner and if the next response I see from your IP range is anything but that, I'm going on ahead and blocking.” but that is not true when that is exactly what is happening! Why would I “behave in a civil and mature manner” when I am not getting the same? If you are going to block me for standing up for myself that tells me how you treat people & find it acceptable but that’s neither here nor there - I don’t tolerate being bulled yet that is exactly how I have been treated!2602:306:CCE0:8550:D424:64A0:7B5C:A6E5 (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)The Greatest
Please read WP:Civility#Dealing with incivility, where it says that if you believe someone else is making uncivil comments, you should not make them in retaliation. I'm afraid your "fighting fire with fire" mentality is not the best way to go. JTP (talkcontribs) 18:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Personal attacks are, by definition, about you as a person. They're not simply about your chosen behavior or about how (un)reasonable your arguments are, which are what everyone has been commenting on. You do not get to behave in an uncivil manner, then use WP:NPA as a shield when anyone points out problems with your chosen behavior. You don't get to use WP:CIVIL as a weapon to force others to agree with you. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I find it interesting that nobody who opposes this change has bothered to come up with a policy-based counter-proposal or bothered to show that it is possible to properly source an "In wrestling" section (maybe in a sandbox, for example) without any original research, using reliable sources, and not using WP:SYNTH of sources. You can't just say that it's possible, you have to prove that it is and your argument will have more weight. Nikki311 06:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to downplay the opposing side despite disagreeing with them. Plenty of people here and on WikiProject's talk page have pointed out how that would be possible. World Wrestling Entertainment has its own record label slash music department named WWE Music Group, which releases their custom-tailored themes (so majority of WWE's themes) on multiple platoforms, including Amazon, iTunes and their own verified YouTube channel. Those platforms are used as valid and reliable sources on other music-related Wikipedia pages, such as articles about artists' discography. They would for sure be good enough sources on wrestler pages as well. It's a bit more problematic on other promotions, but New Japan Pro Wrestling, for example, lists the names of their wrestlers' entrance themes on their website. When it comes to finishing moves, WWE has a huge amount of articles referring to a wrestler's finishing move, NJPW and many other promotions list those moves in the wrestler bios. Managers and nicknames are a more difficult beast to tackle, but I'd say they have no place in Wikipedia, unlike finishing moves and theme musics. Kanavarras (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
My argument is mostly about finishing and signature moves. I'll pick Brock Lesnar as an example, because he is the first person listed on His WWE profile [28] lists the F5 and Kimora Lock as his signature moves (not even as finishers like his Wikipedia profile did prior to the section removal [29]). And nowhere does it describe the technical move name of F5 as "fireman's carry facebuster". Same with New Japan. Kenny Omega's New Japan profile [30] lists his finishing moves as Katayoku no Tenshi, V trigger, and Croyt’s wrath...again with no technical move description. Therefore those can't be used to source the moves unless you only list the move name without the description included. If even the promotions themselves only list a handful of moves considered "finishing" or "signature", how is listing them in a bullet list any more accessible than written in prose with more context? Nikki311 07:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I understand the concern with WP:SYNTH. However, that's only a problem when combining two sources could lead to a misinterpretation of why those two sources are connected. If WWE's own website lists F5 as Brock Lesnar's finishing move and the same website has a video of Brock Lesnar doing a fireman's carry facebuster named F5, it's pretty clear to all users that the two sources are referring to the same move. As stated in WP:NOTSYNTH, it is only a guideline and not a rigid policy, and in this case I wouldn't say combining the two sources is original research. Besides, you would be facing this same problem regardless of whether the moves are mentioned in prose or in a bullet list. In this case bullet list would be better than prose simply because of its easier readability and accessibility, the same way championships and accomplishments are a list instead of a wall of text. Kanavarras (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH is actually a massively important policy page that represents one of the oldest, strongest and most unviersally supported points of community consensus on this project. It is in fact as rigid as they come with regard to constraints on content on this encyclopedia. Respectfully, you can't have been on the project long if you don't know this, so I'd like to recommend to you and your visiting compatriots here not to be too bold in your policy pontifications until you have greater familiarity with said policies and how they operate in practice. I say this because I've seen a substantial number of "it's 'just' a guideline" comments already in this thread. Guidelines are actually policy and they have substantially secure operation to the circumstances they describe. They have to be vetted by the WP:PROPOSAL process, meaning they only come about if they represent substantially community consensus on the default approach for a given situation (contrast this with WP:ESSAYS which are optional opinions closer in importance to what you seem to think a WP:guideline is. While we do have an WP:Ignore all rules principle that allows us to contemplate exceptions to any policy, you will find that we don't exercise it very much or without very substantial cause, and the burden is upon the parties wishing to ignore those principles to make a compelling argument for why it should be done in that instance. In 999 out of 1,000 situations, the guideline is gonna control (and with regard to WP:SYNTH or anything that has to do with WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, think closer to 9,999 out 10,000).
Also you actually turned WP:NOTSYNTH completely on its head when you said that it urges that WP:SYNTH can be considered as optional; the supplement says no such thing and, in fact, the opposite is the case, as WP:NOTSYNTH actually just provides extra guidance in how to apply the policy in particular situations. It augments, rahter than contradicts, the policy; this is why the first two sections of the explanatory supplement are "WP:SYNTH is not useless" and "WP:SYNTH is not unnecesary". That said, the point is moot, because, per my comments below, there is a better explanation with regard to sourcing which explains why this information could come in, if WP:V was the only issue with the "In Wrestling" section. Unfortunately, WP:V is just the beginning of the story, and there are much bigger hurdles which actually do preclude the section. Snow let's rap 08:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I am not neglecting the whole WP:SYNTH guideline, I am simply questioning the validity of that argument in this context. Why would combining the two sources (the name of a wrestler's finisher on a wrestling promotion's website, and a video of the wrestler doing a move with the same name) be original research? If no such connections could ever be made, most information in Wikipedia would be classified as WP:SYNTH. Even if combining multiple sources is a problem, it shouldn't affect the whole In Wrestling section. The entrance music, for one, can be verified with just one source and definitely should be included in wrestler articles. I'd say it's comparable to articles about movies where the movie's soundtrack is simply in a list form instead of being worked into the prose or excluded completely. Kanavarras (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Because the video doesn't say "it's a fireman's carry facebuster". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with HHH on this, because I think you are speculating about a scenario when the move is explicitly named in the video. Nevertheless, there may be issues with regard to whether or not the video is a WP:reliable source. However, I do not see why you would need the video in any event: if the other source names the move as the "finisher" and is an RS, it would suffice in itself, so there is no need to even attempt to combine the sources, whether it would involve WP:SYNTH or not. (On the other hand, if both sources are needed to reach a conclusion and one is not RS, then you have both a SYNTH and a WP:V issue). However, notice my comments below; I believe meeting WP:V is actually a relatively easy thing to accomplish for most of the content likely to appear in such lists. It still doesn't make it appropriate encyclopedic content under our other content policies (see WP:ONUS). Snow let's rap 10:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
As we said, it's hard to find videos where the finisher is named and includes the technical description. There is some examples, like Shawn Michaels (Sweet Chin Music Superkick) or James Storm (Last Call Superkick). But it's hard to find a video about HHH (The pedigree, double underhook facebuster). I have an example; long time ago I created the article Kahagas. I have these sources [31][32][33] where I see his finisher is named "Osaka Street Cutter". however, I can't find the technical description. It's a stunner, a jumping cutter, springboard cutter? I can find some video in YouTube, but it's gonna be my personal descrption of the move. The name is sourced, of course, but not the technical move. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Issues with "technical" nomenclature not withstanding, I actually think that the WP:V argument is by far the weakest for omitting this section. The fact of the matter is, we do have a perfectly valid source for verifying that each individual move or piece of music was utilized in a particular airing of a particular event: the recorded event itself. We routinely permit that media may be its own source for verifying its own content; indeed, in any given day we have many tens of thousands of edits across thousands of articles that do this. Plot synopses (of every form of video entertainment media in existence) never use independent sources, nor do statements describing the events in reality TV shows. And pro wrestling is just a weird amalgamation of reality tv and scripted television fiction. It's perfectly reasonable to use the shows themselves as the source in this respect, and I haven't seen any principled reason put forward to explain why we would deviate from this wholly accepted practice that is so ubiquitous that (despite having seen hundreds of disputes over what should go into a synopsis) so long as the event is a plain facially accurate interpretation of what happens on screen, I've never once seen anybody challenge any form of "in-universe" description of a show on the basis of sourcing--not once. So this is not really a WP:V issue, it's an WP:ONUS issue:
"While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article...The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
It's not that the information can't be satisfactorily verified; though there may be occasions where that happens (as with the situation you describe where particular descriptive terms are hard to verify, even if the fact that the thing they describe can be verified), mostly verification will be easy to achieve. However, WP:V is just the beginning of the analysis for whether we include a given piece of information and its the following steps where the argument for retaining the "In wrestling" section breaks down. For one, information must have an encyclopedic context, not just be a random assortment of information piled unceasingly on top of itself in unending waves of added fancruft until you have 120k compost heap of indiscriminate information. This touches upon multiple important policies, including WP:WEIGHT, WP:TRIVIA, WP:WWIN, WP:PROSE, and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, to name just a few. I could write two paragraphs for each of those policies explaining why the "In wrestling" section presents problems of inevitable violations with regard to each. But the common nucleus of those concerns is that we are here to create an encyclopedic summary of article topics, a general narrative which could be used by the completely uninformed reader to achieve a basic understanding of the topic; NOT a complete warehouse of all minutia that can be collected with regard to said topic so that hardcore aficionados can have it all at their fingertips (and stored here as opposed to a more appropriate platform) even though it degrades the quality and consistency of our ability to achieve encyclopedic aims. Snow let's rap 08:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the above is the biggest argument that is being forgotten here. Just because something is verifiable, doesn't make it encylopedic. Lists have their place, but have very little bounding in a WP:BLP. Most of these articles have some sort of list on them (Filmographies, discographies, etc), and the articles DO have a need for a list of accomplishments/championships. However, these should also be mentioned in prose! These are usually for information that needs to be an exhaustive list (Which entrance music and moves aren't), and are mentioned in the career sections on BLPs. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "we do have a perfectly valid source for verifying that each individual move or piece of music was utilized in a particular airing of a particular event: the recorded event itself." That isn't the case with professional wrestling moves. There is no official guide that describes or defines the technical moves, so I may describe a move one way and someone else may describe it another way...which is where a lot of the edit-warring on these sections actually occurs. We could use the recorded event to source the wrestlers' names for the moves (such as the name F5), but as for what he is actually doing (the technical name) when he is performing that move cannot be sourced with the event itself. Nikki311 13:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
That's a useful observation: thanks for that. I had been operating under the assumption that there was at least a little uniformity in how moves are labelled and/or that the announcers for the matches tend to describe said moves as they occur, as in athletic wrestling and other contact sports. If that is not the case, then my WP:V argument is weaker than I presumed and there is yet more reason to omit the section. Snow let's rap 13:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
There is uniformity in technical descriptions. There are articles right here on wikipedia with the information Professional_wrestling_moves with sources ranging from WWE articles, interviews, to books, to long-used glossaries from It does get a little tricky with named moves, where the same technical move might have several names (e.g. the Tiger Driver) depending on who is doing it or the announcer calling it or the promotion it's being used in. Since media is a reliable source, I'm wondering how create-a-wrestler sections of video games might be fit into that. I dunno, I just wanted to chime in and point out there is uniformity in technical terms, otherwise wrestling schools and trainers would have a very hard time. Bonevoyage (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
For some of the more basic moves but certainly not all. I remember an edit war over whether a move was a "wheel kick" or a "heel kick", or as pointed out above "stunner", "jumping cutter", or "springboard cutter". Some of the moves are very similar and even different sources deemed reliable call them different things. Nikki311 13:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This is going to take a while so bear with me....

I will whole heartedly admit that I came here with a grudge. But in fairness please let me explain. When I discovered the “In Wrestling” section missing - when I was looking for something….a wrestler’s theme song, no less - why did I have to go to the Wikipedia:Teahouse (after having to search for it) & ask “I am looking at WWE wrestler pages & there use to be an ‘In Wrestling’ section that listed ‘Finishing Holds’, ‘Signature Holds’ & ‘Theme Music’ but all of that is nowhere to be found anymore. Why has it been removed? I am trying to look up some wrestler theme songs & that was my go-to for looking it up but that is impossible to do when they have been removed.” & was directed here when I was told “You need …. where there is a discussion going on about that very thing.” & that is the only way I would have ever known about it? Why is it that I have seen things on Wikipedia about asking for financial donations to keep it up & running but I never saw anything at all about any type of discussion whatsoever about content changes? If Wikipedia is going to ask the general-public-at-large for financial assistance on the site shouldn’t the same general-public-at-large also therefore have a say about what content is removed? Especially if it had been on the site for over the past 10+ years? Much less it being next to impossible to find & having to go searching for it like I had to? Then, as soon as I make a comment it is immediately shut down & “deemed trivial”, “pure trivial”,“ not a valid argument”,“ simply not significant” & “not the greatest argument”? I beg to differ, Drmies, HHH Pedrigree, Galatz & Prefall! I think the lengths I had to go through to even get here & the treatment I have gotten like I’m nothing but a 2nd, 3rd, ect. thought & that my opinion doesn’t matter at all gives me cause for having an attitude from the start. That is as close to an apology as I am getting….but I’ll be waiting for an apology from Drmies, HHH Pedrigree, Galatz & Prefall for treating me like a nobody!

With that being said, I have a very specific direct question for Drmies, HHH Pedrigree, Galatz & Prefall: who made you all kings (or queens) of the universe to dictate what is or isn’t “trivial” or “significant” at your own sole discretion? I call you 4 out because you sure seem to give yourself that right based on my comment/opinion alone! A right which you do not have! Just because “it’s just not important” to you doesn’t mean it isn’t to somebody else! Who do you to think you have the sole power to determine what you consider important (or unimportant) & push that on everybody else? You have no right to make that call! Do you know how self-centered, narrow-minded & egotistical that makes you?

Now, from my understanding of what I had read, the top section of this thread it says The ‘In wrestling’ section has been a standard part of professional wrestling biographies for over a decade. It covers mostly character information in a bulleted list format.” & I agree with that but it goes on to say that “On May 24, 2018, an editor raised an issue with the section's vague heading to WikiProject Professional wrestling. The next day, renaming the heading to ‘Professional wrestling highlights’ and adjusting ‘Championships and accomplishments’ into a subsection beneath it was proposed. On June 3, it was considered to have reached consensus after the 5 participants agreed unanimously. In the weeks that followed, a few editors disapproved of the new heading, as well as ‘Championships and accomplishments’ being turned into a subsection. On June 24, clarification of which heading to go forward with was requested, where an additional option to remove the section entirely was proposed. On June 28, the discussion was closed after 10 editors participated, with an ‘overwhelming consensus’ to remove the section but rework any content deemed significant into prose, potentially into a ‘Professional wrestling persona’ section. The changes were immediately enacted into hundreds of articles, causing news of the changes to be spread onto online professional wrestling communities. Many new editors voiced frustration over the removal, with some reverting the changes. but what I have a problem with is out of everyone that edits or reads Wikipedia how can ONLY 5 people - out of hundreds of thousands - “agree unanimously” on a change or ONLY 10 people - again, out of hundreds of thousands - make an “overwhelming consensus” to remove an entire section of content? Why then, is it that “many [new] editors voiced frustration over the removal” but the general public doesn’t get any say whatsoever? That very select small group jumped the gun completely deleting the section without allowing any input whatsoever from people that used the information. Then the “recommendations” says that “this proposal seeks to remove the ‘In wrestling’ section”….key word being SEEKS….goes on to say “Much of the information contained within this section would be lost.”….key word being LOST….& adding that “The content most likely to be reworked is certain Finishing moves, Nicknames and Wrestlers trained. As it stands, Managers are already expected to be covered in prose, primarily in the ‘Professional wrestling career’ section. If necessary, reworked content can be placed within the existing ‘Professional wrestling persona’ section.” but that still excludes important content & Prefall’s PROPOSAL is “Should we adopt a default approach of omitting the bulleted list ‘In wrestling’ section, in favor of its notable content being contextualized in prose when appropriate?” but who, exactly, is the end-all be-all that makes that call? Snow says that “The consensus in question does not yet exist; that is the purpose of the present thread.” but if the consensus does not exist yet then why, exactly, is it that the content is ALREADY gone? Being that this is such a huge topic of debate, why, then, did I (& I’m assuming many others) have such a hard time finding out about it? If such a drastic change is made to the “In Wrestling” section then would someone PLEASE explain to me why this whole discussion was brought up AFTER already taking the content down & not BEFORE doing so being that it clearly stated that it SEEKS to make the changes although they have already been done PRIOR TO this discussion? Whoever made the decision to completely remove the “In Wrestling” section out-right was out of line & should never have done it! Why would anybody financially support a website that does that? If Wikipedia is no longer going to provide knowledge content then I am NO LONGER going to be supporting Wikipedia at all if that is how things are done around here!

I would like to thank & make reference to Lid & offer this quote “Not everything fits into a narrow box of ‘is trivial’ or ‘is not trivial’ nor can making things have a sweeping removal ever be done without uproar occurring, and to then pass off the uproar as fly-by-nighter-johnny-come-latelys is to ignore the readers of wikipedia at their own peril. Wikipedia is a force for good, but sweeping changes made by 8 people is inevitably going to cause a problem, and its not like these 8 were arbitrators. If things need to change they have to change, but what has happened here was clearly wrong and to much ‘us vs them’ rather than actually looking at why these sections existed without one side reducing it to WP:USEFUL and the other WP:CRUFT. They have their place, they are important, and all-or-nothing is not the way we do things.” - truer words have never been spoken & that is my exact point - that was just said much better.

I have seen stated that verified but I don’t agree. I am not going to name names but I have known someone from church, middle school & high school that is now an actress. There is a Wikipedia page for her & there is stuff on her Wikipedia page that I know is not verified so clamming that everything on Wikipedia has to be verified does not hold water. I also know a current WWE superstar from their time on the independent circuit with data that is not verified so please don’t tell me that every single thing on Wikipedia has to be verified when that just is not true! If every single thing on Wikipedia really “has” to be verified then, why, exactly, shouldn’t Wikipedia be the [only] reliable go-to source. Why would you want to make people fend for themselves & send them elsewhere by making suck vital information - pertaining to a wrestler’s character - that much harder to find? But it is not really at all (anymore), is it? Too much valuable content is (now) missing because of a few self-centered, narrow-minded people! Wikipedia’s tag line is “The free encyclopedia”. Why is that? Isn’t an encyclopedia where you go to get information? Isn’t the point of an encyclopedia to be able to quickly dig up an easy answer to something? Yet you are taking information AWAY & not providing it?

Nikki had asked why nobody who opposes this change hasn’t bothered to come up with a solution but JackKasket had. Did you not see “I would argue that a timeline would be the optimal representation, similar to Carcass_(band)#Band_members. However, maintaining this would be a nightmare, in which case the second best option would be Current/Past lists. Basically, treat this information similarly to other performance arts.”? How is that not “policy-based”? I am going to attempt other ways.

With all of that being said, I completely agree that the “In Wrestling” section needs to be cleaned up & possibly renamed. However, it should not be completely removed like it already has been! Several of the so-called “signature moves” need to go (for example, a drop kick, clothesline or knee drop are not signature moves) & only keep the main moves that are commonly used & that would clean up a lot right there alone. I also don’t understand way “awards” from magazines (Pro Wrestling Illustrated, Wrestling Observer Newsletter….Rolling Stone [really?]) need to be listed under accomplishments. I know I am going to catch crap for this but I am a firm believer that a wrestler’s theme music IS a part of their professional wrestling persona & therefore SHOULD indeed be KEPT despite those clamming that it is nothing but “trivial” & “unimportant”. Case in point: if you take the time to read “Music in professional wrestling” under “Usage as part of a gimmick” it clearly states that “Entrance themes are often tailored to the gimmick of the wrestler they are written or selected for.”. How does that right there not make it an important part of their persona? That right there makes it valuable information that should be included. My thing about theme music is this: if you can have a championship section & list every single promotion someone has been in, every single championship that person has won in that promotion & how many times they have won each championship why would it be so hard to list the theme music they have used? What is so hard about that? Furthermore, people keep saying that anything that is “important” can be “put into prose” but entrance themes, moves (signature or finisher) & managers can NOT be in prose! Do you really expect someone to have to read paragraph after paragraph just to find a small bit of text? That is simply ridiculous! That kind of stuff MUST be in a bulleted list! The facts speak for themselves - the out-right complete removal of the section is, was & forever will be totally unjustified - it should be retrieved & brought back promptly!

In closing, it is my form opinion that this has never been a “survey” or “discussion” as it is made to appear - this is nothing more than a group of self-centered narrow-minded bigots forming a dictatorship & shoving their views down everybody’s throat. The way I have been treating for opposing that - being “deemed trivial” & “simply not significant” - proves it!

I’m going to let you quiver in your own self pitty....OnlyRealSpike (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  • A wrestler's entrance music could be included, assuming it can be sourced. A good example is Randy Savage, whose entrance music was such an important and memorable part of his persona that it is mentioned in the lead. If you go back to previous edits where it was listed and find a good reference, or can find a reliable source for it elsewhere, it seems to me you could add it back. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • OnlyRealSpike - quick comments 1) you are given the opportunity to comment now, can we please focus on the topic and not any perceived "incivility"? Your argument loses some of it's punch though by using terms such as bigots, what are people supposed to be biggoted against? 2) If this is the only place it's found - then it should not be here, we should not have content without reliable sources. Also - for 95% or more the theme music really doesn't make that much of a difference - if you're not in WWE/Impact you probably don't have a custom theme and are you telling me that someone in NXT being given "Random CFO$ theme #4" helps you in any way? Not trying to be dismissive, I am genuinely trying to figure out why you believe it's "critical to understanding a wrestler"? Does your knowledge of Sami Callihan's indy career in any way improved by knowing that he has come out to 9 different songs on the independent circuit? Not what he's done, worked with, achieved, won etc. but what music happen to be playing as he walks to the ring and afterwards if he wins the match? I'm just trying to understand the context of your comment.  MPJ-DK  03:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
If it is not here - like it has always been for over 10 years - where exactly WOULD it be? Don’t you want people to COME to Wikipedia to find information? Yet it is not provided anymore? That is bullcrap! If I want a wrestler’s theme on my iTunes how do I find out what it’s called? I have always come to Wikipedia to find out! You & everyone else calling it “trivial” & “not relevant” DOES IN FACT make “dismissive” so you saying its not is 2-faced!OnlyRealSpike (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
That's quite literally the point. If something isn't sourcable from reliable sources, it has no place on Wikipedia. That's how the website works. If you can't find it elsewhere, we can't rely on it being accurate information. Please read the guideline on reliable sourcing. Please be civil, and discuss the policies.Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
OnlyRealSpike - Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Would you let me inform you of a few pieces of information regarding discussions on the encyclopedia. First, all conversations should be WP:CIVIL. Please don't call anyone a Bigot, or liken volunteers to a dictatorship. Secondly, all talks on wikipedia should be based on wikipedia policies. Could you provide us with some policy based arguments, please? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
So you want me to lie? Every single thing I said is the honest to God truth! The way I have been treated proves it! So who are you to tell me I’m wrong?OnlyRealSpike (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you've confused an opinion and truth. You cannot attack people on Wikipedia, there are Procedures in place to stop such things Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
You stated Who do you to think you have the sole power to determine what you consider important (or unimportant) & push that on everybody else? You have no right to make that call! - Which isn't true. Wikipedia has literally thousands of guidelines around what information is viable, which types are allowed, and how this should be formatted. For instance, the argument is that this information is deemed to be WP:FANCRUFT, which is excessive information that is only subject specific. It is not that information is unimportant per se, but simply that it has no place on a general encylopedia. There's also some extra information on the article about what Wikipedia is not. It simply isn't a warehouse for all information about a subject. There's also a lot of information that cannot be reliable known as true (See reliable sources). Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encylopedia, correct? Where do you go to get information? An encyclopedia! Wow, what a concept….until the information isn’t there! Then it is completely useless! Welcome to Wikipedia….OnlyRealSpike (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
There is another arguement about information being really poorly defined. What is a signature move? We can't guess, we need a reliable source to state this... But you'll find very few reliable sources ever state this. (And some list all moves as signature.) Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
How are there not any reliable sources? Furthermore, what did I say about my friends (the actress & WWE superstar)? What about stuff on their pages that aren’t verifiably sourced? So don’t talk to me about stuff being “poorly defined”!OnlyRealSpike (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia's policy on Verification. Wikipedia is a work in progress, but simply because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, doesn't make a policy have to fit this. There is information that is not well sourced on wikipedia, but in these cases, we should be tagging them with [citation needed] or otherwise. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Your last argument regarding entrance themes is a good, and perhaps you have misunderstood. The argument here isn't to simply remove all information, but to move it into written prose. Notable entrance themes should be moved to this section. However, there are wrestlers that have used tens of themes over the years, and most aren't notable. (For instance, Raven comes out to The Offspring's Keep 'Em Separated on the indies... But is this vital, notable information? It isn't. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Don’t keep giving me this prose crap! Like I had clearly stated: “Furthermore, people keep saying that anything that is ‘important’ can be ‘put into prose’ but entrance themes, moves (signature or finisher) & managers can NOT be in prose! Do you really expect someone to have to read paragraph after paragraph just to find a small bit of text? That is simply ridiculous! That kind of stuff MUST be in a bulleted list!” so what part of that do you not understand? That kind of stuff can not be hidden in the middle of a (set of) paragraph(s) making it next to impossible to find! Before I could just go right down to it but now only “some” of it “could” be like looking for a needle in a haystack! That, in itself, is completely unacceptable! How, exactly, is THAT “misunderstood”?OnlyRealSpike (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure they can. We've already discussed how this information is mostly WP:TRIVIA or WP:FANCRUFT, which should be limited on wikipedia (see the policies linked.) A layout style is usually resorted to how the information flows, not how it's seen. On Wikipedia, we do guess as to how people read the information, we simply lay it out as to how it reads. A list of all entrance music that someone has ever used,even if reliably sourced, is excessive. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Like I had asked before, what if someone wants to put wrestler’s theme music on their iTunes? Where would they go to bet the names of the songs? I had already come here! Where the h-e-double-hockey-sticks do you expect me to go now? Up your butt?OnlyRealSpike (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Then they can go on the wrestling Wikia. I'll reiterate the point that Wikipedia only summarizes stuff that other reliable sources have published, so the fact that it doesn't exist elsewhere is a perfect argument against including it here (see also WP:ITSUSEFUL). --Ahecht (TALK
) 20:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • OnlyRealSpike - I guess I will have to ask again. Can you please tell me how knowing that Sami Callihan has used at least 7 different songs on the indy circuit makes you understand the career or character? Can you please explain to me how reading "Watch Me Shine" listed for Bianca Belair makes you any more aware of her? So far your only argument has been "well what if I want to go to iTunes and find the theme" - at the risk of sounding dismissive here, but that's not really an encylopedic reason. So I want to not be dismissive, I want to understand why this has gotten under your skin, I would love for you to elaborate how listing theme songs for 99% of the wrestlers makes a differnce to you beyond the whole "iTunes" comment. Geniuinly curious.  MPJ-DK  21:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Well I guess I won't get an answer from OnlyRealSpike since he was just indef'ed for uncivil behavior. I guess I'll never know then.  MPJ-DK  21:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I am unsure whether someone else has already made this point, but distinguishing what is and isn't a signature move is fairly easy, especially for those who wrestle on the main roster of WWE. WWE wrestlers work a repetitive style where their signature moves are made very obvious. To make it even easier, moves for the most part in WWE are unique to the wrestlers. I believe the exceptions to this are Finn Balor's and Seth Rollins' slingblades and I guess Roman Reigns' and Bobby Lashley's spears. This formatting alone should help simplify any perceived chaos in a "in wrestling" section. 2600:6C63:647F:DA77:0:85BF:75CB:B9E9 (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, plenty of other people have suggested using WP:OR to source it, but thats still against WP policy. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 03:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Example of the "Keep" vote with strict WP:V verification[edit]

  • So taking the feedback of people who vote "keep" and their approach on handling content I have worked on the Sin Cara article, an IP reverted the removal and I did not want to just wholesale remove it since it's being discussed here. So I did an analysis of sources and content. After which I have removed anything that was not found explicitly stated in a reliable source, so it went from this long list to this much shorter list. I figured that instead of a theoretical discussion we should have an actual example of how this would look. There is nothing stating that a "wrestling persona and style" section has to be included, which means that this is the sections and content based on the original style guide that's been in place for over 10 years. I just want people to know what that actually means. This is a WP:BLP and under general sanction, keep that in mind as well.  MPJ-DK  04:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
MPJ-DK - The "Incognito Especial" wouldn't be acceptable by WP:SYNTH. And all moves are sourced by an offline source. I am willing to promote WP:GOODFAITH on this article, but if we can literally only source wrestling moves from printed text, there is very little hope for the other thousands of articles out there.
The entrance music issue is different, as arguably, this is notable, as the wrestlers themselves have the music made for them (Original music). However, I'm not sure I would be ok with articles simply referencing iTunes store for this purpose. I think I could be convinced there is a place for any original music created for the talent - But this could once again, simply be written in prose, if the music was notable enough. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
One of my biggest concerns with sourcing itunes or the youtube video, or anything else is it doesn't really say much about it. Randy Orton had a live version of his music done at WrestleMania one year, it was a different version than before (was it the same artist? was it not? do we have a source that proves either argument which could be questioned). Would a link to them singing the music at WrestleMania tell us anything about it? In prose however it could be discussed and a clearer picture could be painted, with proper sourcing. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I've added his manager, citing WrestlingData. Eight "trademark moves" (clearly synonymous with "signature") ripe for the picking in there, if someone can show which mask fits which move. Or how exactly the Olympic Slam is "modified". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, July 16, 2018 (UTC)
And you passed the test! Congratulations, you're now ready to weed even the slightest bit of dubiousness from any and all new and improved sections. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, July 16, 2018 (UTC)
Is wrestlingdata really reliable for this type of sourcing? I thought it could only be used for really basic information Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
This is really basic information. That's why it's on the introductory Profile page. The more complex stuff is in the other tabs. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:34, July 17, 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't make the source anymore reliable. It's clearly unproven. If we were to use the site like this, we'd have to make sure it was reliable for this type of information. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
You one of their matches? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Please see conversation above as to why this isn't verifiable. What someone might call a facebuster, might be referred to by another as a DDT. This has never been an acceptable way of sourcing. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I was looking for a source about Lesnar's F5, a fiherman carry facebuster. But suddenly, I found one source calling "spinning facebuster". So... that's the problem. Also, I was looking a video for Kahagas' Osaka Cutter, but I found nothing. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I always thought it was a Death Valley Driver Facebuster... Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

A Death Valley Driver is basically a sideways brainbuster, and like all brainbusters and piledrivers, bumping facefirst is quite likely fatal. Lesnar's rough, but not that rough. It's a facebuster from a fireman's carry with a spin, so either of Pedrigree's descriptions works well enough. Anyway, this same mild confusion would affect a reader in prose as much as in a list, so a moot point here.
I took Only in death's suggestion above to mean you could watch matches on YouTube to test whether a source is reliable. If it passes inspection, use that reliable source to verify info on Wikipedia. Not cite the info directly to the matches, which is a terrible idea for a few reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:17, July 18, 2018 (UTC)
Sources are either reliable, not reliable or untested. We can't quote unreliable sources simply because one piece of information is correct. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
WrestlingData is "not yet proven", not deemed unreliable, so we can use it with caution rather than not at all. If "use with caution" doesn't mean testing specific data against the primary sources for validation and making a reasonable effort to rule out contradiction from other secondary sources, I can't guess what it could mean. Can you? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:34, July 20, 2018 (UTC)


Sooo... Should someone attempt to close this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest with the atmosphere and the size of the conversation, this would most likely have to be an admin closure. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
They're probably deciding which finishing move to use during the close. - X201 (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
X201 - Should probably be old fashioned, and go over with the leg drop, brother. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, its been over 2 weeks and I do not expect leaving this open any longer will bring any additional points of views. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Anyone? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Galatz, Lee Vilenski, X201, and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I've posted a request for closure at WP:AN/RFC. If you weren't aware, note that RfCs are typically supposed to run for 30 days; and there is a fair amount of backlog over there. Jc86035 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
HAH! I was just looking at that page, trying to figure it out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks! I didnt know that page existed. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── - I didn't know it existed, it wouldn't necessarily be pertinent to close before the 30 days, if that's what the policy is. We don't want another conversation because it was closed too soon. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I agree, this one has to be by the book since the first one was more "by the comic book" ;)  MPJ-DK  11:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The 30 days has now passed Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal to draftify UDP-tagged articles[edit]

Currently we have just 780 articles tagged with template:Undisclosed paid (UDP), a particular aspect of more general template:COI. I think mere tagging for suspected UDP editing is toothless - the potential paid editor gets the job done anyway and the article becomes indexed by search engines, hanging around indefinitely until someone cleans it. Moving all UDP-tagged articles to the non-indexed draft space and keeping them there untill they're fixed and ready to return to the mainspace could be a good solution. Also in this option, any new UDP-tagged article might be draftified by any registered user. If adopted, the proposal might entail corresponding addendums in relevant pages. Thoughts (support, oppose, comments)? Brandmeistertalk 13:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I like this idea, as it would remove those problematic articles to a more appropriate space where they can be dealt with properly, subject to the AfC criteria. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 19:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This would reduce the automatic "BOGO" that many paid editors count on. John from Idegon (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Although it would be interesting to know if the relevant templates could also apply noindex as an alternative. —PaleoNeonate – 19:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Mainspace pages aren't noindexable. —Cryptic 01:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Unless someone changed something again when I wasn't looking, Cryptic, new pages are default NOINDEX, until passed by NPP or 90 days old. Oh, wait....I read that wrong. So, yeah. I like the idea of the UDP template adding the NOINDEX back in addition to draftified. Anything that pushes UPE editors into outing themselves is a good thing in my book. John from Idegon (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
        • My point is that either this requires a software change, or that all paid pages are found and fully dealt with before the 90-day cutoff before indexability stops being configurable. Neither of those are realistic in the least. —Cryptic 03:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
          • I don't understand the software, nor do I care to. So I'll take your word for it. However, that does not affect the original proposal, ya? John from Idegon (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
          • The UPE template already applies NOINDEX and the page will stay NOINDEXed even if patrolled for 90 days after creation. MER-C 13:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
            • Good tidbit I was not aware of. But there's also the possibility to alleviate the mainspace and cut off potential traffic to such articles - several dozens UPE articles are already in drafts. Brandmeistertalk 18:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Are supposed to go through AfC anyway. One thing to consider is the "undisclosed paid articles" that make it through AfC, should we deal with these differently? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    • My understanding is that those that have passed AfC do not require cleanup requested in the UDP template, at least in the reviewed AfC version. If UDP is still suspected, they could be sent back to drafts. Brandmeistertalk 21:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
      • IMO, and I'm not alone, AfC is kinda like economics. We all know ideally that's how it should work, but in actuality, it doesn't always. John from Idegon (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This sounds like a good idea, as the authorship violates the site's terms of service. However, would not the lag between creation and detection allow for search engine indexing in some % of cases? Also, could someone point me at a description (or put it here if brief) of how one determines that the content has been paid for, particularly if undisclosed? Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - I'd like a second pair of eyes on each of the articles before they are moved to draftspace. I'm leery about doing this automatically where it allows any editor to unilaterally move any page to draft. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    Sticky Prod, as suggested below, is a better solution which I fully support. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • While I support the general idea, I'm not sure moving pages into draftspace where they will disappear from the eyes of other editors is the best way. Natureium (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written. We should not automatically userfy pages just because someone slapped a template:Undisclosed paid on it. Really, if no one is planning on improving these articles, sending them to draft space is just a delayed WP:CSD G13 death sentence. If we want to delete these articles, we should use the existing CSD or AFD processes, and only send them to draft space if there is a editor without a COI issue who plans to improve the article in the 6 month window. If they haven't already been nominated for deletion under existing policy, and instead are stuck with the Undisclosed paid tag, its because they still add value to the encyclopedia, not withstanding the issue with their primary contributor. Monty845 04:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer a sticky PROD that couldn't be removed by the creator. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • #1 choice sticky PROD. This deals with the article quickly and keeps it visible for those who may be interested in fixing it. The stickiness should require the remover to place {{oldprodfull}} with con= and conreason= filled out ie disallow 'I just don't like prod's prod removal'. Personally I would like to see that requirement for all PRODs but I know a loosing battle when I see one :) #2 choice support proposal for moving them to draft but it seems to be the less accountable and reviewable of the two. Regardless, if this is to become a regular thing, a tracking category should be added when either is done to facilitate review. Jbh Talk 11:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As it's currently set up, the draft namespace is only for short-term collaboration on future articles, so unless there are editors who have expressly volunteered to work on an article, and there's agreement that this article is not ready for mainspace, then it shouldn't be draftified. In practical terms, sending an article to draft will be useless if the COI editor is still around, as they're likely to be motivated enough to move it back; and if there are no editors (with a COI or without) watching it, then the move is most likely to result in the silent "expiry" of the draft after six months – this is deletion by the backdoor and should not be encouraged. Additionally, the fact that a given article has been edited by someone suspected of UDP is not a single problem that has a single solution, it's simply an indication of a more basic problem. Fundamentally, this might be an issue of either notability – in which case deletion via the proper channels is the way to proceed, or of neutrality and sourcing – in which case it's better to rewrite the article or simply to remove any suspicious parts, even if this means paring it down to a one-sentence stub. – Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    I understand these concerns about "deletion by the backdoor" even if I supported. A good approach if this passes and there is enough will to make it happen, would be to make a temporary trial (i.e. I remember of WP:ACTRIAL), then evaluate with stats if it helped. It may help in some ways: (quickly unindex pages vs deletion processes, permit more time to work on them, for instance) which is why I think it's worth trying. If it results in draft space becoming unwieldy other procedures may need changes... —PaleoNeonate – 16:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support if not fully automatic, per concern raised by Tazerdadog and Monty845. It needs human review, because not every tagging will have been valid, and some valid ones will already have been resolved without removing the tag.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - I'm with SMcCandlish here, although I'd prefer mass draftify over leaving them alone. DaßWölf 00:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Regulars to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or NPP would observe that this is already starting to become practice when dealing with promotional articles. I prefer sticky prod over draftifying -- spammers sometimes continue to work on the draft and move it into mainspace (either with the original account, socks, meatpuppets or a different spamming company altogether). Paid-for spam in many cases can't be fixed, because the subject may be non-notable and the article's very existence is promotional. Sticky prod satisfies the desire above to have review of any pages affected by this proposal. MER-C 12:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Prodding could be a good alternative. To severe oxygen supply for paid efforts and convey WP:GAME message this might entail mass prodding of all such tagged articles and possibly prescribing in policy that articles tagged for UDP might or should be prodded. Brandmeistertalk 19:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Only if the spammer and any non-autoconfirmed user (covert advertising frequently involves large sockfarms) are prohibited from removing the deletion messages. MER-C 20:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, noting similarity to my Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product proposal.
The sticky PROD idea looks just as good. How long until the UPE-PROD results in deletion? In the case of the sticky UPE-PROD idea, who is the non-UPE false positive editor supposed to respond? If they make a response, surely it must demand reading before deletion? Who would read it, how would they be drawn to the response?
I think quarantining outside mainspace has the advantage to retaining UPE edit histories that may be helpful to non-admins in detecting patterns. I continue to submit that there are probably far few UPE people than UPE accounts, and that an awful lot of UPE product is the result of a few Wikipedians among us. The deletion of identified UPE product helps prevent detection of the puppet master. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Too often articles that are plain articles are kept "because normal editing van fix that". In fact, the editors claiming that never alter a letter in such articles. Do you remove the spam, you get flak. And if you don not get flak, the spammer put everything back in. The COI-noticeboard also seems ineffective in dealing with that. So this is a good alternative. The Banner talk 13:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Way to easy to just let them be. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support sticky prod proposal as that is far more visible, open and accountable with deletion by an admin if necessary. Any editor being allowed to move articles to draft is wideopen to abuse either in error or deliberate in cases of edit wars, vandalism, incompetence and even UPEditors paid for deleting rival companies pages etc, also drafted articles are easily forgotten and mistagged articles would be unfairly deleted as G13s are mainly deleted on mass with little oversight. Also, this should not be retrospective as it would cause a huge backlog of prods to deal with, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not safe enough--it's too easy to apply the tag incorrectly. It is sometimes very difficult to judge if it is actually paid editing , and even those of us who have been working on it for years inevitably make errors. . As for s sticky prod-like procedure,I assume we are talking about a proceed to move to draft, not to delete. it's worth considering, but I'm reluctant to add another procedure to an already complicated process that already engenders multiple disputes about how to proceed. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DGG and because if the text is suspicious then it's better to delete and start from scratch. Otherwise we look like we're restricting unrelated users from their normal editing process and forcing or encouraging them to edit the text outside main namespace. --Nemo 12:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Fictional works level-of-detail varies drastically by medium[edit]

I’ve noticed that in (self-contained) articles about TV series, we often list a bunch of information about each epiosde, sometimes including rather thorough plot summaries; but we do not do the same for comic issues/volumes. We even have standalone episode-list articles, with no analog for print. It’s particularly noticeable in anime/manga articles where—regardless of which format came first—we break down the anime episode by episode, but only discuss the associated manga in broad strokes. Is one particuarly encouraged or the other particularly discouraged for some reason? Or is it just a matter of editorial bias? Is this imbalance a problem that should be addressed? — (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

With respect to print vs. other media, it tends to represent the interest of the editing community. It could be rationalized by saying that for material published currently episode by episode, there is a need for information during the initial release--and also so people viewing it later can read it by episode as they watch it. It could also be rationalized on the basis there are rather few editors here competent to summarize an entire complicated plot in an appropriate manner--most attempts tend to give either too much detail or too little. There is a middle way--see War and Peace , though I'd suggest a little more detail --perhaps twice the current length.
With respect to anime/manga,I have zero knowledge. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@DGG: Slightly off-topic rant, but I strongly disagree about information being needed during the initial release, per WP:Recentism and WP:NODEADLINE. If the information isn’t going to be needed years after it’s off the air, it’s not needed in an encyclopedia (though it may be perfectly suited for a fan-centric project like a Wikia). For instance, List of Gunsmoke television episodes has single sentence summaries, while currently airing shows (which are no more important than Gunsmoke was) have horribly bloated article-length summaries. If we don’t need that much detail about episodes from a show that ran for twenty years, we probably don’t need that much detail about episodes of TV shows. And regardless of all that, the plot of a book or other source material should be treated as at least as important as that of any adaptations, shouldn’t it? — (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
are you not aware of how people actually write and use WP? Whatever our intentions, we are more than an encyclopedia. What we include is determined not by just what is written as rules, but by the interest of our contributors and the interpretation of our rules is by those who care enough to comment. We make our own rules, and can change them both implicitly or explicitly. We will have content with much more detail on Gunsmoke, and we will when people here want to write it , and defend it if challenged.
Some of the things that interest many WPedians do not interest me at all, but silly as I think some of those interests, it does not bother me that they are in the encyclopedia, even in detail--if it also includes what does interest me, in as much reasonable detail as people will do it. It would, additionally, help to have some degree of consistency within each subject area, so people know what to expect. And I think this could be done best by focussing on real-world importance, not extent of sourcing, as a measure of inclusion DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I've never understood the "Wikia argument". Why is information not important to someone, an automatic qualifier for "going to Wikia"? How I view the difference is - if it's notable and sourced (and someone wants to take on the job of adding it) then it has a place here. Regarding the original issue - I agree that TV articles have more information and each time I read a comic-centric article I wish that they had more editors to help get those articles up to the same level. I've never been able to get a complete narrative from those comic articles I read, just a very general outline. --Gonnym (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Re Wikia, it’s not as if Wikia’s a dumping ground for trivial or unimportant information (though some Wikias…). It’s that Wikipedia is intended to be a general encyclopedia, whereas Wikia explicitly caters to fandoms. Both are great and needed for different reasons, and both have their place. But a fan resource reflects its fanbase, regardless of how important or influential or obscure the subject was or wasn’t; ideally, an encyclopedia does just the opposite, reflecting the lasting real-world impact of the subject regardless of how numerous or passionate its fans are or not at the time. I know the real world isn’t an ideal one, but we still shouldn’t lose sight of that ideal. — (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

MOS:TVPLOT applies equally to Gunsmoke and Breaking Bad or any other TV series. List of Gunsmoke television episodes is not a good example because it is a list; I wouldn't expect any more than single sentence summaries in a list. Manga would be covered under MOS:BOOKPLOT, I think. As has already been said, if you think a plot section is underdeveloped, you are welcome to improve the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jacknstock: When I looked up Gunsmoke, I was actually expecting to find at least per-season articles with rather more involved summaries. The main article strikes me as an ideal article, aside from a shortage of plot discussion. — (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • What all of the above comments miss so far (particularly this one: "currently airing shows (which are no more important than Gunsmoke was) have horribly bloated article-length summaries") is that there are many reliable sources and notable critics who write about individual episodes of current TV series. This trend started within the past two decades or so and really exploded with online media. So apart from those like the original Star Trek, about which there are hordes of print volumes written about every detail of the show, we would not expect individual episodes from decades-old TV series to have in-depth coverage to the same extent as certain recent TV series, such as Breaking Bad, Mad Men, etc, for which it is easy to demonstrate that all episodes of those particular series are individually notable. I also do not think individual comics issues are covered to the same extent as TV episodes, but if the sources are there then write the articles, instead of complaining about what topics other people want to write about. postdlf (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Another distinction is that so many current TV series are serial, building on plots and themes over the course of a season or series, while older TV series were typically episodic, with self-contained stories of the week. That not only makes more detailed summary of individual episodes more relevant for recent series, but also is part of the reason why contemporary critics are spending more time writing about each episode than they used to. postdlf (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on access-dates and verifiability[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Help talk:Citation Style 1#Permit access-date in absence of a URL

Gist: The |access-date= parameter in citation templates indicates the last date at which someone checked whether the cited source actually verifies the claim(s) to which it is attached as a reference. Presently, if the citation does not have a |url= parameter, not only is the display of the date suppressed, it is categorized as an error that people should remove. The RfC asks whether this is the appropriate course of action.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The |access-date= parameter in citation templates indicates the last date at which someone checked whether the cited source actually verifies the claim(s) to which it is attached as a reference. is incorrect. As I noted in my comment, the accessdate has stood for the date the URL is checked since 2009. Please don't repeat plain falsehoods, especially in ostensible invitations, after you have been corrected. --Izno (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Then this is not an access date parameter but a url access parameter except for the case of websites which all have URLs. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
A citation had a date in it in non-standard format which resulted in the creation of a red error message. I corrected the date, and also changed the access date to the date I looked at and verified the URL. An administrator (Graham87) reverted to reinstate the accessdate, which of course restored the error message. He then spotted the problem and removed the non-standard date to another field, which suppressed the error message. However, he kept the access date as it was. (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
@Izno: According to the template docs, the parameter represents The full date when the content pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article (emphasis mine). Either that’s been altered or your correction was incorrect. — (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
SMC's RFC is about whether a URL is required at all and was the concerning part. One can hash on whether the URL was checked for validity or whether it was checked solely for accessibility if one wants. --Izno (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Interface administrators[edit]

I have started a discussion about the new interface administrator user group at WP:VPM#RFC: Interface administrators and transition. Please take a moment to review and/or comment. --Izno (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  • As I commented there, it isn't a great RfC, and I think we'd really benefit from a clear proposal with specific language rather than musings. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Unlinked wiki acronyms create esoteric speak that excludes newcomers in discussion pages - let's be more welcoming and considerate[edit]

The constant use of unlinked wiki acronyms (AP2, ANI/AE, PAGs, OP...) create a big barrier to participating in Wikipedia deliberations.

I am very thankful to those considerate wikipedians that do link the acronyms they use to the corresponding wiki policies, guidelines, essays, etc. And when they do, I have the patience and interest to go check them out.

Take for example the above thread Not a democracy?. I knew or was able to figure out ArbCom, UNDUE, WMF. But other acronyms that were key to the discussion (AP2, ANI/AE, PAGs, OP...) I could not figure them and in consequence I was excluded from the deliberations.

I think this practice effectively runs contrary to the value of inclusive participation championed by Wikipedia. I understand that not linking the acronyms is most likely not motivated by any animosity, and simply the participants in the Village Pump deliberations assume that their peers are also very knowledgeable, and it is just convenient to the writer to save time in not linking their text. This continued practice becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: only expert wikipedians will participate if it is made so hard for others to join. This may be tempting to "Safeguard" the core of Wikipedia, by reserving participation to the most committed and devoted wikipedians of all that have achieved a mastery of the inner working and lingo. However, again, I think that the driving values point in a differenet direction: to be welcoming to newcomers (especially those with an honest desire to contribute and do so with good faith and civility) and foster their participation, for the sake of the present and future viability of the project.

While the front-end of Wikipedia is designed to make knowledge understandable and accessible to all, it is somewhat ironic that in the back-end of wikipedia the reverse happens, with a complex web of norms, guidelines, noticeboards, project pages, etc, etc. And unlike some other new editors and pundits that get exasperated with what could feel like a byzantine system, I for the most part understand that such an ambitious and overarching project necessitates of a robust set of norms and user areas in the backend to make it work (although I think we should always strive to make it better, more streamlined, more user-friendly).

However, this complexity is unnecessarily exacerbated when Wikipedians like myself who wish to transition from (eight years of) "mere" article editing, to participating in the design and future of the wikipedia framework itself, when attempting to chime into these deliberations I actually often can't because of the frustrating unlinked acronyms being thrown around. This behavior entrenches a sense that this is an exclusive club of esoteric speak.

Although WP:BITE (see what I did there?)("treat newcomers with kindness and patience") (and also maybe WP:EQ) do not explicitly address this matter, I think in spirit they do. Maybe it is time that there or in some other policy this become more clearly addressed: editors are encouraged to contribute to Talk Pages, Community discussions and the like, with the assumption that not all have a proficient understanding of all rules and the corresponding acronyms that represent them. So help the non-proficient wikipedians (the vast majority, I suspect) by having the kindness to link to any wiki acronym being used. Thank you for your consideration. (talk) user:Al83tito 18:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

- I agree with you that it would be nice for these sorts of topics to be wikilinkrd, however, I'm not sure what the policy you are suggesting to put forward is. I'd say quite a lot of users do in fact link to the guideline that they are referring too, whereas sometimes when talking, someone may ignore the link, especially if it's linked above. I'm not really sure how we would go around changing that. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Lee Vilenski. Thank you for your response. Yes, when a acronym has been mentioned & linked previously in a discussion thread, it is reasonable to not link it again, just like when editing articles (MOS:REPEATLINK). Taking again the example of the discussion above Not a democracy?, there acronyms properly linked, like WP:NOTNEWS, and that is why I also acknowledge that happening and thanking the editors that do do that. On the other hand, another example of mine was mistaken and in fact that it was wiki-linked (WP:UNDUE).
However, there are still plenty of acronyms in various threads that are not. Some may be so frequently used (by some), that maybe a larger groups thinks it is ok not to link them (WMF, RfC, AfD, POV, NPOV...). However, even then, it is very hard for newcomers to figure it out, and I still think that the etiquette should be that when mentioned for the first time in a thread they they should be linked. Moreover, I am somewhat relieved that you as well as DexDor below, empathize with my plight. DexDor says that even him does not know what AP2 means! Argh! So adding a line about this in either WP:TALK as DexDor suggests or WP:EQ could address (on paper) the problem. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 19:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should, as a community always link to these guidelines, but I don't see how any guideline could really help this happen. If I saw someone using a guideline, that hadn't been wikilinked in the discussion before, that I didn't know, I'd simply ask the user to clarify. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree in part - e.g. WP:TALK should say something about trying to avoid unnecessary/unexplained use of jargon. I've many thousands of edits, but have no idea what, for example, AP2 is (WP:AP2 is a redlink and it's not explained at WP:ABBREV). Wp-specific jargon is often mixed with non-wp-specific jargon (e.g. "OP" in the discussion referred to probably means "original post" - and not WP:OP). DexDor (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Al83tito, DexDor – AP2 is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 and particularly the discretionary sanctions authorised in response to that case. You'll sometimes see warnings about those on talk pages for political articles editors are sometimes topic banned from editing articles "related to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed" (or similar wording). Your point is well-taken. It took me some searching to understand what "AP2" meant, and I wouldn't have found it without the partial explanation given later in the 'not a democracy' thread. Mortee (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Never make a policy that will be Ignored. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I do not think the MOSREPEATLINK ought to apply to discussion boards. "Once once on the board" is unreasonable when a board contain dozens of pages of archives and manu hundreds of discussions. . A more reasonable rule would be that it ought to be at least wikilinked the first time in a discussion. An even better rule is that it be wikilinked and spelled out the first time it appears in a particular discussion, especially if the discussion is extensive. I see no reason why this would be ignored, since it couldalmost certainly be done by bot. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree; just linking repeat acronyms once per discussion is the right amount of linking. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 15:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This is Village pump (policy). What policy are you asking for? Natureium (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Proposal: within WP:TPG#YES include the following. I would suggest placing that under "Be welcoming to newcomers" bullet point:
Link abbreviations: Few editors may be familiar with all the Wikipedia abbreviations and other acronyms used in discussions. To be inclusive to all wikipedians, include a link to each acronym when first used in each discussion thread.
Of course, I would be thankful for others' ideas for refining the language, placement, etc. Please suggest. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 16:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Al83tito, thanks for pointing out abbreviations that were missing from Wikipedia abbreviations. I've added the ones you mentioned, plus a few more.
I'm pretty confident that no one was intentionally "safeguarding" or otherwise excluding anyone from the discussions. We tend to have a radically open approach to participation, even by first time IP editors. I certainly agree with linking potentially unfamiliar terms or abbreviations, and I try to liberally do so myself. However I think it would be difficult to expect casual discussions to rigorously follow a guideline on it. I think advice encouraging such links would be more appropriate. Alsee (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
To be more concrete, I'd merely insert the word "please" to your text: ...To be inclusive to all wikipedians, please include a link to each acronym when first used in each discussion thread. Alsee (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

"Rule" versus "Occupation" in articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict[edit]

Why is it that we find in Wikipedia articles that deal with Arab villages in the West Bank that almost always whenever there is a sub-section entitled "Jordanian era" it mentions the village as being under "Jordanian rule" (rather than "occupation"), even though annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was widely considered as illegal and void by the international community, as we see here (Benvenisti, Eyal (2012). The International Law of Occupation. Oxford University Press. p. 204. ), and as mentioned explicitly in Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. On the other hand, when the same articles mention Israel's hold of the West Bank in the sub-section entitled "Post-1967", the village is always referred to as being under "Israeli occupation." If both were considered "illegal" under international law, then why the distinction? Is there a double standard? If it was termed "occupation" while Israel held the country, it should also be termed "occupation" while Jordan held the country. If it was termed "rule" in the case of Jordan, it should also be termed "rule" in the case of Israel. After all, fair is fair. For clear examples of this discriminatory POV editing practice with respect to Israel and Jordan under these two sub-sections, see the following articles: Jab'a, Khirbet Beit Zakariyyah, Husan, Battir, Nahalin, Beit Fajjar, Beit Ummar, Tuqu', Nablus, Beitin, As-Sawiya, Beit Iba, al-Khader, Burin, Nablus, Jenin, al-Eizariya, etc., etc., etc. In the abovenamed articles, and others like them, am I permitted to use "such-and-such a place (in the West Bank) has been under Israeli rule since 1967?" This would strike a more neutral tone, in my view.Davidbena (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but did Jordan invade the West Bank prior to its period of rule? "Occupation" is the standard term used in the aftermath of war or invasion, and not in other cases. Newimpartial (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it was under British mandate before 1948 and was captured during the war (as can be seen in the lead here Jordan).--Gonnym (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
If the language of the Jordan article is based on the language of the reliable sources, perhaps "annexation" is the correct term? Jordan did invade Israel, but I am unconvinced that the West Bank was occupied. Newimpartial (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Jordan did not invade Israel, as the entire land was to be divided under the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Arab nations, including Jordan invaded and captured parts of the land (which were supposed to be either Jewish, Palestinian or International), which they then held at the end of the war. What Davidbena meant is that this annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was considered as illegal by the international community in a similar situation to how Israel's occupation is. So even if from a point of view from the Jordanian side it was a legal annexation, from the local population side, they were occupied by a foreign power (even if still an Arab nation). --Gonnym (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
If Reliable Sources describe the period of Jordanian rule as "Occupation", then WP must do the same. But FALSEBALANCE and it's ilk are contrary to WP policy. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm with the above. We use the terminology that a preponderance of neutral, reliable sources themselves use. That's what WP:NPOV means. I have no idea what word that is, but in the case of a dispute, we don't invent some metric by which to decide which word to use, we instead refer to the sources themselves and reflect their usage. --Jayron32 18:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
An addendum regarding the history of Jordanian annexation: as part of the annexation process, Jordan extended full citizenship and rights to all residents of the West Bank territory[1]. Additionally, there was no significant anti-Jordanian movement (armed or otherwise), within the West Bank during the years that Jordan controlled the territory--there would eventually be the Black September movement and the Jordanian Civil War, but these would occur after Jordan ceded control of the West Bank to Israel and largely were related to Jordan's handling of Palestinian refugees and citizens following the 1967 War and Jordan's ceding of the territory.[2] By contrast, Israel did not annex any of the West Bank other than East Jerusalem, has not conferred citizenship for Palestinian residents of the West Bank,and has placed administration of the West Bank directly under its military (and later the Ministry of Defense), and has historically claimed that it did not intend its control of the entirety of the West Bank to be permanent (the entire premise of the Oslo peace talks was built on this). In fact, the Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that the situation in the West Bank is one of "belligerent occupation", in agreement with the International Court of Justice (although it disputes the status of East Jerusalem).[3] While Israel has since walked back some of this two-state rhetoric, it has yet to announce an official policy of annexation and continues to administer military rule for Palestinian residents of the West Bank. Additionally, Israel's presence in the West Bank has faced widespread resistance from the local population both in the form of civil protests and armed insurgencies. I am not writing this to pass moral judgment on one side or the other, but simply to demonstrate that there are non-trivial differences between Jordan and Israel's administration of the West Bank such that unless you have reliable sources arguing that a double standard exists, it is misleading to claim that using one term for one regime and another for the other is a double standard.Rosguill (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If the matter boils down to reflecting the opinion of "reliable sources," be apprised that the reliable sources available often dispute each other. For example, former Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court, Meir Shamgar, wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (as of the 1970s, when autonomy had not yet been given to Gaza), since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign."[4] Israeli diplomat, Dore Gold, has stated that the language of "occupation" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history. By repeatedly pointing to "occupation," they manage to reverse the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences. Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to occupy," rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967.[4] Moreover, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention "cannot be viewed as prohibiting the voluntary return of individuals to the towns and villages from which they, or their ancestors, had been ousted" from living, e.g., in Gush Etzion, Jerusalem, or Hebron before 1948.

When the UN intervened in 1947 and suggested a partition of Palestine (divided between Jews and Arabs) as defined in UNGA 181, even that was only a proposal, and not binding. Even so, while the Israelis had agreed to such a proposal at the outset, the Palestinian Arabs did not agree to it,[5] and in May of 1948 (with the help of Jordan and Egypt) tried to gain control of as much territory in Palestine as possible by the dint of war. Suddenly, the territory of the country was largely expanded by war to Israel's advantage, and to the chagrin of its Arab population. The outcome of the war, therefore, ended up determining the border, and which border became officially recognized as such under the 1949 Armistice Agreements, until they too were dissolved in the 1967 Six Day War. The Six-Day war, in effect, saw the restoration of the pre-1948 border of Palestine/Israel, just as it stretched from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Moreover, Jews living in Palestine before 1948 were actually called "Palestinians," and many of them (such as Moshe Dayan, Uzi Narkiss and Yitzhak Rabin) took part in the country's restoration of its old borders in 1967 (though now they were called Israelis). How can a country then be "occupied" when it was also their country to begin with? It makes no sense to me.


  1. ^ Armstrong, Karen (1996). Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths. New York: Ballantine Books. p. 387. 
  2. ^ Vanetik, Boaz; Shalom, Zaki (1 May 2015). Nixon Administration and the Middle East Peace Process, 1969–1973: From the Rogers Plan to the Outbreak of the Yom Kippur War. Sussex Academic Press. 
  3. ^ Domb, Fania (2007). International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 511. ISBN 9004154280. 
  4. ^ a b Gold, Dore (16 January 2002). "From "Occupied Territories" to "Disputed Territories". Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (Israeli Security, Regional Diplomacy, and International Law). Retrieved 30 June 2017. 
  5. ^ Benny Morris (1 October 2008). 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-14524-3. Retrieved 14 July 2013. , pp. 66, 67, 72. Retrieved 24 July 2013. Page 66, at 1946 "The League demanded independence for Palestine as a “unitary” state, with an Arab majority and minority rights for the Jews." ; Page 67, at 1947 "The League’s Political Committee met in Sofar, Lebanon, on 16–19 September, and urged the Palestine Arabs to fight partition, which it called “aggression,” “without mercy.” The League promised them, in line with Bludan, assistance “in manpower, money and equipment” should the United Nations endorse partition." ; p. 72, at December 1947 "The League vowed, in very general language, “to try to stymie the partition plan and prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.

-- Davidbena (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The question is not regarding the legal status of some plot of land. It is about what words are used to describe that plot of land. Attempting to extrapolate the verbiage from some external rationale is about three steps removed from how we need to do this. If you string out enough reasons, anyone can justify anything. That gets us nowhere. Instead, we find the verbiage used by the preponderance of reliable sources. Of course, there is not expected to be unanimity among the thousands of such sources, but looking for any clear trends in the words they use is what we need to do. Finding some legal decision by some body at some time has no bearing on the question here. --Jayron32 19:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Even in cases where Wikipedia relies upon the preponderance of "reliable sources," that too would depend on which country you are from. For example, the word "West Bank" is very rarely used by Israelis, and when they do use it, it is almost always only in a technical sense when talking to foreigners or westerners outside of Israel. Why? Because they see the country as being entirely one, excluding Gaza. Besides, the word "West Bank" was not used until Jordan conquered parts of British Mandate Palestine in 1948. Before then, it was all one country. As for the word "occupation," I think that it goes without saying that Israelis do NOT use this word to describe their hold or rule of the country in its several parts. The security situation has dictated what Israel must do to ensure public safety. With that said, is there a place here to mention the lesser known view (i.e. that of Israel's) per WP:WEIGHT?Davidbena (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps something can be done here to bring a more neutral outlook, as we've found done elsewhere with respect to Jewish settlements in the West Bank. See text here.Davidbena (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Why? Because they see the country as being entirely one, excluding Gaza - that's not entirely true. Some see it as entirely one, others do not see Judea and Samaria as part of the country and do indeed see it as occupied territory. --Gonnym (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The argument regarding reliable sources based on country doesn't hold water, as the informal consensus of Israeli citizens is not a reliable source. Sources are not limited to the country they are published in: we should seek to replicate the terminology used by the international community of scholarly publications unless you can demonstrate that this scholarly consensus is itself biased by external factors (and no, simple disagreement between the scholarly consensus and the informal Israeli consensus is not evidence of bias). Moreover, the comments about Israel's security situation are irrelevant to this discussion: scholarly analysis of the geopolitical situation in Palestine/Israel already takes it into account.Rosguill (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, here I should have said "the majority see the country as being entirely one." I might add here that, as an Israeli, I have NEVER heard even a leftist Israeli speak of the West Bank as the West Bank, but they say either "Samaria" (Shomron) or "Gush Etzion."Davidbena (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Rosguill, you said: "we should seek to replicate the terminology used by the international community of scholarly publications unless you can demonstrate that this scholarly consensus is itself biased by external factors." I think that we're beginning to do that. First, if you re-read the paragraph that begins: "If the matter boils down to reflecting, etc.," it clarifies certain matters about "sovereignty." Now, couple that with the world-view that Israel is untitled to its hold of the so-called "West Bank," which is based on the 1947 UN proposal to partition the country, and which, in turn, had followed the suggestions of the British ten years before. Considering the history of violence between Jews and Arabs in Palestine prior to 1948, Britain decided in 1937 to divide Palestine between the Jews and Arabs, as we learn in "The Survey of Palestine under the British Mandate: 1920 - 1948," published by the British Mandate government printing office in Jerusalem in 1946, p. 166:
"The commission, under Lord Peel, was appointed on 7 August 1936 to investigate the cause for the outbreak of the Arab rebellion and the way the Articles of the Mandate were being implemented. Between November 1936 and January 1937 the commission studied the situation in the country, and in June 1937 published its recommendation to abolish the Mandate and to divide the country between Arabs and Jews."

The UN also took the same position in 1947, as we all know, and this has remained the general position of the international community, although unjustly. It has reached the point where Israel is now viewed as an "occupier" of lands traditionally held by itself. This can be mended by allowing editors to state that "the majority of Israelis dispute the notion of occupation, on grounds of its presence in the country before 1948." -- Davidbena (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
There is more to scholarly consensus than the Peel commission and UN resolutions from more than 20 years before the relevant period of Israeli history. If nothing else, you're ignoring more recent UN resolutions that explicitly rule on the status of the West Bank (not to mention Israeli Supreme Court rulings, International Court of Justice rulings, and an abundance of scholarly articles published by a wide variety of academic presses). Moreover, Wikipedia (and its reliable sources) do refer to a portion of Jordanian rule as "occupation". If you read through Jordanian annexation of the West Bank or West Bank#History, you'll see that existing articles refer to the initial conquest and military administration of the West Bank by Jordan as an "occupation", and then following annexation in 1950 it becomes "Jordanian rule". As Israel has not yet formally annexed the West Bank, referring to the region's status as "occupation" is entirely appropriate.Rosguill (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Even when Israel does formerly annex a region (such as the Golan Heights in 1981), it is still viewed as "illegal." So that means that annexation is not a cure in itself. Moreover, some will call Israel's hold of the West Bank de facto annexation,[1] as opposed to de jure annexation, and this is because Israel does not wish to cause a public backlash. As for the "status of the West Bank," it can all be traced back to hostilities in 1948. Anyway, enough has been said here. If there's a will, there's a way. I suppose that Israel will just have to stand its own ground, with God's help. Be well.


  1. ^ Aeyal M. Gross, "Human Proportions: Are Human Rights the Emperor's New Clothes of the International Law of Occupation?", pub. in: European Journal of International Law (1 February 2007), who says that, in his view, Israel's presence in territories captured from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War "appears more like a de facto annexation than occupation as anticipated in international law."

--Davidbena (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── When Jordan occupied the West Bank in 1948, it did exactly what Israel did the same time to places outside the intended area of the Jewish state according to the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine: they both gobbled up as much land as they could of the intended Arab state (which, as a consequence, never came into being). So while Jordan took the West Bank, Israel took the whole of Galilee, including towns like Nazareth, Sepphoris, Majd al-Krum, Kafr Bir'im and Shefa-'Amr. After the war the West had no problems accepting the new borders for Israel, (including all of the above towns). Jordan did not have such international goodwill; only 3 countries officially accepted the West Bank as part of Jordan, (though unofficially it was also accepted by eg. the US, Israel and the East Block countries. Most opposition came from other Arab countries.) In 1950, Jordan annexed the whole of the West Bank ie, the citizens of the West Bank were given full Jordanian citizen rights. Hence the article about the Jordanian era (that is, 1948–1967) is called the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. See this discussion.

Ever since the 1967 Six-Day War, after which Israel occupies the West Bank (and occupation is the unanimous view of the international community)...some (mainly Israeli) writes have pushed for the view that the Jordanian era to be called "Jordanian occupation". Alternatively, (like Davidbena here), that both should be called "rule". This to imply that the Israeli post 1967 occupation is not much different from the Jordanian era.

This is a huge lie. Israel, (unlike Jordan), has never annexed the West Bank. The Palestinians living there are living under what more and more people are calling apartheid. If an Israeli settler throws a stone ...nothing happen. If a Palestinian does the very same, they can get (and do get) up to several years in jail. Or Ahed Tamimi getting 8 months in jail...while a Israeli settler women filmed doing exactly the same in Hebron was never even arrested. Needless to say, the Palestinians on the West Bank have no right to vote in the Israeli elections, and generally no right to visit Israel inside the 1948 borders.

It is not a double standard to call different types of rule by different names! Huldra (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Huldra, my disputant, welcome! You and I might find some solace in this conversation, as we both have a "chip" on our shoulders. As for what you called "places outside the intended area of the Jewish state according to the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine," and where "they both gobbled up as much land as they could of the intended Arab state," yes, that is correct. But the proposals for the "intended Arab State" were never binding. The Arabs truly vied with Israel over the control of territory by means of war, while the Jordanian Arab Legion had decided to concentrate its forces in Bethlehem and in Hebron in order to save that district for its Arab inhabitants, and to prevent territorial gains for Israel.[1] The question is, "Why divide the country in the first place?" Jews and Arabs lived there, and could continue to live there, if there wasn't instigation for hatred and war. Remember, the local Arab population was given an opportunity to have a country governed by themselves (based on the 1947 UN Partition Plan), but that they refused to have it, hoping instead to gain as much as they could take through war.


  1. ^ Sir John Bagot Glubb, A Soldier with the Arabs, London 1957, p. 200

-- Davidbena (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

As for accusation of an "apartheid" system, I strongly refuse to accept that determination. Although I'm not sure how much this will be of help to our readers here, I'll repeat what I have written to you before about apartheid in earlier communications, namely, "even the Arabs do not want to pray in our synagogues, since they have their own mosques. They even have their own language and schools, and they're completely happy with that. You see, they do not wish to be like us, nor do we wish to be like them. With that said, we still work together and share the same country. However, seeing that many of them profess to be Israel's enemies, Israel does not permit them to take the helm of government. Still, they have local municipalities of their own, where they take part in local elections under the Palestinian Authority. Israeli law accords them with due protection and justice under the law."Davidbena (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Jordan did annex the West Bank, however it was not recognized by the vast majority of the world, with the exception of the British being the only major recognition, the rest considered it an occupation. Israel has not annexed Gaza, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) or the Golan. The Jerusalem Law applied the laws of Israel to all of Jerusalem, and declared all of it the capital which cannot be divided. Although it sounds like annexation, it was not intended to be, the intended was to state that Israel could not give it away for peace, like they did with Egypt and the Sinai. This means that should Israel recognizes all of it will be eventually part of Israel, but did not annex it. The Golan Heights Law solely applies the laws of Israel to the Golan and in no way shape or form could it be described as annexation.
Due to Jordan's annexation not being recognized is one of the main reason why the West Bank is considered occupied territory. Under international law land captured on an offensive is occupied but in a defensive could be annexed. Since Jordan was an occupying power to the land Israel captured it cannot be considered land eligible for annexation, because they did not get it defending against the recognized land ruler. This is the main reason why the term should be used consistently, since Israel inherited Jordan's status. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 00:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Davidbena, the situation you describe sounds almost identical to the former Apartheid regime in South Africa, except that it is "justified" in terms of religion/language rather than race/culture. The actual institutional arrangements you describe seem quite strikingly similar. Newimpartial (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, my friend, I guess you'll have to live here to know what I'm talking about. I live in an Israeli moshav, but there are Arabs who work with me in the same institution from Surif, Nahalin, Kharas, Beit Hanina and Kafr Qasim. They are NOT oppressed. They are happy, and travel freely in their motor vehicles back and forth from work. Yes, they have Israeli permits to do so. In the late 1970s, I made frequent trips to Gaza to visit a student who studied in Jerusalem at St George's School in Jerusalem (on Nablus Road). Now he and his family live in the United States. I can assure you that they were happy in the 1970s, before they left Gaza for the States (before the Hamas came to power). Today, for the most part, Arabs are integrated into Israeli society, and they make-up a considerable work-force in Israel. I daily see Arab workers in my village from the nearby villages. Those Arabs who do feel disenfranchised are those who live in areas of the country prone to violence. Otherwise, all is well.Davidbena (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
How is that supposed to be the employment of workers from the former "homelands" in South Africa? Because it sounds the same. And many white South Africans would tell similar stories of their "happy" black or coloured workers. Pardon my skepticism. Newimpartial (talk)
Since when is it bad to be employed by another? They do this willingly. Since this is a diversion from the Village Pump inquiry about Wikipedia's policy with respect to the word "occupation," I will desist from speaking about things irrelevant to that discussion. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Israel's human rights abuses are abundantly well documented. It's pretty rich claiming that "all is well" while ongoing protests are met with live-fire ammunition, killing over a hundred and injuring tens of thousands, with clearly identifiable medics and journalists among the dead, and while villages are slated for demolition with the blessing of the government, to give two examples. But yes, while Israel's treatment of Palestinians is arguably relevant to its status as an "occupier", we have veered from the original terms of the proposal and thus this is no longer a productive discussion with respect to the original topic.Rosguill (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Here, the discussion is not about Gaza (where full-autonomy has been given to them since 2005), but about Israel and the so-called "West Bank," where there are literally scores of Jewish townships. Whenever an Arab moves to settle in another place of the country, he is not derogatorily called an "Arab settler," but whenever Jews move from one place in the country to take-up residence in another part of their ancestral homeland, they are derogatorily called "Jewish settlers." Do you see the difference? No one suggests that conditions are perfect in Israel, but we ought to remember that hammering-in the word "occupation" to Arab school-children will only increase their resentment towards Israel. I would hope that we, as editors here, are not part of the problem. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS... it merely chronicles what reliable sources say about a topic. Terms such as "occupation" and "settler" may well be problematic, but they are the terms that are used in the real world... by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. It is laudable that you want to change this, but Wikipedia is not the venue to effect that change. Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I hear you. Can I cordially ask someone here to close this thread? Before doing so, however, I have one question. Do you think that it will be appropriate for me to submit some of the above points to the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard for discussion, in an attempt to reach a more neutral point of view in articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict?Davidbena (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Occupation, annexation and rule can all be either legal or illegal. Since Israel has not formally annexed the West Bank, it would be POV to call it annexation. But these discussions require original research when we should just follow what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Ban "Talk page bans"[edit]

Withdrawn by nom per WP:SNOW. –dlthewave 17:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Users who ban others from their talk page often do so in an attempt to avoid receiving legitimate warnings, or as a way to unilaterally sanction another editor for "harassment" without community consensus that harassment has actually taken place. Would folks support the idea of changing WP:NOBAN and WP:OWNTALK to prohibit "talk page bans" and require editors seeking such a ban to go through the appropriate noticeboard? I'd like to gauge the level of support and get input from others before opening an RfC or formal discussion. –dlthewave 18:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support: If User A does not want to interact with User B on "User talk:A", then User A shouldn't be allowed to interact with User B anywhere else. Really, there should either be full, two-sided interaction bans, or complete freedom of interaction. Unilateral talk page bans should indeed be repealed. If User B really is spamming User A without cause, User A shouldn't have any trouble a) starting an ANI to have User B blocked, or b) getting community consensus for a talkpage ban. pbp 18:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: it helps diffuse conflict and dampen disruption, regardless of who is right or wrong. If someone needs legitimate warning ask an uninvolved administrator to intervene. If it's reached the point the person is banning you, the best thing it step away and let others look into it because there is no way the other party will consider it legitimate warning coming from an involved party. -- GreenC 20:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:OWNTALK users are allowed a fair amount of freedom in handling their own talk pages. That should and does include their ability to simply tell someone not to post on their page any more. No bureaucracy, no need for some kind of formal process, simply "stay off my page". This is not a "sanction" against the other person, it does not imply any kind of wrongdoing, it is not recorded against the other person anywhere. It simply says User A would prefer not to hear any more from User B. It's not enforceable. If User B doesn't have the courtesy to comply with that simple request and continues to post on User A's page, THEN User A can call in the troops and try to get some kind of formal process installed if justified. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary. (ec) If User:A asks User:B to stop posting on User:A's talk page, and User:B complies (either through an explicit acknowledgement and agreement, or by just not posting on User:A's talk page) then the matter is resolved without needing additional pot-stirring and bureaucracy. WP:NOBAN already explicitly supersedes such requests for the purpose of delivering administratively-required notices; the various noticeboards already tend to be very unimpressed by attempts to evade accountability through spurious talk page "bans". (Indeed, noticeboards tend to read a proclivity for unilateral 'bans' as something of a red flag.)
    Over the last fourteen or so years, I don't think I've banned anyone from my talk page, but I'm not absolutely certain. There are a handful of people where I have told them that continuing to post to my talk page is likely to be unproductive, and that they need to take their issues to a noticeboard or article talk page – or just accept that they're on the wrong side of consensus – rather than wasting my time. Essentially, their inability to let something go shouldn't require me to waste time with a noticeboard filing. I can understand why an editor might impose a 'ban' under such circumstances, and insisting on a time-consuming and unpleasant formal process would be a nuisance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I hate these, and think they go against the spirit of talkpages, but as noted by the above editors, they're a shortcut to avoid WP:BURO and save some editors' sanity. It won't diffuse any acrimony, but if doing so can stop it and save the project another trip to elongated dispute resolution, I'm all for it. It's certainly abused now and again and probably encourages a sense of ownership over talkpages, but that's a fine price to pay. ~ Amory (utc) 20:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Ehhh... I've seen enough cases where they're necessary that I can't say that we should get rid of them. I have seen at least one user throw them around all willy nilly whenever they were made the least bit uncomfortable by legitimate criticism, though, so maybe a review process might be in order. Like, still able to go ban someone just by saying "don't come back here," but then have a standardized "double or nothing" review process that will either revoke or expand the ban (revoking it if the ban was in bad-faith, expanding it if the review request was in bad-faith). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although I am somewhat wary of the term, an editor's own talk page can be considered their "safe space". Having an editor who rubs them the wrong way coming by to constantly take little pokes is going to quickly cause a lot of aggravation ("I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!") needlessly. A simple "go away and stay away" should be enough, considering WP:CIVIL is still a thing here. Content issues can be discussed on article talk pages and behavior issues can go to appropriate noticeboards (the banning user gives up the right to complain they weren't approached first on their talk page before being hauled to ANI). And trying to use banning as a weapon against an uninvolved admin acting in an admin capacity never works out well. --NeilN talk to me 21:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN:, how you do address the hypothetical I posed? pbp 22:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose None of use has a tattoo that says "Please feel free to troll me" AFAIK these bans do not (and have never) include(d) the posting of legitimate warnings so this is unnecessary. MarnetteD|Talk 21:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean by "None of us has a tattoo..."? –dlthewave 16:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose MelanieN and others have covered this well. .If a simple request to keep off your talk page (and fundamentally that's all a talk page ban is) solves the problem of an editor who does not get the point of you saying that your talk page is not the correct venue for the discussion, or that the discussion has run its course and you won't respond further, or of you having hatted the discussion, or even archived it or deleted it, why would we want to have to go to ANI to accomplish the same thing? ANI is not the right place to deal with such problems until it becomes something that actually requires admin action. If a request stops it from getting to that point then so much the better.. And as MarnetteD says, I don't consider such requests to cover legitimate warnings. Meters (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I feel a base assumption of a lot of the "oppose" votes is that talk page bans are only implemented when users are only interacting in talkspace. What happens when two editors are interacting in other spaces: if User A interacts with User B in mainspace or Wikipedia-space, is it kosher for User A to ban User B from his page? pbp 22:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Purplebackpack89: If this is the hypothetical you were asking me about above, the talk page ban needs some justification. For a real example, a new editor doesn't get their way on the article's talk page and starts to disrupt. Various warnings are placed on their talk page resulting in the newbie banning everyone who left a warning from their talk page. If I see this situation then I will step in and say no, Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and you can't stop other editors from raising concerns about your behavior on your talk page. --NeilN talk to me 23:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Unneeded Just because you cannot notify a person of something, doesn't mean no one can. Talk page bans are considered applied to a single person; anyone that bans all of Wikipedia from using their talk page is themselves not long for this place, in my experience. If someone tells you not to bother them on their talk page don't. If you would need to notify them of something, ask someone else to do it. Problem solved. --Jayron32 16:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Related question[edit]

What about telling someone "don't ping me", "stop pinging me"? Is that also covered by User A's ability to control their own space? I have seen such warnings escalate into angry confrontations when User B continued to ping User A. But I don't think I have ever seen Wikipedia address this particular kind of "stay away" request and I wonder what people think about it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

People have been blocked for excessive thanking and ANI occasionally includes admin warnings to participants to stop pinging a target. It is possible for a target to mute a particular person but that should not relied on IMHO. Instead, requests to not post on talk, not ping or not thank should be respected with obvious exceptions such as required notices. Obviously post/ping/thank can be misused as tools for poking opponents and that should not be tolerated. Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Now in your preferences, you can set people never to receive notifications from. Such users should be notified about this newer functionality. (See Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo "Muted users".) --Izno (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
While I have never banned an editor from my talk page, I have asked editors to stop pinging me. Because after the twelfth ping from a blocked editor demanding to know why they haven't been unblocked... The pings have always stopped. If they don't, I guess I'll be using the new preference functionality. --NeilN talk to me 23:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Broadly speaking, there are lots of ways to use Wikipedia's ping, 'thank', and other tools to harass or be otherwise obnoxious and antisocial.
(A few months ago I ran across a report at AN where User Alice and User Bob had a mutual interaction ban. Alice and Bob shared an interest in a particular topic area, but seemed to be avoiding engagement with each other until Alice violated the terms of her interaction ban by thanking Bob for one of his edits. In the ensuing discussion, it came out that thanking Bob had been a mis-click. At the time, Bob had been in a low-level edit war with a third user, Charlie; Alice had actually intended to thank Charlie for repeated reverts of Bob. (Got that?) Using the 'thank' tool as a way to covertly encourage reverts in circumvention of an i-ban almost certainly isn't an application the devs had in mind...but here we are.)
Getting back specifically to the issue of pings and the notifications blacklist, I would say that we should be very reluctant to rely on or encourage blacklisting as a solution for managing interactions involving non-blocked/banned editors. Because blacklisted pings fail silently (neither the sender nor anyone else is notified that the ping hasn't...pinged), they can lead to a situation where it looks like a particular editor has been notified of a discussion but declined to participate. I can see this happening both inadvertently and as a deliberate bad-faith strategy to exclude or delay participation by an opponent.
The onus, therefore, remains on the editors doing the excessive pinging to moderate their conduct. Saying "just blacklist them" is a flawed solution, and I'm not sure that editors (including admins) touting it as a sufficient response to excessive pinging have fully recognized the potential pitfalls. TenOfAllTrades(talk)

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

Adding Template:Localtime to place articles[edit]

I think articles about places should include this template as it lets the reader know the local time of the place. There's already coordinates on may articles and I think this would be a good idea to have as well. Knowing the time of a place is many cases is more important then know the coordinates for many readers. If the template needs to be altered I have nothing against that. —  BrandonXLF   (t@lk) (ping back) 00:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like a non-starter. Per the template's doc: "Most Wikipedia pages display a cached version of the page to reduce server load, so the template will only display the current time as of when the page was last parsed." Yeah, someone could purge the page cache, but do we want that happening all the time? Is the potential confusion over this worth it? I think probably not. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
We don't typically worry about performance, but use of this template in the mainspace would be asking for some worry. --Izno (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the outcome of this is to not put it on articles can someone put the template up for deletion as I many not be able to come back to the pump. —  BrandonXLF   (t@lk) (ping back) 22:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not the tz database. More generally, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. To the extent that local timekeeping practices are encyclopedic, they are already adequately covered in Category:Time by country. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - listing it's time zone is plenty. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I support the general idea in principle. However, per the responses above I can see that the caching system makes it unviable at this time.
If in the future these technical limitations are no more, then I think it could be a small neat addition, possibly introduced as an enhancement at the side of the time zone.
I dont understand the opposition above based on the argument that wikipedia is not a travel guide. Time zones are already a standard part of the infobox, right? Showing the time is just presenting the almost the same information in a different format, and in some ways one that is more understandable by readers. And making information understandable is a major guiding principle of wikipedia. So I understand the caching technical limitation, but not the other argument. Thanks.(talk) user:Al83tito 16:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Also support in principle. Showing the current time enhances the user's understanding of the time zone a place is in by relating it to the user's own time zone. Of course the caching problems are definitely relevant. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

What to do about user pages for unroutable and public DNS IP addresses?[edit]

Wikipedia allows any IP to have a user page and a talk page, including IPs that are unroutable IP addresses, reserved IP addresses, and public DNS servers.

Because of this, these pages often have text on them indicating the nature of the IP address so that editors don't confuse them with IP addresses that are associated with editors who have not registered a username.

Examples include User:, User:, and User:

Related are such pages as User:example and User:Place holder.

For various reasons, it often happens that notifications are sent to user talk pages for users who do not exist.[35][36]

It is sometimes desirable to notify the person who misplaced the notification so that he can go back and notify the actual user he meant to notify in the first place. Because of this, the talk pages for these unroutable IP addresses and test usernames often redirect to User talk:example so that we can deal with all of the misplaced notifications in one place.

Recently (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been tagging these pages for speedy deletion.[37][38]

In my considered opinion, having these userpages be blank pages is inferior to having text on them that explains what they are and how they differ from the usual IP user. Also, in my considered opinion, having all of the misplaced notifications in one central location is superior to having them on talk pages that nobody will ever read.

I propose a minor modification to WP:U2 so that these sorts of pages go to AfD instead of being deleted out of hand. Right now an administrator following U2 could delete User:example or User: --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the U2 modification because this is policy creep; a caveat that WP:COMMONSENSE applies is good enough. Preventing these pages from being created in the future is as simple as creating an edit filter. -FASTILY 21:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Example (talk · contribs) and Place holder (talk · contribs) are registered accounts; the latter even has edits. Either way, I think Fastily is right in that admin discretion and WP:COMMONSENSE apply, and there's no need for MfD for these pages. ansh666 21:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Policy creep and creates more more for AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC).
  • Oppose as the user who has been speedying these. These particular addresses are no better than others, why should you redirect some of them and not all; I have edited the user pages to direct admins to User: instead, and you are now proposing deleting it in a WP:POINTy way. I have also created Template:Private IP (paralleling Template:WMF IP) for use on talk pages of private addresses which have edited (which includes User:, which is more useful than redirecting them to a random example page. � (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as an active AfD user - this generates a lot of work for non-controversial situations. Having an avalanche of SNOW closes (the likely effect) generally indicates that something doesn't belong in AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Individual Wikinews articles[edit]

Recently there was a successful RfC to treat links to Wikinews as external links. Is it useful to link to individual Wikinews articles at all? I can see linking to categories or portals in Wikinews from the related topics or portals in Wikipedia being somewhat useful (and, of course, necessitated by the implementation of Wikidata-based sister project links), but generally articles about events are more comprehensive than the Wikinews article about the event, and articles which mention an event in passing might not be helped by linking to the article since the link now has to be at the bottom of the page. (I've nominated {{Wikinewshas/Film}} for deletion, since right now it's only used in Film and seems to be superfluous. Also a few others because they're unused and/or not recent.) Jc86035 (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


incorrect venue for this discussion --Jayron32 14:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, with the User:JE98 we have a "edit war": about The_Simpsons_ (season_30). Do you think we have an article about the 30th season? Article or redict? P.S. The page ‪The Simpsons (season 30)‬ has been reviewed by User:JTtheOG

Patriccck (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You can vote until August 9th 23:59.


Article --Patriccck (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • This discussion is in the wrong location, you should be having the discussion at the article talk page. Please have it there and not here. If you need to attract more people to it, please use WP:RFC. This noticeboard is not the correct venue. --Jayron32 14:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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

FOOTYN, NFOOTY and sports teams.[edit]

I have noticed an issue recently on AfD's on football teams. People are citing WP:FOOTYN as if it is a subject specific notability guideline (SNG). It looks like a link to an official SNG (the correct link is actually WP:NFOOTY), but FOOTYN is an essay maintained by Wikiproject Football. FOOTYN as a keyword seems to me to clearly be a lookalike POV-fork of WP:NFOOTY, and also easy to mistake for that one. Moreover, its contents are contrary to the official SNG on the topic, which clearly states that teams must pass the General Notability Guideline (See: Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Teams). Teams used to be covered by WP:NCORP, before it was rewritten earlier this year, when teams were excluded from NCORP. In the old NCORP guideline teams were given no special treatment or automatic notability criterion either. After NCORP was rewritten, Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Teams was changed to redirect to WP:GNG instead, which essentially changed nothing about notability for teams (still given no special treatment and still subject only to the GNG).

As far as I can see, members of Wikiproject Football seem to be making up rules that are contrary to our guidelines as written, and citing them as if they were an official Subject Specific Notability Guideline. We need to do one of two things:

  1. Make an official SNG for sports teams.
  2. Properly enforce the requirement for teams to meet the GNG.

Which should it be? I'd like to hear some other views on this situation. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 16:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of where its being in AFDs? I mean, I agree that FOOTYN should not be overriding NFOOTY/NSPORTS as the community SNG for sports. --Masem (t) 03:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I've only ever seen this happen for people trying to cite WP:NFOOTY, but getting the wrong acronym. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The essay WP:FOOTYN is currently being cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dontan PCCM F.C.. FOOTYN clearly says it's an essay, though I can see where some people might not click on it or read the fineprint. I don't know if there is any reason to belive that the name is meant to deceive that itis NFOOTY, or if people just misunderstand that a "real" SNG should not reside at a WikiProject.—Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting that there was originally a listing for (English) football clubs on NCORP, but it was removed for being too specific, rather than not being a valid SNG. There have been a few discussions at WP:NSPORT about adding clubs to the guideline, but IMO it would be difficult as there would be different criteria for each sport and probably also each country within each sport (as every country will have a slightly different cut-off point), so it would have to be extremely long and detailed. As a result of this lack of formal notation in an SNG, the club notability criteria has ended up being listed at the FOOTYN essay, so that it is available somewhere for reference in discussions. If there is unhappiness about this, perhaps it might be better to have this listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, as there's clear consensus on club notability for certain countries derived from AfDs over the years. Number 57 09:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Number 57: The removal you cite was in 2007 it was inserted without discussion after a brief discussion between two editors here and was only part of the page for a little over 6 months. I didn't link the AfD because I didn't want to canvass it, but its been linked above by someone else. The AfD that brought this to my attention was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_Ensign_F.C._(2nd_nomination). SNGs should generally be a guide which helps us identify notable things easily, not which help non-notable topics cheat their way onto Wikipedia and skip verification via the GNG. Both these clubs fail to have sufficient sourcing for the GNG, but Wikiproject football editors want to keep them anyway and are citing an essay they wrote as if it were an SNG (some people in the above linked AfD have actually called FOOTYN an SNG). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 12:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Correcting the above, it was not inserted without discussion (the edit summary actually references this discussion). Also, FOOTYN was only cited by one editor in the White Ensign discussion – I referred to the numerous previous discussions that show that there is a consensus around the cutoff point for English club notability. Given that this cutoff has repeatedly been tested at AfD, which is open to the entire community, I don't think it can be simply referred to as some kind of local consensus at the Football WikiProject. Number 57 13:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Corrected above, but it really has no relevance whether or not two editors discussed something and it was added to the policy page over a decade ago and remained on the page for half a year. It isn't there now, and these clubs don't meet the GNG, that indicates that whatever the criteria that Wikiproject Football has decided on as a good bar to represent a rule of thumb for notable topics, it is too low of a bar and needs to be raised. It totally is a local consensus, and it is rather clear that most of the editors !voting on these football AfDs are Members of the Wikiproject or football fans. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I dont know enough about football to say for sure one way or another, but it's conceivable that English football has more coverage, and certain notability criteria may apply there, that might not work in other countries, such as Thailand in this case. The danger I've always seen with some sport SNGs is that they assume coverage is equal in all countries, and "foreign" team articles or bios may take any foreign language source that Google finds without having any idea if it's truly reliable. Other editors might push for equal notability to counter perceived systemic bias.—Bagumba (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Bagumba: White Ensign F.C., the other AfD linked above, is an english club that also has insufficient coverage to meet the GNG, yet was kept by citing the Wikiproject essay and its 'step 6 or above' rule. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I !voted "delete" at that AfD. My point was regarding national cups; they might be sufficient for notability in England, but it's projecting to automatically presume the same applies to all countries e.g. Thailand in the case of Dontan PCCM F.C.Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
To mitigate some of the naming concern of FOOTYN, I've added a hatnote to the essay pointing to the NFOOTY SNG.—Bagumba (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I've seen a couple of these AfDs come up recently. I think turning this into a SNG will be very helpful for the following reasons:
  • In England, there's longstanding community consensus on which leagues are notable based on the level of coverage they receive, which is assumed to pass GNG. White Ensign was promoted into one of these leagues. Under WP:NCORP, notability is not inherited, an undiscussed problem with the AfD. Having a SNG allows all teams in a notable league to receive articles based on inherited notability, since all teams in a notable league should receive similar notable coverage.
  • A couple months ago I created the article Black Forest FC amongst others based off of WP:FOOTYN as they play in the Botswana Premier League. It passes WP:GNG as the Botswana league gets good coverage, but it may not be obvious. Even with editorial control many Botswana news sites use WordPress which may raise flags for some editors and the article's a stub since information is difficult to find. I have created pages teams especially in Africa which get promoted to their country's top flight, in leagues covered by independent sites like Scoresway, and in leagues you can bet on, but information on these teams can be hard to find. I think playing in a country's top flight is a clear notability marker.
  • WP:NCORP isn't really written with football clubs in mind. The coverage received by a football club is entirely different to coverage received by a startup or non-profit. For instance, unlike most of Wikipedia, for a football club, ongoing routine coverage is actually an indicator of notability.
  • I don't think many club articles currently fail WP:GNG anyways. As I pointed out in the Dontan PCCM FC article, while good articles about them were hard to find, they had been covered at several points in time by local television stations (though I am unsure to what capacity), and they received a number of mentions from their F.A. cup game - this being a 5th division amateur club. That AfD felt to me like the exception to the rule. SportingFlyer talk 12:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Notability is not inherited, period. Your first point cannot work - just because they play in a league that is well-covered does not make the teams that play it in well-covered and thus meeting the GNG. If you have an SNG , you have to show that there are merit criteria that exist that would demonstrate that if a team met that, then there is likely coverage to be found in secondary sources (not just routine recapping of games). And I strongly caution that one with country-specific language is going to be problematic under WP:BIAS. It may end up that many England teams will make a cut while many teams from non-English countries will have little or no support. --Masem (t) 13:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
As I've noted, and unlike most other corporations, routine, reliable, secondary independent sports coverage of a team actually demonstrates notability - it means the team is worthy of getting noticed repeatedly again in the media. (The same argument does not hold true for people.) I disagree with you on the inherited notability point - having looked through many different sources, a well-covered league implies all of the teams in the league will be covered to the point of WP:GNG, which reflects current community consensus (over a decade.) SportingFlyer talk 14:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
We will not accept routine coverage as demonstration of notability. Routine coverage in sports (which is primarily box scores and results) is rarely secondary. We want non-routine coverage that goes into facets of the team's history, organization, etc. and not just how well they did season to season, otherwise that just becomes a stat book which fails WP:NOT#STATS And I'm saying flat out that WP does not recognize inherited notability. We will not accept an SNG that says if a league is notable, its individual teams must be notable too. --Masem (t) 14:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: I agree that it would be very unlikely that the club section at WP:FOOTYN would pass as an SNG or inclusion in an existing SNG. Given that it is currently being used as an SNG by members for Wikiproject Football, it might be worthwhile to craft an RfC to demonstrate that the community does not support this. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
That or MFD FOOTYN. An essay being misused that often that bypasses the general approach to developing SNGs is ripe for deletion. (Note that an essay outlining how to use NSPORT/NCORP/GNG to assess notability of a club is reasonable, but not something that creates notability criteria less restrictive than those.) --Masem (t) 21:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I have considered that, but I would expect that any such MfD would be flooded by Wikproject football editors as well. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @Masem: If routine coverage is simply box scores and results, I don't see the issue - it's not as if we say clubs are notable since they have their box scores printed in the back of the paper. The clubs we're arguing about in England get coverage here [39] and here [40] (you can buy this at newsstands), and before the internet you could go to the bookshop and buy books which talked about all of the teams in these leagues. No one is trying to use WP:FOOTYN to shoe-in Bob's Sunday Leaguers into notability - it just reflects long-standing consensus on which teams are to meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 22:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: Using the most recent AfD as an example: You mean this coverage? or this coverage? I'll take your word that those sites are reliable sources, but they have nothing to support GNG for that club. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
You're searching too narrowly, try just "Cray Valley." SportingFlyer talk 22:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


WP:BMB basically allows us to delete everything contributed by a banned editor. However, we see cases where banned editors (through socking) are contributing to (or creating) articles which are later substantially edited by other editors, as well as banned editors (through socking) bring good material which can subsequently not be reverted. WP:BMB talks there about that being paradoxal in some cases - the banned editor 'uses' that material to show that they do good.

I am aware of an extreme case of this, where the banned editor is actively participating in article-for-creation drives in order to 'collect' such mainspace 'trophies' to show their good (which includes bragging about their good work, and participating in local ánd 'global' drives using the en.wikipedia article creations/expansions to be eligible for the offered prizes). Some of those 'trophies' cannot be removed through deletion or reverting.

Would it be in the spirit of, and allowed by, WP:BMB/WP:BANREVERT to blundly use revision deletion on the content of the revisions contributed by a banned editor (a condition that could then be added to G5) on those cases where information cannot be deleted, up to a level that in the end there is no visibility of content that the banned editor contributed? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocking on Wikipedia is supposed to be entirely for protective reasons (prevent damage to the encyclopedia), not punitive reasons (do something painful to the people who have committed some infraction). So I find the premise of your posting here, that we should somehow prevent socks from making good contributions in order to punish them by diminishing their bragging rights, to be entirely nonsensical. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
David, what you now state here is a contradiction of WP:BMB. In both cases we are in the good place to discuss that, but your comment is a different thread. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The editor in question, and all banned editors who 'try to do good to show they are not bad' are, with those edits, disrupting Wikipedia. It is not 'punishment' to delete those edits, it is protecting Wikipedia against the disruption. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:BMB doesn't say to delete the edits of banned users. Are you proposing that WP:BANREVERT should be made more strict?—Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
You are right, this is more application of WP:BANREVERT. I would not say more strict, more whether our banning policy would allow the use of revdel to assist G5/reverting (which you then could see as an independant recreation of deleted content in case of artice deletions). This is probably more correct than copy/pasting the deleted content into a new article as I have seen suggested (and which I think is prohibited here), or to leave it stand as in the specific type of examples where it feeds the paradox of BMB. At the moment, any 'substantial edit' (whatever that may be) lets significant content of banned editors stand, which feeds the BMB paradox. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It has always been accepted that for an article submitted by a banned editor, any editor in good standing may adopt it. When I do this , I do not do this lightly. I only do it when I think the subject is so notable that the 1r would be harmed if we did not have the article, and usually only in a field where I normally work. For subjects of just ordinary importance , or ones where I do not work regularly enough to judge or to be confident in rewriting, I generally delete them instead of fixing them. In fact, I've deleted many thousands of such articles. I have rescued only a few hundred. I agree completely with the general policy of removing the work of banned editors, unless there is some reason not to.. The decision of an established editor to adopt on a selective basis is such a reason. (I would think it very improper for an editor to indiscriminately try to rescue all the work of a banned editor without considering which were appropriate, and I do not think that any current established editor here is doing that, though some have come near this is the past) . For these few cases where the article is adopted, I do not think it harms the general effect of denying recognition. RevDel should not be overused, and I don't think it necessary here. It should be limited to where the material is actually improper to be retained because it would harm the encyclopedia. )and consequently I do very little rev del except for copyvio) DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@DGG: I agree that revdel should not be used lightly. But first of all, most socks do not 'need' a total wipe-out of their edits, simple reversion and deletion is fine (RBI/BRI-style, with a sauce of WP:DENY), and even if something remains is not an issue. And for those where it is, it is anyway a limited situation, most material can be reverted and most material can be deleted (as you describe), only few articles 'need' to stay (I still somewhat disagree with that: even if that person is super-notable, an independent re-creation is nothing of an issue anyway). I would, normally, not care the least about whether there is material left behind, and have in this case repeatedly said that I have no problems with independent re-creation.
It is however those extreme cases (of which I think our resident sock is one) where only a total wipe-out may get the message accross that their contributions here are not welcome. I am certainly not arguing that we should wipe ALL contributions of ALL socks of ALL banned editors. I am arguing whether that, in extreme (IAR?) cases, it would not be prohibited by our banning policy, or whether we should codify that into our banning policy that this is an option that could be considered (making it not prohibited if it is). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I think this attitude is just wishful thinking. We frequently had more hassle with the Best known for IP, a community-banned long term abuse case, than necessary, because people indiscriminately reverted his edits and got tied up in edit wars. Because he was a good-faith but disruptive editor, when he argued about the merits of the content (albeit by edit warring with personal attacks) it was difficult to simply dismiss them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I am rather convinced that 'leaving him be' is here going to be more problematic. As I said elsewhere, this editor has argued to be eligible for prizes after all their contributions were wiped and they were blocked for socking. Each sockmaster needs their own application, comparisons may not work. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The reasons you have expressed above seems to me to be more an application of Spite (game theory) ie being more concerned about the fact the sock is seeking 'prizes' rather than by demonstration that their contributions are so near universally likely to be in violation of Wikipedia content policies and guidelines as to require indiscriminate deletion. G5 exists to deal with/minimize the disruption from problematic recreation of articles that are simply not worth the time to, or are too difficult to ensure are policy compliant.
Either 'content is king' or 'punishing trolls is king' it is not possible to have it both ways and this is why BANREVERT is still a subject of controvercy even in the case of single articles or even edits (eg restoration of vandalism because a banned editor removed it) Since it has been shown to be controversial in minor instances I would think that a reasonable attempt to gain consensus should have been made before doing so on a mass scale. Needless to say I do not find "because they will get prizes" to be a reasonable argument for a mass application of G5. Jbh Talk 15:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, my argument is that the contributions are by a banned editor who is known for copyright violations (and has remarks as recent as the last sock regarding attributions, and other attributions are .. thin where their articles are machine translated copies of copyrighted material. But I get the point, we prefer to have banned editors game the system. I am sure your (pl) encouragement is noted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The issue here, is, that WP:BANREVERT says that we (writ large, as the community) may delete contributions, but it does not say that we must delete contributions. As they are empowered by the community to act on their behalf, admins may delete articles or revert additions by banned editors when they come across them; but when someone questions their actions, and has legitimate reasons to not have deleted that material, the response by the admin should not be "I'm forced to delete them because I must follow policy." It should be "Here's why I deleted it, but if consensus is to undelete it for <reasons> I'd be glad to do so." Policy is never an excuse to do something which runs counter to Wikipedia's mission, and if someone has a reason why not deleting something is better for Wikipedia, then don't delete it. --Jayron32 15:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jayron32: you are here completely besides the point. I have undeleted on all requests (and demands) but that is not my point here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I thought that your point was to create a policy that would require us to blundly[sic] use deletion/rev deletion/etc. as a sort of damnatio memoriae against banned users. If that was not your point, could you elaborate because I didn't understand it. If that was your point, my response is that blindly doing anything is bad, and that in the case of conflict between improving Wikipedia content and discouraging bad behavior, content wins every day and twice on Sundays. --Jayron32 19:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
        • @Jayron32: In that case, clearly, you have misread the whole post. I am talking about 'allowing', I am talking about 'an extreme case' (in return, I'll ignore parts of your post). And I think that that is totally clear in my further remarks, and I appreciate that you want to keep the conflict existing instead of thinking about possible solutions. Also your encouragement is noted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, is that all. I've been doing that for years. Not sure we need additional policy on that. There's several trolls I've had a "nuke on sight" policy against for the better part of a decade. I'm sorry that I mischaracterized your point. I thought because your started this thread you were looking to do something new. --Jayron32 22:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Maybe I have not been clear. You were on point with damnatio memoriae, except that I want to use it as an extreme measure and not by default, but that I cannot because we insist that certain 'good' material needs to be kept and that encourages the continued disruption. It was why I nuked their contributions, but in thiscase received a backlash. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
From cursory reading, I believe the "backlash" you received was because you were not aware that the WP:MASSDELETE feature did not automatically filter out articles where other editors have also contributed. You were then accused of ignoring WP:BANREVERT for deleting those articles. Frankly, such a filter would be nice feature improvement (if not an oversight to begin with). In the meantime, use WP:POPUPS (if you aren't already) as an easier way to access an article's history. Otherwise, there should not be a problem in your deleting the users' other pages. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
It was not a big deal, I have tried to undelete where needed and/or requested (and seen the AN thread, I am not sure whether I misread BANREVERT (or the whole of the banning policy) or that people just have different opinions on the application of it). Soit. I have seen on earlier socks admins undeleting without informing me, and in all cases I do still think that (especially in this case) a fresh rewrite is a much better option (which would avoid below suggestion, and if the person is soooo notable then it should not be an effort). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
        • As we are doing the blaming game anyway, let me just say that I have been very unclear. That saves other people typing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Reset of BMB/BANREVERT discussion[edit]

OK, as it is apparently not clear (or just blatanly misinterpreted) that I here plainly suggest what you are almost all blaming me not to suggest, case study number 1:

  • edit 0 - article creation by sock of banned editor
  • edit 1 - update by sock of banned editor
  • edit 2 - update by sock of banned editor

That is the situation that stands at the moment that we block the banned editor. Lets, for the sake of argument, assume that the content is not violating core policies like copyright violations or so, and that someone may want to keep it. Regardless of the content, I MAY chose to delete the whole article at the moment, or I may leave the article (no must!). I have to make a judgement, do I leave the article or not. But I have another possible action I could take with the technical possibilities at hand:

  • edit 3 - I make a 0-edit to the article (or wait for someone else to edit, or brilliantly expand the article to an FA)
  • and I revdel username and content of edits 0, 1 and 2.

Now the content stands (woohoo, I did not delete the article that you don't want me to delete!). It is all there, untouched. But the content cannot be attributed to the banned editor. It can be edited at will, it is NOT deleted. Heck, you can start a XFD if it is not notable, or extract a DYK from it.

Case study number 2:

  • edit 0 - Stub creation by editor X (insignificant edit)
  • edit 1 - massive expansion by banned editor
  • edit 2 - further slight expansion by established editor Y (further an insignificant edit)

That is the situation that stands at the moment we block the banned editor. Could very well be a notable subject, but deletion will very likely upset editor Y (who would ask for immediate undeletion). But we can revdel the content and the username of edit 1. The article still stands, you can still extract a DYK from it. But the DYK cannot be attributed (nor needs to be attributed) to the banned editor.

Case study number 3:

  • hundreds of edits - FA article by numerous editors
  • edit 247 - slight though proper expansion by banned editor

I could rollback the edit, or I can do:

  • edit 248 - null edit to the article
  • and revdel content and username on edit 247.

Again, I have KEPT the content. Maybe edit 247 was a revert of vandalism in edit 232, I did not revert to a vandalised state. But it cannot be attributed to the banned editor.

And it is still a choice .. in all three cases I still have the choice to do nothing, to ignore the edits. But some banned editors should not be encouraged to make even the good edits. They are banned, and that is not an action that the community takes lightly.

My whole proposal is to KEEP all the content that we all so desperate want to keep (and only to delete material that violates core policy, or after XFDs), my proposal (well, actually, it was not even a proposal or an attempt to create policy, it was just a question) is to ONLY remove the attribution of the edits of the banned editor in cases where the attribution of the content is the sole/primary reason why the socking editor is continue to sock (and it is still 'may', 'choice', a, how did I word it above, 'allowed', it is not 'must', it is not 'forced', words that I have never used here or anywhere in the last 24 hours regarding our banning policy). I am NOT arguing for a damnatio memoriae for all sockpuppets, I am NOT arguing that I HAVE to delete/revdel everything that any banned editor contributes, I am not even arguing that all edits by a banned editor should be reverted (I am even arguing to keep that). I am only asking whether BMB/BANREVERT allows to apply revdel, or whether this should be an option. (my apologies for my sarcasm) --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me that should someone do as you suggest they would have committed a willful copyright violation by removing attribution of the person who actually wrote the text. There is a huge difference between taking responsibility for a banned editor's edit and taking credit for it. Jbh Talk 21:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
REVDEL does not remove that. The record still exists, it isjust not public. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
But that is why I asked in the first place.. is this allowed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I would think not. If the attribution is no longer public then it is not, as I understand it, adequate for copyright purposes. Copyright attribution needs to be visible to everyone not just admins. Jbh Talk 21:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
do not think that I think this is the best solution, but if we did, it would be another of the cases where excessively detailed attention to the nuances of copyright apparently prevent us from doing things we need to do to improve the encyclopedia. We could solve it in the way we usually do when our mutually incompatible absolute rules box ourselves into a corner--devise some elaborate workaround.-- in this, perhaps a list of the (banned) editors for each part we keep, word by word if necessary. Or we could use our other customary device, make a rule that causes great inconvenience, and just ignore it. I know enough not to suggest the heresy, that substantial compliance with copyright is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I think the 'revdel but keep content' is already at the stage of "elaborate workaround" and solidly into policy violating. See below. In the case of removing attribution from entire articles or large swatches of creative content we would not even be in "substantial compliance with copyright" (is that a thing?). IANL and all but I rather strongly suspect that the 'perpetual license' granted when clicking save changes goes away if Wikipedia fails to comply with the attribution requirement. Just think of the trolling opportunities! Jbh Talk 12:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • More generally, to answer Beetstra's question, REV DEL is indeed among the options. Trying to deal with sockpuppets should not be a situation with absolute rules. The purpose of IAR is to deal with exception situations , and was intended to allow us to not have to make firm rules dealing with every conceivable situation. (As is obvious from the present mass of rules, that's of course another of our principles we only pretend to follow)
The really important conclusion from this discussion is that no editor or admin should take action involving multiple articles that might be controversial without obtaining consensus, especially if the action will be difficult to un-do. But if it should happen that someone should do such an action thinking it totally uncontroversial, and find out otherwise, it shouldn't be a matter for blame, just a guide to everyone for the future about what is acceptable here--this sometimes can be hard to predict. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I do not believe policy allows revdel to be used simply to remove attribution. Delete the edits and their content – fine. Delete the edit, keep the content – nope. REVDEL#5 (deletion under deletion policy) is for content', keep the content and it is not applicable. REVDEL#3 (disruptive & little or no relevance or merit to the project) is no harbor either. If the content is being saved it obviously is relevant to the project. IAR is a great safety valve but WP:REVDEL being a policy and copyright being a law I think it better for the project overall that they not be ignored, better to delete ie remove the material completely. This, of course, brings us back to the 'is it better to discourage trolls or is content king' issue.
That, in my opinion, comes down to the question of is the content any good. Which brings us full circle to examining material case by case by case until, in general, either a consensus forms for mass deletion or one is able to articulate a reason why material from a given account/sockmaster is more likely than not to be 'bad'. I would also like to note that this is analysis of what I think is allowable per policy and recognition the controversy over the implementation of BANREVERT in the community. I do not know where I really land on the BANREVERT issue other than to say when using discretion one should consider only benefit/possible harm to the encyclopedia and not externalities like 'prizes'. WP:DENY has a place in that calculation but so long as the community's primary concern is content it can not be the overriding concern. Jbh Talk 12:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@DGG and Jbhunley: As I see this analysis of Jbh (and the way I looked at it after their earlier comments) I think indeed that using revdel in this way may be a stretch of copyright here. Thank you both, this discussion is now going in the direction of where my initial concerns are, and the solutions that we could find to resolve this. Either we (I) accept that we keep encouraging the sockpuppetry, and continue our game of whac-a-mole, or we go a delete-and-independently-recreate type of game. By the way, Jbh, I don't think that selective deletion (as opposed to revdel) is a solution then either, it still removes the attribution. Revdel is only a solution for the revisions that do not stay.
The solutions are then: or we selectively keep the material that is adopted (a status quo, and the whac-a-mole game continues), or we concede that we throw away some good material, that through adoption could be independently recreated (collect the crude data and the refs out of the deleted revisions to assist). I don't think that content drivers will concede to that solution (seen how I was approached on some of my deletions), and I am sure that any noticeboard discussion on such topics will go nowhere. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Is one of your primary concerns that this banned user will collect a trophy via a sock? It seems like it should be common sense to vacate any trophies retroactively if it was won while in violation of a ban. Would that decrease the motivation to delete "useful" edits?—Bagumba (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Basically my concern is that certain socks get encouragement because their contributions are kept (and in extreme cases, they (may) get awarded (win monetary prizes or just get recognition) for those contributions). I am trying to explore if we have ways to perform 'damnatio memoriae' in such cases. If I identify these socks early on, which I have sometimes, that is basically what happens - those accounts do not have content edits left after nuking their material. But their game of staying under the radar and getting the recognition (which they in this case very clearly get!) is enough encouragement to keep socking. Add in this case NFCC problems, iffy translations and bad attributions we have a case of encouragement to continue disruption. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
(1)"Copyright is a law" -- enWP policy deliberately takes a very limited employment of the legally very broad fair use permissions . For CC, there's only the legal need for substantial compliance, and we meet it more fully than any other large site in the world.
(2) at this point, removal of content is the only available weapon against undeclared paid editing, and the socking that is invariably connected with it.
(3) The incompatible needs of keeping content and discouraging socks, together with the immpossibility fo finding all socks, will always make it impossible to have a hard and fast solution. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • So basically, the problem is that a certain banned editor has received prizes, and the solution is to revdel their contributions? Well, this sounds awfully roundabout and it leads to disproportionate collateral damage (= making a mess of article histories, and possibly running afoul of copyright law). I'm not aware of how the specific prize-giving mechanisms work here, but no matter how rigid and byzantine they might be, surely it must be possible to quote IAR and simply not give a prize to a banned editor, or rescind it if has already been given? – Uanfala (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Uanfala: no, the participation for prizes is an extreme of it, they fully use the paradox as described in WP:BMB - their reason to sock is because their edits stay. So basically, the disruption continues because their edits are allowed to stand .. and this is not a unique case, though probably an extreme of it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
      • And they would not sock if their contributions stayed but were unlinked from their name (which is what revdeling seems to accomplish)? But then the more important question is whether we want that content in the first place. If the user was known for producing unreliable, biased or misleading content, then the whole content would simply go. And if the user was known for producing impeccable content but was banned for behavioural reasons, then well, we don't like them but we like their content, so all we can do is tell them to go away, but keep the content, without getting too inveted in stopping them from coming back with more. – Uanfala (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
        • @Uanfala: I have no guarantees for the future, I don't know whether that would make such sockpuppets stop. On the other hand I can guarantee that when we keep contributions of such editors it sends the message 'you do good work', giving them incentive to show off and continue socking. The material is certainly not impeccable with bad translations with barely enough attribution to the source, bad attributions etc. We are limited here, and I was exploring options. To me, there are options if we want to that could give the best of both (but revdel does not seem that option). --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • If their contributions stayed but were unlinked from their name, they could turn around file a DMCA complaint and/or sue the WMF for violating the CC BY-SA 3.0 License that their contributions were released under. --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 14:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Hence my question here (I was afraid there were problems with this solution). So the only way to fully apply WP:DENY in such cases is full deletion and independent re-creation of the articles (which will never gain consensus as it may delete contributions already made by several editors). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
However, WP:BANREVERT precludes speedy deleting pages where others have made a substantial edit. I wouldn't be compelled to change that policy to support the DENY essay either. There's just as much of a chance that this rogue editor is doing what they are doing merely because they can and to watch others react. What I would suggest could be done is to explain to the other editors of the affected pages about the situation with the banned editor, and ask if they would waive their edits and support speedy deletion with no prejudice if they recreated it with their own wording.—Bagumba (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
That is basically what I meant. Seen the reactions to my last spree .. I don't think that that will gain a lot of traction. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It would on a case-by-case basis, possibly with different editors involved, so the results might not always be the same. It's liekly the best option, barring newfound support for policy changes. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Naming conventions proposal for Taiwan stations[edit]

Hi. I am proposing a naming conventions for Taiwan stations for better consistency. Feedback welcomed at User talk:Szqecs/Naming conventions (Taiwan stations). Thanks. Szqecs (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)