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, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147


Year range for two consecutive years[edit]

There is no consensus to prescribe a "xxxx–xx" or "xxxx–xxxx" date format for two consecutive years in sports articles. A weak plurality of editors were either indifferent between the two formats or believed that both formats should be accepted. — Newslinger talk 23:44, 18 November 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.

Recently a single user moved 497 249 figure skating pages that had xxxx–xx year in title to xxxx–xxxx without discussion. I requested they be moved back, but was told I should start a discussion on village pump first.

To focus the discussion, I'm particularly interested in titles of sports articles that have a two consecutive years range in the title. For consistency, I feel all these articles should use the same format, either xxxx–xx or xxxx–xxxx. Currently, from my searches, xxxx–xx is the preferred format. I believe for consistency (and since it's okay with the MOS), the figure skating should be reverted to their original page names. Alternatively, all other pages with this issue (presumably several thousand pages) should be moved to xxxx–xxxx format.
Thus I'm asking everyone what format should be used? Thank you all, 15zulu (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Edited above to correct number of pages moved. Initially I counted the number of lines in user contributions which lists each page moved as two contributions. So total number of pages moved was 249. Sorry for any confusion, 15zulu (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Should sports articles use xxxx–xxxx or xxxx–xx date format for two consecutive years? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe the move to 2015-2016 was justified. Years and year ranges should be spelt out in full to avoid ambiguity. Examples of problems include 2004-05 (could mean May 2004) and 1999-00 (wtf). The solution is to spell these years out in full, and for consistency it should be done always. If thousands of pages are named incorrectly, the sooner we get started with fixing them the better. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Question is too broad WP:DATERANGE is already clear that XXXX-XX is OK: "Two-digit ending years (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years; ..." Its applicability for a given sport should be based on the conventions of that sport in reliable sources. Prescribing a specific format for all sports is undue. WikiProject National Basketball Association and WikiProject College Basketball use XXXX-XX.—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bagumba: The 500 articles that were unilaterally moved are mainly about figure skating. This RfC is intended to clarify the situation on sports articles title date format before deciding to revert a non-trivial number of moves. The question is deliberately broad for overall consistency. The current guideline which says xxxx-xx "may be used" but that in general xxxx-xxxx is "preferred" is not at all helpful when dealing with such a large number of good faith moves. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
It is a mistake to generalize it about sports. It should be dependent on the convention of the specific domain e.g. ice skating. With all due respect to WP:BB, it seems over-aggressive to change 500 articles in the same domain en masse without first asking about its background and the fact that it maybe "right". If, in fact, they made these changes and already aware of the MOS:DATERANGE exception, it also seems rash to make widespread changes from an accepted format to their self-described "preferred" style without dropping a note at the affected WikiProjects.—Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bagumba: There does not appear to be a specific guideline for skating articles and I am not aware of any notification or discussion that occured beforehand. At the same time, 500 moves is a lot to undo without a good reason. What do you suggest is done moving forward? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I think this is a figure skating issue, and not a general or sports issue. The orginal mass move failed WP:RMUM: It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move. There was not a problem per WP:DATERANGE, which allows XXXX–XX, and it's debatable if this is an improvement when 500 some-odd figure skating articles were already consistently named. The onus is on the orginal mover to gain consensus for the new XXXX–XXXX title. This could have been done at WP:RM, but the RfC is already open, so let's go from here.—Bagumba (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The previous RFC was regarding all year ranges xxxx–xx, so this question about sports is significantly less broad. As of right now, figure skating has no guidelines in place on Wikipedia and a single user unilaterally decided to move approximately 500 pages from xxxx–xx to xxxx–xxxx. Going by my original research, primarily uses xxxx/xx format while news sources use xxxx-xx format. The figure skating WikiProject is mostly defunct and it's likely most people editing figure skating pages will not see any question posed there. Regardless, while specific sports can have their own format, I feel that we should have generic/default Wikipedia guidelines too. 15zulu (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I went and left a notification of this RfC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Figure_Skating.—Bagumba (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that not all events that span two years have the second year in their articles. 2008 NFL season is one such example. At what point do we include the second year in the title?

I'm under the impression that it's included if a significant portion of the event takes place in the second year. In other words, an event that starts in October and ends in January would probably do with just the first year. Would I be correct? --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The conventions at Wikipedia obey the conventions outside of Wikipedia. The NFL, by convention, only calls its seasons by one year, even though the playoffs extend into the next year. Wikipedia did not invent or create this convention in the naming of its articles, it merely followed the existing convention. That's how we do everything here. We don't make up things, and then create our own reasons why we made them up, we obey what reliable sources do. --Jayron32 18:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. However, what about other events that don't have an official naming convention?
For example, suppose there is a large series of protests in Washington D.C. that lasts from October 2020 to April 2021. Would the article be titled "2020-2021 Washington D.C. protests" or just "2020 Washington D.C. protests"? --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea. It would depend on what reliable sources were already calling the events. Show me what they are called when sources outside of Wikipedia write about them. --Jayron32 19:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
A descriptive title like that may be constructed owing to the absence of a single recognizable name for the series of events, or a recognizable name which is unsuitable for Wikipedia due to NPOV or BLP issues. In such cases I'd follow MOS and use 2020–21 Washington D.C. protests (don't forget the en dash!). – Reidgreg (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Use whatever form the RS use – as discussed above. For the figure skating example, the ISU seems to use XXXX/XX (their web site is a mess but that's what the cited ISU sources use for example at 2015–2016 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final). I'm not crazy about the slash but that's what they use. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
    As I mentioned above, while ISU primarily uses xxxx/xx format, news sources for figure skating (including general news sources & figure skating specific sources) use xxxx-xx format. Also other figure skating organizations, like USFSA and Skate Canada, use dash. While one primary source uses slash, the majority of reliable secondary sources use dash. 15zulu (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
    We do not use slashes to indicate date ranges per DATERANGE. No comment on the actual concerns in this RFC, but that's a solid "we do not use slashes, ever". --Izno (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
    A slash may be used in place of an en dash for adjacent years when supported by a majority of sources, per MOS:SLASH and MOS:DATERANGE (special periods), but the former also generally discourages slashes which are one of those troublesome characters than can be interpreted as markup (along with ampersands, numeros, etc). If sources use a mix of styles, better to stay consistent with Wikipedia's broadly accepted style of xxxx–xx. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support xxxx–xx (with en dash, not a hyphen as in many of the above examples) as spelled out in MOS:DATERANGE. While 2004-05 is confusing and might be May 2004, the dash in 2004–05 indicates this is a range MOS:ENTO. The xxxx–xx format is particularly good for periods of less than a year which overlap calendar years, like fiscal year 2004–05, the winter (northern hemisphere) of 2004–05, and sports and television seasons. If it describes a period of 366 days or more, though, or if there are any clarity issues, I'd tend to use xxxx–xxxx. MOS is a guideline, and exceptions can be made if the context leads to confusion. I'm just not seeing why there would be any confusion here, or any reason to vary from the established style guideline. Adhering to the style guideline gives Wikipedia a consistent and professional look, and is meant to help avoid silly style warring. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Agree. Normal English-language usage should prevail absent a much stronger rationale than has been suggested. 121a0012 (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support xxxx–xxxx - The range of xxxx–xxxx should be used, as the goal of any written text is to be as clear as possible and that presents the most clear title. The distinction the previous editor said about periods of more than 366 days would be lost on most editors; I've been editing here for years and I've never known that might be a reason for such usage. A previous example of 1999-00 is also a clear example where this just fails and looks bad. There is no title space shortage issues (titles aren't long and this isn't print), other date ranges (in non-consecutive years) use this style and per WP:CONSISTENCY would also work better and this would also eliminate the may be used [...] issue which just leads to endless page-by-page fighting over meaningless issues. --Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    Well put. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support xxxx-xx, not only for two consecutive years, but for ranges of years within the same decade, and maybe more. What's wrong with 1939-45, for example? I reject the notion that it's ambiguous. Sure, out of context 2002-05 could mean May 2005 as well as 2002-2005 in some contexts, but in most if not all cases the context makes it obvious, and xxxx-xx is just as WP:PRECISE as xxxx-xxxx, and is obviously more WP:CONCISE. I'll concede crossing a century boundary probably should use xxxx-xxxx (e.g., 1997-2002), but that should be treated as an exception, not a rule that affects all other ranges. --В²C 18:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support xxxx-xx for two consecutive years, for sure. For years spanning centuries, you need xxxx-xxxx. In between, don't care, doesn't matter, editors should do what they like and leave alone what they find. We should probably say exactly that in the guidelines. That's my story, but some additional points:
  • Argh, don't say reliable sources when you mean notable sources (or scholarly sources). Since it's not a question of whether xxxx-xx or xxxx-xxxx is true, reliability does not enter the equation. Readership and maybe scholarly standing do. The difference can matter in these discussions, so correct terminology is helpful.
  • But anyway, sources are used here for content. If sources all say an event occurred on the eighth day of October in 1881, we report that in the article. If the sources all use the format "October 8th, 1881" we ignore that formatting. Of course we do. We have our own style guide, and don't/shouldn't much care what style guide the editor of the Podunk Times happens to use. (Or rather: what the outside world is a data point, but only that. If virtually everyone uses a particular format, that's a reasonable argument for us using that format too -- not proof, but a reasonable argument.. If it's like 75%-25% or something, forget it, ignore that.) Official use, too.. in the spirit of WP:OFFICIALNAME, who cares if the 43 Man Squamish League uses 2017-2018? They don't get to tell us how to write. If they used 2017-8, should we use that then? 2017-018? MMXVII-III? The official use is a minor data point, but no more.
  • Big trout to the editor who changed all those pages -- this is roiling the text for no purpose, substituting their own personal idiosyncratic preference for the personal idiosyncratic preference of the person who originally titled the articles. This is pointless and stop doing that. The pages should be rolled back on principle -- it's important to support WP:BRD on principle precisely to quash this sort of behavior -- and then take the argument to talk (actually the person wanting the change should do this). FWIW I don't even think that WP:BOLD should apply to title changes in the first place -- as we see here, it can be a massive headache.
So absent a clear rule, let the person who did the actual work of the project -- you know, actually researching, writing, and titling those articles -- at least the satisfaction of titling them as they think works best. We'll give the same courtesy to you. Within reasonable guidelines -- it's reasonable to allow a between xxxx-xx or xxxx-xxxx, but not allow xxxx-xxx or roman numerals, because those are weird and hard to read. Herostratus (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Who cares? use either. I respect MOS and page style discussions, but this is one of them where I think an RfC causes more effort than it is worth and we don’t need a community consensus for it. Stick with whatever the stable title is. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
    • ... an RfC causes more effort than it is worth ...: I reiterate my original point that the question posed by this RfC was too broad for the specific problem at hand, so it follows that this has not been productive.—Bagumba (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, the stable titles for the figure skating articles for years has been xxxx–xx. As previously stated, a single user unilaterally & without discussion decided to change the format for ~500 pages. I was told that pages cannot be changed back without discussion, thus we're having this discussion. While Bagumba stated it's too broad to have generic guideline for sports, others above are discussing making guideline even broader, for all topics not just sports. Wikipedia MOS is very broad on purpose and while projects can have their own MOS, there should be some generic rules for when there isn't any project MOS. 15zulu (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
      • 15zulu, whomever told you that was wrong. Per WP:RMUM, if the title wasn't stable (read: the move took place within the last month) they should have been reverted to their original stable titles. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support xxxx-xx for two consecutive years, for sure. For years spanning centuries, you need xxxx-xxxx. per WP:COMMONNAME used in the vast majority of the main stream media discussing cricket. --DBigXray 19:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose xxxx-xx The new version is ugly and was done without consensus, and also pointless. Per BRD, this mass move should be reverted and the other editor should really be here. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Um, "xxxx-xx" is the old version (and supported by previous RfC for sport seasons & similar), "xxxx-xxxx" is the new version (to which 500 pages were moved without discussion). As for the other editor, they participated in discussion at WP:RMT (which occurred after the moves) where I stated that I posted here, but feel free to contact them. 15zulu (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, oops. In that case, the pages should still be moved back to the old title because it's not nice to just move a bunch of pages like that for no reason. I would support this mass renaming if it had been done with consensus. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep all the digits – elision of digits is pointless in our digital medium where space is relatively free. This kind of abbreviation does not help clarity or readability. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral on xxxx-xx for two consecutive years (not too huge a fan, but it's fine), but for any period that spans more than two years (or two centuries), STRONGLY SUPPORT the full xxxx-xxxx. Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep all the digits by default; permit tabular data exceptions when it's only a two-year span. The compressed format can be appropriate in tables, some lists, and maybe infoboxes to save space (I'm being purposefully rather inclusive about what "tabular data" means). It should never be used when the -xx part is -01 through -12, except when applied consistently to a bunch of other tabular data in same format in the same material, because something like "2002–03" and "1911–12" are completely indistinguishable from hyphenated YYYY-MM dates in many fonts. This also applies to "2002/03" dating as used in some contexts; always use 2002/2003. "Use what the sources use" is ridiculous; we'd end up with randomly conflicting date formats, even in the same paragraph in many cases, and this idea has been rejected many times before at WT:MOSNUM, etc. In short, if we just adopted whatever style a numerical majority of sources applied, to every style question, we would have no Manual of Style at all, and our articles on Star Trek would be written exactly the way they are at a Star Trek wiki, our legal articles would be written in impenetrable legalese, etc., etc. WP uses sources for facts, not how we write about them.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

So to summarize above (please correct me if I misstated your opinion):

  • 15zulu (me): move should've been discussed & should be undone; RS, i.e. figure skating news articles, use xxxx-xx
  • Frayæ: any further action should be discussed before moves undone or other moves made
  • Dondervogel 2: move was good; all articles should be moved to xxxx–xxxx
  • Bagumba: move should've been discussed; each sport/project should decide based on RS
  • Ixfd64: comment/question
  • Jayron32: titles based on RS
  • Kendall-K1: titles based on RS, ISU uses XXXX/XX
  • Reidgreg: xxxx–xx
  • 121a0012: xxxx–xx
  • Gonnym: xxxx–xxxx
  • Born2cycle: xxxx–xx
  • Herostratus: xxxx–xx; move should've been discussed
  • TonyBallioni: move should've been discussed & should've been undone; stick to stable title
  • DBigXray: xxxx–xx
  • FenixFeather: xxxx–xxxx but move should've been discussed
  • Dicklyon: xxxx–xxxx
  • Paintspot: neutral for two consecutive years

Majority agree that the move should have been discussed first. Not counting myself, 5 editors stated articles should be xxxx–xx, 4 editors stated articles should be moved to xxxx–xxxx, 3 editors stated titles should be based on RS (which from my observations of figure skating news articles would mean xxxx–xx), 1 editor stated titles should be go back to stable state (i.e. xxxx–xx), and the rest were neutral/comments/questions. From that I conclude: figure skating articles should be moved back to xxxx–xx and any similar moves should be discussed first. Further thoughts? Thanks, 15zulu (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Obviously my above summary does not count additions made after I wrote it (including additions posted above the summary). Please do not edit or add to the list I created since that creates errors in my concluding paragraph. Thank you, 15zulu (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@15zulu: Thanks for taking the time to summarize this. As far as my position, since the move wasn't discuss and WP:DATERANGE allows xxxx-xx, the affected figure skating pages should revert back to their original xxxx-xx, given that there is no consensus for xxxx-xxxx. This is consistent with WP:RMUM: If you disagree with such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • xxxx-xx - Such a big and potentially controversial move should've been discussed first. 4 digits are not necessary in the second year in the range, especially for consecutive years. Matt14451 (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Use either format for consecutive years, as allowed by MOS. Source conformity can be a weighing factor. Undiscussed mass-moves should be reverted, and a standard WP:RM discussion should be opened. — JFG talk 23:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • xxxx-xx is clear and concise. SportingFlyer talk 04:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The discussion regarding RS is irrelevant IMO because this is about writing style. We have our own house style, intended to promote uniformity across the English Wikipedia. For this house style my preference was and remains xxxx-xxxx, across the board, because it removes all ambiguity (there could be exceptions permitting xxxx-xx, but only where space is of the essence). Second best is xxxx-xx, again for all articles. The present mix of xxxx-xxxx for some articles and xxxx-xx (or even xxxx/xx?) for others is untidy and unencyclopaedic, and fails to achieve the objective of uniformity. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There is now a proposal at WT:MOSNUM to amend the MoS to bar the use of YYYY-01 thru YYYY-12 in articles and titles ("unless in close proximity to other ranges in this format that end with numbers outside the 01–12 range"). Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Clarifying date ranges in YYYY–YY format. (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. For the most part, people searching for a season article will most likely be searching under its common name, not a wikipedia MOS guideline for a numbering/dating system. Vice versa, people outside of that region's dating style probably will not be searching for the article at all if they do not already know the common name. Many seasons that last between consecutive years are most commonly called xxxx–xx (in North America at least). So based on that, using XXXX–XX when used in the majority of reliable source meets the Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, and Conciseness pillars of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA as well as the WP:COMMONNAME. Furthermore, most of the articles that are called "XXXX–XX season" clarify the extent of the time frame with phrases in the lead (ex: the season lasts from October 2018 until April 2019) and a duration parameter in the infobox, which should clear up any potential confusion to meaning of the title. I am pretty sure that is exactly why the "consecutive year exclusion" exists in DATERANGE in the first place. Yosemiter (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    What they search for is irrelevant; redirects exist for a reason. We have five, not one, naming criteria and they're all co-equal. If the most common name fails one or more of them, we use the second-most common. More to the point here, however: WP:AT is not a style policy. Never has been, never will be. Otherwise we would have no MoS, or at least nothing in it could ever apply to titles. Yet in reality we cite it about 100 times per day at RM, and we do in fact apply MoS to titles; it's the most common ruleset we apply to titles (probably more MoS than AT arguments are applied, and accepted, at RM, since moves more often involve style twiddles like over-capitalization or mis-hyphenation than a completely wrong name having been chosen). The naming conventions pages that deal with style, such as WP:NCCAPS, are simply summaries of MoS points as they apply to titles, and are derived from MoS, not vice versa. In short, you do not understand our title policy, the applicability of our guidelines, or how WP article titling works.

    We do not, in fact, apply reasoning like "If the majority of sources spell something the XYZ way, then WP must do it too." We routinely, nearly daily, reject that reasoning. For a style matter to be "imposed" on Wikipedia by off-site stylization, the style in question must be found with nearly complete consistency in all reliable sources for the case in question (e.g., virtually no one writes "Ipod" in professional-grade publications, thus we write "iPod" like everyone else does, despite it being weird from an English-language-norms perspective). We never, ever have that sort of near-unanimous consistency in sources for the date formatting of sports seasons, TV-show seasons, election cycles, fiscal years, or any other circumstance in which people want to use confusing and inconsistent abbreviated date formats. The only practical use for them on Wikipedia is in tabular data, and only then when space is at a premium, and enough of them are used in one place that no one can be confused into thinking that something like "2002–03" is a YYYY-MM date.

    The rather recent (and recurrently controversial) "consecutive year exclusion" exists in DATERANGE because people who don't understand any of this stuff have gnashed their special-interest (mostly sports wikiproject) teeth long enough that they've tendentiously worn out reasoned opposition and gotten their pet peeve inserted. I'll happily bet real money this will not last, because the result is a stupid, reader-confusing, editor-frustrating mess that serves no one's interests. It serves no interest at all other than making a handful of editors happy that they get (for now) to mimic what they see in a football or TV magazine. Cf. actual policy at WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia is not written in news style." That includes sports and entertainment journalism, and that, in turn, includes their lazy, ambiguous date formatting.

    PS: I say all this as someone who founded a sports wikiproject, and regularly edits TV-related articles. This isn't about topics, but about the specialized-style fallacy, the nonsense idea that sources reliable for facts about a topic are somehow the most reliable sources for how to write about that topic for a general audience, when they are really often the worst, being representative of only how specialists write for other specialists in the same area (be that professionals in science/law/etc., or fans in sports/sci-fi/hip-hop/etc.). Failure to understand that specialist writing does not dictate WP writing style is the proximal cause of about 90% of style-related squabbling on Wikipedia.
     — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:14, 13 November 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.

RfC: Proposed deletion policy[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.

  • I don't see any consensus in the discussion to change the wording of the concerned policy.Amidst the infighting between (1):- being transparent, (2):- the concept of article-ownership, and (3):- imposition of over-bureaucratic means, none has managed to stay ahead as a clear winner.
  • Among all the proposals that were put forward, Proposal 2 fared the best but many specifically opposed on the grounds of addition of the phrase of significant contributors and sans the addition, it's fairly equivalent to what currently exists.
  • The community has firmly rejected ☒N:-
  • That an editor nominating an article for proposed deletion is required to notify the article's creator or any significant contributors.
  • That there is any need to explicitly mention the specific circumstances under the purview of which, ideality may be deviated from.
  • That there exists any mandatory requirement to provide a rationale for de-prodding an article.(This is not a license to engage in mass-de-prodding(s) and test the limits.)
  • And some 'outlandish' proposals like abolishing the entire proposed deletion process, preventing article-creators from deprodding their own creations and limiting PROD to a semi-automatic tool.

WBGconverse at 11:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

There is an issue currently with the proposed deletion policy (PROD) which is causing some confusion and ambiguity. In January this year, user Green Giant boldly edited the policy to simplify the wording, but in doing so, changed the suggestion to notify article creators to a requirement. It appears as though this was not compelled by any discussion to make that change, and it was also certainly in good faith and possibly not intended to have changed the meaning in this way. Up until this change, our various deletion policies all suggested notifying article creators and significant contributors as a courtesy, but did not require it (and requiring AfD notification is a perennial proposal). With Green Giant's change, PROD stands out as the only deletion process requiring notification. The change has also not been well publicized or recognized - this post is inspired by an editor reported to ANI for failing to notify, and several editors and administrators responding that they were not aware of the change.

I am proposing a three-pronged discussion/straw poll to determine the community's current opinions about proposed deletion. Please comment in one of the sections below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, just because it's come up a few times already, note that WP:BLPPROD is a separate policy from WP:PROD, with different criteria and different processes. I'm not saying anyone shouldn't talk about that other policy, I'm just making a note of it to avoid what might end up being a confusing discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

PROD proposal 1: Require notification[edit]

The editor nominating an article for proposed deletion is required to notify the article's creator or any significant contributors.

  • Oppose. Reyk YO! 13:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Since nobody owns any Wikipedia article, then why should it be required to notify someone just because they happened to create the first revision? Also worth noting is that, a times such editor (who made first revision) may have long left Wikipedia or many editors contributed to the article more than them —thus more worthy of notifying. Making this notification a requirement will just add another layer of bureaucracy to already ineffective process and more importantly, it will go further to undermines the authority of OWNERSHIP policy. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because there will be times this isn't feasible, but they really should be making every effort to notify the creator. And "or any significant contributors" is bad here for two reasons. Firstly, but less importantly, it should be "and any other significant contributors". Secondly, the term "significant" is undefined; that doesn't mean we should spend months defining it, it means we are better off not using it. If we do end up going with this crappier option it should just say "the article's creator". Fish+Karate 13:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ammarpad. Suggesting is a significant difference from mandating; one's a matter of courtesy, and the other's a matter of rule creep and WP:BURO. Thank you for noting that this seems to have been done by accident. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The PROD process does not initiate a discussion and so it's too easy for a proposal to pass unnoticed by anyone. As the process is frequently used for new articles created by new editors, the disappearance would seem quite mysterious to such editors and there would be no note on their talk page to explain what had happened and how they can appeal at WP:REFUND. Silent removal would be uncivil per WP:BITE. Andrew D. (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Creators don't have any more claim to an article than any other contributor. If it's mandated that creators be informed, other contributors should be informed as well, but someone must then decide who is worthy of being notified. I would be annoyed to receive a talk page message every time an article I edited was PRODed. Natureium (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:GRAVEYARD. At the point where you PROD an article, the creator may have been indef blocked. What would be the point of notifying them, other to rub salt in wounds? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mainly for the required to notify any significant contributors. As Natureium said, they would be annoyed every time an article that they edited was PRODed. Twinkle has the feature to notify the article creator of a PROD, and I think it is good practice to do so. But requiring it of people is needlessly bureaucratic. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Andrew Davidson. The PROD process already lacks adequate scrutiny, and this lack of scrutiny will be even worse if the creator and contributors are not notified. It would be even better to place a notice of relevant PRODs on each deletion sorting list, but this rarely seems to happen. James500 (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Here is an example of a notification that was so out of place, it was reverted and the talk page protected. It was AfD rather than PROD, but that's not really the main point - mandatory notifications would mean we would need to post in the talk page of globally banned editors, which by definition they can't do anything about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
We don't have to choose between "notify everybody no matter what" and "you don't ever have to notify anyone". We can say "notify the creator except, obviously, if they cannot participate in the discussion (indefinitely blocked, community banned, globally banned, deceased...)". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as long as it's an "or", and not a requirement to notify everyone. As long as somebody sensible gets a notification (namely, not the person who created the redirect, but the person who actually created the article), it doesn't have to be comprehensive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I've never found any of the oppose rationales convincing at all. We can say "required ... unless there is an obvious reason not to, such as being blocked or banned". That's the exception. A suggestion isn't strong enough when it should be done in nearly all cases except for obvious exceptions. It's not because it's an ownership thing, it's common courtesy because we're editing in a community of editors and all dedicate considerable time and effort to the encyclopedia. There is literally no downside whatsoever to this proposal, if handled with obvious exceptions. Reading more than the headline for proposal 2 (which seems contradictory to the heading), it seems what I'm saying is also very close to that. Require (with exceptions).Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (with exceptions) for creators only. There may be some difficulty in defining who is a "significant" contributor and a requirement shouldn't stop the process. --Enos733 (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ritchie333 and my argument below: there are legitimate reasons not to notify, additionally, I feel sorry for any admin reviewing expired PRODs after this: having to check article history plus notification history would add a lot of unnecessary time and to be blunt, it would prevent me from ever looking at CAT:EX (not that I am particularly active there, but I wouldn’t even check at that point.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support creator, Oppose significant contributors. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with exceptions for creators only. Obvious exceptions for users that are indefinitely blocked, community banned, globally banned, or deceased, for users that have indicated on their talk or user page that they do not want to recieve such notifications or that they have retired from Wikipedia, or for cases where notification would be impossible due to user talk page bans or protection levels. --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 17:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Just as a note “support with exceptions” would have the disadvantage of making this unenforceable: people seem to forget that admins have to manually check all of this stuff. Either people would ignore this as dead letter the instant it was approved or the exceptions wouldn’t exist because it’s too much work to check all of them. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • people seem to forget that admins have to manually check all of this stuff - why? I don't see that as part of the proposal. The point is to make sure notification is part of the process, and that there is grounds to object if someone routinely prods without notifying. All of this could be made a simple part of the prod template to display differently if no notification parameter is present, and automated with Twinkle. If someone doesn't notify, it's a behavioral issue of not following process. Refund is already cheap, so there's not much difference to refund due to non-notification as with refund for any other purpose. In short, I don't see why this should change anything other than that which can be automated, and to give some teeth to the requirement that can be enforced at ANI, etc. where necessary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Because we can’t delete unless the policy requirements are met. If no notification existed, we’d then have to check if one of the exceptions existed. This is a waste of admin time for a non-issue: the overwhelming number of people already use Twinkle on its default settings. What this proposal is suggesting is adding additional work (and if we have exceptions, two additional layers of work) to solve a problem that quite frankly doesn’t exist. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for creators only. It's simpler to have a requirement without exceptions, if a creator has died etc there may well be editors watching te talk page to help with any issues. However, hardly anyone bothers to alert major contributers so that can be left out because if they are interested in the article they should have it on their watchlist so will be informed that way provided there is a proper edit summary, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose because watchlists are a thing. --Jayron32 17:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - nobody OWNs an article (and the creator might not be the most significant contributor), watchlists exist for a reason, and there are multiple exceptions in which notification is not required and might even constitute rubbing in someone's face (retired user, blocked user, TBANed user, etc.). Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Suggest" is exactly right, and applies to the article's creator. (I believe that Twinkle does this automatically.) I STRONGLY oppose any requirement to search through the article's history and notify significant contributors. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose in favor of Option 2 below. shoy (reactions) 18:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (with a remark): It is so annoying to get your articles deleted. (I have experienced it.) (By your I mean those that have spent lots of time on writing them.) Thus, the most involved (remark: how do you define that?) should be notified so that they can correct or add something to the articles. Per W (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose notifying the article creator should be recommended and is good practice, however I don't think even that should be an absolute requirement. Earlier this year I nominated a large number of articles created by a now-banned user for deletion, and I didn't bother notifying them. "Significant contributor" could be a lot more people and it's a lot less likely that they would care. That term is likely to be interpreted as anybody who made non-trivial changes to the article (more than reverting vandalism, fixing typos, formatting templates, etc). Hut 8.5 19:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose in most cases If the article is BLP prodded and has been created within 7 days or a few weeks, you can make it a requirement to notify the creator of the article. But for most other PROD cases, it's best to not make it a requirement to notify the creator due to as stated above the creator of the article may not be as big of contributor to it as others and may not even be active anymore. PROD is supposed to be non controversial, adding a requirement to notify the creator of a PROD sort of takes away from that IMHO. JC7V-constructive zone 19:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector, I Struck the BLP Prod part. I won't talk about BLP prods here again. My bad. If the prodded article is new (created within a week or so) I believe that notifying the creator should be mandatory because at that point they are more attached to the article than they would be if they had created 10 years ago. However if the article is like 5 years old for example and has many many contributors who did more work on the article than the creator or if the creator is gone, then it makes no sense to be required to contact the article's creator. Users who PROD an article should use a case by case basis for deciding whether to notify the creator of the article and not have to officially notify them. Twinkle users can still notify the creator automatically and some users can still do it because they want to not because they have to. No more Bureaucracy. JC7V-constructive zone 19:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The way I read WP:BLPPROD, notification is required. But BLPPROD is also a separate policy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as instruction creep. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC).
  • Oppose as instruction creep, and based on the idea that people do not own the articles they created nor any contributions they made. People are responsible to pay attention to the parts of Wikipedia they are interested being involved in. We should not add extra burden to those seeking to clean up the cruft that constantly accumulates. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 01:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to the "significant contributors" part and due to instruction creep. This is generally irrelevant anyway because all the tools we use at New Page Patrol automatically send notifications to the creator. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: instruction creep and does not work in some cases. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but only for creators because this is easy to do automatically--Twinkle is the simplest way. Anything else is too complicated and debatable. I suppose we could develop a way to programmatically that would identify everyone who had contributed more than x% of the content or Y bytes, but I cannot see it would be worth the effort. There are higher priorities for development. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but only for creators (this is sufficient, and mandating more would be unnecessarily burdensome). Per about support arguments, basically. AfD is different because that's a discussion with a lot of people (and FWIW IMO you should notify the creator -- the script does it automatically I think. Since you should there's no reason to add a except if you're lazy or don't care exemption, which is what making things optional does, usually). I mean, I haven't seen a compelling argument that "Enh, I just can't be bothered to notify the creator and I really don't give a rat's ass about that" should be valorized. If it shouldn't be valorized, why should it be even allowed? It there's some particular reason to not notify the creator -- she's banned, or is a troll, or hasn't edited in seven years -- probably no one will object not notifying, although again I don't see the harm in notifying the creator even then.
But... kudos to the OP for bringing this up, and trouts to the person who made the change without discussion. I think that WP:BRD applies here, and the previously existing state is the default, and the proposition to change (to a requirement) should have to show consensus support for the change to not be rolled back (which I'm not seeing this consensus to change so far). I say this as someone who supports the proposition on the merits, on the basis that procedure should applied correctly here, and I call on the closer to note this. Herostratus (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think the prior version that it is a suggested course of action fits the vast majority of the parameters. I would have stated support, with the caveats of some of the above editors, but I think that that position is most well served by returning it to the suggested phraseology. In addition, I believe that currently both the curation tool and TW automatically send notification to the first person to work on an article. I also feel that this change might produce an undue burden on an already stretched thin admin corps.Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose—practically the point of proposed deletion is to reduce bureaucracy by being simple for the "obvious" cases. Requiring notification undermines that simplicity. PRODs can even be opposed after the fact and undeleted on request; I don't see the point of adding needless requirements to such an otherwise minimal, non-binding process. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 14:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose While this si agenerally a best practice it should not be a hard-and-fast requirement, for the various reasons already stated above. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Simply put, we do not require editors to notify the article's creator when the article has been nominated for deletion. The {{prod}} tag should not by any different. —Farix (t | c) 18:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should not be making creator notification mandatory. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 22:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for creators, but 'significant conributors' can be hard to define, so wouldn't support mandatory for those -- Whats new?(talk) 07:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with common sense exceptions (e.g. long-term blocked users; users who haven't edited in 5 years), and if there are other clearly identifiable significant contributors then they should be notified as well. This requirement should be applied to every deletion process without exception. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as instruction creep and cause no one owns a given page. -DJSasso (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. -FASTILY 05:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am not willing to clutter the talk page an inactive editor who hasn't been around for years, and I will not be compelled to do it. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's common sense really .... It's courteous to notify the creator but on the other hand it's pointless notifying someone who's either indeffed or inactive, You simply take the common sense approach here. –Davey2010Talk 22:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support only for creators - contacting significant contributors is a significant addition to the complexity of nomination. Really "creators and sig contributors" and "creators only" should have been made as separate propositions. Additionally, this would make it very hard to nominate via script (twinkle etc), since it isn't designed for contacting more than the creator. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with common sense-for the creator and if an editor has a lot of edits on an article they could and probably should be notified. Its just polite and respectful in a community that should be supportive of collaborative principles. If we think of courtesy,ie the other guy first, perhaps this is a less difficult situation to decide on.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC))
  • Oppose per WP:OWN. If an article is that important to someone, they'll have it on their watchlist. Number 57 20:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per WP:OWN, if someone cares about the article, they'll have watchlisted it. MoonyTheDwarf (BN) (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose with the current wording which appears to be a device to suppress PRODs, but PRODs are sometimes useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There should be no reason to notify the creator when their opinion likely won't matter anyway (not like with AFD's which can be improved in the spirit of WP:BEFORE). As to significant contributors, if "their" article gets deleted, they can always request it to be restored.—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 08:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, mostly per WP:OWN. A courtesy notice is nice in many cases, but requiring it goes to far. That's why you have watchlists. And WP:AALERTS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Per WP:OWN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:OWN.The article creator has no greater rights over 'their' article than any of the other editors or indeed anyone else. Amisom (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    The proposal is not about giving anyone "rights", it is about facilitating a collaborative editing process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Hawkeye7: OK, then read my comment as if it said: Oppose per WP:OWN.The article creator has no greater standing in relation to 'their' article than any of the other editors or indeed anyone else.
  • Support Yes there is WP:OWN, but I don't think we need to make it any easier to scare away new article creators. SL93 (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support basic fairness. I can think of no instances where it would be inappropriate,; if the creator were in bad faith, the articles should be deleted at CSD, not PROD. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Support the first part (creator), but requiring to identify major contributors, ugh. Too much work. Maybe 'creator or a major contributor', giving the nom a choice? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If no one comes to defend the article, its utility is doubtful. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This requirement would only encourage knee-jerk de-PRODding, thus defeating the whole purpose of the PROD process. — JFG talk 13:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nabla (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This would complicate a process that is supposed to be simple; and would be actively countrproductive in the sense that "is anyone actually watching this article?" is a valid thing for the PROD process to test. An article with no active eyes on it has no chance of improvement, which lends weight to any issues identified in the PROD. Beyond that, the addition here was accidental and clearly deviates from long-standing policy; nobody has actually identified any existing problems with the prod process that this change would solve. --Aquillion (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. What would be really nice would be if someone could develop an enhancement that flags articles in your watchlist that are currently at AfD or have a prod tag on them. Determining which editors who are still active might care about an article isn't straightforward, and flagging articles in watchlists is perhaps the best option for making interested editors aware. --Michig (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Michig: Jolly good idea; perhaps open a new thread with this suggestion? — JFG talk 23:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I've made a proposal here. --Michig (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, bureaucracy and unclear definition of major contributors. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it's good practice, it's courteous, but it shouldn't be elevated into a procedural loophole. Cabayi (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

PROD proposal 2: Do not require notification[edit]

The editor nominating an article for proposed deletion should attempt to notify the article's creator and any significant contributors, as a courtesy.

  • Support the "creator" bit, Oppose the "significant contributors" bit. Reyk YO! 13:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, as the better of the two options, although "should notify the article's creator wherever possible" is better. No need for the nebulous "any significant contributors" (and if it has to be there, and I think it should not, it should say "any other"). Fish+Karate 13:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, I put myself in this section too. I'll also point out that PRODded articles can be automatically REFUNDed, so an editor who finds out their article was deleted in this way can just go ask for it back. But (also for this reason?) I have leanings toward deprecating the process too, which is why I brought it up here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose If the article is removed and there's no notice then nothing left behind. One of the main principles of a Wiki is that there should be transparency and a good audit trail. Andrew D. (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, specifically the "significant contributors" part, because this requires some method of determining who is a significant contributor and who is a lesser contributor and this gets murky. Natureium (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the 'significant contributors.' I'd support if the significant contributors clause was omitted because I see notifying the creator as good practice. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (2nd choice) - My view, described above, is that it should be part of the PROD instructions to notify the creator, with obvious exceptions (sock puppet, community banned, etc.). I.e. a smidgen stronger than the "should attempt to notify" here. BTW the heading makes it sound like this second proposal is just the opposite of #1. "Do not require notification" doesn't imply "should attempt to notify". Suggest changing it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the above is added bureaucracy and there are legitimate reasons not to notify: as an example non-G5 spam creations by socks. I notify every time but this, and I think there are very good reasons not to notify blocked users. Also, oppose the and significant contributors bit: it will never be followed because Twinkle doesn’t do it, and Twinkle is how most of these happen. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose significant contributors, Support creator. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Throwing out a scenario: at the ANI I mentioned, the reporter was annoyed that another editor PRODded an article they had written which was an expanded redirect. Technically (and as Twinkle sees it) the "article creator" is the editor who made the redirect, not the reporter who made all of the significant contribs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as a non-required courtesy. Significant contributors are actually more important than creators (there are a number of prolific creators running about creating stubs...).Icewhiz (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as a non-required courtesy for the original author. Leave it up to the nominator whether to notify any other significant contributors. --MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Better than Option 1 above, reduces bureaucracy. shoy (reactions) 18:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support creator, oppose significant contributors unless the wording is tighter. If that means someone who expanded it from a stub to a start class article then OK, if it means someone who added a sentence once then no. Hut 8.5 19:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written the word should implies a requirement and goes directly at odds with as a courtesy. Something like "The editor nominating an article for proposed deletion may attempt to notify the article's creator or other contributors if they feel it may increase the chances of the article being improved to the point that it benefits the project." HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 01:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose "should" implies a requirement. Figuring out who is and who is not a 'significant contributor' is arbitrary. Side note: the 'creator' should be the creator of the first non-redirect revision. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but I thought this was already policy. Personally, I regard not trying to do so as a grave error in basic fairness. There are situations in CSD where notification would be counterproductive, but they do not apply to prod. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support If there are significant contributors then their interest can be assumed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as per Natureium and Insertcleverphrasehere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for the article's creator, oppose for significant contributors (isn't that what watchlists are for?). Onel5969 TT me 13:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: per HighInBC, "should" is normative and implies a requirement; "is encouraged to" or similar would be OK. While it's best practice, PROD is so lightweight, and easily reversible, that it's not hugely important if contributors aren't directly notified. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 14:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
    In my experience, in Wikipedia policy, "should" is most often interpreted as a strong suggestion, not a strict requirement. "Must" is a requirement. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
    When possible, we should avoid it being necessary to interpret policy with domain-specific norms. Phrases like "is encouraged to" lack the ambiguity of "should" you're apologizing here; we should avoid needless ambiguity. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Counter proposal Adopt the same language used at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#substantial. —Farix (t | c) 18:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Notifications to the creator should be optional. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 22:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. PROD is a useful process and notification is a nice courtesy, but mandatatory notification would be inappropriate bureaucracy. Note to closer: To avoid redundant postings, please count this !vote as an oppose on each of the other sections. Thx. Alsee (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (oppose all others). PROD should be an all-around lighter option to the nom than AfD, which does not require notification. There are also cases where notification might be totally unwarranted (permanently blocked users, retired users, deceased Wikipedians). Listing all such exceptions would be WP:CREEP. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 07:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Strongly implies requirement, which is what I'm opposing above as well. -FASTILY 05:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support again per common sense and courtesy - Notify those who are active if you want, Don't bother for those inactive or indeffed. –Davey2010Talk 22:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:OWN. Number 57 20:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This is normally done for the nominator if they use Twinkle and it doesn't become confused. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my reasoning in proposal #1.—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 08:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but I don't agree with the proposed wording. "You may notify the article's creator and other contributors..." seems better than should attempt. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Everyone should be doing this already. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, as less bad of the options - Nabla (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support though "should normally notify" would be better than "should attempt to notify". Somebody who does a bunch of prods and doesn't notify a couple of blocked or vanished editors should be normal and easy to tell from someone who prods a slew of articles and never notifies anyone. ϢereSpielChequers 00:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, adds instruction-creep and seems actively counterproductive. Articles require maintenance - every article should have eyes on it. If an article doesn't, then I would usually take that as one indication that it being prodded is probably a good thing. --Aquillion (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose; identifying major contributors is too significant a burden. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

PROD proposal 3: Deprecate PROD[edit]

Boldly closing this proposal early as it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing. IffyChat -- 09:29, 16 October 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.

The proposed deletion process is deprecated and marked historical; all nominations for article deletion are done through articles for deletion, except in cases where one of the criteria for speedy deletion apply.

  • Oppose. Reyk YO! 13:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, would be a step backwards. Fish+Karate 13:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Deletionists keep trying to exploit and abuse the process. It is supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions but is repeatedly used to try to delete good faith contributions without discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Care to provide a concrete example? Or do you just want to attack a bunch of unnamed "deletionists"? Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Shadowowl/PROD log would be a good place to start. Notice that it's mostly blue links. Andrew D. (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: With the exception of the massive strings of BLPPRODs -- many of which appear to have been de-PRODded without a citation of a reliable source, in violation of policy (the most recent, and egregious, being this) -- in July and August of this year, it seems be about 50/50, and even were that not the case, the large number of blue links, if anything, would seem to show that the system works to preserve the articles that don't need to be deleted, surely?
Also, if you're going to talk about Shadowowl in that manner in a discussion in which they are not already involved, the least you could do is ping them. Calling someone a "deletionist" and saying they "keep trying to exploit and abuse the process" is a pretty strong accusation to make.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I looked at the log also. I counted 139 PRODs and 78 BLPPRODS on that list. The PRODS are approximately a 2-1 ratio of Blue to Red links. It is a little more Blue than the one day I looked at and commented on below (3 Blue links on this log were from that day). I don't see someone who is abusing the process, maybe a little over aggressive with the tagging but not abuse. I did see one article where it was PRODed, removed and then Shadowowl reinstated the tag and another editor removed it a second time. There was also an article where Shadowowl added a PROD tag and realized it had already been to AFD and immediately removed the PROD. I have seen abuse of the process where an editor added a PROD tag, immediately removed it and came back 7 days later readded it like it had been there the whole time. That was an abuse of the process and they are no longer editing. What I see here is a system that works the way it supposed to work. Shadowowl should look at their log and reevaluate their tagging but this is not a reason to remove the whole process. ~ GB fan 14:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I don't find PROD to be all that useful because anyone can remove it for any reason, it has its place. Natureium (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although it's not always useful. What would be more useful, in some cases, is to expand the CSD categories. For example, a suitable speedy category would be BLPs with no sources. Alternatively, require all BLP creations to go through AFC. (In fact, requiring ALL new articles to have sources would drastically reduce the number of PRODs anyway...) Black Kite (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    BLPPROD requires a reliable source to remove the PROD tag, which basically makes it a CSD criterion without the speedy. --Izno (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, but that often doesn't work. For example, someone creates an article on a non-notable sportsperson. When it is BLPPRODed, they add a cite from an otherwise reliable source pwhich is simply something like the name of that person in a list. Or for an actor, a reliable source mentioning them in a cast list of a TV programme, even if their appearance was for 15 seconds in the background. That sort of thing. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Just pedantically noting that WP:BLPPROD is a separate policy. It's based on this one, but separate. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Black Kite: I like what you say here, but requiring AFC for all BLPs would make the process I go through whenever I link to the name of a still-living scholar in an article I'm writing on classical Japanese poetry (or whatever) that happens to already be a blue link to an unrelated topic even more frustrating. I either have to unlink pending the article's creation, or speedily create a stub: I always pick the latter option, and while even my stubs are better-sourced and less "stub-like" than most of the stuff you're probably talking about, requiring them to go through AFC, when the whole point is to replace an identically-named redirect, would be counterintuitive and just unnecessary work. (For reference, the articles in question are Jun Kubota, linked from Fujiwara no Nagaie, and Hiroshi Ono (scholar), linked from Man'yōshū.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I would strongly support requiring all new articles to have at least one source, and if someone opened this RfC they would be a wikipedia hero. Natureium (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Well then, why don't you be the hero Wikipedia needs? Reyk YO! 14:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I just don't have the brainpower right now to draft a cogent RfC. Natureium (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support In practice, PROD is basically a useless process. In my experience, most PRODS are removed without fixing anything or without any explanation, and unless policy is changed so that cannot be done, then there is no point: PRODS all end up at AFD anyways, so it doesn't save any time. --Jayron32 14:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No, it has its place. Have a look at WP:PRODSUM - you'll always find a number of old articles in there that were created, were never notable, but have lain around not being useful for years. As a perfect example, the very first article currently in the list is a 4 1/2 year old article about an Under-16s football competition that was cancelled and never happened ... it's not eligible for CSD, and oit's got a source, but there's no way it should exist. Black Kite (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • If it only worked that way. In practice, what happens is, if I were to PROD some article, a user would come along within minutes and remove the PROD without explanation or fixing anything, or at best say "Has a source, take it to AFD." That's the point. Hypothetically, PROD should work that way. In practice, bad-faith editors who have no intention of making the article better come along and just force you to use AFD. This is why we can't have nice things... --Jayron32 15:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, in many cases you are right. However, I think it's still useful - there is some stuff that gets PRODded that even the most rabid inclusionist won't de-prod because they know they'll be accused of disruption. It's happened before. Having said that, I still think expanding CSD is a better route... Black Kite (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It can be a way to get rid of older articles which no longer meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion without spending lots of community time on the issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. PROD is an unsatisfactory process. It should not be possible to nominate an article for deletion for any reason. A valid reason should be required. The PROD process has a lack of adequate scrutiny because there are too many PRODs and not enough patrollers. Most PRODs are erroneous, and they often slip through the net because the community is not watching closely enough. James500 (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I believe any PRODded article can be restored simply by going to WP:REFUND and asking for it back. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if the above was a reference to this, where a bunch of one-sentence sub-stubs about astronomical bodies about which not much more could be said than a single sentence, that duplicated information from elsewhere on the encyclopedia, were successfully PRODded, the above user requested they be undeleted, they were AFDed, and all deleted with unanimous consensus, excepting a piecemeal OSE statement on one of them from yours truly. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Wow, what a pointless waste of time that was. I'm starting to wonder if competence-related topic bans from PROD should be easier to hand out. Reyk YO! 10:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
"Too many PRODs"?! There were 36 yesterday. On a weekday there are usually fewer than 20. And the suggestion that "most are erroneous" isn't backed up by the evidence. Yes, there are some, but they should be rejected by the deleting admin anyway. Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The number of PRODs is huge. The last time I checked there were about 40 per day on average. On several occasions I have examined the PRODLIST over a period of many weeks and I found that consistently more than half of the PRODs listed there were erroneous. And I have seen a lot of erroneous PRODs slip through the net. James500 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
"I have seen a lot of erroneous PRODs slip through the net" Let me know what, and I'll put them in your userspace for improvement (provided they are not vandalism, libel or copyvios). It's pretty much my SOP. As it is with anyone in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I will go one step further as a contested PROD belongs in the mainspace not the userspace if you are contesting any PRODs. ~ GB fan 17:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've used PROD a few times (mostly successfully). AfD has a lack of participation problem for some things. PROD is good for, as it says, uncontroversial deletion where lack of participation is not a problem. Editors can always contest it and then the process is completely stopped. It's good for, as others have said, for removing older articles that are not up to scratch as far as the inclusion criteria goes. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Reduces bureaucracy in a few cases, which is a good thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No case has been made here. Don't even know why this is connected to the other proposals. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Looking at the reasons for support above I was wondering if I could find evidence to support the comments. I looked at the last 5000 deletions dating back to 00:01 21 Sep 18, of those there were 74 normal PRODs and 3 BLPPRODs. On average there were less than 20 articles deleted per day. That is not an overwhelming number of articles to look at. I also looked at one day of PROD nominations, 18 Sep. On that day if I counted correctly there were 33 pages nominated for PROD with only 16 of them left. Of the 17 PRODS that are no longer on the list, 1 was removed because it was a Draft and therefore ineligible. 1 was deleted as an A7. 2 were merged with another article and redirected. 2 are now at AFD and the rest were declined for a variety of reasons and have no pending deletion action. I did a quick look at the nominations without looking at the actual articles themselves and none of the nomination statements are problematic. In my quick look I do not see the problems mentioned above. ~ GB fan 17:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree it reduces bureaucracy sometimes. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. PROD saves time for deletion of very poor content by blocked or long retired users. If the creator is around - it is indeed mostly useless.Icewhiz (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as AFD is already backlogged with low participation and endless relists so this would make it worse, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment mostly in response to Atlantic306's sentiment above: PROD is meant to be for uncontroversial deletions. If an uncontroversial deletion sits at AfD for a week with nobody objecting, there's little difference between that and a formal PROD, just a different page. It also ought to be a simple close and not really add to the backlog, and somewhat likely would result in a WP:SNOW delete which would be faster than PROD. On the other hand if a PROD is controversial then they wind up at AfD anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose PROD is a very useful halfway point between the instant-removal of Speedy and the community deliberation process of AfD. If something sits at PROD for a week, where anyone can remove the PROD for any reason, then it really is uncontroversial and should be deleted without further ado. If someone objects later that it shouldn't have been deleted, undelete requests are routinely granted. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose PROD still has an important role to play. shoy (reactions) 17:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose PROD is a critical time-saver for new page patrolling that allows editors to unilaterally handle uncontroversial deletes that don't quite meet speedy deletion criteria. signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it has a role to play and getting rid of it would mean additional load on the AfD process for no particular reason. AfD requires a substantially greater amount of editor time than PROD does. I'm open to persuasion if someone could show data which indicates that the process doesn't work very well. Hut 8.5 19:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose PROD should be made stronger (with disruptive editors like two of this proposal's supporters so far being required to provide an explanation for removing PRODs, since currently they are allowed remove it just for shits and giggles), not deprecrated. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose more time would be wasted. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC).
  • Oppose pbp 23:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The PROD process is about getting cleanup work done with a minimum of bureaucracy(no offence intended towards out esteemed bureaucrats). The last thing AfD needs is a bunch of articles that nobody has any interest in defending. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 01:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, while a lot of prods get contested and sent to AfD, it is a useful process that helps reduce wastage of valuable time of experienced editors at AfD discussions. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose its the simplest way to get rid of stale junk. I would support getting rid of it if it meant automatic deletion but it does not: I and a few other editors try to scan the lists on a regular basis to deProd anything that might need discussion, and this is enough of a check. I've been doing it for many years--I remove maybe 5%, and others remove an equal amount. About half of that 10% eventually get deleted. DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose prod still works well. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - PROD should remain an option. @Black Kite: An effective alternative to PROD for unsourced BLPs is returning the article to draft. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - keep the existing tier of PROD - particularly as per the arguments of Rosguill, HighInBC, DGG, and MelanieN. Onel5969 TT me 13:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Proposed deletion fills a specific niche: cases that'd be ignored or "snow" deleted at AfD, but that don't meet the narrow speedy deletion criteria, can be deleted with minimal effort on the part of volunteers (compared to the non-negligible overhead of AfD). It's designed to be minimal; a contested PROD should either be immediately moved to AfD, left alone, or (if after the fact) restored. If someone can produce evidence that it's not working in practice, then I'd be open to reconsidering, but my current position is that it's a good design. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 14:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per reasons above. We shouldn't try to axe this process. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 22:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose there is no reason to axe a process that works well. -DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – it works. SemiHypercube 00:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Just no. -FASTILY 05:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Very still useful process, especially now that PROD has extended to files. Also, it helps being an alternative to FFD, which formerly suffered from tremendous backlogging before the implementation of File PROD-ding. Those saying the process is useless should realize the benefits of PROD-ding, especially to files. See this, for example, and then type either "PROD" or "File:". George Ho (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - PROD still works, Admittedly I don't use it now as I prefer to AFD everything but I've certainly seen it work on different articles, If it works then keep it. –Davey2010Talk 22:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'd prefer people to send it through AfD where there is a 1% lack of surety, but PROD does remove a significant number of articles that would otherwise clog the process unnecessarily. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Prod largely works; the biggest issue is the ability to remove it without a rationale. Number 57 20:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - PROD is exactly what it is meant to be, a useful policy to get rid of crud (non-controversial deletes), and getting rid of it would either burden AFD or require new CSDs. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 15 October 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.

PROD proposal 4: Require notification for creator, with some exceptions[edit]

Many of the !votes for proposal 1, both support and oppose, cited the needs for exceptions and opposed pinging signficant contributors. This is an attempt to capture that:

The editor nominating an article for proposed deletion is required to notify the article's creator, except in the following circumstances:
  • The page creator is indefinitely blocked, community banned, globally banned, deceased, or otherwise unable to respond to the nomination
  • The page creator has indicated on their talk or user page that they do not want to recieve such notifications or that they have retired from Wikipedia
  • Notification would be impossible due to the nominating user being banned from the page creator's talk page or due to the protection level of the page creator's talk page
  • Support as proposer (pinging users that !voted either way for #1: @Reyk, Ammarpad, Fish and karate, Nyttend backup, Andrew Davidson, Natureium, Ritchie333, Jip Orlando, James500, Rhododendrites, SarekOfVulcan, Enos733, TonyBallioni, and Guy Macon:). --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 17:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the exceptions are bureaucracy that would create more work for no benefit. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too many rules to keep track of, when a suggestion of notifying the creator is sufficient. Is there anyone upset that their articles are being PRODed without notification? If so, they should probably stop creating so many articles that could qualify for deletion. Natureium (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Supportish - Doesn't need to be this long, but it's also not true that these are rules that everyone must keep track of. There's nothing here that shouldn't already be common sense. The existing problem is that people don't follow common courtesy/common sense of notifying in those cases when it should be done. Page creators should be notified by default. That's it. Nothing else to remember. Our policy should reflect that. If it was created by a bot, by a banned user, by a deceased user, then of course there's no requirement to notify, and I cannot imagine anyone objecting to someone not notifying in those cases. Spelling out that there are cases when notification shouldn't be necessary shouldn't be necessary, but here they are because those exceptions seem to be the basis for most of the opposes in the first proposal. I can't imagine anyone feeling like they need to remember this list (Twinkle will notify the page creator regardless of the above -- these are just when it's not necessary). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would prefer "is expected to make a good faith effort to..." because it's simpler without the need for additional guidance, allowing context to rule. But I support notification as a criteria in principle, because PROD is the only deletion criteria where the creator (or anyone) can unilaterally challenge the nomination and send to AfD instead. Adding that failure to notify isn't necessarily on the back of reviewing admins to check (it need not be part of the deletion criteria per se to be a generally accepted community expectation), but would be a good faith reason to restore the article if requested, seeing that, if restoration is requested, it could be presumed that the PROD would have been challenged and therefore should have gone to AfD instead. Common sense would dictate that the restoring admin should notify the nominator so they may decide whether to take the article to AfD. GMGtalk 17:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose because watchlists are a thing. --Jayron32 17:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If the creator is interested - there is a watchlist. There is no need to create a long and arcane list of allowed exceptions.Icewhiz (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Leave it as a suggested courtesy notification. Do we really have a serious problem with PROD nominators who never notify the creator? If so, counsel that nominator. This proposal is a solution in search of a problem. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with GMG that there should be a reasonable expectation that a good-faith attempt be made to notify the creator. But I'm leery about adding a list of exceptions for the reasons mentioned above. Jip Orlando (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As far as I can see, we already are required to do this, although that is perhaps because of POV-pushers wording the PROD instructions in such a way as to force the process's users to do things that aren't actually required by policy. Forcing this in a formal manner is a bad idea, and the above exceptions don't go nearly far enough: many page creators are subject to TBANs, etc., or are simply not active anymore. On top of this, if policy requires a notification, that normally overrules talk page bans. This proposal is just a mess. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as instruction creep. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC).
  • Oppose - its fine as a recommendation, though I think it should recommend sending the notification to the creator of the first non-redirect revision. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, stop making this stuff complicated. "When you tag an article for proposed deletion, let the creator know unless this is not appropriate." That's all we need. Fish+Karate 08:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I think this should be offered as an alternative (or even better: When you tag an article for proposed deletion, let the creator know unless this is not appropriate (e.g. an editor has indicated they do not wish to receive such notifications). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I agree with the sentiment, but I do think this will end up being more instruction creep than we really want. Reyk YO! 09:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment If this is adopted, then inactive creators (e.g. no edits for over a year but no obvious indication of retirement) should also not be required to be notified as well as those listed above, as there's no point notifying someone who's never going to pay attention to the notification. IffyChat -- 10:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is really no different than Proposal #1 and my reason still stands. —Farix (t | c) 18:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as instruction creep and cause no one owns a given page. -DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support- This makes the most sense of all the options. I think the creator should be notified. If someone took the time to create the article they should at least be made aware of its proposed deletion. I always notify when I prod anyway.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Reeks of process creep and promotes WP:OWN -FASTILY 05:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as IMHO no different from #1 to which I opposed aswell. –Davey2010Talk 22:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose; making further requirements increases the burden of this intentionally simple process. By the way, Ahecht, sorry for the delay, but I don't log in frequently; my main account is better for notification. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:OWN. Number 57 20:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as stated, appears to be a method to suppress PRODs in order to make it easier to keep crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as stated in proposal #1; creator's opinion likely doesn't matter anyway.—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 08:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the same reasons as why I opposed #1. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as a minimum. But the exceptions are unnecessary if the process is made automatic. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Not all use watchlists. Not all log on weekly. A user_talk page notice provides the best notification, to the user, and to others watching or reviewing the user. In fact, when reviewing drafts, the author's user_talk page is very useful for the record of CSDs and PRODs. The user's contribution history is near useless, because the worst of their contributions are hidden from non-admins. Sometimes not notifying is appropriate, such as when the author is already blocked, or the author is not the real author, there being a history of a redirect, or a request for article creation. Surely, Twinkle does this so easily that this is not a practical problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose current system seems to work pretty well, and it should either be notification is required, or it isn't. Exceptions just make it hard to enforce. zchrykng (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - useless instruction creep. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This would only encourage knee-jerk de-PRODding, sometimes by creators who have not contributed to the article for years, and are suddenly reminded "oh yeah, I once wrote an article about my street, why do these dorks at WP want so bad to suppress it? Damn, WP:ITEXISTS, you jerks!" — JFG talk 13:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, leans towards WP:OWN and adds pointless instruction-creep that would complicate a process that is intended to be streamlined. Wikipedia articles require constant maintenance; if there is nobody watching the article at all who wants to save it, and the prod passes the test of the admin who actually has to implement it, then it's reasonable to delete it. Giving the article creator some special weight or presence in this process doesn't make any sense and doesn't fit with the general idea behind WP:OWN - article creators should never be given any sort of special weight or status in any policy. --Aquillion (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose any hard requirements as instruction creep and would just result in more traffic at AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it's good practice, it's courteous, but it shouldn't be elevated into a procedural loophole. Cabayi (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

PROD proposal 5: Require an explanation for removal of a PROD template WITHDRAWN[edit]

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.

Either in an edit summary or on the talk page. Should be uncontroversial: proposing deletion requires an explanation, preventing trolls and POV-pushers from quietly getting pages deleted without explaining why, but currently no explanation is required the other way, resulting in messes where someone who has not even read the article, or is just having a laugh, removes the PROD and a resulting week-long AFD sees unanimous consensus for deletion or equivalent (see [1]). Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support As nom. Yes, dealing with individual abusers of the policy could be handled wih TBANs and blocks, but when it's been going on this long and the permissiveness of the policy itself is generally blamed, I think it would be a good idea to try fixing the policy first. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, it's obvious this is going nowhere, so I'm withdrawing. However, it seems the reason it's going nowhere is not because other users disagree with me on the principle here, just on whether it would be better to enshrine the principle in policy or deal with it on a case-by-case basis, so I'd still like to discuss below. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose PROD is intended for articles where deletion is uncontroversial. If someone objects, for whatever reason, then deletion is by definition controversial. Let's not set up a kind of AfD-lite, where people end up arguing about whether the explanation or rationale is good enough or not. Just send it to AfD and let the community decide. If there are some people who are abusing the process and unPRODding everything, they could be subject to a topic ban if the behavior is egregious. If it's just that they are little bit more keep-ist and the PRODder is a little bit more deletionist, that's what AfD is for. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose in reality but support in spirit. As the numbers above bear out PROD's are relatively few and there has not been any sort of widespread trolling documented. So discussion is good, being considerate and saying why you're removing a PROD is good, creating bureaucracy and opportunities for editors to accuse each other of not following policy or removing a PROD in bad faith to solve a problem that hasn't been shown is not something I can support at this time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose PROD is only inline with our discuss and reach consensus model because it is only used for undisputed deletions. If someone disputes it then there are other avenues for deletion. If there is a problem with people just bulk removing prods that can be dealt with using our disruption policy. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 01:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@MelanieN and HighInBC: Both of you open your !votes with the statement that PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions, but what about when the only reason deletion is "controversial" is because User X doesn't like deletion and wants to create more hoops to jump through to get an article (or four articles in the space of eight minutes, or 23 articles out of 50 mainspace edits over a period of two weeks) deleted? Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
This wasn't asked of me but as someone who, to my regret, inclusionists would call a deletionist I don't see an issue. The editor there didn't do this for all PRODs and so some editorial discretion is being applied. That seems completely with-in the spirit of what PROD is designed to do. Would doing so with a discussion further the project? Yes, but that doesn't mean there weren't reasons or we need to legislate this sort of action out of existence. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
As I said above, and HighInBC did too: if the person is being disruptive, actually demonstrably disruptive, in removing PRODs - but not in other areas of the 'pedia such that they should be blocked - then a topic ban is probably the best remedy and AN would be the venue. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
P.S. A "requirement to provide an explanation" wouldn't help with a dedicated PROD remover like the one you cite here. They would just change their edit summary from "remove prod" to some canned rationale like "remove prod, subject appears notable". And you'd be right back where you were. What you have here is not a system problem; it is a user problem. We don't rewrite our systems because of one user. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd love if this was something we could enforce, but new editors will have no idea of this rule even if we put it in bold letters on the template and will just lead to edit wars restoring the template. If the editor removes the PROD, they will get a discussion at AfD explaining to them why it wasn't appropriate, which helps them learn. Helping new editors learn is important. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The prod template provides a place for the proposer to state their case. There is no corresponding place for an opposer because a prod is opposed by removing the template and so it goes away. If discussion is wanted then this is typically done by taking the matter to AfD and, per WP:BRD, the onus is on the proposer to start such a discussion. Discussions don't belong in edit summaries as they are supposed to be succinct summaries of what was done in the edit. Per WP:REVTALK, "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors!" For example, consider the recent case of Azia. There was a lot wrong with this proposal for which the stated concern was "Completely unsourced and topic of minimal notability. Suggest a merge." Everything said here is wrong. The article has sources and states them clearly at the bottom of the article. The topic is a town in Nigeria and all such places are considered notable. And the proposal is to merge the content. Merger is not done by deletion and there's a different template for making such proposals. Explaining all these errors requires some space and effort and the prod process does not provide this. It is, by design, a lightweight process. If you make it more burdensome then you'll just reproduce AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 07:13, 25 September 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.

!Voting "oppose" on an already withdrawn proposal is evidence enough that it was a user problem, with a user actively engaged in trolling "the deletionists", so I guess MelanieN's advice regarding how to deal with such user problems applies. Thank you to whoever closed the above, anyway. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

PROD Proposal 6: PRODs cannot be declined by article creator[edit]

I'd like to toss this out for what it's worth. pbp 15:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose The whole point about prods is that they are completely uncontroversial, even if the person is the creator, if they object that means it is no longer uncontroversial. -15:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The quality of prod nominations is often so bad that an article creator should be free to remove a prod. --Michig (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Djsasso: @Michig: Let me ask you this: why wouldn't an article creator remove a PROD from an article they created? Allowing article creators to decline PRODs is a lot like not having PROD at all. pbp 23:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes the prod is culling early articles that the creator now knows are not really notable, at least that's the scenario that I am aware of. For example players who made a notable team but never actually came off the bench. ϢereSpielChequers 00:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Obviously a lot of the time article creators don't remove prods, even though they currently can, as a lot of articles get deleted via prod. --Michig (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Good grief. Softlavender (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yeah, this is a bad idea for multiple reasons: it would actually be counterproductive in that article creators, even good-faith content contributors, would be forced to turn to disruptive "keepist" editors who will happy deprod anything they think is low-vis enough that no one will notice; in the rare occasion that a legitimate "deletionist" shows up (... I dunno ... INeverCry, I guess?) they could just target low-vis articles that only the article creator is watching; on those few events that preventing the article creator specifically from deprodding would be useful (Tanka prose for example) AFD actually works just fine despite the presence of disruptive keepist editors. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    I think you mean "inclusionist" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. PROD is basically speedy with a "speak now or forever hold your peace" component. If a PROD is contested, that means AfD is needed. bd2412 T 01:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article creator should be permitted to have as much input as anyone else. Lepricavark (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I get the idea that there could in theory be someone going through the prod queue and deprodding systematically. But I'm not aware that that actually happens and people deprodding to protect their own work is not that issue. ϢereSpielChequers 07:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd like to toss this out for what it's worth. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there such a thing as a SNOW oppose? - Here's a scenario, someone creates a niche article; say on the bio of a notable bowls player. Then, as it's a little niche, someone puts on a PROD. The article creator then cannot undo this, and has to get someone else to do this for them. We'll get tonnes of people trying to get things de-PRODed. However, if it's a non-popular item, they may not get as many eyes on it; and thus much harder for someone to remove it organically. However, the article itself, was notable. If the article doesn't fail any speedy criteria, and the creator, or anyone else doesn't agree it should be deleted, it should go to WP:AfD. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Impractical and unfair, per Lee Vilenski's scenario. — JFG talk 10:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - unless the article has been tagged for projects it's possible that only the author is the only interested person aware of the article. Cabayi (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

PROD Proposal 7: PROD only through Twinkle[edit]

As nothing seems to have consensus yet, I'll suggest this formally. The PROD tag can only be added through Twinkle or a similar semi-automated editing tool. That tool should send a talk page notification to the page creator, unless they are prohibited by a {{nobots}} style tag on the page creator's talk page, or the PROD nominator explicitly opts out of sending a message. Editors who cannot or do not use Twinkle are encouraged to used the WP:AFD process to propose deletions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This seems like an end run around the fairly clear consensus forming above that you do not need to notify. Secondly users should not be forced to use certain tools to be able to take part in standard processes like PROD>. -DJSasso (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Djsasso. We should not mandate the use of specific tools to be able to do certain things. Reyk YO! 16:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nobody should be forced to use tools to automate anything. --Michig (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per wot Michig said. ϢereSpielChequers 00:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is ridiculous to require all editors to use automated or semi-automated tools to edit Wikipedia or to PROD an article. Softlavender (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. I PROD the old-fashioned way and I like it that way. bd2412 T 01:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not all editors can use these tools. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Lepricavark (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the choice of toolset (if any) is up to each individual. Cabayi (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the above users rightly pointing out that automated tools should never be a requirement for any process. IffyChat -- 14:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

PROD Proposal 8: Require a rationale to de-PROD[edit]

The main issue with the PROD process is article creators performing knee-jerk de-PRODding, sometimes without a good grasp of our notability policy. The PROD notice should include the requirement that de-PRODding requires a policy-based rationale asserting notability, with appropriate links to educate unaware editors. Merely removing the tag with no explanation could be reverted on-sight, with a gentle warning to the infringing de-prodder. If a rationale is provided in the de-prod action, that constitutes a good basis to either keep the article, or to start an AfD with stronger arguments for and against. — JFG talk 13:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Barely any prod nominations are policy-based. Arguments against prods are likely to be guideline-based rather than policy-based. --Michig (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Notability is not a policy; it's just a guideline and so explicitly allows for exceptions. The OP doesn't seem to understand this and many article creators will not understand such complexities either. The prod process does not provide a discussion in which to explain and debate such issues. Anything of this sort should be done at AfD where it can be properly discussed and resolved. Andrew D. (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Makes sense. pbp 23:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Okay, my insincere "procedural oppose" did no good, it seems. And once again Andrew Davidson, the one who even those who oppose this kind of proposal think should be specifically required to explain deprods because of his problematic tendency to deprod without explanation, then show up at the subsequent AFD and make a counter-policy argument, is opposing this, which ... yeah, just no. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't require specific policy-based rationales for numerous kinds of deletion, so it makes no sense to require it of PROD. Softlavender (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose prod is for uncontentious deletions, if it is contentious it should go to AFD. We have more than enough things to argue about on Wikipedia, please don't add "was this prod decline reverted on a correct understanding of policy". ϢereSpielChequers 00:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unworkable as written. Requiring that they say something when deprodding might work - that is, they have to provide an edit summary, no matter how brief or cursory - but requiring that it be policy-based opens a can of worms that the prod system (intended to be streamlined, simple, and requiring minimal review or oversight) can't really handle. If someone provides a rationale, and you want to argue that it's not policy based, and you start a discussion over whether it's policy-based where people weigh in to reach a consensus... that's WP:AFD, which is where contested deletions should go. --Aquillion (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • OP comment – Striking "policy-based" from my proposal, as several editors explained that notability guidelines are not policy. @Michig, Andrew Davidson, Softlavender, WereSpielChequers, and Aquillion: Thanks for your remarks; would that update make you reconsider? — JFG talk 23:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    • This was SNOW Opposed above: WP:Village pump (policy)#PROD proposal 5: Require an explanation for removal of a PROD template WITHDRAWN. Plus, you can't drastically change the content of the proposal after several people have !voted on it. My !vote remains Oppose, as it has been for all three of these identical proposals. Softlavender (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Prod is not always about notability, so explaining why you think the topic is notable isn't always going to help. I think we should encourage deprodders to give a rationale for their deprodding, and that rationale somewhat belongs in the edit summary. Currently the start of the instructions just say "Any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag" whilst in Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Objecting you are "strongly encouraged" to give a rationale and to consider doing a couple of other things. I'd be inclined to reorganise the bit where you are "strongly encouraged" to "consider" as that reeks of compromise rather than clarity. But more important, and back to your point. I'd be OK with the start of the instructions being "Any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by removing the tag, but please say why in your edit summary" The template currently states that "Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page" could this go to "Please explain why you object to the deletion, ideally in your edit summary"? ϢereSpielChequers 08:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Re-wording PROD instructions to encourage editors to provide a rationale would be a good step forward. Current message is too permissive. I'd be happy to help craft a new message if this suggestion gets traction. — JFG talk 09:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The point of PROD is to delete those pages that everyone agrees are candidates for deletion; if no one objects for any reason, the page is deleted. However, if someone does object, the page can go to AfD, which is where the policy-based discussion can happen. I see no reason to change this. CThomas3 (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Partial support This should be used as an ANI sanction only. SportingFlyer talk 03:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, especially WereSpielChequers. Once you have to discuss the topic's inclusion, AFD is the place to do it, not the talk page. Bad-faith de-PROD-ing can already be sanctioned as disruptive behavior. Regards SoWhy 09:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose again. The whole idea with prod is that if you don't think it should be deleted it needs to go to Afd. Doesn't matter what your reasoning is. -DJSasso (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose requirement. However, an explanation in the PROD notice that an unexplained removal is more likely to result in AFD than a justified removal - that may result in a more considered removal and reduced workload all round. Cabayi (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

General discussion: Proposed deletion[edit]

  • The specific wording change I'm referring to changed the fourth step of the nomination process from:
4. The article's creator or other significant contributors should ideally be left a message at their talk page(s) informing them of the proposed deletion, except for cases where contributors are no longer regarded as active editors on Wikipedia. This should be done by adding the {{subst:Proposed deletion notify|Name of page}} tag, or other appropriate text.
4. Inform the page creator or other significant contributors of the proposed deletion (except contributors are no longer regarded as active editors on Wikipedia), with a message on their talk page(s) by adding: {{subst:Proposed deletion notify|Name of page}} or other appropriate text.
(emphasis in original) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Generally it's polite to notify the page creator. But sometimes, such as when it's a permabanned user or a dynamic IP that's now changed, there may be no point. Twinkle notifies automatically, and I'm happy to let it do its thing, but if I were to PROD something manually I'd check to see if notifying the page creator is worth it. Reyk YO! 13:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Pages by a permabanned user don't need to be PRODded, they can just be deleted under CSD G5. IPs can't create pages. Fish+Karate 13:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Pages by a user who wasn't permabanned at the time they made the page, but were permabanned later, are not eligible for G5 speedy. And IPs used to be able to create pages, and there's still lots of hopeless IP creations still out there. I AfD'd one just today. Reyk YO! 13:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Fair point, although I guess that's covered by "except contributors (who) are no longer regarded as active editors on Wikipedia" (my typo fix in bold). Fish+Karate 13:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
          • Just another example as to why it shouldn't be mandatory; I almost always notify PROD/AFD creators, but a while back I came upon one created by a fairly well known editor who was deceased... Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    • This is generally where I fall. "Highly encouraged in most situations" with a quiet "use judgment." Like BK above me, it is worth using judgment on edge cases, and I certainly favor a "You should definitely do this, it's a really good idea, but if you have a good reason for not doing it, that's fine." ~ Amory (utc) 16:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm just curious what reasons people have for not using Twinkle. Seems like it really simplifies the whole process (especially for AfD, but also for PROD). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I spent more than a year doing this stuff manually IIRC, because I thought Twinkle was an add-on third-party software, and not an in-browser extension, because I don't know how to computer. GMGtalk 17:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
You are not the only one. This may be a fairly common reason. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Twinkle automatically leaves a notice for the creator of the page (if you tell it to); it can't identify "significant contributors", or cases where the creator shouldn't be notified. It's really a non sequitur in regards to the subject of this RfC. ansh666 18:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • leave out except when creators are not considered active, as its easier to inform them routinely and other editors may be watching their talkpages, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Seconded. Samsara 18:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Just a note, I've changed the wording back to the previous version, pending an actual consensus in favor of changing the policy (currently, there's a strong majority in opposition to the change, and per WP:CONLEVEL policies should not be changed by BOLD editing to begin with). (Swarmtalk) 19:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I find it strange that I read the section headings and expected a debate on whether we should notify article creators and significant contributors, but the actual debate is about what counts as reasonable effort in notifying creators and significant contributors. It seems that we generally agree that the prodder ought to notify and are debating edge cases. But isn't PROD about relatively uncontroversial attempts at deletion, and any edge cases should go straight to AfD? Deryck C. 11:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There should be *automated* warnings for certain actions (nominations for deletion included, some tags, ...) to users watchlisting the article *and* opting-in for such warnings. Creators should have no special right nor the burden of being warned in the cases they do not care anymore (and I bet there are more than a few of those). On the other hand, the watchlist is mostly useless as warning about deletions, and it could be a useful improvement to get such drastic changes to show up more prominently - Nabla (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Notification of the creator is absolutely unnecessary because any article creator who only belatedly discovers that their article has been PROD deleted can automatically get a copy of the deleted article without even providing a rationale. This is why PROD works so well as the first stop in article culling: Articles that are just drive-by spam from SPA accounts who have since left Wikipedia are easily culled without further ado, and articles from good-faith editors who may have been absent or distracted during the week that the PROD was placed can easily get their article restored. Best of both worlds. Softlavender (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Requirement to explain DePROD[edit]

  • While we're talking about the PROD policy, I'd like to propose that a person deproding a page, be required to give an explanation of why (either in the edit summary or on the talk page). Too many times do people deprod without any reason. This allows the extreme inclusion group to force AfDs which waste everyone's time. If I have to give an explanation of why an article I PROD should be deleted than I don't think its too much to ask for the person deProding it to explain why it should be kept. That explanation may convince the person proposing deletion not to go any further or at the very least give them a point to refute when creating an AfD.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Moral support- I don't see this having much chance of getting up, but I generally agree.Reyk YO! 08:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support The reason why PROD exists is so that obviously unsuitable articles (WP:SNOW) can be deleted without much of a fuss. I would support only requiring the page author or apparent SPAs to explain the dePROD, since they would likely object to deletion. funplussmart (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible support requiring a rationale is the only thing keeping PROD from being a farce, which it basically is.--Jayron32 01:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This is the same as the withdrawn Proposal 5 above. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose It is up to wanna-be-deleters to justify deletions. If they want a discussion the AFD is the way to proceed. The people that just remove the prod, probably have no idea about the procedures here, and so you are giving an unfair advantage to the established editors that do. If however, there is someone removing a lot of "prod"s for no reason, or a wiki-political reason, then that is disruptive editing that can be dealt with in another way. Not only that, prods can also be overturned after deletion, without reason. It is better to simplify the process rather than add more even work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm. "Wanna-be-deleters," I am hearing of this for the first time. So what of the wanna-be-keepers? Why can't they provide reason to justify keeping if they indeed believe the article should stay?. Why? –Ammarpad (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
    Because our Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires that a bona fide reason be given for deleting an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the closed discussion above. Note also that most prodders don't provide a detailed reason – they usually just make a vague wave to some other page. For example, consider Rusf10's most recent prod: "as per WP:NOTNEWS". One could wave back with exactly the same policy, which states "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". The devil is in the details and prod is not the place for this because there's no provision for discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the devil is in the details: details like how the reason "the closed discussion above" was closed in the first place was because of Andrew's disruptively showing up to harangue me after I'd already withdrawn my proposal. The "consensus" was weak at best, and even the outright opposes (of whom there were two; one was essentially a "support in principle, but oppose as unpractical") appeared to agree that Andrew's behaviour was problematic and should be addressed with individual sanctions rather than an amendment to policy. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now Per my own identical proposal above, I agree with this in principle, but the reason I withdrew it is because it's not going to happen at the moment. Dealing with the disruptive deproders individually, perhaps with sanctions, should be a priority; see if problems persist even with good-faith editors after that happens, then propose changing he policy. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose By contrast, the risk of losing valuable articles by prodders unfamiliar with subject content is significant. DONOTLIKE prodding is all too common and should be reverted on sight, no explanation needed. Don't like it? Go through AfD. Samsara 18:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose because removing the prod template is all you actually need from de-prodding. Adding the template means "I think this should be deleted, and I think that doing so will be uncontroversial". Removing it, even if there's not a single word typed, means "I think this should not be considered an uncontroversial deletion". If you want it deleted, then your next step should be AFD, not badgering the editor who thought the deletion might be controversial to provide an explanation that will WP:SATISFY you. You already have all the explanation you actually need: someone disagreed with you, and therefore it does not qualify for PROD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WhatamIdoing. Use AFD. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weakest possible support I like the idea in concept, but in practice 99% of the rationales are going to be WP:ITEXISTS, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:VALUABLE, etc., making it effectively useless. --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 16:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WhatamIdoing; PROD is for strictly uncontested cases, and a successful de-PROD does not produce prejudice against other sorts of nominations. Keep it simple. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is the biggest problem with prods – removals by IPs with no rationale that just mean countless hours wasted on AfDs that will almost always result in a delete outcome. Number 57 20:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as Nihiltres makes a good point. We could consider changing policy to disallow IPs from deprod'ing articles and use a bot to enforce it, which would at least add some accountability. When a regular user deprods, you can always just ask them why. With an IP, that is often impossible to do. Dennis Brown - 16:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The burden should be on the person nominating an article for deletion to explain their rationale, even when prodding it. However, I think Dennis's proposal is also something to seriously consider. There are quite a few good, productive IP editors who can be trusted to reasonably contest PROD tags, but there are at least as many vandals or otherwise inexperienced unregistered users who simply delete tags and move on. It makes sense to limit this ability to registered users. Kurtis (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The PROD process works as it is supposed. Articles are deleted that n one has any concerns about. If someone has any concern about an article being deleted it shouldn't be deleted via PROD. This would just add a bureaucratic step that add nothing to the process. I can agree that it is best to explain why the PROD was removed but see no reason to mandate it. ~ GB fan 19:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too many IPs posting drive-by PRODs with no rationale. [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The whole rationale for PROD is that it's for non-controversial deletions. If it's to be turned into something else, a kind of ultralite AfD, I could see an argument for that, but the case should be made explicitly, not folded into a procedural requirement. --Trovatore (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as making at least a token effort to explain one's decision (just as a PROD-er has to explain their reasoning) is civilised. Amisom (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Because sometimes a trolling anti-deletionist will do a massive dePROD just because they hate the idea of a PROD, and it is difficult to deal with them outside asking an admin for a POINTy disruption evaluation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose adding a formal requirement. If there is disagreement, the Prod process already escalates to AfD automatically. Deryck C. 11:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It should be encourage, but if someone believes an article shouldn't be deleted, it's not an uncontroversial deletion. A significant number of prod nominations each week are thoroughly incompetent, coming from editors who seem to look for any articles in bad shape and try to get them deleted for that reason alone, irrespective of whether they are likely to be uncontroversial deletions. Removal of prod tags is not the main problem here. I would also note that a deprod should not automatically result in an AfD nomination, as taking articles that are unlikely to be deleted to AfD results in an unnecessary drain on resources. Deprods with an explanation of why the subject is notable are routinely taken to AfD by some editors as a knee-jerk reaction. Those editors are the problem. --Michig (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with the principle, we should explain every non.trivial action. But as U:WhatamIdoing explined quite well, (de)proding is self explanatory. So, oppose - Nabla (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too much scope creep in this. Once we start require explanations, then we'll get into "well, your explanation wasn't good enough for me" sort of nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This was already SNOW Opposed above: WP:Village pump (policy)#PROD proposal 5: Require an explanation for removal of a PROD template WITHDRAWN. Why is it being re-introduced? Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Only if PROD requires a reason. But then, a reason for, a reason against, go to AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have 3 sections all proposing the same thing...but might as well oppose here as well. -DJSasso (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Official websites that violate copyright[edit]

Editors in this thread appear to be of the opinion that is is permitted to link to websites which violate copyright so long as it is the official website of the subject of the article. Citing WP:COPYLINK:

In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site.

This is at odds with WP:ELOFFICIAL:

These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking.

WP:ELNEVER in turn states:

material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation

Furthermore, copyright violations is part of the TOU and is therefore not an issue which is subject to consensus.

Simply put, if there is a local policy that permits copyright violating links, then the local policy is wrong, and should be changed or ignored. GMGtalk 14:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • The official website link itself does not violate copyright. Same reason while why some youtube links violate copyright that does not mean we can't link to "" or other youtube links. Technically, one could also link to sci-hub pdfs of public domain material etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • And YouTube has a regime in place to detect and remove copyright violating material, even if it lags behind uploads. This is not the case when linking to a site for which the violation of copyright is their core purpose, and who is frequently changing domains in order to avoid enforcement of copyright laws. Linking to such as sight is helping to bypass the copyright protections they are trying to avoid, and is therefore contributory copyright infringement. GMGtalk 14:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I have yet to find anything indicating that simply linking to a website that contains copyrighted material on one of its other pages has been ruled contributory copyright infringement. Directly linking to copyrighted material on another page definitely has, but the homepage of a service that simply can be used to obtain copyrighted material? Seems more like original research than anything explicitly established in policy. --tronvillain (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of old copyright violations on Youtube. As a matter of fact, I'm listening to one right now, and furthermore it's easily reachable using Youtube's native search, in much the same way that copyright violations are accessible on Sci-Hub using that site's search bar. DaßWölf 02:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There's no conflict with WP:ELNEVER: no material that violates the copyrights of others is being linked to. Unless you can tell us how to click through to copyrighted material from those pages? --tronvillain (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    • This is the crucial point - the mainpages of Sci-Hub and The Pirate Bay do not contain any copyrighted material. SmartSE (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
      • And unlike The Pirate Bay, you can't browse to anything on Sci-Hub. --tronvillain (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, you can. Note the dozen-plus links to journals on their home page, because it is a website whose purpose is to violate copyright. GMGtalk 15:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
          • I'm not seeing a "dozen-plus links to journals on their home page", and I'm looking pretty carefully. There's the search area, the "About" section, the "Ideas" section, the "Community" section, the "Donate" section, and some share buttons. Where are these links? --tronvillain (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
            • Are you looking at their original website, or one of the dozen alternate domains they've registered to circumvent copyright law? GMGtalk 15:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
              • I'm looking at the pages you removed. Unless for some reason we're talking about different websites that weren't being linked to? --tronvillain (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC); edited 15:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
                • Regardless, the claim that the link is not copyright violating is hollow when the entire point of the site linked to is to violate copyright. GMGtalk 15:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
                  • So these links you're talking about don't exist in the pages you removed? Great, I'm not just missing something obvious. It's really not hollow, when the policy you're citing is about linking to material that violates the copyrights of others, not to websites that can potentially be used to obtain such material. --tronvillain (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
                    • Except that courts have ruled that providing a service by which the public can easily and illicitly access copyrighted works is itself copyright violating. GMGtalk 16:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
                      • So, you're arguing for expanding WP:ELNEVER beyond not linking to copyrighted material to not linking to anything that might provide be used to access copyrighted material? I thought you were arguing for changing WP:COPYLINK, but okay. --tronvillain (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
                        • ELNEVER covers material that violates the copyrights of others. There is no change to ELNEVER necessary. There is already precedent that these services themselves, including this service in particular is copyright violating. GMGtalk 16:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
                          • That decision clearly says that Sci-Hub violated the American Chemical Society's copyright by distributing their copyrighted material, but it doesn't follow from that that their homepage in and of itself constitutes material that violates the copyrights of others. That particular interpretation presumably needs some consensus, or a clarification of the terms of use. --tronvillain (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
                            • The Pirate Bay ruling above does clearly state that these services qualify as a public broadcast for the purposes of copyright. The services themselves are copyright violating, and these sites serve no other purpose other than to facilitate the violation of copyright. GMGtalk 17:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
                              • Really? No other purpose? How do you explain the following link to a torrent of the GIMP v5.12 Open Source Image Editor, downloaded from The Pirate Bay? [3] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
                                Yeah, the "torrent sites = piracy" canard is silly. All sorts of things are distributed on them, including public domain material, and copyrighted material explicitly permitted to be distributed on them. It goes from silly to sillier when people try to blame the medium itself, the BitTorrent protocols.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
                                • Example text Yes, we are all very lucky that these sites are being dragged through court, banned in multiple countries, constantly having their domains shut down and relocating, all so they can bravely provide us with legal content. (Didn't Pirate Bay try to buy their own nation once?) God bless them. God bless them every one. GMGtalk 20:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that this is a question that should be bumped up to the WMF’s attorneys. Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    • You might be right there. --tronvillain (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure we're going to get much more than a boiler plate statement, but ping User:Jrogers (WMF) anyway in case they'd like to weigh in. GMGtalk 18:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Why would we link to a site that is known solely for hosting copyright material illegally? This link has no encyclopaedic utility. What are people going to do if they click the link? All they will find there is self-serving claims by a site that is, bluntly, criminal. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@JzG: Sci-Hub probably has more "encyclopedic utility" than Wikipedia. And saying "what are people going to do if they click the link?" is no different than saying "what will people do if they read the article?" Or "what will people do if they hear the name?" Obviously, they might look for it. Gee, that would be a shame. Violating "intellectual property" is the same kind of illegality as violating a slave-owner's carnal property. Wnt (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
What rot. The link on the Sci-Hub article is largely decorative. Clicking it says less about the site than we do because it presents the site from a perspective that is objectively incorrect. Contributory copyright infringement is also a thing. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the site is an objectively incorrect way of learning about the site? A link is "decorative" ... and that's why you're fired up to delete it? If what you say has a meaning, I'm not convinced at this point. Wnt (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • If the site's reason to exist is to distribute material clearly against copyright, we should not link to it at all. Site's where copyright violations may exist but that is not the reason or function of the site and particular now due to actions of the site's operators, like YouTube or Researchgate, we can link to. --Masem (t) 11:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    Masem - What's your opinion when this is say, the official site of the subject in question. For instance, we have an article on The Pirate Bay, which has a official website to that page. Pages like WireShare also have a similar page setup. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    I removed the links on the Pirate Bay article also, but was reverted. GMGtalk 11:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    If it is the official site, we should not include and probably have a message why no link is included. Wires are seems to be a client that can be used to violate copyright, but requires users to give that material, so it's less of a prolem. --Masem (t) 11:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    Wireshare/Limewire is an opensource P2P client. By that reasoning literally every P2P client can be said to be 'used to violate copyright' - as can every web browser, archive tool (winrar) etc. The difference is that Pirate Bay exists only to provide direct links to copyright infringing material (with a smidgeon of public domain) and SciHub similar (and actually hosts copyright infringing material itself). Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    And the 'official' link, if it can be called such on wireshare is to its source page at github. Github hosts a huge array of opensource projects. I dont think anyone is going to suggest we start removing github links as it enables copyright infringement are they? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Include these links is my official vote. The text in the "Restrictions on linking" section should be taken to mean that you should not include a link if and only if clicking the link would directly cause the user to download [including as extended content directly included within a web page] copyright-infringing material. Not because he might find out more about how or where to do so or read some philosophy or download some program that might make it easier for him to decide to do so. Wnt (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I also vote that these links should be included: It should not be the role of Wikipedia editors to police the copyright behaviour of readers. If clicking on a link does not automatically trigger a copyright violation, and if there is no clear instruction from WP legal that this is not permitted, then Wikipedia users should be entrusted to make their own decisions with the information available.Kyle MoJo (talk) 08:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • If it is legal under US law for Wikipedia to link to the homepage of these websites, then these links should be included as they are for any other website. If we permit ourselves to censor links based on moral objections to the site's contents (as opposed to legal objections) then this will be a never-ending debate. (Which objectionable site's official links should we remove next, Pornhub's, AlphaBay's?) Sizeofint (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think there's a distinction to be made between linking to a page that is itself a copyright violation, and linking to a service that sometimes hosts copyright violations somewhere on it. For me, the difference is between linking to the main YouTube page (which has no copyright violations) and linking to a video on YouTube that is itself a copyright violation. If the page we link to is itself kosher, there's no reason we shouldn't link to it (provided it meets other policies and guidelines, yada yada). --Jayron32 16:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
That misses the main thrust of the issue though. YouTube is a legitimate site that happens to have some copyrighted material on it (so is Wikipedia if we're being honest). No one is raising a fuss in that regard. The problem is when we have a site whose core purpose is the violation of copyright, and which courts have ruled are in-and-of themselves copyright violating services. That's potentially legally problematic, especially for sites that have been blocked in multiple countries, and for whom our article is likely higher in search results than their actual website.
I don't expect legal to actually give us an opinion on the matter, although I have emailed them and notified them of this thread. (Legal, in my experience, doesn't express much of an opinion on copyright unless they have a takedown notice in hand.) But just because legal won't preempt themselves in public on an issue they may have to one day argue in court, doesn't mean this doesn't have foreseeable potential legal implications. GMGtalk 00:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the community is neither required, nor particularly competent, to judge fine legal niceties like this. If the Foundation lawyers are worried about it, they'll let us know; it's certainly been pointed out to them. If they're not, I don't see why we should be. --Trovatore (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Even if there is some lawsuit out there by the ACS (one of the worst offenders in terms of paywalled articles), that would only speak to their liability to ACS about ACS articles according to a court far from Sci-Hub's own country. A private lawsuit between those parties could not have produced an overall determination of the "core purpose" of the site as some kind of law or regulation that everyone else is supposed to know about or follow. I think that the core purpose of the site is obvious: it is meant to allow people all over the world to share the text of articles to which they have access with people who express their interest; in other words, it is an interlibrary loan site very similar in nature and operation to WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange or ResearchGate, though more efficient. While American Chemical Society may be eager to extract a few dollars from peasants particularly desperate to see some article, this foolish crusade comes at a substantial cost -- because what is the ordinary voter going to do who hears about a chemical controversy and runs into a paywall telling him he's not allowed to see the publicly funded science for himself? He is going to do what any intelligent person would do in that situation and conclude that "chemicals are bad for you." You can't blame a person for having a stupid point of view when you have hired guns standing over him to force him to be stupid. But I digress. Wnt (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Interlibrary loan terms are agreed to in contracts and subscription packages, and have various restrictions (and generally a charge on the part of the borrowing library, explicitly to protect copyright). Sci-hub, by it's own admission, has none of that. Every source agrees that it's intentionally and knowingly violating copyright laws on the articles. There's never been a colorable legal argument made by Sci-Hub or any of its defenders to the contrary; indeed, part of its justification is that those laws are unjust, harmful and deserve to be defeated, but not that they aren't being violated as they currently exist. That's it's whole reason for existence. The fact that I think modern copyright law is insane (which it is) doesn't change that it is the law at the moment.Just a Rube (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, any such guidelines are not universally followed even in the United States, and it is worth noting that Sci-Hub is not in the United States and is free to follow whatever legal standards its country adopts for Fair Use. The site has not been shut down, its maintainers have not been arrested, and so the only question is whether your national network is going to censor foreign traffic because it contains dangerous information, or ban local discussion of how to access such networks. Wnt (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No link the site's entire purpose is to violate copyright law. There is no non-infringing purpose behind it. Anyone who wants to find the site can find it easily without including a link.Just a Rube (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Really? No non-infringing purpose? How do you explain the following link to a torrent of the GIMP v5.12 Open Source Image Editor, downloaded from The Pirate Bay? [4] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Given that Gimp is only at v2.10, one has to ask out legit that is. It is known that software pirates often rename files to mask what they offer, this looks like such a case. --Masem (t) 13:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I don't want to delve into nitty gritty of version numbers of package components, so I'll just cite Darkwood, TPB AFK, 3D printer data distributed on Pirate Bay. I'm sure there are other "legitimate" uses. (Well, you can argue the last isn't legitimate since the data is banned in the U.S. under the 1st and 2nd amendments, but Pirate Bay isn't in the U.S., and the U.S. actually targeted one person only, so... but Wikipedia made me take out Infowars' link to the topic that came up, because you know that's fake news ... computers are all about the owner of the computer telling everyone else what to do for no reason at all, so I shouldn't be surprised at any of you any more. You live to serve your Master, period.) Wnt (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not link to any dedicated copyright violating service. I'm not above admitting to using Sci-Hub, or the Pirate's Bay on occasion, but that should not be taken as any sort of push to legitimize them. If there is no other significant service offered by the site, then there is no encyclopedic value offered by including the link. Peer-to-peer networks and clients are not dedicated copyright violating services, but -like YouTube or google image search- are services which are frequently misused for that purpose. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes link. The purpose of the link is key. You can't use a link to point to infringing content relevant to some article, but of course you can use a link to identify and access a site itself. Alsee (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes link - Linking to a domain is not infringeing copyright. What our readers do once they navigate to a site is up to them. It would be pretty stupid for a website article not to have the URL - it's one of the fundamental pieces of information about the topic and we are not meeting our readers' expectations if we do not include them. If there are legal issues with us linking to the, them WMF legal will let us know, but the fact that these links have been present so long indicates that they are not. SmartSE (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Link. Even a site like The Pirate Bay has legitimate uses. For example, it is the fastest way to download older versions of Slackware Linux. And a site like Google can easily be used to find copyright-infringing material. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No link - It’s not just that the admitted purpose of the site is to violate copyright, and linking to the site aides and abets illegal activity; but the site is used for spreading malware. O3000 (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Link. It seems like a silly political statement to leave the link missing and looks like an error.Sushilover2000 (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Well here's the Foundation Legal response:

I'm a bit late replying, but thought I'd offer a couple thoughts. First, the actual legal doctrine is nigh-impossible to do anything with. Links like this vary by country, and the current doctrine in Europe asks questions about the specific knowledge of the person doing the linking and whether the link is for commercial purposes, among other things. I would suggest that the Foundation is not going to overrule the community if people think that specific links are appropriate and important for an encyclopedia article on a notable topic, but there is a chance we could receive legal demands in specific cases that cause us to have to change something, which we would evaluate on a case by case basis if it came up. Also, just as a matter of community good will, if you know that a particular Wikipedia page is being used as a hub to facilitate copyright infringement for some reason, it's probably good to make changes to prevent that, regardless of the specifics of what the law says.

For whatever difference that makes to anyone. GMGtalk 21:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
It means I really regret that Mike Godwin, a couple of months after dissing the FBI on our behalf, somehow ended up bundled off to a loony bin. He was never prone to mumble! Nor would he have been one to contemplate retreating without a fight based on mere demands from the right-placed parties. But that kind of private law isn't something you can try to anticipate -- they're nonetheless saying they'll do whatever whenever, and we can go back to our regularly scheduled article unless and until they make it a ruin. Wnt (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, just as a matter of community good will, if you know that a particular Wikipedia page is being used as a hub to facilitate copyright infringement for some reason, it's probably good to make changes to prevent that, regardless of the specifics of what the law says And what about WP:NOTCENSORED?
  • Here is an idea. Forbid any links to any site that may link to any other site that may link to copyright infringing material. That makes it simple: we can set up a bot that removes every citation on Wikipedia. No more arguing about sources if all the sources are removed! The only downside is that the copyright-industrial-complex will say that this is not good enough, and that we need to form death squads to kill suspected infringers. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Your logical fallacy is: slippery slope. This site is dedicated to copyright violation. It's not about some links to a site that might hypothetically link to another site that violates copyright, it's about direct links to a site whose sole reason for existence is the systematic violation of copyright. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
From between the serapham, JzG has judged the sole reason for existence of a site. Yup, these sites are only for copyright violation. Unless they're also for distributing documentaries and games legally, as I cited above, or more interestingly, for violating censorship not-laws against making a drawing of a gun that someone could use to program a 3D printer. Really, I think the 3D printing business could be Pirate Bay's biggest draw in a few years, because just think of all the stuff various governments will be looking to ban blueprints for. I mean, what if you could 3D print the little plastic thingamajjig that is absolutely required to close your microwave door and authorize its electronic Brain to allow you to turn it on and which is designed to break every 3 years to make you buy a new one? Making one the right length with the right curve to fit would violate, oh, patents, design patents, business model patents, and copyrights on their mode of operation, right? Somebody gotta ban it, and it'll turn up on Pirate Bay. Or what if you could 3D print eyeglasses that aren't within the legal range of farsightness to be sold cheaply on a rack at the drugstore, undermining the doctors' racket? Somebody gotta ban it. Or what if you could make something to bypass location tricking on a fancy new self-driving car and make it visit a location proles aren't allowed to? It would be out and out terrorism! What if you could download a banner opposing fascism or supporting democracy during the key period before the election in Brazil where such content is taken as obviously partisan against Bolsonaro? [5] Obviously gotta ban that, worldwide. So I see potential for all kinds of Illegal Activities On Pirate Bay that don't fall strictly into the realm of copyright violation. Wnt (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
And according to our Sci-Hub article, that website has a significant amount of public domain content that heretofore was hidden behind paywalls. Sizeofint (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Foundation Legal isn't stopping us from linking, so legality isn't the issue here. To summarize the above discussion, it seems like those opposed to linking are mostly just making moralistic arguments in favor of attempting to police the behavior of our users. If this discussion is indeed such a moral judgement, then I suppose I'd toss my vote in favor. But of course, I was under the impression that Wikipedia is not censored. Benjamin (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • "Should not" does not mean "must not". Stifle (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Link. The site may indeed contain copyright-infringing material, but I find it unlikely that the site itself is a copyright violation, as some above seem to be arguing. If so, whose code did they copy? If it's that much of a problem, add a warning. --Auric talk 15:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes link to official websites, no matter their content. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, link to official websites regardless of their perceived copyright status. Wikipedia is not censored, and the home pages of official websites generally do not contain copyright violations. Any legal issues (which are highly unlikely) can be resolved through office actions instead of proactive censorship. — Newslinger talk 00:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing warnings on one's own talk page[edit]

One thing that has frequently happened to me is that I would be looking through a user's talk page before giving a warning, lo and behold, they were given a level 4 warning and I didn't know it because they blanked their talk page. It is extremely inefficient to browse diffs to see what warnings they were given. Per WP:BLANKING, people can delete warnings as evidence that they read the warn. I would like to propose a change to that policy that allows users to remove warnings only if the warned user and issuing user come to an agreement or a set amount of time has passed (lets say 6 hours) which allows recent changes patrollers to see if the user is a persistent problem or just a one off incident. Kyle Bryant (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Prohibit removal of warnings. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 10:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
If the WMF wanted to help us with this, they could easily make it so that a person just reading the talk page doesn't see the deleted warnings but a special button makes them visible. They could allow anyone to push that button, only extended confirmed users, or only admins.
I wonder, would a script be able to automate most of the work of searching the history for deleted warnings? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Support proposal for button, as the warnings easily get deleted and out of view so making problematic editing situations difficult to judge Atlantic306 (talk)
  • Meh... I don’t find it onerous to look in the talk page history to see if a user has received previous warnings. No big deal. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose; the purpose of a user talk page is to serve as a means of communication with that editor, not as a wall of shame documenting that editor's past mistakes. If the five seconds it takes you to click on "history" is too long for you, you're the one editing too quickly and without due care and attention. ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose- If some chucklehead wanders by to plaster a frivolous warning on my talk page, of course I am going to remove it. Reyk YO! 14:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    Urge to warn frivolously...rising...Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it took all of my stockpile of self-control for the day not to go post a snarky warning on the OP's talk page and therefore it's all Wikipedia's fault I just ate a giant chocolate-chip cookie for lunch. Opabinia externa (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Question, how difficult would it be to just make a user script that looks at the page history and displays a list of warnings, from say the last 2 days, or maybe a configured amount? If possible it would remove the need for policy changes while allowing people who want/need the information to get to it easily. zchrykng (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but I would support adding a separate log for user warnings, with a tab visible to admins showing recent warnings to a given user. bd2412 T 22:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I can't make much sense of the idea that if I give someone a warning I have to also have a discussion with them and come to an agreement about when they can remove the warning from their page. If I were an asshole, I could withhold that agreement indefinitely just to stick it to them. WP has plenty of assholes. More to the point, if I'm leaving someone a warning, I have way better things to do that have a pointless discussion with them about the archiving of their talk page. Especially since their disagreeableness and inability to work toward compromise with other editors may be the proximal cause of them receiving the warning. In short, WP:NOT#BUREACRACY.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Would create more problem than it solves.
    The script ideas above aren't bad, but how often does a script-qualified editor who doesn't feel strongly about the need devote the time to create a script because there is a consensus among a few people at the Village Pump? I don't know. ―Mandruss  11:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on the specific term "fuck off" – sanctionable or not![edit]

Resolved: Discussion already closed, without consensus for any policy change.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion here.--David Tornheim (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC) [revised 09:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)]

Expand criteria for women's teams/coaches/players in WP:NHOCKEY[edit]

Recently I dePRODed the Cara Morey article. Failure to meet WP:NHOCKEY was given as one of the reasons why it was proposed for deletion. Reading through the criteria, it appeared to me that there are no entries applicable to women's teams or coaches. When I stated this, I was told that the criteria for females was to have been in the Olympics or to have played in World championships. Considering this far narrower criteria for women, and the wider opportunities for men to have a presence on Wikipedia as notable players or coaches, it seems to me that more opportunities for participation in various competitions or leagues should be added to WP:NHOCKEY to be inclusive qualifiers of women's ice hockey, particularly as the organizations themselves are pushing for more females to participate in both playing and coaching. I am no expert on any sport by any means, but I am in favor of having more opportunities for women to have articles if they are indeed notable, so I thought I would present this here for more knowledgable editors to discuss. LovelyLillith (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the first question has to be how popular women's ice hockey is as a spectator sport (which is how players would derive notability if not playing for their national sides). If enough people are watching the matches for the leagues to be fully-professional, then the leagues should probably be added to the list. If the leagues are semi-pro or amateur, then in all likelihood the players in them are unlikely to be given default notability. Number 57 21:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Number 57: In response to professional women's hockey as a spectator sport, four of five NWHL teams play in NHL teams' practice facility, with seating up to about 2000 max. The other is a local rec center in a Stamford park. As far as I tell, the NWHL does not publish attendance figures, however, those arena capacities are below what would be accepted for an expansion team in the ECHL, and are more in line with would be found in the Federal Hockey League or non-Major Junior ice hockey. (Although every game so far at the TRIA Rink for the Whitecaps have been reported as "sold-out", but with a four-game sample size.) As to "fully-professional", as of last season both the NWHL and CWHL pay player salaries, but not nearly enough for the players to not also need a second job in order to make a living. On the other hand, I don't agree that either being widely spectated or being well-paid directly implies notability per the WP:GNG, which is more about significant independent media coverage of each person as an individual. Although it can, and usually does, correlate (more spectators -> more media). Yosemiter (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Note the hockey-specific notability criteria are used as a predictor that the general notability guideline can be met. If it can be shown that the general notability guideline is met, the article can be kept. The hockey-specific criteria are just there to keep obvious cases from being quickly deleted, so they are set very conservatively. isaacl (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I've also raised this issue in the past. I've never come across a criteria which extremely explicitly discriminates against women's sport before, and I've seen articles deleted because of it where a man in the exact same equivalent league with the exact same equivalent referencing would be a unanimous keep. It's an odd one out - I can't think of another notability criteria on Wikipedia period which specifically names only men's competitions as resulting in notability (and yet purports to cover women). I couldn't care less about hockey as an Australian, but it sits very badly with me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:NBASKETBALL comes close. Players are notable if they play for the NBL but not the WNBL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Which is absurd. The University of Canberra Capitals were far more likely to be household names in their area than the Sydney Kings were in theirs, with the newspaper and television coverage to boot. This is a perfect example of where the assumptions a minority of editors make break with reality. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
For better or worse, the general notability guideline is based on a subject receiving suitable coverage in independent, non-routine, non-promotional, reliable sources. The sports-specific notability guidelines do not seek to replace the general notability guideline, so equivalence of achievements is not used to determine their criteria. The criteria are set based on their ability to predict the existence of suitable sources such that the general notability guideline is met. isaacl (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Except that they're not - they're based on an assumed notability, regardless of its relationship to actual sources. And this is is how you can have a male player considered notable and a female player considered not notable with the exact same sourcing - and a level of sourcing that is extremely common across Wikipedia's sports coverage generally at that. There is no reasonable basis for holding women to a higher sourcing standard than men for the sole reason that they're women. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
If suitable non-routine, independent, non-promotional reliable sources can be produced, then the article can pass an article for deletion discussion. In addition to not setting a lower bar, the sports-specific notability guidelines are not used to set a higher bar, either. There are plenty of members of the hockey WikiProject who would love to have more coverage of women hockey players and would back up any discussion if the sources are there. isaacl (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: Except "a male player considered notable and a female player considered not notable with the exact same sourcing" is not true. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatiana Rafter, I immediately pointed out two other male players with more coverage of the so-called "exact same sourcing" that were deleted (here and here) without argument in the same time frame. Yosemiter (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Number 57 is right. Quite frankly, most Women's sports receieve nowhere near as much coverage in sources of any kind compared to the equivalent Men's sports. It's not our job to give coverage to Women's sports where reliable sources don't just because the Men's equivalent gets covered by reliable sources. The WP:NSPORTS SNGs should make clear where coverage is equivalent (e.g Tennis), and where it isn't (most other sports). IffyChat -- 12:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Is the criteria for women hockey players not also significant writing in reliable source texts? Is there some extra hurdle for writing articles about female hockey players? --Jayron32 14:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    • This isn't about an extra hurdle. What WP:NHOCKEY provides is a substitute for significant writing in reliable sources. There just needs to be a record of having played at a certain level or in certain number of games, rather than an article discussing a given player. The criteria seem to be tied to the sizes of the audiences for the various leagues. Where audiences are large, this criteria is saying that players can be well-known in the Wikipedia sense because they have been seen by large numbers of people, rather than having in-depth written coverage. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
      • If you don't have reliable sources to add content to articles, where are you getting the information you are putting in articles? --Jayron32 16:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
        • The issue is notability. If a person is notable enough for an article, then local newspapers, interviews, team websites, and other sources that don't establish notability are fine for content. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
          • That's bass-ackwards. It is the newspapers and interviews and other sources that establish notability. Please read WP:GNG or WP:42 or the like. The lack of reliable, independent source texts is what determines whether or not we have an article. The only reason for the concept of notability to even exist at Wikipedia is to establish if we have enough useful source text to even bother writing the article. If the source text exists, we write it. If the source text does not, we don't. It's not more complicated than that; any confusion caused when understanding the concept of notability at Wikipedia is largely caused by people who couldn't find enough good source text to write articles about things, so tried to create loopholes in this otherwise sensible standard. --Jayron32 18:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
              • Not really, the criteria is significant commentary, beyond WP:ROUTINE. Having a source that says Bob Smith scored two goals in a minor league game in a local newspaper is not the same as a, e.g. Newsweek interview with the person. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
                • That's about content not about notability. We would never write about the performance of a single, routine game in an article about an athlete. If the entirety of a person's life story exists entirely of such writing, then they aren't notable, per WP:GNG, no matter what their job title is. The whole point of notability is to establish that enough good content can be put in an article. You've just brought up an example of content that would never be added to an article. --Jayron32 18:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
      • The sports-specific notability guidelines do not provide a substitute for meeting the general notability guideline. They just provide a buffer to avoid quick deletion when there is very good reason to believe that the general notability guideline can be met. (This was the consensus agreement when the guidelines were created, and it has been affirmed many times since then.) isaacl (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote in an earlier discussion.

Simply put, the caliber difference and the visibility of women's hockey/NWHL in general is what makes the NWHL players less notable than NHL players. The NWHL is a 3 year old league, 5 teams, with a 2.5 million dollar budget, which more or less bring it to par with the NHA. The NHL is over 100 year old, has 31 teams, and is considered the premier hockey league in the world, with revenues in the $2.5 billion range. While NHL teams are exclusively North American, it draws players from all over the world because no other league compares to it. Norway women don't train for years hoping to be part of the NWHL. While the NWHL may want to be the equivalent of the NHL for women, if you compare its status amongst in women's hockey, it falls short of the status of the NHL in men's hockey.

This still applies. When leagues have equal status in a sport, leagues should be treated as equivalent for notability. The top male/female leagues of tennis, badminton, ping pong, curling, bowling, etc... have equal status. The top male/female leagues of hockey, baseball, basketball, football, don't. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't really want to repeat what I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatiana Rafter again, but the short version is that GNG-worthy coverage needed to consider ALL players in the CWHL and NWHL notable is too inconsistent. It is mostly relegated to coverage from the local NHL team's SBNation site, less than that of the NHL team's AHL affiliate, and tends to come from the more blog-like posts on that site rather than the paid editors (SBNation is a bit of mix these days). So the hockey project treats women hockey players on a case-by-case basis for GNG, some of which pass. Having spent some time trying to fix women's team pages this year in the CWHL, I have had a hard time finding reliable sources from as recent as 2010 (as I mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive72#Looking for some clarification) when the CWHL appears to have only been consistently covered in personal blogs until a championship game. As discussed in that AfD, women's hockey gets about as much coverage on its own as a niche sport like water polo or lacrosse (which also do not have a SNG, but there may be other reasons for that). Yosemiter (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, as it pertains to women's teams, they are presumed notable in both the CWHL and NWHL. However, as I pointed out in the above archived discussion, finding reliable references for many of the teams from prior to about 2014 has been quite difficult. I challenge any editor to find what arenas the Quebec Phenix played their home games in reliable refs, without using any wikipedia references (because I had to fix them using recently, it was apparently wrong here for years). Yosemiter (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
A tricky situation here. Should NHOCKEY be gender blind or not, in its application to ice hockey? GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
As much as it pains me to say it, no, it shouldn't. NHOCKEY, like all of NSPORTS, is essentially a shortcut to answering "does this person have enough non-routine coverage to make them notable per GNG?". While playing a game in the NHL or 200 games in the AHL is a pretty good indicator that the person gets non-routine coverage, thanks to bias in public interest (as reflected in the media), the same isn't true for women's hockey. --Ahecht (TALK
) 18:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Then there's the transgenders in ice hockey & how NHOCKEY should deal with them. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so technically gender of the player doesn't actually matter, it's whether they play in a men's leage or a women's league. If a transgender person (or a woman for that matter) played in the NHL or 200 games in the AHL, for example, they would pass NHOCKEY. --Ahecht (TALK
) 16:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Harrison Browne did receive plenty of coverage in the NWHL as transgender, but not really for anything that could be written as a NSPORT-type SNG, just that fact that he was transgender and playing hockey. As for women in the AHL, if it were to happen, they would almost certainly (speculation of course) meet GNG for the rarity of it. In the times that women have played in the pro leagues that are traditionally male (as there are no league bylaws stating a player must be male), they have received coverage for it (Shannon Szabados, Manon Rhéaume). But I am also unaware of any female players that have played in the men's leagues (at any level) that did not also play for an Olympic team anyways. Yosemiter (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I come in here from two directions: first, as a partisan of women's hockey, where I wager I'm one of the few in this discussion to actually have been a season ticket holder for a women's collegiate team (Northeastern University) and certainly the only one to have seen the first woman to play in the American Hockey League (Erin Whitten for the Adirondack Red Wings) ... and second, as the original author of the NHOCKEY guideline. As such, editors like Ahecht and Yosemiter are exactly right. The purpose of NHOCKEY, as with the other NSPORTS guidelines, is solely "does this person have enough non-routine coverage to make them notable per GNG?". At the hockey Wikiproject, we've done extensive examinations -- because this question's been coming up time and time again -- of individual key players, and over and over again, the media just doesn't care. My classic example is that when the Boston team won the inaugural NWHL championship, in a city with intense media and sports coverage, neither of the Boston dailies reported it. It sucks, it's unfortunate, but there are no grounds beyond the ideological to make any changes here. Ravenswing 18:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • As more evidence for what the current SNG implies, I previously linked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Anderson as a subject that failed NHOCKEY 3 months ago, had about 1,000 G-News mentions at the time, and was deleted without argument as WP:TOOSOON and only routine mentions. This is about 4-5 times as much coverage as a typical player in the NWHL that has won an award/achievement (because as Ravenswing said, we have looked into this often). Since being deleted, the subject debuted in an NHL game less than a week ago. The subject now has over 4,000 hits just by stepping on the ice. You do not see that kind of uptick in news coverage for any women's league, which if it did would at least imply that participating in that league presumes any player notability per the GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The current situation for the two women's pro leagues is very much like the infancy of men's pro leagues 100 years ago. Reliable sources for that time period are iffy and few in many cases (look at the player stubs from back then), but NHOCKEY presumes notability for that older era, so there does appear to be a double standard there. Obviously, women's leagues do not get the attention that men's do, but a lot of that is strict repetition of the same stories, games, etc. In women's hockey we are missing an opportunity to be encyclopedic and document this initial period by imposing the same standard on women's that we do on men's. A lot of these women players are pioneers just like those early male players. If we applied the same standard, then most of those early male players probably should not be in Wikipedia. And is that what we really want? I would rather be encyclopedic and over-include than under-include in this instance. Alaney2k (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Alaney2k: I don't necessarily disagree agree with you about the older players, but media coverage from 100 years ago vs. now is apples to pineapples, they sound related but have nearly nothing in common. 100 years ago, media coverage of the pro leagues is somewhat assumed, and when asked, editors have been able to dig out print archives of coverage. The general media was definitely more localized and there was less routine coverage articles as the United States was not as sports obsessed (as there were very few teams in any sports). It somewhat implies that any coverage of a player then would be greater than routine. Obviously, it was also well before the proliferation of blogs and personal editorials causing an over saturation of routine, non-independent, and marginally reliable sources. So maybe that part of the SNG should be removed, but historically-based GNG arguments are always hard to make because a lot of it is that they were likely covered in GNG sources, but it is both difficult to prove or disprove without going to a library. That is most definitely not the case with the NWHL or CWHL, which have only been around for the last 11 years. Yosemiter (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Yosemiter: The content for many of the players for 100 years ago is mostly just stats. A mention of a player back then would basically be termed routine reporting. There were no biographical articles. Often I had to dig that out of obituaries from 50 years later. I'm not pushing for mass inclusion of women or a mass removal of men. I just think we can't apply the same standard to a fully-developed commercialized industry to a nascent one. And as I've pointed out, NHOCKEY already does this for early men's play. It should do something similar for current women's play. NHOCKEY actually is very forgiving to players who've only played a single game in the NHL also. That is a low standard and it certainly undercuts any argument that NHOCKEY is a very good indicator of general notablity. Most single-game players in the NHL from before the 1950s are very difficult to find anything other than very minimal coverage. Alaney2k (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I strongly support this. We're currently at a point where some of the best women's hockey players in the world aren't allowed to have articles because they fail WP:NHOCKEY, and the community at AfD tends to interpret WP:NHOCKEY very strictly. Recently there were several articles deleted that I swear passed WP:GNG with coverage in Sports Illustrated, ESPN, et cetera, for women playing at the highest level of the sport. We don't need to adjust the SNG all that much either - I would propose award winners in the NWHL/CWHL/European leagues and making sure we look at WP:GNG when considering when an article is appropriate as opposed to the strict deletionist interpretation of the SNG. SportingFlyer talk 23:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The women you mention aren't allowed articles because independent reliable sources aren't talking about them, not because of a failing of WP:NHOCKEY, and the purpose of NHOCKEY isn't to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If articles are deleted that pass WP:GNG, that is a failing of WP:AfD, not NHOCKEY (since NHOCKEY says at the top "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)"). --Ahecht (TALK
      ) 16:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    • NWHL awards are not particularly well covered. A cursory google search for the 2017 winners led me to primary sources, blog entries and some local news coverage about the MVP, specifically. I love women's hockey with a passion, but the coverage isn't there. Saying that some top women's players don't qualify doesn't seem correct. If objective sources are calling someone one of the top players in the world, there should be sufficient material to establish notability, regardless of NHOCKEY. Per the example further up - I don't think Harrison Browne passes NHOCKEY, but he has enough coverage for an article. I would support explicit mention in NHOCKEY about what level of women's hockey qualifies (if this hasn't been added already) - which at the moment, I think should be top level international play. Canada Hky (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
      • We actually did a search of award winners and leading scorers for the NWHL awhile back and we couldn't find enough sources on all of them. Now of course some of them had sources, but in order to be a new line in any of the NSPORTS criteria the generally agreed idea is that GNG has to be met for 99.999 percent of the people it applies to. Now I forget how many we found sources for but I think it was more than half of the women's players who had won awards in the NWHL didn't have sources found for them. The media just doesn't cover it. As Ravenswing mentions above, when even the local paper doesn't mention the local team won the championship, its pretty hard to say that media is covering the players when they aren't even covering the team all that much. -DJSasso (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
        • I agree on the lack of reliable coverage for NWHL award winners. I was disagreeing with the previous statement that this means some of the top women's hockey players in the world don't qualify for articles. The top players generally qualify, but not all the NWHL award winners are top players in the world. Canada Hky (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • A typical AfD for a woman hockey player usually goes like this:

      Nomination: Person appears to fail GNG based on lack of significant coverage in independent media, recives many mentions and routine coverage in blogs. Also subsequently fails NHOCKEY by not participating in the senior level IIHF tournament and no Olympic appearances. (paraphrased of course, sometimes it is simply "Fails GNG. Also fails NHOCKEY").

      Comment: They play in the highest level they can play in, should meet the spirit of NSPORT.

      *Reply to Comment: To meet NSPORT, it implies they must meet GNG. No evidence this league receives significant coverage, mostly just mentions and tons of routine coverage from the The Ice Garden (an SB Nation women's hockey blog). See this AfD.

      Keep: But they are a significant person because it is the top level national league. (An NFOOTY phrasing often used, an odd misconception that the coverage of any hockey league is anywhere close to the most popular sport in the world, such as when it was used as a Keep for the Turkish league here.)

      *Reply: See above response about GNG. And there are no "national" pro leagues in North America for hockey. They operate independent of a national governing body and usually have teams in both Canada and the United States.

      Keep: [An assortment of reliable sources, each with a mention or maybe a paragraph/quote from subject].

      *Reply: No real significant depth of coverage in multiple, just mentions.

      And it usually goes on like this ad nauseam. Some are good arguments for borderline coverage, but almost always it comes back to "men at the same level meet the SNG, why not women?" And the simple answer is simply: "Because unfortunately, the general media has decided not cover these teams or players anywhere close to their traditional leagues making coverage too inconsistent to create a hard-set SNG". Yosemiter (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly. We're being asked to treat female hockey players equally with male hockey players, by not treating female hockey players equally (i.e give them exemptions) with male hockey players. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @SportingFlyer:, I'd like to address a comment of yours from a few days back. While other editors answered what I would have, there's a principle here: no one is "entitled" to an article. Leaving aside examples in this discussion how curiously flexible some inclusionists have been in defining "best women's hockey players," there is no group, gender, nationality, ethnicity or faith community entitled to have the provisions of WP:V or WP:GNG waived in their favor, Just Because. Ravenswing 09:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ravenswing: I agree with you. That being said, I think there are players who play in the NWHL who do individually pass WP:GNG who have articles deleted recently. The problem with the "media doesn't cover this!" argument is that it looks at women's hockey as a group instead of looking at the individuals in the group who would pass WP:GNG. I was particularly disappointed with the deletion of the Katie Fitzgerald article, for instance. As I noted above, the bigger issue in my mind is in my experience hockey AfDs are based around whether someone passes the hockey SNG or not and either don't consider GNG or consider non-routine coverage as routine in identifying GNG. SportingFlyer talk 10:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Ref. desk protection[edit]

The current protection level on Reference Desk pages seems to be doing a good job filtering recent vandalism there. Unfortunately it also seems to be deterring people who want to post post legitimate questions there. For comparison, the Math Desk (which is the one I normally monitor) got about a question per day this time last year, but hasn't a new question posted in over a week this year. The protection level seems to be designed for main space article pages, and I assume it works well there, but the Ref. Desk is a somewhat different situation. It seems that most people posting questions to the Ref. Desk have little or no interest in editing articles, and so either have no account or an account with very few edits. So the block is keeping out most of the people the Ref. Desk is there to help. Another issue is that this particular vandal is using tools that the current protection level was not designed to deal with: shifting IP addresses, automated edits, and a large supply of dummy accounts. With a computer doing most if not all of the actual work, the vandal really has no incentive to stop and the vandalism continues again soon after each block is lifted and continues until the next one is imposed. The result is that Wikipedia admins are putting in more work with setting up the blocks and banning accounts than the vandal is in doing the damage in the first place.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but the situation has gone on for over 3 weeks now and there is no sign it will change any time soon. I do have a few ideas, and I'm certain others can come up with more, though I don't know which will be effective or even technically possible. But perhaps some combination will be an improvement over the present situation.

  • Since the vandal seems to have no problem changing to a new IP address or a dummy account, limit the number anonymous/new account edits to only a few per day. This would be equivalent to imposing the current semi-protection block for 8 hours after any such edit. This would help frustrate bot editing but still allow legitimate questions to be asked.
  • Install a 'spam filter' on new edits for the page to automatically revert and ban the author of posts containing certain words. There are ways around this but it should at least ensure that the vandal has to put some work into getting edits saved. Legitimate questions posted should have no problem getting through such a filter.
  • Change the protection level to Pending changes. The people who monitor the reference desks tend to check it frequently so there should be no problem with unprocessed edits.

Unless an alternative is found, I think there will eventually be no choice but to make the current semi-protection level permanent, effectively limiting access to a small minority of the people who might use this valuable service. I don't know if other areas of WP have been attacked the same way, but it appears to me that as more sophisticated tools become available to vandals, WP will need a more sophisticated arsenal to combat them.

(Per WP:DENY I'm keeping this discussion away from the Ref. Desk itself and its talk page, but if it's better placed somewhere else please feel free to move it.) --RDBury (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure how to technically throttle editing in the way you suggest.
    Regarding the filter: It's being done, by This filter. It doesn't work much. The troll is savvy enough to vary their message enough to dodge the filter. Updating the edit filter with new words only serves to cause him to change to new words. It's the manner of attack (repeated, rapid posting of the same message over and over every few seconds) which is the problem. Defeating the edit filter isn't too hard.
    Pending changes doesn't matter; the offending edits are still in the page history, and he uses section headers and edit summaries which are beyond-the-pale offensive and need to be removed immediately. Pending changes leaves all of this visible except to unregistered users, so it's not really useful.
    Good luck in coming up with a better solution. Don't think we aren't trying! --Jayron32 16:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

An utterly unacceptable solution would be to trust the users. For example, you could set up a bot with admin privileges to revert all contributions from a given IP or non-confirmed account to the Refdesks retroactively for 24 hours and block the same account ongoing, and have it take this action whenever anyone on a list of Refdesk regulars (which could be autocompiled, and could be limited to persons with extended-confirmed access) would name the IP on the bot's talk page. Namers would be warned, of course, that it is an offense to make the report frivolously; there'd be criteria. The result would be that any protection or manual admin deletions would be unnecessary.

An even more unacceptable solution, which I prefer far more, is to utterly give up the moral panic about what if somebody looks at the edit history. If you must, have a bot post every 50 edits that everything alleged in this edit history is mechanical bollocks. Let the users clear the spam when/if they see a need. Party like it was 1999 and democracy had a future! Wnt (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

We've got better than a bot, we've got real, live human beings basically doing exactly that! You don't even need to tell them, usually they just take care of it, though sometimes they may not notice it needs taking care of, so we have WP:AIV as a good place to get those people's attention. But generally, this particular troll is noticeable enough that someone usually stops them within a few minutes. --Jayron32 19:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
That would be great if they didn't say it's too much work and they need to permanently semi-protect the desks. But a bot could do what they do immediately, automatically, without the need for such measures. Wnt (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks User:Jayron32 for removing the block early since the spammer seems to be taking a break. I had a feeling that not much could be done in terms of prevention without changes to the infrastructure. But I'm glad to hear that people are at least thinking about the problem. Another idea I was thinking about is to require some kind of reverse Turing test whenever an anon or new user makes an edit. Again, probably not possible with the current infrastructure. (I know that, for licensing reasons, WP refuses to use CAPCHA, but presumably there is some open-source alternative. I haven't created a new account recently so I don't know if one is in place for creating new accounts.) WP can't be the only site that's faced with this kind of problem, so it seems unlikely that a solution doesn't already exist somewhere. --RDBury (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires a CAPCHA for anon and unconfirmed users who add URLs to mainspace articles. --Ahecht (TALK
) 16:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with OP. It is of utmost importance that newcomers not be prevented or discouraged from asking questions. Benjamin (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Just an update, the spammer has returned so the issue is still ongoing. --RDBury (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

From stubs needs reference included[edit]

For the Wikipedia as encyclopedia credibility and respecting the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy I propose the need of at least one reference link in any Wikipedia article. It means a new page should'nt got stub classification without at least one acceptable external link.

This clearly mentioned at one section only - at the end of Wikipedia:Stub#Creating_and_improving_a_stub_article

This has a softer approach "Strongly encouraged" what against the above statements Notability#Notability_is_based_on_the_existence_of_suitable_sources,_not_on_the_state_of_sourcing_in_an_article

  • I am asking the community to agree/ support it and spread this consideration over the guidelines.

Several guides to mention this factor e.g.:

--Rodrigo (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You should clarify that you mean "references"/"citations" not "links" or "external links", since many old and now rather obscure topics will be almost entirely offline or non-indexed. (Indeed, I feel like Google finds less every day). But I do think that given the very harsh treatment that WP:Articles for Creation are given, it makes no sense to let people be posting entirely sourceless new articles at this point. Wnt (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wnt: Link means not only hyperlink, it not certainly a web document. It may refer any written/ recorded document book or known newspaper/ documentary. --Rodrigo (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed works of art naming convention[edit]

New convention proposed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (works of art); discuss at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RFC on works of art naming convention (not here). Dicklyon (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Trans-language editor's rights[edit]

Hello English community! I'm an (ex-)avid editor from your sister Spanish Wikipedia. I was just wondering about the possibility to allow users from other languages to review GA or FA here. You see... in the last years Spanish Wiki has suffered from a decline in editions due to the outflow of editors there. However, I personally found myself so thankful for all the work you do! Many articles that I edited, were translated primarly from here! For that reason, I'll find it very interesting if I could help in some manner towards you. Thanks a lot, for real! --Gtr. Errol (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but you'd be expected to speak English here and apply our GA and FA criteria here. We certainly aren't overflowing with reviewers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Any editor can participate in the GA and FA process, and many more participants are needed. You would just have to learn how the project works here. But once you have done that you are more than welcom to review as many articles as you can.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Hey Gtr. Errol. To add on the above, There are lots of areas where it would be valuable to have increased input from bi-lingual Spanish speaker. I'm working on an article right now where I can't read 90% of the sources. We also have comparatively few bilingual editors active at Articles for Creation, and drafts that rely heavily on non-English sources often take an immense amount of time to get reviewed. We've also got more than 3,000 articles in Category:Articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia. So there's definitely no shortage of work that needs done. GMGtalk 20:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, GreenMeansGo! Well, I'm aware that at any Wikipedia version there's always work to do! I can help you for sure, so why didn't get in touch by writting me what exactly you want me to do? I hope I can be helpful. By the way, I've been abscent for almost 5 years now, so I just edit casually, and not as hardcore as I did some time ago. I'm always amazed by English Wikipedia; it sincerly upholds what really Wikipedia means. --«[Gtr.]» Errol 21:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC on schools' inclusion criteria[edit]

Should Wikipedia have one set of criteria about articles on schools up to and including the high school level and a different set for articles on schools of higher education? (I.e. beyond high school, e.g. universities.) -The Gnome (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


This follows a series of discussions and RfCs in other pages, over the years. (See "Links to relevant threads," herebelow.) This RfC tries to take on the issue of school notability and inclusion of schools articles in Wikipedia slowly and piecemeal. It is posted here following the suggestion that the PUMP is the appropriate place for such a broad-policy question. Editors are encouraged to add to the link-sections below if they believe something is amiss.

List to relevant threads[edit]

List to relevant policies, guidelines, essays[edit]


Notifying editors who got involved in past discussions:


  • No need - Both types of institution should be covered by WP:ORG. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No need every possible article which could ever be written is already covered by WP:42. If a SNG contravenes that principle, it is wrong, and if an SNG agrees with it, it is redundant. --Jayron32 04:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove distinction: they should just comply to WP:NORG. I'd also support removing the pesky exemption from CSD for schools that are patently non-notable. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Need: It is easier with some criteria that can be applied directly to avoid endless discussions about relevant articles that however gets a request for deletion or to avoid creating articles that are clearly not notable. Within sports there are criteria about which competitions or divisions give presumed notability to a player. For schools there are quite good criteria on Swedish Wikipedia (I know that each Wikipedia has its own rules.): sv:Wikipedia:Relevanskriterier#Skolor_och_andra_institutioner_för_lärande and sv:Wikipedia:Att_skriva_om_utbildning#Skolor_och_lärosäten. Hopefully Google translates them reasonable well, but here is a summary:
  1. Universities etc: Presumed to be notable
  2. Secondary schools: In some cases (old ..) presumed to be notable
  3. Primary schools: not notable (should be in the article about the administrative unit to which they belong, as well as the not notable secondary schools)
  4. School buildings: if built by some famous architect
The GNG is quite abstract, so there is need for concrete criteria. Per W (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No need, using NORG for both, per Blueboar/Jayron32. I will point out there have been past attempts to have school-specific notability guidelines, but these never gained consensus (per what Per W is describing). --Masem (t) 06:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Uncertain what to use for specific criteria, if any at all other than WP:GNG. I should however note that simply being verified to exist DOES NOT make any educational institution inherently notable enough to warrant a page. We shouldn't presume something is article-worthy just because it's a college/university/school. Perhaps WP:NSCHOOL could make a more explicit note of this. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if we do need a SNG for schools (I'm leaning towards yes), but I'd rather that we don't allow articles on every single secondary school. There has to be a cut-off somewhere. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes schools are not just ORGs they are a special kind of organization that attract articles. Everyone would like to see their high school and University on Wikipedia. Schools tend to produce notable graduates. They are important infrastructure like highways and town councils and they play an important role in building communities. Wikipedia does a public service by covering schools because it allows some verification that people are listing real schools on their resumes and not diploma mills. I believe every legitimate post sec degree granting school should have a page, while high schools and elementry schools should be covered within a page on their school district. If there is no school district (say an independant/private school) high schools should have pages and elementary schools not. I strongly favor a bright line rule like WP:GEOLAND rather than a fuzzy guideline that results in endless debates about the notability of this or that school, how reliable the sources are and so on. Why is school X notable while school Y across town in the same district is not? Sports and crime stories are going to decide notability if we have a fuzzy rule. Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Everyone would like to see their high school and University on Wikipedia". While that may be true for most, I can recall cases at OTRS where teachers have contacted us asking for the article on their school to be deleted because it is a target for vandalism. Just the other day, I removed some highly derogatory content from Berachampa Deulia Uchcha Vidyalaya that had gone unnoticed for more than a year. This is partly why I think we should focus on quality over quantity with schools articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I lean toward "no need" but am open to being convinced otherwise, mainly because of the years of dispute history involving this stuff. In the views of those who think we need special rules for schools, please explain a) why NORG isn't good enough, and b) why it can't just be fixed in NORG instead of in a probably pointless WP:POLICYFORK that we'd be likely to merge anyway. On the above detailed proposition, I don't agree with Per W's summary. No secondary schools are "presumed to be notable". If one is very old and has a richly detailed RS track record, it is notable because of the RS coverage – it is demonstrated not presumed to be notable. I don't think even universities should be presumed to be notable, since various things call themselves universities that are not one. If something with "College" or "University" or "Institute" in its name turns out to be notable it's because we verified the RS coverage of it and demonstrated it to be notable, not because we presumed it was notable. Mountain ranges and heads of state are presumptively notable because of what they are, of their scope in the grand scheme of things. I agree that primary schools are presumptively non-notable, i.e., that it's going to take really strong RS showing to demonstrate that one is. That said, NORG seems to already have all this covered.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment: Assigning qualitative attributes to higher educational institutions must be the work of sources considered by Wikipedia to be reliable; it's certainly not within an editor's scope of authority since that would be their own, personal judgement. In case no such third-party, independent assessors of higher-education quality exist, we have to decide what to do, in view of what SMcCandlish rightly points out above ("various things call themselves universities that are not one"). -The Gnome (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
      Definitely not an idle concern. I ran into this right before the wikibreak I just returned from (a religious, borderline cult thing that got permission to build a "university" in one country or another, but which is really an indoctrination farm and money-suction device). There is some coverage of it (though probably based on press releases by the religious group and/or the govt. that approved their permits and stuff); an editor unaware of the organization's nature might easily be fooled into assuming it really was an instititution of higher learning. This is very similar to all the charter schools being run by for-profit companies, just with a religious instead of commercial focus.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Clarification:
  1. Universities and colleges: Presumed to be notable
  2. Secondary schools (including defunct institutions): Presumed to be notable
  3. Primary schools: Some AfD's have been ridiculous and overzealous in squashing notability of some lower level schools that have achieved significant coverage. I am frequently astounded at the serial blindness of a certain class of editors who cannot see a long list of sources, obviously achieving the basics of WP:GNG. Instead they only see the hard gospel of a WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, with no room for reason.
Because we have that class of editor roaming the back pages of AfDs (looking to cause trouble), we cannot provide them any further ammunition for their arguments. No wiggle room, no further limitations they can misinterpret as an excuse to censor additional wikipedia content. I will note, on the many school articles I have tried to create or improve, I have not found the same consistent set of sources for school information that are available for other common subjects. Government lists are frequently years out of date and incomplete. Many sources are community generated and don't meet the standard of WP:RS. And the best sources for a specific school ultimately resolve back to WP:PRIMARY where your quality and consistency may vary. I know of probably a dozen or more large schools that have no articles and that have been that way for a decade. Why? The sources to create even the most cursory stub just aren't available to me or anyone else who looks. I've personally written to many schools suggesting they write their own article . . . make it a class project. Tell the world the story of your school and find the local sources to back it up. It has worked a few times, but most of the time it is ignored. With that inconsistency of sources, additional limitations to our criteria are not warranted or useful. Trackinfo (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Please see my comment just above yours. It's highly dubious that any of these things are presumed notable, certainly not below the university level and even that's iffy because not everything with that word in its name is a legit institution. PS: Deletion is not determined by a conspiratorial cabal of roaming troublemakers, but by general community consensus at AfD. If someone makes compelling arguments for deletion and no one can mount a compelling reason to keep then the article should in fact be deleted. You seem to be making an argument against Wikipedia operating the way Wikipedia operates.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No need A key problem with having different rules for different tiers of education is that the institutions within those tiers differ wildly. For instance, while US high schools seem to be huge, Australian ones tend to be relatively small (hence a major issue I have with editors who argue that high schools are automatically notable - maybe they are in the US, but not in Australia). The size of higher education institutions in Australia varies from about 73,000 students at Monash University to dozens at some private sector tertiary education providers, so obviously the same rules can't apply to all. WP:ORG does a good job, and there's no need to treat educational institutions in a special way. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Please close this before it becomes a huge mess like the last RfC on this issue some things are just best not talked about in a large RfC and are best found out through practice. Divisive issues where massive RfCs have consistently not reached any consensus are one of them. Also, NORG explicitly does not apply to schools as was part of the consensus adopting the new standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No point. This is a battle that was lost over a decade ago, and the notion that secondary schools of whatever size or importance are exempt from any notability standards or sourcing requirements is about as set in concrete as any COMMONOUTCOME on Wikipedia. Waste of time and breath to hash it out yet again. Ravenswing 08:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No. In actual fact, the criteria we usually use cover (a) primary and middle schools, and (b) secondary schools and tertiary institutions. We usually consider (b) to be notable and (a) not to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Necrothesp: where are the criteria that are used? --Per W (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No need - Both types of institution should be covered by WP:ORG. But it should be a good idea to get rid of SCHOOLOUTCOMES as it is too often misused as a policy to keep schools, even when horribly written and unsourced. The Banner talk 09:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with TonyBallioni, and I think the specific line he is referring to in WP:ORG is The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions ... (emphasis mine). Mz7 (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The problem with that highlighted sentence is that the ORG guideline subsequently goes into some detail about schools... in fact it has an entire sub-section devoted to them... so (despite the highlighted sentence) it is obvious that schools ARE considered within the scope of the ORG guideline. I think that sentence will need to be removed, but that is for another discussion. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, point taken. Mz7 (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No per Necrothesp's comments. Over six years ago I perused 100s of high school AfDs which I compiled in an essay and concluded that no matter what anyone ever says and how many RfCs and dramafest discussions we have, verifiable high school articles that aren't just a one-sentence piece of crap are almost ALWAYS kept. --Milowenthasspoken 12:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Good survey! So a well-written article (with enough verifiable content) about a high school should be kept. Couldn't we then state somewhere that high schools are presumed to be notable? Then we can avoid lots of discussions. --Per W (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Note that the phrase "presumed to be notable" does not mean "is inherently notable". A presumption of notability simply means we should give a school article the benefit of the doubt... waiting to delete until we have done due diligence in searching for sources (per WP:BEFORE). Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Cordless Larry: See, and that's exactly what I was talking about below, about schools in non-English speaking countries. We delete them because we don't have or can't read the foreign-language sources. But I can guarantee you such schools would have been kept if they were in Anglophone countries. In effect, if we insist on GNG for high schools we are institutionalizing WP:Systemic bias. --MelanieN (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
But if we can't read the sources, then I don't see what we can base articles on. I'm also not sure that the issue is about not being able to read the sources, because we have some regular school AfD participants who have the language skills necessary to read local sources, but rather that the sources often don't exist online, so we can't access them. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Cordless Larry: The only thing I've seen changing is that more articles are being created these days for high schools in far flung non-English speaking places without available online sourcing. Those have always candidates for deletion. When the "are high schools notable?!?" debate began 15 years ago with the VfD for Union County Magnet High Schools, editors were debating mainstream large American high schools. E.g., Jimbo Wales made the argument in November 2003 that Randolph School could have an article. No one would dream of sending something like that to AfD today. I screenshotted the article deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kishorchak Banamali High School, it was unsourced, there was no option but to delete. If someone wants to spend their time on wikipedia tracking down stubs to Indonesian and Indian high schools without sourcing, they will get them deleted.--Milowenthasspoken 14:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, true enough about Kishorchak Banamali High School, which was pretty much my argument there too, Milowent. Some editors will still argue for keep even in such circumstances, however - including admins, which worries me. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep the current understanding: institutions of higher learning (degree granting) and secondary schools (diploma granting) should be presumed to be notable, if there is confirmation of their existence and status. This practice 1) prevents endless arguments because high schools and colleges, like professional sports figures, virtually always turn out in a search to have enough coverage to qualify, and 2) helps to get around our inherent bias against non-English-speaking countries, since even though coverage likely exists, it can be hard to find in the non-English press. MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (@MelanieN:, where is the current understanding? --Per W (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I sincerely doubt that the "current understanding" is that all high schools and above possess inherent notability. But I could be wrong. -The Gnome (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. Agree with MelanieN on all issues. In fact I'd like to take her comment above and frame it somewhere. Hobit (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Different set (NOT NORG) - Secondary schools and definitely accredited universities should be presumed notable status. Classifying them in with WP:NORG is wildly OTT and also sets them a higher level of standards to meet when the circumstances for those stricter requirements is less likely to occur. I haven't marked this as "Keep" like MelanieN since there is such disagreement as well as partial rollback from this position that "Keep" is itself a level of dispute. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No – GNG suffices. Nothing should be 'presumed' notable. If it doesn't meet GNG, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. RGloucester 03:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary, there are many traditional and accepted special guidelines at enwiki that define notability in ways other than GNG - for example, WP:NACADEMICS. This is not a new or startling concept, it is long-established practice; see WP:SNG. There are many special guidelines for specific categories of article that "presume notability" if certain criteria are met - for example, playing a professional sport at the highest level. The rationale behind this presumption is that such people will virtually always be found to have received coverage that meets GNG, so let's just accept that and not get into thousands of individual arguments about it. The nutshell at WP:NSPORTS spells it out very clearly: "An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." That is also the rationale behind presuming notability for high schools and colleges. --MelanieN (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Did you ever consider that perhaps I do not agree with the way such guidelines are used? I'm being asked this question in the context of schools, and in the context of schools, I do not believe anything other than GNG is required. We can discuss sport when someone opens an RfC on that subject. If a school does not meet GNG, it does not need a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a directory. In any case, like others here, I would also be satisfied by bringing schools formally under WP:ORG, if that's preferable. RGloucester 15:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Um... folks... Schools already ARE covered formally under WP:ORG... See WP:NSCHOOLS. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems somewhat ambiguous at the moment, given the "exception of non-profit educational institutions" caveat in the lead. What I meant is that I'd be fine with clarifying WP:ORG to the effect above. RGloucester 16:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
For the sports-specific notability guideline in particular, it does not define notability in a way other than the general notability guideline. It provides guidance on when it is highly likely that the general notability guideline can be met with a sufficient search for suitable sources. It was discussed last year in this venue, and the closing statement once again affirmed this in the context of WP:NSPORTS (as has been discussed many times since, the closing statement overstepped in its broader conclusions for all subject-specific notability guidelines). isaacl (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
That's correct, and also applies to virtually all other SNG (subject-specific notability guidelines). There are a handful of divergent ones, like WP:NACADEMIC, and the level of consensus they enjoy is disputed. For the record, I think we need them in some cases when facts about the real world make it otherwise more difficult to have the articles we need – e.g. the fact that mega-influential scientists in their field often get no mainstream news coverage of any kind, just get cited thousands of times by other researchers. But it's a rare divergence from GNG. It will take a lot of community input to figure out whether such a variance should apply to a topic, and will require a community consensus that something is quite different about that topic. We've been over schools so many times I don't think consensus is likely to change in favor of doing so. They aren't different in any salient way from other organizations, other than they inspire some Wikipedians to consider them "important". (Anyone new-ish around here: see WP:Notability/Historical and WP:ITSIMPORTANT for how "include it because it's important" has been received by the community for the last decade and a half.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes: Need separate standards to facilitate discussion and consensus - Many of the comments above don't answer the question being posed, namely, whether there should be separate standards for high schools and post-secondary institutions. I think there should because it will facilitate a more focused discussion. Even for those think that WP:NOTABILITY, WP:ORG and other guidelines adequately cover the field, should recognize that others disagree and have reasons for that disagreement. Those reasons (and the objections to them) are, I think, different for high schools and universities, and it would be helpful to discuss them separately, acknowledging (at least) the possibility of different guidelines for each. My (admittedly brief) involvement and review of past attempts to reach consensus makes it clear that the differences make discussing any particular proposal more difficult.Federalist51 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment There may be some validity to "schools being an important part of the infastructure". However living in Detroit, Michigan I live in a place where there have been several fly-by-night charter high schools, so I am less convinced than some that all schools that are at the high school level are notable. I also have seen way too many articles that have only been sourced to show a place exists survive on the theory better sources could be found, while no one even tries to find such sources. We need much clearer policies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    Agreed on both points. We have no policy or guideline suggesting that schools of any kind are presumptive notable, and a clear guideline (WP:NORG#Schools) stating the opposite, yet some AfD respondents persist in trying to presume their notability.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No need for yet more bureaucracy and instruction creep and oppose the desire and intent to override clear consensus at AFD by shovelling on more and more red tape Atlantic306 (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    If, instead of vagueness, some kind of "clear consensus" exists either way, it would be most helpful for the conduct of AfD participants, as well as for this RfC's progress, to have hard, arithmetical data. -The Gnome (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Of what? There's no doubt that we have a clear consensus; it's codified at WP:NORG#Schools. This is rehash is just another thing that needs to be listed at WP:PERENNIAL.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Atlantic306 claims that there is "clear consensus at AfD" (emphasis added], but this is previcely the root of the problem. Although WP:NSCHOOLS seems adequately clear (it's not entirely clear, since it asks for A or B or A&B), the recent historical record in AfDs shows that decisions can go, actually, every which way depending on who takes part in each discussion, what is the subject's nationality, etc. And this is how and why the quest for clarity started. The background is in the links in the Relevant Threads section above. It all has come down to whether or not the criteria should be the same for both high schools and colleges of any kind. And here we are. -The Gnome (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

General discussion[edit]

  • FYI, pings don't go above the count of 50. I'd guess the above ping-o-mat didn't get every one (I wasn't hit). --Izno (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, Izno. I'd appreciate any help from anyone in fixing this. I should note here that these were not pings per se but mere full-style usernames. Perhaps that helps. Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Linking to userpage is a ping, the above did not go through because the count is above 50. Instead of trying to fix that I would advise to just remove the section, it's unnecessary. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Would it work to break the list into smaller groups of pings? Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but even then not in one edit. Each smaller group if they'll add up beyond 50 in one edit, it won't work. My rough count shows there's around 120 editors above; so you can ping batch of 40 in 3 separate edits. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, all. I'll get to it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Sad to say, that probably didn't work. Each edit has to be signed - see WP:PING Note that the post containing a link to a user page must be signed; if the mention is not on a completely new line with a new signature, no notification will be sent. (Multiple mentions on the same new line with new sig are fine.) (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I did the multiple, signed edits. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Ammarpad, IMVHO the issue is quite important and participants in past discussions on it should be informed of this RfC's opening. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The Gnome's ping worked that time 8 mins ago. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation, Graeme Bartlett. -The Gnome (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if all the pings worked (I was notified) I just think you should have called it pingamajig. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Noted for next time, Ivanvector! Face-smile.svg -The Gnome (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • An obvious thing, maybe, but if language is changed, we need grandfathering of existing school articles , giving them say, 2-3 years of time before they are treated under NORG/GNG under this potential change. --Masem (t) 17:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, 24 months is probably the way to go. My heart bleeds at the thought of having a deluge re-enter AfD. Nosebagbear (talk)
  • What is the driver in this discussion? What is the problem if a few less notable schools are included - are the servers running out of space? Policies and uniformity should support and enhance the information in the encyclopaedia, not reduce it. As a final aside; when I see the acres of text devoted to arguing fine (if not irrelevant) points I do wonder if the time could not have been better spent working on articles. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, Martin of Sheffield. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are evidently not driven by web space availability; otherwise, we would have significantly fewer rules and guidelines. The "driver" of this discussion is quite clear, as one could see by diving into past discussions on the issue, linked above. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
You haven't explained why you feel the need to remove information though. It reads as if you are just trying to establish rules because you believe there need to be rules. Quoting conflicting policies as if they were reasons appears on the surface to indicate a bureaucratic rather than encyclopaedic approach. I would suggest that a better approach is only to disallow that which harms the encyclopaedia, and I have yet to be convinced that a few lines about an otherwise obscure school (which will of course be notable to many thousands of present and former pupils, parents and teachers) harms the encyclopaedia. Verifiability is important as a safeguard of our credibility but notability is a subjective assessment. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, Martin of Sheffield. I did not express any kind of "need to remove information." Where do you get that? (If what you say comes from a hard inclusionist perspective I will not entertain it much, thank you. It simply does not pay to argue with editors who insist that all information has a place in Wikipedia, e.g. "Come on, some stub article about a non-notable subject does not harm the encyclopaedia".) But, more importantly, if the policies are indeed "conflicting", as you say, isn't this a reason to resolve the conflicts and get clarity? -The Gnome (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a perennial subject of discussion, and has been for a decade or more. Looking at the list above I see that it has been discussed at least three times in the last year, and this is a fourth. In one of those discussions, namely this one, the closers decided that even though the opinions for-and-against NSCHOOLOUTCOMES were about equally balanced numerically, the conclusion was to overturn that longstanding practice. Then people seized on that one (out of dozens) discussion and its barely-supported* conclusion to change the wording at various guidelines to say that, hey, secondary schools aren't presumed notable after all. Looking at the discussion here, I see that opinion is still about evenly balanced, and that many/most of us were not even aware that the longstanding guideline had been overturned on the basis of one RfC. This is immensely frustrating. How are those of us who care about this supposed to keep up? If I wouldn't have known about this discussion, either, except for the ping-o-mat kindly sent out above (thank you, The Gnome). --MelanieN (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
*Quoting from the closure: "Based on the discussion, we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this stops short of a rough consensus. Whether or not the community has actually formed a consensus to reject the statement posed in the RFC is a distinction without a difference." --MelanieN (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Partial blocks and bans[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab): More appropriate there, per user suggestion

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Funplussmart (talkcontribs) 20:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Small logos and svg[edit]

Sorry to bring this up again, but I never got a good answer the many times I asked:

We upload a logo. It is too big. We reduce it to something like 200x200 so nobody can use it commercially. Then someone tags it for conversion to svg. That format allows it to be any size, high quality, highly reproducible.

Is there a link to the discussion that makes sense of this? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anything has changed since you asked this question in 2015 at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 119#Non-free image resolution.
A summary, for those seeing this for the first time: Non-free SVGs have long been a point of contention, and I'm not aware of any past conversations that have reached a firm consensus. Some past discussions include:
There are generally three factions in such discussions:
  1. Non-free vector images are ok as long as they don't contain detail that isn't needed to render at appropriate sizes.
  2. Non-free vector images are never ok because simple shapes (such as circles) can be rendered at arbitrary sizes without pixelization artifacts.
  3. Non-free vector images are only ok if they were created by the copyright/trademark holder, even if the editor-created SVG generates an image indistinguishable from the official logo when rendered at appropriate sizes.
I subscribe to the first view, and IMO that's the view that mostly has consensus. HTH, although I suspect it doesn't help all that much. Anomie 14:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The way NFC had treated these is that the only allowable SVG that are non-free are logos in SVG or equivalent form (like EPS) publicly made available by the company/entity that would have appropriate ownership of that label (for example, a parent company with a subsidiary's logo). The rationale for this is that normally non-frees must be of small resolution, so SVG is already an incompatible format with that. But if a entity publishes its logo in an SVG format, we have allowed that to be uploaded and used as logos. We do not allow any other recreations of non-free logos into SVG from a non-SVG format, so anyone asking for a conversion of a logo to SVG should be immediately denied due to this. Recreations can introduce elements that were not a part of the original logo or mis-represent the logo, and that's a problem. (That's why it's okay with those logos that fail to pass the threshold of originality and fall into uncopyrightable, because their reproduction should not introduce any misrepresentation). --Masem (t) 14:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I was trying to head off another round of everyone just repeating what they always say... Sigh. Anomie 03:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Masem's summary of the NFC take (assuming it's accurate :-) is actually helpful for anyone not already mired in that discussion.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know Masem's view is just another view, which I had already summarized as #3. As for an "NFC take", the only thing I see on WP:NFC is concern about taking a vectorized logo from a third-party site because that might be subject to two copyrights (on the image itself and on the SVG "code"). It says nothing about editor-created vector images with any potential "code" copyright explicitly released as PD or licensed under a free license (which, technically, may be freer, like a freely-licensed photo of a copyrighted sculpture versus a non-free photo by the sculptor), and says nothing about any concern over recreations "introduc[ing] elements". Anomie 13:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Didn't follow the whole thing, and I don't particularly care how it's resolved, but how about non-free SVGs are converted to low-res PNGs? Much like a lot of free PNGs are converted to SVGs? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
FREER (which you mentioned) is meant to capture what I've described. The only thing it really doesn't say is about that this use of SVG should only be for logos, no other non-free SVG is allowed. --Masem (t) 15:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for the comments. I know I've been a bit slow to understand this. Actually, I still do not. Perhaps an individual case will help me. What about this image: File:UofTsystem seal.svg

Thanks, and thanks for your patience with me. I'm really struggling to understand. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? If I uploaded a png of File:UofTsystem seal.svg that was 400x400, it would be fuzzy and unusable commercially, and it would be tagged for reduction to 200x200. So, is pretty darn sharp File:UofTsystem seal.svg, not only allowed, but someone spent time replacing the old fuzzy with that one. None of this makes sense to me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and what's the point of svg? To save server load? Well, we have tons of photos in articles. What's a 200x200 photo to a server? And this conversion takes time for users to do. Plus, they are commercially usable. We waited years for a freebie of Kim Jong Un because of non-free rules. Now we have zillions of high res svgs. And this has been going on for years without getting sorted out.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with file space, but by non-free policy. SVGs are scalable vector graphics, meaning they could have infinite resolution. We can force a resolution by converting it to a PNG or other image format of a specific size, but we cannot convert a PNG back to a SVG as that conversion is lossy in that fashion, outside of actually recreating the SVG from drawing over the PNG, but that's a step we do not allow.. We do not want editors using non-free SVG in general due to the infinite scaling factor, but we have exceptional cases for logos of an entity provided by that entity. --Masem (t) 07:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Masem. I think I understand. So, the only svgs we have are ones provided by the organizations? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
According to Masem. As far as I know there has never actually been consensus on that. Anomie 21:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
"Resolution" of an SVG makes about as much sense as asking about the pixel size of an audio file or a text excerpt. Anomie 21:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
For audio files we also look at things like encoding quality (and why we use both an open source encoder and require that be set at very lossy settings for non-free files). The resolution of SVGs is infinite, which is a problem for when we seek low resolution non-free. --Masem (t) 05:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Baidu Baike is NOT a Reliable Source[edit]

I am a Chinese Wikipedian and I find that in English Wikipedia there are a number of articles about Chinese people and firms citing Baidu Baike as reference. Though many about China can be found on Baidu Baike, which is much "larger" than Wikipedia considering NUMBERS of items included, in fact, Baidu Baike itself are thought to be unreliable in China so that in Chinese Wikipedia it hasn't and will never appear in reference lists. Citing Baidu Baike is no better than citing Wikipedia.

I suggest not using Baidu Baike as a reference anymore. GnolizX (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@GnolizX: Welcome to the English Wikipedia. From my understanding, Baidu Baike is a user generated source, which our reliable sourcing guidelines already recommend not using. That said, the English Wikipedia is too large for anyone to properly monitor, so new users do sometimes add it without knowing about our reliable sourcing guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Then what to do with those articles having already cited Baidu Baike? Will there ever be a robot that can automatically remove the Refs? Just search "百度百科" and we'll get lots of articles with this problem. This is much more terrible because these pages may later be translated to other languages. GnolizX (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
If there is a consensus that they are all without exception damaging and useless, you could ask addition to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
But exception exists, for example, Baidu Baike is cited in Baidu Baike to explain its policy. GnolizX (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Exceptions can be made for specific addresses. Citing Baidu on its own article about its own policy would be an acceptable use and would qualify for an exception. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
There are currently 2928 pages on English Wikipedia linked pages and also 643 pages linked pages according to Special:LinkSearch although a few of them are user pages or talk pages, or as an intermediate source for fair use images source. Someone probably need to check all 3500 of them and remove most of them. Amazingly someone linked it as source on reference desk. C933103 (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah what an amazing number.... So the next step is, that all the 3500+ pages need to be checked... by human beings??? GnolizX (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The number is closer to 1900 in mainspace. You can make a WP:Bot request to remove uses. I think there is at least one bot that will do it.
There are at least 600 other pages which reference also which may not be appropriate, as from my review of Baidu the company does not much reliable to say--but that would definitely need human review. I would support blacklisting the domain given the quantity. --Izno (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The links should not just be removed, but instead replaced by other references to support the statements in the articles. If the statement is untrue, then it should be removed along with the bad reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
When I have done this previously for what was a patently unreliable source, I simply replaced the offending ref with {{cn}}. --Izno (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
We have a page somewhere for listing unreliable sources that are also popular magazines and websites. I think it's also used for generating blacklist entries.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Part of the problem is it can be difficult to know what exactly is being supported by this unreliable source - for example in Second Sino-Japanese War it is one of nine! references supporting the fact that the Republican Chinese employed suicide tactics against the Japanses - it takes someone who can look at the sources, most in Chinese, to see what can be kept and what removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Baidu Baike is a phenomenally lousy source and should never be allowed here. It is a wiki and where the content there is sourced, the sources are often rubbish. Maybe blacklisting it should be considered.

Can we have a bot replace <ref></ref> with {{cn}} or some other solution? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm totally for blacklisting and throwing out a bot to replace citations with CN tags but don't those discussions usually happen at WP:RSN? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ian.thomson. I suppose so. What should we do? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • For other baidu URL, is a IM tool with blog which is usually not a reliable source, and is an online forum which are also not a reliable source, is a self-publishing platformwhich is mostly not a reliable source (note that it might also be used by some organization/etc.), and is a document sharing platform (source might be reliable if the citation format is changed to cite a proper URL) C933103 (talk) 08:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I started a post here at RSN. I suggest we hat this to prevent the discussion from taking place in two places at once. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"Increase" and "Decrease" in rank.[edit]

As discussed in Template talk:Infobox website#AlexaRank, currently some Wikipedia use "decrease" to indicate improvement in rank. For instance, If a website was previously ranked #10 in certain ranking, and it now become the #1 site in the world, then editors would put a Positive decrease symbol next to the rank to indicate its ranking have been "decreased" from #10 to #1. However to me it seems like the interpretation doesn't make sense, as the ranking of the website was actually increased from the #10 to #1. Wouldn't it be better to use the Increase symbol to show the website gained places in ranking? C933103 (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Why not simply use “rise” and “fall”? Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The OP is saying that it's counter-intuitive to indicate an improvement with a "down" arrow. I would tend to agree. Not sure whether this qualifies as forum shopping, maybe a discussion notice here would have been better? ―Mandruss  13:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Strongly concur with C933103 and Mandruss. Furthermore, this is against MOS:ICONS. We never use icons in ways that can be misleading to readers.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"High rank" means a small number, and "top rank" means the first in rank. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Transcluding article content into other articles[edit]

At Joseph Gordon-Levitt part of the Hitrecord section is transcluded from another article. Something similar happens at Transgender#Scientific studies of transsexuality. I had never come across this before in article space. There is a help page Wikipedia:Transclusion, which mentions the Gordon-Levitt article as an example. There are also templates Template:Transcluded section (links 735 articles [6])and Template:Transcluding article (links 11 articles [7]) so it is used somewhat. Zinc is a featured article and uses it for the common cold section. It seems odd and while I would enjoy using it to keep consistency in articles from areas I edit I think it could have some drawbacks. It makes the assumption that the content should always exactly match the transcluded article and makes editing the target sections difficult. It also means that changes made to another article would affect an article you watchlist without notifying you. There may be others too. I am curious as to whether there are any guidelines or policies to using this technique or if it is just used so little that most editors are, like me until now, unaware that it was viable. AIRcorn (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Transclusion is heavily used in entertainment-related articles. For an example see MOS:TVOVERVIEW in the guidelines for writing about television programs: If a separate List of episodes article exists, the series overview table should be presented at the top of that article below the lead, in a section labeled "Series overview", then transcluded to the episodes section at the main article. This sometimes leads to problems with references, if named references are used but the full reference is not in the transcluded section. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
In general I don't think it is a good idea due to the problems mentioned above, and the confusion it causes to editors. However I don't think we need a policy to support or preclude it. Using templates transcluded into the two articles seems better than transcluding one into the other. This will prevent edits on one article trashing the other. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Should BAG members have an activity requirement?[edit]

Please comment at the RFC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

MILHIST guidance pages[edit]

A discussion is currently underway at Wikiproject Military History concerning guideline status of the MILHIST Content guide and Notability guide. –dlthewave 21:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Single use templates[edit]

There is a discussion over at WT:Template namespace § Single use template that would probably benefit from broader input. Anyone here is welcome to contribute or advertise it more broadly. Or you can ping me and let me know where else I should put a notice. Thanks, and happy editing. YBG (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal/RfC: Should we allow WP:PROD in the draftspace?[edit]

There is clearly not any consensus in favor of the proposal. --Jayron32 04:31, 19 November 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.

After what is turning out to be an unsuccessful proposal at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal/RfC - Extend WP:U5 to the draftspace, I have come up with something new. I reckon that we should allow proposed deletions in the draftspace. This will ensure that things like WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTHOWTO trash can be PRODed instead of having to go into WP:MfD. Also, WP:PROD has a seven-day wait most of the time before the page is deleted so it can mean that things can be deleted after seven days with proposed deletions in the draftspace without having to go to WP:MfD for basic things like WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTHOWTO which have no chance and obviously will get deleted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we have that discussion already fairly recently? Regards SoWhy 16:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @SoWhy: I don't think we had that discussion recently. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm certain we have. I've been trying to find it since this was posted, though, and "draft" and "proposed" and "deletion" and even "prod" are all so commonly mentioned on VP in unrelated contexts that it's effectively impossible to search for. There's this, but I don't think it's what I'm remembering. —Cryptic 17:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nobody watches drafts aside from the page creator in the vast majority of cases, so if they're inactive in those 7 days, this is basically just an easy all-purpose deletion timer. There's already an issue with our existing policies and guidelines being pushed too far and blatantly misapplied. PROD has even less oversight than CSD or MfD, because in CSD an admin is responsible to make sure it qualifies; PROD is just a countdown. The fact remains that almost nobody will ever see a page in draftspace, so there's little urgency to delete edge cases (those which aren't obviously problematic enough to qualify for existing CSD). As I said in my opposition to the other proposal, the benefit to deleting drafts that aren't obvious candidates for CSD is minimal (which isn't to say non-existent), but far, far less benefit than deletion of a problematic mainspace page. On the other hand, the potential damage to new user experience is the same. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rhododendrites, especially on the point of user experience. Also would like to add that no draft that is not accepted at AfC has any chance ever, as they all get cleaned out after 6 months by G13 anyways. I don't understand the need to proliferate redundant deletion mechanisms. A2soup (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rhododendrites and A2soup. WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTHOWTO are subjective and not everything that could be deleted that way should be - they could be fixed, or moved to user, help or project space (depending on subject). The problems with using WP:NOTWEBHOST as a deletion criterion have been explained to you at length in the CSD proposal and you've seemingly either not listened or not understood. Vandalism can and should be speedily deleted under criterion G3 and spam can and should be deleted under criterion G11 - as repeatedly explained in your previous proposal. One of the major failings of that proposal was a lack of demonstrated need, and you've not even attempted to demonstrate the need for this one either. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • We need this so that instead of taking drafts that can be obviously deleted to WP:MfD and flooding it, a PROD tag can be applied and it can be deleted after seven days. We are talking proposed deletion which isn't speedy deletion. The seven days also give time to the creator to address the problems of the draft and if the creator wants to improve it, the PROD tag can be removed. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Say, for example, that you have a draft that is clearly WP:NOTESSAY but not covered by existing CSD criteria. Either the creator is interested in keeping the draft or the creator is not interested in keeping the draft. If the creator is interested in keeping the draft, they will remove your PROD tag and MfD will be necessary if you wish to seek deletion (personally I think we should let such drafts stick around, but that's a different question). If the creator is not interested in keeping the draft, it will be deleted per G13 in 6 months anyways. The only function of your proposal is to accelerate the G13 timeline. This is 100% redundant and therefore WP:CREEP, and also the RfC that created G13 clearly showed no consensus for a shorter timeline. A2soup (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
        • G13 is for any draft that has not been edited for six months or more. This is not how PROD will work so it is not redundant and PROD can be declined by any admin if there is no valid reason for deletion. Just because a draft is declined, it doesn't mean that a PROD tag should be added. This is not how this proposal works. For example, if you see a homework assignment in the draftspace, then a PROD tag can be added instead of taking it to MfD and it should be deleted that way. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my more eloquent colleagues. ~ Amory (utc) 19:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This would serve no purpose whatsoever. A draft that is not defamatory, a copyvio, or otherwise a speedy case, can sit in draftspace forever, provided it is worked on from time to time. The reason for this is that it is possible that it might eventually be improved enough to merit being an article. The rule allowing for deletion of abandoned drafts already works with respect for those that are not improved. bd2412 T 19:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @BD2412: So, even a WP:NOTESSAY or WP:NOTHOWTO or WP:NOTWEBHOST violations "might eventually be improved enough to merit being an article"? Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Looks like the fourth or fifth failed proposal. Hopeless at creating proposals. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
        • If the subject matter is not a speedy case, than any of those situations might resolve into encyclopedic coverage of a subject. bd2412 T 19:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Keep in mind "creating proposals" is not an end in itself. Your value to the encyclopedia comes from your work to improve it, not your work to modify its policies. I think you will find working to improve the encyclopedia a more fulfilling and rewarding pursuit. A2soup (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I've in the past supported DraftPROD, but someone else made the point that a DraftPROD would get even less oversight, i.e. traffic, than mainspace PRODs. The underlying problem here is the sheer amount of garbage in draftspace, the overfilling of MfD with junk drafts, and the problems existing with the G13 criterion. For that reason I would be against a DraftPROD, per se, but would support Draft-specific CSD. PrussianOwl (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @PrussianOwl: I'm not convinced that MfD is being overfilled - almost all of what was there from draftspace was either not uncontroversially supported for deletion or being deleted for subjective reasons, both of which are incompatible with any form of CSD. Indeed in all the recent discussions nobody has even attempted an objective definition of "junk" or explained why waiting for G13 is actually problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
      • "Junk" is basically the useless stuff that lies in the draftspace like WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTWEBHOST stuff that is a waste of time for AfC reviewers to have to go through and has no chance of improvement. This also applies to homework assignments which I have seen quite a few of in the last couple of days. It's the stuff which floods pending AfC drafts everyday which is literally a waste of time to go through and the worst thing is that it is even more of a waste of time for those useless drafts (or "junk") to be re-submitted again and again. I will still keep the RfC open for the new draft-specific CSD but this is another idea if the other doesn't succeed. However, by the looks of it, both won't succeed. A AfC reviewer can spend time better look into a draft which looks promising and the creator is willing to spend rather than "junk". Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
        • That's a definition of junk but it doesn't even approach being an objective one. NOTESSAY and NOTWEBHOST are subjective guidelines, "useless stuff", "waste of time", "no chance of improvement" are all inherently subjective on their own let alone when sat on top of oneanother. Homework assignments come in many, many different forms some blindingly obviously not encyclopaedia material but some that could easily become so, meaning it's not a useful criterion for this. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as a step in the right direction. What we need is for deletion in draftspace to operate using meaningful criteria rather than the delete-everything-after-six-months logic. – Uanfala (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose another deletionist proposal. It's the thin end of the wedge for those who want to delete the entire wiki! OK, that was silly, but generally speaking there is no benefit to moving further in the deletionist direction. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Draft space is a safe place to incubate drafts - I don't have any problems in theory with expanding the type of things which can be speedy deleted in draft space, but PROD for any draft article would invite disaster IMO. SportingFlyer talk 01:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the draft is supposed to be a building space - so of course articles frequently won't be appropriate. Additionally, since it's not an article usually the only watchlisted editor is the creator. What if they don't log-in for a week? Not to mention how overwhelmed a DraftPROD would be - the drafts would never get a fair glance at. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose yet more beauracracy, no need for quick removals from draftspace where they are supposed to be given more time for development and the poor content is out of view of most of the public Atlantic306 (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for basically the same reasons I opposed the U5 extension. If G10, G11, or G12 doesn't apply, then there's absolutely no reason not to leave stuff in draftspace until the G13 clock eventually rolls around. Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose G13s and Speedy deletes at MFD seem to work just as well. JC7V (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Drafts do not get the same watchers as articles, so it would mostly be a death sentence for negligent writers. MFD at least gets a central discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment MfD is not overrun NOT for lack of junk to MfD but for lack of dedicated volunteers willing to clean up the vast piles of junk. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Stale_drafts for a huge list of spam, webhost, attack pages etc, and even a few good topics. Legacypac (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • None of which is evidence that PROD for draft space or expanding speedy deletion to a subjective subset are anything like good ideas. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Legacypac: I think a better proposal to help deal with that particular backlog would be to expand G13 (delete after six months with no edits) to pages with {{Userspace draft}}, which is a much more reasonable proposal than expanding PROD. The technical deletion of userspace pages for inactivity is a bit more controversial than deleting draftspace pages, but since there's a dedicated group going through stale userspace drafts looking for anything worth salvaging, it might be a bit more palatable. Perhaps offer a {{do not delete}} tag that could be placed by any editor interested in retaining it for whatever reason? Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per everyone above - The current process(es) works fine IMHO. –Davey2010Talk 23:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose there is no need for this and it will cause many, many, many, many more problems than it will solve. Jacona (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
We don't need to be using PRODs in draftspace.
  • Oppose per the above. If a draft is WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTHOWTO, etc. and is submitted for review, we decline it, not delete it. I think that's kind of the point of draftspace. SemiHypercube 02:48, 19 November 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.

Discussion of cross-referencing COMMONNAME and MOS[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Clarifying that UCRN is not a style policy

Purpose: A proposal, which would not substantively change any policy in any way, to add a cross reference from WP:Article titles (AT) to WP:Manual of Style (MoS), specifically in WP:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names (UCRN a.k.a. COMMONNAME). AT and the naming convention pages have numerous cross-references to MoS, but one is not present in this section, despite WP:Requested moves (RM) discussions most often being about style matters and determined by MoS (unless the base name is more seriously wrong for WP:CRITERIA policy reasons). Lack of such a cross-reference has led to a great deal of avoidable confusion and repetitive conflict.

Rationale summary: The purpose of the cross-reference is to help new editors understand our policies and guidelines relating to stylistic questions as they apply to article titles. Many editors incorrectly cite UCRN for matters not covered there but at MoS, and even do strange things like argue that MoS can't apply to titles, or that it's in conflict with AT, when of course we apply MoS to titles every single day, and parts of it are specifically about them. RM is the most frequent use of many MoS guidelines, including virtually everything in MOS:TM (trademarks). Our naming conventions guidelines that deal with style (WP:NCCAPS, etc.) are derived from and summarize the corresponding MoS guidelines. The only reason for any perceived rules conflict is lack of a cross-reference from one page to another. It's actually aberrant for us to lack one in this section.

Update: One actual policy change has been proposed in this thread, which would actually make AT become a style policy on a particular point. This is not part of the original cross-reference proposal. If you wish to support or oppose one proposal but not the other, please be clear as to which.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Citation styles[edit]

Should Wikipedia:Citing sources have an explanatory guideline with a set of accepted citation/footnote styles, with the lists of allowed formats and structures to be decided by future RfCs? Jc86035 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey (RfC: Citation styles)[edit]

  • Tentative support. Allowing virtually any citation/footnote style to be used can be unnecessarily confusing for contributors, especially new users: while various citation formats are widely used in the English-language publications of many disciplines, and there is obviously good reason for different formats to be used in Wikipedia articles, obscure styles and little-used templates like {{ran}} can make it more difficult for contributors to add to the articles in which they are used. The lack of guidance has also resulted in a lack of consistency in reference group names, mostly for footnotes and primary sources ("note 1", "notes 1", "n 1", "‡ 1", "a", "A", ...). Jc86035 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as long as there is a documented mechanism to review adding additional styles as needed to the list. Ideally, certain more obscure formats should indicate which topic areas they should or should not be used on. --Masem (t) 18:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, per Masem. If any style that is currently used in a topic area is being discussed for inclusion on the list then editors working in that topic area should be explicitly invited to take part in the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – there needs to be a centralized plan to learn how the different styles work, and to suggest not using odd variants. Dicklyon (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Who determines whether a variant is “odd”? Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Blueboar: per the opening post in the RfC, which styles are allowed, which are not allowed and which are allowed only in certain areas will be determined by consensus of future discussions. This RfC is only about establishing the framework so as to avoid objections to specific styles being on one or another list don't derail the whole lists (if there is a consensus for the lists) and/or to avoid wasting time discussing which should be where (if there is consensus against the lists). Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a huge can of worms - while there is probably some benefit in reigning in some of the more "unusual" citing standards, this has the potential to result in a lot of bad blood and pain if not handled perfectly. We have WP:CITEVAR for a reason .Nigel Ish (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The standards should be stated and a move made towards the preferred style, and all those variants can be gradually converted to something that looks and works in a consistent way. Failure to use the styles is not necessarily and problem for the editor or article, but instead an opportunity to get it done in a better way. Certainly for FA standard there should be a preferred citation style to use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Questions:
  1. is this meant to require citations being added in specific formats? We've always accepted plain text or bare URLs as references, as long as enough information is provided to identify the source;
  2. is this meant to be a sitewide requirement policy, or just a best practice/manual of style? I.e. are we going to start trying to sanction editors who use a different citation format? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
My impression is that we "accept" almost anything, but that we also advise converting to a recommended and consistent style. We even have bots trying to to that for bare URLs for example. Style guidance points the way to go, but doesn't hit anyone over the head for not going that way. Dicklyon (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
My reading of how this is proposed is when we are talking an article at GA or FA. An article is progress is going to likely have a lot of variation in style, include bare URLS, which is fine - our citation approaches are highly complex and not easy to parse. But once you start talking quality, then a consistent style, and ideally one supported by consensus should be used. Certainly early on in an article's development, editors should be aware of what citation style to go for to minimize the pain of updating all the styles at the point of GA/FA. --Masem (t) 21:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector, Masem, and Dicklyon: No, this probably shouldn't be a requirement – the actual policy change might be something like "please use these styles and formats; if an article doesn't use a listed style or a listed format then the article may be changed so that it does". I've changed the RfC question (it originally said "include a list of", which would have been inappropriate for a policy). Jc86035's alternate account (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Much better. As per Dicklyon we need to accept poor references, particularly from newbie editors, and then seek to improve them. It doesn't take much effort to bring up a bare URL and generate a {{cite web}} or {{citation}} and the associated <ref>/</ref> or {{sfn}} reference. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I guess I don't know what's proposed to change. It's already recommended (and best practice for featured content) to be consistent within an article. Is the proposal just for making a list of suggested citation styles? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. WP:CREEP. Violates the spirit and principle of WP:CITEVAR. I use non-code Chicago Manual of Style footnotes. Honestly, we are lucky if bare URLs get filled out at all, and editors who use ReFill don't even give the date or publication of the citation. There are variety of stylebooks for citations, and even the more revered ones vary between themselves. There's no reason to force people to choose from a list of "allowed" styles. This is just going to lead to more trouble and edit-warring. We can certainly give examples/samples, but to enforce a list of "allowed" choices is just asking for trouble, and edit-wars galore. Softlavender (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Even stronger oppose. We have over 2000 different citation templates, all of which are currently "approved", plus all the non-template hand-formatted citations. I would support it if we picked a single wiki-wide citation format and deprecated all others, as the short-term disruption of mass conversion would be justified by the long-term stability of an end to arguments over WP:CITEVAR and confusion about which style to use on any given article, but I can't see anything good coming of a proposal to allow whichever small handful of editors bothers to turn up to an RFC to unilaterally decide that some of those 2000 templates are "approved" and some aren't. (Aside from anything else, if there will still be more than one "approved" citation style, how do we decide to which of those we're going to convert all the articles using now-banned styles?) By causing the huge disruption of a mass-conversion, without the benefit of a unified citation style at the end of it, this is just going to cause a huge amount of bad feeling for no apparent benefit. And when I say "huge disruption", I mean it; the most commonly-used citation template, {{cite book}}, is used on approximately 1,000,000 articles, meaning that even if we settled on this as the standard going forward it would still mean 80% of articles would be non-compliant and need to have their references reformatted. ‑ Iridescent 12:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    Most commonly used is actually {{Cite web}}, on 3 million pages. I think you're exaggerating the number of articles that don't use citation style 1 references - a lot of pages that don't use it have bare url references or simply don't have any. TBH I think we should settle things down to using CS1 for formatting references - it is the de facto standard and what visual editor and reftoolbar use - and a choice of citing references using <ref>...</ref> or using {{sfn}}; but the acrimony generated through doing that is probably more work than worth it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    Also, Iridescent, vast majority of the "2000 citation templates" are just {{Cs1 wrapper}}s (or external links templates like {{Britannica}} and other things that are not really citation templates) - not a different style. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    I'd think it obvious that we're talking acceptable citation template families. There's probably a dozen plus variations of "cite web", but that's all one family. Same with CS1 references. --Masem (t) 05:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Softlavender. We are still not at a position where references are provided when they need to be. Laying down standards of reference formatting will exacerbate the situation as new editors will give up rather than jump through what they see as unnecessary hoops. Nthep (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    99% of new editors if they are formatting references, use Citation Style 1 (which of course will be an allowed style); nobody is suggesting that new editor's edits should be rejected or that the first thing that new editors should be explained to is what citation style to use. Like with the MOS, it would be mainly experienced editors who fix edits to make them conform with the style. New editors are anyways explained how to/told to use {{cite web}} etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    New editors would continue to drop in bare URLs as they do now, most of them being unaware of or apathetic about any relevant guidelines. What we're debating is what happens if and when those are cleaned up. The effect on new users is thus zero. ―Mandruss  18:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Iri and SL. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Getting rid of obscure styles to make it easier for new editors editing those pages and for consistency across Wikipedia. This really wouldn't affect the vast majority of edits, editors, or pages, but only the few thousand pages that use things like {{ran}} or in text parenthetical citing (which are IMO very reader unfriendly); at-least initially, we can allow a broad range of styles with the exception of some obscure ones. The amount of articles that use things other than Help:CS1 and Help:CS2 and such is quite small. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The purpose of a citation is to point the reader to a source which verifies our content. As long as a citation does this, it is acceptable. The style is irrelevant. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support wp:citing sources is a guideline not a policy so it doesn't force anything at all, those arguments don't make sense. Guidelines are routinely ignored if editors wish. The purpose of a guideline is to show best practice. A list of best practice citation styles is not only a good idea, why isn't it there already. -- GreenC 15:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. A wide variety of citation styles is in use in the academic and publishing worlds, and we accommodate that here relatively peacefully. We have help pages on referencing for newcomers and these can be improved. But forcing an "approved list" of citation styles on Wikipedia seems like a recipe for creating conflict where there is little at the moment. I feel the proposed RfCs on which styles to "allow", with the goal of eliminating some editor's favorite ways of citing sources, would create an Infobox-like situation. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    Comment. Adding or linking Wikipedia:Citing sources to a guideline clearly explaining the easiest ways add references with the current state of our tools would be a good idea. (Visual Editor has improved considerably for example; one can now see the references in the reference list after entering them.) A single RfC could be held to decide which methods to recommend there. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The purpose of citations is to make it possible to verify content. Consistency within an article is much more important to that end, and also good for other reasons. Yes, we can speculate styles that are strictly speaking consistent but totally absurd (say, Bluebook in a non-legal article, in CamelCase, encoded with ROT13, and all the punctuation swapped for emojis) but I'd assume that good-faith editors don't do such a thing. As for obscure citation styles hindering the addition of content out of fear of messing up with the existing WP:CITEVAR (yes, merely a guideline as pointed above, but one with a super strong consensus and observance)? I'm not sure if I buy that argument. Editors are supposed to WP:BEBOLD and add content and let others iron out the wrinkles that they don't know how to fix. I see (and fix) articles with slightly inconsistent CITEVAR all the time precisely because editors have added content even if they didn't know all the intricacies of that article's citation style. On the contrary, I've never seen anyone actually complaining about not contributing content because they didn't know how a citation style works. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this RFC might be the wrong question--I don't need to make an RFC to get permission to ask certain questions, I should just ask those questions. I would rather see us start to chip at the problem instead of a massive RFC to ask about giving carte blanche to deprecate or retain certain citation styles (and I'll throw "formats" in too). Why don't we figure out whether we should use vertical citations first? (And if we do, where we should, or could.) That seems like an easier question to answer. --Izno (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    Sigh... We have had that discussion (over horizontal vs vertical) multiple times in the last few years... the result was consistently that both are acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    Not really, and certainly not at that page. A handful of "format versus kind of citation" type discussions, but never anything which would give concrete guidance to "use vertical citations for everything" or "use only in WP:LDR" or "do not use within prose". I'm not looking for "can we use it?" only, I'm looking for "when?", and that's never been answered, though I think there's a common sense answer at this time that everyone probably would settle on and agree to add to the guideline if they would only discuss the point. --Izno (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    Either way, that's just one example. There are other questions we could sensibly ask of the same sort that still bypass this overarching RFC that just don't need permission to be asked. --Izno (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - It's quite possible for the community to establish a minimum set of citation styles that will suffice for most known cases. More freedom than that doesn't decrease edit-warring, it increases it. Most editors will respect a content guideline even if they disagree with it, for the sake of site-wide consistency. The project has established an arbitrary "Wikipedia way" for everything from article titles to order of article elements, I see relatively little edit-warring in those areas (except in edge cases not clearly addressed by the PAG), and there is little question that the encyclopedia has benefited from that consistency. Editors accustomed to using title case in titles and headings adapt to sentence case when editing Wikipedia, and so on, and this is not an excessive burden for members of the most adaptable species on the planet. This situation is no different.
    There are PAGs that are obsolescent, and many that are unnecessarily complex. If the community would put some ongoing effort into reduction and simplification of existing PAGs, WP:CREEP would be far less of an issue; we would simply trade bad PAGs for better PAGs. I support that. ―Mandruss  19:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Nigel Ish. As he said, we have CITEVAR for a reason. SarahSV (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per everyone above - If the source is adequate and does the job in verifying whatever that claim is then that's perfect in my books - The style is all but irrelevant. –Davey2010Talk 23:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Softlavender and Iridescent. Beyond the obvious WP:CITEVAR issue, implementing this would be a nightmare. There are literally thousands of different citation styles in common use around enwiki, just a list of them all would be a massive undertaking, let alone a brief guide for every single one. And, frankly, I'm just glad when an article has citations, even if they're just bare URLs. Nathan2055talk - contribs 08:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Izno: If anyone wants to close this RfC early for asking the wrong question I'm fine with that, although I'm not sure what should happen afterwards. Jc86035's alternate account (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now per WP:CREEP. I haven't seen a situation where this policy would be needed. --Jayron32 12:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Question The proposal does not appear to me to be a change to policy, but a mere suggestion that preferred methods by presented. The !votes seem to be addressing something much stronger. Would this explanatory guideline require of particular formats? Would it prohibit the use of some formats? Jacona (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The proposal appears to suggest a "suggestion" now, with more detailed and prescriptive controls coming later as a result of follow-up RFCs. Of course one danger is that editors will take any suggestions, however mild, as policy and use it to force changes through.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Bans imposed as unblock conditions[edit]

Administrators often impose or suggest editing restrictions on blocked editors, either of their own accord or accepting suggestions from the editors themselves, as "conditions" to accepting an unblock request. We sometimes log these (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions) as "voluntary" bans or as "unblock conditions" (or sometimes not at all). I think these sorts of unblock conditions are a good use of admin discretion, but I've realized recently that there does not actually seem to be any support for these sorts of ban in the banning policy. According to the policy (see #Authority to ban), bans may be imposed either by community consensus, or by admins acting under authority of the arbitration committee in designated topics (discretionary sanctions). They can also be imposed by Jimbo or the WMF but let's not get into that.

I propose that a bullet be added to this section, specifying that an administrator acting under their own authority may impose a relevant editing restriction (a ban) as a condition to a user being unblocked, if the administrator believes that such a sanction will prevent disruption related to that user's block. This would bring the banning policy in line with the blocking policy (see #Conditional unblock). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Support if and only if the same with the agreement of the blocked user wording from WP:CONDUNBLOCK is included. Otherwise, you're giving individual admins the power to unilaterally decree what other editors may and may not do, which is a Really Bad Idea; except in the cases of the most blatant vandalism, it's rare to find any situation in which every admin will agree on what does and doesn't constitute disruption, so what you'd effectively be doing is giving a massive first-mover-advantage incentive for every self-appointed social engineer to impose their personal standards of what constitutes 'disruption' every time a ban appeal comes up. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Just copy the appropriate text from CONDUNBLOCK, which is where this authority comes from. No need to reinvent the wheel. Also, agree with Iri on not giving individual admins the authority to ban without consent or ArbCom authorization. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ian.thomson, I don't agree with If they don't agree to the topic ban then they must not be interested in contributing to the encyclopedia in general but specifically engaging in whatever behavior got them blocked in the slightest. If they don't agree to the topic ban, they may just feel that its scope is too broad or inappropriate, and may well feel that for good reason; I've seen some truly goofy topic ban proposals in my time, and having a single admin make the call rather than an AN/ANI discussion means the checks and balances of the rest of the community explaining why the proposed topic ban is unworkable won't be there. ‑ Iridescent 19:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Iridescent: Ok, what about the specification "if they don't agree to a perfectly reasonable topic-ban"...? Like, yeah, if someone is being disruptive at just (clicks random article) Paromitar Ek Din, a proposal to ban them from all articles relating to either India or movies would be extreme, but (depending on the kind of disruption) "movies by Aparna Sen" or "movies starring Rituparna Sengupta" or even just a topic ban relating to that one movie would probably be a good indication whether or not the user is too hyper-focused on that topic to want to be useful elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but it's fair to see their side as well, and if they have a reasonable objection to the topic ban we should treat it as such, even if we don't necessarily accept their proposed wording. To take a fictional but eminently plausible hypothetical, imagine editor Foo has spent most of their editing career writing about old cowboy movies, but then got sucked into Trumpian edit-wars and eventually got banned under WP:ARBAPDS. They appeal their ban, and the admin Bar agrees to unblock subject to a topic ban using the standard wording of all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. Editor Foo complains that they can't accept this, since this definition will include Ronald Reagan and Clint Eastwood, making it impossible to return to their favorite topic of cowboy movies even though their edits there were universally accepted as uncontroversial. In this case admin Bar's initial complaint is completely reasonable since it's using standard Arbcom-mandated wording, but there wouldn't be anything vexatious about editor Foo refusing to accept it. (This kind of thing used to come up all the damn time back when The Troubles was still a hot topic—since virtually every person of consequence in Northern Ireland was linked to the conflict in some way or another, topic bans had the de facto effect of banning editors from anything historical or biographical.) ‑ Iridescent 20:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I can't recall a wording for it (other than WP:COMMONSENSE) but I've been given mixed messages as to whether pages that cover multiple topics are treated as divided territory or the worst possible topic. There's some city that's a sister city to Jerusalem. When an edit war broke out in that article over whether Jerusalem is in Israel or Palestine, I got fussed at for citing the Arbcom DS for the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, even though everyone (except a few WP:SPAs) agreed that locking the page was necessary to stop the edit war (though I still don't understand why I was the first to lock the Two-state solution article!). Still, I've also seen plenty of cases where someone got in trouble for editing part unrelated to a DS of an article that was partly covered by a DS. If the topic ban is being implemented through this and not through discretionary sanctions and the editor has a proven history of improving cowboy movie articles (or whatever), the hypothetical admin should be willing to say "ok, you can still edit the parts of the Eastwood and Reagan articles from before they entered politics, except when they made political statements during their acting careers." (Looking a non-cowboy Arnold Schwarzenegger, acting careers after entering politics might too much of a gray area, though, IMO). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with Iridescent's qualifier per everything Iridescent has said in this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too big a grant of authority to individual admins. Topic bans should require a community process. --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • This is already policy. All Ivanvector is suggesting is what amounts to a cross-reference in the banning policy. Opposing this wouldn't stop conditional unblocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • What Iri and Tony said. ~ Amory (utc) 21:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is already policy, no harm cross referencing it at the banning policy as well. If the blocked editor is unwilling to accept the proposed unblock conditions, they have the option of waiting out their block (if not indefinite) or not agreeing, which will result in their appeal being declined, at which time they can request further review (whether indef or time-limited). Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Indeed, unblock conditions can result from a negotiation of the details - e.g. tweaks to boundaries, clarifications, etc. (e.g. I recall one user suggesting a slightly different wording to avoid potential confusion between the plain English meaning of a word and the more specific meaning of that word as a term of art in the topic area concerned) and this is a Good Thing as restrictions both 'sides' are happy with are far more likely to be adhered to. Thryduulf (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Iridescent's version, to ensure this does not get out of hand. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 05:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Good points everyone! I think we're all pretty much in agreement with Iridescent. One last sticking point is that bans are meant to be community sanctions, but in this situation we have a ban imposed by an agreement of two editors (the blocked user and the unblocking admin). In my view such a ban should still require a discussion at a community noticeboard to lift the ban, the same as with other bans enacted by the community. That's basically current practice anyway, I'm just thinking about how to update the banning policy to match. Is there any opposition to that? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Ivanvector: I assume you mean adding a sentence along the lines of appeals should be made at AN? If so, what about time-limited bans? Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking of adding a line item under "authority to ban" describing this situation, and in that case the appeal method is already in the policy. I guess the line item would need to specify that this sort of ban is to be considered a ban imposed by the community. Reviewing just now, maybe it's better for this to be a separate subsection (e.g. "unblock conditions") like how we have a "bans for repeated block evasion" section. As for time-limited bans, I don't think a distinction needs to be made. I personally don't do time-limited bans, the way I see it if there's consensus for someone to be banned then they need to actively convince the community to unban them in the future, but I do know that time-definite bans are a thing we do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)