Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
  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 the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.

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

« Older discussions, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Note: entries for inactive discussions, closed or not, should be moved to the archive.

WP:DATERANGE ambiguity and stylistic concerns[edit]

The community has decided that four year date ranges (i.e. XXXX-XXXX) should be the default style used in Wikipedia. A limited number of exceptions apply to this. Firstly, when space is at a premium, such as in tables or infoboxes, 2 year date styles may be used. Secondly, applications such as sports seasons, fiscal years, and consecutive years use the two-year date range convention without problems. These applications can continue to do so. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and exceptions can apply with a strong local consensus. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2016 (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.

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

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

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

Question: You say the old format, but I've just been looking through the history to find when the format changed, and got tired around October 1, 2007‎ when it was still stating a XXXX–XX format as it does today. How long ago was the change from XXXX–XXXX, and why did it change? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
In 2007, it also said "The full closing year is acceptable, but abbreviating it to a single digit (1881–6) or three digits (1881–886) is not", and this no longer seems to be accepted, except for birth and death dates. It once also specified that date ranges from the first millenium used all the digits (886–889, not 886–89). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
As of February 10, 2012, our own manual of style is cited in this stackexchange question as a "guide" to how to format date ranges - so that's helpful. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 07:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, but what I had meant by the "old" style was the permissing of the full closing year (4 digits), which is now removed from the guide. This removal is what has resulted in the change of 4-digit end-years to 2-digits across thousands of articles over the years, and for any 4-digit closing years in new articles/edits to be changed by someone with a comment citing the MoS. I'd prefer the abbreviated form be discouraged altogether, but as long as the 4-digit form is once again permitted as equally legitimate, that would be sufficient. — Crumpled Fire contribs 14:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, cool. Cheers. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@Crumpled Fire: The "permissing of"??
@Crumpled Fire: I suggest this be converted to a "formal" WP:RfC, so that whatever its results are carry more "weight"... --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. I've done so here, you and others watching this discussion are welcome to join. — Crumpled Fire contribs 08:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:MULTI and common simplicity and ease, I suggest the RfC should be held right here. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 12:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Moved to below. — Crumpled Fire contribs 13:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I've refactored the RfC tag to the top, or it will lead to an accidental fork of the "!voting" (a term some object to) into two redundant sections, as people click links to the RfC and end up below it. I almost did this myself until realizing that the comments were in a section above the RfC tag.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Not a problem, I was considering doing something similar myself, thanks for the help. — Crumpled Fire contribs 05:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments on DATERANGE RfC[edit]

  • Revert to previous style (permit and prefer 4-digit years), per points above. — Crumpled Fire contribs 00:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm in favor of permitting the "full closing year", without requiring it. "In 2006–07, the sports person did something" is appropriate to the subject, even though I prefer "2006–2007" (or even "from 2006 to 2007", spelled out with actual words) for other contexts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    FYI, in case you were unaware, this policy isn't just referring to adjacent years, it's any years within an entire century. In otherwords, "1957–98" is preferred over "1957–1998", which is IMO ridiculous. If it were just "1957–58", as in the common practice used for school years/fiscal years/etc., I'd have no concerns. — Crumpled Fire contribs 14:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Permit 4-digit years. I can think of no reason to have 2-digit year ranges at all, much less have them preferred. WP isn't paper, so what are we saving by removing some digits? I'm not aware of any increase in understanding by the reader for 2-digit years in ranges, and per above, several possible misunderstandings. I'm saying "permit" rather than "require" only to avoid the same rash of MOS-fanatic changes that caused this dumb situation. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Permit 4-digit years—forcing two-digit ranges is silly micromanagement, and I can see no profit from enforcing it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Prefer or require 4-digit years: I think MOS:DATERANGE permits 4-digit years: "the range's end year is usually abbreviated to two digits". Two-digit years are an anachronism from before the printing press, in the computer age a two digit year cutoff is a kind of database problem. I was taught to not be ambiguous by using 9999 for four-digit years (and 999 for three-digit years, etc.). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Require full syntax: I was considering this from the standpoint of standards, with the weight being on simple continuity i.e. One rule to rule them all. With this in mind I considered a range like "1874 to 1984" which would currently read as "1874–984" if we apply the same logic to the formatting as "1874 to 1884" being written as "1874–84". This is nonsensical, so we need several formatting rules to cover different ranges, which leads to confusion and argument. A one rule solution is to always use the full syntax e.g. "1874–1984", "1874–1884", "874–984", "874–1984" etc.. There can, under this simple single rule, be no confusion or ambiguity. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Previous style (full four digit year required) - We should not be using a potentially ambiguous two digit shorthand.- MrX 03:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Permit both styles, prefer four digit – I wouldn't want to prohibit "1957–58" for school years or sports seasons. It would be nice to come up with a set of simple rules but there are so many exceptions and edge cases I think we need to leave it partly up to editor discretion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Require all digits to avoid confusion and ambiguity; saving two characters (especially in a digital context) is unnecessary. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave guideline as it is. This reflects normal English-language usage. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    No it doesn't. Two-digit abbreviations for end-ranges consisting of a period of decades or longer (i.e. 1909–98) are virtually non-existent. The only use of this abbreviated format that I've ever seen commonly is for immediately adjacent years, as in fiscal or school years (i.e. 2008–09), as noted above. — Crumpled Fire contribs 13:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Require all digits: A consistent style for all dates is far more compatible with automated tools, screen readers for the visually impaired, search engines, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    • +1 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Permit 4-digit years, prefer this as default, but leave 4 vs 2 editorial decisions to a case by case scenario. — xaosflux Talk 16:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Permit both styles, prefer four digit per the rapidly accumulating SNOW above. Specifying always four digits is tempting, but two digits is extremely common for consecutive years and other edge cases. Alsee (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Require all digits except for school years or sports seasons and the like Peter coxhead (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Prefer full years – I've had to correct my own edits to the two digit style more than once, and each time I always wondered why I was having to do that. Even if the two digit style is acceptable, the four digit style is more universal. I can't think of any reason in the context of Wikipedia to prefer the two digit style. Expressing a preference is what the MoS does, by the way. There is no matter of "requirement" in it. Editorial consensus on a talk page should still be able to determine specific instances where the two digit style might have usefulness. RGloucester 16:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – In this decision, either leave the current default 2010–12 or require the 4-year 2010–2012 format. But whatever you do, don't leave it as a "dealer's choice". IOW, either leave the current, or go to the full 4 year, but don't leave both formats as "acceptable". This should be a binary choice: either choose the current, or choose the former. Leaving as a "dealer's choice" will lead to chaos and edit warring... (On my end, I've gotten very used to the current format, but the "all-4 year" format would probably be "cleaner" across the whole project...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    • From below, either A) or B), but absolutely, positively not D), which is just a recipe with dateranges for the kind of minor edit warring over date formats, etc. on RETAIN vs. TIES grounds we have now but probably on a larger scale. --IJBall (contribstalk) 07:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Agreed about D. It's invalid because MOS:RETAIN doesn't actually apply to this. That whole "here's how I personally think the closers should do their analysis" section with the A, B, C, etc. things, should just be hatted as unwittingly disruptive.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Require four-digit years per Fred Gandt, IJBall, Guy Macon above. For simplicity, clarity, lack of ambiguity, and for tools that automatically extract meaning from wp. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 17:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Permit both styles... I wouldn't mind requiring "4-digit" for prose, but when it comes to usage in tables, I usually much prefer "1998–99" because it makes the column nice and narrow and there's not all the repeating of 19s or 20s down the column. But then, there are times when "4-digit" is the better choice in tables as well. —Musdan77 (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Permit both styles, preference to two-digit except where ambiguous per nom. Examples: 1965–68; 2010–2011. 🖖ATS / Talk 00:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Require all digits, except for school years, sports seasons, and potentially tables if not ambiguous and the like, for the good rationales given. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Permit both styles, preference for two-digit except where ambiguous I find 2 digit simpler to read, and people employ 'translations' when verbalising the written form, sometimes using the longest, sometimes the shortest form. Pincrete (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Question How does a screen reader read 2000-12 compared to 2000-2012? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, depending on the answer to the question, my vote will be either ****-**** only or 'both allowed'. As an accessibility issue, if screen readers have issues (which I have seen on other websites, but personally have not experienced on wikipedia) with the ****-** format, generally it should be discouraged. If there is no issue, I dont see any reason it shouldnt. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Paging User:Graham87...
      On a related note, I understand that the hyphen (or en dash) between the years is silently dropped. It's possible that spelling it out the connection in words, as in "2000 to 2012" or "between 2000 and 2012", would be best for users of screen readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
      • By default, JAWS reads 2000–2012 as "2000 dash 2012" and 2000–12 as "2000 dash 12". NonVisual Desktop Access omits the hyphen when it is present, but when an en dash is there, it reads "2000 en dash 2012" and "2000 en dash 12", respectively. I don't think we should let screen readers determine the guidance here; both forms are exceedingly common, and using "to" and "between" would just not work in many places. Graham87 06:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Just to clarify: It would say 'two thousand (en)dash two thousand twelve' versus 'two thousand (en)dash twelve'? I understand punctuation is a mess, I am more familiar with braile readers ;) but to me I think the former would be preferable to the latter. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    • According to this blog who tested 3 screen readers - punctuation is a mess (scroll down to the table of dashes). Of note, not all screen readers will behave the same. — xaosflux Talk 03:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: per Only in death's concern (above); I think it worth considering that if the abbreviated form is allowed, it should only be so when wrapped in <abbr>...</abbr> tags to assist human and machine comprehension. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 12:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Define full ending year as the default house style, with local exceptions based on discussion of real need (this last part is implicit in the word "guideline" and does not need to be stated). As with any guideline, it would not be useful to say both are permissible and leave it to personal preference; that would be a guideline largely devoid of guidance, and would enable more time-wasting conflict than it prevented. ―Mandruss  03:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Require all digits because saving 2 digits is not a huge benefit, having multiple permissible styles gives an unprofessional look, yyyy-yy seems to be more of a US thing that is less commonly used by other countries, yyyy-yy can be confused with yyyy-mm dates, avoids editors toggling between the two formats and one universal rule is so much easier than multiple rules trying to pin down exactly when 2 digits are/aren't allowed.  Stepho  talk  01:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Permit both styles. Retrograde step to insist on all eight digits in all situations, removing the flexibility we currently have. Even in infoboxes and tables? Nuts. Tony (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Although I find the two digit style unnecessary, aesthetically ugly, potentially ambiguous, and arbitrary (Why not abbreviate to 1 or 3 digits? Why not for years before 1000? Why omit the grammatically correct apostrophe preceding the two digits?), I would be willing to support a guideline identical to that currently found at MOS:DATEVAR, which allows the abbreviation of month names "only when brevity is helpful (refs, tables, infoboxes, etc.)". Which is not to say that two digits should always be used in tables and infoboxes, but rather only when a cluttering amount of (three or more) date ranges are present. — Crumpled Fire contribs 02:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
You ask, "Why not abbreviate to 1 or 3 digits?" Do you really not understand why, or is that just rhetoric? The reason is an application of the principle that writing conventions follow speaking conventions. English speakers say and understand year ranges as follows: "1980 to 86"; "1980 to 94"; "2001 to 10" ("two thousand one to ten" or "twenty oh one to ten"); "2005 to 12"; and "2008 to 20." An English speaker would not say "1980 to 6"; "1991 to 4"; or "2011 to 7". Neither would an English speaker say "1980 to 986"; "1980 to 994"; nor "2010 to 012".—Finell 04:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Rhetorical. My point being that it's still arbitrary, especially since the proper grammatical form is to place an apostrophe to denote the omission (i.e. 1995–’99), which is also omitted in our style. That the two-digit form has (limited) common usage doesn't mean our MOS should recommend it; I find it to be bordering on slang. Plus, in common usage, it's usually only implemented for years that immediately follow, i.e. 2008–09, not for something like 1901–87, which is silly and used virtually nowhere else but here. — Crumpled Fire contribs 10:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
the proper grammatical form is to place an apostrophe to denote the omission—no, that is very much not an issue of grammar. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. It's a stylistic choice based on parallelism to word contraction like "isn't" and "'tis", and it has long fallen out of favor in both actual use and in style guides when it comes to date ranges (probably from ISO's influence). Some still recommend it when an abbreviated year (or longer period) is used by itself ("back in '06", "I grew up in the '80s"), which is a style we don't use here except in quotations.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Require full "2001–2012" syntax, which will avoid inevitablly confusing or ambiguous constructions. This matches our treatment of page numbering ("pp. 2001–2012", except possibly in some citation styles imported from off-WP that forbid it, but this seems so rare it need not be accounted for, and I've never once had someone revert me correcting to the longer, clearer format). It also comports with our treatment of other similar ranges of numbers ("sources reported between 2,001 and 2,012 fatalities", not "sources reported 2,001–12 fatalities", which to many will imply some kind of subtraction operation).

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

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

  • Prefer the unambiguous all-digits form, with use of 2-digit shortening where space is at a premium and the meaning is obvious from context. For years not aligned with calendar years, such as 2008-09, that's a different matter, and 2-digit shortening in preferred in such cases, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No uniform rule There is not a compelling case for any one choice. As such, we should let authors decide, and proceed on the basis of MOS:RETAIN. If projects can agree on local consensus for the type of material they cover, that is fine too, but if it results in disputes, MOS:RETAIN should resolve it. Monty845 01:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • MOS:RETAIN cannot actually apply to this, because both styles are not equally appropriate – one of them leads to inevitable ambiguities and confusion. RETAIN only applies when the choice between two+ options is completely arbitrary and makes no practical difference.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Require all digits, with limited exceptions, these being for a "year" that spans two calendar years, e.g. an academic year or a sporting year. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Permit both styles, prefer four digits per most of the arguments above. Four digits is less ambiguous and we don't need to worry about space because WP:NOTPAPER. Kaldari (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Either require full years or allow both. I agree that some ranges are ambiguous in their meaning. Stylistic inconsistency is also another problem. When we have a range that goes from 1990 to 2000 (1990–2000) next to a range that goes from 2001 to 2016 (2001–16), it looks a bit weird. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Prefer four digits, permit two digits for two-year spans. The two-digit format is fine for a school year or TV season, where the meaning is unambiguous; otherwise four digits. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Permit both styles. This doesn't need to be micro-managed. Leave it to editorial discretion. --Trovatore (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Require all digits – The only way this could be more confusing than it is now is if some ranges had two digits and some had four. KSFTC 18:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Require full years with a few exceptions having all the digits reduces the chance of confusion, increases accessibility, and avoids unnecessary abreviations that just don't look formal. However, the two digit format should still be available for labelling types of years that don't quite match up (sports seasons, chool years, Catholic liturgical year etc.) and in tables and infoboxes where space actually matters. Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Permit both styles as this should be considered on a case-by-case basis per the good points made above. Andrew D. (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline to Decide this RFC or Retain current guideline, but omit exception for special subject matter. Crumpled Fire states, "Objections have been raised regarding this guideline before" and that "many" (but not a consensus) agreed with his or her position, but obliquely acknowledges that these objections never achieved consensus ("but it never proceeds any further"). The issue was decided by consensus at WP:MOSNUM in January 2014; even then, the topic heading was preceded by "Redux". Crumpled Fire reopened the discussion in early June on the WP:MOSNUM talk page, but got no traction there, so Crumpled Fire brings it here to a different forum. Stability in a style manual is desirable for its own sake. Changing the guideline would require a massive project of revising articles that complied with the existing guideline. If a genuine problem existed, that would justify changing the guideline, but no one has identified a genuine problem. Personal preference for a different style does not, in my opinion, warrant a change to the MOS. Also, does Village Pump want to become the Court of Appeals for the innumerable MOS disputes? I propose that the Village Pump decline to decide this RFC and leave it to the MOS discussion to resolve. Regarding the guideline itself, I would change the current guideline insofar as it makes exceptions based on subject matter (e.g., sports). The MOS guides Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia should not abandon its house style guide because sports (or other publications) follow a different style guide.—Finell 00:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Permit 4-digit years As noted by Curly Turkey, this is silly micromanagement; MOS needs to be in the business of enforcing general provisions such as WP:ENGVAR, WP:CITEVAR, and WP:ERA, not dictating details to article writers. One of those general provisions (already in there) needs to be that we follow naming conventions in article collections; it doesn't really matter whether we have articles on the National Basketball Association seasons for 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 or 2010-11 and 2011-12, but we need to be careful not to have articles on the seasons for 2010-2011 and 2011-12. And coming here is a great way to cut through the dictatorship of the few MOS trolls: we need to break their dominance. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Permit 4-digit years. I would prefer to say require four digits, but the MoS should advise not require. SarahSV (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Prefer two year, permit both - My concern is the literal thousands date ranges used on television pages which are fairly uniform with two years. This includes season section headers. Which reflex could handle it, it would be a large undertaking if for years is required. I prefer two years for season headers personally. There's no ambiguity the ranges imho. If allow both, treat like ERA as mentioned others. Also allow project mos to state a preference per consensus at that project. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Prefer or require 4-digit years. To have the MOS or drive-by editors enforce a specific two-digit form is just ludicrous. Four digits are clear, immediately understandable, and completely unambiguous. The wiki servers are not going to freeze because of two extra characters. If two digits work better in some instances or in some articles, perhaps allow that as well if agreed to by consensus. But don't dictate two-digits -- that's just silly; it's like dictating a serial comma (or no serial comma). Softlavender (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Retain existing format - Requiring the first two digits for ranges in the same century is requiring unnecessary redundancy. I'm not convinced by the argument that "2000-10" is ambiguous and could be read as October 2010, as this is not a format that is acceptable for anything other than year ranges. Most importantly, tables and infoboxes often require abbreviated formats and the existing format caters for this requirement while yyyy-yyyy does not. --AussieLegend () 09:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The format "2000-10" may not be acceptable to represent "YYYY-MM" according to current MOS (i.e., a wikipedia standard) but it is certainly valid by the ISO 8601 standard that blesses and defines many date formats. DMacks (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
And? WP:ISNOT the ISO. We have a different audience; much of ISO 8601 is intended for machine parsing, not human prose.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Permit 4-year but do not require – for many of the same reasons noted above. There may be situations in which the use of two digits is well understood and appropriate, so requiring four digits in all instances is unnecessary (not to mention tedious instruction creep that would require a lot of changes to exising articles that already use the two-digit format). --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Prefer 4-digit years but allow 2-digit years in certain cases like consecutive years, within the same decade, etc. if the context is clear. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Retain existing format – Wikipedia is a professional, formal encyclopaedia and requires a high standard of writing and formatting. This is the very reason that guidelines such as this exist. Allowing both options would just be messy and inconsistent, and will lead to confusion for readers who get used to seeing the XXXX-XXXX format and then come across the XXXX-XX format. We need to be consistent with this, it's just common sense. Likewise, there is no reason for Wikipedia to suddenly ignore basic writing and referencing conventions by changing to the XXXX-XXXX format. What I'm saying is, not only is writing out both years in full every time completely redundant and counter-intuitive for everyday, casual writers, it is also amateurish and unbecoming of an encyclopaedia given that XXXX-XX is the academic and professional format found in at least the most common style guides. And if people confuse '2010-12' with 'December 2010', especially in what is presumably well-written prose that provides context, then that is their fault. No respectable encyclopaedia would present a date like that, just as one wouldn't present a year range like you want to. By the way, why isn't this discussion taking place at WP:MOSNUM? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Prefer 4-digit years, permit 2-digit where space is an issue. This is a guideline that is widely ignored anyway; best update it to general practice. At the very least require 4-digit years in most tables, where the 2-digit ones play havoc with both aesthetic and sorting. Frickeg (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Permit 4-digit years - I've never agreed with the 2 digit thing and IMHO 4 digits look much better, Plus as the years continue the 2 digit thing will only get more confusing, 4 is IMHO better. –Davey2010Talk 14:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Retain as is, or grudgingly permit 4-digit years if we must. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended discussion of DATERANGE RfC[edit]

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

In addition to the points made and support garnered at the Village Pump, it's becoming clear to me that the general editing public (and likely the general public itself) finds the 2000–16 format disagreeable, as I've already had to revert three instances ([1],[2],[3]) within the last few days of someone changing "2000–16" to "2000–2016" in the infobox for Anton Yelchin (a high-traffic article due to the subject's recent death). As suggested by a user at the Village Pump discussion, I am opening an RfC to hopefully determine once and for all whether the community at large agrees it's time to re-introduce four-digit end years in ranges. — Crumpled Fire contribs 13:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

SMcCandlish, expanding "Jackson" to "Jacksom" is not a form of compression :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Danm it, I cam't blane mobile auto-correct for that ome.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼ 

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

Extended content

Possible outcomes?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apologies, I didn't notice this comment until just now. Sorry for being such a newbie with all this, I believe I'd noticed something similar done in a proposal adjacent to this one which is why I elected to add this subsection. But your criticisms are entirely valid, thanks again for your help. Collapsing. — Crumpled Fire contribs 20:48, 17 July 2016 (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.

Notability guidelines and policy for eSports[edit]

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

Speaking from the stance of the video games project, compared to athletic sports, the amount of coverage esports gets is still very low and weak. Whereas athletes that achieve some level of professional play will likely get coverage due to the volume of sources that cover traditional sports, this simply doesn't exist yet for eSports, so the best advice is to stay with the general notability guidelines. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that eSports is still minor in the mainstream, but it doesn't change that the number of articles being created for players and teams is increasing. By our very nature, we're more likely to attract content on the sport. We have specific guidelines for rodeo and curling, and a lot more editing comes into the eSports topics - so it may still be a good idea to create a guideline to be added to the sports topic. Just at a glance through the categories, it is very contentious as to how a lot of it would do at AFD or whether individual players are relevant. KaisaL (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I brought up the issue with the drastically low-quality of eSports articles to Drmies a couple days ago. ESports as a whole is appropriate to keep on Wikipedia, but we at this point have hundreds of low-quality articles, with many featuring dubious notability, that largely are relying on Daily Dot and Liquipedia referencing- the second being a serious no-no, for as referencing is concerned. We must find an effective way to comb through these articles are either fix them or toss them, as the whole topic is running counter to Wikipedia standards. Furthermore, we have a number of categories and navboxes featured on these pages that contribute next to nothing, other than adding to the enormous pile of vague categories. I'd say with the number of eSports player articles, one could click at random on them and almost certainly find what I'm saying to be true verbatim. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 22:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
As with any other SNG, one should be tailored to reflect the point where we can presume a subject has achieved the necessary coverage in reliable sources to produce an article. I guess the first step is to consider what sources are reliable, given eSports really doesn't appear in mass market media all that much. What absolutely should not happen is to just say "appeared in random event x or is popular on reddit" = notable. Resolute 23:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

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

1. Lustboy - Won a professional championship as a "support player" in a team and is now a "strategic analyst" in a national league. All sources from Daily Dot. Does winning the championship justify inclusion, or is a support player not important enough? Is a strategic analyst a notable role? Without an expertise of eSports and a guideline it is very difficult to know.
2. FORG1VEN - A player for a League of Legends team that is "off of the starting roster due to lack of motivation". This almost reads like cruft, but there's a reference pointing to ESPN too.
3. Origen (eSports) - A team that finished "3rd-4th" in a League of Legends world championship. What criteria should a team have is a question we haven't really asked - in some sports you need to be winning things and is eSports important enough to include everyone?
4. League of Legends Master Series - A professional competition with a large prize fund, but no real reliable sources. How much coverage does an eSports competition need to be notable, or is being professional enough?

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

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

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

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

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

1. eSports articles needing independent coverage outside of specialist websites, so only players with significant coverage not exclusive to niche websites covering the sport and related topics;
2. A general rule that certain achievements are a sign of notability (as with, for example, junior gymnastics) - like winning a professional competition of a certain standard solo or as a main part of a team. (Or this could supplement point one.)
3. A decision that the status quo is reasonable, and that all participants in professional competitions are eligible for inclusion.

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

  • There are more reliable sources than just The Daily Dot and TheScore, and there are also many foreign languages sources that I listed at User:Prisencolin/esportsnews--Prisencolin (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I think the problem is that so many of these sources are specific to eSports, so they may be reliable within the eSports community, but they don't necessarily prove the notability of eSports articles on Wikipedia. An earlier contributor made an allusion to death metal, in that there's many death metal blogs and websites, but that doesn't automatically make the bands that they cover notable. Some of this sources, certainly, have names attached that make me think they could be useful, like Yahoo! and ESPN.
The key point I would make is this: With most sports, they have their niche websites and blogs, but then they receive coverage on more general websites too. So for Formula One, there's websites like F1 Fanatic and James Allen on F1, but there's also the BBC and national newspapers and so on. It's the same for football, cricket, baseball, and countless others. The question for me is, where is this wider significant coverage beyond websites like Blog of Legends and The Score eSports? I do not dispute their reliability for facts and figures, but I do dispute it for proving that these articles are notable.
This is exactly what we need to explore, else we'll end up with articles for every eSports player and team that these specific websites cover. I personally don't feel that coverage on these should be enough, and that only major competition winners and those with substantial wider coverage should be included, but an RFC or similar process should decide these guidelines.
Your input is massively valuable by the way as you clearly know the topic well. KaisaL (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but just wanted to point out that neither Blog of Legends nor TheScore eSports specialize in eSports coverage; Blog of Legends is owned by FanSided, which covers general sports and entertainment, and is in turn owned by Time Inc., the holdings company of Time magazine, among other publications. TheScore publishes a general sports score app and news webste, and a fantasy sports game.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Going back to the question, the reasoning for having the subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG) like NSPORTS is to spell out conditions where if a topic has met some milestone, there will likely be sufficient sourcing that already exists or will come to exist to have that topic meet the GNG eventually. For example, a Nobel prize award winner routinely gets several articles after the award is named that detail their life and contributions, if this has not already been documented, so an SNG saying that Nobel prize winners are presumed notable works. In sports, a broad line is drawn for those that have in professional games, as to get to the professional level they likely have had to performed exceptionally at lower leagues (college or minors or equivalent), and the volume of coverage of those sports in reliable sources is still high such that these players will be documented there, if not from their current career. These SNG don't need to be 100% accurate in the source availability, since we're only making a presumption of notability, but they need to be the rule with only few exceptions.
The problem then with eSports is that we don't have enough time or sourcing to go on to assure that if an eSports player makes it to a certain level that they are going to have sources sufficient for GNG in the future. It's probably far too early given how new eSports is relative to other sports to be able to make a fair assessment of what "rules" work to make an SNG case out of. Hence that the GNG is a safe backup, and that then leads to the discussion of what are reliable sources for eSports, which is a fair but separate question. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
GNG is a safe bet. I would say a good start for examining what is reliable is to see what pages utilize Liquipedia, which is a completely unreliable source. I fear two things from this discussion. The first is that we will simply find ourselves losing interest or going in circles, as I proposed an evaluation of esports about a year ago and it accomplished nothing, as nobody even began to comb through the articles with proper scrutiny. My second fear is that we'll try to reach a resolution for esports standards that will be inadequate, in comparison with general Wikipedia policies.
I believe the million dollar question is, how do we ensure that every esport article is reviewed for being up to par? There are hundreds that are probably eligible for deletion as of now, so it's a monumental task to bring the project up to snuff. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 00:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a good argument Masem, however I would have one point to make regarding it: The fact that eSports is so new and in its relative infancy only supports the notion that blanket inclusion of professional players and teams is probably not appropriate at this time. I do not feel we can allow wide inclusion simply because of the work involved with checking sources. Some basic guidelines, even if they aren't quite as inflexible as something like WP:NFOOTY, would be a great help in deletion decisions. One other thing, too: I personally feel a good half of the eSports players on Wikipedia could reasonably go to AFD and be expected to fail. Such a flood may not be helpful, and we've encountered issues with that sort of thing regarding schools and Pokémon among other topics in the past. KaisaL (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

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

This part isn't hard. The vast majority of new (and old) eSports articles are by Prisencolin, so if we make it clear that new (and old) eSports articles need to be sourced to vetted reliable sources, with no unreferenced content in biographies of living people, then the fight is already over. Hopefully this would mean Prisencolin going back to correct previous articles before the rest of Wikipedia was as firm about the sources being used. czar 18:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't have time to wade through the proposals above but I wanted to add that this has been discussed at WT:VG for some time. Instead of following Prisencolin's list of sources, I would encourage you to look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 14#eSports revisited and the related/linked threads, where the sources had at least a modicum of vetting. I don't think we need an automatic bar set for eSports players—I think a surprising amount of them meet the GNG, mainly surprising because few expected so much coverage so fast. An automatic bar would undoubtably lead to even worse articles, like the lowest ranks of any of the athletic notability guidelines, as player articles will/will not be created for the major teams regardless of their actual coverage. So I'd scrap that idea to focus on the GNG. I think there is a question of whether a player is notable if their only coverage is in the Daily Dot. If Daily Dot is presumed reliable, and I believe it is, the only case for not having such an article would be that Daily Dot-exclusive coverage (with no other outside coverage) is not significant coverage for the GNG. Feel free to make that argument if it's convincing, otherwise the most obvious way forward is to check whether each article is significant in WP:VG/RS-vetted sources. Also I'm interested in these "hundreds" of deletion-worthy eSports articles—care to share examples? Because I've been following their creation and while their quality is low (prose copied from another cc-by-sa encyclopedias) and their sourcing needs cleanup, the majority of them do pass the GNG, at least sufficiently so that they would live through AfD noms. I am, however, glad that this content area is finally getting some attention outside the project. Please ping me if I can be useful. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 18:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: I would support a requirement for coverage outside of The Daily Dot and eSports sources, with the usual requirements (substantial, significant) for that. That would remove any competition requirements while those are in their infancy, but mean they need to be notable beyond niche eSports circles. I think this might be worth drafting into some sort of remedy to maybe add to Wikipedia:Notability (sports). As an aside, if the same user is creating a lot of the articles, we're kind of going off their judgement, and as the area grows - and from past experience - that doesn't end well. Certainly Prisencolin is the most vocal in AFD debates about eSports. As for there not being many that are debatable, the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FREAKAZOiD being so contentious is a sign that there's a few to look into, and my list at the beginning of this debate has more samples. FREAKAZOiD is one of the better sourced and even he's got delete proposals, so the area could easily fall victim to a particularly proactive AFD lister if some guidance isn't put in a place. A list of reliable sources on the WikiProject probably isn't enough, so I'd go with the outside coverage requirements for now. Sorry for the long reply. KaisaL (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

eSports proposal[edit]

  • Proposal. Ok, per Czar and other comments, here's a starter - I'm not suggesting it's added exactly like this - for an addition to Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Thoughts?
eSports:
1. eSports subjects (competitors, teams and competitions) that have received substantial coverage via significant reliable sources beyond the eSports community and media are considered to be notable;
2. eSports subjects that have only received substantial coverage via The Daily Dot, The Score eSports and similar sites are not considered to be notable;
3. Competing in a professional competition is not considered to qualify a subject for inclusion on its own.
This definitely still needs work but it's an idea for starters. Pinging: @DarthBotto:, @Prisencolin:, @Drmies:, @Ravenswing:. KaisaL (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Haven't made up my mind yet about these, but I do object to the guideline's inclusion into WP:NSPORT without broader consensus, since a lot of people just don't consider video games a sport.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, shall we discuss the guidelines and then worry about where to put them later? They're not going to be added overnight, but at least we're finally trying to gauge a consensus on them. KaisaL (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd simplify as "Significant coverage for separate articles on eSports players/gamers requires coverage outside of dedicated eSports sources (e.g., The Daily Dot, Red Bull)." That seems to be the heart of the discussion above, at least. A discussion at WT:VG could lead to its inclusion in the video games WikiProject guidelines and you could RfC all the way to another notability guideline if you want. I don't think it needs more clauses than that (I don't think we need a site-wide verdict on whether eSports are sports—sounds like a waste of time). czar 23:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I think this wording would have the effect of not including teams, which are just as potentially troublesome, because by stating "separate articles" it might suggest they can be covered in a team article. Players, teams and competitions should ideally be covered and all should require coverage outside of the decidated eSports sources. The other problem is that this might make The Daily Dot - we seem to have a degree consensus that this is a problematic site - seem legitimate as it isn't purely for eSports. I think it's important to give examples. The list also conforms to the existing notability formats and, with the greatest will in the world, restricting this to a WikiProject guideline might make it less likely to be effectively referenced in notability debates. I'd like to see it in one of the proper guidelines. I think WP:NESPORTS or siimlar would be a good abbreviation. KaisaL (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
But, perhaps, to avoid this becoming essay length might we look to develop a consensus on these generally being a criteria rather than the technicalities just yet? If we can agree on the points broadly we can look into drafting and where they'd be put later on. KaisaL (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Examples are fine—added above. Another angle to consider: I suggested starting with a local guideline as a band-aid for now, but the wound is really the larger point about niche topics and notability. This is really a discussion about what constitutes significant coverage for the general notability guideline and whether several sources from a vetted but niche source together constitute notability. This is like a local/regional paper publishing several articles on a local business, or several low-grade indie film magazines with editorial staff publishing on an indie film, or several mobile-only games websites publishing on indie mobile games—what kind of line is being drawn about the types of noteworthy coverage considered in deciding whether a topic is independently notable for its own article, if we are discussing drawing a line at not including articles that have only been covered in The Daily Dot? czar 23:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we'd be saying any sort of coverage that would meet the usual sort of biography guidelines, we don't have to be too over-specific there, the rest of notability is well-established. KaisaL (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Separately, I think we all would welcome outside opinions on whether The Daily Dot, TheScore, PVP Live, etc. have reputations for reliability in the first place. There are a variety of venues for such a discussion: here, WP:RSN, WT:VG, WT:VG/RS... czar 23:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
In my view every single one would come under point two in my list, requiring coverage via reliable sources outside of the eSports community and media. KaisaL (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
But if an eSports-specific source isn't reliable in the first place then the conversation would be over before it begins czar 23:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course, however it can also be reliable but not enough. Yahoo! has an eSports section, for example; We'd say Yahoo! is reliable generally, but if their coverage is confined to their eSports section and niche coverage of competition outcomes there, that wouldn't necessarily be enough. Also, making these sorts of notability criteria makes it less likely we'll be constantly debating the reliability of sources and relevance of them as well. KaisaL (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I would staunchly oppose the inclusion of any such guideline into NSPORTS. My view from the 2011 RfC hasn't changed, and I'll be happy to quote myself: "Playing video games /= "sport," no matter how much their partisans hunger to be considered Real Athletes ... This recent flurry is by no means the first attempt to claim that video gamers are "athletes" and should be covered by WP:ATHLETE. It won't be the last." Prescient of me.

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

I think the last part of your point is a lot of the problem - you're raising championships and dollar earnings, but we really have no precedent or prior discussion, so it's difficult for it to be referenced or used as any sort of criteria. My view is that eSports is in its infancy to such an extent that winning a competition alone should not be enough, but the biggest winners are likely to satisfy the criteria by other means. KaisaL (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, KaisaL; I agree that there hasn't been. But it seems that most of the editors involved in this discussion aren't video game experts, and people are commenting here less out eagerness to set forth new and accurate criteria than out of grim determination to clear up ongoing messes at AfD. This isn't the way to go about it. Criteria should be developed by people out of the video games WikiProject, they should be well tested to gauge whether those who meet the criteria are likely to meet the GNG, and all that legwork should be done prior to a formal proposal being raised here or anywhere else. Failing partisans doing that work, I'm entirely comfortable with continuing to rely on the GNG. Ravenswing 13:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that the input of experts on eSports and video games is important. However, and having seen this happen in the past, purely having the debate between those especially invested in a field without outside input can lead to a natural bias. I suppose you're right that, if this subject were being discussed actively between those parties now with a specific view to establishing guidelines and recording a consensus, there would be no need for input generally at this stage. I have purely taken on a role here intending to kick start the debate, an advocate for the discussion in a way; This discussion is almost certain to fizzle out for the archives, and my most recently nominated articles for AFD are receiving a response that is going to make it difficult to gauge a consensus on the wider issue from those too. As such, I just hope that the WikiProject and the "video game experts" you refer to actually have this debate before the topic grows much further. I hope this makes sense. KaisaL (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I honestly believe that GNG does the job already. I mean, I wouldn't be opposed to having this included, so you can count my input as Neutral, but conditional; I insist that there's a tighter leash on this topic, unlike all the previous attempts to fix this particular WikiProject, where people claim they have consensus, but nothing's changed. Implementing these rules may save a number of articles from being deleted, but if it's decided that it's not in favor of the project, I will insist that GNG is followed to the letter. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 08:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment This debate, closed a few hours ago, is an interesting case to reference here. It went to a delete, but a brief discussion of the reliability of sources about eSports occurred; Prisencolin listed a number, and The Daily Dot particularly was disputed by the other user. The AFD went to a close, and this was an eSports topic with an above average amount of external coverage. It could be quite easy to nominate a lot more on similar grounds.
The two key problems I see with just using WP:GNG is that the reliability of the sources that most of our eSports content references is disputed, and will continue to be in debates, and secondly that we have passed no community judgement on this coverage of eSports as a whole. Is an article on a sub-section of Yahoo! dedicated to eSports about the outcome of an event or somebody changing a team, for example, enough to give them notability here? Someone will say yes because it's Yahoo!, and others will say no because it's an area dedicated to the subject. For me, at this time, it's akin to saying that The Non-League Paper is enough to qualify a footballer. However what is unfortunate and may doom this debate, sadly, is that we seem to be more caught up on whether eSports is a sport and not on the actual criteria. The only other solution may be to simply start sending articles to AFD, and see what precedent forms. KaisaL (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
If anybody wants to know, I talked to the deleting admin, and he's allowed fFREAKZOiD to go to WP:DRV.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm opposed to currently including any notability guidelines specific to esports at this time, allowing the GNG to do its job, only because the topic is in its infacy and it is impossible to determine if any of these will, the near-majority of the time, lead to GNG-type coverage. Maybe after a few more years we'll be able to make a better assessment, but now is too early. Note that GNG does allow RSes that are not necessarily universally accepted as RSes for any topic and allows subject-specific ones as long as elements like editorial control and fact-checking stand, so while The Daily Dot, for example, I would avoid for some topics, does seem appropriate for the context of eSports. It should be kept in mind that GNG requires significant coverage, and BLP1E still stands, so if all we can do is talk about one win a player has, that's not sufficient for GNG. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The use of The Daily Dot is certainly contentious, as it the use of many of the sites most regularly referenced. I am inclined to test the AFD waters further because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FREAKAZOiD going to a close - that was an article with references - suggests to me that we have huge swathes of non-notable eSports content. I had thought a better solution might be to establish some guidelines, but if that isn't going to be the case, I don't think it's fair to just let the content stand unchallenged due to a perception that a topic is in its "infancy" (which is anything only serves to promote the notion that individual players and teams shouldn't have articles unless they're somehow notable for major events with reach beyond the eSports niche). KaisaL (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I have nominated four eSports articles for AFD: Happy (video gamer), Lustboy, FORG1VEN and Allu (gamer). KaisaL (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
That was a bad close of Freakazoid: 3 deletes, 1 redirect, 2 keeps and a 'neutral'. Given two of the delete arguments were 'this isnt notable outside of egaming' - not a valid argument if it satisfies GNG, and 'doesnt satisfy GNG and per 1e' - when the numerous sources listed indicated both it wasnt a 1e (admittedly they were most notable for a particular event) and that it had general coverage for the area. You have at most, 'no consensus' to delete there given the weight of arguments on both sides. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Though I would argue that the Freakazoid afd is a bad example to base the discussion of notability of esports players around given that the only real aspect was the player's role in a bullying incident at an esports competition and less about their skill/player achievements, so the weight of BLP1E readily applies here (justifying the AFD as delete for that purpose). --MASEM (t) 14:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
For BLP1E to be valid (and also the reason its not used that often sadly) it has to be the *only* reason for which they are notable. In this case primarily it was because of that incident, however since sources were presented which were unrelated to said event, it cant be said their only claim is because of that. BLP1E is very difficult to use to get stuff deleted precisely because keep voters will generally find some other coverage unrelated to the event, or will claim the event had wider implications etc. I have lost count of the number of times its blatantly ignored over the flimsiest of excuses. Dont get me wrong though, I dont think its a huge issue if the article stays or goes, however the delete closer listed no reasoning and failed to address the arguments either way (generally required in a close-run delete/keep). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I suspect if you have issue with the close it would be best to take it up with the closer, Kelapstick. My reference to it was simply to point out how even articles with a bit more to them than niche eSports community coverage are disputed under the criteria we have for GNG and BLP1E, and the way that general criteria are being used only serves to strengthen my view (in my opinion, of course) that we need some more specific guidelines. KaisaL (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Notability is not based on popularity, though popularity can potentially lead to notable coverage. The field of eSports is clearly notable, but right now, for players, its hard to tell. As a relevant example, reality television is huge and here to stay, with similar prizes to be won and even larger audiences at times, but we don't cover every player or winner unless there is notability beyond their appearance on the show (eg someone like Susan Boyle or Rob Mariano). --MASEM (t) 01:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd support reality television winners, I made this comment a while ago on this subject and i think it suits it well. "I've noticed there's a alot of subconscious thinking on this encyclopedia that's associated with things that are seen negative in society like reality television, e-sports, porn, beauty pageants, criminals, mass murderers, internet personalities (memes/youtuber), heavier more extreme music (black metal, deathcore etc) and graffiti/street art, you're probably thinking "these are not important/shouldn't be notable/i just don't get it" but that's the point, there' just some notable things in these subjects that's not going to be reported in the mainstream media and where we should start looking in specialist media or we lose our viewers to sub wikis which i think is a waste. (notice there's specific guidelines that block these types of things?) It's a bold prediction but there should honestly be a relook at the qualifying criteria to online entertainment (youtube) and electronic sports as i can only imagine as this current generation gets of old age and is common to this type of thing that it will be the norm. I know some might want to resist that but it's a fact. Yes playing games and being notable at it may be odd to us but i'm sure dunking a ball in a hoop would be odd to some too." i don't think every player should get a article mind you but when it comes to winners of their equivalent of a world championship i do. GuzzyG (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not about the topic being "negative". In fact, the success of the WikiProject Pornography to find a way to create encyclopedic bios for an industry that is looked down upon society is a counterpoint. What we have to recognize is that we are limited by what is covered in RS, and many traditional RSes shy away from these topics. There are bound to be more "new media" sources that will come in the future that will meet our RS definitions then, but they aren't there now, and there's no reason to make special cases in terms of subject specific notability guidelines, only to review RSes to show how the GNG can be met. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd consider The Daily Dot and ESPN a reliable source, would you not agree? I'd also consider winning a medal in a competition like the X Games being notable. I just think that the mission of this site should be to cover notable things in every field, if you win a world championship in a field you get an article if you get nominated for the top award in your field you should qualify. I'm not a fan of sending people to a different place to get information that is source able (The Daily Dot). That's a general site issue though so with these current guidlines i can see that these e-sports players might not pass GNG, i just think that specialist media should be included and encouraged. Then again i have a Excel sheet of over 50, 000 people that should qualify but are bogged down by some ridiculous guideline so it could just be me. GuzzyG (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • My two cents I've mentioned at WP:VG in the past as well - I think the WP:GNG is sufficient at this point, I think the problem more lies in who is writing and maintaining these eSports articles. Much of the core, experienced editors at WikiProject Video Games just aren't all that interested in it (myself included). As such, many of the articles are being created and maintained by relatively inexperienced editors, or ones with extremely lenient interpretations of the GNG, RS, and significant coverage. I think that if/when more people just get more involved, we'll naturally be able to start weeding out some of the garbage out there. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support KaisaL's three points, in one exact wording or another. Sources that are just about e-sports are not WP:INDY and do not represent actual notability. Just being in a pro event does not confer notability; it simply means someone is at least marginally competent at what they're doing. I've competed in international pool championships, but no one is going to write an article about me as pool player. It's the same issue as writing articles on minor actors who've appeared in a movie or TV show as a supporting character. "I actually found work in my line of work" != notability.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Apologies for length.

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

  • Rekkles: 13 sources including USA Today and WSJ already in the article. News searches (WP:BEFORE plz) find further mention in Yahoo and ESPN. You can add the team's official site to the list as a primary. This is in addition to what appears to be probably thousands of hits for outlets that cover esports in particular in multiple languages.
  • FORG1VEN: Currently poorly sourced, that's a given, but does include coverage by ESPN. Searches find Yahoo. Official ruling by Riot, which in this case is not simply a game developer, but the officiating organization, so is the esports equivalent of a ruling by FIFA or the NFL. There is substantial corresponding esports coverage pre and post ruling, as well as a good deal of esports coverage regarding his exception from Greek military service.
  • Lustboy, currently a stub. Searches find ESPN coverage of him as a coach, and a half dozen other ESPN articles. Looks like he got passing mention in Forbes. I see a dedicated spotlight bio by Riot. And again, all of this is in addition to scores or more of esports outlet coverage.

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

Your comments are kind of what I'm getting at in my comment above. Your examples show an extremely lax interpretation of our notability standards. For example, general consensus is to avoid Forbes "Contributor" written articles, because they're not of the same caliber of actual Forbes staff writers - they're semi-professional bloggers with a history for making mistakes or controversial claims. WP:VG consensus is generally not to use them. Your example of the ESPN source for "Lustboy" is pretty weak too - sure ESPN is a reliable source, but is that really significant coverage for Lustboy himself? Its a very short article, with very little about it in regards to Lustboy (most is about the team, not Lustboy). I think you're setting the bar a bit too low, as are the article creators, and that's why they keep getting sent to AFD... Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The particular forbes contributor writer is John Gaudiosi and according to his self written biography: "I've been covering the video game space for 20 years for outlets like The Washington Post, Reuters, CNET, AOL, Wired Magazine, Yahoo!, Entertainment Weekly, NBC, Variety, Maxim, EGM, and ESPN. I serve as EIC of GamerHub.tv and co-founder of GamerHub Content Network, a video game and technology video syndication network that works with Tribune and DBG to syndicate game videos and editorial around the world. I also cover games for outlets like The Hollywood Reporter, IGN, Geek Monthly, CNN, DigitalTrends and PrimaGames."--Prisencolin (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Keep in mind that notability is more than just being named in a source -we are looking for significant coverage across multiple sources. Most eSports players are listed as winners, but that's not significant coverage, instead we're looking for more to write about beyond the player's record. (Rekkles' mentions in the USA Today article are just about the minimum that we're looking for). If this is typical of the current type of coverage of players, then there's no way we can asset a subject-specific notability guideline since there's no assurance the GNG can be met on a regular basis by winners. But the GNG itself remains just fine for notability, as long as issues with sourcing and reliable sources (as Sergecross alludes to) are met. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Timothyjosephwood, I'm going to have to salt your argument about the people here being ignorant to the topic, so they are not in a position to lend input, as I myself was in the upper management of several prominent esports organizations between 2008 to 2014, and I was the person who brought this issue up with Drmies in the first place. ESPN is terrific and reliable source, but most of the articles in question use it as a source to describe teams and not the players themselves and even then, its presence is light. On top of that, the articles up for deletion are being dared to present the content and reliable sources that will bring them up to par, but they've thus far failed to do so. Even upon independently researching the players, there was next to no content about game-changing transitions that unreliable sources could present. I mean, is there anything encyclopedic about FORG1VEN, aside from his business with H2k-Gaming and facing a ban? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 23:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
There's been a real failure on both sides to define exactly what "encyclopedic value" even is. In any case, broader ideas of what does and does not belong on Wikipedia are probably discussion for another time. Consensus is that many athletes and competitors of other types of games belong on Wikipedia, so therefore why can't video game player, provided they have enough coverage in sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Not a single person has argued that articles on video game players don't belong on Wikipedia. Not a single person has argued that video game players inherently lack encyclopedic value. Ravenswing 03:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
DarthBotto has been continuously questioning whether certain types of content are encyclopedic, like here. That's what I'm alluding to.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
DarthBotto has said that eSports is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia, so I agree with Ravenswing: there's no attempt to argue that even with appropriate significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage in reliable sources, this topic should not be covered. isaacl (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I have been wondering about somekind of "inherent encyclopedic value" concept for quite some time as well, be it for webcomics or Overwatch porn, so I simply decided that if something is described in words by a reliable source, it is likely to be considered interesting and worth including. The same should go for esports-related topics. The biggest issue in my eyes is that there only seems to be a small set of reliable source frequently discussing the topic. That makes it unclear whether every single thing that The Daily Dot writes is worth repeating on Wikipedia. If the same information is provided by multiple reliable sources, its inherent value is much clearer. The field of said sources is irrelevant, as long as the actual staff is different. ~Mable (chat) 08:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the latest developments at AFD[edit]

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

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

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

  • For my part, it seems strange to me that some of these elements are in dispute at all (although I do agree they are points of contention in the recent AfDs). I certainly do agree that "eSports" are prominent enough to have notability standards, but those standards do not yet exist, so no argument along the lines of "People who've participated in X competition should be notable!" or "People who've coached X team should be notable!" can be sustained. The GNG is unambiguous that fleeting mentions, however prominent the sources, do not count towards notability. WP:ROUTINE is unambiguous about generic coverage not counting towards notability. Ravenswing 17:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Although there are dissenters, a number of your questions have a current consensus view in the general English Wikipedia community:
    • Coverage of a team does not meet Wikipedia's standards of inclusion for the individual team members.
    • Routine coverage such as you listed does not meet Wikipedia's standards of inclusion.
    • Passing mentions do not consist of significant coverage and do not meet Wikipedia's standards of inclusion.
  • Regarding participation in competitions, although there are various subject-specific guidelines that list these as rules of thumb that suggest an individual meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, they do not set a new bar for inclusion. Wikipedia does not use achievements as a standard for inclusion: significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources is required. The rules of thumb are just indicative that appropriate coverage can be found, given enough time to locate them. isaacl (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • WP:NSPORT, which seems most applicable, does appear to set some variety of "new bar" for the particular areas it covers. Per the guidance, subject must either meet WP:GNG or the criteria of NSPORT. Even if it is officially just a rule of thumb, it is often used as a hard standard in practice. TimothyJosephWood 19:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
      • The first sentence, second paragraph, and third paragraph of the sports notability guidelines page provide details on the relationship with the general notability guideline, as well as the associated frequently asked questions page, which explicitly states that the guidelines do not create new criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. This has been agreed upon by consensus since the inception of these guidelines and periodically since. If closers of articles for deletion discussion are ignoring this consensus, it's unfortunate. isaacl (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
      • It doesn't, really, and that's a misconception editors active on sports WikiProjects have to correct at AfD all too often. The whole purpose of NSPORTS criteria is to set forth achievements by which a player is highly likely to meet the GNG. A bunch of us consistently vote to delete at AfD if a player technically meets a criterion if after diligent search we can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Ravenswing 03:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The article Karrigan was just WP:A7 speedily deleted by @Nyttend: after it had been in mainspace for over a month. Perhaps he wants to share his thoughts here?--Prisencolin (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This article merely said that he was the "in-game leader" for an e-sports group, mentioned a couple of other groups of which he'd been a member, and noted an immigration hiccup that he'd encountered. It didn't demonstrate any evidence of real-life importance. Of course, A7 shouldn't be used on someone who's demonstrably notable, but it provided no secondary source coverage. This is distinctly not the kind of article that should be retained: barring solid coverage in solid secondary sources, professional video game players should be treated like anyone else. WP:ATHLETE provides for keeping professional sportsmen because they routinely get coverage in secondary sources, and it would be unhelpful to have notability-based deletion discussions for individuals who are almost certain to pass WP:GNG and unhelpful to have the occasional hole for that rare individual who doesn't otherwise pass GNG. Professional video game playing is new enough that there's no parallel to secondary sources such as Category:Baseball books, Category:Boxing books, Category:Association football books, Category:Olympic Games books, etc. Perhaps those sources will start to appear in coming years, but in the absence of extensive sport-wide reference works and other comprehensive publications, presuming these folks to be notable (or even A7-exempt) purely because of their video game accomplishments is fundamentally incompatible with WP:BALL. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The comment, A7 shouldn't be used on someone who's demonstrably notable, but it provided no secondary source coverage demonstrates a lack of understanding of A7. A7 says, The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That's a very low bar. If you're speedy deleting an article based on the lack of secondary sources, that's well outside what A7 allows. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure the proper procedure to do this but I would like to request the article back with an AfD if needed. The subject is one of the top Counter-Strike players in the world, and just look up "Karrigan" on the web and you'll find many secondary sources about him. Oh and there is coverage of him outside of just the teams, this article found on Sport1, for instance.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Prisencolin, you may open up a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 07:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I was hoping to work something out with @Nyttend: first.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
          • So I've decided to submit a DRV (another one...), in case I forget it about it later or am unable to. For the record, for the record though, there are some books about esports, including Game Boys by Michael Kane, Raising the Stakes by TL Taylor, and OpTic Gaming: the Making of Esports Champions by H3CZ, NaDeSHot, Scump et al.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
            • Of course, you have every right to do this and I do agree that with this subject, it's necessary to be sure that everything was done correctly. In the meantime, I'd encourage you to lay off the creation of new articles until we have a developed consensus with assertive conclusions. In the time since this very discussion began, you've created nineteen new articles, which unfortunately comes across as an act of defiance. Mind you, I'm a big supporter of esports, but I also want to see the topic held to the same standards as everything else on Wikipedia. I don't believe just adding to the pile is going to help this discussion at all. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 22:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
              • Alright I suppose I'll stop for now as a good faith gesture, even though I've been holding myself to a timetable to create the articles that are notable.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If any third party observers wish to know, almost every AfD that was brought up during the source of this discussion (Rekkles, Allu, Lustboy, FORG1VEN), has either been a keep or no consensus. We're still waiting for Happy to close though, and this one looks like it will be a NC. Overall, this should be an indication that most (but certainly not all) of the eSports article currently on the Wiki are probably notable.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


Proposal 2[edit]

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

  • An attempt is made to define esports, and is largely done in an effort to remain as analogous to athletic sports as possible. The goal is to exclude as many newcomers or fads as possible, while providing a criteria where areas generally recognized as legitimate (namely Starcraft, League of Legends, and CS:GO) will easily qualify.
  • Emphasis is given to the exclusivity of high level competition. An appropriate level of competition should rightfully exclude the vast majority of players, which is what lends notability. This policy anchors this to national level tournaments or higher, in lieu of attempting to specify particular tournaments for each game, and this may not be possible in a policy that would have any longevity. My understanding is that most large tournaments take place on the multi-national/regional level, and so this is a standard that will set a bar easily met by established competitions, and yet easily exclude amateur and semi-professional play.
  • Further emphasis is given to continuity of participation. This is a departure from NSPORT, as single event participation in a sufficiently high level event (however unlikely without an extensive history), qualifies individuals in many NSPORT guidelines. This is done to further restrict the potential field and weed out minor players.

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

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

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

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

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

  • The individual consistently participated and was successful in major competitions on the national, regional or global level.
    • Participation in competitions taking place at lower than a national level may only be considered if it garners coverage comparable to that typically given to a competition taking place at the national level or higher.
    • Participation solely in competitions below the national level, even extensively or highly successfully, will most likely not qualify the individual under this critera, barring extenuating circumstances.
    • Individuals with single or very few instances of participation or achievement should typically not be considered notable unless there is reason to expect their continued high-level participation, such as admittance to an established franchise with an extended contract
    • Individuals with a history of participation in global-level competition will typically meet this standard, regardless of whether they have won at this level.
    • First place finishes do not automatically qualify an individual. Neither do successive lesser place finishes disqualify. Rather, career performance should be considered as a whole to establish the degree of overall success.
  • The individual consistently earned substantial income from sources related to their competitively played game.
  • The individual has achieved other milestones related to their competitive play including:
    • Being admitted to a high-profile franchise
    • Receiving honors related to their participation
    • Was involved in other achievements of a historic value
  • Oppose I'm sorry, but not at all. I admire your passion for eSports and certainly you have been a strong voice in the ongoing AFD debates about this, but it is not football, baseball, hockey or a sport of that ilk. Being successful in "major competitions on the national, regional or global level" is an unthinkable level of inclusion for an area with such limited mainstream coverage, and especially when those major competitions are still broadly so niche and receive only specialist coverage the vast majority of the time. Simple "participation substantially on a professional level" is even more so. As for defining a criteria by "being admitted to a high-profile franchise" and "substantial income from sources", those would be dubious even for a genuinely top-level sport. The only thing I could possibly support in terms of competition level for such a niche field (as it is right now) would be to allow winners of the most significant global competitions to have an article, as we (for example) have for gymnastics. But then those winners are often teams, so the individuals should really be merged to those team articles if their only notability were that competition play. I really just think this is a criteria better suited to an eSports Wikia than Wikipedia. KaisaL (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, besides a rewrite of the main League article last year, I haven't contributed to this area at all prior to this. What about settling on world level competition? This seems to be ubiquitous in NSPORT. I didn't even know badminton had a world championship until today. Is that a minimum that could potentially be agreed upon?
As to the franchise and income clauses, those are meant mainly to be exclusionary...as in...if you don't do this full time we're not even going to have the discussion. They both can be removed. I have no objection to that.
I realize you may be against the topic generally. Like it or not there seems to be hundreds of these articles. I actually started to list them and stopped straight away. I'm not sure that the argument they are inherently less notable than badminton or curling really stands muster. So I'm trying to find some kind of middle ground that can be agreed upon. TimothyJosephWood 21:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Well there's multiple parts: we have the leagues, the seasons, the teams and then the players. For some "major" sports, the players are generally notable based on a small number of games played. For college football, the league, teams and season articles are but not players. For others, it's more of a mix. There's a middle ground on all of them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Well do in fact have articles for some current D1 college football players, just not all of them obviously.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
There may be hundreds of articles, and a large number of them may be of dubious notability. There's four at AFD right now and not one of them is proving to be a clear-cut keep. Badminton and curling are Olympic sports so I would say they're absolutely more notable than eSports at this time. My personal opinion is that a maximum for meeting the notability criteria by way of competition is winning a major individual competition; I wouldn't even say being part of a team that wins a major competition, that should qualify the team and not the player. I would personally say that any guidelines should be focused instead on what constitutes significant coverage for this field, which is what my initial proposals attempted to address. KaisaL (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
What of players who play for multiple notable teams? The teams are just franchises, or in Asia and increasingly the US, just glorified extended corporate sponsorships. It's rare cases where any team goes a season without significant roster changes. TimothyJosephWood 22:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
No current esports team is really a franchise of (this was a typo) a larger organization, so the particular word should probably be replaced with just "team".--Prisencolin (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Samsung Galaxy Blue/White, SK Telecom T1, Jin Air Green Wings, SBENU Sonicboom, ROX Tiger (Guongzhou Huaduo Network Technology, LLC). In the US, TSM and CLG are multi-game esports organizations. None of these are a group of five guys who like playing together and when they decide to stop the team ends. They are franchises proper. TimothyJosephWood 23:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
There was a typo, I mean "franchise OF a larger organization" not "franchise OR a larger organization". And by larger organization I'm talking about a league or association like the NFL--Prisencolin (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, for bands for example, the members almost never have their own articles unless they've received substantial coverage or achieved significant success separately. But I don't feel that simply playing for two teams is enough in this sport either, it's just not important enough yet. And, I've not really delved into teams but I'm sure there's issues with some of those too. KaisaL (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to be online much for the next few days (I'm sure you'll be delighted by this!) but I think I've made plenty of quite clear arguments by now anyway. I feel consensus on this whole issue is going to be very hard to come by and so we might indeed be debating WP:GNG for years to come at AFD. KaisaL (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Freaking Oppose: That's an impossibly vague set of criteria. What's "substantial income?" What's a "high-profile franchise?" How broadly do you define "honors?" Do consider that over the years, the various SNGs across Wikipedia started out just as loosey-goosey, and keep on being tightened and tightened, as editors hellbent on saving their creations claim that a collegiate "Academic Rookie of the Week" award constitutes a "preeminent honor," or that having had a speaking line in two Oscar-winning movies constitutes a "significant body of work." Ravenswing 04:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Starting out with something "loosey goosey" and then tightening was kindof the point. And I would appreciate quite more strong opposes so long as they include specific parts people take issue with. Eliminating the honors is perfectly fine. It is vague and there isn't an obvious way to fix that. The goal of the income portion was to categorically eliminate everyone who may play in local tournaments but don't do is as an actual job. What do you think about language saying that players should have played full time? The focus being on categorical elimination of those who don't, not categorical inclusion of those who do. TimothyJosephWood 10:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Consider changing to: "Full-time players: While not all full time players will be notable, those who play competitively on less than a full-time basis will generally not meet notability under this guideline. This includes students who play competitively as part of a scholarship." TimothyJosephWood 12:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's the issue with that: a recent discussion took umbrage with the NHOCKEY guideline, feeling that a couple of leagues (of which she happened to be a partisan) were undervalued, and that they should be considered top-tier leagues. Our retort was, as all NSPORTS guidelines exist as guides as to what athletes can reliably pass the GNG, that she had to do more than assert that some of the players in those leagues were notable. For those leagues to be in the top tier, it would have to be demonstrated that each and every player in league history who had played so much as a single minute could meet the GNG, and it was provably not remotely the case.

If, therefore, you assert (for the sake of argument) that players on eSports teams in a competitive league should be presumptively notable, it needs to be the case that every player on every team in that league can meet the GNG. Demonstrate proof of that, and I'm perfectly willing to support such a criterion. Ravenswing 22:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose "Esports" are a modern enough phenomenon that there is no need for a SNG "presumed notability" either the subject is notable per GNG or not and there in not a significant body of indivduals whose RS are hard to find because they are old, offline etc.

    This should be read by the closer, as a flat opposition to any SNG for "Esports" because SNGs, particularly in sports, are abused to include articles on subjects who do not have nor will ever have coverage which meets GNG. JbhTalk 18:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Abstain, this set of guidelines is just too vague to be accepted, as other users have pointed out. It also seems to just uphold the status quo by reiterating Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography over and over again in different ways. Another concern I have is that there isn't a real definition what "national level tournaments" are, because eSports aren't organized along national borders, unlike football competitions. The closest analogue we have, and what you're probably alluding to are the regionals League of Legends leagues, like the LCS, LCK etc. I'm not opposed to these guidelines per se, but they just way to vague to become an official guideline.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said originally, I just wanted to provide a more substantial starting off point for discussion about what might be agreed upon. It's vague by design. But there seems a general feeling of "I don't want anything at all" or people that have been unresponsive to attempts at trying to formulate their criticism into actual changes. So it seems this will probably go nowhere on any front. TimothyJosephWood 23:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
My thought is that if it's this vague, we might as well not have it at all. Either that or we could just have a notice where that just reaffirms the fact that eSports articles need to meet WP:GNG. There's no need define which games are eSports; we can just list out high profile games like LoL, Dota, SC etc. and any new emerging titles can be added later. --Prisencolin (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Mostly oppose. I would prefer something structured like WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NHOCKEY/LA, where we would have a tiered list of esports based on community consensus (e.g. LOL, CS:GO, DOTA II, SC2 etc. as top tier, smaller titles like WOT as a lower tiers) and assess notability for players and teams striclty based on results at top events. For example, community consensus on League may be that a player on a team that reaches the knockout bracket of the League worlds is presumed notable if mentioned in sources covering the event/team result and players on a team that reaches the finals of one of the regional LCS championships is presumed notable if mentioned in sources. For CS:GO, this could be making the finals at a CS:GO Major, for SC2, making the finals of WCS, or winning GSL or Proleague, etc. Of course if a subject could also meet GNG without meeting these standards. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Prisencolin, Patar knight, Maybe there's a different take away lesson here. Maybe what needs to happen is an esports WikiProject, and after there is a substantial involved community knowledgeable about the subject, we should revisit issues like these. TimothyJosephWood 11:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of creating a place holder page here. I'm gonna poke around and see if I can find someone more versed in setting all this up. TimothyJosephWood 12:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm wholly in support of this, but pretty sure you need permission before creating a wikiproject page, so I would move this into userspace for now if I were you.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I read the rules again and found no such guideline. There is a suggestion though that these pages be kept in userspace until enough editors come aboard.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Before adding any SNG criteria, we first should ensure that it really does mean that in a vast majority of cases, subjects covered by it would in fact meet the GNG. SNGs are not "alternate criteria" to the GNG, but instead are meant to highlight cases where sufficient coverage would exist in almost all cases. If that's not in fact true here, such an SNG would be deceptive and unhelpful. Let's figure out that before proposing anything. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Too detailed, too permissive. In particular, it's missing any requirement of coverage outside of non-WP:INDY gamer mags/sites.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - This is extremely vague. Ethanlu121 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 3[edit]

I've noticed that the articles that meet these criteria seem to always have significant coverage in sources. Note that the dates are arbitrary cutoffs that nonetheless seem to reflect the existence of sourcing. Also note that this list assumes the current eSports afds will pass, otherwise it may have to become more restrictive:


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

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ refers organization pages, not sure about standalone articles about an individual squad like Fnatic (Dota 2)
  2. ^ this is a logical one, but it seems that six winners of the OSL currently don't have pages
  3. ^ the paper trail of secondary sources seems to run out after Summer 2013, the NA LCS Summer 2013 was only added because it was discussed in Playboy

Discussion[edit]

  • I agree with what @Seraphimblade just said:

    Before adding any SNG criteria, we first should ensure that it really does mean that in a vast majority of cases, subjects covered by it would in fact meet the GNG. SNGs are not "alternate criteria" to the GNG, but instead are meant to highlight cases where sufficient coverage would exist in almost all cases. If that's not in fact true here, such an SNG would be deceptive and unhelpful. Let's figure out that before proposing anything.

    This is what you would need to show before this could even be considered. czar 06:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That makes little sense, except maybe you think that GNG means that we have the material to write an article, but that isn't necessarily the case.  If Wikipedians agree that a criteria shows that the topic has attracted the attention of the world, that suggests that the world wants a WP:Verifiable article about the topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Without any explanation, these all look rather...arbitrary. This is all far less clear or clean-cut than, for example, how in the music world, there's the argument that "if a song charted, its likely to have received the significant coverage to meet the GNG. I'd ask how you determined some of these criteria (Why top 4/8/X and not other numbers? Why is $1 million a cutoff point?) but I also agree with Czar/Seraphimblade's notion above, and it may be better to address that first (and my question would probably take a lot of research/explanation, and may well be rendered moot by SB's concern.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The cutoffs are indeed arbitrary, but it's just what I've noticed tends to correlate best with articles that would probably meet GNG.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I created a list of all the League of Legends players who would meet the criterion for playing four or more LCS splits. which can be found here (sorry for lack of formatting). Look some of them up if you want to doublecheck.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I might lower the CS:GO tournament prize pool limit, but it just seems like the media has discussed $1,000,000 as a cutoff and it's more than the amount offered by ELeague, which is larger than the prize pool offered by CS:GO Majors.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – A precise set of criteria will avoid protracted edit wars and pissing contests, saving lots of editor hours and headaches. Sure, criteria can and will change, and there will be arguable exceptions, but this proposal looks like a solid start to bring order and quiet. — JFG talk 17:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per JFG. For CS:GO, and Starcraft these are all high selective criteria that would only capture the absolute best teams and players that would all meet WP:BASIC if not WP:GNG, and based on my limited knowledge of LOL and DOTA 2, it seems similarly highly restrictive. No comment about the fighting games, but it always can be refined and tweaked if need be. In general terms, this is the kind of SNG I would support. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I can hold no opinion as I am under WP:COI. But the current criteria for League players does not include World Championship winning players? I was wondering if this was an oversight or intentional. Thank you, Richard Yetalk 04:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Just winning Lol worlds might not make a player notable, as the players Shushei, LaMiaZeaLoT, and Mellisan from fnatic's season 1 worlds team don't seem to pass WP:1E, and some of the Season 2 Taipei Assassins playera are iffy. That being said I think all players post Season 3 are notable so I'll change it.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is a mix of WP:RECENTISM and WP:POV, i.e. "if it involves these current games that I happen to like, then it's notable". Um, no.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a bizarre oppose.The very nature of Esports and reliable reporting on esports is "recent". An esports SNG cannot be like the hockey notability guidelines I linked above that include provisions for defunct leagues without compromising its ability to guarantee that people who meet it would also meet BASIC/GNG. For older esports teams, events, and players, not having much if any reliable sources is the norm, not the exception (e.g. how mainstream Brood War got in Korea)). All the games listed here are basically among the Esports that have the most viewers, most prize money, most players, most cultural significance, and most importantly most coverage from reliable sources. Tweaks can be made in regards to what games should belong (e.g. Maybe Hearthstone should be on the list), but this is not some motley collection of games that one or a few users like, it's an accurate reception of what games are most likely to have their top players meet the GNG. If you do some research on largest, most-watched esports, these are the games that would appear.-- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Manchester City sign first esports player[edit]

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

Sources that cover eSports players?[edit]

Before we can write an SNG, we need to examine a few examples of reliable independent sources that typically cover eSports players. Once we see what things the sources actually take note of, then we will have a better idea a) whether we should create an SNG, and b) if so, what things we should include as criteria in an SNG. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  • User:Prisencolin/esportsnews, there is some controversy over some of the sources I listed under "reliable", however. Also many general gaming websites cover esports to extent nowadays, and the most reliable ones can be found at WP:VGRS--Prisencolin (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Requesting Policy on 'Star Databases'[edit]

It is possible for people to 'name' any star by making a payment to one of a plethora of databases. Whether these databases serve a valuable social function or they are completely scurrilous is irrelevant - these names have no wider validity and the star may already have an historic name. I found an example on the entry for Messier 29 stating one of the stars had been named with a silly name on one of these databases. I fear this could become a trend - perhaps fed by the fact that it can be used to promote the database used by including the name or even a link. I can imagine the databases encouraging people to add their star to Wikipedia. A clear policy statement would help give people the confidence to rapidly delete such entries wherever they crop up. Stub Mandrel (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need a specific policy. We already have policies about undue weight, spamming, and inappropriate external links. Putting names from a "name your own" database would normally be inappropriate undue weight, unless such a name has received significant coverage in reliable sources for some reason. I suspect for the vast majority of them, that is not the case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
And it's not a trend; these things have been around since at least the earl 1980s, with no apparent impact on the real world.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion[edit]

Following the closure at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_128#RfC:_Proposed_draftspace_deletion, and no review, I've created Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion as a proposed process. Given that there is consensus that the policy should be adopted, I'd like to see if we could move it to a policy at this point. Some people express some concerns about the time limits listed so I'll add that. Please vote in the subheaders about (a) the length of inactivity; (b) the length of review; and finally (c) whether to adopt as policy. I figured I'd see where we are before starting on the templates and categories. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  • My understanding is that the consensus is that there is no deadlines for pages both in the main namespace as well as the draft namespace; see [[4]] This proposal is thus against the consensus (and cannot be implemented). Please try to find new toys to play with. -- Taku (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    The result of the "Proposed draftspace deletion" RfC means that a PROD-like process can be initiated to remove unwanted drafts without requiring a full Miscellany for Discussion, thus speeding up maintenance. However, since (per consensus) non-AfC Drafts are not subject to deadlines, the Prod should state an explicit reason for their removal - being stale would be not enough. Diego (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you for the clarification. I'm fine with streamlining the process. -- Taku (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    TakuyaMurata, they don't seem really unrelated, it looks more like an attempt to overrule the previous consensus regarding the lack of deadlines by placing a streamlined process with more reviews and checks. Well, that doesn't work for me. I'm OK with having the streamlined process for maintenance, but not with having it triggered just by stalled time. PRODs are an acceptable way to remove bad content, but an explicit reason why the content is bad must be provided, and "nobody touched it recently" is not a valid one. Diego (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    It's not. Wikipedia:User_pages/RfC_for_stale_drafts_policy_restructuring was more detailed in that drafts should not be kept indefinitely. If you think there should be an additional requirement that the person explicitly states that they support deletion on WP:NOTHOST grounds, that seems duplicative to me but fine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    Don't you mean the RfC that was used for including in WP:STALEDRAFT the text "In a RfC held in March 2016, the community held the view that drafts have no expiration date and thus, cannot and should not be deleted on the grounds of their age alone."? Removing drafts in order to "not keeping them indefinitely" is only in cases where "notability is unlikely to be achieved", which is a reason different to "having been unedited for a time", which is my point. Diego (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    Oh, and the closing statement of the RfC that you linked includes this gem: "Unless a userspace draft is unacceptable for Wikipedia for GNG-unrelated reasons (copyright violations, self-promotion, and so on), it does not have an expiration date and does not have to comply with WP:GNG. No-hope drafts should not stick around indefinitely, but drafts with some potential should be allowed to stay." To me, this seems fairly incompatible with wanting to delete a draft by PRODing it for being stale without providing a further reason. Diego (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    I'll agree with you on that. The page has been changed to allow for a separate rationale. It's basically an alternative to MFD limited to a subset of draftspace pages with very specific criteria. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Length of inactivity of draft[edit]

The current proposal is that the draft must be inactive for at least six months. Any draft submitted to AFC would be subject to G13 deletion under this criteria. A rough estimate says that we are talking about approximately 4400 pages just for a rough number. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Support six month inactivity requirement[edit]

  • Support as proposer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thinking "support", but with some expansion that requires six months inactivity not just by the original author, but also by any other editors who opt-in as supporting the draft. This could be taken to include all substantial editors, but that might get complicated due format-fixers, and copy-vio removers, etc, and I think it need be bot-process-able. NB. This would only apply to a small fraction of abandoned drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Maybe only include those editors besides the author who have the draft "watchlisted"? That might make it more manageable... --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The identity of watchlisters is private, not available. Good idea though. I am thinking a formal "draft adoption", a tag added to the talk page in which editors may add their name alongside the original author's as editors supporting and taking some responsibility for the draft. Some drafts, on obscure topics, or a little too WP:CRYSTAL, should not be deleted due to inactivity alone. However, I respect that the vast majority of inactive drafts are driveby dumped and without potential.
The alternative would be that such editors would be well advised to move the page into their userspace, and I don't think that is a good way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
There's also wikiprojects which, like with prod, could probably get article alerts as well. Again, we're discussing a month-long notice with a simple WP:REFUND solution if there's an error. It wouldn't be too difficult to sit on something for months, have it sit there for this process, have it deleted and then refund it immediately and sit on it again. At that point, we've had it basically siting unedited for at least 14 months and even then we could do it again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
That's true. I am not finding much objectionable here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I quite like the "no potential for use" required assertion by both the tagger and deleter. In the first week, a draft may be no more than an unclear idea, but after six months if there is nothing that looks useful, at all, and the author is six months inactive, then the page surely is just one of the tens of thousands of worthless ill-prepared driveby submissions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose six month inactivity requirement[edit]

If you oppose, please state what you suggest instead (one year, two years, longer). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose: there is no deadline for draft content if it doesn't contradict any content policy. The people supporting removal based on timelines have never provided a good reason why such deletion would be an improvement to the project over proposed alternatives like tagging and/or blanking stale drafts. Diego (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The RFC was closed with support for this proposal. No one disputed the closure from what I can tell. Do we have to repeatedly obtain a consensus in support with the same people just opposing it repeatedly or will you respect the WP:CONSENSUS that you ignoring the reasons provided as "not good" is not productive? I also reverted your requirement to have an additional concern parameter as there was no consensus for another requirement beyond what was proposed before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    The RFC was closed with support to implement a lightweight process to solve the problems of 1a) being difficult to find pages in draftspace, 1b) archiving pages that don't help in writing an encyclopedia, 1c) having a backlog and MfD and 1d) hosting harmful content. There were nothing in that RfC supporting the deletion of drafts that contain content that should be WP:PRESERVEd (in fact the very closing rationale acknowledges at 2a) that pages that are not harmful do not need to be removed).
    There's consensus that you *can* establish a procedure for cleanup that removes the "not good" drafts, but you don't have consensus for overruling the previous long-standing position that useful drafts should be kept unless there's a reason to remove them; certainly not from the result of that RfC.
    As has been pointed out numerous times, there are remedies for 1a) and 1c) that don't require deleting the good drafts - such as classifying the reviewed drafts and blanking unusable but non-harmful content instead of deleting it. Putting those remedies in place as part of this policy would be a net positive. Diego (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    There's a proposal for sorting at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#General_discussion. However, I don't really understand whether the end goal for the "no potential"/"non-starter" drafts or whatever they are is if the proposal is to mass list those at MFD or something in waves. I don't know why a 100 nomination of say two-year-old non-starter drafts is a better system than just proposing them for deletion as we see them. My other disapproval is that I don't believe that we should like there is an inherent draft sorting system here. There isn't one. It's only by project in mainspace and/or by AFC by choice. That's why I can live with doing it with Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts but all that sorting theory just seems to be debates about how things could be sorted with no progress coming. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

    " I don't really understand whether the end goal for the "no potential"/"non-starter" drafts ..."

The end goal is an orderly deletion process for the hopeless stuff, with more focus on positive tagging for the good stuff. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose six months, support one year. Six months is too short (e.g. I'm thinking of some actor BLPs – esp. child actor BLPs – I work on where you want to wait a year to see what develops in the actor's career). A year sounds about right. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose if all of these months of discussions are about less than 5000 pages. These months of discussions all seem like solutions searching to define a problem – comparable to someone selling a robotic vacuum by pointing out where and how a robotic vacuum can be used on a carpet as a replacement for person with a lobby broom and dust pan. I agree with Diego Moya: "there are remedies for 1a) and 1c) that don't require deleting the good drafts". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Question: If they really are "good drafts", why are they sitting in draft space without anyone working to improve them? Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:There is no deadline. There are any number of reasons why an informative yet half-made list or a repository of reliable sources might end up as a draft without anyone currently willing to develop it, of which the most likely ones are 1) an editor started a viable draft but abandoned it along the way, and 2) an AfD process has decided to move to Draftspace an article with potential which nevertheless doesn't satisfy the Notability or Indiscriminate requirements (yet). Diego (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Blueboar: yes, that is my point – just as a person with a lobby broom and dust pan is more discriminant than a robotic vacuum. Someone can look at one of those less than 5000 page and follow an existing process since WP:There is no deadline. This is by far a minor problem - like a cigarette butt dropped on the carpet when compared to the actual dirt that is embedded in the carpet, i.e. the poor content in established articles. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, these are still being nominated and deleted at MFD but I'd like to see if there's a way I don't have to go through at MFD for pages like Draft:Eugene Huang and Draft:Dominic "2k2" Martinez and others among the thousands that eat up the MFD log. Again, no one is suggesting some crazy bot that nominates every page that hasn't been edited in six months for deletion (although we do do that for G13 I might add). It's trying to see if there's a way to touch a clear set of pages other than MFD where they get voted keep for no logical reason and then you get yelled at by those people for creating the backlog of nominations for crap there. It's a straightforward way of "look, here's an old draft that hasn't been edited, does anyone else think it's useful, if so, just remove this tag and we all move on..." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is ridiculously short. Really drafts should have no upper limit to how long they can be inactive for. There is no reason to force action to have it ready for an article, and even less to delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I wonder, Graeme Bartlett, if we are working with different definitions of "draft". Draft of what? If a page contains nothing of any potential to use, is it fair to call it a draft? Is an empty page a draft? An autobiography by a school kid? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm beginning to think about drafts that may only be intended (or appropriate as) parts of articles. WP:DRAFT somewhat suggests they shouldn't be there at all (but Help:Userspace draft certainly allows them in userspace). I certainly create drafts of sections and even paragraphs (but I do it in userspace trying to avoid the scrutiny that has arisen in draftspace). For such things most of our normal deletion criteria do not work at all. A "non-notable" draft might be deletable at MFD but not at AFD where a merge might prevail. An AFC submission (but only by a creator) makes the intended status definite. Thincat (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that there can be totally useless drafts that could be deleted without harm. However when I see how many real article attempts are tagged with G5 in userspace, I know that this will be used by some to try to delete just about anything that is not article ready. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is dismaying that the draft policy makes no provision whatever for high quality drafts. Taggers should be told (by policy) these are not to be tagged. For high quality drafts there should be no time limit. Thincat (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there is no reason to delete what may be useful. If it is worthless nonsense it can be deleted as is, no need for a timed cut-off.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Revised to require "no potential for use." Some drafts themselves are not usable for an article but its contents (particularly if it's like a single sentence that is sourced) can be merged into another article or the like. As I've noted repeatedly, there is no standardized language about this and MFD discussions have never settled on a standard so it's really a lot of take it as we see it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I just checked, and I have several old drafts, with the intention to work on them some day. Two are six years old (yikes). What I wish could happen is that editors use some common sense. If an editor has a single user space draft and has done nothing with it or anything else for six months, they are probaably gone, and the draft should go. If an editor is active, and has several drafts in various stages of progress, they may get to it eventually, and multiple years are warranted. However, if I had to pick an objective, simple rule, I'd go for two years. --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose (copied from the proposal talk page, but salient here) I suggest that rather than allow "six months = stale" as an article of faith, that we simply follow past policy - that any draft which violates core policies regarding NPOV, BLP, and the like not need to be "stale" and that articles in draftspace which are not asserted in any way to violate Wikipedia policies governing article not be constrained by any arbitrary "sell-by" date. Thus leaving this new system to be only applicable to draft articles which meet the current criteria for MfD in the first place. I note further my general agreement with Sphilbrick here. Collect (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • So would you then be removing this six month requirement at all? Would any page in draftspace that isn't subject to AFC be subject to someone proposing deletion, with a reason provided in the proposal and then having it deleted in a month if (as revised) it is both considered opposed and the closing administrator finds that the draft has no potential for use? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't like the idea of PRODing a draft just because it is stale, but if we were two do it, I'd say two years at minimum. Six months is definitely too short - as some editors have pointed out, notability and significant coverage is usually determined by time (in that, the longer a topic is talked about, the more significant it is), and six months isn't nearly long enough for many subjects to gain more reliable coverage.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's about quality of material in the draft and whether an encyclopedic article can actually be written about the topic. I've had some userspace drafts around for several years, will finish them eventually, and they cause no problems for anyone. If there's some concern that the draft space is getting unwieldy, then maybe we should userspace old drafts. Deletion is counterproductive, unless the material is WP:NONSENSE or directly violates policies like WP:BLP, or the topic itself is WP:NFT garbage or some other non-notable cruft.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose six months Support two years. There is a certain amount of labor sunk by reviewers checking old drafts. By deleting drafts after two years, those drafts are very likely to be abandoned, and also reviewers who browse such things will not perpetually be browsing the same content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Question: Where is the discussion section for this survey? And what level of activity is the presumed creator of the drafts supposed to have? Are we talking about editors who haven't been active in years? Or are we talking about editors in good standing who have been around for years, and are still active? To prod-delete the drafts of the latter after six months of neglect is insane, especially since we don't keep our userspace drafts on our watchlists. Clearly whatever proposals are put forth need to take into account the level of activity of the draft creator. Softlavender (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose  This seems to be a perennial proposal, but length of inactivity is not a valid criteria for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Length of review[edit]

The current proposal is that the draft must be sitting in the category for at least 30 days (one month can vary). In contrast, the current MFD method has a one week review process. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Support one month review[edit]

  • Support as proposer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support a lightweight process as long as "being stale" is never considered a reason on itself for deleting a draft, and a different reason is required such as WP:NOTHOST or WP:BLP. Per WP:PRESERVE, those drafts containing verifiable facts and reliable sources that could be reused at any article in main space should never be deleted through this process. Diego (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTHOST would apply to most every page, would it not? Does it actually need to be stated in each proposed deletion? It seems unnecessary. I'd support additional language such as "no plausible chance of any use" or something more but we have never managed to get any solid criteria on when a draft is appropriate to be kept versus deleting it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    WP:NOTHOST only applies to pages which do not contain useful content, so hardly "most every page"; every former article that has been moved from mainspace as a result of an AfD decision, or draft page containing references to reliable sources (i.e. content useful for writing the encyclopedia) would not fall under WP:NOTHOST.
    we have never managed to get any solid criteria on when a draft is appropriate to be kept versus deleting it That is the reason why a process that can remove any stalled draft, without even providing a reason for that removal and without reaching a consensus from multiple editors is madness and should not happen as is. Diego (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    I struck it. You have a good point. I restored the parameter as well to the template as well as the policy language. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • A month seems a reasonable time, better than a week. However it should never get to this point anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The two provisions should be made consistent. I do not, however, support the notion that a draft that could be viable with some work should be deleted simply because a month has passed; it should instead be userspaced.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose one month review[edit]

If you oppose, please state what you suggest instead (one week, two weeks, two months, six months, longer). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose Rule creep. And no "suggestion" that a "suggestion" is required as it makes no sense. Points to those who parse that correctly. Collect (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No reason has been provided for any deletions at all. G13 should be banned as well. Wikijuniorwarrior (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    User is a banned sock, so I have struck their comment. --Izno (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Why was this struck and not the bottom one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akskdjfjrhrheh (talkcontribs) 21:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

  • OpposeBoBoMisiu (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose rule creep. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose  This proposal is unclear, but based on context, it is part of a plan to delete content contributions without good reason for so doing.  The effect would not apply to administrators, so I suggest that an administrator should not be making proposals that only apply to non-administrators.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Adoption as a 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.
WP:SNOWBALL close.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC) — NAC

Just want to check if there's support for adoption as is. Doubtful but a first shot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Support adoption[edit]

  • Support -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • It's WP:POINTy to open a proposal that you say yourself is "doubtful" and then !vote in support of it as a devil's advocate. Also, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, so we don't need any "first shots".  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose adoption[edit]

  • Oppose And demur on the current non-admin close of a proposal which had significant substantial and reasoned opposition in any case. I suggest the proposer note this and ask for a formal closure by an admin with at least 2000 total edits to close it. Collect (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Collect Then I suggest you take it to WP:AN. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
      • @Collect: There is a close challenge discussion at WP:AN if you wish to make that point there. Note that opposing because it's an non-admin is against policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • OpposeBoBoMisiu (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose solution for a non problem, and will create lots of work and trouble for nothing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the policy as drafted. I have given some reasons in the discussion below. Thincat (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as Graeme says, a non-problem. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Useless. — JFG talk 17:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Other comments[edit]

It mentions notification... But does not say anything about the possibility of userfication. That should be in there somewhere. Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll add that as a proposal. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Blueboar Feel free to revise the proposal if you think more is needed. The actual templates will probably need more work as well. I'm not particularly confident this as is will succeed but let's see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly oppose the notion that being inactive is a reason to remove a draft in Draftspace. The whole reason of having such space to begin with is to allow the possibility that any editor may find usable content that could be reused in the future, but it does not conform to the main space strict criteria (yet); if we delete such content, we might as well get rid of the Draft space entirely. Diego (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • It's not "being inactive", it really should be "not edited and not likely to go anywhere." Old drafts that are useful are currently reviewed and extended via AFC. Old drafts that are ready currently get moved to mainspace. As such, it's basically an extended MFD for older drafts in a particular space with the rationale being provided there in the notice and just a single veto needed rather than a formal discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Ricky81682, I would more happily agree with you if you avoided probability-based statements. "likely" is a bad guidance word. Change "not likely to go anywhere" to "not containing material suitable for mainspace"?
More importantly though, "Old drafts that are useful are currently reviewed and extended via AFC"? Can you tell me more about this? This sounds like what I am trying to re-invent at Wikipedia talk:Drafts? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:GNG was equally as vague when it started. It has to be built up. The refusal to even suggest a wording is why there's no real solutions here. I still cannot find a standard for when people should vote at AFD to draftify a page other than "someone wants it." See Category:AfC postponed G13. The highest one is 4 postponements which is as much as 2 years. Removing a tag is the same idea here but I don't see the need for a counter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • As drafted the policy seems to me seriously unsatisfactory in that it makes no statement at all about drafts that are of a good quality. It says deletion would be "uncontroversial" but the policy (if adopted) would be controversial and clearly it contemplates disregarding objections such as these. CSD is supposed to be uncontroversial but nominations are regularly rejected and invalid deletions overturned at DRV. The instruction about checking for vandalism hints that good content might be an asset but this is far too weak a suggestion. It is unsatisfactory to presume that tagged drafts are of unsatisfactory quality merely because no one has objected. So far as I can judge, the instructions to administrators make no mention of assessing drafts for quality. WP:REFUND seems to be merely held out as a sop because (1) many inexperienced editors, confronted with a draft that has gone, will not be able to find their way to this and (2) refund would be ineffective if, as conceded in WP:Deletion policy#Archiving, deleted pages may be removed from the database at any time. Thincat (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The problem is we don't have any standard for when a draft should be kept. Even suggesting something as vague as "plausible change to be useful" or "likely to be useful" is opposed. Revise as needed. I'm fine with the closing admin being told to review the draft but what's the question for them? Is the draft "useful"? If so, fine with me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Thank you for making that change. I'll certainly think about things. One the one hand not seeming to have "any potential for use" would be, for me, so strict, that I would be hard put to prod anything. On the other hand I see so many PRODs and even CSD tags for deletions that would in no way be uncontroversial and (at FFD) boilerplate nominations such as "unused, no foreseeable use" issued at a rate of several a minute where no thought whatever could have been put into the foreseeable part of it. You ask a good question of what should be asked of the closer but again I'll need to ponder. In my immediate opinion very brief snippets could be deleted fairly harmlessly even if they could be useful (they can be re-typed). As a slight aside I think all our draft deletion considerations need to have a stronger focus on whether the "draft" was intended to be a full article. Standards of notability, verification, being NPOV and so on may not apply at all if we are unknowingly looking at the draft of something to be merged as a section or even a paragraph of some other article. Thincat (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked through the proposed P/G at this time, but I think there should probably be a {{draft with potential}} that could act to easily indicate whether a draft should be prodded. Also, I would expect that draft prods would cause an article alert for the WikiProjects of interest--at least for pop culture topics, the aid of the WikiProjects could easily (and has done so) identify whether the draft has potential, or whether the topic of the draft has potential, regardless of the present quality of the draft. Right now a number of WikiProjects have a "requested articles" bucket that draftspace could help move toward "actually a topic of interest". --Izno (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • There is such a system. It's been suggested in a multitude of ways with no actual impetus to do it since these pages aren't actually being suggested for deletion. My thought is that that project can then tag the drafts as needed, use article alerts and be the equivalent of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron for drafts. We could add that once a proposed draft is removed, it can never be listed again so that you don't really need that tag more than one time. Otherwise, I can live with an exemption list, it doesn't actually matter that much to me. If the exemption becomes a problem, we'll re-evaluate it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think we should clarify the role of the Draft namespace. Based on some editors' contributions to that namespace, it seems like it is basically just used as a personal scratch-pad for material that might eventually be incorporated into some article, but also might not. That material does not need to be sourced, or even remotely coherent (I'm looking at most of the drafts in this collection, for example). As far as I can tell, it is rather hard to get drafts deleted, because they are supposed to be drafts, rather than polished content. On the other hand, if material is really unlikely to be expanded into the mainspace, it seems like there should be some kind of timetable, at least to get a draft to a point where it might plausibly be useful for the project. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Move to Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_draftspace_deletion[edit]

I think this discussion should be moved to Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_draftspace_deletion. Link from here, transclude it to here, whatever, by all means, but proposal development discussion belongs on the proposal's talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Plus it'll be easier to remove this lunacy when that page is finally defeated and deleted. Wikijuniorwarrior (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Wikijuniorwarrior: It won't be deleted just because it doesn't succeed. Besides, what if someone wants to improve on it? We can't go around deleting people's hard work, can we? clpo13(talk) 16:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
No need to move discussion. Here is better as it is a central discussion board. Also no need to delete when it fails, just tag it as a failed proposal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree thst it would make sense to keep the proposal if it does fail. That way if someone does propose something similar in the future they can see what went wrong with the previous proposal to either A, Drop the proposal or, B, Learn why the original proposal failed to help them draft a new proposal that addresses the issues that caused the original proposal to fail.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability in Knight's Cross Holder articles[edit]

Hi, a quick note on a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles. During a recent AfD process, which involved military notability at WP:Soldier, one of the suggestions I got was to see if an RfC may need to be formulated.

I'm seeking input into this potential RfC or other possible ways to address the notability concern in related articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

How to handle suspected violators[edit]

tl;dr summary: IP editor requests that we give "suspected policy violators" and "suspected vandals" a massive judicial process, to be judged by 12 jurors from their home country, and to get to pick 6 of those jurors themselves. Not happening. Alsee (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Anytime an IP address or user is suspected of violating a Wikipedia policy by another Wikipedia user or IP address (the complainant), he or she should be able to decide to either have 12 community members give a consensus as to whether or not he or she violated that policy, have an administrator decide on the guilt, or plea guilty. In a community hearing, it should take at least 7 members to make a guilty verdict. The 12 community members should be picked from a pool of 50 randomly selected Wikipedias. All people in that pool should have to be a Wikipedian for at least a year and have at least 1,00 edits with no history of violations for at least a year, and should have to reside in the same country as the suspected violator . 6 of those members should be chosen by the suspected violator. The other 6 should be chosen by the complainant. Both sides should have at least 1 day to do this. Both the suspected violator and the complainant should have the opportunity to make their cases before the 12 community members give their verdict. Whether the community members or an administrator decide the verdict, the burden should lie on the complainant to prove the suspected violator's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Both sides should be given at least 7 days to build their case before the community members or administrator decide the suspected vandal's fate. If the verdict comes back as guilty, then both the complainant and the now convicted violator should have at least 7 days to make statements before the administrator decides on the sanctions in a sanction hearing. When somebody first complains about vandalism, the first administrator who respond should be assigned as the administrator of that case. If that administrator believes there to be probable cause that the said violation occurred, then he or she should be allowed to block the suspected violator until he or she is acquitted in a properly held hearing or the complainant drops his or her case against the suspected violator. Otherwise, there should be no sanctions until the sanction hearing. Hearings should be done only by an administrator who resides in the same county as the suspected vandal. I think these hearings should be done in an IRC channel. In a community hearing, the administrator should decided the matter of policy, and the community members should decide the matter of fact. In an administrator hearing, the administrator should decided the matter of policy and the matter of fact. Violation hearings, member section hearings, and sanction hearings for suspected violators who reside in the USA should be done only Monday through Friday 8am-12pm PST and 1pm-5pm PST with the exception of New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and New Years Eve. Violation hearings, member section hearings, and sanction hearings for suspected violators who reside in the USA should be done only Monday through Friday 8am-12pm PST and 1pm-5pm PST with the exception of New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, US Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and New Years Eve. Violation hearings, member section hearings, and sanction hearings for suspected violators who reside in the Canada should be done only Monday through Friday 8am-12pm EST and 1pm-5pm EST with the exception of New Years Day, Canada Day, Labour Day, Canada Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and New Years Eve. Violation hearings, member section hearings, and sanction hearings for suspected violators who reside in the UK should be done only Monday through Friday 8am-12pm GMT and 1pm-5pm GMT with the exception of New Years Day, Good Friday, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and New Years Eve. Violation hearings, member section hearings, and sanction hearings for suspected violators who reside in Australia should be done only Monday through Friday 8am-12pm AEST and 1pm-5pm AEST with the exception of New Years Day, Australia Day, ANZAC Day, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and New Years Eve. Violation hearings, member section hearings, and sanction hearings for suspected violators who reside in New Zealand should be done only Monday through Friday 8am-12pm NZST and 1pm-5pm NZST with the exception of New Years Day, Waitangi Day, New Zealand Labour Day, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and New Years Eve. 2602:306:3357:BA0:ED19:F25C:138B:A76F (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems like an awful lot of incredibly pointless bureaucracy. Why don't you just tell us what your previous account/IP was, so we can look and decide if your block was appropriate. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
We are not going to implement this massive judicial system. We are ESPECIALLY not going to let people team-up by nationality to violate our Neutrality rules. BTW, your National Holiday list missed 191 countries. Please do not attempt to fix that oversight. Alsee (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

"Further reading" section of articles be limited online resources[edit]

There would be benefit to having the resources listed in "further reading" sections limited to online resources only. My specific concern is with "further reading" sections of US city articles. On some US city articles, the further reading sections appear a repository of book titles (see Jacksonville, Florida). Accessing the resources listed on the Jacksonville article would require an additional Google search, and if not available online, a visit to a large library. Limiting "further reading" entries only to resources accessible with via the web would prevent these sections from being mostly useless (except to hard-core researchers). Furthermore, if an editor adds a resource to a further reading list, other editors can only review the resource and decide if it is an appropriate addition if it is available online. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I disagree. Your argument falls on the policy WP:PAYWALL. That said the sections shouldn't be littered with only vaguely related books. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No - The same principle would apply to inline {{Cite book}} (and journal, anything besides web-based sources), which provide verifiabiliity and are therefore even more important than "further reading". In those cases you could similarly refer to "hard-core verifiers". Anyway, the presence of that information is little hindrance to soft-core researchers. ―Mandruss  15:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No WP has no requirement that all sources be online for WP:V-meeting references, the same should be true for Further Reading; this would also bias against authors who have not authorized for e-book editions of their works to be published. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I disagree per Mandruss. Millbug talk 19:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Among other things, there is no reason we would not want 'hard core researchers' to access articles and find things useful there - hopefully they'll contribute too but the main reason is Wikipedia should provide these things, even if they are paper, as retro as that may be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No -- I don't see a reason to limit to online resources; that's what the External links sections are for. I believe it's fine to include books in Further reading. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No, no, no! Visiting a library is a Good Thing™, try it sometime, you might even like it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Good grief no. If there is some disagreement about the appropriateness of any given item in the FR section, take the issue to the article's talk page. Softlavender (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I highly doubt the readers the Jacksonville, Florida article are going to print the "further reading" list, take it to the local library, and then special order these books from a library in Florida. The Jacksonville list and many like it seem more cruft than useful and merit a section in WP:NOT, but there's little support for this proposal. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
To repeat: This is a content dispute, and belongs on the talk page of that article. Softlavender (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
it does not sound like a content dispute; rather it's related to the definition of a reliable source. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • comment — What might help is to emphasize the importance of using the type/medium parameter in {{cite book}} to indicate whether the source is Paper or eBook. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    That's a matter for Help talk:Citation Style 1, not this page. ―Mandruss  11:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to Strengthen WP:V by Requiring at Least One Reliable Source for All New Articles[edit]

Proposed: All articles created on or after October 1, 2016 must specifically cite at least one independent (non-affiliated) reliable source in support of at least one claim or assertion of fact within the article. Articles created after this date that do not cite any reliable sources may be proposed for deletion using the same procedure employed for WP:BLPPROD. For the purposes of discussion we may refer to the as yet to be created tag and guideline as VPROD. Any editor including the article creator, may remove the VPROD tag as soon as a single independent reliable source is added to the article. Reviewing editors and in particular New Page Patrolers are strongly encouraged to look for a reliable source before adding the VPROD tag, especially in cases where commonsense would suggest the likely notability of the subject. Ultimately however, it is the responsibility of the creator of the article and any editors adding material to ensure that all claims are properly referenced to reliable sources. Articles created prior to October 1, 2016 are not subject to VPROD, although they remain subject to the provisions of WP:V and may be nominated for deletion via WP:AfD if it is believed that they fail to meet minimal standards for sourcing.

OP's Statement There are simply too many unsourced articles out there and more are getting through all the time. WP:V is mocked by the existence of unsourced articles, and the credibility of the project is undermined. There aren't enough editors working on NPP as evidenced by the perpetual backlog. And while one would hope that they will try to fix deficiencies in articles they are reviewing, especially serious ones, the reality is that again there aren't enough of them to get every new article up to snuff without the entire system of review grinding to a halt. Yes, I know that one can always later send a problematic article to AfD but that is not a practical solution. AfD is already barely functional from a lack of participation. Articles sent there routinely languish for weeks without a !vote. We need to streamline the process and shore up WP:V. There is no reason why the same standard, which is shockingly minimal, that is applied to BLPs should not be applied to all articles. If requiring editors creating an article to cite just one source is too onerous then it is time to stop calling this an encyclopedia. In closing, I wish to say that I know this will be controversial. All I ask is that the discussion stay calm and polite. (And a support !vote would be nice too.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for information: we are not desperate for new content; we aim for a slightly higher standard than IMDb. The burden ought to be on article creators to demonstrate their articles' merit, not on new page patrollers to disprove it. Requiring article creators to make a small nod towards the verifiability policy is a step in the right direction. Rebbing 02:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    This is not a battle between NPPs and article writers. Deleting should always require a higher standard of proof than writing something here. The power should be with those that want to expand the content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    I agree, and I don't think this tilts things the other way. There is no barrier to create content. Even if this passes, it only applies to content that has no sources at all, and only applies after some number of days, and only applies if nobody intervenes. I.e. there are no barriers to create, and there are barriers to delete. But yes, this does weaken those barriers. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Experience shows that AfD participation is low. The proposal will help streamline the process and will also encourage contributors to improve articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    There is no deadline here, so why try to force the issue? Encouragement to improve can happen in a less destructive way, by for example, a talk page message. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Is there some combination of approaches you think would be appropriate, including leaving talk page messages, maybe a minimum time after creation before it can be proposed for deletion, etc. I understand the "there is no deadline" argument, but it doesn't negate WP:V's Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. I think the real discussion is about what follows: Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references - I.e. how much time should there be at minimum? What is the process by which this applies to entire articles? Etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Supporting for now. Honestly, I'm not so sure, but I think it's a good discussion to have and worry that such a discussion wouldn't happen if the oppose subheading starts to snowball. If this does find some support, I think it has to be the first of multiple RfCs to hash some things out in terms of process. This is the big idea, but it's doomed if we have to sort out all of the details in the course of discussing the big idea. Might want to modify the RfC text to add a qualifier along those lines. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support - Let's face it, our Wikipedia today has too much unsourced information. I would suggest if this does not pass, we go for one single source of any kind, anywhere in the article, formatted in anyway. That's not, at all, too much to ask. We need to grow and encourage the culture of, "source it", from the very start - that is, after all, a core pillar of the project. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC) I'll add that we should have and not shy away from the world knowing - one source, at least one source, for an article, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC) I'll buy into the 'speedy-to-draft' proposal below, but I don't get the software suggestion as workable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support, although with some modifications. I would simply extend the current reference requirements in the BLP-PROD to ALL articles (new, old, BLP, non-BLP, whatever) and call this new procedure VPROD. When BLP-PROD was created, the idea was that it would serve to fish out potential negative BLP info hiding out in plain sight, so to speak, in unsourced BLP articles. However, I have never actually seen BLP-PROD work this way. In practice BLP-PROD has been and is being used to delete thousands of perfectly benign but unsourced articles, a very high proportion of them being vanity pages. Ultimately, Wikipedia is probably better of with those pages having been deleted, even though many of them probably could have been developed into proper articles, given enough time. I don't see why the same principle should not be extended to non-BLP articles. (There is actually not as much difference between these two types of articles as people think, and, by the way, non-BLP articles, still contain loads and loads of BLP info.) After all, we are not talking about creating a new CSD criterion here, but rather a new type of a PROD. If an article has been sitting in mainspace for long enough without anyone being able of having bothered to add at least one reference to it, the article deserves to be nuked. Nsk92 (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    Nsk92 I can live with this. In fact I will add another qualifier. Several editors have expressed reservations about the proposal having the potential to be bitey with new editors. While I respectfully disagree with most of the other objections, IMO that one has some merit. So I would support a qualifier that before a VPROD could be attached to any article that it must first be tagged with an "unsourced" maintenance tag for at least one full month without improvement. Feel free to add this as an alternative proposal if you want somewhere below the discussion. Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support All articles in Wikipedia should contain, in that article, citations which establish that the subject of the article passes WP:GNG. The exception is the odd case when an article is kept for a specialized notability reason and does not need to pass WP:GNG, which is fewer than 1% of cases. Whenever an article in Wikipedia is being kept on an argument that it could theoretically pass GNG, but actually the text of the article does not provide supporting evidence of that, then the article should be deleted until someone does the labor to bring it to Wikipedia's minimal standard. GNG is a great general standard for articles. It is a waste of time that fringe topics of no interest to almost anyone are discussed at AfD on the basis that theoretically, they might be notable, if only someone did the work to bring them up to standard. Wikipedia:Competence is required and expecting that the text of a Wikipedia article is the starting consideration for assessing by GNG is not too much to ask. I do not think this issue is adequately covered by other policies. Clearly establishing a minimal standard would save a lot of trouble and a lot of wasted attention given to low quality contributions on low importance topics. The new users who try to provide citations are much more valuable than new users who do not use citations, and since volunteer support is scarce, new users who use citations deserve more attention than those who do not. Implementing this as a policy would send a more clear message that Wikipedia has quality controls and that users who can provide citations for their submissions have an inside track for support as compared to users who post without citations. The use of citations is something to be encouraged. Content backed by citations is more valuable than content which is not backed with citations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. In my opinion, for articles that do not involve BLP concerns, it is often more valuable to have an article without references than it is to have no article at all. AfDs where there is a question about the veracity of the information in a new article typically receive good participation and are closed without need to relist. Where AfD has problem is when the subject has a few citations, but is probably not notable, or its a foreign person, and we can't tell if the lack of results is a language barrier issue. The proposal is to broad, and while I'm not sure if a narrower proposal would work either, it would at least not harm us by removing articles that don't have BLP/Notability issues merely for not including a source. Monty845 02:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you for your comment. However I don't see how your statement, that seems to imply that sources should not be mandatory, does not rather directly contradict both the letter and spirit of WP:V? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    WP:V does not mandate deletion for articles that are not yet verified, which is what your proposal advocates. Your shifting the burden further in favor of deletion. As it stands now, someone needs to review an article and dispute a claim in the article before WP:BURDEN kicks in. Generally we have rejected the approach of removing content merely because it is uncited (outside BLP territory), and instead expect editors to not remove content for not being cited if there isn't a question about accuracy. So, under the proposed change, if someone wrote an excellent article about an obscure insect species, every claim reflecting the state of the research, and there being no dispute that it was perfectly accurate, but just didn't include any citations, we would delete it, rather than fixing it, or letting it stay as an article in need of improvement. I don't agree with that approach. See also Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Monty845 03:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks again for your reply. To a certain degree you are correct. I am proposing a shift in guidelines because the current system is not working. If someone wrote an article about an obscure insect species and it had no sources, I would not know if it was reliable, a great hoax, or partly accurate but maybe not totally. That's becuase I know absolutely nothing about insects. The only way I can have confidence in an article about a subject with which I am unfamiliar is how well sourced it is. Accepting this article with no sources not only undermines WP:V and the integrity of the project, it pretty much just shreds WP:NOR. But WP:V is policy and the system you describe, accurately I believe, is one that subverts WP:V to a degree that it is little more than a strong suggestion, adherence to which is optional and not really all that important. But Original Research is just fine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    someone needs to review an article and dispute a claim in the article before WP:BURDEN kicks in Couldn't an editor proposing deletion based on being unsourced be considered the same as challenging the article? In other words, if an article looks to be very good, the editors who happen across it probably wouldn't be likely to propose deletion despite being unsourced. However, for an article that seems e.g. promotional, might be a hoax, etc. it gives a more compelling mechanism to invoke WP:BURDEN. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. This concern is already handled by NPP and CSD. Also, there is constant debate as to what constitutes a reliable source and/or an independent source. There's no need to add additional processes beyond NPP and CSD. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    I respectfully disagree. NPP has proven ineffective in dealing with the matter for the reasons outlines in my OP statement. And CSD is not intended to deal with this at all. There is no CSD category for even the most gross WP:V fail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    I still don't think it's a good idea. This is merely a way of bypassing WP:CSD#A7, which is designed specifically not to be bypassed. We cannot create an option that bypasses policy. If anyone wants to PROD an article that appears not to be reliably sourced, they are welcome to, but the removal of the PROD should not be conditional on supplying what that PRODding editor perceives to be up to his/her standard of source. If the article makes a claim of notability (the A7 criterion), there will almost always be a way of verifying this, and anyone who wants to can verify it. Beyond that, questions of GNG and RS belong at AfD. [Likewise, this proposal is subject to abuse -- someone can remove reference(s) on an article and "VPROD" it, and assuming the article creator hasn't noticed (because they are away or were never notified), it will *poof* get deleted.] Softlavender (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Actually I think you have that backwards. CSD is a guideline. But WP:V is policy. You are interpreting guidelines in a way that undermines policy. Also CSD A7 does not in any way address sourcing. It addresses the claim of importance (not even notability). A mere reasonable claim of importance, a much lower bar than WP:N negates CSD A7. And AfD is not a viable solution for the reasons already mentioned. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Nope, WP:CSD is policy. And you need to re-read WP:CSD#A7, which specifically does address sourcing or lack thereof. AfD is indeed a viable solution and always has been. Softlavender (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose as firstly many of our new contributors really have no idea how to add a reference or source. Second even if they figure that out they would not understand what a reliable source is. Someone else, such as a person that wants to delete it can instead look for a source or better source to reference it. Thirdly this goes against our mission of building an encyclopedia. Any one that wants to make it easier to delete pages needs to examine themselves to see if they are happy with the idea of building an encyclopedia. It is better to improve the page, than throw it away because of a rectifiable deficiency. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you for your comment. Your first point is a really good one and I think requires some serious thought. We definitely want to be careful about the bitey potential with new editors. Your second point again places the burden on people other than the article creators and contributing editors for sourcing the article. I don't think that is fair, but more importantly I don't think it is realistically an option. NPP is under heavy strain as it is and there just aren't enough editors to fix every unsourced article that shows up. On your last point I have to respectfully but very strongly disagree. Our mission is indeed to build an encyclopedia. And any project that permits wholly unsourced articles, whatever else it may be, is not an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia must have minimum standards. Unsourced articles completely undermine its credibility. But I do believe your first point is a solid one and we need to talk about that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    I think there's enough information for people to learn rapidly how to add a reference or source. And new contributors should be expected to learn rapidly what a reliable source is. There's also plenty of good information about that. 46.37.55.80 (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. We have a general principle that articles are never "finished". An article that is good except that its sources are not listed is a fine example. I would not like to see such articles deleted only on such grounds. In areas of Wikipedia where there is conflict (i.e. almost all politic areas and many others) it will be used as an excuse for getting rid of articles even when adding sources is trivially easy. At a minimum, it should be that such articles must be tagged for lack of sourcing for a reasonable time (one month or more) before being eligible for deletion on these grounds, and the instructions to admins should indicate that articles should not be deleted if good sources are clearly easy to find. Zerotalk 05:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose New editors may come with new ideas for good article but not know anything sourcing or wiki-markup. Don't add a new burden to them. I did try briefly to work on the RfA area and found the number of requirements to give a vote or finish the process overwhelming, so I quickly lost interest. I think a simpler set of rules for RfA or specializing the work as in an assemblyline might help the backlog. I would go back if it were not so burdensome. I find the other backlogs more interesting for now. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Oppose — I support the notion that every article needs to have support from reliable sources. However, the matter is already covered by existing policies and processes. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - I too sympathize with the intent here, but I can not support the proposal. It is possible to write a verifiable stub article without citing a single source. For example: suppose that we did not have an article on Paris, France (we do, but imagine that we didn't). An editor might start one with no content but the statement: "Paris is the capital city of France." That simple statement is so obviously verifiable that it would be ridiculous to require a citation. In fact, we frequently use that statement at WT:V to explain the difference between verifiability and verification (how some statements don't require actual in-line citations to be considered verifiable). It is highly unlikely that it would ever be CHALLENGEd (and if it were, the challenger would probably be sanctioned for disruption). Yet that simple statement is enough to establish that Paris is a WP:Notable topic. We would keep it if it were ever sent to AfD. Sure... that single stub sentence is not much of an article, but it would pass our minimum standards. And sure, in order to say much more about Paris, we would start to need citations. However, until it is expanded, such a simple stub should not be Prodded. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, procedurally at least. WP:PROD style deletion of new articles amounts to WP:CSD style deletion, because there are no watchers of the new page. As a new CSD criterion, it should be proposed at WT:CSD, where it should be rejected procedural due to not addressing the new criterion criteria. In other words, this proposal here cannot proceed and it is a waste of time to discuss it here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. I understand the good reasons for this proposal, but can't support. The biggest issue is nuking the articles of newbies, when those articles could and should be developed. I also think it's pushing Verifiabily too far. We don't have to cite that the WP:SKYISBLUE, and we shouldn't pointlessly challenge/remove useful content when no one really has any good-faith reason to doubt it. PROD is a powerful tool for getting rid of junk cheaply, Verifiability policy is a powerful tool for (good-faith) removal of dubious or lame unsourced text. The core problem here is that we get people submitting crap, and it sucks having to clean up the crap. That's just a fact of life here. Volunteering for Wikipedia means that a significant portion of our work is to clean up crap. When it comes to article-deletion rather than revertible-edit content removal, we're a lot more careful and we deliberately put up procedural quality control. If we have shortages at NPP and AFD, maybe we need to advertise that more help is needed there. Personally, I try to !vote on several AFDs whenever I submit an AFD. I've dabbled in NPP, and for what it's worth I'll try to head back there. (No near-term promises though.) Alsee (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  10. Oppose  Failure to support WP:V is a problem, and the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation wants floods of unsourced articles coming in over the transom remains a mystery.  But the ideas behind this proposal are also a problem.  We'd have a new confusing deletion process for administrators to explain to newbies.  What we need is software to prevent unsourced contributions, with an option to post to draftspace.  Speedy moves to draftspace would make more sense than the deletion process proposed here.  The proposal also doesn't consider that a source to support the existence of the topic, which may be a primary source, is the most important source.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  11. Per Mandruss below, just because an article has no cited reliable sources does not mean that the subject of the article is not reliably sourced. Unless a claim is challenged, then there really is no need for a citation that supports the claim. To delete an article because it has no cited reliable sources then could mean the deletion of an article that has many reliable sources that haven't been cited yet. No, that's just wrong.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  22:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  12. Oppose for the very simple reason that this proposal sets a much higher standard than that for the BPLProd. You can only BPLProd and article if it does not have a single source. The source does not have to be reliable nor does it have to be used as a citation. An external links are considered more than enough to prevent a BPLProd. —Farix (t | c) 13:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  13. Oppose as contrary to the founding ideals of Wikipedia. Thparkth (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, unnecessary and counterproductive. I agree with most of the opposition comments above. postdlf (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  15. Oppose solely on the fact that, as has been discussed above, many new editors who have a passion or interest in sharing their knowledge with the world, and who bravely and probably proudly publish their first article, may not only not know how to create a reference, or how to format the 'References' section of the page (or that that section is even a "thing"), but, on the chance that they do know, would have to then study exactly what a reliable reference looks like before they can publish their first shared page. Would be nice if every new editor would get their intellect into this rule, but many will not even know about it, and many good and encyclopedic-worthy pages would likely be lost, and multiply those pages lost by weeks, months, and years under this requirement, tons of good articles would be thrown overboard without even being read. Seems better to educate editors with a notice sent to their talk page (signed by Jimbo Wales himself?), which includes links to "How to write and reference an article", when they submit their first two or three new pages. Randy Kryn 2:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    Randy Kryn Thanks for your comment. Your concern is the one objection that I have seen repeated above and that I think holds water. Please see my comment under the 5th support post. Best regards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  16. Oppose As much as I believe verifiability is critical, in-article verification is not an absolute. If this was the case we could automatically delete every main space article that did not have a reference, and put a software block on any main space save which resulted in an article with no reference. Wikipedia is about creating a knowledge repository, so it should be easy to get content in. It can and will WP:EVENTUALly be tidied up. Perhaps we could have a software warning on any save that does not have any references in the saved article in main space. WP:BITEY too. A general article is no where near as important as a BLP, for which I agree special conditions are needed. If an unreferenced article gets to AfD then so be it. Chances are that once there, if it worth saving someone will reference it. Aoziwe (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    I could support the software "warning" (without the use of that problematic word), concisely summarizing the WP:V concept (and linking to it), and requiring an additional click to save. If technically feasible, that is. Probably too late in this RfC to gain consensus. ―Mandruss  15:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    Should be possible. Roughly similarly, the software already stops you saving with a blacklisted url anywhere. Aoziwe (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    But that only has to look at your edit, not the entire article. Add: Now seeing your word "anywhere", maybe I'm wrong on that point. ―Mandruss  19:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. My own thoughts echo those of Monty above. We should remove uncited content whose accuracy is disputed. But if someone submits accurate content, we shouldn't remove it just because relevant sources haven't yet been provided. Such pages should be fixed rather than deleted. We already erect too many barriers for new editors contributing content, and we don't need to add more. Dragons flight (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. Proposal does not square well with WP:AGF and WP:NODEADLINE. WP:V does not require everything to be cited. ~Kvng (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

There is no deadline. This is entirely contrary to the "wiki-way". And per WP:CON, I don't need to "vote" in a straw poll to have this weighed in a closure. - jc37 01:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to the date I put in the proposal, it was/is an arbitrary one which can certainly be changed if the discussion drags on. If you are trying to make a different point, then I missed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that theconcept of Wikipedia is "many hands make light work". If someone creates a stub, then someone else can add a reference. We need to spend more time developing than destorying due to lack of development. With the obvious exception of BLPs and the like, there is not reason to have such a requirement. WP:SOFIXIT also immediately comes to mind. If participation in AFD is low, let's fix THAT. This is the tail wagging the dog. - jc37 03:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again for your clarifying response. I don't substantively disagree with what you would like to see. I do however disagree with your view of where things actually are. The reality is that there are not enough people participating in NPP and AfD, and to a certain degree, I'm not sure there ever were. While I admire the project you clearly hope for, I am suggesting we deal with the one that actually exists. WP:V is one of the most important policies we have and it is being seriously undermined by a flood of very low quality material that is almost always characterized by poor or non-existent sourcing. I do not believe that requiring a single source is too much to expect if we are to credibly call this an encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I feel like what's being proposed isn't quite as radical as how it's going to be taken. We already have this in WP:V:
"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
If you apply that to an unsourced article, you remove all of the text in the article, which "should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". So no, there's no deadline, but that content can be removed at any time (a rolling deadline?). This proposal seems like it's reinforcing this sentence while adding procedural checks to it. Simply removing whole articles is a little more drastic than the vast majority of editors would actually put into practice, but what's preventing doing this without the proposed deletion-style timeframe? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

In the passage you quoted above, are you interpreting "lacking a reliable source" as "lacking a citation of a reliable source"? If so, I think you're interpreting it incorrectly. One can have a perfectly good reliable source that isn't cited, and no citation is required until the content is challenged. We could debate the merits of that, but it's the reality of today's WP:V. At least that's how I've always read it and it seems consistent with my experience.
So, you could challenge all of any new article that lacks citations, thereby requiring said citations, but that would be more than a little POINTy in my opinion. And this proposal would effectively make the challenge automatic and implicit, which I doubt is the intent of the existing policy as to that challenge. I believe the policy expects one to actually look for a source before challenging, although that's often not done in practice. ―Mandruss  11:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Don't read policy lines out of context. As the whole of WP:V makes clear, it's talking about removing unsourced content when there is a good faith challenge regarding its verifiability. Removing content for no other reason than it doesn't have sources in the article at present is not acceptable. This is the only reading of WP:V that is consistent with its full text, its history and consensus-supported practice, and editing and deletion policy at WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't know whether anonymous editors are allowed to comment here and I don't have time to work it out so you can delete this if you like. I merely want to comment that this is a brilliant idea that should have been implemented years and years ago. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles fail to meet basic standards and this would be a helpful step in at least making new ones comply with a core policy. 46.37.55.80 (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. There is no restriction on unregistered users (IPs) participating in discussions regarding policy and guidelines. If you are so inclined you can register your support (or opposition if you change your mind) in the appropriate section above. All of which said there are advantages to signing up for your own account and I would gently encourage you to think about it. Thanks again for your input. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Said advantages outlined at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. ―Mandruss  13:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Are permalinks permitted in Wikipedia articles?[edit]

An issue as arisen on the Snooker world ranking points family of articles because they use Wikipedia permalinks. As an example, you will see that the 2013/2014 article uses permalinks for the "cut-off" links in the table headings. The reason these links are provided is because the rankings are frozen at each cut-off point, so the purpose of the permalinks is to provide a frozen snapshot of the standings at each rankings revision. For example, by clicking on the third cut-off point you can see the rankings at this stage of the season].

Let me stress, these permalinks are not being used as a "source". The necessary sources are provided at each permalink version.

The point of the permalinks is to provide a frozen version of the article at that particular stage of the season. Bgwhite has now undertaken to removing these links on the grounds that "..Cannot use Wikipedia as a reference or an external link. This one is especially evil as it links to a specific page in time." The first part of that criticism does not apply i.e. they are not being used as sources. The final part of that critcism defeats the objective of including the links in the fist place, because the whole point is to provide a frozen snapshot of the rankings at a particular time.

So will someone please clarify a policy point for me. Do these articles violate policy by using permalinks in this manner to link to a frozen snapshot of the article? If these links are policy violations I will remove them myself in an orderly fashion; however, if they do not violate policy I am not prepared to stand for the removal of these links unless the other editor obtains a consensus to that effect. They are a long-standing feature of the article and if we drop the permlinks the article will be providing qualifiably less information. Betty Logan (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I've looked, and I don't find a policy violation anywhere. Have yet to find any consideration of this sort of link whatsoever. "Don't link to unexpected targets" is the nearest I find, and that points to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Link clarity which is silent on the matter.
It's an ingenious solution, I grant you, but does give rise to sending users to some frankly ugly and possibly confusing pages, such as [5], where they will find the information if they know what they're looking for. Arguably it would be in improvement to lift the content and either place it in a new self-standing article, or into collapsed sections of the main article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I won't deny there are better ways to include the content, but WP:Snooker isn't exactly awash with manpower. It operates on a skeleton crew so the objective is to make articles functional rather than perfect. The permalinks were conceived as an economical way to provide the information. If we remove these links it's not as though a task force will swoop down and overhaul the articles; it's more likely the job will just get added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker#To-do list where it will stay for years, so I think editors need to appreciate that if these permalinks are removed it could be quite a while before an "ideal" solution is realized. I'm not trying to put a gun to anyone's head, it's just that small projects have to prioritize their workload and I don't think this is a high priority task compared to recording results, updating bios etc. Betty Logan (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I can see *why* you have done it that way, which is ingenious as Tagishsimon said, and which does make sense as the information is presented. My question would be 'Why the need for listing all 6 cut-off points in the table rather than just the end result?' Are the ranking revisions at a set time? If there is a need for all the separate cut-offs, then the only option I can see other than how you have done it is just not linking at all. Or linking to the end result and saying 'work it out yourself' either of which I would consider a less informative option. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The primary purpose of the article is to list the points for each player for each event and the permalinks are not needed in that respect. The rankings operate as a rolling system so the totals (and positions) at each cut-off point set the rankings at that point in time. Again, this information is still actually available by just clicking the sortable column, but the problem with that is that there is no easy way to just read off the rank for that point in time so the permalinks were added as a convenience. If they were removed the article would still function in terms of its primary purpose i.e. to list the points for each player throughout the season, but we would lose a layer of information that a reader may want. Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate it as clever hack, and I appreciate the issue of manpower, but I don't think this is an acceptable technique. It's like a WP:CROSSNAMESPACE redirect, but way WAY worse. It's a table heading that takes someone entirely out of any namespace. The average editor is going to be quite baffled for a while trying to figure out what the heck happened, but a typical reader is going to have absolutely no understanding of where they are. We can't unexpectedly drop readers onto weird non-pages.
I know squat about Snooker, but looks to me like this is excessive detail that we don't really need to provide? Of course someone could want that earlier view of the table, but is this something that a significant number of people will be specifically looking for, and the existing table sort is inadequate? And if this is something that people look for, how do print publications or other websites handle it? Alsee (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
This is how the govern body format it on their website: WPBSA. I guess the analogous approach on Wikipedia would be to have one revision per page, or one table per revision in the same article. There may be a technical soultion available: the cut-off totals are sortable but when you sort on them they scramble the rankings too. If there were a way to make the rankings static in a sortable table then that would offer a potential solution. Betty Logan (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Bolding of "title" text in redirected sections of articles[edit]

TLDR version: When is it okay to have bolded "title" text in a subsection of an article that is the target of a redirect? And how should that be conveyed in our style guides?

I would like to clarify a bit of policy that has surprised me and confused a few other people. Per BOLDTITLE we often (though not always) include a bolded term in the lead of a article to match the article's title. Sometimes we also bold alternate names. So for example: "Jerome Hanover (May 1, 1840 - June 12, 1888) was an actor better known by his stage name Jonathan Waters." That's perfectly fine, as far I am concerned.

The case I want to address is when a redirect target occurs not in the lead, but rather far down in the body of the article. For example, in 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers there is currently a mini-biography for the perpetrator Micah Xavier Johnson, with the redirect going to 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers#Perpetrator. Even though the redirect target is a section far from the lead, his name has been bolded. (Other recent examples of pages using this style include this and that). Such bolding in a section is not mentioned at BOLDTITLE, which deals only with the lead. However, it is claimed that this bolding is a valid exercise of R#PLA, which reads in relevant part:

Because the possibility of bolding a redirect target in a subsection of an article is only briefly alluded to, and not stated very explicitly, it has led to confusion about whether this approach is in fact encouraged. Due to this confusion and in fact some edit warring, I would like to clarify this situation. The way I see it, there are basically two options, either:

  1. The bolding of redirect targets in article subsections is generally allowed and encouraged, in which case the text of R#PLA should be made more explicit and give examples of this usage. OR
  2. The bolding of redirect targets in article subsections is not generally allowed and should be discouraged, in which case the text of R#PLA should be clarified to say that such extra bolding only applies to the lead.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan adding bolded title text in article sections (especially if it is placed in the middle of a paragraph), but ultimately I don't think it is a big deal either way. Mostly I would just like to see the style guide clarified so that it is clearer what the recommended practice actually is.

Other thoughts, opinions, options? Dragons flight (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Bolding the redirect title in an article section lets readers see immediately that they are in the right place if they arrived there through the redirect. This benefit makes me lean towards #1 (encouraging bolding), but this is less important if the section title matches the redirect title. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Personally, i think bolding away from the lead is disruptive (in that it disrupts the smooth flow of the eye in reading, nothing to do with WP:DE), and should be specifically discouraged as not helpful to the reader. Happy days, LindsayHello 12:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Lindsay, apart from 'subject name/s' in lead, bolding is just unnec and distracting. Pincrete (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that boldface type should not be used except in the opening of the lead. to facilitate a redirect, italicized emphasis is sufficient along with perhaps an {{anchor}} to further highlight the target. Best.--John Cline (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I like it A person's section is much like a person's article, just smaller. Same basic style should apply (vital dates in parentheses, too). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:30, July 26, 2016 (UTC)
  • Boldface type should not be used except in the opening of the lead. For example, Footown#Education may contain a list of the schools in Footown and each of those schools (e.g. North Footown Primary School) may have a redirect to Footown#Education, but we wouldn't want the list to all be in bold font. (P.S. Thanks to the OP for providing such a clear explanation of the issue). DexDor (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't like a list like that. If the section isn't primarily (or only) about the one topic with a proper noun, normal font works best. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, July 26, 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with InedibleHulk. A person's section is pretty much a smaller biography article, made because the person in question is not notable enough to have an article of his/her own. Rules of biography articles like bolding of names should definitely apply to sections when necessary (but of course not when the section title is the person's name; that would be redundant). I can't imagine what else people would be looking for when they type the name of the redirect and not the name of the whole article. Parsley Man (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should compromise by bolding alternate letters... :) --Guy Macon (talk)
    MY EYES!!! They burn!! Face-smile.svg --Majora (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    Well isn't that a creative idea? :P Parsley Man (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    I like it. Not in articles, just in general. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
    That is a great idea! Or maybe italics? Or both? ansh666 02:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • In many articles, such as names of newspapers, their former name is often not in the first or even second lead section, but is given soon on the page. The bolding of former and alternate titles of books, newspapers, and magazines are just one example of where bolding not only works, but is necessary, outside of the opening of the lead. One area where removing boldface may be a good idea occurs in the listings of characters in books or plays, which are often boldfaced and visually intrusive. On templates, it would be nice not to include descriptor boldfacing (see {{Ghosts}}), which seem distracting and confuse the bolding which occurs when the template is viewed on an article itself. That aside, I always remove boldfacing from names which don't correlate with the article's title, such as names of author's in an article about one of their books. Randy Kryn 3:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It's quite handy in pro wrestler articles, to quickly find the part where Earthquake became Avalanche or Brutus Beefcake became ridiculous. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Hulk for a section-biography in an event article. Other redirects, though, case-by-case but mostly probably not. ansh666 02:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)