Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 105

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Should we tolerate jokes and hoaxes on April Fools' Day, even if they may be disruptive?

See current Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools'.

April Fools' Day has been a constant point of contention on Wikipedia. Everyone goes overboard on vandalism, and discussions on whether to play jokes on the encyclopedia on this day have occurred time and time again. While it may be fun, it ends up hurting legitimate users, places extra stress on vandalism fighters, and compromises the integrity of the encyclopedia. If this isn't resolved, I feel this will need to go to ArbCom, since these kinds of discussions happen every year.

The key question here is, should we tolerate jokes and hoaxes on April Fools' Day, even if they may be disruptive?DragonLord(talk/contribs) 18:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll just note that I don't think this is a good day to have this discussion. I'm hoping to have a more formal RfC in about a week. Ryan Vesey 18:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
My simple answer to DragonLord's question is "No". HiLo48 (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
A request for comments is probably the minimum needed to resolve this issue. While I agree that these should not be tolerated, the community hasn't always agreed. This issue comes up every year, and it needs to be definitively resolved. If an RFC isn't enough, we're going to need arbitration. —DragonLord(talk/contribs) 18:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Take Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, clone it, search and replace 'point' with 'joke'. Jeepday (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
In response to DragonLord's question on tolerating jokes on April Fools Day, I think I'll take that as a No. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Some ideas for guidelines

  1. Pranks may never extend from the userspace (one exception is the main page).
  2. Perpetrators must admit their prank is indeed a prank, if suspected.
  3. Vandalizing pages never counts as pranking.
  4. "It was April Fools day!" is not an acceptable excuse for any deliberate attempt to harm the integrity of Wikipedia.

That is just a short list of my ideas. Anyone else have any more to consider? nerdfighter 20:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I suggest having a spectrum of ideas where people can indicate where they think the line should be: Example:
    1. No pranking should be allowed.
    2. Non-disruptive pranking should be allowed user namespace.
    3. Non-disruptive pranking should be allowed in the Wikipedia namespace.
      Comment: I assume you mean " the User and Wikipedia namespace" right? nerdfighter 21:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
    4. Non-disruptive pranking should be allowed anywhere on Wikipedia.
~Adjwilley (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Most "lines" on Wikipedia turn out to be far more vague and blurry than their creators would hope. The only line that would be unarguable is "No April Fools jokes at all". (I guess we could also have "Do what you bloody well like", but...) HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
It would probably be worth looking through the previous efforts like Wikipedia:Rules for Fools. It appears to be an accepted custom, and the same general rules (e.g., no vandalism of articles) get proposed every year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
So what? that doesn't mean those proposing them are wrong. It simply means that those opposing them don't care what others think. It would do nobody any harm at all to ban April Fools jokes here, but having them really annoys some people, confuses others, and goes right over the heads of some others. This is a classic example of a selfish, vocal group unnecessarily riding rough shod over the thoughts of others. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It should have been marked as a WikiProject WP:Advice page, not as a community-approved guideline. I've added {{WikiProject style advice}}, although it covers a bit more than "style". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Policy regarding dead links

What is the policy on exactly what to do with dead links? I know Template:Dead link exists, but it gets tucked away into the reference where no one sees it and hardly ever tries to fix the problem. I'm seeing the "dead links" in two different ways:

  • The dead links are evidence that this information used to be reliably sourced and although the source isn't accessible to view, we should trust that the information was correct.
  • There is absolutely no evidence that this information was ever reliably sources considering someone could have easily misconstrued what was said in the source or, lied outright. Regardless, we'll never know because the source is gone.

That latter one is extremely pessimistic and violates WP:AGF, but it is also the most realistic. I for one wouldn't trust using a Wikipedia article for a school project if I can't access the original references. You can't just blindly trust a dead link. I find that practice naive. That's why I believe they should be replaced immediately, either by researching all over again or by using the Wayback machine.

However, what do we do if there is no readily available replacement? Is there any policy that prohibits me from removing a dead link and replacing the sentence with a [citation needed] tag? Feedback 09:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of your questions are answered at Wikipedia:Link rot. Before replacing the dead link with a citation needed, I would make some attempt to see if the link can be rescued, often the source is still available at the parent site, but at with a different link or at an archive like Simply removing dead links and replacing them with {{unref}} would not be seen as helpful to Wikipedia, if it was there would be a bot doing it. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
That does not answer my question. I asked about adding {{unref}} when there is no readily available replacement for the dead link. Feedback 18:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears that editors seem to be confusing "links" with "citations". Not all links are citations, and not all citations need to be linked in order to be considered reliable. In many towns throughout the world, there are these buildings called libraries, and they contain these collections of bound paper called books. Not all books are available online due to copyright reasons, yet the information contained in many of them is generally considered reliable. WTF? (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You're talking about two completely different things. If you could replace the dead links with book citations, then by all means. I'm talking about dead references that don't seem to have replacements. Information that is now gone, with no evidence that it was there to begin with. Feedback 21:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The problem here is books are always verifiable, whether they are online or not. When you come across a dead url, it is sometimes impossible to tell whether or not it was legitimate. For the most part, dead links in bare urls are considered unreliable, while dead links in a citation template are not. What we need is a bot that takes all urls and archives them to WebCiteRyan Vesey 18:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC) → This guy gets it. Feedback 21:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
User:WebCiteBot used to exist but its owner left the encyclopedia. Hopefully, the WMF takes over the WebCite service, all references are copied to WikiData in a possible Stage 3, and overall fewer dead links are left. Wer900talk 23:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Have you read WP:DEADREF? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I must have at some point, but I guess I skimmed over that last one. I guess adding {{citationneeded}} like I suggested is the best way to go. Thanks, Feedback 02:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
So long as the dead links are left behind, and not replaced. The dead links, as noted, are still useful to someone who may wish to replace them in the future, and if you completely remove them then someone can't do that. Mark it with a "deadlink" and "citation needed" tag as you wish, but please don't expunge the dead link because dead links could still prove useful to someone who wished to do some detective work and could still possibly find the lost link. --Jayron32 03:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
According to WP:DEADREF, the dead link is supposed to be removed completely. However, this being the Village Pump, I'm all for changing this policy. What you're saying makes sense. Feedback 04:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
According to WP:DEADREF it is supposed to be removed completely after 24 months, that's a pretty dang long time. If that's what we actually want to go with, we should come up with a an invisible template because nobody is going to remember a reference they checked two years previously. Ryan Vesey 04:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
DEADREF prohibits removals except under certain specified circumstances. If you didn't get that impression, then either you need to read it again, or I need to re-write it.
The purpose of dating {{dead link}} templates is so that no one has to remember when they last checked it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
It is beyond ridiculous for us to wait 2 years before replacing an unverified link. If there is no suitable replacement online or in physical form, it should be removed. The information is gone. It should be removed. For example, if I found a link that spoke of John Doe's birthday, and the link is now dead, there is absolutely no way for me to prove that the information was there in the first place. We either find an archived version, a new online source or a physical one. It is terrifying that policy allows for completely unverifiable information to stay on the encyclopedia for 2 whole years. If no one on Earth can read the source, then the source doesn't exist. Period. Feedback 03:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm leary of any recommendation that it is better for users to merely delete a dead reference than it would be to make a good faith effort to replace it. More importantly, that it is better to delete a dead reference that it would be to leave it for someone with the skills and desire to fix it. --Jayron32 00:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • (outdent) @Feedback, the 2 year waiting period may seem long, but it is valid. It takes that long for websites to show up on the Internet Archive. See Wayback Machine#Origins, growth and storage, which states Snapshots usually become available more than 6 months after they are archived, or in some cases, even later, 24 months or longer. This is why we wait for 2 years before removing so-called dead links. (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Fine, but what about the unverifiable' information that is 'in the article? We just leave it there for 2 years before figuring out that it might not be true? The point of listing the references on the page is so future editors and readers can consult them to either verify the statements in the article or to learn more about a certain piece of information. We can't do either with dead links. They literally cease being useful. Remember, we're talking here about information that isn't repeated anywhere else, and we have no evidence that the information was there to begin with. Feedback 01:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The material isn't unverifiable just because this link happens to be dead today.
If you can replace it with a better reliable source, then you're free to do so. That's true even if the URL is working. But "I can't verify this source myself right this second" is not the definition of "unverifiable" on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Did you even read the thread? I'm specifically talking about instances where the source is irreplaceable. No other links, no books. The source was apparently as unique as can be and now it's gone. No matter how much time you dedicate to researching, the information won't pop up because no one archived it and now it's dead. I'm talking about this SPECIFIC situation. Feedback 09:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
How do you know the source is irreplaceable. "I can't find any source right now" is also not the definition of "irreplaceable", mainly because of the fault involved with using the concept of "I" and the concept of "right now". The "I" is most problematic for me, because you're assuming that because "I" can't find a source, that the source must not exist. The source had existed at some point, and many people have skills that "I" don't have, including possibly the know how to rescue dead links. So why should "I" feel like that because "I" can't do something, no one could. That would be rather self-centered of "me", wouldn't it? --Jayron32 20:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not talking about a situation of "I can't find any source right now". Where are you coming up with this? I'm talking about a situation where the source is gone and there is no replacement. Again "no matter how much time you dedicate to researching, he information won't pop up because no one archived it and now it's dead". That specific situation when there is no evidence that the information ever existed. Unique sources occur all the time, especially when we're talking about very niché content. Feedback 03:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Feedback, Here are your statements above:

  1. I'm specifically talking about instances where the source is irreplaceable.
  2. No other links, no books.
  3. The source was apparently as unique as can be and
  4. now it's gone.
  5. No matter how much time you dedicate to researching, the information won't pop up
  6. because no one archived it and now it's dead.

Here's what we're asking:

  1. How do you (Feedback, not me, not Jayron, not some other editor, but you specifically) know (as in, can prove beyond a reasonable doubt) that this source is irreplaceable?
  2. How do you know that there are no other links or books?
  3. How do you know that the source was unique?
  4. How do you know that the source is truly gone, and not just offline for a little while?
  5. How do you know that the information can't be found by anyone, no matter how dedicated? How do you know that if we hired a research librarian for a year just to study this problem, that it will never be found again?
  6. How do you know that no one archived the source? It takes two years for most web archives to become available.

As far as I can tell, your answer to the above is probably going to sound a lot like "well, I went to my favorite web search engine with a couple of keywords, and I didn't find anything in less than an hour, so that proves that nobody with better skills or better resources will be able to find it either." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, none of us are omniscient so we can't say the information isn't out there, but that is besides the point. Since when is the policy that we have to prove that the information ISN'T out there? If someone puts up unsourced information, we just revert it. We don't have a 2-year-wait-and-see period to find out if that information pops up somewhere. The burden of proof lies with the people adding the information. A dead link is just as trustworthy as no link. A lot of readers trust the information we provide them, especially when they see the little blue links next to each sentence. We're abusing that trust when we wait 2 years to remove unreferenced information. I'm not saying we should remove the dead links immediately, but two years is just way too much time to keep unreferenced information in an article when it might not even be true (i.e. the original person who added the link could have misconstrued the source and we would never be able to know). Feedback 02:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
If you're going to claim that something is unverifiable, you should have some basis for saying that other than "I see no sources here in the article." Normally that would be because you've performed a reasonable search yourself (and are hopefully well versed enough with the subject to know what constitutes a reasonable search in that area) and could not find anything where you'd expect to find it. You seem to be under the false impression that we require all content to be cited on pain of immediate deletion, but that is not and never has been policy; quite the contrary. We don't "just revert" content for no other reason than that it is unsourced within the article (do we need to check your contribution history?). WP:PRESERVE is policy, so we fix it unless it raises immediate BLP concerns or you have good reason to believe it is not a good faith or worthwhile addition (i.e., vandalism or blatant OR). "Burden of proof" is not a blank check to insist on sourcing in each and every instance when you don't have a reason to specifically challenge the content in question, and the mere fact that something is not presently sourced is not in and of itself a reason for a "challenge". Particularly not if it was cited to a reliable source though the source has since become a dead link; that should give us the strong presumption that the information is verifiable and another source may be found. postdlf (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
You're being silly when you questioning if I know what to do with unsourced information. Remember, my original proposal was to add "Citation needed" tags to the information, not remove it entirely. I don't agree that the fact that there used to be a link next to the information gives us a presumption that it is verifiable. I have seen plenty cases where information is kept on an article for months due to the little blue number at its side, and after opening the link, I find out that the information was entirely misconstrued. This happens way too often, and this silly WP:DEADREF policy just allows this to continue. If someone adds false information today with an online source and the source is taken offline tomorrow, no one will be the wiser. In fact, a lot of vandals could just start adding non-archived dead links deliberately and claim that they were live upon editing. Our policy requires we respond by waiting 2 years. Do you not realize how screwed up that is? Feedback 18:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Removal of a link does not in any way raise questions about the information. The information is, or should be, still considered as verified by a reliable source. Once a topic is notable, it remains notable and that notability can not be removed. The same should apply to sources. Once established it can not be disestablished unless the reliability of the source is discredited. When a newspaper goes out of business and their web site goes down, does that mean that all of the material referenced to that site are now discredited? That seems to be what you are suggesting. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Once a topic is notable, it remains notable and that notability can not be removed.
Uh, no. There are times when a small group of people deem the subject notable, but the broader community doesn't. There's also the issue of recentism. Deciding an article is notable once is not a free pass. There are plenty of articles which were considered notable at one point, then deleted as non-notable after a few years passed. (Mostly in Wikipedia's earlier days, but still a very real possibility.)
When a newspaper goes out of business and their web site goes down, does that mean that all of the material referenced to that site are now discredited?
Not necessarily, but that is possible. Newspapers still have print editions, and a citation to that printing would be a good substitute for the web link. And some sources, like the Wayback Machine, could be used to reference some web-only news sources that go offline. But, if there's no way to verify the content, how do we assure future readers that "Yes, this is accurate" and not misinformation? If Wikipedia becomes the primary source for a claim it's a serious problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
"If Wikipedia becomes the primary source for a claim it's a serious problem." Couldn't have said it any better myself. Feedback 22:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The policy is not to wait 2 years to remove information supported by a dead link. Use editorial judgement to decide what should be in an article.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Dab titles

I'm not really sure what project page this goes on but I figure here's best for now.

Two weeks ago I moved "Burnin' (Daft Punk song)" to "Burnin' (instrumental)" and "Aerodynamic (song)" to "Aerodynamic (instrumental)" as both are instrumental compositions rather than songs with vocal tracks, and other such electronic compositions with no lyrical accompanyment on the project are also denoted as instrumentals (ex. Popcorn (instrumental), Frankenstein (instrumental)).

It turns out that in the past 48 hours both had been moved, the former without any discussion or reason as to why (certainly no summary), and the latter with the summary "Congratulations, you have spectacularly failed to understand Daft Punk." I reverted the move reverts and posted on the two movers' talk pages that (essentially) songs must have lyrics and these are very clearly denoted in the articles as instrumentals.

While it may have been wrong for me to move the pages back, where should the pages ideally be located?—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I remember an extensive discussion on differentiating song vs. instrumental about a year ago (I think it took place at WT:DAB, but it may have been part of a specific move discussion... I will try to locate it). The general consensus at that time was that instrumentals are a specific type of song (ie that the distinction was so minor that the only time we should disambiguate between the two was if there were two songs with the same title... one purely instrumental and the other with lyrics). Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
this isn't the discussion I was thinking of... but it covers similar ground. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
IMO, it should be "Tequila (instrumental)". And based on that determination you refer to, as "Burnin'" is the name of multiple songs, it's better to have the Daft Punk track be known as "instrumental".—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Um, if no one is singing, then is it a song? That is, the lack of vocals makes it an instrumental composition and not a song... Which is sung. By voices. --Jayron32 20:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The issue then falls to the people who are enforcing the fact that the page should be disambiguated as a "song" rather than as an "instrumental". This appeared to happen with Tequila (song) sometime last year where a bunch of people were insensed that it should not be disambiguated as "instrumental" but as "song", despite the fact it says "instrumental" in the first line (and also because at several points during the song there's the exclamation of "Tequila!").—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Psst, Jayron... Songs Without Words. :) LadyofShalott 02:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocks: Why 31 hours?

When administrators block users for the first time, it is usually for 31 hours. Why 31 hours and not something like 24 hours? —DragonLord(talk/contribs) 01:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Some previous answers to this question.
Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 11#31 hours
Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 8#31 hours for a block
GB fan 01:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Yup, as with many in those links, I will block a vandal 31 hours on the belief that they are likely to come back at the same time the next day (particularly if at a school) and resume. The extra seven hours tends to reduce the threat of a repeat performance, in my very subjective, completely memory-based experience. Resolute 01:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Most vandalism comes from bored kids in class. Since school classes often happen at the same time every day, an IP address blocked for 24 hours would never get noticed as being blocked, as that bored kid would show up the next day to screw around with Wikipedia. 31 hours catches those people. --Jayron32 01:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
What about periods like 32 or 36 hours? —DragonLord(talk/contribs) 02:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Because I just click the next dropdown option that has a value of more than 24. Killiondude (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
It's an arbitrary value in the block interface's drop-down menu. It's been discussed repeatedly at MediaWiki talk:Ipboptions. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I've never seen the sysop UI, so this isn't something I'm familiar with. Thanks. —DragonLord(talk/contribs) 03:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13: Abandoned Articles for creation submissions

A RfC has started at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13: Abandoned Articles for creation submissions discussing a proposed new speedy deletion criterion for rejected and long since abandoned Articles for Creation submissions. This would generate an initial deletion of some 50,000 pages, and then a daily dose of give or take 100 pages (wild stab at the actual numbers, not a scientific report here). Fram (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This RfC is now open again for those who wish to comment. (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Upgrade WP:BEANS to guideline status?

I feel that WP:BEANS is important enough to merit guideline status—from what I can tell, it is frequently cited, there is a consensus of agreement with this essay, and I have not seen an argument against it. Should this upgrade be done? —DragonLord(talk/contribs) 02:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

What purposes would it serve? It's only ancedotial advice and not so much describing processes that have used in practice at WP, which policy and guidelines are for. --MASEM (t) 02:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Upgrading it to a guideline would mean that the page is now officially recognized. It gets cited quite often, and there's strong consensus agreeing with the essay, so most attempts to argue against it would be absurd. At this point, the page is not merely an editor's opinion. —DragonLord(talk/contribs) 02:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The topic in question is exactly what essays are for. The only change upgrading it to guideline status could possibly make would be to give editors a reason to sanction other editors for being BEANSy. That would be a terrible outcome. There are many times where it is necessary to describe a concept that would still be eligible for a link to WP:BEANSRyan Vesey 02:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:Beans and WP:Creep. Reactionary argumentation, not guideline material. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

 Request withdrawnDragonLord(talk/contribs) 04:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Accents on Russian names and words

Can someone explain why there seems to be a convention, in giving names in Russian in WP, of placing accents on letters? E.g. in Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, the Cyrillic name is given thus: Пётр Ильи́ч Чайко́вский. This is incorrect, as the accents on 'и' and 'о' do not exist in Russian orthography. I see that this practise informs the reader where the stress in each word lies; but anyone transcribing the Cyrillic from this (or other) articles would in fact be wrong, and Wikipedia is therefore giving incorrect information. (In fact, in this particular case,the letter 'ё' would also be normally be written as 'е' as well, but let's leave that to one side).

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia) gives the example correctly,without stress accents:

  1. Example: Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (Russian: Пётр Ильич Чайковский

So why do all virtually all articles with Russian names contain stress accents, without making it clear that these are not part of the orthography? Am I missing some other guideline on use of Cyrilic? Should not the non-orthographic status of these stress accents be made very clear to readers not familiar with Russian? If you want to give the stress, there are other, less confusing, ways of dong this.Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  • What ways of giving stress do you know which are better than just establish them over letters? Stress in Russian, especially in Russian proper names, is impredictable, often confusable even for native speakers whom obviously not all of English Wikipedia users interested in Russian graphics are. Well, such phrases are less easy to copy-paste to place where you don't need a stress, that's true, but it's not a great problem. One can read that accents are not commonly-used part of Russian graphics in corresponding articles. If there is IPA, probably there is no need in establishing them into the text, but not any editor can quickly write it and I'm not sure it's needed for any Russian phrase. And, of course, ё-fication is mandatory for encyclopedic content. Ignatus (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of feasibility of Cyrillic acute accents in articles of English Wikipedia, there are no other, less confusing, way of doing this in a Russian text. This way is the only standard one. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • But why give stress on the Russian text at all? - shouldn't editors, in English WP, give the stresses in the English text? To give the Russian text stresses in English Wikipedia risks implying to non-Cyrillic readers (should they wish to transcribe the name) that the letters with stresses are the normal spelling in Russian. At the same time, non-Cyrllic readers won't make sense of the Cyrillic letters anyway, and therefore won't be able to usefully use the stresses. So what's the point?--Smerus (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
    When I visited Israel, I rarely saw such diacritics as Dagesh and Sin/Shin Dot in Hebrew inscriptions. Should I now propose to remove these incorrect spelling modifications from all {{lang-he}} then? Possibly, some conventions on {{lang-ru}} would not hurt, but I am not willing to discuss Smerus’s proposal because he started from an attempt to fool Wikipedians. I am a native Russian reader/writer. There is no “other” [than э́тот], “less confusing, way of doing this”. Acute accents are recognised as a standard, though not ubiquitous, feature of Russian spelling. Ильи́ч is not incorrect – it is just uncommon and problematical in some text encodings. Surely, it can cause problems because, in Unicode, there pairs of letters are not equivalent, and also because of encodings, but to claim it is “incorrect” is just misleading and possibly dishonest. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

First can I gently remind Incnis Mrsi of the protocol WP:AGF. I can seen no reason - other than perhaps because s/he is not a native English speaker - that s/he should accuse me of attempting to 'fool' WP readers. Had that been my intention I would hardly have started this thread. Perhaps it is because Incnis Mrsi is a native Russian reader that s/he misundertands the issue I have raised. I will try once more to make it very clearly. I would also point out that my query does not relate to Hebrew, so that this red herring can be laid aside; only I will mention here, what I am sure Incnis Mrsi very well understands, that the roles of dagesh and dots in letters in Ivrit are very different from the stress accents added to Russian which are the subject of this thread.

This is English WP. Readers to who come to English WP - say to read the article on Tchaikovsky - will find a variety of information in the lead about the name of the article subject. Typically, where the subject is Russian, this will be in English, followed by the name in and IPA version and in Cyrillic. The IPA vrsion will come with stress marks indicating where the accentcomes on each word. Typically, in English Wiipedia, the name in Cyrillic script will follow, with accents upon the stressed syllable(s). I think that Incnis Mrsi will agree with me that these stresses are not reproduced in normal printed or handwritten Russian. It is true that the accents on the Cyrillic will assist any Cyrillic-reading user to identify where stresses occur - but in doing so, they only duplicate what is already indicated in the IPA. The danger is that a non-Cyrillic-reading user may assume that these accents are integral to the correct usage in printed and written Russian (like, for exmaple, é is in French, or ö is in German); and may therefore cite elasewhere (in an essay, or elsewhere on the internet for example) the 'stressed' Cyrillic version as the standard usage Cyrillic version. In this way, Wikipedia would be encouraging what is, at least, a serious misapprehension, and could be construed as misinformation. For this reason, it would be better (if indications of stress additional to IPA are though to be required), to provide a stressed version of the English form of the name, rather than to add stresses (without explaining their status to non-Cyrillic readers) to the Cyrillic form.

Ясно? --Smerus (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this revision is better because does not contain wrong assertions. Comparisons to French and German are topical, but it is better to compare Russian and Spanish orthographies, because the acute plays the same rôle in Spanish where, unlike Russian, it is mandatory. Russian stress accents can be rightfully omitted, it is true. The same is true for diacritics in Hebrew (which have completely unrelated linguistic sense), but not true for Spanish stresses (although sense is the same). Conclusion: the sense of a diacritic has nothing to do with our question. Hebrew and Russian have their diacritic rules, but they are not mandatory – that’s why it was Hebrew which I compared to Russian first, not Spanish. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, now we are agreed on the meaning of the query, what about an answer? That is, to correct (for clarity) my initial sentence in this thread, 'Can someone explain why there seems to be a convention, in giving names in Russian Cyrillic script in English WP, of placing accents on the Cyrillic syllables, (rather than relying on the IPA transcription, or providing an accented English version)?'--Smerus (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC) I note by the way that the accented form in the Russiain language is standard in the lead sentence of Russian Wikipedia articles - although it is not the practice in English Wikipedia to accent the English-language version of the name in the lead. Why do we appear to have adopted the Russian WP procedure for English Wkipedia articles on Russian topics (and for those articles alone?) There appears to be no rationale for this. --Smerus (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a common error for non Russians to assume that 'й' is an accented version of 'и' This is not the case but often taught by some non Russian teachers of the language. They are distinct letters of the Russian alphabet, the former being the 11th letter of the alphabet ant the latter the 10th. The letter 'й' is pronounced 'y' as in 'yew and 'и' is pronounced 'ee' as in 'meet'. The cyrillic alphabet officially has 33 letters (21 consonants, 11 vowels plus two extra characters that have no sound of their own), but those teachers that treat 'й' as an accented version of 'и' will tell you that there are only 32 letters. (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This pompous and tedious comment is utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand, which has nothing to do with 'й'.--Smerus (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at WP:CIVILITY before posting any more offensive comments. (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The only useful reason for including the accent is to alert foreign speakers to proper pronunciation. For users of other cyrillic languages, this makes sense, since they would know the difference between an accent and an actual letter. However, since most English speakers don't read cyrillic, this attempt is useless. It seems this practice was mindlessly adopted from another Wikipedia and needs to be reconsidered. USchick (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I am sure you are right. This whole topic has now been moved to WT:RUSSIA#Using accent marks to indicate stress so that it can be dealt with ona WP-wide basis.--Smerus (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going to add (before being summoned away by the wife) that an accute accent is often used in Russian dictianaries and books on the language to show which sylable is stressed. They never appear in normal written Russian as native speakers already know where the stress is. The stress of words is very important because, in Russian, unless a sentence starts with 'who', 'how', 'what', 'where' or 'why' (in Russian obviously), stress is the only way of identifying that you are being asked a question as Russian has no interogative form. In written Russian the question mark at the end of the sentence is the give away. (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What should we do about pages like User talk: and User talk:

Every once in a while an old, abandoned IP talk page can be found that looks like a draft article. My initial instinct is to just delete them, but with respect to User talk: and User talk:, I wonder whether these include material that we are missing, and should have in the encyclopedia. bd2412 T 02:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G13:_Abandoned_Articles_for_creation_submissions. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
But they don't fit with any real precision. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. There seems to be a web of these things created by other IP users. Needs some research. See Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ I've attempted a custom rational speedy deletion for ones first listed to see what happens when an admin inspects them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I am more concerned that we might be deleting useful material (although I think it would take an expert to determine if these are useful). I have also come across this oddity. bd2412 T 02:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
If your not feeling up to creating an article from these gems, they could be submitted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation, and let the process take it's course. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

National flag icons and the deployment thereof

Please would someone experienced in the policy of flag icon deployment look at List of gymnasts and determine whether the deployment of national flag icons in many places in the Rhythmic section is within the relevant policy? A note on the article's talk page about your conclusions would be appropriate.

If within policy, is such a deployment recommended?

In either case there is a lack of consistency. Is there an easy method of rendering the various appearances of Country consistent without significant manual effort? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone must know. Or is this the wrong forum to ask? Guidance please? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
You're looking for WP:MOSFLAGS. As an article on an international sporting event, the use of flag icons is appropriate there as done with the heading in the tables. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm grateful. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Consolidate the Title Rules

Currently we have Wikipedia:TITLEFORMAT#Article_title_format Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(capitalization) MOS:CT#Composition_titles Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#General_rules Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names Wikipedia:Official_names. I am probably missing some others. Also: Category:Wikipedia_naming_conventions It is a complete mess, and anyone can make any point they want because the rules contradict themselves.

Also, as a corollary (meaning it should be discussed independently of consolidating the rules into one place), I think it is time to reexamine the purpose of "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official" "Trademarks that officially begin with a lowercase letter raise several problems because they break the normal capitalization rules of English that trademarks" and "CamelCase are a judgment call." I understand why some people want a hard and fast MOS that applies in all cases, but it is causing issues all over the place. Is restyling trademarks and proper nouns making wikipedia easier to read, or is it making products harder to identify from search engines? Priority number one should be being able to recognize you have the right article, and part of recognition and identification is orthography. IKEA gets capitalized, but Time doesn't. Every article is turning into an "exception" and at that point we need to analyze if the exception has become the rule. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Succinct" Captions

How long should a caption on a Wikipedia image be? Please help solve a dispute (and clarify the meaning of a guideline) in this discussion. Thank you. - X201 (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a proposal to change the guidelines so that captions inside infoboxes be limited to the fewest possible number of words. The edit wars precipitating this discussion involved video games, with one side favoring "Official box art" and the other side favoring "Official box art depicting ____". There is a proposal that all infobox captions (not just captions for video game artwork) be limited to a single line. Multiple recent featured articles have had multi-line captions in the infoboxes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are deletion notices automatically transcluded when a template or file at XFD is used?

I find it annoying that when a file or template is up for deletion and the notice placed on the file or template page propagates to all pages (in an abbreviated form) to all pages that use the file or template. Why is this done? —DragonLord(talk/contribs) 01:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

So that the readers who would be affected by its deletion are invited to the discussion? Kilopi (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
These notices make more sense if they appear on the edit page as an edit notice (like "This page contains the following template, which is nominated for deletion..."), rather than in the article, where they would detract from the content. —DragonLord(talk/contribs) 05:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
That would value the opinions of editors over readers. I'm not sure that not letting readers know that the template being used to provide them with information may be deleted is a sound call. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, most of our editors are also readers, or at least read far more pages than they edit. I'd want to know about a TFD even if I didn't click through to edit the page (or even if I didn't pay attention when reverting vandalism or making a minor edit). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Skin change

Why the hate against Times New Roman??

This change is really pissing me off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capnned (talkcontribs) 21:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Context, please? I don't remember ever seeing Times New Roman, so I don't know what change you mean. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Perhaps your web broswer had a change in the font settings. See if that helps. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Citations: Should the original url= be required when using archiveurl=

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: As a question of policy, there is not question. You can not have archiveurl without the imbedded original URL. The real question is should the bare url field of the template be populated? That is a question for a different forum. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

In working on the migration of citation templates to use the new Lua module, we've encountered an inconsistency between {{cite web}} and the other citation templates (e.g. {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, etc.)

The citation templates generally allow one to specify both an original url= and an archiveurl= that is intended to have the same content on an archive site.
Example with both url= and archiveurl=
{{cite news | title = My news | newspaper = The Daily News | url = | archiveurl = | archivedate = May 25, 2005 | author = Doe, John }}
Doe, John. "My news". The Daily News. Archived from the original on May 25, 2005. 

When using {{cite web}}, one can specify archiveurl= without specifying url=. In other words one is allowed to link to an archived copy of the website even if you don't provide a link to the original website. By contrast, all of the other templates consider this to be an error. If you try to link to an archive site without including the original url, you get an error message.

Examples with archiveurl= but no url=
{{cite web}} {{cite web | title = My website | archiveurl = | archivedate = May 25, 2005 | author = Doe, John }}
Doe, John. "My website". Archived from the original|archive-url= requires |url= (help) on May 25, 2005. 
{{cite news}} {{cite news | title = My news | newspaper = The Daily News | archiveurl = | archivedate = May 25, 2005 | author = Doe, John }}
Doe, John. "My news". The Daily News. Archived from the original|archive-url= requires |url= (help) on May 25, 2005. 
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: close template continued, does not like to have tables in the template

In brief discussions, our small technical group generally feels that the behavior ought to be made consistent across the various templates, but we are of mixed opinions about which case to adopt as the standard. Requiring that the url= field be preserved whenever archiveurl= is present would help maintain information about the originating site, and could be especially important if the archive site ever goes offline. However, retaining the original url= also means indefinitely preserving a link whose content may be dead or changed in such a way as to no longer be relevant. In the case of a long-term dead link, it might make sense to only preserve the archiveurl= and discard the original url=.

So, opinions? Should the original url= be required whenever archiveurl= is present, or not? Dragons flight (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The inconsistency comes about as a bug in {{citation/core}} and affects other templates such as {{cite conference}}. The problem is when |IncludedWorkTitle={{{title|}}}. I barely looked at the affected markup, but the apparent intent was to apply the same error check to all cite templates. I see no reason for these templates to be different. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Given the concern for an archive site to possibly go offline (scary thought), I would agree with the thought that the url must be present when the archiveurl is present. --Izno (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Right now is begging for money or they'll stop taking submissions at the end of 2013.
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The WebCite issue is being discussed at meta:WebCite. Cheers. (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I prefer to have the original URL be required. It may help somebody to provide a better reference at some future point. (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sometimes the original URL may go live again; often the original URL is required or makes it easier to find an archive. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • And sometimes there is a web archive when there never was an original on the web. I guess
    "Condemnation of a Railway Viaduct". Thames Star. 17 January 1881. Retrieved 5 April 2013. 
    is an example. Of course, as here, one can give the url of the archive as if it was the original. Thincat (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
In this context, the document located at the original URL is the original source. Online archives of newspapers don't have an original URL. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Require that the original URL be kept. My most recent experience with this was Chartbot, and it was able to recover about 80% of dead links to Billboard, and it couldn't have done that without the URLs.—Kww(talk) 15:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Logically |archiveurl= must require |url=. If there's no original URL, it's not an internet archive. Rjwilmsi 22:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I've been using archiveurl without the URL parameter in many of my articles that use the Pandora Archive, an Internet archiving service run by the National Library of Australia (e.g. footnote 2 of the Tracey Cross article). I always felt it was unnecessary, because the links have probably been dead for a decade or more anyway, and the original URLs can easily be found by chopping off the first part of the archive URLs. Graham87 09:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

courtesy link policy

A source can be good enough to source a citation while not good enough for a statement of fact. There are also materials that can not be used as sources but are still valuable to the article. We have no policy or guideline for this. For clarification: wp:rs has us pretend the material is a source. Such distorted logic is not necessary. (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your question here. Wikipedia does allow for the use of "general references" (i.e. not used in footnotes) or "further reading" sections. Many, many articles contain such sections, and they are mentioned at both Wikipedia:Citing sources#General references and at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. What sort of action do you think we need to take, or what is unclear? I want to help, but I don't know what needs fixing, as the sort of sources you note, "There are also materials that can not be used as sources but are still valuable to the article" are explicitly dealt with on multiple policy and guideline pages. --Jayron32 22:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Basically I want a policy for it in stead of vague guidance. But I didn't run into the style guidelines that do indeed describe how we usually do this. There is an essay under fabrication for External Links. I suppose those should just mature into the thing I was looking for. (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The unregistered user asked this question at WT:RS, where it was answered. S/he was looking for WP:FURTHER. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Historical logos


I would like to propose clarification on a current policy that seems to me to already be de facto in use, but which often leads to arguments. The practice invariably survives if it develops organically, over time, but I have found it to be immediatelty deleted if created in one go, such as happened to me here [1]

My proposal is to clarify usage of historical brand logos. Wikipedia usage shows that old, historical logos are often used in articles –

I am told that, if possible, one should include written information about the logos within the articles they appear in, and I'm all for that!

Often, however, one cannot do this immediately (WP:REALLIFE :-) or at all, as is the case with the BTK logo, which has been used for around half a century in Bulgaria under the communist regime, but has no info on it, as "brand" was not a concept under totalitarianism. No one even knows who invented it. Hence I cannot, for the minute at least and maybe never, reference the logo, except as merely "having existed". In fact, even many capitalist logos don't ever get discussed anywhere, either. They also merely exist.

In any case, we need to reconsider the way "fair use" is applied in the context of historical logos and designs. Current usage as seen in the above varied examples, including my own vivacom example, do not contradict –

  • fair use and minimal use – they are thumbnails, which are only used in one article on the entire Wikipedia [2] Also, all logos in such an article have the same legal owner (e.g. they are all Microsoft logos)
  • contextual significance – just as the writing in the history section is an essential part of a company's history, its brand logo is an essential visual part of that history & recognizeability.
  • indiscriminate use and not a repository – same arguments as in the above 2 points
  • notability – this is more to do with separate articles, but some people use it to delete sections of articles. WP practice has shown, and I clearly agree, that logos used for years by a company are a notable enough part of its history for inclusion in the company's WP article.
  • use in galleries – states "this is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis", and here is the crux of my proposal, and I believe that even gallery use is "fair use", because I do not believe that three 80-pixel thumbnails in a 1000-word article about a 100-year-old company infringe on any of the abovementioned Wikipedia rules.

My main argument for supporting and wanting to make official the current situation is that historical logos are often more recognizeable than a current logo.

Yes, Wikipedia's third pillar states that "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute", but there are clearly thousands of copyrighted images available on en:wiki and on Commons, therefore the mere existence of copyrighted images does not infringe on this pillar. However, the fifth pillar is that "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not carved in stone and their content and interpretation can evolve over time", hence why I am writing this proposal.

Finally, my main contention is that people do not merely remove a logo section and flag the image for deletion...but rather to add an "expand section"/"please cite references" template to the logo section, because otherwise a double standard is created.

I would like to underline that my proposal does not aim to sidestep copyright policy. What I am contending is that Wikipedia's already established practice is clearly legal, and I would like jobsworth editors and administrators such as User:Stefan2 and User:B to realize this and not propose that all such copyrighted images be immediately deleted.

I would like to thank you for your attention, and look forward to hearing your opinions!

BigSteve (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ So I'm not accused of hiding anything, I was forced into a long-winded argument here, and began a second convo here. I am summarizing my position here, at the Village Pump.
  2. ^ At most 2, if one company has been bought out by another, kept the logo and the 2 companies have separate articles on WP.
See WP:NFG you need to meet WP:NFCC#8 usage in a gallery rarely if ever meets this. Werieth (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I outline my argument for WP:NFCC#8 above. BigSteve (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes that usage is acceptable under fair use, however Wikipedia operates under a non-free content policy which specifically avoids the usage of the term fair use, and is far far more restrictive than fair use. Werieth (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with BigSteve that historical logos are important for identifying the branding and documenting the identity of a company, and that deleting it would be detrimental for understanding the topic. But in order to meet WP:NFCC#8 -to be contextually relevant- the company's article should have a History section; recent or small companies for which history cannot be documented do not merit having their previous logos listed in it.

For long-term companies where their history can be documented, a gallery with a selection of the major logo changes is certainly adequate and contextually significant. Only for the case where there's enough content for a separate section for each period of the company there's a need to separate the logos, one for each section throughout the company's history (see Atlanta Hawks for what I mean). Diego (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It is almost impossible to have the sourced discussion necessary to meet WP:NFCC#8 included in a gallery format. You also need to factor in WP:NFCC#3. Yes these logos make the article look better, but rarely meet the #8 requirement. Keep in mind we need to separate two pieces here, there are both free and non-free logos. The usage of logos in Microsoft#Logo is completely allowable as they are free media, the usage of non-free media is what is really restrictive, and prevents the gallery usage and requires a significantly higher standard to merit inclusion. Werieth (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
P.S. please remember that Wikipedia's usage of non-free media is far more restrictive than that required by law. It is done in order to comply with the m:Mission to create a free encyclopedia. Werieth (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The gallery in Microsoft#Logo would be perfectly acceptable even if it wasn't free media - each one of the images is met with direct commentary about the logo itself. So, no, it's not "almost impossible to meet" the criteria - the only requirements are that the content is described by reliable sources and that removing it is detrimental to the understanding of the topic. For articles where different periods of history are documented, identifying each one is not against WP:NFCC#3, since each version of the logo is used for a different purpose. Diego (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Precisely because we want a free encyclopedia does WP:NFC allow the inclusion of non-free images. If the mission was exclusively to produce free content then non-free images would be forbidden, just like is done in the Spanish Wikipedia and some others. Please remember that the NFC defines the exemption doctrine policy to "facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia." Diego (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Historical non-free logos may only be included if there is sourced discussion about the logo itself. Just because an entity changed logos over time does not mean we need to document the older logos through visual means. If there's no discussion about the logo, then there's little significance of the logo to the article, per NFCC#8. We require sourced discussion about historical logos, at a minimum, to allow for their inclusion as to assure NFCC#8 is met. The Foundation's resolution on non-free media prevents us for being a visual medium historical record even if that record can be shown factually true. We require that the images be very significant to the discussion on the topic, and that requires sourced discussion to include. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Uh, no, there's no requirement in the NFC policy that the context defined by NFCC#8 is visual in nature; images can be used to illustrate content in the article even if that content doesn't explicitly discuss the aspect of the image. When the article describes the historical period in which a logo was used, the logo is very significant to the company's branding and corporate identity during that period, which is enough to meet the NFCC#8. Branding and visual identity are found to be valid indicators of significance throughout the whole project; this is not an exception. It's true that the NFCC are a higher standard than copyright law, but there's no need to apply standards which are even stricter than what the policy actually says. Companies without a history section? Sure, you can't have a historical record of the brand there. But in articles with several documented periods? Each section provides enough context for one logo, provided they're not just very minor visual variations. Diego (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
If there is no text describing the importance of the historical branding of the entity in question, NFCC#8 fails, because omission of the image does not harm the reader's understanding of the article. And the only way to demonstrate that historical importance without violating content policies like NOR is ascribing the importance to reliable sources. The use of the current logo on a entity's article is allowed as it carries the implicit branding of the entity at the present time and thus can be used without discussion (assuming the entity is notable itself), but that assumption doesn't apply to historical logos. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
As you know full well, the test set by policy is understanding of the topic, not understanding of the article or the article text.
Secondly, as you also know full well, WP:NOR applies to propositions and theses being developed by the article. On the other hand, relevance to reader understanding is an editorial question, typically discussed on talk pages or policy pages like this one, where editors are free to develop their own argumentation and thoughts, unconstrained by WP:NOR.
You know this. Why then do you persist with comments like the above, which seem to be deliberately misrepresenting the starting point in policy? That's not to say that historical logos are either a good idea or a bad idea, but at least represent the policy framwork straight, so there can then be a properly informed discussion. Jheald (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I did put this from a policy framework. There is no way you can justify the use of old logos just put on the page with no discussion about them coming from reliable sources that would make their include necessary to understand the topic. There has been no rational put forth for using old logos without question, beyond "well of course it's important, because I say so". That is a slippery-slope argument that breaks NFCC#8 completely. And I am talking NOR on the article page - that is, to try, in the article text, to put in language that would satisfy NFCC#8 but without bring in to sources to support that. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
That separate treatment of present and past logos would require that there's a logical difference between the importance of branding between the current and historical logos. What is that logical difference that makes the importance of past branding not apply to historical logos? Diego (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Because WP keeps itself up to date, it uses the most recent branding for any entity that has a logo. If older branding is important to understanding the topic, then sources should exist to explain this (which do happen in some cases, and there are academics that make brand changes over time part of their study). If it's just "but this was it's old logo, we need to show it", that fails NFCC inclusion. There has to be some reason that helps the reason to comprehend the topic that omission would hamper. For most old logos, this simply doesn't exist. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
You can see the gallery that is in dispute here. The old logos are being used in a gallery in their own section and clearly do not add anything to the text. We don't need to have a gallery of old logos in order to tell you about a company. I'm unclear of what policy change is being proposed here. On the sliding scale from "okay" to "not okay", something like NBC logos where the logos are the subject of sourced commentary is clearly okay; Los Angeles Clippers where the historic logos are used in context when the team that existed at the time of the logo is discussed might be okay; and galleries of copyrighted logos with no accompanying text are clearly not okay. What about this is there a proposal to change? --B (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
You say "The old logos...clearly do not add anything to the text", but the policy wants to know whether they adding anything to the readers' understanding of the subject. Do you know something more about the company (specifically, about the company's self-presentation and marketing) if you can see the old logos, or is your knowledge of the company's branding and marketing exactly the same after you receive that visual information? If you get "more" from seeing it, then you've got a good possibility of meeting both fair use and NFCC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a slippery slope argument and one we can't use. Even just considering fair use (not NFCC), there's a transformational aspect to whether use is fair use or not. Just plastering a number of images without comment is not transformative. Is WP likely going to be in trouble for old logos like this? Probably not, but again, it is a slippery slope argument that if you say "well it's fine for old logos, what other types of works?" you can't put a stop to it.
In specific NFC terms (assuming we're well past fair use considerations), the same problem exists with the slippery argument. Of course adding any image a reader will get "more" from seeing it with the text. That would give justification for filling, say, movie and tv show articles with dozens of screenshots from the work, without comment, to go along with the plot; among other examples. This is why NFCC#8 is two-parted, as the second part assures that only those images critical to understanding the topic are included. No one has shown how, to a general reader, how illustration of old logos without any discussion on them is necessary to understand the topic about the history of the entity. Hence the above argument simply cannot be accepted. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the first half of that - the "transformative" question, I think that just the fact that we are using the logos in the context of our article is sufficiently tranformative for purposes of the law. If we're trying to use some guy's photo as if it were free clip art, that's not transformative - that's just a copyright violation. But an official logo of the subject of the article? I think that clears the transformative hurdle easily. In my mind, the only question is NFCC#8. Our theory (good bad or indifferent) for inclusion of logos in an article is that they help the reader recognize what company the article is about ("oh, that Microsoft"). As the theory goes, one (and only one) logo is needed to help the user understand which Microsoft this article is about. Unless or until we change that theory of fair use logos, we really don't need multiple ones unless they are the subject of sourced commentary (like the NBC article). Personally, I've never even been comfortable with the way that we claim some logos are in the public domain - we really ought to be treating all logos like fair use images and the threshold of originality should only come into play when you have a derivative work (ie, a photo of a bunch of cases of Coke). I've never been comfortable with telling someone a logo is public domain - trademark protects it just as much or more than copyright protects it and it's absurd to think that anybody's logo is "free content". --B (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
@Masem: No one has shown how, to a general reader, how illustration of old logos without any discussion on them is necessary to understand the topic about the history of the entity. It helps readers to recognize how the company was branded in the past, to identify old promotional material, advertisements, or any other historic document that was associated with the company in an earlier period - i.e., paraphrasing B's words, to answer the question "oh, it was that Microsoft". I thought this was obvious.
The argument that we should only document the current branding is lame, since Wikipedia aims to provide a complete understanding of each topic throughout time, not only of its most recent incarnation. Old logos must be included at least for every company article with a History section. Diego (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
If some sources discuss the old logo(s), I think yes, the inclusion in Wikipedia is justified as fair use. Otherwise, probably not. (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The argument to include historical images because to helps the reader to identify the company is a false premise for any NFCC image use. Yes, I'm not questioning that they potentially can do that, but there's still part 2 of NFCC#8, that the reader's understanding is harmed by their omissions, and that's simply not the case with old logos. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to thank you all for contributing to this topic!, and have read everything in detail. I have had to be away for a few days but will post tomorrow. I'm only writing this note as I know Village Pump discussions sometimes get archived really quickly – so, please, dont :-) BigSteve (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again!

I see your arguments, and I guess I will always strive to find some sort of written material about any logos, just to be on the safe side. I would like to answer a few of the points made, however –

On the issue of what piece of information is "critical to the understanding of the subject/topic/article". I agree – old logos are not critical to that…but let’s be frank – the current logo is also not critical to that, either! It is merely an additional piece of info which adds an extra layer of understanding and, equally importantly, adds color to an article – (after all, WP is not meant to be stuffy and b&w, is it) – but no logo is "crucial" to the understanding of any company article. So, if we are to follow NFCC#8 to the letter, we need to get rid of all logos.

I would like to thank Diego, Jheald and WhatamIdoing for your support on this, I thought I would be alone!

One of my main arguments from the start has been, which Diego reiterated, that a historical logo is often better-recognized than a current logo, so even B’s argument that logo inclusion is solely needed to help the reader understand what company is being discussed...doesn't fly – because even the current logo might not recognized by many readers!

So, Masem and B – your arguments on this point are intentionally exaggerated, and you know this!

But my point is – history and being reasonable – i.e. following the spirit of NFCC#8.

Historical logos are just that – parts of a company’s history and the mere discussion of a certain period of a company’s history is enough to reasonably merit passing NFCC#8, as in LA Clippers, Atlanta Hawks.... Any argument to the contrary is not black-and-white, but is just as much opinion as my arguments here – the point is to be reasonable. And, Masem, no, I don’t think this is a "slippery slope argument" – you are using weasel words, because you are not saying why you think it’s a slippery slope argument – the rule I am proposing can be applied quite strictly. Also, Masem, including several historical logos is not equivalent to "including dozens of screenshots of a tv show" – it’s the equivalent of adding a show’s old logo, and you know it! So let’s not use straw men to attempt to win our arguments here, fellas! BigSteve (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The slippery slope is that the argument to use historical logos when no sourced context is given amounts to the rationale: "I think it's important to show" or effectively meeting the first part of NFCC#8 about helping the reader's comprehension. I can use that same argument for nearly any type of non-free media on any other page, and thus argue that we've been far too restrictive of non-free because of that. That's the slippery slope. That's why we have the second part of NFCC#8 that talks about harming the reader's understanding of the topic if the images are omitted. When there is no sourced discussion about the importance of an old logo (in general, get to that in a moment), then there's no harm in not including the logo since the reader is not missing anything. I'm sure that in many many cases the branding/logo changes over time for specific cases (NBC, Pepsi and AT&T come to mind) have been well documented by sources, so it's not an impossible barrier to meet. But the bulk of logo changes go unannounced, so it just happens, and there's no documentation to give importance to that. Ergo, there's no need to include them.
Now I say that these require sourced discussion, though this is the case 99% of the time. There can be limited cases where consensus believes that the images can be used without having sourced discussion, but this must be done on a case by case basis, and cannot be used to justify all non-free historical logos, as being requested here. I'm of the opinion that if someone says "but this logo was a corporate identify for X years and ppl have known it like that", then there's either got to be sources to back that up, or its just a wishy-washy attempt to justify inclusion.
A final point: we need to remember that WP is not the end-all, be-all of knowledge. Nor should we be. Aspects such as our free mission and non-free minimizing need to take priority when the information is not critical to the reader to understand the topic. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Masem! I understand your point – and in most capitalist societies you will get some documentation on logo changes. However, as both myself and User:B pointed out, this discussion was born out of a case study – BTC (see logos section). My particular worry is that sometimes the documentation simply does not exist. In up-and-coming capitalist societies (as in Bulgaria) logos don't get discussed and, esp in the first case – BTC old logo, it was developed during communism, when no one ever got credited with anything, because everything was state-owned. My point is to be able to include stuff when such exceptions arise, as this here logo (and many others like it) existed for decades with zero recognition of the artistic value of the logo. Hence this is the logo most people over 40 identify the company with. The next logo has an even weirder story – it only lasted about 5 years...but – this is the period that the company made major investments and today, this is the logo that is still seen all over the country on public payphones and phone-cable manholes in the street, despite its now well-established new logo.
Hence I believe including the old logos as thumbnails next to the relevant history paragraph (which, granted, is not yet written) should merit inclusion – as with the Clippers, the Hawks, etc. In fact, I believe the mere caption of "BTC logo 1950-1995" should be enough "explanation" of the logo itself to merit inclusion, especially if next to the relevant paragraph. Because, after all, how much "explanation" is required to satisfy inclusion? There is no objective minimum!
Now, I still contend, and you have not answered, my two points that a) historical logos are often better-known than the current one (case in point - MS Windows), and b) following NFCC#8 to the letter should have us remove nearly every single logo off Wikipedia. Because, while the Windows logo enhances my understanding of the product (which I see every day when I switch on my computer), I certainly do not need the Microsoft logo to understand the company (btw - I am talking about the general principle, please do not shift the argument to the fact that these particular logos are in the public domain).
Something else no one is mentioning - how does "fair use" or "minimal use" preclude past logos of the same company being used in the single article about that company? It's not like they are being overused. Each logo is used once only on the entire Wikipedia. Nowhere is such usage mentioned in the NFCC rules, hence I truly feel like you are reading more into the rules than is actually written in them. (I contend that it does not break rule NFCC#3a, because since historical logos refer to different periods of history and do not overlap, one logo will not "suffice" for a full understanding of the company's history.)
Finally, as per what Diego said – can we not attempt to get Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Business to adopt an "exemption doctrine policy" (2)(3) on this matter? BigSteve (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
NFC is site-wide policy, Wikiprojects cannot carve out exemptions from it.
There is an acceptable objective minimum for inclusion - sourced discussion specifically about the logo from sources (even if first-party). That said, in line with cover art or equivalent for published works, the community has stated that showing the present logo of a company on a stand-alone article to that company is implicitly helping to associate the company's choice of branding/visualization in connection with the discussion about the company - but only that one image gets that distinction of not otherwise needing more detailed discussion in the article body; with cover art, for example, additional covers must pass a certain level of sourced discussion to be included.
I still have a hard time believing that sources don't exit to support the entity's identification of that logo if you say that is the case. They may be print sources and in other languages ,but if it seems obvious that there was a brand identity with the old logo that was lost when it changed, someone would have talked about it. Otherwise, it's personal speculation.
Again, per the Foundation, we aim for minimal use of non-free images. The current logo is sufficient to represent the company's current marketing aspect, the historical logos, without any sourced commentary, do not, and thus exceed minimal use. One needs to remember that "zero" non-frees is an acceptable solution to, but by no means am saying to remove current logos).
And while I won't do anything about the MS Windows article, the use of the logos there is improper too, particularly when each OS version has its own page where the logos are proper to use. But that's neither here nor there. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The current logo is sufficient to represent the company's current marketing aspect, the historical logos, without any sourced commentary, do not, and thus exceed minimal use. This is a red herring. The historical logos represent the company's historical marketing aspect, which is a different use than showing the current one. When non-free images serve different purposes in an article, they don't exceed minimal use. It's your opinion that only the current marketing is relevant, but that should be decided on a case-by-case basis for each company article; where editors agree that omiting historical logos would hinder understanding, i.e. for cases like the BTC logo mentioned by BigSteve, there's nothing in the NFC policy opposing that conclusion. Diego (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
When there is nothing to describe the branding or marketing in light of a stand-alone article on the entity, we are already on a tenacious argument for including one non-free image to show that. This is the same argument for cover art of published works, which the use of a single piece of cover art has been confirmed as understanding of the implicit branding nature. But there, no one argues for any more than one cover presented without discussion, save for reasonable exceptions made for alternate covers by the Album project. One could argue that to implicitly understand the entire marketing and branding of a published work, such as an album or movie, we need to show all the various types of branding used if they are somewhat different, but this is not a position anyone takes, in part that we're talking implicit recognition of the branding. Hence, why published works get one "free" non-free cover image to use; any other cover work has to be the subject of critical discussion in the article.
Entity logos do not get any more a free pass than cover art, since 99% of the time they too are presented without discussion. Since we can be up to date, we always go with the most recent logo that an entity uses. Historical logos presented without discussion as part of implicit branding simply fail all elements of NFCC#8, among others. Again, the insistence that when the company changed its logo that it changed its identity to many people is either a statement you can cite (though may be difficult to find the citation), or simply one of speculation and thus invalidating the inclusion of the logo as part of the implicit branding. Knowing that the first case - where sources exist - is not a rarity when companies switch logos, it is not an unreasonable barrier to expect editors to meet to justify historical logos.
Again, I stress: NFCC#8 has two parts, and most historical logos presented without discussion fail part number 2, about harming the reader's understanding of the topic. The section where that historical logo goes is understood easily with or without the logo, and ergo it fails NFCC#8, even though the first part of #8 is met. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, please read what I have repeated repetitively –
I am not attempting to carve out any exemptions from NFCC.
What I am attempting to do is demonstrate to you that you are reading the letter, and not the spirit of the law. BigSteve (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
p.s. And that even the letter is subjective! BigSteve (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Both the letter and spirit of the policy are to follow m:Mission to create a freely reusable encyclopedia with limited amount of non-free material when deemed necessary. Galleries of non-free logos are not necessary and are counter to the mission. When using non-free media the bar for inclusion is raised higher every time you want to include more media on the same page. (see the minimal usage clause on WP:NFCC). Allowing galleries of logos requires a special exemption to WP:NFCC. There has been a consensus that a single logo/cover image is acceptable for identification purposes, beyond a single piece of media justification for the usage must be met (see WP:NFCC#8) In the case of historical galleries the inclusion requirements are rarely met. The letter of the policy isnt subjective, minimal usage means zero. (files for BLP's and others) Werieth (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
@Masem. Historical logos presented without discussion That's where we disagree about how to use the policy. The requirement that the logo is included with commentary on the logo itself is beyond the policy requirements; WP:NFCC#8 requires that each image is present in context, and historic commentary of the company is adequate context.
The section where that historical logo goes is understood easily with or without the logo, and ergo it fails NFCC#8 Again you're exceeding the text of the policy - the criterion is not that you can understand the text without the image, is that you don't get the same understanding but a significantly decreased one.
@Werieth the bar for inclusion is raised higher every time you want to include more media on the same page This is where you got policy wrong. The NFCC are crafted so that each image is evaluated independently of all others; it's irrelevant to the criteria how many images are in the same article, what's important is that each usage is included only once throughout the whole project.
minimal usage means zero And yet again the English Wikipedia is not like other languages when all non-free content is forbidden, it allows for non-free images when deemed necessary, so using encyclopedic non-free images to build a quality encyclopedia is also a way to follow the Mission. <tongue-in-cheek>There's also the argument that in a hundred year or so, all these images will be poured into public domain, so by including them we're increasing the amount of free content for future generations. See? if you stay away from what the policy actually says like you do, there are many ways to justify following the spirit of the project, you don't have the sole possession of it.</tongue-in-cheek> ;-) So the best way to apply the policy is to evaluate each particular case for whether the images provide an improvement to the article, not to enforce overarching inflexible rules like "you always need sources about the logo itself" or "more than one logo is forbidden" or even "you can always include logos if there's a history section"; those may be common conditions to assess, but they're not and should not be definitive. The mission is to maximize free content, not to minimize non-free one; those are different goals, and non-replaceable non-free images that serve a purpose don't interfere with the first goal; the idea that they must removed at all cost is contrary to the spirit and letter of the NFC policy. Diego (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Wrong on several counts:
  • No one has demonstrated how a reader's understanding of a topic is significantly harmed by omission of a historical logo that is presented without any other context. Note that we are talking about the average reader, not a specific type of reader. I can understand that arguing that a reader from Bulgaria may recognize the company more by its old logo than the new one, but that's a very small fraction of our readers. Me, as a non-Bulgian reader, see nothing that's not understandable without the logo, and therefore "signficantly harmed" has not been demonstrated. A counter-argument I may consider reasonable is using the older Windows logo against the newer Windows 8, given how large of a fraction our readership is likely aware of the Windows brand. But that's not a universal argument.
  • NFCC#3a specifically requires minimal use across several areas including per page. The bar for inclusion of additional images does increase with each additional image that is added; if one image can do the same as two, we only use one image. Other facets of NFCC are image-by-image, but NFCC#3a does apply to an entire article.
  • The Foundation's goal is to minimize NFC and requires use to remove offending content in a reasonable swift time. We are not going to be leaving on non-free images that will eventually become free due to copyright expiry particularly considering how in the US at least copyright had been continually extended via law.
And to be clear, while you are true policy does not say "critical commentary" or "sourced discussion", these are the most objective and easiest ways to demonstrate the need for an image. There are other routes but they become extremely difficult to justify and require a consensus to include on an image-by-image basis. For example, there are rare cases for television episodes that a screenshot is deemed appropriate to use to explain a plot point that is difficult to explain in words alone but otherwise not described in sources. But it is very rare. The same logic is used for alternate album covers due to how the work is marketed in different major regions of the world. But this are the exceptions, not the rule. Basically, in practice, only those cases specifically listed at WP:NFCI are the ones that can be used without sourced discussion, nearly every other allowable use that falls outside of NFCI requires the sourced discussion. Historical logos have no exception from this. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
NFCC#3a specifically requires minimal use across several areas including per page. This is simply NOT TRUE. The words "page" and "article" are not used in the NFCC to describe the number of uses of images. The only place where several images in the same article are mentioned is at WP:NFLISTS in "articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements", and even then they only discourage it, not forbid it. The bar for inclusion of additional images does increase with each additional image that is added Again something that is not included anywhere in policy. This is what we mean when we say you're exceeding both the text and spirit of policy - you're using meanings and words that are not implied by the text nor the accepted consensus, doing it once and again, building a much higher inclusion standard than either the legal requirements, the Foundations desire to minimize legal exposure, or the already strict NFC policy requirements. only those cases specifically listed at WP:NFCI are the ones that can be used without sourced discussion This is a terrible, terrible thing to say, and it's squarely against the WP:CONSENSUS pillar and the WP:NOTBUROCRACY policy. Insistence to rely on WP's "legal precedent", instead of editor's judgement for each case, is a problem that's harming the project on all levels. Surely direct coverage by RSs is the best way to achieve that consensus, but editorial discretion is always the final arbiter. require a consensus to include on an image-by-image basis Now we're getting closer and speaking the same terms; though so far you were denying even the possibility of that consensus. And the policy interpretations that raise the bar beyond the policy text don't help, either. Diego (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
NFCC#3a has always been applied to the article/page level - that's been the intent of the policy at all times. If you can do the same with one non-free that you can do with two on the same page, you must use one. If you can do the same with zero non-free on a page instead of one, you use zero. There is no logically way that NFCC#3a would be in policy if it didn't apply there.
And you selectively quoted my words on the NFCI part. I said in practice, meaning that I'm fully away there are exceptions determined by consensus. But the default position has to start that the best way to justify an image is some type of discussion about the image in the article, and making exceptions from there. Further, I've never said anything about legal precedent, though part of the mission is to protect the Foundation from being sued from over-use of non-free media. It is to focus editors to develop a free content encyclopedia. The fact that I can present an article on a corporate entity without having to rely on showing its historical logos is towards developing free content. Remember, NFC is a very high bar policy and one demanded by the Foundation, whom consider that non-free use should be exceptional, not included by default. It may not be as strong as our BLP policy (which does have more direct legal ramifictions) but it is one that must be taken seriously. The reasons stated to try to justify the historical logo in this specific case do not meet that. --MASEM (t) 06:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It was not my intention to misquote you, sorry if I did. You said "in practice", and that's my worry - current practice doesn't seem adequate to me nor reflecting the purpose of NFC policy; even agreeing with the very high bar set by NFC, many are exceeding it.
If you can do the same with one non-free that you can do with two on the same page, you must use one. If you can do the same with zero non-free on a page instead of one, you use zero. That's true, but that should be independent of how those images are laid out in pages; it doesn't make much sense that including two images for different purposes depends on whether they're placed on the same or different pages; that should depend only on whether each independent use is legit or not.
the default position has to start that the best way to justify an image is some type of discussion about the image in the article See, I don't agree with that at all. There are uncountable cases when the image includes visual identification and characteristics of a subject that is critically discussed in the article with reliable sourcing, and where those visual characteristics are important to understanding the topic; that's an very good reason to include an image even if the sources don't discuss the image itself; and the NFCC#8 allows for those situations, but the practice you allude to is usually discarding them, which is not a good outcome. Diego (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
On the first point, that's wrong though. This does lead to cases, say commonly a film and its soundtrack where the cover of both are nearly the exact same image; we would only allow one if both were discussed in the same article, but would allow both if split across two articles, but that at least puts onus on the fact that the soundtrack must be notable to have its own article and ergo we've got sourced discussion about the soundtrack to justify that. This is how NFCC#3a has been handled from its inception.
On the second point, again I point this is a slippery slope to allowing any NFC if some editors simply feel an image is important, more than just beyond historical logos. Again our default position has to be to require a more objective metric by default and making limited exceptions on case-by-case basis. --MASEM (t) 06:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The mission for a 'free' 'encyclopedia'

I'm concerned by the legalistic interpretation of the NFC policy - I have a strong feeling that the current practices at NFC review have expanded beyond what's healthy for the project, and that they're not fully supported by policy either. The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, which I wholeheartedly support, has the goal to maximize free content while building a worthwhile encyclopedia. So many people interpret this as a need to minimize non-free content, but that doesn't follow logically; the requirement is just to limit it in so far doing that improves free content. But excluding non-free content where it provides a proper encyclopedic function does not serve the goal to produce more free content (at least not when such NFC is not replaceable - "modern artworks" which are "hard to discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself"; "a non-free work is needed to discuss a related subject"...)

The NFC policy is not to minimize non-free content - if it were, all non-free content would be simply forbidden; this policy is what allows us to include such educational content in a way that facilitates reuse when a free alternative is impossible, while encouraging creation of free content wherever possible. The strict requirements of license tagging and copyright attribution are strong enough safeguards so that non-free content with an encyclopedic purpose doesn't need to be removed just because; doing so won't improve the availability of free content, and thus that removal hurts the project. I would gladly have a discussion "on principle" to review how the mission is implemented both in policy and in practice, and the interpretations by various "factions" on how to best use NFC. In particular the subjective NFCC#8 is too often used at image deletion discussions to remove content with what I consider a valid functional purpose, and there's no way to achieve a consensus by good-faith editors; current practice offers no ways to compromise in such cases. Diego (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The NFC policy is not to minimize non-free content - Absolutely wrong, this is the purpose of NFC, and more broadly, from the Foundation's resolution ("Such EDPs must be minimal.") We have to start from a position "Do we need this piece of NFC?" and require proof that it is needed (ultimately determined by consensus) than the assumption that it's okay. If you feel this is too strong, you're free to start a separate wiki with a more open non-free policy, but we're bound by the Foundation to minimize non-free use and consider it exceptional, and hence why we need to be hard on its inclusion. (This is a far separate matter from previous issues of the exact harsh mechanics of performing non-free content administration which has been a problem before) --MASEM (t) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I have to back Masem here. When NFC was first created (at the behest of the WMF), it was specifically designed to curtail the use of non-free content. NFC was the compromise, allowing us to use NF material when necessary, but not beyond that. That's the actual spirit of the policy, both from a legal perspective and in the design of a free encyclopedia. "Fair use" is a difficult thing to pin down, and erring on the side of caution is necessary. This really isn't something the community can loosen without consulting the WMF first. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's get the history straight here. The NFC policy was created by en-wiki. (See WP:NFCHIST for a view of some of its evolution). From the start it has been closely influenced by the U.S. legal fair use position, especially for our commercial large-scale content reusers. The outlook is very clear in edits like this one: [1]. Jimbo's position has also been similar. The policy in its current form is largely unchanged since October 2005.
The Foundation licensing resolution was adopted in March 2007, long after en-wiki's NFC policy was already in place. Foundation members such as Kat Walsh specifically denied that the intention of the licensing resolution was to "tighten up" NFC practice on en-wiki. Instead, en-wiki's NFC policy was seen as a model approach, and the intention was to spread this best practice to other wikis.
It may also be worth remembering that a past WMF general counsel was specifically asked about historical logos, and responded that they shouldn't be a problem. (Though he was then sharply reminded that that made it a decision for en-wiki to take, and it wasn't for him to say what should be allowed here).
Regarding our "mission", I think Diego Moya has it exactly right: "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, which I wholeheartedly support, has the goal to maximize free content... So many people interpret this as a need to minimize non-free content, but that doesn't follow logically." The Foundation was put on the spot very early as to whether NFC conflicted with the GFDL, and ruled very firmly that it did not, because the NFC is clearly severable, and so can be regarded as additional material.
As regards the WMF licensing resolution, things like the word "minimal" seem to be there deliberately to evoke the way the word is routinely emphasised in the context of U.S. fair use law -- not to mean zero usage (which minimal could be held to mean), but rather "no more than needed for the purpose identified" (where this purpose may be implicit -- cf eg Graham vs Dorling Kindersley). Jheald (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Let me put in an indent here just as a break, and give my own thoughts on the question.
I've previously demanded a pair of historical logos that somebody wanted to remove be taken to WP:FFD, and they were kept. In my view what is relevant is context, and policy thankfully (like U.S. law) is deliberately crafted to allow that flexibility. It should be a question of proportion.
In the past there were a large number of very short stub articles on local US TV stations, that were little more than stubs, but accompanied by very extensive galleries of essentially every logo tweak since they they went on air in the 1960s. That gave a very disproportionate sense of the tail wagging the dog, when the articles were so short and stub-like, and I think it probably was right to get rid of them. There is real value in WP preserving an overall perception of our being appropriately cautious and sparing in the NFC we use, because it very much strengthens the legitimacy (perceived and legal) of the fairness of the use of the NFC that we do use. On the other hand, where we have a full-length long article devoted specifically to the history of a company, it seems entirely appropriate to show how the company's self-presentation evolved by showing some of its historical logos, even if those historical logos are largely left to speak for themselves. And I think the same probably goes even in a main article on a company, if a very substantial part of that article is a lengthy review of its history. (This was the case for the logos I talked about above that went to WP:FFD).
My take is that it's very much about perception (because legally our use here is unlikely to be a problem). If the reader feels that a survey of the logos is a small, useful addition to a detailed presentation of an organisation's history (or if the development of the logos is the very topic of the article itself), then I think use will be perceived to be in balance, and adding something valuable to reader understanding of the topic of the article. On the other hand, if like those stub articles, old logos are really all there is, almost dominating the presentation, then I think that can come over as gratuitous, as imagery added for its own sake, rather than as a useful addition to a detailed treatment of the organisation's history.
I think our present policy has a lot to be said for it, leaving the question for the community to decide in the context of a particular article, rather than laying down a line "all historical logos okay" or "all historical logos not okay", neither of which is probably appropriate. Jheald (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
No one in any of these arguments is aiming for zero non-free use. Just that with the Foundation, in its own language (not that borrowed from NFC) pushes on terms like "minimal" and "exceptions" (even US fair use doesn't use "minimal", though of course its implied [2]). "Minimal" can be zero non-free as at the German wiki, but that'll never happen here at We should always be striving to find classifiable edge cases where we can improve the free content mission by identifying where non-free content is really not needed under the Foundation's and our NFC policies so that we can minimize them. Of course there's always a final decision by consensus, and there's always the need to follow proper discussion routes (as we are doing here) to determine when NFC is inappropriate (as opposed to the hard-handed means some admins had used in the past) but we have to start from the position of trying to justify why the NFC is needed and delete if not answerable to keep NFC minimal, rather than the approach to ask why an image might fail NFC and keep as default. This is counter to the standard "keep by default" for text/free content contributions, but this is necessary to continue the free mission. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, the "free mission". Diego's point -- and I think he's entirely right on this -- is that (providing it does not lead to legal or reputational risk that might impact on WP's ability to go on serving free content), our NFC is essentially orthogonal to our free mission. In fact, if appropriate use of fair-use materials enhances WP's value and reputation, making people more disposed to write for it, I would argue that appropriate use of NFC actually supports our free-content mission, by making more people more likely to bother to write more free content. The actual wording is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Judicious use of NFC doesn't go against that, which is why we don't ban it. This rhetoric about conflicting with our mission originated with the likes of Durin (talk · contribs); I have never seen any evidence that it's the Foundation's view.
WP:NFC is intended to be a balance, with "adding to reader understanding" an important objective too. It's a clear mistake to see it as some one-way ratchet, devoted only to finding new classifiable cases where non-free content can be removed. Jheald (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Simplifying NFCC down to "Adding to reader understanding" does not accurately reflect its purpose. That single part of NFCC#8 is a easy barrier for inclusion and if that was the only one, I could justify tons and tons of non-free images for inclusion even with only semi-relevance to the topic at hand. That's why there's part 2 of NFCC#8 to determine if omission harms that understanding. This makes it a two-way test to assure that NFC if used is relevant and essential to the topic. That assures that we are using NFC in a judicious manner that meets the Foundation's resolution on non-free media, that we are making exceptions when it can be shown with little question that its reason for inclusion is sufficient and necessary. What's being argued in terms of the logos is the sufficiency for inclusion but not the necessity for inclusion here. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Policy doesn't talk about "necessity" or "being essential". Policy talks about "significantly adding to reader understanding" -- an addition to understanding that would be lost if the image wasn't there. That choice of that phrasing is quite intentional, and hasn't changed in seven years. Misrepresenting it is not a sign of confidence in your position. Jheald (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes it does. " Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Emphasis mine. There are two separate independent tests and both have to be met to use NFC. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
And the only thing that last clause can refer to is "the understanding the reader would have of the topic if the image were there and not removed".
Removing an image can't, by definition, affect the understanding of the topic you have without the image. It can only affect the understanding of the topic you would have with the image.
Which is what I said above. Jheald (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
That's not how we use the test or how its stated; it is two different tests. Part 1: we consider the understanding of the article without the image (as if we have never seen that article before), and then with the image. There's a delta of understanding (some quantity we can't actually state but recognize its a metric) that we determine. Then Part 2: we consider the article with the image (as if we've never seen the article before) and then without the image, again, some delta of (lack of) understanding is obtained. Both deltas have to be "significant" (again quantifiable) to allow the image to be used. The approach you're saying automatically would allow inclusion because I can nearly always show that an image improves understand compared to whether it wasn't there. The key part that you are missing is that if we consider if the image was there in the first place and how much we lose if it was removed. These are not reciprocal tests. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
To the uninitiated observer, that sounds like nonsense - the two deltas must surely be equivalent (or one is minus the other). Can you explain how this is not the case? Victor Yus (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
No, they are different given the starting case. I can nearly always argue that my understanding of a topic improves when I add in a relevant picture without any additional context, simply because most people are visual rather than verbal learners, and visual association can be strong. On the other hand, if I start from an article that has a picture present without additional context, and then subsequently remove that picture, I have lost no understanding of the topic. Commonly this can be the shown through television screenshots on episode articles - sure the image may help a reader identify the episode quickly, but most of the time it is not essential to understanding the topic and thus fails NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
But you never know when a reader is going to come to the article for the first time. You can remove a picture and claim that you haven't harmed the understanding of those who read the article earlier while the picture was there - but you'll still harm the understanding of those who come to read the article later and don't see the picture at all. (I'm not even sure this is what you mean, but I honestly can't conceive of anything else you might mean based on what you've written.) Victor Yus (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It is a test on hypotheticals, since you can only visit an article for the first time once. Consider if we have two equal visitors and one (Visitor A) visits a page about a TV episode that has a screenshot of a scene but otherwise not discussed in any type of context, and the other (B) visits the same page without that image. A may have a bit more appreciation about the topic, but B has not lost any comprehension of the topic compared to A, just visual association.
That's basically the problem here. People want to include NFC based on the merit of visual association alone (like the BTC logo above) but that's not something that meets NFC's requirements. Visual association is not the same as comprehension and understanding. It would be great if we could (and I strongly support using free images whenever possible help), but that's an explicit case we disallow in NFC#UUI (The rose picture one). --MASEM (t) 19:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's clearer now. (Though the explicit case is only in our guideline, not in the Foundation's policy, or even in our policy, so we could easily change it if "we want".) Victor Yus (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
One other thing that I want to respond to (if you'll forgive me another self-indent) is Masem's line far above that "Note that we are talking about the average reader, not a specific type of reader. I can understand that arguing that a reader from Bulgaria may recognize the company more by its old logo than the new one, but that's a very small fraction of our readers." I think this is a dangerously wrong-headed attitude. Just as the internet is the network of networks, so WP is the encyclopedia of encyclopedias -- we're not just a general encyclopedia, we aim to be everybody's encyclopedia, integrating a multitude of specialist encyclopedias. So e.g. WP:ITSLOCAL is not a good deletion argument, and some of our mathematics coverage is frighteningly involved. But if that particular specialist area is what you need to know about, such articles can be fantastically useful. We commit to try to make our articles as accessible as possible, particularly in the leads and early paragraphs, but it is simply not true that they are all pitched at some mythical "average" reader. Instead the question should be how useful we can make our articles to the reader that has been motivated to seek them out. Very often, that will be a reader that may already know a fair amount about the subject, because those are the sort of people who are motivated to come specifically to this article to find out more -- much more so than the mythical average reader. It's those people we should be seeking to satisfy, and for them we should be asking how valuable a particular image is. Jheald (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
But this also comes back to the point that WP should not be the end point for someone motivated to learn about a topic - we're the gateway, not the terminus. We cannot nor should not cover a topic in such exacting detail that no other sources need to be referenced, and in fact should be encouraging the reader that needs to know more to seek out those references (that's why WP:V is about verifyability and not so much truth). That's why we should be general and put ourselves in the general reader's shoes and not the specialized reader. For the more technical articles like higher maths, we do have to start from a presumed specification in that field, but that's far different than when describing the history of a foreign company which can be described easily to the average reader without having them to be a resident of where that country is located. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
And to the point of non-free, we don't have to show the reader every image or media file that may be relevant to the topic if there are (or at least should be, if we are covering the topic) sources that go into more detail that we simply can't do here. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Straw man. We never will be the "end point" for someone who wants to know everything about a topic -- not in the 32k of a target full length article; nor even in the 96k of an exceptionally long one. Our aim though is to give thorough, comprehensive, balanced treatment of topics. WP:ITSLOCAL specifically rejects limiting ourselves to write for the "general" reader. We must try to make as much as possible as accessible as possible for as general a readership as possible, certainly. But that's not a limit on the ambition of what we should cover, if we can and remain readable. So if something is of particular interest to an Australian or an Indian readership, or a reader from the furthest corner of Tennessee, or to somebody who has specifically Googled the subject, and it's something we can review verifiably, we shouldn't hold back just because the "average" Brit or American might never have heard of it. Jheald (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but unlike a technical article where it is almost impossible to write about it without assuming the reader has knowledge of advanced topics, articles on local topics can always be written accessible to anyone in the world. These articles on local topics should be written from the viewpoint of someone who has never been to that locality, and not a local. Hence the need to evaluate the article's content including non-free on that global basis. If an image is only going to have relevance to the small fraction of readers that visit the article (this in the case where no context is otherwise given in text), then we're not using NFC appropriately. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Your thinking on this is simply wrong. Articles on local topics should be written to be useful for someone who has never been to that locality and for a local -- and should go into as much detail, and as many sub-articles if necessary, as anyone can be bothered to write, so long as they're balanced and and can be reliably sourced (and preferably written in a fairly terse, condensed, encyclopedic style). If there's a significant likely proportion of the article's readership for whom the image would be useful, meaningful knowledge, then that's a reasonable audience to assess NFCC #8 for. Jheald (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, encyclopedia - tertiary source. We summarize, not go into detail. I'm not saying we're ignoring anything local on an article about a local topic, as local sources can help to expand coverage from more regional/global ones, but as an encyclopedia we should not be going into detail that has only specific interest to local readers. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
We summarise, yes, but we also aggregate. I can think of many examples where the Wikipedia article is the best account available on a subject: Malkin Tower springs immediately to mind. Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I've felt both resentment and support towards this. I support the objectives, but also see that this is the area of Wikipedia where the enforcement process breeds the most resentment. I think that while it is not fair to the hard working folks who sincerely work at this, but in my mind I keep thinking that this is the one area of Wikipedia that has nasty enforcement squads going around unreasonably smacking people. I have come to the conclusion that the root cause of this is blending of two different topics. #1 is areas where a placement of images etc. might create legal violations. This is an area (similar to wp:BLP violations) where is it reasonable to expect some pretty stringent and categorical rules, and empowerment of even Barney Fife-types or to categorically enfoce them and smack people. #2 Is areas unrelated to any legal violation, and just is against wp:nfc content objectives. For example that parts of Wikipedia's "fair use" rules that have nothing to do with the real world definition of "fair use". In those areas people (IMHO rightly) expect the normal nuanced non-categorical guidelines, fuzzy/ discussions/consensus based interpretation and enforcement. IMHO it has been an error to blend the two together, which then invokes the "pretty stringent and categorical rules, and empowerment of even Barney Fife-types or to categorically enfoce them and smack people." type stuff in areas where there are no legal issues. I think that starting to divide the two and handle them differently would be useful. North8000 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The issues around enforcement (that is, not going to channels like FFD or discussion pages and strong-arming removals) is a very different topic to this and one I think we've resolved for a while. To be clear: save for a few mechanical NFCC requirements like use outside mainspace and the need for #10c, NFC enforcement is not free of 3RR-type editing restrictions. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh... I always thought that the statement that Wikipedia is a "free" encyclopedia was referring to the fact that users do not need to pay any money to access it (unlike, say Encyclopedia Britannica). Blueboar (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, per what The Hand That Feeds You said above – let's consult the Foundation. Anyone know how to get to the lawyers?
And, when you do, allow us – i.e. myself, Diego, Jheald, etc... to put across our side of the story as well. Because, as Diego said, the strict overbearing BUREAUCRATIC attitude of many editors is, in my opinion also, harming the encyclopedia. So – please someone get on line with the lawyers. BigSteve (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not a legal issue - in that the images that are under question certain well and truly meet US Fair Use law (as on the Foundation's servers) and we're not arguing removal for legal purposes. It's an issue at the entire Foundation and their ultimate goal. And they have been approached before to clarify their resolution and remained quiet (no response) on any clarification. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
So I suggest that in any area where we have doubt, we just let the Foundation know that we plan to liberalize our policy, and see if they object. If they don't object, then we can cheerfully go ahead and liberalize it. Victor Yus (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
For the record, this was the then General Counsel's view in 2008.
(Logos tend to be legal quite easily, because (i) they were deliberately crafted to be very widely used and reproduced as an identity for the company, (ii) our use here in no way conflicts with that, and (iii) the context of use, in writing a neutral article about the company, rather than use by the company to promote itself, is pretty much exactly the kind of transformation specified in the statute. Which is why, compared to various other types of NFC (see eg WP:NFCI), we've traditionally accepted a fairly liberal standard for the added understanding needed to pass WP:NFCC#8 in order to sufficiently balance the copyright taking.)
But of course, as Masem points out, just because something is legal it doesn't mean we should go ahead. It's probably likely that the Foundation will leave this up to us to judge -- they care very strongly about NFCC #1 (replaceability by free content), and in the past have moved very decisively on that; and also when people have filed DMCA takedowns -- but so long as what we're doing is legal, and not thought likely to tarnish WP's reputation, in the past (eg for those tv station logos), they've left the fine details of what lines the image policy should draw to us. (eg with the licensing resolution, leaving it up to us to discuss and set the fine details of our policy and its implementation).
My own view is as I have set out above. I think use of material like this needs to seem "in balance" with the rest of the article. If a major part of the article is devoted the history of an organisation, which is reviewed in detail, then IMO the historical logos have a place in that, and it's reasonable to include them for the same reason that we include logos in infoboxes -- because this is the identifier the organisation chose to present itself, and that in itself is a relevant part of its story. On the other hand, if all that it is proposed to tell about the organisation's history is just its logos, then IMO that's out of balance, and can even make us look no more than a pasteboard for other people's pretty things. In that respect, for the TV station stubs, I think it probably was right to get rid of most of the historical idents when that probably was out of proportion to anything else we were saying about the stations' histories. (Though it would have been better if they had been moved to e.g. Logopedia rather than deleted). It's a question of what makes us seem responsible, judicious and balanced. Jheald (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Jheald, that's also exactly my view. This would lead to a guideline in the same line of the one for non-free content galleries - an article's section with only logos without context would be clearly not allowed; historical logos with direct commentary by RSs are clearly allowed; and IMO sparse use of historic logos to illustrate the well-researched company's major periods should be usually considered in line with the mission. There's no slippery slope in this approach, just two valid extremes and an intermediate grey area to be decided by case-by-case evaluations. Diego (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Just to add to Jheald's comment on the Foundation and legal issues, they did stand firm when the FBI tried to order their logo removed from WP. Basically, if there is a legal issue, we will likely hear it from the Foundation - along with their planned course of action - before we ourselves would have to take steps. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Jheald – I have to say, some proper philosophical reasoning in some of your above comments, really enjoyed reading them!
Anyway, I think Victor Yus has a point – propose to the Foundation that we want to expand the rules and see if they abstain from disagreeing...
I also agree that gratuitous galleries, especially in short articles, are wrong. And I will myself always strive to intersperse logos through history sections, although that sometimes takes time and I believe that a reasonable gallery (with a "galleries discouraged - please expand article" template) should be allowed. But slapping a delete notice on a tiny thumbnail logo six hours after I uploaded it is, I think you'll agree, outrageous.
And, once again – can we not attempt to get Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Business to adopt an "exemption doctrine policy" (2)(3) on this matter? And NO, Masem, you lie! when you say that "NFC is site-wide policy, Wikiprojects cannot carve out exemptions from it."!!! I am angry about this straw man lie of yours, because the second paragraph of WP:NFC states "The policy allows projects to adopt an exemption doctrine policy allowing the use of non-free content within strictly defined limitations"! You keep bare-faced-lying in your argumentation!!! STOP IT. BigSteve (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid "projects" there means the various different-language wikipedias. The language is straight from the Foundation licensing resolution. There is only one EDP for en-wiki, and that is the ten points of WP:NFC. Wikiprojects can't evade those. From time to time they have come up with more detailed guidance (often stricter) than that set out at WP:NFC, interpreting the ten criteria as they apply particularly to the sort of questions that will be faced by articles the project cover -- WP:COMICS, WP:FILM and WP:MUSIC have all done this. But WT:NFC is the central talk page for discussions in this area, together with global fora like this one, and individual wikiprojects can't just decide to do their own thing and ignore it. Jheald (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

A possible compromise

Clearly, there is agreement that galleries of non-free historical logos don't work (in other words, an article like PBS Idents is problematic since few of the logos are presented without context outside of what some editor has described to explain what the logos are - not sufficient). My concern has been that just dropping historical logos without context even outside of galleries can lead to excessive non-free where it is not needed.

I can see that a midpoint here is the case of when a company had undergone a significant identity change, which specifically I'm thinking is pretty much a change in name, or a massive revision in logo identity, from something that has well-established (> 5 years?). The BTC case easily qualifies here, as is the PBS one (from NET to PBS). In such cases, a logo to represent the established identity may be appropriate. There is just reason here as such identity changes from something that has been around that long rarely go unnoticed by third-parties or even the company itself, though it may be initially difficult to find literature to support that, but under good faith, that seems acceptable.

I think there could be a few qualifications on the naming or logo aspect but it should be a clear difference. To use a example , using AT&T's logos [3], there is a clear change from the 1970-1983 logo to the 1983-1996 logo (transition from the phone to the globe image), but not between the 1983-1996 and the more newer logos (same globe, just different weights/spacingetc.) Consensus can decide when those are significant, but there's clear examples what lines are required to draw from.

But I want to stress the point of one unqualified logo use per identity change. I can accept one to show what the company's older identity was , but I have a problem when more than one is used indiscriminately ala the PBS ident page. Without a significant shift in name or identity - eg mostly just updating the logo for newer aesthetics - its hard to justify how this contributes to the company's past identity after the first image. This is no way prevents additional logo images that have clear sourced discussion to be included, just those logos where there is no sourced commentary.

This would 1) prevent non-free logo galleries or the equivalent while 2) still allowing representation of older but well-established identities to be shown while respecting non-free content. Also we should not be afriad to include links to logopedia, a wikia dedicated to tracking logo histories, if that's deemed necessary. Exactly how to codify this, that's a different question but this case would allow the BTS logo to be used on that article, or in the PBS idents, to have one example of the NET period, and a few from the more recent PBS period due to sourced commentary on a few of the logos (eg the head shape being pulled into the newer logos). --MASEM (t) 21:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

For another example, consider History of Qantas, in particular the Company logos section right at the end. Two of these logos (or rather their png forerunners) are the logos I mentioned above, that were kept at WP:FFD, when the material was still in the original Qantas article. (One of the other logos is out of copyright; and the current logo was not nominated). In my view, these logos are appropriate to present to readers (a) given their longevity, (b) given the developments of a consistent theme they show, and (c) given that they are being presented in the context of a very extensive presentation of the history of Quantas, in which IMO its self-identity is something that it is appropriate to cover.
I can see and basically agree the point you're making about the PBS and AT&T logos -- we don't need to note every minor refresh of essentially the same image (though I'd include the current AT&T logo, as being the current version; and also because I think it is quite a substantial re-working of what went before). I'd also see the Qantas logos as being sufficently different that those that are currently presented are each worth including.
I can also see the tabular format might raise questions; but here I think it works well, and in this case I think is not a bad way to go. The classic objection against tables is for pictures where our legal fair use case really depends on commentary directly on the picture (at least that's the reasoning presented at WP:IUP. Here that's less of an issue, because we're really relying in the image for itself to justify fair use, rather for any commentary we may be making on it. There's also the issue that presenting the images together in this way makes them be perceived more as a single unit, and so less visually obtrusive. Some might see that as a bad thing in itself, taking the view that if the images were forced to be more visually obtrusive, then we would accept them less easily and so tolerate fewer of them. That's essentially a view that sees the use of the images themselves as a bad thing, rather than the reader perception of them. But in a case like this, where there isn't really a fair-use issue, I think the key issue probably is visual perception, and so IMO trying here to present the images in as easily-swallowed, low-key, unobtrusive a way as possible I think overall probably is the right call -- as well as allowing them to be most easily compared.
But I wonder if this fits with Masem's thinking? Jheald (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Qantas' logos are probably a bad example because I have no issue with them, since they are either free or have sources to explain the changes and rational why. (I'm curious if that information was there prior to the FFDs).
But to address other points:
On a company's page, the current logo is always appropriate, irregardless of what historical ones are given. If the history of the logo/identification is on a separate page for some reason (like PBS idents or the History of Qantas) and there is at least one historical logo there, it is reasonable to include the current one again if it is not already included in an infobox.
It's not so much the actual format of presentation (gallery, list, table), just that putting all logo changes without context is an infodump regardless of the format. As long as what logos shown are chosen with some discretionary rule (eg major identity change if otherwise not sourced), they could be in a gallery if the text about the logos is right next door as it is for Qantas. But if its the case that the logo hasn't gotten a lot of attention and being added per my significant identification change, the logo image should really be in the section of prose talking about the previous identity the logo identifies. So in the BCT case above, this idea would prompt the inclusion of the old BCT logo in the section aboun when the company was named BCT, and certainly not as a gallery at the end of the article. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


We should have an image like this in articles like this. We can't claim fair use with the criteria that no free use image is available. If we get an image of the statue licensed by the copyright holder of the statue, or host an image taken where FOP is allowed then they are available. Should I email the Academy for a licensed image before or after we remove the illegal one? Canada has FOP so we can have pages like this with very nice images.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, based on what Jheald said at 21:10, 3 April 2013, I understand. My mistake – Masem, I apologize for my rant. Re-reading your later posts, you have been very reasonable. Also, Masem, I agree with your argumentation on the AT&T logo (you probably believe no more than two should be used; I'm more liberal, but I certainly don't think more than 4 are necessary). I actually really like the Qantas logos section, as it is brief, sourced and to the point – something I would always strive for in any logo section, because the most interesting thing about a logo change is that there's a story behind it (the whole reason I began this discussion is that sometimes that story is difficult to find in sourced material).
On the "visually obtrusive" comment by Jheald – I believe it's about a stylistic decision. Since the Qantas logos are all based on (semi-)major reworkings of the same logo, I think it works better as it is, as it allows the reader a clearer vision of what the changes are; in a case like the Atlanta Hawks, however, the logos are all fundamental changes – I believe the interspersed style (the way it currently is) is the best way to go in that particular case. So it's all to do with having reasonable reasons to do what is done.
And I agree that the BTC logos, being so different and especially considering the name change, should be in a history section and would hope that to develop within the article. Anyway, I'm glad all of us are on speaking terms now, rather than arguing! BigSteve (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, again, to show the reader the changes in the logo but without any text to support that is not acceptable. I can accept the old logo, without necessary discussion of the logo, in context of other text talking about the company's previous identity. Let's consider the case that this all started from Vivacom (where the use of the old logo of the former name of the company was the point of contention that started this). Now, as it is, I have a hard time saying that the BTC logo can be used primarily because there's very little history of the company mentioned. I mean, we're told that Vivacom came out from BTC, but there's almost nothing the founding and history of BTC, which itself should be reasonably documented to some degree. Everything in that article is about Vivacom, and not BTC. It would be hard to even consider the BTC logo there. But that said, if a more proper history of BTC prior to it becoming Vivacom was included, then I would consider the justification of the logo. I'm not asking for a long article or a lot of sources, but enough to show that BTC was an established service provider for years and then switched out to Vivacom, as part of the documented history. In that case, irregardless of what information can be found on the logo, I would say the single BTC logo that has been requested could be included under non-free. To contrast, compare this with the Qantas article, which had a detailed history of the business on its separate page even. Even without the sources that discuss the logo changes, there is just cause to include one from the pre-1984 (where the logo's 'roo still had wings) and one post-1984 (the 'roo sans wings). Of course, we've got two free images and sources that allow more than that, but I am hypothetically considering this case.
In other words, to use a historical logo which is non-free, and where there is no apparent sources that describe the logo, it is reasonable to include one non-free logo only if the logo is radically different (in design or due to name change), and is accompanied by a summarized history of the company that covers the period where that older logo would have been used. Mulitple historical logos lacking sourced discussion would have to be judged case by case but we should strive to avoiding including logos that are little different from other logos shown or that are not part of a well-documented history section. It is not as strong a requirement as having sourced discussion for the historical logo (though this should always be preferred), but it is better than just flat out allowance for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, it will take me some time, however I will gradually work on finding sourced history material and including it in the article, so that the logos can fit in appropriately. I don't see though why two of the three logos listed for deletion a couple of weeks ago - namely BTK old, BTK new and Vivatel – were deleted while this discussion was going on, and I fear that the third will also be deleted soon. I think it was wrong to delete them, as I had pointed out (see end of linked section) that the discussion was going on here, on this page. I would like to ask if we can at least do something to stop the last logo (BTK old) from being deleted, as it will save me from uploading it again in future, once I have found some historical info for it.
I also feel that the Vivatel logo was unreasonably deleted, since Vivatel used to be a completely separate company, which has its own article and the logo used on that page was therefore fair use. I feel that at least here I am correct in believing this... BigSteve (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
When I find the time, I'll re-upload the Vivatel logo for the above-outlined reason. BigSteve (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

CNN Transcripts

Can CNN transcript pages be used as reliable sources? Searched Wikipedia but could not find an answer. Here is an example of what I'm referring to: (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, CNN is usually considered a reliable source. For specific questions on how that source should be used ask at the reliable sources noticeboard.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no policy against citing a video source (we even have a template for that, {{Cite video}}). A transcript of a video would be considered as reliable as the original video. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocking offensive usernames

If a user with an obviously offensive username is blocked, their name can still cause offense as it appears in edit histories and search suggestions. I therefore propose that editors blocked for offensive usernames have all their edits over sighted (I doubt someone who chooses an offensive username has much constructive intentions) and their talk and user pages deleted. They can still appeal their block by emailing an admin or Unblock Ticket Request. (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

What about simply over sighting the offensive username, but not the edit (unless there is a separate ground for over sighting the edit)? SMP0328. (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I find it disturbing that some people are so sensitive to being offended that seeing a username in an article history would set them off. My response to such people is "grow up and deal with it". Usernames that take the form of personal attacks against specific people are oversighted already, and all that leaves is curse words and hate speech, both of which exist readily on the internet already and which the average (read: not home-schooled) child is exposed to by middle school. If someone is really bothered by a username, they have way, way bigger problems than Wikipedia is equip to handle. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with everything you just said, Sven. EVula // talk // // 02:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The answer is to go to User:Oversight and send a message asking for the account to be blocked with suppression (which removes the username from logs and histories) or to email if you are not logged in, and make the same request. Examples of suppressible usernames would be those that out users, those that allege a person (whether wikipedian or "civilian") is guilty of a serious crime (child abuse, rape, murder, etc) or purports to reveal something about another person's orientation ("XXX sux dix"). You will note the pattern: in most cases, there needs to be a personal element to the username. There are some exceptions, and each request is looked at on a case-by-case basis. Risker (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

In cases where the username is aggressively offensive, but does not meet the standards for oversight, it can still be revision deleted from edit histories. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It's also possible to move the account to a different username. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I can support this proposal as I believe our current processes handle the job adequately. We already have the Oversight and Revision Deletion tools that can selectively remove usernames from public logs, and with those tools there is the option to hide the usernames but to keep the edits intact. While it's true that it's unlikely that someone with an offensive username will contribute constructively, it does occasionally happen and we don't want to remove those edits. Furthermore, when it comes to tools like Oversight, we need to approach them with the attitude that they should be used as little as possible, because we do not want to slip into the business of censorship, and because it is important to keep problematic users publicly accountable to the so-called Wikipedia community. Moreover, it must be remembered that 'offensive' usernames exist on a spectrum...depending on their severity, they may require suppression, redaction, or simple blocking. It wouldn't be appropriate to suppress all of them. NTox · talk 17:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I think your second to last point is absolutely critical. It's imperative that administrators be as transparent as possible, and allow the wider community to see what an editor did to earn his block, unless there is a special reason those actions should be hidden. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Trying to find out why we do things the way we do

A question has come up at WT:AT asking why we use "Sentence case" for our article titles (as opposed to Title Case). So that I can give accurate background information to answer this question, I am trying to find out exactly when we made this decision ... I know it's been the way we have done things since I first joined the project (back in 2006), so any discussions that resulted in our decision would have taken place before then. I assume it was discussed at WP:MOS, but I have not been able to find the discussion in the archives (I am still looking). Of course, we were a bit more free-wheeling in the early days of Wikipedia, it's possible that it was discussed on some other page and then applied to the MOS based on that other discussion. Any help in tracking down the "when" (or early discussions of the "why") would be appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've replied to you at the other discussion. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Using date of death as disambiguator?

There has been a discussion going on at Talk:William Leveson (mercer)#Requested move There the author is requesting the page be moved to William Leveson (died 1621). So far, three people have weighed in on the discussion and here is a summary of their arguments.

  • User:NinaGreen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • The proposer of the move has offered these reasonings (PLEASE don't take my word for it, follow the link above and see!):
      • There is another William Leveson, also a mercer, who is often confused with this William Leveson, and since this William Leveson was William Shakespeare's trustee in the transfer of the Globe Theatre shares in 1599, it's obviously helpful to Wikipedia users to make it immediately clear which was which, and since both were mercers, the easiest way to differentiate the two is by date of death.
      • Moreover it would be very unusual for Wikipedia users who are searching for articles on persons who lived in the Tudor period to search under an occupation such as 'mercer' since most people in that period wore many different occupational 'hats'.
      • What most Wikipedia users searching in that period of history are looking for is a quick way to determine whether they have the right person, and date of death is one of the clearest and quickest ways of doing that (date and place of birth aren't feasible for persons from this period because both are usually totally unknown or very uncertain).
      • Most standard references such as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography put the date of death right after the person's name at the beginning of an article.
      • As I've mentioned before on this page, the birthplaces and birthdates of notable figures of the Tudor period are often either entirely unknown or very uncertain, and the use of them as disambiguators for people of that period is thus highly speculative. Dates of death for notable figures of the Tudor period, on the other hand, are often known with certainty because they are stated in inquisitions post mortem. Since most notable people of the Tudor period held land of the crown by knight service, an inquisition post mortem was taken by officials appointed by the Crown for the purpose, and the date of death of the deceased was invariably stated in the IPM. These IPMs provide dates of death which are accepted by reliable sources.
      • The ODNB does disambiguate its entries (particularly now that's it's online, but it disambiguated by date even before it was online; entries for persons with the same name in the print DNB were arranged chronologically by date of death).
  • User:Technical 13 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Me as first opposer:
      • Typically, pages are named in response to disambiguation by location of birth. If that is conflicting, they may be named by occupation. If that is conflicting, perhaps date of birth. I've never seen them named by date of death. As there are no other William Leveson's with the occupation of "mercer" on this encyclopedia, I see no reason to move it.
      • The current one could be possibly moved to William Leveson (mercer of London) and the new one could be William Leveson (mercer of birthplace).
  • User:Necrothesp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • As second opposer:
      • Date of death is a very poor disambiguator.
      • The DNB does not disambiguate its entries. It therefore has no disambiguation policy. We, on the other hand, do commonly use disambiguation and do not use dates to disambiguate unless there really is no alternative. If there really is no other alternative for these two gentlemen, then William Leveson (mercer, died 1593) and William Leveson (mercer, died 1621) would be the normal disambiguation style. There does need to be some indication as to what they were; the date of death alone is fairly meaningless as a disambiguator. However, there is no need to add the date until and unless the article on the second one is created.
      • You mistake my meaning. The DNB does not disambiguate as we do. If you perform a search you get a list of names, followed by dates and occupation or role for all results. That is not actually title disambiguation. It is simply a list of results similar to our disambiguation pages. We, on the other hand, actually add a disambiguator to our article titles, but only if they need disambiguation. You seem to be proposing a sea change to the way we do things, which has been long established and works very well.

These are the main points, and I will post on that discussion page that I've summarized here in hopes of getting more opinions and building a better consensus. Thank you Technical 13 (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Article ratings/evaluations

At least some articles used to have a rating option at the bottom. This seems to have been eliminated. Where can I find the discussion leading to this change?Kdammers (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You are referring to the Article Feedback tool, about which there was an RfC two months ago here. ~ Amory (utc) 03:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sitewide policy on pages/sections for music from TV series and/or films?

Hi, I was wanting to start a discussion on possibly having a sitewide policy on pages/sections for music from TV series and/or films. Two specific examples I was thinking about were Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Jackass, with both of these series having quite notable soundtracks. The article for BTVS used to have a page on the music from each episode but was deleted by the following vote-

I would say that many of the arguments used for the above deletion actually do not apply and that specific pages for music from tv series and/or films would be completely in line with the purpose of an online encyclopedia. For example, music soundtracks for tv series/films (whether official or unofficial) are notable, they are not 'in universe' as the songs are real-world entities in their own right, they are not 'cruft' since while they play in a show they are not of the show, soundtracks are neither directories nor statistics, and they are relevant for addition to Wikipedia simply because it seems like it would be a fairly common occurance that someone who is watching a movie or tv show might want to know what the name of a song(s) in a given episode might be. To me, examples of 'cruft' would be how many vampires Buffy stakes in each episode, lists of puns made after stakings in each episode, etc. and not a comprehensive soundtrack listing for the series.

IMO the most and/or only compelling argument against adding pages for music from TV series/films would be that there are often no official soundtracks for tv shows as there are for films, however this seems like it would basically be the result of the high costs associated with producing such a soundtrack for an entire series and not due to lack of popular interest. As an example of a double standard in this regard, the page for the movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off has a section on the music from the film even though there was no official soundtrack, so why can't BTVS, Jackass or other TV shows have such a section/page? See-

The reason I'm asking for a sitewide policy on this subject is that it would be a shame to do a lot of work on this only to have it deleted at a later date as I was thinking about starting a page on the music from Jackass episodes but don't want to start without knowing whether it would be allowed to stay. Sorry if this isn't the right forum, please feel free to move it to whereever it needs to be if it's in the wrong place. Thanks a bunch.

We're not a fan guide, and there's better wikia/other wiki pages out there that do a better job of this than we can do, if the music itself is otherwise not documented in third-party sources. TV shows and the like can have sections about the show's music that is sourced, but unless the music is documented by third-parties, spinning off separate articles is not appropriate. And actually, there are official soundtracks for many TV shows - I have one for the musical Buffy episode on my iPod, in fact. It's just a more recent trend and not one in older shows. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ambassadors: are they notable?/followup

Further to the discussion about diplomats, now archived here, I have sent five test case articles to Afd:

Would anyone like to comment there? Some people think that ambassadors are automatically notable, even if they are only referenced by government sources. Others are in favour of more rigorous criteria in line with WP:DIPLOMAT (which refers to participation " . . . in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance . . . ") and indeed those for other professions. --Kleinzach 00:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Update to policy for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Closing this discussion as a waste of time. I opened it in good faith with the desire to discuss clarifying a vague policy that is often abused by adding some simple clarifications. Not to be insulted and told I am too stupid to understand a simple policy. Just another example of the problem with this place. Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ignore all rules is not only a Wikipedia policy, it is one of the 5 pillars and is often abused by users and admins trying to make their point. It needs to be clarified.

I recently attempted to update the Ignore all rules policy to reflect the 5 areas that past discussions and comunity consensus have determined to be exempt from the Ignore all rules policy but I was twice reverted. So I am bringing it here for discussion.

Below is what I suggest be added as a new section to the Ignore all rules policy. Nothing here is new and is documented in other places. It just clarifies the policy on the policy page rather than having to go to multiple locations to get additional information. Adding this to the policy will clarify it and potentially eliminate some future confusion.

Any comments about this are encouraged and welcomed to help clarify this policy/pillar. Kumioko (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose IMHO this proposal makes the mistakes of thinking that the title of the policy is the policy, and of misunderstanding how wp:iar actually works. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As North8000 noted, you've misunderstood IAR. You referred to "exceptions" on its talk page (and used the word "exempt" above), thereby disregarding the policy's actual text. If there's consensus that an action doesn't serve to improve or maintain Wikipedia, it doesn't fall under IAR in the first place. —David Levy 15:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    With respect, I understand what you are both saying but this is not my understanding of IAR. It is what has been accepted in multiple venues in the past include the arbitration comittee, ANI, AWB and the bot policy. My understanding or lack of understanding really doesn't apply. I am only trying to "copy" what has been stated in multiple other places into one location to eleviate misunderstandings. I would also add that if any of the above 5 examples are not exempted from IAR then this may be a good time to discuss and clarify that as well to avoid future confusion and abuse. Kumioko (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    No, you evidently aren't understanding what we're saying. Your list doesn't comprise "exceptions" or "exemptions". It describes actions that the policy doesn't cover in the first place. They're merely examples of the countless ways in which ignoring rules doesn't aid in Wikipedia's improvement or maintenance. By your logic, we need to list "vandalism" as an exception. —David Levy 19:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I am strongly opposed to item 1, as that's not descriptive but an attempt to abolish IAR almost completely. The other four items just describe cases in which it is common sense that applications of IAR are almost always wrong. I would be fine with these, so long as the wording is tweaked a little. (E.g., replacing "generally considered" by "normally" or "usually considered" would do it for me.) However, I doubt that something like this is needed and would much rather see IAR replaced by a policy to the effect that all policies exist to facilitate the building of an encyclopedia and can be ignored in special cases in which common sense requires this. And that editors doing this do so on their own risk, as there is no guarantee that the community will have the same idea of common sense. Hans Adler 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Saying that IAR should not be used to violate some other policy blurs the distinction between violating the spirit of the policy and violating the policy as written. Of course IAR is used to violate policies as written--by definition, that's all it's ever used for! Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    If anything, IAR needs to be expanded. The problem with the current formulation is that you're only allowed to use it to improve the encyclopedia. This means that, for instance, it can't be used to protect living people in BLP-like cases, since protecting people isn't improving the encyclopedia. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    IAR was used recently to delete a list of Big Brother participants after one former participant had second thoughts about having participated. Count Iblis (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's simple and not confusing to anyone who isn't trying to lawyer or game the system. The policy means what it means...and more words aren't needed. --OnoremDil 16:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that current IAR is ambiguous. According to IAR If a rule (= Wikipedia policies and guidelines which are based on consensus) prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, you can ignore it. So anyone having attitude of knowing better than the others, can easily (mis)use this policy to do whatever he wants. I think adding specific examples (like AWB and bots) is not really needed, but a more general explanation could be helpful. [4] (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. You really need IAR in the unambiguous way as it is written to make sure that the rules and policies won't eventually move Wikipedia from being primarily an encyclopedia to some social site with rules that are enforced just because the members like it that way, without there being a rational argument based on what is best for building the encyclopedia. Arguably, the present ArbCom system is already incompatible with IAR, but that's an argument for replacing ArbCom by a better system, not for changing IAR. Count Iblis (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Eventually...? I thought we were far past that point already. Victor Yus (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Nope nope nope. What you want to do is expand Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (which is fine), not change WP:IAR itself; the beauty in the latter is in the simplicity. EVula // talk // // 16:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Again folks, just to clarify. This isn't changing anything. All this is doing is documenting what has already been established. Arbcom already stated a couple times IAR doesn't apply to sanctions they or the community implement. Bot policy and AWB have both been repeatedly identified as being exempt from IAR (i.e. IAR does not apply if you are using AWB or bots). Everyone here seems to be under the impression that this is a suggestion to "change" something but its not. This is only updating the documentation of things that haev already been adopted. If you don't agree the IAR doesn't apply to AWB, Bots or Arbcom and community sanctions that's fine and we can discuss that. But that isn't what this is about. Kumioko (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    So then what you're really suggesting with this is that we explain what IAR means, correct? You're just wanting to make sure that people understand the policy, or maybe to make some suggestions on how to best implement (or not implement) the policy? EVula // talk // // 18:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Well since you brought it up what I would like would be for all of those disparate and muddy IAR related instructions to be combined into one, clear and comprehensive page that people can understand without having to click around to a whole bunch of different links to "try" and get a clear answer by putting all the puzzle pieces together. But I know that is not going to happen. So what I was trying to do was to document a couple of the obvious traps that people get into right there on the main policy page. This really shouldn't be such a big deal but then again every edit in Wikipedia these days is a fight. So why should this be any different! The problem is that IAR is heavily abused by those in power if you want the truth. Admins and some editors are allowed to use it when they want and then refute it when others use it. I have not, in a very very long time, seen someone invoke IAR where the edit is allowed to stand. Its only used, it seems, when someone wants to do something there is no clear consensus for. Kumioko (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    If someone is abusing IAR, putting up a bunch of bullets after the policy isn't going fix that; it's a behavioral issue that needs to be addressed (like at AN or ANI). If you want a consolidated IAR-related page, make one; your post here made it seem like you were seeking to change the policy page, which is why you have so many people opposing. If you'd said "hey guys, I'm writing a corollary to IAR that highlights improper cases of IAR so that we can avoid it in the future, what do you think?" you would have gotten a very different reaction. It doesn't help that I haven't actually seen any instances where bot or AWB edits were being declared "fine" because of IAR (not saying that it doesn't happen, just that I haven't seen it), so this looks at first glance like a "I want to fix something that isn't necessarily broken." EVula // talk // // 19:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    KumiokoCleanStart definitely seeks to add the list to the WP:IAR page. He/she initiated this discussion after doing so twice (and getting reverted by two different editors). —David Levy 19:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    So what your really telling me is that most of the ones opposing didn't read it and just assumed I was trying to change the policy? And then you want me to beleive that people are reading the policy and all the essays that go with it? Surely not. Actually what I am saying is that bot edits and AWB edits are usually declared not ok when IAR is mentioned. And this isn't a fix, its just clarifying. But that's ok, we can just let it continue to be abused by those in power when and how they want. Its been going on for years, no reason to put a stop to it now right! May as well just get used to it and live with it. Its ok, I tried. Its clear that a simple clarification of an often misinterpretted policy is too much to ask in the Wikipedia culture. No reason for me to dwell on it. Kumioko (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Most valid applications of IAR are silent and go largely unnoticed. When IAR is loudly "invoked", there's a good chance that doing so doesn't aid in Wikipedia's improvement or maintenance.
    You'd have known this if you'd bothered to read the relevant discussions before edit-warring to "clarify" a policy that you don't understand. —David Levy 19:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    The pages you link to are marked as "essays", which gives the powerful another tranche of leeway to excuse themselves for doing whatever they may choose. Victor Yus (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    And putting bullets at the bottom of the page doesn't do anything to dissuade "Wikipedia's diehards" from abusing the policy. I'm not saying IAR doesn't get misapplied at times, but your comments thus far have smacked of "I got into a disagreement with someone and 'lost' and am pissed about it and everyone's a bully," and as a result I'm having trouble taking them seriously. EVula // talk // // 19:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Please cite some examples of this occurring. —David Levy 19:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Again folks, just to clarify. This isn't changing anything.
    Indeed, the policy's wording already limits its scope to actions that aid in Wikipedia's improvement or maintenance, so your list doesn't alter its meaning (apart from possibly implying that other nonconstructive applications are okay).
    All this is doing is documenting what has already been established.
    It's documenting an arbitrary subset of the countless ways in which ignoring rules doesn't aid in Wikipedia's improvement or maintenance. You might as well add "vandalism" to the list. —David Levy 19:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not a bad idea really (provided that these changes are made to WP:What "Ignore all rules" means, as EVula suggests). But I'd say (along the lines of what Hans Adler said; there is nothing new under the sun) that these should be phrased more as examples of when it's not a good idea to invoke IAR, rather than cast-iron places where it doesn't apply. And also as Hans said, the first one doesn't make all that much sense; skip that one and just use the others. Writ Keeper  17:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Done. I struck out 1 already per the other comments (althuogh I think it still applies to things like Socking and Copyright violations). I also agree with Hans that IAR should be replaced or phased out. Personally I think the community has already defacto eliminiated it anyway since every time I see it used some admin steps up and says "Oh no, it doesn't apply here because of X, Y and Z".Kumioko (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    I struck out 1 already per the other comments (althuogh I think it still applies to things like Socking and Copyright violations).
    Socking and copyright violations don't serve to improve or maintain Wikipedia.
    Personally I think the community has already defacto eliminiated it anyway since every time I see it used some admin steps up and says "Oh no, it doesn't apply here because of X, Y and Z".
    Most valid applications of IAR are silent and go largely unnoticed. —David Levy 19:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I strongly support IAR in its current form. We don't need pages and pages of qualifications, disclaimers, and interpretations — it works when it works and it is not a valid tool when it should not be a valid tool. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not government work, we don't have to take something simple and make it complicated. Yes, there are people who mistake the meaning of IAR and invoke it in situations where it doesn't or shouldn't apply. No amount of additional wording is going to eliminate that, and I can't support anything proposed as a sort of "first step to getting rid of IAR". Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Forget it. Wikipedia's diehards will never agree to change IAR, because they "understand" it (or rather, they have learnt how to manipulate it to work in their favor in any given circumstances), while relative newcomers don't and can't (because it's not written to be understood, and even less to be followed). This all makes it the perfect Wikipedia policy. Victor Yus (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Second EVula. IAR doesn't mean that rules should be ignored, just that they can be; most rules are good ones. You just want to list exceedingly good ones. ~ Amory (utc) 18:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    "Ignore it" is an imperative, so it means "should", not "can". (Conditionally on fulfillment of the condition in the "if" clause.)Victor Yus (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

OR: Using source data in a way that contradicts source authors' erroneous use?

This is a rewritten cross-post of a topic I have brought up in depth on the OR Policy talk page. It stems from my decision to change a term on the page Irreligion. A source reported a change in an index from 77% to 68%. The source authors erroneously labeled this a decline of "9%", an error that was faithfully repeated in the WP article. Because this was actually an 11.7% decline, I altered the WP article to state that there was a 9 percentage point decline, the correct expression of the meaning of the data in the source.

For me, this raises the problem of how WP editors should deal with translating sources' data or facts into English narrative in WP articles when those source authors offer a different, erroneous expression of the data or facts. This situation does not seem to be covered by existing guidelines on dealing with errors in quoted material or avoiding fourth-wall-breaking editorial commentary on article sources.

On the one hand, using a source's data or facts in a way that, while evidently correct, contradicts the source authors' narrative or analysis carries with it an implied basic criticism of the source. This indirectly undermines both the reliability assumption for the source's inclusion and the convention prohibiting editorial attacks on sources within the article.

On the other hand, for editors to refuse to do this would seem to result in an absurd outcome: a difference in editorial action between two scenarios where logic dictates there ought not to be a difference. Scenario A: a source author publishes a table of data on its own, and the WP editor uses simple and universally understood knowledge to translate that table into English narrative for the WP article. No problem. Scenario B: the same source author publishes the same table accompanied by a commentary that includes a clearly, provably erroneous expression of the meaning of the data. That commentary might even come in a different publication at a different time. Now, suddenly, the WP editor's non-controversial expression of the data is potential OR?

Simply excluding such sources would seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, since there is nothing wrong with the data, and at some point the meaning of such data stops depending on the opinions of those people who initially generated it, right? AdamColligan (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You handled it correctly — the main thing is getting the facts right, not parroting published errors. The actual working threshold for inclusion at WP isn't "Verifiability Not Truth," as some mistakenly believe, but "Verifiability and Veracity." Getting a fact right isn't a novel interpretation of history or a crackpot scientific theory — the real target of the so-called "Original Research" ban. It's common sense. If you need more formal justification, look to our fundamental policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES. Carrite (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The example could also have been dealt with by merely stating that fact, and leaving out the redundant math. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Gender neutrality on policy pages

I was reading this and I thought - well, we all know that Wikipedia is 85% male, we want to change it, and the gendered language is probably one of the things we need to address. Do we have any policy, MoS, or even an essay about good practices when writing in the Wikipedia namespace? As in, do we prefer "his or her", "they", or something else? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think "they" would be the preference, it's just easier than saying "his or her" over and over. EVula // talk // // 04:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
That would be grammatically incorrect, as "they" is plural. We could say "the editor" or something similar. SMP0328. (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. Singular they. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
That article addresses one of my main linguistic pet peeves (it's been more than once that I've been told that "they" is plural and shouldn't be used). Thank you for linking to that, Melodia. :) EVula // talk // // 15:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language is the best you're going to get. They is indeed "wrong" but sometimes acceptable to avoid he or she three times in quick succession. My opinion is to be wise, mindful of how a sentence sounds to all readers, and to err on the side of inclusion. ~ Amory (utc) 14:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:GNL says:

The Manual of Style section on gender-neutral language states, "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision."

Are you proposing a change to:

Either gender-neutral language or generic he is acceptable; please use gender-neutral language ONLY where it can be done with clarity and precision; otherwise just use generic he. Georgia guy (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this aimed at me? If not, disregard. If so, I think I was unclear. I meant to be wise, mindful, and err when deciding between his or her, his/her, or they. Using just the male pronoun is never acceptable. ~ Amory (utc) 16:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It is entirely acceptable to me ;) - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Using just the male pronoun is not only acceptable, it's the correct usage when the gender is unknown. "They" is a plural, and all these "his/her" and "xe" things are awkward.—Kww(talk) 16:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
'They' is primarily plural, just as 'he' is primarily male.
'The fact that the primary meaning of he contains the component "male" makes it an unsatisfactory pronoun for use in a secondary sense that covers females as well as males.'[The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey Pullum, ISBN 978-0-521-43146-0, p. 492]
--Boson (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
There's certainly some authorities that endorse the use of singular "they" and disparage the use of the gender-neutral "he". Search around, though, and you will find that it's far from unanimous.—Kww(talk) 18:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you'll find the recommendation that "he" is "the correct usage when the gender is unknown" in any book recent enough to have a barcode, though. Formerip (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
William Satire discusses a similar issue in his paper "A Person Paper on Purity in Language". --Boson (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
We don't have any official guidance. We do have a lot of people who believe that singular they is an abomination. My usual solution is to write in the plural whenever feasible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I am pretty adamantly opposed to the singular they, but there is nothing as wrong or endemically damning as eliminating half of the world's population. ~ Amory (utc) 23:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The use of "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun does not eliminate half the world's population. By it's very nature as a neutral pronoun, it embraces all.—Kww(talk) 00:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Except that the idea that "he" can be used gender neutrally is counterfactual under any linguistic analysis.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Books have been written on how exclusive that usage is. Language is a subtle psychological instructor, and from an earlier age the language we use affects people's perception of themselves and the world. ~ Amory (utc) 05:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I think we can easily get by with the Singular they, if we don't like the gender-neutral "he", especially since it's so easy to convert from a singular "they" addressing one editor to a plural "they" addressing several. Actually I've never understood the aversion to the "singular they". It's so much less obnoxious than some of the alternatives like "his or her" which can get clunky if it appears more than about once in a sentence, and "one" which is just plain pompous. And don't even get me started on that awful invented "xe" and "xyr" crap. Reyk YO! 00:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I personally use genderpointy "she", which is favored in many of the humanities.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
If "she" is acceptable, than why is "he" being gender neutral counterfactual? If "they" is used, then the affected material should be written in the plural tense. SMP0328. (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Genderpointy was the operative word there. Pronoun affirmative action, if you prefer. The fact that "he" was for so long accepted as the go-to has lead to a movement to emphasize the use of the feminine pronoun. ~ Amory (utc) 05:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The way I do it is my first imaginary person is female, my second is male and so on.
Is genderpointy a common word for this, or just one you made up? Formerip (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree that singular they is good enough (and shorter than "that person" which would be my second choice). Then again, english is not my first language so I don´t feel strongly about it. I fully understand if some people react like many swedes do to our recent word "hen". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear already that it will not be possible to agree on a house style. But maybe we do need a guideline stating that "they" and "she" are not wrong and should not be reverted as such, on policy pages at least (in mainsapace, "they" should be used only with caution). Formerip (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians can't agree on a house style for English-language variations nor for date-format variations. What they do seem to have agreed to is that each article can have its own style according to strong national ties, first non-stub usage, etc. There are several templates, {{use Indian English}}, {{use dmy dates}}, etc that are placed in the article to define for that article the style to be used.
Is it unreasonable to suggest a similar template for gender that would specify, for that article, the style of gender to be used? These new templates have similar rules for application as the ENGVAR and date templates: strong connection to the subject, first non-stub use, perhaps others. Perhaps {{Use her gender}}, {{Use his gender}}, {{Use singular they gender}} ...
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
What I would like to see done is for a new magic word to be added that returns the username of the viewing editor. Then, it would be simple to make up {{he}}, {{she}}, {{his}}, {{her}} templates that contain {{Gender:{{USERNAME}}|he|she|they}} or {{Gender:{{USERNAME}}|his|her|their}} as is appropriate. Technical 13 (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Language neutrality has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Language neutrality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This page was written yesterday by a single editor. I've re-tagged it as an essay due to the absence of any WP:PROPOSAL or other discussion (or, indeed, any content at all on the talk page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment about how policy works

Since three different people have apparently found this comment of mine so unwelcome that they've invented entirely spurious reasons for removing it (or simply removed it without giving any reasons), I think I must be on to something. So I repeat it here outside any "closed" discussion, in case anyone wishes to address the substance:

I've discovered that policies are not there to be understood, they're there to be manipulated by the in-crowd (and the ability to tell others that they "don't understand" the policy is a key part of that manipulation). Clarity in policy threatens their ability to do that, so will always be vigorously opposed.

This is very much my impression, having seen what happens when I or anyone else takes an incomprehensible bit of policy or guideline and tries to turn it into something that people unfamiliar with it might understand. Those who sit around on these pages are either incapable of seeing how confusing the texts are, or simply don't see that as a fault (indeed, they seem to see it as a virtue). Victor Yus (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It was a closed discussion, your continuing insistence you could post in it was disruptive. I removed your 3rd attempt. At the moment I have no comment on the content. Dougweller (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
First let me address the issue of "closing" the discussion... Generally, I find attempts to "close" a discussion to be more disruptive than continuing them. Ending a discussion while people still have something to say can give the impression that we are "suppressing dissenting opinions". That smacks of censorship. It is far better to simply let people get what is bugging them off their chests, say what they wish to say, and let the discussion die off of its own accord. However, I make one important exception to this - when the person who started the conversation decides to end it. Which is what occurred in the discussion above. In this case, Kumioko asked a question about IAR... and obviously felt that his/her question had been answered (perhaps not to his/her satisfaction, but answered never the less). I think it is his/her right to say... "OK... question answered... no need to discuss further."
Now... to address Victor's comment about how policies are written. It is important to remember that what you see on a given policy/guideline page is the result of numerous discussions and debates (debates that often were quite heated and emotional for those who participated in them). What you see is often the result of difficult to achieve compromises between strongly disagreeing factions. It is natural for those who participated in these debates (and finally reached a grudging compromise) to not want those compromises "overturned". They naturally resist changes that might re-open the debates they lived through.
On the flip side... What those of us who have worked on policy pages for a long time need to remember is that during those long and involved debates, we came to an understanding of what everyone else meant when they used specific phrases. We came to understand the unwritten nuances and meanings that lay behind the phrasing we adopted. The problem is that these nuances and meanings are unwritten... which means that those who came to the policy after the debates will not be aware of them. That means we must either be eternally patient (willing to explain these unwritten nuances and meanings over and over again)... or... we need to find a way to rewrite the policy/guideline to make those unwritten nuances and meanings clear (which means revisiting the hard won compromises, and taking the risk that we will reopen old debates). Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I believe that policy writing is hard. I believe that some of us have the skills for this kind of work. I believe that others of us do not. In fact, I believe that some of us have skills so far below average for this task, that their participation is actually a hindrance to policy writing.
Unfortunately, in my experience, Victor is one of the people in this last category (but by no means the least skilled among us). His constant goal of "clarity" isn't compatible with the need for people to use good judgment. What he wants results in bad policy writing. We are not writing policies for mindless automatons. We are not writing policies for autistic people. We are not writing policies for the exact situations that this one editor has in mind. We are writing policies for practical purposes in a complex and diverse environment. It is not easy, and some approaches, such as spelling out every single detail, are ineffective or even harmful. This is why experienced editors have opposed (AFAICT) every single proposal Victor has made on a policy page since he created his account a little over a year ago. I keep hoping that the increasingly blunt messages to him about his lack of talent in this area will eventually result in him finding more productive ways to use his time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Replaceability of "fair use" photos of the recently deceased

WP:NFCC#1 requires that photos be used under a claim of "fair use" only where no free equivalent exists nor could be created. We consider "fair use" photos of most living people to be inherently replaceable but this leads to photos of deceased people - no matter how recently deceased - being uploaded with little or no regard to the possibility of finding a free photo. I have offered a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Required search to satisfy criterion 1 for the recently deceased to require that users desiring to upload a photo of a recently deceased person make a good faith effort to locate or obtain a free photo before uploading a fair use one. Please see that page if you would like to opine on this proposal. --B (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Similar issue with File:Oscar statuette.jpg. We can get a free licence image if the rights holders release an image under a free licence or we take a picture of one in Mexico. Mexican FOP doesn't require permanent public display for FOP.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
See also the two links I put in File:Copyright information image.png in the other version thumbnail.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#1 requires that "no free equivalent is available", not that "no free equivalent exists ". Thincat (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
"Available" is far to vague a word. That is where we need to clarify the policy. I have had great success emailing subjects and others related to articles and had many images sent back with proper licensing. I doubt anyone can contact the family of Mr. Dorner. The LA district attorney may still be trying to find an image we can use with a free licence but since they think we have one now they may not. Did anyone ever try to contact the academy to see if they will licence an image of their award? Some sculptors have emailed commons to release images of their statues under a free licence on their rights. The photographers then release their rights. File:NewarkJustice1.jpg is one such image. Some at commons still didn't accept that and whined in the deletion review on it. We need to either clarify the policy, enforce the policy, or change the policy. As it stands now it is just a big drama fest every time an image is uploaded under fair use. I am quite sure that File:1953 Playboy centerfold.jpg is public domain as many were published before 1977 without proper copyright notice. I have contacted a collector and one of the top experts on her to help verify this. If we find an image of the academy award that was published before 1977 then that should be public domain as well and we wouldn't need a fair use image here. The image would probably need to be published under permission of the academy or by the academy but those should be very common and available. A simple Ebay search may turn some up.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That didn't take long. Published by the academy with no proper copyright notice on the image.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How do you know there's no copyright? The image doesn't have to have any sort of copyright notice. I don't see anything on that page that makes it clear that it was published without a copyright notice. Ryan Vesey 14:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Since it is for sale I would assume that it is copyrighted. Werieth (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
You can sell public domain material, but in any case, it's up for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Academy Award Winners 1972.jpgRyan Vesey 15:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
A point to remember is that when a photograph is taken of a 3D work, the copyright holder of the 3D retains any copyright on that photograph they may have (if there is any). The Oscar statuette is copyrightable (as a non-utilitianian object) and copyrighted by the Academy. So in this case, we have two copyright, and while the one on the photo may have disappeared to PD, the Oscar one remains as such, so the image cannot be treated as free. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd think the statues qualify for de minimis. The subject of the photo is the oscar winners, not the awards themselves. If the awards were magically erased from the photo, it's purpose wouldn't be lost, which I believe is the essential requirement for de minimisRyan Vesey 15:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd argue the opposite -the only reason we can tell they're Oscar winners is that they are holding the statuettes, specifically in a manner to display them for the shot. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Masem here; displaying the sculptures seems very much the point. I would also note that it isn't de minimis if it's being used to illustrate that very thing. :) I think this would pretty clearly fail Commons:Commons:De minimis#Guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yep, I suppose it fails "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful." Ryan Vesey 17:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What I am wondering is if the image itself is public domain. The Academy published a photo of a 3D work that they have the rights to. This wouldn't make the statue PD but doesn't it make the image of the statue PD because the rights holders of both the image and the statue published the image?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Do we have any friends or Wikipedians near the FOP ones on List of Academy Award trophies on public display. I think FOP is allowed in Germany, UK, and the Netherlands. We may be able to email the GLAMs on the list to see if they wish to take a pic and email or upload it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
They wouldn't be free in the US, and thus cannot be used on Commons (which requires universal "free"), and would be treated as non-free for the US if on --MASEM (t) 22:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I just got the opposite answer at commons in that country of origin doesn't effect FOP laws. We have a copy of The Little Mermaid (statue) here in Calgary so I should be able to take a picture of that to replace the fair use one in the article now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I suggest asking again at Commons. commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Choice of law says they normally go with whichever country's laws are least restrictive, but there have been successful deletion requests from artists claiming that (e.g.,) US copyright restrictions trump German FOP for artwork in Germany. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Commons is stating that we can upload Oscar images taken in FOP countries to commons. They claim that WMF legal has weighed in and they don't violate US copyright law. One discussion over there is VP/Copyright, heading 'FOP again'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Its not so much WMF has weighted in, just that they are aware of an equivalent situation (photographs of works from countries with strict FOP laws taken in countries with less strict FOP). That said, the FOP application to the Oscar statues has to be very careful because FOP normally only applies to fixed works like buildings or outdoor outwork - though as common's FOP page says, there are some places that FOP covers all types of art. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I stand corrected. The main reason I brought this up is because we have a fair use copyrighted image on en:wp and would like to know if we can replace it with any of the four GLAM ones in FOP countries. Size or bolted down may matter, yes. The three countries are UK(2), Netherlands, and Germany.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Commons is the guide here, and Commons:Freedom of panorama seems to suggest that the UK or the Germany ones may be OK for FOP, but I'm not 100% clear on the readings there. It might be best to continue the questions there and explain the specifics - noting that the Oscar statues would not be considered permanent displays in this case. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


In this discussion on the Boston Marathon bombings talk page, it was suggested that we need a WP:NOTFBI. I agree, and I've created it, with the suggestion that it be made into a subsection of WP:NOT. It can also be viewed as a special case of WP:OR. -- The Anome (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • If this is kept as its own page, it needs a non-US specific title. WP:Not law enforcement, for instance — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks -- good suggestion. I've moved it. -- The Anome (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Is this not more aligned with WP:NOR? (Eg the shortcut falling under WP:NOT#OR?) I can see the idea but I would try to broaden the concept that we should not be trying to help investigate in any situation - whether a bombing, or a simple lost friend finder - as we improve the encyclopedia. Document the current investigation, yes, but not participate or attempt to correlate data or follow leads, etc. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I added a quick note about the potential BLP consequences of this, as well, which is the salient point in my mind. Writ Keeper  14:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't want to touch that article, but I think that a note of some kind referring to WP:CRIME should be in there as well. Technical 13 (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I wonder if we should also put something in our general disclaimers - just like we're not to be used for medical advice or legal advice, we should also say that we're not here as a law enforcement agency or equivalent and any information reports cannot be considered appropriate to use for ongoing investigations. (this may be something to pass by Legal to make sure). --MASEM (t) 14:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I would also add a pointer to WP:NOTNEWS. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Another facet to be considered in the same breath is that we shouldn't be here to aid in investigations either. In the case of the Boston marathon bombing, I'm writing this after it has been affirmed the FBI have images of the suspected perps but haven't decided if to release these to the public yet. We should not include these images if/when they are released (whether free or non-free), partially on BLP grounds (they are only suspects, not convicted) but more to this point, we are not the FBI's most wanted photo page, we should not be used to distribution information for purposes of getting it to more eyes. EG we are not an Amber alert system nor missing-persons search tool neither. Once convicted, that changes everything, but while investigation continues our role is not to aid in that and only consider inclusion of images if they are encyclopedicly appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Chances are, anyone who would actually be unfamiliar enough with Wikipedia to try to use it to aid an official investigation or confuse it with a law enforcement agency would not have read any of our policies, guidelines, or essays. So I'm not seeing the point in adding to the ever increasing bulk of policy-space text by spelling out what is otherwise obvious from existing language and principles, particularly WP:OR and WP:NOTNEWS, that we are "not the FBI". Which is an incredibly oblique way of restating the otherwise clear points that this is an encyclopedia, that we do not publish original research or unverifiable speculation, and that we don't reproduce everything found in the news. Wikipedia is also WP:NOTONLINEDATINGSERVICE, WP:NOTROADSIDEASSISTANCE, and WP:NOTCATERER. Will those eventually become bluelinks as well? postdlf (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit wary of adding more in light of OR which should cover it, but at the same time, if this Boston marathon bombing situation was aided by sites like 4chan/reddit (there's no evidence they have , but their crowdsourcing methods have been highlighted in the last day), we need to tell editors that we're not here to be doing that either. Is that fact covered by other policies? Sure, but I think it's a combination of a broad number of policies, and can't hurt to include as a bit in WP:NOT. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it is at all a BLP violation to publish pictures of people suspected by the FBI (or another law enforcement agency) of a notable crime, so long as we are careful to describe the pictures as being of people whom the FBI has stated that it suspects of a crime, and citing this description to reliable sources. bd2412 T 00:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
It's an iffy line for sure, but I would probably say that until they are charged with a crime, our posting would draw undo attention to them. For example with the Boston bombing, 4chan and reddit posted photos they (not the FBI) believed were the ones that did it, and the people that were ultimately identified were cleared but had already suffered under getting undo attention from that. We (as WP) should not aid to that. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I would certainly not want to post pictures of people in the immediate aftermath, when the likelihood of harm to innocent people is highest. If we were talking about a cold case, I might feel differently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Assignments (student editing)

Wikipedia was designed to be edited by volunteers working as individuals. Our policies are designed round the person making the edits. But for the last few years, there's been a shift from wholly volunteer-led editing to increasingly assignment-led editing. There's a shift of responsibility from the person directly making the edit to the person (or people) directing and supervising them. There's a huge shift of scale, where 900 articles can be edited in the space of a few days. There's a shift of account lifespan down to potentially just minutes. There's a degree of compulsion involved that makes the student do things they wouldn't have considered. This can be good, but can also mean they write beyond their abilities or about topics they know nothing or push a POV they don't actually believe in, etc. There is off-wiki coordination of activities that conflict with our policies on privacy making it hard for editors to review assignments. In my view, our thinking about student, their assignments, and what to do with them is limited by trying to apply existing policy designed for volunteers to these editors and assginments.

So I propose Wikipedia:Assignments be developed towards policy. It is very draft at present and may evolve to be worded quite differently. But I think Wikipedia needs a policy to address this new form of editing. Our existing policies don't apply well. Please help draft a new policy to address this. Thank-you, Colin°Talk 10:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a Serbian Wikipedian who has mentioned they have a policy governing assignments because of community dissatisfaction. I will link them here. Maybe they can link to the policy at least, even if it's not in English. Biosthmors (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
So, yeah, we have sr:Википедија:Семинарски радови, which is a pretty simple policy, actually. It consists of the following: there are two options regarding the place of the articles created within the project: 1) in the Wikipedia namespace (mostly for high school students) -- regular editors are not supposed to touch those articles (unless the edits are trivial) 2) in the main namespace (mostly for university students) -- regular editors can edit those articles, but they should let the students finish their work when they're on a roll (to avoid edit conflicts). In both cases, articles should be clearly marked (be it on the article page itself for option 2 or the article talk page) with a specially designed template. Also, it's important to put info about specific drives (drive would be a group of article insertions by students on a certain course in a certain university/faculty) in the list of drives, with some basic info (who's responsible from the faculty/university side, from the Wikimedia side, when the drive is starting and ending and when the grading should be over), so that the community can be more acquainted in order not to bother the students (or, indeed, in order to help them). --Filip (§) 16:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Input is requested at Wikipedia:Protection Policy

Input is requested at Wikipedia:Protection Policy Regarding admins editing through full protection, the policy currently states that admins may "make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus". It does not define what is meant by uncontroversial. Should the word uncontroversial remain, be removed, or be replaced with something more specific? (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate

I have closed my own discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate. Please feel free to take any action necessary to modify the closure of my own discussion to make it appear more Kosher.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Account creator permission usage

Hello everyone, I have started a discussion at WT:PERM regarding the use and assignment of the account creator flag. I thought I would let the people affected by this know. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 01:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Babel boxen on user pages for long-time vanished users

I have a need for help from someone who speaks a particular language. Something would be nice would be to use the babel box templates to find such a person. Unfortunately, you have to click through a whole bunch of people who have been gone for years to find one person who is still here. I know that this has been discussed for other reasons and has always been shouted down, but for the sake of being able to use the user categories and babel boxen for what they are intended for - finding a user to help you - what would be everyone's thought about auto-deleting or auto-blanking pages of users who have zero edits for some lengthy period of time (like a year)? If the user returns, they are, of course, welcome to have their user page back, but for the sake of being able to find an active user, I think removing pages of inactive users would be a useful thing. --B (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I would also add that if the Babelbox/category is in use only by a or a group of inactive users it should probably be deleted. Kumioko (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
A userbox like "this user loves eating fish" or something, yes, that should be deleted if nobody is using it. But the babel boxes for languages shouldn't be deleted ... just because nobody right now today speaks, some obscure language at an intermediate level doesn't mean that a month from now someone won't. --B (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete the whole user page? No, not for this reason. Remove the language (and similar) categories, which may mean removing the babel userboxes from the userpage? Meh. Another idea would be to get them to sort under U+10FFFD (the last character in the Private Use Area, which will sort at the very end of the list) or something like that, although that may take some work if templates are still explicitly specifying {{PAGENAME}} for the sortkey. Anomie 13:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we could add a parameter to the babel boxes like "nocat=1" that says to remove it from the category. I was thinking about this and there are probably some users whose home wiki is somewhere else but just have a user page here with nothing but babel boxes and a statement like "contact me on the xyz language wiki". So removing their user pages would be a pointless and counter-productive exercise, but maybe we could have a bot de-categorize the babel box for us. It's really obnoxious the way it is now and renders the babel boxen pointless - I needed someone who could move an image from fa: to Commons and I clicked through all of our fa-4 and fa-3 boxes and only found two people with edits in the last month. (Fortunately, I found an admin there who speaks English and he moved it for me.) It just seems like these categories are completely useless if they are predominately people who have been gone for 5+ years. This didn't used to be an issue back in the day, but now that Wikipedia is over a decade old, we have a lot of people who have been gone for a really, really, long time and it would be very useful to remove their babel templates from the respective categories. --B (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment I have on occasion also needed help from a user who speaks a particular language (besides English). I share User:B's sentiment that it can be hard and frustrating to find a person. Long term, Wikipedia's gonna have to do something dormant accounts; they are just accumulating. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the nocat idea is good. It might be possible to have a bot add a nocat to all cat-containing inactive userpages. (I'd use a very long definition of "inactive", like no edits for two years.)
WP:Translators available is another place to find people by language. and we cleaned out inactive folks about a year ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I did a spot check of templates at Category:Language_user_templates and it looks like most of them are set up to use the nocat parameter. Are there any objections to asking a bot to add nocat=1 to all userboxen of users with no edits in the last two years? --B (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I support this, is a good solution to a real problem which frustrates active users. --ELEKHHT 13:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The bot should warn users a week before-hand. It would be polite, and users with email notification enabled might respond by checking in and becoming active again. Rd232 talk 14:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Question Would it not make sense to write a script that pulls the date of the last edit for each of the Users in the category and then re-sorts the page (or creates a sortable table up top) to allow people to quickly identify the most active people in that category eliminating the need to mess with people's user pages? Technical 13 (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Good idea, but if this is impossible I think we should delete the babelboxen – Ypnypn (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Based on other scripts and my minimal interaction with the api thus far, I think this is very possible and would be a good use of a bot. I personally do not have the knowhow to write a py bot for this task, but I could probably come up with a userscript that might be adaptable into a py bot by a knowledgeable individual. Technical 13 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

People From Categories

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

Why are people placed into categories at the bottom of pages such as "People from Brooklyn" when they were only born in that location and that's it? For example I myself am "from Brooklyn". I grew up here my entire life and if someone asks me where I'm from I say Brooklyn NY. I was born however in San Diego and moved to Brooklyn when I was a few weeks old. Apparently under Wikipedia's logic I would be a person "from San Diego" even though that makes no sense and I never would tell a person I'm from San Diego.

Another thing I've noticed regarding this issue is a celebrity who grew up say in Texas from 1-25 years old then moves to Brooklyn and has lived there for 2 years. They also get put into the "People from Brooklyn" category even though they're clearly from Texas. Can someone please answer these 2 questions? Thank you very much. (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It makes no sense as you say, but is one of those areas where spammers seem to be winning. --ELEKHHT 13:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh, spammers?? Can someone more knowledgable about Wikipedia policy please answer my questions regarding this issue?

Thank You. (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:IAR and WP:CAT. Thanks. --ELEKHHT 22:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I've answered your question at the other page you posted it on. Please do not post the same question on multiple pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Moderation guidelines no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Moderation guidelines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/No big deal?

We often hear people cite the "old" proverb that adminship is no big deal. The RfC linked above asks you to objectively say if you believe the Wikipedia community currently treats adminship as if it is no big deal. AutomaticStrikeout (TCSign AAPT) 15:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME in related to 2013 ricin letters

Yesterday an editor removed the name of the accused based on WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME.

Just in case you do not know, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security was unable to find evidence of ricin against the accused, and he was subsequently released and all charged dropped as of yesterday. I use the word accused here since the person is no longer considered as a suspect.

Yet, the reference cited includes the name of the accused in the article title and thus appears in the reference list. What should we do about this? SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That reference was entirely redundant anyway, at least in view of the claims made in the article, so I just went ahead and removed it. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language

WP:GNL says use gender-neutral language. However, User:Ihardlythinkso supports the use of generic he. We need some discussion on what the consensus is. Georgia guy (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There is some above, started 11 april. Consensus seemed some distance away. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Please ask User:Ihardlythinkso to read the discussion. Georgia guy (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Today-centric language

Have there ever been any discussions in the past on whether to use today-centric language?? This means language centered around the present as if it were the center of time. Let me give an example:

Look at Traditional animation. This term is today-centric. Why. Because now is the time many people who are alive grew up with it but not with computer animation. To today the term might make sense. But in the future (an exact year would be a year like 2055) this term might not make sense any more, because by then most people alive would be people who grew up with both kinds of animation, so the term wouldn't make sense any more. I moved the page to Hand-drawn animation, which is not today-centric (the term would make sense to any time in history, whether now or in 2055.) But then User:Mediran reverted my move. Any analogous article titles anyone would like to bring up?? (Please, no titles of works. Titles of works have to keep their original words; this rule takes priority over all other rules except that we have to use English. New Super Mario Bros., which is the title of a work, should not be moved to something like Super Mario Bros. 2006 because that term would be less today-centric. The game is titled New Super Mario Bros., and will still be titled as such even in 2066.)

The great part of a wiki is that when the term does become less of a common name for the concept it can be moved at that time. The terms we use now are not set in stone and can and likely will be moved as society changes how they refer to them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Any examples besides the one I gave that you have?? Remember, titles of works are not allowed as examples. Georgia guy (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Have there ever been any discussions in the past on whether to use today-centric language??
Why would anyone care about stuff that happened in the past? Formerip (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
In the past, only hand-drawn animation existed. Today, both hand-drawn and computer animation exist, and hand-drawn animation is referred to by many as traditional animation for that exact reason, with the only additional thing known is that many people alive today grew up with only hand-drawn animation. Georgia guy (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I was making a joke. Maybe not a very good joke, but I'm sure it was one. Formerip (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Not aware of previous discussions,hardly I particiapte in en-wiki discussions .But there is some template {{Template:Recentism}}which addressess this issue partially.
best wishes Mahitgar (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Updated own coment Mahitgar (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
DJ Sasso's point is not to be overlooked here either. Being a Wiki, the expectation is to change with changing times. When people are alive, we write about them in the present tense. When they die, we can quickly change the article to the past tense. That's the point of Wikipedia: it's a timely medium. If (and I have no idea if this is so or, not, but lets concede it is so, just for the sake of the point I am about to make) the animation industry uses the term, "Traditional animation" widely to refer to this type of animation, then Wikipedia should use that term too. There's no need to worry about 2055, because if Wikipedia exists in 2055, and it still works like it does today, if the terms have changed by then, then Wikipedia will reflect that change. We should use today what the predominant terminology is today, and let 2055 take care of itself. --Jayron32 05:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we, should we, have a policy on fancy-schmancy user and user talk pages?

I raise this in a neutral manner, save for the sensationalist wording in the heading intended to catch your eye but not preload the discussion, and I do not want to single out any particular pages as an example. There are pros and cons, including:

  • Happy editors
  • individual taste
  • Wikipedia is not that type of social media
  • Standardised look and feel is easy to read

If these matters are (to be in the future) considered for policy (etc) is there, should there be, a difference between a User page and a User talk page?

Wikipedia is what the community chooses it to be. What does it choose or has it chosen already? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems like this discussion should be at Wikipedia talk:User pages, perhaps with a note to Wikipedia talk:User page design center. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
But do we, should we, have a policy? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
No, and no, respectively. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Seconded. Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
What the two of them said, doubly so for me. --Jayron32 22:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • We just lost a very good photographer on commons because they didn't like his website link in on his user page. There was no policy violation but he got so upset at the witch hunt that he left anyway.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't see what possible benefit could come from this, and it is all too easy to imagine the massive amounts of drama it would cause. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Barely support: I see both sides to this concept. On one hand, this is Wikipedia and not MySpace. On the other hand, is it hurting anyone letting people design "their userspace" to what pleases them? Then again, I've seen user pages with BIG BOLD BLINKING text taking up half the screen or images that are formated with a fixed position so they cover up the default toolbar links and whatnot. All of that being said, I think their should be a very simple policy that limits the amount of blinking, scrolling, marquee text and a requirement that all fixed images on the top or left of the screen should be required to have a z-index of -1 so they won't interfere with the functionality of the Wikipedia links and such. Technical 13 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that we do already have a policy against formatting that interferes with the normal operation of the site. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, we do, see WP:SMI. elsewhere on that same page are the current restrictions on what one may have on a user page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
That looks comprehensive and well considered, thank you. I wasn't seeking to propose anything, though hindsight makes it appear so. I've been finding some well designed and attractive pages and just had a really simple wonder about it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
If there's a user page (or user talk page) that offends you with it's JimoZillas, dancing cabal members (in their robes), sparkles, and blinks perhaps you could drop a note on the talk page asking the user to consider toning it down or removing them all together. Each user is granted a wide latitude in "personalizing" their user experience, but a simple "Could you remove some of the decoration?" goes a long way into encouraging the user to your viewpoint. Hasteur (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Acts of Terrorism, Bombs, Warnings and laws.

1.There are articles on Wikipedia about different types of bombs. That tell how they are made and what is in them. This is not Encyclopedic content. It falls under What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, how to book. I think all bombs should be in one article and we dont need to tell how each is made.

2. If stuff like this is allowed it should at-least have a warning on it that tells what laws the production, sell, possession, and use breaks in the US and the penalty's for breaking them. As a requirement of wikipedia.

3. Wikipedia:General disclaimer states:
"Jurisdiction and legality of content
Publication of information found in Wikipedia may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information. The Wikipedia database is stored on servers in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law. Laws in your country or jurisdiction may not protect or allow the same kinds of speech or distribution. Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws, and cannot be responsible for any violations of such laws, should you link to this domain or use, reproduce or republish the information contained herein."

Maybe we should warn people of this on these type of pages. If someone uses your edits/infomation in a act of Terrorism or other crime then you could be breaking this law. Found at:

(click for full text of statute)
   18 USC Sec. 2339A                                           01/03/2012 (112-90)




   Sec. 2339A. Providing material support to terrorists


     (a) Offense. - Whoever provides material support or resources or
   conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of
   material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are
   to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of
   section 32, 37, 81, 175, 229, 351, 831, 842(m) or (n), 844(f) or
   (i), 930(c), 956, 1091, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366,
   1751, 1992, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332f,
   2340A, or 2442 of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act
   of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), section 46502 or 60123(b) of title 49, or
   any offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) (except for sections
   2339A and 2339B) or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the
   concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation,
   or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under
   this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the
   death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of
   years or for life. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in
   any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was
   committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by
     (b) Definitions. - As used in this section - 
       (1) the term "material support or resources" means any
     property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency
     or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial
     services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance,
     safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications
     equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives,
     personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself),
     and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;
       (2) the term "training" means instruction or teaching designed
     to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge; and
       (3) the term "expert advice or assistance" means advice or
     assistance derived from scientific, technical or other
     specialized knowledge.


   (Added Pub. L. 103-322, title XII, Sec. 120005(a), Sept. 13, 1994,
   108 Stat. 2022; amended Pub. L. 104-132, title III, Sec. 323, Apr.
   24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1255; Pub. L. 104-294, title VI, Secs.
   601(b)(2), (s)(2), (3), 604(b)(5), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3498,
   3502, 3506; Pub. L. 107-56, title VIII, Secs. 805(a), 810(c),
   811(f), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 377, 380, 381; Pub. L. 107-197,
   title III, Sec. 301(c), June 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 728; Pub. L. 107-
   273, div. B, title IV, Sec. 4002(a)(7), (c)(1), (e)(11), Nov. 2,
   2002, 116 Stat. 1807, 1808, 1811; Pub. L. 108-458, title VI, Sec.
   6603(a)(2), (b), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3762; Pub. L. 109-177,
   title I, Sec. 110(b)(3)(B), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 208; Pub. L.
   111-122, Sec. 3(d), Dec. 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 3481.)


     2009 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111-122 inserted ", 1091" after "956"
   and substituted ", 2340A, or 2442" for ", or 2340A".
     2006 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109-177 struck out "1993," after
     2004 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108-458, Sec. 6603(a)(2)(B), which
   directed amendment of this section by inserting "or any offense
   listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) (except for sections 2339A and
   2339B)" after "section 60123(b) of title 49,", was executed by
   making the insertion in subsec. (a) after "section 46502 or
   60123(b) of title 49," to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
     Pub. L. 108-458, Sec. 6603(a)(2)(A), struck out "or" before
   "section 46502".
     Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108-458, Sec. 6603(b), reenacted heading
   without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text
   read as follows: "In this section, the term 'material support or
   resources' means currency or monetary instruments or financial
   securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or
   assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification,
   communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances,
   explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets,
   except medicine or religious materials."
     2002 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107-273, Sec. 4002(a)(7), (e)(11),
   struck out "2332c," after "2332b," and substituted "of an escape"
   for "or an escape".
     Pub. L. 107-197 inserted "2332f," before "or 2340A".
     Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107-273, Sec. 4002(c)(1), repealed amendment
   by Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 601(b)(2). See 1996 Amendment note below.
     2001 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 811(f), inserted "or
   attempts or conspires to do such an act," before "shall be fined".
     Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 810(c)(1), substituted "15 years" for "10
     Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 810(c)(2), which directed substitution of ",
   and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for
   any term of years or for life." for period, was executed by making
   the substitution for the period at end of the first sentence to
   reflect the probable intent of Congress and the intervening
   amendment by section 805(a)(1)(F) of Pub. L. 107-56. See below.
     Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 805(a)(1)(F), inserted at end "A violation
   of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district
   in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other
   Federal judicial district as provided by law."
     Pub. L. 107-56, Secs. 805(a)(1)(A)-(E), struck out ", within the
   United States," after "Whoever", and inserted "229," after "175,",
   "1993," after "1992,", ", section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of
   1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284)," after "2340A of this title", and "or
   60123(b)" after "section 46502".
     Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 805(a)(2), substituted "or
   monetary instruments or financial securities" for "or other
   financial securities" and inserted "expert advice or assistance,"
   after "training,".
     1996 - Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 604(b)(5), amended directory
   language of Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 120005(a), which enacted this
     Pub. L. 104-132 amended section generally, reenacting section
   catchline without change and redesignating provisions which
   detailed what constitutes offense, formerly contained in subsec.
   (b), as subsec. (a), inserting references to sections 37, 81, 175,
   831, 842, 956, 1362, 1366, 2155, 2156, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, and
   2340A of this title, striking out references to sections 36, 2331,
   and 2339 of this title, redesignating provisions which define
   "material support or resource", formerly contained in subsec. (a),
   as subsec. (b), substituting provisions excepting medicine or
   religious materials from definition for provisions excepting
   humanitarian assistance to persons not directly involved in
   violations, and struck out subsec. (c) which authorized
   investigations into possible violations, except activities
   involving First Amendment rights.
     Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 601(s)(2), (3), inserted
   "930(c)," before "956,", "1992," before "2155,", "2332c," before
   "or 2340A of this title", and "or an escape" after "concealment".
     Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 601(b)(2), which directed
   substitution of "2332" for "2331", "2332a" for "2339", "37" for
   "36", and "or an escape" for "of an escape" and which could not be
   executed after the general amendment by Pub. L. 104-132, was
   repealed by Pub. L. 107-273, Sec. 4002(c)(1). See above.
                    EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2002 AMENDMENT                 
     Pub. L. 107-273, div. B, title IV, Sec. 4002(c)(1), Nov. 2, 2002,
   116 Stat. 1808, provided that the amendment made by section
   4002(c)(1) is effective Oct. 11, 1996.
                    EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1996 AMENDMENT                 
     Amendment by section 604(b)(5) of Pub. L. 104-294 effective Sept.
   13, 1994, see section 604(d) of Pub. L. 104-294, set out as a note
   under section 13 of this title.

I am not sure this type of stuff should be on Wikipedia and we need to come to a consensus on it. Theworm777 (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a big difference between explaining what goes into a bomb, how it can be used, and what type of damage it can cause --- all encyclopedic information, and repeated in numerous reliable, mainstream sources besides WP -- and explaining a step-by-step process for assembling one. We're not doing the latter. We should not be worried about this as long as we avoid the step-by-step. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I think we should add some form of statement that you are legally responsible for the edits you make (in general), as I don't see that in any of the disclaimers. -- King of ♠ 04:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
If there is a genuine legal concern, Wikimedia's legal department needs to make a pronouncement and issue any official policies on the matter, period. Insofar as they haven't, we as a community are under no requirements to assume that such a policy is needed, nor do we need to invoke the law since none of us are lawyers (or, at least, none of us are qualified to act on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation in that capacity). Which is not to say that we could, or could not, or should, or should not, enact any policies or guidelines in this area, just that a) until the Legal department tells us its illegal, we are under no obligation to assume that it is, and b) there's no need to invoke a law unless and until the actual lawyers who are paid to do so, do so. Insofar as the lawyers haven't stopped us yet, WP:NOTCENSORED is a fine policy that covers this issue and serves us well. If you want to know if the lawyers may have overlooked this matter, contact Geoff Brigham directly, his information is at --Jayron32 04:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Under every edit box is a link to Terms of Use for any of the WIkimedia sites. This including making it invalid from including material that is knowingly legally wrong (eg detailed bomb making instructions). As Jayron points out, if our more "descriptive" aspect of bombs were a problem, the Foundation would say something. --MASEM (t) 04:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
This. Also, this is a legal issue, not a policy issue. VQuakr (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see anything broken here, let's not try to fix it. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
It's covered in the TOU, which says (among other things), "Please be aware that you are legally responsible for all of your contributions, edits, and re-use of Wikimedia content." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Masem and Jayron32 are right. Beyond that, on the merits of the supposed legal issue, I see that the statute cited requires that the person giving material support is "knowing or intending" to aid such terrorist activities (i.e., scienter). I would surmise that requires a connection that is a bit more specific than reposting on a public website some information that is already widely available, when at best that information may be useful to some unspecified person attempting a terrorist act of some unspecified kind at some unspecified location at some unspecified time in the future. A map of a city may also be useful to a terrorist. If you personally hand him a map, fully knowing he is going to use it to bomb a bridge and plan his escape route, you may very well be giving him material support. If you simply publish one on the web for all to see, not so much. Google could not be liable for materially aiding terrorists even if the Boston Marathon bombers used Google Maps and Street View to plan every element of their crimes. postdlf (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Families of languages

On Template talk:Babel#Families_of_languages I suggest an extension of the Babel system for those who are able to read texts in dialects and related languages even if they have not formally learned them. Please contribute to a solution! DrMennoWolters (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Pejorative language RfC

An RfC on whether the MOS' Words to watch guideline should contain a paragraph about pejorative language suffered from a rather nondescript introduction and seems to have been largely overlooked. More community input couldn't hurt. Huon (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite of Wikipedia:Rules for Fools

I've started rewriting Wikipedia:Rules for Fools based on the April Fools' RFC. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know here. Thanks. DragonLord(talk/contribs) 21:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

See the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools. DragonLord(talk/contribs) 03:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability of deaths and dead people who become notable after death

After failed move requests in Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans and Talk:Chandra Levy#Requested move, how are policies conflicting each other, like WP:CRIME, WP:PRECISION of WP:TITLE? Technical 13 wants titles to be just names of people, but others believe that events are more notable than non-notable people. --George Ho (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I have read through some of those articles briefly and believe that due to the fact that these people have laws / trust funds / parks / movies / and/or scholarships named after them, they are indeed notable on their own despite the fact that it was the incident of their suicide or murder that led to these things. It's not "Rats & Bullies: The Bullycide of suicide victim " or "suicide victim's law" or "murder victim sports park", instead it's "Rats & Bullies: The Bullycide of Dawn Marie Wesley" and "Megan's Law", and "The Jason Spencer Sports ground." Doesn't having these things of general notability imply that the person they were named after is notable? Technical 13 (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I think George is simply bothered by there not being a simple one-size-fits-all solution, not the first time he's found "inconsistency" simply where different subjects that share one factor in common have been treated differently on the basis of other factors. postdlf (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • This is my reading as well. Remember, there are a lot of reasons why a subject could be considered notable, unless you reduce them all to WP:GNG, which amounts to "do we have enough good source text to comb through to help us write a decent encyclopedia article". There's absolutely nothing about the trivial facts of a subject that either exclude or include it based on GNG, which is why it is so elegant a solution. Forget trying to decide if all XXXX should all automatically be notable, or if they should all automatically not be notable. Instead, focus on how much source text exists to use as references in a really good Wikipedia article. If the sources exist, the Wikipedia article should. If the sources do not, the Wikipedia article should not. --Jayron32 05:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed many times. Each time the conclusion has been that, where the person is not otherwise notable, the event of their death, if it is notable is the topic and thus the title of the article. The article is then not drafted as a biographical article, nor a memorial article (which we may not have anyway), but as an article about the circumstances leading to their death and the aftermath of their death, but only insofar as it is relevant to their death at all. The person who died does not become notable because of their death. It is the death itself that is a notable matter. This is a distinction that can sometimes cause people to perform mental gymnastics until they understand completely. It appears to be a paradox that, with an article Death of Foo, that Foo is not notable as Foo, but is only notable for the fact or manner of their death. Apparent paradox or not, Wikipedia is already clear on the matter.
Had Foo been inherently notable already, this discussion does not apply at all, and their death is covered in an ordinary biography.
Even when Foo's Law is created as a result of the Death of Foo, that law oes not make Foo notable. It is the law that is notable, not Foo. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
One could argue that if a national gov't passes a law named after a victim of a crime that likely that person or their death is notable, but I would figure if that discussion is happening at the national level, sources should be abundant. But at any other level, I completely agree that just having something named after a victim is not evidence of notability, though there's likely to be reasons why that object or item was named for that person that can be used to justify notability (but one needs more than just that). --MASEM (t) 21:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
While one might argue it, and such things are often argued, in the end it is the death of Foo that creates the climate where a thing is named after Foo. Usually it is a popular sobriquet for a more formally named item. Having a thing named Foo's Thing does not create notability for Foo, who cannot inherit notability from Foo's Thing. The name Foo's Thing is just the name of the thing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That is partially what I am arguing Masem, the rest of it is that it makes more sense to have one article Jason Spencer that has sections mentioning the Murder of Jason Spencer, Jason Spencer Trust Fund, and The Jason Spencer Sports ground. WP:PRECISION specifically says "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. For instance, Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic." What I'm arguing is that Suicide of Foo is too precise, as Foo is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. We have WP:BAND, WP:NCRIC, WP:NUMBER, WP:NASTCRIT, ... so why can't people that have died as result of a crime or suicide (1st notable thing), have a trust fund named after them (2nd notable event), and have a sports park now named after them (3rd notable thing) surpass WP:CRIME where even that guideline says "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size [...] Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if [...] consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role."? WP:CRIME even offer the link to an example of EXACTLY what I am talking about here with Matthew Shepard, so I don't see why it is an issue with the rest. Technical 13 (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Masem, you wrote: "just having something named after a victim is not evidence of notability".

    It is relatively rare for an individual to have their notability establshed by a single factor. The notability of almost everyone for whom we have a BLP was established by considering a variety of factors. I don't agree that having something named after one ever confers zero notability.

    Several months ago, several individuals from the military history wikiproject, tried to argue for the deletion or renaming of the article on Richard Dixon (USCG), claiming that the Coast Guard heroism medal he was awarded was not a medal at the highest level, like the Victoria Cross or Congressional Medal of Honor. They dismissed that Dixon had his heroism further recognized by been chosen to be the namesake for one of the Coast Guard's recent class of cutters.

    So, I disagree that having something named after someone ever confers zero notability. I ask you to think of offering a counter-example -- a naming, mentioned in a WP:Reliable source, which nevertheless, confers zero notability. Geo Swan (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Please count me as opposing a change and supporting the status quo, at least with respect to "Suicide of..." pages. As already noted in this discussion, the issue has been discussed many times before, and it should probably be at WP:PERENNIAL if it isn't. There are very sound reasons for treating events as notable, whereas people who are noted only for the event are not otherwise notable. I recognize that there are gray areas, and those gray areas can understandably annoy editors who argue that it it logically simpler to always name pages for the person; I also am familiar with arguments that biographical pages about the person are more "respectful". I've tried to think very hard about these arguments, and to see them from both sides. But I've come down on the side of "event" pages, because I think that it's actually less honest and less respectful to treat a "regular" person, who would not otherwise be the subject of an encyclopedia article, as though they should be the subject of what would end up being a sort of hagiography; see also WP:MEMORIAL. I can illustrate this view with a specific example. I edit a page about the suicide of a person who happened to be studying the violin, and once had to revert an edit that tried to make the lead paragraph about this person's violin playing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • In case it is not obvious from the content of my posts in this thread, I wish to be logged as opposing any change. I cite my posts as my rationale. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose change to our current practice. Technical 13, you seem to be grasping at straws to support an argument apparently based on a misunderstanding of the logic behind the way we've been doing this for years. Notability guidelines represent a bit of a minefield; as Wikipedia has grown by leaps and bounds, so have those guidelines, and they certainly can be confusing and even contradictory. But please keep in mind that the guidelines don't determine the way we operate; rather, the reverse is true. Our naming conventions on articles about notable suicides are what they are because they have broad consensus, and the wording of the guidelines reflects this. Yesterday, in another discussion, I provided for you a link to the most relevant part of the guidelines—the part that most directly addresses the question you've raised—and now you're apparently trying to find some sort of loophole to negate that, and I don't really understand why. Regarding what you've said in this thread, Suicide of Foo is not "too precise" because it is precisely that—Foo's suicide—which created any notability surrounding Foo in the first place. If not for Foo's suicide, there would be no trust fund and no sports park; those entities exist because Foo's life came to an untimely end in a way that garnered the sort of widespread, sustained public attention that leads to notability, as Wikipedia uses the term. One more point: you mentioned Matthew Shepard—a rare exception to the rule, and a controversial one. I don't want to get into that here because its specifics are beyond the scope of this discussion and it has been thrashed out ad nauseam, but suffice it to say that the occasional rare exception shouldn't negate the rule. Rivertorch (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm feeling like there is some confusion about what I am trying to get at. I'm not saying this is an all or nothing proposal, but surely some of those articles now have as much to them, or are just short of being another rare exception as Matthew Shepard. I have no intent to debate this issue back and forth until I am blue in the face. It was just something that had occurred to me that it would make more sense. Rivertorch, your own response counter acts your own logic in my opinion whereas "If not for Foo's suicide, there would be no trust fund and no sports park" and to which I reply, If not for Foo's life, Foo wouldn't have existed to commit suicide, and there would be no trust fund and no sports park. Also, I want to make clear, I don't expect that all of these suicide/murder articles should be moved, and I was misinformed about the process of the multi-move template. I was under the impression that a bot would come through in 30 minutes and add a move requested/dated template on each of the articles and each would be discussed separately on its own merits. Had I known the template is intended to be an all or nothing, I would have applied the template to each page manually. Also, I want it to be clarified at this point that I don't expect any one of these articles to be moved simply because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with the rare exception of Matthew Shepard, but noted that since there was some kind of consensus in the exception of that article, that WP:SNOW would not apply to any of these. Technical 13 (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The issue is, as always, about what is and is not notable. That is, or ought to be, always reflected in the title of the article. Mr Shepard is probably not notable in Wikipedia terms, but items created in his name probably are. A news opinion piece appears to find that his slaying was not even related to his sexual orientation, so the law created after his death was a great by-product of his death. An excellent argument can be made for a non biographical article about the topic, but not here.
There is no sign of clear evidence that the status quo Notable circumstance surrounding Foo should alter. It is probably time to close this discussion under WP:SNOW, though others may disagree. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Fiddle Faddle argues (near the top of this discussion): " where the person is not otherwise notable, the event of their death, if it is notable is the topic and thus the title of the article. ".

    For a variety of reasons some people become notable only after they die, often due to the notability of the circumstances of their death. That is, after they die, because of how they died, the person, not just the event of their death, becomes notable. In such cases the topics of articles about such people is the person in question, and the title should reflect this. Matthew Shepard and Chandra Levy are both examples of this.

    As always, what should determine whether a given case falls into this category is coverage by reliable sources. If the material exists in reliable sources about the person, even though it may have appeared only after the person's death, it's there and justifies notability of the person, and an article, titled accordingly. --B2C 16:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Use just names and change past guidelines: If the person is notable enough to have a standalone article on WP, even if mostly about their shocking death, then they meet WP:NOTABILITY, period. If they are notable enough, (and the threshold is low, we have Lawnchair Larry in here) then dignity demands that the article about them, even if mostly about their death, be dignified by their own name Foo and not any variant on sensationalistic thing about Foo. Anything less dehumanizes the person and is tabloid-ish. Matthew Shepard is a case that proves the rule-a person's death can become itself enough to make them quite notable. Now clearly, in some case there is enough material for BOTH a biography AND a spinoff article on their death, such as Assassination of John F. Kennedy, but that's a different situation. Conversely, as in the witness to the Rodney King beating, if they truly are involved in only one event that wasn't about them but where they had their 15 minutes of fame, then the mention of that person is properly merged into a larger article. If it's a standalone article, then name it after the person, not their death. Montanabw(talk) 17:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Would that make Tyler Clementi notable enough to be titled after him? --George Ho (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Per a recent previous discussion, I think not. I think it's especially useful to see what Montanabw and I discussed about respect for the person (and also Mr. Lawnchair) there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Respect for the person is not a sound reason to decide how to title - we should be dispassionate. However, if you look at these articles, they are each about the person - persons who became notable due to the circumstances of their deaths, but never-the-less the articles are about the persons. I see this no different than an article about a person who is notable for writing one book, notable for creating one particular famous piece of art, or notable for making one particular discovery or invention, etc. In the end, the person becomes notable - it doesn't matter why. If the person is notable, as supported by references in reliable sources, then we should have an article about that person, titled with the person's name. We should not be looking for the reasons why, and, if the reason for the notability happens to be related to suicide, to adjust the title and article scope accordingly. That's going beyond being dispassionate - it's bias in the opposite direction. --B2C 21:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I dissent. Notability needs a reason. However, per WP:GNG, notability does not guarantee an article. A person and/or an event may have become notable in their own ways. However, quality of an article of a notable topic is very important more than notability itself. Off-topic, but look at fictional characters. They become notable because they are fictional characters and written from primary sources and analyzed in non-primary sources. I want to write about Mulder and Scully from The X-Files as a notable couple, but I could not because... writing about the relationship is very difficult without duplicating content from Fox Mulder and Dana Scully. I was lucky enough to risk duplication of Sam Malone and Diane Chambers in Sam and Diane by adding something that does not fit elsewhere, like Cheers article. Nevertheless, I spent my time improving these articles rather than relying on luck. --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • You know, if I had a family member who died by suicide or murder or some other media-oriented method, and you wrote an article that said "Suicide of John Doe", I'd be fine with seeing an article that was mostly about the person's death. But if you purport to write an article about "John Doe", then I'd want to see a far more balanced biography, with the death taking up only a small fraction of the page. For example, David Foster Wallace committed suicide, and that gets two paragraphs out of a medium-length article, which I think is reasonable enough. But Suicide of Phoebe Prince is a bit longer, and it has less than two paragraphs that aren't about her suicide. It would be very strange to pretend that this article was about "the whole person" rather than about "her death". Since the article's subject actually is her death, the title should reflect that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • No offense, but may I call that suicide bias? There are myriads of examples of short bios on WP, titled with the person's name, but almost entirely about the one thing for which that person is notable, not the person's (unnotable) life. They are so numerous, you can easily find them with a few clicks on SPECIAL:RANDOM: Thomson Allan, Kevin O'Morrison, Günter Schröter, F. William Parker, Ryan Powell (rugby league), etc., etc. It's perfectly normal and standard for the content of a biographical article on WP to be dominated by whatever makes that person notable, not all the non-notable details of that person's life, AND we still title the article with that person's name (disambiguated as necessary). Articles about people who die from suicide should not be treated differently just because the reason they are notable happens to the circumstances of their death. That would be engaging in suicide bias. --B2C 22:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Go look at the articles you link here, and figure out how much of their lives is represented there. Sure: Thomas Allan is a short bio, but it covers a couple of decades of his career. Suicide, on the other hand, is often an impulsive act with less than five minutes between deciding to commit suicide and attempting it. Do you think that a full biography for anybody's life should actually focus on five minutes of an entire life? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
          Note: Having been a victim of bullying growing up in school (I was an 85# 5'8" tall boy in 5th grade that was an only child of a severely torn family structure where the parents used me as a weapon against each other which destroyed any possibility of me having any self esteem not to mention I was the geeky "computer kid" that fixed all of the schools computers (that was HUGE at the time in the late 80's)). I've personally been hospitalized many times for depression and suicide attempts. So, for you to say that deciding to commit suicide and planning and carrying it out is impulsive and takes but five minutes, I very STRONGLY have to disagree. The people that do these things endure years of torture and suffering and quite often spend years planning and deciding which method of suicide might be best for them, there is nothing what-so-ever impulsive about it at all. Also, they quite often search and beg for help, and are often ignored or the scope of what they are going through is underestimated to the point they feel they have no other option. So, to answer your question, "Do you think that a full biography for anybody's life should actually focus on five minutes of an entire life?" briefly, no, not five minutes, years... Technical 13 (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
          "Often" does not mean "always". The fact is that impulsivity is linked to suicide. It's worth remembering that 'impulsive' doesn't mean frivolous or unserious; most people who decide to commit suicide at 12:01 and have already started killing themselves by 12:06 really do want to die. What makes them impulsive is the lack of time in between deciding to do it and beginning the attempt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This discussion to me is precisely WHY this policy, if there is one, must change. What is more dehumanizing than stating that someone is "only" notable for their death? Either an individual passes WP:NOTABILITY for whatever reason (life, death, flying in a lawnchair) or they do not. To title the ONLY article about the person as sensationalism about Foo is just plain wrong. Montanabw(talk) 19:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

To your logic, the Lindbergh kidnapping should be renamed to Charles Lindbergh, Jr., and articles should be named after kidnapped babies or children, am I right? --George Ho (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
George, there is some room for an IAR approach, particularly when, as in that case, the incident already had a "title" for itself, if you will. But let's take AMBER Alert and Amber Hagerman her bio isn't a "murder of" title, even though she was a 9 year old victim. That's the approach I think works best, just use their names when the "event' is their life! Montanabw(talk) 21:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Then why not request renaming it back to "Charles Lindbergh, Jr." right now? After all, you still stand on your views. Meanwhile, I will propose a merger of "Amber Hagerman" later. --George Ho (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I suspect that most of these aren't actually notable. When the media gets excited about something, then we get a rash of articles on it. A couple of years later, someone notices that although there was a media frenzy at the time, it was just a flash in the pan, and it's not really notable.
Here's how we know this: Quickly name all the notable teen suicides you can think of from the 1970s. Stumped? Category:High school students who committed suicide names exactly one, and it was a political protest that sparked widespread riots and copycats. Want to try again for the 1980s, when teen suicide rates in the US were nearly at their peak? We've got exactly one, and it's now a redirect to an article that only mentions the kid's name in a laundry list. How about the 1990s? We've got the Columbine shooters, and a film about another kid. And that's it.
Everything else in that cat is recent. In fact, nearly everything is from the last couple of years, when certain teen suicides in the US associated with allegations of bullying have made a big splash in the media. And I expect most of them to get trimmed, merged, and redirected in a couple of years, as soon as the media attention has gone elsewhere. With few exceptions, these aren't truly notable events and will be removed once that becomes apparent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
What you have just described is the perfectly normal and natural evolution of an encyclopaedia. The thing we need to do with care is to ensure that, while the items are articles rather than laundry list items, they are handled correctly as articles about what they are, the suicide. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The suicide and the person are inseparable, and that's the article naming issue I'm concerned about. I'm not really discussing notability, per se; they are or they aren't. The article is kept, or it is merged, or it is deleted. We have a pretty stable set of guidelines on that. It's titling. WhatamIdoing makes the notability point that is valid, but not what I'm talking about. Some tragedies have a lasting impact, others may be worth remembering but fade from view. Above, I pointed out AMBER Alert and Amber Hagerman, which, probably, are going to be lasting articles. And Amber herself has the dignity of an article under her own name. Recently, someone pointed me to Killing of Travis Alexander, which seems to be to be precisely the stuff WhatamIdoing rightly points out as being of momentary notability, at best. Montanabw(talk) 21:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I would support a merge of AMBER Alert and Amber Hagerman, so I doubt that the article on the victim will be lasting. The murder victim is no more important or notable than any of the the millions of other murder victims in the world, except that the AMBER alert system was created in response. It therefore makes sense to me to have them together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
And I think that is totally dehumanizing. People have inherent dignity and at the very least, that example is an illustration of it. Shall we reduce little children to tabloid fodder and as "insignificant?" Perhaps you didn't mean that to sound cold and offensive, but your attitude just struck me cold. Montanabw(talk) 00:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Be careful; he is trying to make a helpful comment. --George Ho (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that murder is dehumanizing. I disagree that it is dehumanizing to deal with the facts, which are that the world has almost half a million homicide victims each year. I disagree with the implication that some victims (e.g., those whose mothers start media-friendly publicity campaigns) are more important than others (e.g., the many girls murdered in developing countries). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that the multi-move thing is over, perhaps let's continue discussion here. --George Ho (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No, please, let's not. The closer of that discussion suggested waiting at least six months, and I think that's an excellent idea. We're deep in the land of dead horses and nothing said here now will lead us out of it. Rivertorch (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Although, I guess technically if people wanted to continue discussing it, there 19 days left to this RfC. So, this would be the right place to do it. It really doesn't matter if they would be beating a dead horse with a stick or not. Technical 13 (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

New multi-move RM proposal

I have started a related multi-move RM proposal discussion at Talk:Suicide_of_Kelly_Yeomans#Requested_move. The basis for these moves is dispassionate and based on WP:AT, per the above discussion. --B2C 22:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Dispassionate? Perhaps. Based on WP:AT? Not a chance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, let's all go over there now and say the same things over and over again, eh? Montanabw(talk) 19:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is closed as "no consensus". Really? I guess even 16-4 opposition does not matter as "support" arguments must have balanced off the "oppose" ones. --George Ho (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The move discussion is closed as no consensus, your RfC here is still open for 19 days. Technical 13 (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
What RfC here? There is no RfC here. Rivertorch (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
RfC added. --George Ho (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's wait until spooky Halloween comes... --George Ho (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary schools: Inherently notable or not?

I am not trying to make trouble or anything like that. I just want a straight answer. Are secondary schools meant to be inherently notable enough to bypass the notability guidelines and have their own articles?

If the answer is "Yes", then why is this not reflected in Wikipedia:Notability (No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists.)? -- Atlantima ~~ (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There was a relatively recent discussion about this maybe 6 months to a year ago. I believe that the conclusion was that schools are expected to meet a notability guideline like WP:ORG, but per WP:OUTCOMES, most secondary schools, given enough time to search for sources, will have sources to support this, and thus deletion of a school article due to failing notability is not appropriate. It is not that they were considered inherently notable, simply that in good faith we allow such articles to remain since they will likely receive appropriate coverage to meet GNG or ORG. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Disregarding the fact that that goes against Wikipedia:But there must be sources! and WP:NRVE, how long is an appropriate time to allow sources to be found? After a month, five months, a year, two years, could a school article for which appropriate coverage is not found be AFDed? And who is tasked with finding the appropriate coverage? And why is this not noted in GNG or ORG?
Also, I have been told by multiple admins (Necrothesp (talk · contribs) and Starblind (talk · contribs)) that "schools at high school level and higher are considered notable" and "the overwhelming consensus is that secondary schools are inherently notable". So if the truth is that they are NOT inherently notable, but should have sources, then these admins are in need of some reeducation.-- Atlantima ~~ (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
There was a time when all schools appeared to be judged inherently notable, perhaps because alumni turned up to say that theirs was wonderful. The deletion fights were unpleasant, and preloaded in favour of retention. I am not a fan of assumed inherent notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:There is no deadline, not even for adding sources. Anyone who is interested should feel free to search for sources. You'll find some advice here.
Admins ought to know better than to say that any subject is inherently notable. It is the firm consensus of the community that nothing is "inherently" notable. (It is also the consensus of the community that if you can't find sources on a typical high school [not a 'pretend high school' that's actually a tiny program or a homeschool], then you're not trying.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
It is noted at outcomes, and it is not at GNG /ORG because it's not a notability guide - it is the usual practice of what happens at AFD with secondary schools. That is, if there is an AFD, sources nearly always are found and they are kept, so it is generally recommended not to tip the cart to AFD secondary schools. That said if you believe you have exhausted every resource and there's no sourcing, you can certainly go ahead and nominate for AFD, at which poitn those wanting to keep have to say "but we don't delete schools per OUTCOMES". They get no free notability ride when challenged after a thorough search. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen them fall back on "but we don't delete schools per OUTCOMES". Then I tell them that OUTCOMES plainly states Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits... Avoid over-reliance on citing these "common outcomes" when stating one's case at Articles for Deletion.... When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources. WP:OUTCOMES is an essay that summarizes past decisions and should not override guidelines such as WP:ORG.
Whenever I've done searches on apparently non-notable schools, and come up empty, and report this at AFD, the response is "Oh, you are contributing to systemic bias by only searching in English and only on the internet! You should have flown to the city where the school is and searched local offline sources there, and searched the internet in Maldivian/Kashmiri/Urdu!" (Despite the Maldivian/Kashmiri/Urdu name of the school not even being mentioned in the article) After doing the best search I can with the resources I have, it's not very nice to be told this. -- Atlantima ~~ (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
OUTCOMES cannot be used as a reason at AFD. It is meant to be advice before you start an AFD, but not as a guide for closing such.
That is systematic bias to expect sources only being available to you. doesn't require sources to be in English or easily available, just that they are confirmed to exist per WP:V. So secondary sources in non-English speaking countries can still be included as long as the sources are out there. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
"OUTCOMES cannot be used as a reason at AFD." That's just it: So many users and even closing admins literally say "Keep per WP:OUTCOMES]
As for the second point, you clearly misunderstand me. I am not thinking that sources available to me are be the only sources which exist. But surely I can't be expected to somehow access sources that aren't available to me? The burden of proof should be on the users who make the claim that a subject is notable. If they claim it is notable, they should show sources. Other users should not be required to search beyond their own abilities in order to prove it is not notable.-- Atlantima ~~ (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
If an AFD closes with OUTCOMES cited at the primary reason, that's an excuse to DRV that AFD; OUTCOMES is clear it is not a reason to keep a page (it can augment but not keep).
On the second point, while the burden of proof is on those that want to keep, it's also the fact that the reason for schools being in OUTCOMES, just like most government recognized human settlements or larger, is that the sources for those are likely going to be available but only at places near that location, and so there is definitely time and effort to go find them. This is different from a topic that is not geographically bound where sources should be available "everywhere" and a good faith effort can be made to try to find them. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a weird situation, but generally primary/elementary/middle shools are not considered notable and are covered in the article on their parent district unless there is some other reason they are in fact more notable than the other 99% of such schools, but secondary/high schools are in the magical realm of "automatic notability" and pretty much get a free pass to have their own articles. That's the way it has been for at least the six years I have been an active user. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Are secondary schools inherently notable? That depends on your opinion. In most editors' opinions, are secondary schools inherently notable? Evidently yes. Are they almost always kept at AfD? Definitely yes. Is this consensus? Yes, of course it is. After yet another AfD on secondary schools is closed as keep, you cannot argue that consensus has not been reached. The fact is that most editors who express an opinion in AfD discussions believe that these articles are inherently notable. Since AfD, and not some mythical "rules", are our ultimate arbiter on notability, I really fail to see what Atlantima's argument is. It appears he does not like the conclusion that is being reached in AfDs and is trying to argue that these decisions and the opinions that lead to them should be overridden in the name of "rules" (which aren't, of course). Sorry, that is not how Wikipedia works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

And why are they always kept of AfD? Because Common Outcomes is abused as reason to keep. Is there consensus over? NO Unfortunately, secondary schools are kept expecting sources to exist. Especially with USA-schools, suddenly every source (local newspapers, school website, school district website, blogs) is considered to be a reliable, independent source. I am waiting for the moment that someone shows up with a local church newsletter to prove the notability of a school. So, secondary schools are not inherently notable but the special interest group is too loud and too organised to let school articles be removed. No matter how ridiculous an article (see: Plantage Mavo, written to prove this), that group always assumes that there are sources. The Banner talk 11:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not on some vendetta against schools in foreign countries, like you might think. I'm just a stickler for, ya know, guidelines and policies. I thought that Wikipedia worked by guidelines and policies: those are the "rules" which you glibly dismiss as being somehow inferior to opinions. Opinions are just that: opinions. If your definition of "consensus" is "majority vote", then, yes, consensus was to keep. However, I've heard that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so majority doesn't rule. And I've also heard Welcome to the deletion discussion for FOO. All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements. But at these AFDs, keepers usually cite essays rather than guidelines or policies. According to WP:Guidelines, Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. So if your alleged consensus exists it should be in the guidelines somewhere.-- Atlantima ~~ (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You are completely right that OUTCOMES is more frequently being used as a reason by !voters and at time closures as a reason to keep, which makes OUTCOMES a self-sustaining cycle. OUTCOMES really is only advise to the editor about to put down the AFD - that if an article is of this type, then the AFD likely won't close as delete because people will argue that geographically-limited sources likely exist. The latter part I'm personally iffy about but can accept, but I cannot accept this OUTCOMES cycle. I have no problem if editors that evoke OUTCOMES are really saying "we don't delete articles on schools because likely sources will exist locally for the school and will take time to get", but most are really using OUTCOMES to say "we don't delete articles on schools because that's been the status quo for years". That mentality we need to vanquish, and if it takes challenging AFDs that close primarily on an "OUTCOMES" reason by taking them to DRV, that's fine. I don't think one can readily change the end result - that school articles are kept - but the mentality that we keep them because we keep them can be fought against thus making challenges to these articles a fairer discussion instead of one that can be quelled by just mentioning OUTCOMES. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
One possible approach is to provide a standard template, similar to the "This account has made few or no edits" one, that says something like "The OUTCOME of previous AFDs is not a valid reason for keeping this article. If you want to keep this article, then we need a reason to believe that reliable sources have discussed this school". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

If one looks at it closely, the question is ambiguous.....what do you mean by "inherently notable" with respect to Wikipedia processes? Here are a few possibilities and my thoughts:

  1. Exempt from notability guidelines. No, certainly not.
  2. Be given / can be claimed to have an automatic "benefit of the doubt" if notability has not been established. Arguable, my opinion is "No"
  3. A consensus at AFD is allowed to presume notability, even if not proven. Yes.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the cited guide-lines that say no category grants notability, but that's a battle to be fought else-where. To the issue of high schools, WhatamIdoing says, "It is also the consensus of the community that if you can't find sources on a typical high school [not a 'pretend high school' that's actually a tiny program or a homeschool], then you're not trying." This might be the consensus, but it is counterfactual. I knew of a number of decent high schools in Ulaanbaatar that have no internet presence and, to the best of my knowledge asking around and looking around in Ulaanbaatar, have no published paper trail. These are, how-ever, definitely significant for Mongolia. I did not add articles for these schools, but I would defend the existence of such articles should they be created with just enough support to show that the school in question is a real high school. Kdammers (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Notability" does not mean "significant in the real world". It means something much closer to "some editor has access to enough published reliable sources that we can write an article on this subject that complies with the NPOV and WP:V policies". If there are no sources, then the subject is not (wiki)notable, not matter how important it is in the real world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree, and those are important points. North8000 (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This reminds me of a discussion at the Help Desk that I participated in - WP:Help desk/Archives/2013 January 16#Major Issue - Page discrediting my place of business on your site - please take a look.
OUTCOMES is routimely used by many admins to summarily close AFDs - thus it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
As I argued in the linked conversation at HD, if we do not abolish "presumptions of notability" they should have definite expiry dates - "You have until <date=today plus # months> to PROVE that Hicksville High really is notable by actually citing at least one RS, hand-waving allegations that 'the sources are out there' will no longer be acceped after that date." The OUTCOMES argument is a consequence of the overwhelming US-centric bias on en.WP - most American high schools probably could pass GNG but it's far from true practically anywhere else. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of BracketBot

Your attention is requested to be drawn to the following notice:

A bot is requesting approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BracketBot which will notify users on their talk page.
Due to the nature of the task, wider community attention is requested.

930913(Congratulate) 12:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC to implement character notability proposal at WP:VG/GL

An RFC has been started at WT:VG/GL regarding whether we should add my character notability proposal. The discussion is at WT:VG/GL#RfC: Time to implement the character notability proposal?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Normally, community guidelines are not found at pages that begin with "WikiProject Video games". That kind of name is reserved for WP:Advice pages from WikiProjects. WikiProjects should be tagging their own advice with the WikiProject-specific tags:
—and getting community-wide advice to change their advice pages is not actually necessary.
So you either need to demonstrate that this guideline is truly a community-wide guideline and move it out of the WikiProject space, or you need to change the tag, and you can skip the WP:PROPOSAL process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
What I meant was the "character notability proposal" that I did. Sorry. I refactored it to include proposal instead of guidelines. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
If it's a WikiProject page, then you don't need outside input. (You're welcome to it, of course, if you want it.) My concern in that instance would be with the inappropriate presence of {{subcat guideline}} at the top of the non-guideline.
Alternatively, if you decide that it is a community guideline, then you should continue with your WP:PROPOSAL, but you need to move the page to a title that does not contain the words "WikiProject Video games" (owns this page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Creative Commons 4.0 nearing final - last chance for comments

Hi, all- as mentioned on Commons a few times (here and here) (but not, as best as I can tell, here) Creative Commons is revising their licenses to produce a new 4.0 version. The changes include a variety of things relevant to WP and other WM projects, most importantly attribution, but also improved translations, database rights, and general improvements in readability. They are nearing their final version, and have asked us for one last round of review and comment. A few relevant links:

Note that this is not a call for comments on the adoption of CC 4.0 for WM projects. That discussion, if it happens, would be after 4.0 has been finalized, so that we're not speculating about the final terms.

Thanks! LVilla (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments about whether portals are needed, and the purpose of portals

I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals#Questioning_the_need_of_portals_when_categories_exist after a user disputed my placement of portals in an article about a film. There doesn't seem to be a lot of traffic on the WP Portals page, so is there a better place to publicize this RFC? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

NFC issues at Talk:Art Institute of Chicago

More eyes are needed to resolve the issue of whether the non-free image of the painting Nighthawks is appropriate to use over other free available masterpiece images within the article about the Art Institute of Chicago (where it is displayed) given NFC policy. Relevant section is at Talk:Art Institute of Chicago#Deleting valid and important images. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Categorization no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Categorization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

IMO nothing written by a project should be considered a guideline without wider review acceptance, and even then it should be moved. IMHO there is too much "ownership" at project pages by project members for them to contain guidelines = things that others are supposed to follow. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Per what consensus? So is it an essay now?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
IMO nothing written by a project should be considered a guideline without wider review acceptance, and even then it should be moved. IMHO there is too much "ownership" at project pages by project members for them to contain guidelines = things that others are supposed to follow. North8000 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Most of these were processed months ago. WikiProjects are groups of editors that want to work together. They have no authority over their preferred subject area (which is a good thing, because the various groups don't always agree with each other). We encourage them to write WP:Advice pages, but their advice pages aren't community-wide guidelines. (If they should be, then they shouldn't be at a page name that includes the WikiProject's name, just like there should be no official guidelines in userspace.) MILHIST can make a WP:PROPOSAL that the whole community adopt their advice, exactly like WPMED did a few years ago with WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS—pages that no longer say "WikiProject Medicine (owns this page)" in the title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

IPA v. Pronunciation respelling

Wikipedia, it seems, fairly consistently uses the IPA for pronunciation purposes. I understand why this is the case, as it is fairly standard among linguists, &c. However, I personally find it confusing. Many laypeople, I imagine, have trouble discerning pronunciations from this rather foreign system, and the process of looking it up via Help:IPA, &c, is rather confusing and unintuitive. Often, I am forced to go offsite to dictionaries to figure out the pronunciation of certain words, simply because I cannot figure out IPA. I'm not a total idiot, believe me, but I feel like this system is a bit above the average Wikipedia reader. Why then, does Wikipedia not provide pronunciation respelling in addition to, or to the exclusion of the IPA system? With pronunciation respelling, a commonly used technique by dictionaries, newspapers, &c. it is easy for the average English speaker to discern what is meant. Can someone explain what the policy is regarding pronunciation, if there is one? RGloucester (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a guideline: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation. As I understand it, there is no objection to using the respelling system in addition to IPA where it is adequate (there is even a template for the purpose), but there is a reason why linguists use IPA. The problem is, as the guideline indicates, that the pronunciation guide must not depend on the accent of the writer or reader. For instance, if I read that some Egyptian god or German company was pronounced "butter" or "rithem", or "herb", I would not have much idea of the pronunciation. So added conventions are necessary, which I need to learn (or refer to).--Boson (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Template {{respell}} can be used next to an IPA, not instead of. It is linked to a key. See for example Venezuela. -DePiep (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I know about the key, but that is still rather confusing. Anyway, I understand why linguists do that. I still think, however, that a respelling in major varieties of English should be mandated in addition to IPA. Does anyone disagree that IPA is privileged knowledge to the layperson? RGloucester (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The Venezuela example also demonstrates that, if the appropriate template is used correctly, each sound of the IPA notation is linked to the pronunciation, so if you hold the mouse cursor over the sound before the 'l', it displays " . . . as in base"; so you get the English word as well. But did you notice that the Venezuela article also uses respelling? --Boson (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but it is still hard to figure out. "V as in vie" is not the easiest sound to work out in one's mind, and so on. What does that V sound like? I don't know it just sounds like a V. Breaking down words into letters isn't easy. It just isn't as an intuitive as respelling. RGloucester (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem with respellings is that they do not in fact teach you the correct pronunciation only its nearest English equivalent. They can never replace IPA.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Lovely, but it doesn't matter if one can't read the symbols, and if one can't figure out the key. RGloucester (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It's also not true that IPA is totally accent-independent. Any rhotic consonant notated simply as /r/ (which most rhotics are, from what I've seen) is entirely accent-dependent, and could be pronounced as a trill, a tap, a voiced uvular fricative, and a few others depending on the speaker's native accent. Full IPA transcription avoids this issue, but the specific symbols are commonly unused in Wikipedia articles. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Anyway, none of that matters. I'm not trying to replace IPA. I simply think that, in many cases, a respelling should be given as well. They usually are not, it seems. RGloucester (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Many subtle pronunciation problems: The lack of simple wp:respelled pronunciations is a widespread problem for many rare words/names which need it; however, the people most-likely to want the respelled forms are also most-likely to have heard the pronunciations from TV or people talking, if they can remember the sounds. Hence, the IPA form, taught to many non-English speakers, works for many non-native speakers of English, who are unlikely to hear those words around town. I tend to prioritize where to add the respelled forms, such as for "Atchafalaya Basin" where even native-English speakers might need the reminder to say "ah-CHAF-ah-Lie-ah" with primary accent on the 2nd syllable. In fact, many Americans avoid stress on the 2nd syllable of long words, and so there is "Romanov" pronounced like "Roman-OFF", while the Russian sound stresses 2nd syllable, as "Ro-MAHN-off" instead. One not-so subtle problem was people removing the respelled forms (to show only IPA), for years, during the earlier years of Wikipedia. A related not-so subtle problem is IPA-preference bias, as still noted in Template:Respell, "respelling should follow the International Phonetic Alphabet, and never be used in place of it" as implying, 'Never use repelling unless IPA is also there.' Trying to explain how IPA reads like "huh-IPAnese" for many users, who were taught to show syllables "x-y-z", is also a problem; however, showing all syllables in IPA would likely anger many IPA purists. Another subtle problem is "anti-keep it simple" where respelling would work, somewhat, as just about anything simple for the initial pronunciation, and then let others refine or "perfecticize" the respelling with templates, precise vowels, and such extra details. Meanwhile, regional accents limit the respelled forms, such as for Canadian English where "out and about" is sounded as "oot and a-boot" or Australian English where "day" could be said as "dye". However, all those subtle problems can be overcome by just continually working to insert better respelled forms into numerous articles where the pronunciation is often difficult even for native-English speakers. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This seems sensible. I hope I am not alone in trying to add in more respelling as I go along in editing. Not for the replacement of IPA, but just so people what the hell is meant. RGloucester (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, respellings absolutely should be allowed for all articles', period. Only slightly less precise than IPA, and far more legible. Yes. Red Slash 16:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Government to be revived and rewritten

I plan to rewrite Wikipedia:Government to give it the focus of how the community can have more say in rewriting policy pages. The problem now is that such pages are de-facto locked by stalemate and that's why ArbCom has gained so much power. ArbCom has effectively rewritten many of our policies regarding bans and blocks. They set the precedent and then people edit these policy pages to reflect common practice.

To give just one example, consider how we used to deal with topic bans. It used to be the case that topic banned editors could indirectly give notifications about e.g. vanadalized pages they themselves were not allowed to edit. There was never a problem with this, there were no loopholes for topic banned editors to exploit here. But when William was topic banned from the CC pages and he placed notifications about problematic edits on his talk page, he was blocked for doing exactly this. His appeal was rejected, and ArbCom did not seriously engage in the clarification request, instead issuing threats at other non topic banned editors to stop even raising this question.

This has had the effect of redefining the definition of a topic ban, but only a handful of Admins and Arbs where responsible for this, there was never a big community discussion about this with the required 2/3 majority for there to be a large enough consensus to implement a change to the policy page. Instead what happend was that the relvant policy pages where later quietly rewritten to "reflect common practice", which means that you need this huge consensus to change it back to what it was.

Given that this is the way we are de-facto editing the policy pages, I would argue that it is then better to do this in a less stealthy way, via something similar to the previously proposed Wikipedia:Government system? Count Iblis (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you link to the relevant blocks, bans, appeals, and clarification request so we can judge for ourselves how this singular case went down and then arrive at our own conclusions as to whether this one case represents a change in practice or a sui generis situation that is not, itself, a reflection of anything other than its own peculiarities? Before we can judge if this is a problem which needs addressing, we need to see evidence of the problem, not just your personal characterization of events. I have no idea which event you are talking about, but if you are proposing change in policy based on an event, it would be best if we could all see the event itself. Thanks. --Jayron32 05:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll do that shortly (I'll give more examples that shows the general issue instead of basing it on just a single case), but let me first point that what I'm asking here is simply to restart WP:Government which itself will have to be approved as a policy when proposed as such. And even if this becomes policy, it will be a sort of "meta policy" that will have the effect of a more transparant community editing of the policy pages instead of the stealth like changes due to the present ArbCom system. So, in theory, it can have the opposite effect of what motivates me to set this up, if that's what the community really wants. Count Iblis (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Example 1.
Example 2, see Ref. 4 which in turn brings you here.
More to come Count Iblis (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh my god, Count you have really lost your mind when it comes to this rattletrap of a terrible idea you had that was overwhelmingly rejected by the community in three different places. You need to get over your deranged obsession of getting "justice" for WMC at any cost. In case you hadn not noticed, even he does not support your efforts and he openly opoosed you int he ArbCom election. Let it go man, you will accomplish nothing but to emberass yourself further if you try to restart this utter nonsense about a government. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
For those of you unfamiliar with this crazy idea, see the history of the talk page, this old DRN thread and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Government. I know consensus can change, but c'mon... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Rewriting = changing = proposal is no longer the same as the original proposal. So, it's not per se that consensus has to change a lot, the proposal itself will change. And it's nothing whatsoever to do with "justice for WMC". Count Iblis (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
So, if it is not the same thing make a new proposal. There is no such thing as a "government of Wikipedia" no matter how many times you imagine that there is one. If this isn't about WMC, then why do you bring up his case again and again and again every time you float one of your crazy ideas that the community hates? You are truly lost in your own imaginings and outright lies. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Unsurprised to find you in a governance discussion, Beeblebrox. I agree with Count Iblis that there needs to be some sort of community say in writing policies. "Community" should not mean "small cabals and individual groups of POV-pushers, corrupt admins, and assorted power players". Anybody who is not indoctrinated or simply ignorant knows that the majority of content contributors do not make decisions for the whole encyclopedia, and most content contributors have quietly resigned to the status quo. Count Iblis has not, and I support him in his efforts. Count, you might want to look at some of the essays linked on my userpage. Wer900talk 20:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
And perhaps you should have a look at the links I provided in my previous posts regarding the history of this fantasy government and the severe displays of WP:OWNership from the Count regarding this badly flawed proposal that the community strongly rejected. The consensus at the MFD on that proposal concluded that if the Count wanted to propose something different he should create a new proposal and let the rejected one lie. I suggested numerous time that he have it userfied as it was utterly unsupported by the community and reflected only his own ideas combined with utter fantasy, but he can't seem to let go of what he has apparently claimed as his own part of WP-space, despite the fact that the very idea of any sort of formal government structure is repugnant to the vast majority of Wikipedians.
This is all just a knee-jerk reaction on his part because he is angry that I dared to mark another of his failed projects] as historical yesterday. Not content with (all too predictably) reverting me and insisting on something that is obviously false he now intends to revive another idea that was strongly rejected as a bad fit for Wikipedia. It's completely childish "I want my bottle" behavior.
And so, go ahead I say, let the baby have his bottle and we'll see how it goes for him. This is the last you'll be hearing from me on this nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
"despite the fact that the very idea of any sort of formal government structure is repugnant to the vast majority of Wikipedians" I believe not. If you've ever spoken with anyone who's not one of the bitterly angry small POV-pushing groups, corrupt admin corps, and self-interested liars who actually run this encyclopedia, you'll find very different opinions. Formal governance is completely necessary for our continued survival, and (horrors!) elected representatives will be required in order to ensure that actual content contributors get a say. Most content contributors simply lack the stamina to politically organize for the common benefit, and on the rare occasions they do make it to ArbCom they are violently harassed by the aforementioned groups, situations often leading to their retirements or forced departure from the project.

If we could eliminate the anticanvassing policy and allow groups to organize, we would open the floodgates to content-contributors working together and creating a properly governed encyclopedia. Sadly, that policy is in place, meaning that the most I can discuss on Wikipedia governance is on my talk page privately with other users (or on their talk page). Mentioning it in a public forum merely draws the attention of the warring gangs on this encyclopedia, who would for once unite to strike down any proposal threatening their power.

Beeblebrox, perhaps you would like to read the following for proof that there are more than a few users annoyed at the current state of affairs:

You may want to consider even these few essays (which are not all of the essays on Wikipedia governance, though), and see how the vox populi is different from the perception that you have cast. Bear in mind, these exist despite the stupid "anti-canvassing" policy. Wer900talk 22:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Wer900, thanks for pointing to your essays, I'll take my time to read them! Beeblebrox, I could indeed just create a new proposal, it doesn't really matter to me. It's funny that you mention WP:OWN, because when writing up WP:Government the plan as announced on its talkpage was that there would be a RFC on proposals for the policy text itself before having another RFC on approving the proposed policy. So, that was not exactly a WP:OWN way of proceeding, but what happened was that you decided that because there wasn't enough activity during a few months, the policy should be marked as failed before even the first RFC was held. So, that RFC never materialized which I obviously didn't like. In the discussion about these events, you made a lot of noise about the community having rejected the proposed policy, but I maintain that there was no serious proposal to reject yet. The fact that you marked the ArbCom reject party as inactive did indeed make me think yesterday about looking again at the Government proposal, simply because I got some new ideas that I think are more appropriate for a new version of the policy page. Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

New Key essay could change wikipedia significantly

I've been making this new essay that I think will help wikipedia significantly. User:Lucia Black/Wikipedia:Gaming the discussion. Its still in development but it could be great if editors would help contribute to make this essay solid and hopefully "in a nutshell" worthy.Lucia Black (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Gaming the discussion is a method of arguing that some editors on Wikipedia believe can get away with to achieve their goals ? I'm sorry, but, what? Tarc (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I honestly think that your essay will do nothing to help Wikipedia - it is basically a series of accusations of bad faith, or worse. There are no situations I can think of where citing such an essay would do any good - and citing it would quite possibly be a violation of WP:NPA. Yes, people do act like that sometimes - but we have methods in place to deal with it, and they don't involve fanning the flames. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
not really NPA.BUSY ILL EXPAND LATER. AT A MOVIE.Lucia Black (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain this was created and directed at me for my opposing stance to Lucia's actions at the Ghost in the Shell dispute at the DRN. Which is becoming a problem. Not to sound rude or anything, but Lucia believes "in a nutshell" equates to being 'commonly accepted'. [5] This 'essay' has a likely goal of being 'in a nutshell' so she can try to use it to 'defeat me'. Also referenced is two personal attacks at ANI. [6] I did mention WP:CIR as Lucia indicated, but it was with good reason and use. While this is beating a dead horse, I have explained both the nutshell matter and WP:NPA to her several times and this is about par for the course.[7] I wouldn't even waste my time reading the archives of this dispute or the DRN, even I look back at this as futile. Sorry to bother. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

@Chris: That was not a personal attack. You took harder hits from Ryulong and you made no "fair warning". I know when an editor does things out of spite and considers one bad behavior. If you are admitting you are using these tactics, then I can see why you are speaking now in attempt to make it look like its a bad essay. I didn't make this proposed essay just for you. I made it because I can't possibly be the only one dealing with editors evading key issues, not answering key questions, and overall just constantly bring up history.

Hypothetically, Let's just say this essay was made specifically for you. I don't think ANY editor can disagree with most of what the essay presents, except for AndytheGrump (don't worry I'm gonna cover Andy's point and elaborate). And doesn't provide bad info. So all you're saying is "This editor made an essay so that I can't game the consensus building process"

@AndytheGrump, the essay follows the same principle of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, WP:AADD, WP:OWN. All of these are clear essays that help avoid bad behavior or bad discussion tactics, because they explicitly mention the issue at hand when editors use bad tactics in a discussion. WP:GAMING has a section based on "consensus-building" building. The plan is basically to expand it enough to be split in its own essay. I don't think you even read the essay. This essay is to help AVOID evasive/aggresive tactics of discussion. I admit, the opening post may not be clear. But its completely in to benefit other editors.Lucia Black (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You are entitled to your own opinion, but my previous post speaks for itself. You have no intention of following your own advice because you bring up Irrelevant topics of Ryulong's conduct to specifically Discredit/defame my opinion and Misguide third party viewers into believing your view. Strangely in our dispute you have accused me of Continuous lying and refusal to answer as noted in the ANI diff, dealing with Irrelevant topics as in my opposition to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and similar articles also in the diffs, which you specifically call as Discredit/defame on you. You also think I am Controlling the discussion. While I don't use Ad hominem you did when you questioned my background and editing history. You prove you don't even know what Ad hominem means as noted in the ANI diff and that is evident in this essay. Which is why you accuse me of trying to Misguide third party viewers coupled with my Misuse of Policy in any argument I make. I think Andy is right about WP:NPA, for reasons I listed in my first post and follow up in this second one, your essay is a thinly veiled attack on me. Each point highlighting or alluding to actual exchanges. The three diffs alone show fine examples of your personal attacks mixed in with your continuing confusion of even a simple matter like the meaning of "in a nutshell" as noted in your own starting post and my diffs. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue. You're no saint. The only reason why I'm not listing a long history of your disruptive edits is because my smartphone is too slow. So it would take a couple of days just to find your edits. So I'm not gonna discuss this.

This is about the essay not about you. I will ignore you if you intend to derail the discussion. This is an extension to WP:GAME particularly "Gaming the consensus" section. AndytheGrump would have to challenge all those other articles that help optimizing debate/consensus building.Lucia Black (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Lucia Black, of course I read the essay - which is why I wrote what I did. As for whether it is intended to refer to ChrisGualtieri or not, I don't think it matters either way - it stands no hope whatsoever of gaining community approval. It would do nothing but make bad situations worse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Its no different from Gaming the consensus building in WP:GAMING. In fact its meant to expand on it. So again, challenging this is also challenging all the similar essays with the same principle.

This essay helps editors (or make clever editors) recognize what is considered bad behavior in a discussion. It would make Admins see when an editor attempts to manipulate consensus or makes it difficult to reach one by evading key topics. Why make WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, WP:OWN and WP:AADD.Lucia Black (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see no point in discussing this further. Nobody is supporting your essay, and I think it highly unlikely that anyone will. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
To other editors who are willing to see the benefit do you see what just happened? I elaborated with AndytheGrump on why this essay would be beneficial. And as I countered his argument, he provided no counterargument of his own. And simply avoided to elaborate. Was it because he sees no point in discussing or is it because he has no point? I'm left empty handed and it feels bad.
OtherEditors are being left empty handed during discussions. Other Editors derail the consensus building. These are things that leave other editors have anamosity between each other. When you elaborate and the opposing editor does nothing to address your reasons. You're left empty handed, you don't understand the editor's view and you don't get answers.
This essay will force unwilling editors to elaborate on opposing/supporting a claim (even if it means they agree completely with another editors view who elaborated) or be dismissed.
Honestly, I think he stopped discussing because I brought a valid point. And "can't" elaborate. And I will continue to believe so until new counter argument is brought.Lucia Black (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, my initial reaction to your essay was this: "Eh... another personal essay whining about the fact that other editors didn't accept his/her arguments in a dispute, and does not understand why those arguments were rejected." Now... I assume that was not your intent; I am simply sharing the impression I got when I read it. I share this as constructive criticism, not as a personal attack of any kind.
My response based on that initial reaction would be to point you to WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT... I think it already deals with most of what you are talking about in your essay. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT doesn't assume that the editor in question has bad intentions. We must always consider WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT as applying to ourselves when we don't get very far in getting some particular point accross. Count Iblis (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Very true.
To give some practical advice to Lucia (advice that goes beyond my initial impression)... It is rarely a good idea for anyone to edit policy when he/she has recently been involved in a dispute. No matter who you are, you won't have the necessary detachment to think about the potential negative consequences of the proposal. So... my advice is that you keep your essay on hold for a while. Get some distance from the debates that inspired your essay. Go off and edit other articles and policies... Have some positive interaction with other editors (not the one's you have been in the dispute with). In a few months, come back to your proposal and look at it again. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I find this essay key and no wikibreak will keep me from attempting to make this. Why? Because it covers the cheap shots other editors I'm not aware of get away with. It doesn't say anything that automatically assumes bad faith, in fact, its an expansion WP:GAMING. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT can also play a role in this essay aswell. As of now, I'm expanding

But what I don't agree with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is that it implies consensus is right, minority is wrong, so the minority stays that way. So if an editor wants answers to his counter argument (that are relevant to build consensus) and consensus ignores it and brings a completely different point (unrelated to the counterpoint), then it is wrong for the minority to gain some answers. That's what I don't like about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Also I brought it here so it can be refined. Does anyone here actually disagree with the points this essay brings about? I'm still refining it.Lucia Black (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, looking at the essay ([8]) I don't really see many of those "points this essay brings about"... At the moment, the only parts that seem to deserve attention are the notes. They give some arguments in favour of something - in favour of view that all arguments should be answered. Well, in such case, perhaps you should actually expand them into an essay..?
The rest of the essay doesn't look very useful... For example, the part "Continuous lying and refusal to answer"... When would you use it? Would you try to persuade your opponent that it is not good to lie? But it doesn't really explain why lies are wrong (and if you have to explain that, the problems sure are great). Would you use it to tell someone that he (or someone else) is lying? But you can just say "You are lying." (or "He is lying."), if you really need to do that. Would you show the correct way to deal with lies? But the essay doesn't say what one should do if someone is lying. I do not see many useful arguments here, nor many useful observations (short of "Liars exist."), nor many useful pieces of advice... So, let's put it like this: how do you intend to use this essay..? Answer this question and it will be easier to write it. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The goal is to not allow other editors to get away with. As per WP:GAMING as I see it as "Wikipedia isn't dumb and can read right through you vandals" Let me answer your question with another question, how do we use WP:GAMING, WP:OWN, WP:AADD?
Example for continuously lying:
*If an editor continues to rehash the same point being questioned, and the other editor refuses to answer. That editor will say, "This is the last time I ask this question, if you do not answer, then you're in dangered of being accused of "lying" to game the consensus as per WP:GAMINGDISCUSSION". the editor would have to elaborate the point at hand to defend himself of not "lying" or admit s/he was lying.
*If an editor continues to use the same evasive tactics, then potential third party opinions will notice his evasive debate and will probably want the same answer.
Can you explain how lying is good in wikipedia? Lying is bad because it manipulates a discussion, one editor may claim to attempt a "compromise" just so his/her image is seen at a higher light to third party opinions (when s/he never brought a compromise) However, lying can be unintentional and be forgiven. HOWEVER continuous lying section is there if an editor continues to dodge what can be answered. A lie can become a truth but only if the editors cooperate. The point is so that editors don't evade a key point, don't use aggressive tactics, and don't manipulate potential third party opinions.
This is when editors intentionally use these tactics to manipulate discussions. This is probably an essay that covers intentional disruptive behavior as oppose to the rest that one may accidentally be disruptive. How do we use WP:GAMING if its all about bad faith?Lucia Black (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
"Let me answer your question with another question, how do we use WP:GAMING, WP:OWN, WP:AADD?". OK, that's a good question. Let's see:
  1. WP:GAMING ([9]; the summary is: "Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden."). It's a guideline.
  2. WP:OWN ([10]; summary - "All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article.") - it's a policy.
  3. WP:AADD ([11]) - it's an essay.
Guideline and policy do not say merely "Wikipedia isn't dumb and can read right through you vandals" (by the way, the users in question are unlikely to be "vandals" - they are more likely to be, let's say, "POV pushers"). They forbid something. The essay, strictly speaking, does not "forbid" anything, but it explains, why some arguments are weak and can be considered worthless in a discussion. It gives arguments (for example, "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy."), gives advice ("Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts"."). A good essay can also make some observations.
However, I do not see how your essay does anything like that. With exception of two notes, it forbids nothing, gives little advice, doesn't give many arguments and makes little useful observations.
The problem that causes all that is that many of your points are simply uncontroversial - there is little to argue about. For example, you say: "Can you explain how lying is good in wikipedia? Lying is bad because it manipulates a discussion, one editor may claim to attempt a "compromise" just so his/her image is seen at a higher light to third party opinions (when s/he never brought a compromise)". Well, that's the point: hardly anyone needs to be persuaded that lying is bad. We do not really need an essay for that. Ten Commandments will do just fine instead.
However, your points about all arguments needing an answer are controversial and could be expanded into an essay. By the way, would you like some explanation why they are controversial? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Writing a page like that isn't magic. If you're in a tense dispute, then saying "Well, if you don't answer my question (in exactly the way I want and so I can understand it), then you're in violation of WP:ABUNCHOFSCARYLOOKINGALLCAPSSTUFF!" is pretty much useless.
If something is bad, then it's bad now, even if nobody has written it down. If it's not always bad, then it's still not always bad, even if you write it down. Norms enforcement (getting people to act the way we want them to) doesn't happen by quoting a bunch of shortcuts at each other. It happens through much more complex channels. For example, imagine that we're in a dispute: I ask you a question, and you respond. If I say "I don't understand what you just wrote. I wanted to know more about this and you seem to be talking about that", people will reward your consensus-oriented behavior by trying to explain the answer again. If instead I demand "an answer to my question, and if you don't answer my question, then I say you're a big fat liar per WP:BIGFATLIARS!", I'm going to get a very different and far more damaging (to me) response—one that legitimately invokes several of the "bad" comments your draft opposes.
That's our real enforcement: when you behave well, you get what you need and want. When you don't, then nothing goes smoothly for you. When you behave poorly, not only do you lose the dispute, but people remember your name as being one of the "problem editors", and suddenly people are thinking "Oh, Lucia's got a proposal. She's always involved in some kind of drama. Hasn't she already filed complaints at ANI four times this year already, and never for anything actionable? I bet anything she writes is garbage. I don't really even need to read it to oppose it."
Reputation matters here. If you get a reputation for calling people liars, or for being unable to see the other person's side in a dispute, or for always being involved in major drama, then people are legitimately going to give up on you. If you get a reputation for never understanding anything more complex than "I agree with you" or "I disagree with you", then people will quit wasting their time explaining it and simply say "No!!!" until you understand that the answer is no. AGF is not a suicide pact, and we're not required to put up with incompetent people. We might be sympathetic—we might say "Looks like another WP:AUTIE unfortunately got tripped up by the social complexities here" or "Looks like another well-meaning person with limited English abilities" rather than "Looks like another idiotic jerk"—but even sympathy doesn't give people much extra patience when the same person is putting forward the same rejected ideas once again, or when the same person is involved in the same kind of dispute for the zillionth time, or when they've explained things three different ways, and are still hearing "But I disagree with you, so obviously that proves that all of you are wrong and that the six-paragraph answer you wrote is nonsense and lies."
If any individual editor persistently encounters the kinds of problems that are described in this page, then the problem is very likely with that editor, not with the multiple people he or she has frustrated to the snapping point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This header is, in my view, hugely over-rated. The only thing that comes to mind in looking at the essay is WP:BEANS. Apteva (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Break 1

@Martynas: If these issues are obvious, but not obvious. It helps avoid heated debates, because in the end both sides aren't just arguing over eachother but persuade others, and if one editor can't cite an essay to why its an issue, the other editor won't be able to convince the other.

@whatimdoing: Reputation should mean NOTHING when it comes to essay proposals, new innovative ideas that could help optimize wikipedia and even consensus building. If it does, it only proves how shallow editors are and sneaky. That's why my essay trumps that potential anomosity for "reputation"

The whole "you have to answer my question until I'm satisfied with that answer" is also in the proposed essay called "controlling the argument". Or owning the discussion. When editors ignore points other editors made because the other editor didn't give a satisfying answer. There's a difference between getting an answer and getting no answer. And a "liar" would mean someone brought up a claim that isn't true and refuse to answer when being brought to question. So its "lying" intentional.

If an editor asks for "this" and is relevant to consensus, but the other editor instead mentions "that". Then he's not rewarded to building consensus but manipulating consensus. Unless "that" is a good enough reason alone to not even bother answering for "this". You understand? Which I should add a note to my proposed essay.Lucia Black (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If 50 pages of discussion didn't convince you, nothing will. You are either not being serious or have other issues to work through, and while this comment will surely feed another response, ideally it would be the second-to-last. You cannot satisfy someone who seeks gratification in argument and "until I'm satisfied with an answer" is just a clear battle of attrition. The goal of these stances is to drive away editors and bog down any discussion until no one cares enough and the person going by this 'essay' is the 'winner'. It is more productive to argue with a brick wall. No matter the argument, every opposition and response begets another in the classic sense of WP:LASTWORD. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Chris, you're in the same boat. Why bring it up if your talking about yourself.
My essay is against "you didn't give me a satisfying answer" as it attempts to control/own the people to the discussion and other editors are there to only cater him/her for him to make the final word. However, it depends on being used. If one simply wants to understand the topic better, there would be no reason to evade a question. However the question must be relevant to the discussion (obviously).
Instead help those dealing with "I've asked this for the billionth time, where does it state what you claim?/What about the other related point I made that stops this article from being split/merged?"
When relevant points are intentionally being neglected or someone making a highly questionable claim and does nothing to elaborate aand "refuses" to elaborate. This is about someone using evasive tactics to manipulate consensus.Lucia Black (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Lucia, I'm not telling you what "should" happen. I'm telling you what does happen. There are some immutable laws of the wiki, and "reputation matters" is one of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The essay should be expanded and then focussed on giving advice to editors. I think that this essay could be focussed on advice for Admins to help them see through bogus arguments. Count Iblis (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that was also one of my intentions. It would help other editors keep their cool, as they now have an essay to express the situation and can "be cool and leave the discussion" much more quickly. However I brought it here so I can get some help with wording.Lucia Black (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC regarding the scope of the Ombudsman Commission

The Ombudsman Commission is currently holding a request for comment. Currently, the Commission only hears complaints regarding the privacy policy. We propose to change the scope of the Commission to also include hearing complaints about the global Checkuser and m:Oversight policy policies.

For more information please visit the RFC, which can be found at m:Requests for comment/Scope of Ombudsman Commission. Please direct all questions and comments there.

For the Ombudsman Commission,

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Policy invokers

Hi! I want to ask people to go to my [contributions page] and take a look at all the reverting people have been doing to my edits. There are users outh there that spend their lives invoking every piece of wikipedia policy to revert articles, including "policy 156, section y, part 16". This makes good faith wikipedia editors such as me become discouraged with participating anymore and want to quit. Maybe we should do something to prevent so many reverts over things that, quite frankly, may be minor to the reverters, but major to the adders. Like take a vote over whether an item should be included in the page or not. For example, the Jennifer Lopez and Pitbull edits, I think a shooting nearby is a major enough incident to be included, but others disagree.

I would like to hear your opinions. Thanks for your opinions and God bless all! Antonio Superloco Martin aqui 00:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

this looks trivial and should not be included. Use the talkpage for discussion if necessary - but I don't see the policy issue you're getting at (I'm tempted to recommend WP:BRD to you). Rd232 talk 00:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Should the orange bar gadget be on by default?

The orange bar talk notification, OBOD, was turned off by the devs when Echo was launched. A consensus seemed to have developed at WT:Notifications that it should be turned back on because newbies and IPs would otherwise miss warnings. A gadget mimicking this functionality was created with default on. Another user has turned off the default on on the grounds there is not wide enough consensus. Please comment at WT:Notifications#Pseudo OBOD Gadget is live. SpinningSpark 19:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  • The script (almost entirely based on User:Writ Keeper's work, except for a bit in the usermessage about Notifications and a link to the doc page) can be reviewed at MediaWiki:Gadget-OBoD.js. Ignatzmicetalk 19:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I disabled the default, and expanded my reasons for doing so in that the code has not been reviewed, and I want to avoid the site experiencing any trouble by running untested code by default. Edokter (talk) — 19:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • And how long would it take you to review the code versus turning it off? Surely with your level of talent it wouldn't take long! Killiondude (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • For the record, while I don't think there are any bugs in my code, and I do perform substantial testing of my scripts on my own before I publish them, I think the deployment of my script was over-hasty, especially since I haven't heard back from one user who has reported problems (though I'm reasonably sure I fixed them); I had not been asked for a final go-ahead. My last communication that I recall about this was with MBisanz on IRC some time ago (around 6 AM this morning UTC, I believe), where I said that the code might be ready for such a deployment, but that I wanted to hear back from Nyttend first, and that I would like to have seen an explicit consensus to adopt the script first. I'm not sure whether I support or oppose on-by-default in any case. Writ Keeper  22:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be OTBE'd, since a much more noticeable, bright-red warning now appears when you have messages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Rules for Fools

Wikipedia:Rules for Fools is a failed proposal, but it has been marked with a banner template as having community consensus. Since my removal of this has been reverted, I have started an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools#Failed proposal. SpinningSpark 14:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think your RFC question has serious flaws, and I think you should re-write it promptly. I've left detailed comments at the RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Should I Accept this Revision (Pending Changes)


As you can see, the user has provided a reasonable edit summary as to why they removed the section. However, the section is cited and could therefore be considered notable. Wanted to get a second. opinion before I either reject or approve the edit. Oddbodz (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ignore that - it has been resolved Oddbodz (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


Some of us would like to upgrade WP:HISTRS from an essay to a guideline. Where do we go to apply for this? It would be really good if someone would work with us on it. A guideline would be particularly useful for resolving disputes that relate to nationalism, where there are competing versions of history. As WP:MEDRS is an invaluable tool for ensuring that we don't inadvertently promote quack cures. Thanks for any advice. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You should probably start an RFC. Ruslik_Zero 18:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
You make another WP:PROPOSAL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to both. I will go to the ideas incubation people and also to WP:HISTORY before the RfC. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC: WP:MOS-AM discussions

Per a request for closure, this discussion is closed with the consensus that this level of specificity is not needed when deciding when to split articles. The specificity at WP:MOS-AM was found to be WP:CREEPy. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2013 (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.

There are two discussions concerning changes to the manual of style on anime- and manga-related articles. The discussions can be found WT:MOS-AM#Article content and WT:MOS-AM#Franchise articles. The current wording of the manual of style's article names and disambiguation section regarding separate articles for a franchise (such as Ghost in the Shell and Dragon Ball) is:

In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise, unless:

  1. They differ sharply in plot, characters, or in other major characteristics; or
  2. The article becomes too large.

In one of these discussions regarding article content, a user has expressed concern about not mentioning WP:SPLIT in the MOS. Also, there is some concern about WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as well. However, since this may create a bit of controversy, I suppose more input from the community would not hurt. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Having read the two discussions, is the RfC question, whether the MOS be changed to allow the articles to be split per WP:LIMIT of sections other than those sections listed in MOS-AM?
From what I can read of the Wikiproject MOS, the MOS does not say do not create subarticles but gives guidence on which sub-articles (and thus which section to split) first.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes. The question is Should the MOS be changed to allow the articles to be split per WP:LIMIT of sections other than those sections listed in MOS-AM? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Instruction creep? I am wondering when the issue of splitting an article became something that a Style guide should discuss... Is the MOS-AM being used as a one-stop all-purpose catch-all set of "rules" for Anime related articles? Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Not to detract, but I am confused if this is the discussion area or if this a call for attention. To answer Blueboard's comment, yes it is being used for that purpose. MOS-AM also states, Articles should be self-contained, only referring to subpages for additional information or details if the main article or a section becomes too long. Follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Summary style when creating subarticles. So either way, the "In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise" is in conflict with greater Wikipedia policy and with MOS-AM. Hence why, I cited your comment as reason for the removal of the questionable section. A manual of style, or a wikiproject cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Stop insisting on a "franchise". Blueboar, the MOS currently states that the main article on any anime and manga should be about the original work of fiction (whether it began life as an anime or as a manga), with separate articles dedicated to episode lists, character lists, chapter lists, and films. ChrisGualtieri's issues with the manual of style stem from the fact that there are currently no separate articles for the Dragon Ball Z TV series or the original Ghost in the Shell manga.
Regarding Ghost in the Shell, there was for the longest time a relatively short article just on the original manga separate from what Chris keeps insisting on calling a "franchise article". I boldly merged this "manga only" article with the central article, bringing it in line with the format that every other anime/manga page is in, while retaining the separate manga page as a "list of chapters" page instead.
On Dragon Ball Z, Dragon Ball is the original work of fiction, and its content was adapted into the anime Dragon Ball (covering the part of the manga where the main character is a child/teenager) and Dragon Ball Z (covering the part of the manga where the main character is an adult with children). As they are just two parts of a whole, they got rid of the separate "Dragon Ball Z" (and Dragon Ball GT, a third TV series with an original storyline) article and merged it into the main one. Chris's argument is that because Dragon Ball Z is arguably the most popular form it has taken in the west that it requires a separate article.
All in all, the arguments aren't really swaying anybody at the WikiProject as they feel it is better not to have so many pages on 95% identical topics.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Ryulong, that is not in there, MOS-AM states "Article introductions should be primarily about the original format of a work and not about the most popular format of that work. For example: "Bleach is a manga series, which was later adapted into an anime series", NOT "Bleach is an anime series, based on a manga of the same name." Article introductions are lede and the first coming work, to prevent 'Bleach is an anime series' from being discussed when it was a manga first. Your 'original work'-focused argument seems to be your own creation. Prove to me otherwise. MOS-AM is not perfect, but this 'original work' issue has destroyed GITS and DBZ was effectively neutered by a bad and undeveloped page and a manual of style being used as policy. Why was the unrelated-to-the-manga GT anime even merged then? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts on this issue: if there is enough reliably sourced material to create a separate article, then it is perfectly acceptable to do so. MOSAM should not and can not prevent this as this is enwiki policy and guidelines. Preventing the creation of viable reliably sourced articles is against everything Wikipedia stands for. I think the original reason MOSAM had that little bit added in was to prevent the creation of gazillions of character pages and individual volume pages for manga (I have a vague recollection of a discussion about that years ago), but I think that can be dealt with via PROD, AFD, and similar methods. Any article which doesn't meet the basic guidelines for inclusion can be deleted. We don't need MOSAM trying to micromanage things for us. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for stating that, and I do understand we have numerous character articles that do not meet N or GNG. A recent example is Obito Uchiha prior to the merging. With no references and commentary and speculation running rampant, the MOS-AM 'general' comment was probably meant for this and not international bestsellers and cultural icons. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete I just jumped from page to page trying to figure our what the centralised discussion was. It seems to be some prescriptive time-wasting contrary to WP:CREEP and WP:NOTLAW. Please eliminate it. Warden (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • In general, I don't think we need genre-specific instructions about when to split or not to split articles. The general rules at WP:SS and WP:N are quite workable for all topic areas.  Sandstein  07:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Feels like instruction creep. The idea that closely related works are often easiest and best described, and their articles maintained, as a single article is simple enough and would hopefully be apparent to most editors. That anime/manga might be a case of this might be worth a mention. That there are exceptions doesn't need a mention, it merely requires editors to have an understanding of what these general rules about, and a bit of common sense. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:42, 11 May 2013 (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.

Merging of material from articles at AfD

Sometimes when I see an article at AfD (only nominated for notability issues) I think I'd like to merge some of the contents to a "parent" article. If I went ahead I would use {{copied}} on source and destination talk pages. This template commands that the history of the source is not to be deleted so long as the destination article exists. So, I do not want to do this during the AfD discussion because it would put a spanner in the works of deleting the article. However, if I wait and the article is deleted it is too late. What is the best thing to do? Thincat (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You propose the merge in the AFD discussion as an alternative to deletion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. What I should have asked is, is it acceptable, in the course of an AfD on an article, to copy some material to another article? Or, is it better to wait to the end of the AfD and, if it results in delete, ask the closer to provide the material? I see this recently. Was it the appropriate procedure? Presumably the material would then have to be re-written afresh to avoid misattribution. Thincat (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Roger Dodger is right. Although no rule on WP (that I know of) specifically forbids such an action, merging an article in the middle of an AFD at best makes the discussion harder to fathom, and far more seriously it's very easy in such a situation to screw up attribution and thus violate GFDL copyright. It's far better, as Roger Dodger correctly suggests, to propose the merge and gather consensus for it. Also, and I know this is obvious but it still needs to be said, genuinely bad material (copyvio, non-notable, unsourced, spammy, etc) should not be merged or copied anywhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. I'll try things this way and see how it works out. Thincat (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion #5 recommends against copying during a live AfD. It was revised December 2009 after WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 58#Merging during live AfD. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I shouldn't have missed that, but I did. Thincat (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
... and the discussion you pointed to was a good one. Thincat (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language

Please go to Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language and read the section titled "Man overboard". User:Frungi thinks that man meaning person (of either gender) is gender-neutral language. Georgia guy (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If the gender-neutral sense of the word (wikt:man#Noun sense 3) is clearly being used, yes. If the gender-specific meaning of “adult male” is meant, then obviously it wouldn’t be gender-neutral. —Frungi (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
"Man overboard" is a generic, gender-neutral phrase, used no matter who falls off the ship. Indeed if the ship had a mascot (say a dog) and it fell overboard, the lookout would probably cry... "Man overboard!" Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A question in MOS - WP:TIMEZONE

MOS states that: When writing a date, first consider where the event happened and use the time zone there.

However, in some cases, a historical event took place where the time zone in that particular location is different than what is today. That is, the time zone has changed since the event took place. MOS did not make note of this.

Example, 1920 Haiyuan earthquake stated that it hit at local time 20:06:53 (GMT 12:06:53), of which it is expressed modern China time zone, which is GMT +8. However, during Republic of China, China was divided into five time zones. The epicenter is at Haiyuan County, Ningxia Province which at that time is in Kansu-Szechuan Time Zone, which is in GMT +7.

Corresponding article in Chinese Wikipedia noted this fact and recorded in 19:06:53 (GMT+7).

Opinion on this? SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Just note the difference in the text of the article. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The use of official broadcast dates versus actual broadcast dates in articles

Since early April, there has been a discussion at WikiProject Anime and manga about broadcast schedules. For convenience, I'll summarize the discussion below, or alternatively, please read the link above for the full discussion.

In the discussion, it was suggested that a centralized discussion to determine consensus should be started on this page, because the practice is not only limited to anime and Japan, and also because this could affect several articles and projects, not just WP:ANIME. As such, in this case, should the official broadcast date be followed, or should the actual broadcast date be used? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, you mischaracterize this as a "Japan-only" thing. Many television channels have programming schedules that go into late night/early morning broadcasts.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Which is why: 1. I said "because the practice is not only limited to anime and Japan", and 2. The discussion is here instead of being at WT:JAPAN. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Important Comment - I have personal insight into this matter and I want to offer additional information and exceptions for this RFC. It is frequently common in Asian countries or Asian Publications including Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean publications to refer to dates as X 2 A.M and which would be X+1 to English speakers. An example of this is many Asian countries, a show (theatre, concerts) with a 2:00 AM start time on 5/12/2013 would occur to English speakers at 5/13/2013 2:00 A.M. This is related, at least among the Chinese, that the day begins with the rising of the sun. So in general, a localization of how time is interpreted and under what circumstances are not among just Japanese publications. In these materials the text literally translates to <month> <day>