Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191

Allowing iMDB as a reliable source for filmographies

While the discussion has only run for a week or so, the consensus seems pretty clear that IMDb (much like Wikipedia itself) is a user-editable tertiary source and thus should be avoided as a source, and that in most cases, templates like cite AV media or cite episode do the trick and are arguably more reliable. Considering that there's already been a similar discussion over at WT:FILM that reached a similar conclusion, and the fact that only the proposer so far has been supportive of the proposal, I think it's time to put this discussion out of its misery. (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

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

I'm raising this as it has been a frequent concern on WP:ITN/C that filmographies be entirely sourced to permit post of recent deaths. I find it odd that we allow plot summaries of movies (and other media) without a secondary source, yet we require secondary sources for filmographies. Just as books that are offline are acceptable sources, are films not acceptable as the source of a credit (exception for uncredited roles)? But, I'll back it up to what is now known as a reliable online resource for film and television: iMDB. Shouldn't we allow this resource to be used for the generally uncontentious filmographies/credited roles?

My proposal is solely limited to filmographies and television credits and would not include the use of iMDB for other purposes. I also propose an exception to WP:EL should this pass, that iMDB still be included as an External link even if it is used as a source. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  • A primary source is reliable for uncontentious information about the primary aource. The credits of a film are reliable for who is listed in the credits. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
How do you know the image isn't photoshopped, is there vetting in place? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Sources are not required to be online. The credits for Bladerunner are verifiable by anyone who has access to amazon, a good library or streaming TV services. Screenshots are not required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with that, I am talking about IMDB though. It bothers me here that it is used as a reliable source in articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
It isn't, or it shouldn't be for most things. There are a couple of exceptions, see WP:CITINGIMDB (where the WGA and MPA are the original source). Every time it comes up at RSN the answer is usually 'no' as a general rule. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I would almost never use IMDB as a reliable source per WP:EL/P#User-submitted contents. The info is user submitted (not noteworthy), and rarely corrected. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:RS/IMDB exists for a reason. Knowledgekid87 is spot on in their statement. All you have to do is look at the massive mess here to see the lack of fact checking that goes on there. There are numerous websites including the American Film Institute and the British Film Institute which can be used. MarnetteD|Talk 18:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps most IMDb content is accurate, but certainly not all. I am personally aware of two convicted Hollywood con artists who have manipulated IMDb to gain undeserved show business credibility for the purpose of defrauding investors. I oppose using IMDb as a reliable source, except in the very limited circumstances already defined. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes I used information on IMDb as search terms to find more reliable sources, and I feel that it can be appropriate to cite IMDb alongside the other citation to acknowledge this. Most of the "disputed uses" listed on WP:CITEIMDB (such as cast list, character names and so on) can also be verified from the primary source (the credits listed on the film), and the IMDb credit will at least keep most of the "citation needed" nannies happy. Chaney aside, most filmographies and television credits are uncontroversial, I don't see why we would need to find a book authored by a Harvard president as WP:V that Harrison Ford appeared in Blade Runner (the current citation is a "DVD"... whatever that is). Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The issue is less about crediting feature films (which, absolutely the primary source credits should be sufficient save for uncredited or Alan Smithee-type roles). Instead, it more often is related to TV guest spots. I'm not going to question if Carrie Fisher was in Star Wars since I know exactly where to look, but I would have an extreme problem of verifying her guest on Laverne and Shirley, because I'd have to scour every episode to find that credit. One aspect of WP:V is making sure to narrow down where one can verify something if the work is too large to review easily (eg chapter or page number for a book reference), so we'd need that for these TV spots. And because IMDB is user-generated, even if there are paid-for people vetting them, it still prone to error. --Masem (t) 06:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Except properly formatted Filmographies are supposed to list the episode title for guest stints, so if it's done properly, you'd only need to find the specific episode of Laverne & Shirley listed, and check the credits for that episode... The only place this really becomes an issue is for recurring cast of TV series, as there are too many episodes to list individually for those, and the actor won't be listed in the main credits of the TV show – however, even with recurring cast, the seasons that the actor appeared in as a recurring cast member should be listed in the Filmography which would help narrow down where to look to verify for that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Technically, yes, such guest roles should be id'd by episode name, episode number, and season. Most aren't to start. But even when they are, most episodes do not have stand-alone articles (blue-linked) so these should still have a proper ref even if citing the primary source (a properly cited ref to the episode). IMDB still doesn't work for this. --Masem (t) 20:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't cite IMDb It's USERG, and, for what it's worth, if we can implicitly cite films and TV shows themselves as sources for the plot summaries, isn't it, if anything, less unbecoming to implicitly cite the film/TV opening/closing credits for this or that person having worked in this or that capacity on the work? The only case I can think of where that would be a bigger problem than using the works themselves for fictional information is cases of homonymy, and honestly in those cases IMDb is at least as likely to get it wrong as we are. I mean, ideally, we would have professionally published secondary sources written by experts in the field for most of this information, but the films themselves are at least as good as IMDb. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • What about AllMovie.com. I'm pretty sure that its sister site AllMusic is consider RS. Should we start recommending AllMovies over IMDB for stuff like this? --Jayron32 15:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • There is also [1]] - Behind the Voice Actors. The screenshots are verified through green checks next to the person's role. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. IMDb is particularly a disaster about upcoming/future film and TV projects, but even the entries for older releases are subject to fraud and manipulation by unscrupulous submissions to the IMDb/database. FWIW, I don't necessarily agree that Filmographies must be sourced to secondary sources (though it's certainly preferable if they are...) – credits for released films and TV series would actually serve as legitimate primary sources for that. So that's really more of an issue ITN editors to work out... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The Film project's stance was recently clarified at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#IMDb_citations. Basically the IMDB is a WP:TERTIARY source and it is only reliable as a source for content that has come directly from another reliable source. WP:CITEIMDB briefly covers this (for WGA credits and MPAA ratings) but you can find a full list of its partners at IMDb Partners. All other content on the main IMDB site is user-submitted and the IMDB should not be used as a source for user-submitted content. It is probably accurate in most cases but it does not have a reliable error checking procedure. Indeed, it is so frustrating getting corrections into IMDB that one sometimes wonders how anything gets into it all! Betty Logan (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Dear god no - I'd rather add a CN tag than use IMDB as a source!, IMDB should never be added as a source anywhere because A) It's user-submitted which in essence is like our site, and B) It's prone to vandalism and I even come across one that was a BLPVIO and is something that would've without a doubt been revdelled here so no we shouldn't touch that site with a 10ft barge pole!. –Davey2010Talk 21:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't cite IMDb. You can use primary sources and "cite AV media" or "cite episode" if you see the actor's name and role appearing in the closing credits. Secondary sources would be better. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Unreliable for example the Vicky Kadian bio and 35 cast entries are completely false as he has never had a named role and was banned from Wikipedia for faking an autobio and he still pops up every week or so as an iphopper or new account adding bunches of fake cast entrys. IMDB were made aware 2 months ago and have done nothing. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment to WP:ALSO regarding vital article permissibly

I'd like to propose vital articles should be excepted from style rules limitations on the rationale of promoting convenient navigation to and from exceptional articles. Currently they state: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." This generally implies there is no comparative example, and I'd like vital articles to be this comparative standard in order to define the rule's specific meaning. For example, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes with the exception of any vital articles." My Wiki work mostly revolves around overseeing these particular articles and I would much appreciate their universal accessibility -- it would, I feel, be beneficial if all those articles were part of a perceptibly underlying network. Additionally, regarding the potential question of the "See also" section's validity, I would urge consideration of different site browsing styles meaning some users are drawn to the easy nature of this section and use it widely. Thanks. - Thrif (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose I don't see any value in listing River in the see also section on the Yangtze article, or anything similar. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's pointless to list common words like China and River, whether in the See also section or not. See WP:OVERLINK. -Zanhe (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose see also sections should be avoided as much as possible. Navigation templates could include related links. But many vital article titles are so well known that they do not need to be linked. A link in an article should do for some use, and often then that will do. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Aside from anything else, WP:VITAL is a totally arbitrary list made up by the half-dozen people who run it; the article that's "vital" to any given reader is the article about whatever topic they're looking for, not the article a self-appointed clique feel is more important than the article about whatever topic they're looking for. ‑ Iridescent 19:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: That list is massive. Level Five alone intends to have fifty thousand articles. You say your concern is that you want an "underlying network" but that underlying network exists, and it's inherent to the Wiki format My other concern is that the articles subject don't always warrant a "See Also" to an vital article. If someone just met Mohammad Ali in passing, than it would be inappropriate to create a "See Also" link to them. --Deathawk (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose If those words are already in the article there is nothing to prevent a reader from clicking on the link at that spot. Scrolling back to it takes but a moment. The "search wikipedia" box is also always available. MarnetteD|Talk 06:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent user interface change discussion

Hello ... Is this the right place to talk about the recent user interface change which puts pop-ups on the screen when you hover over a wiki link? Regards, Jonathan. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Johanathan. You're referring to the semi-new Page Previews feature (also known as Hovercards). These Village Pump pages are the central location for discussing issues that broadly affect Wikipedia, like Page Previews. If this becomes an extended discussion, and depending on the exact issue, the discussion might shift to a different location. But it's fine to start the discussion here.
Tip: You might want to click Create account at the top of the page. Creating an account is not required, but it makes it easier for us to talk to you and it can make things easier for you as well. Alsee (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reply. I just wanted to register how awful a change I think it is. I respect and commend the utility of the feature; my comments are solely about forcing it on people. Some of us specifically like the Wikipedia interface for its simplicity and lack of movement. An 80-year-old user I know specifically complains about "all that moving stuff" which prevents her using many sites. I agree there is a difficulty in letting people know about the feature, but -- while respecting how hard people must have worked on it -- I think there are other ways to bring it to people's attention which would be adequate and less disruptive. Thanks for reading. Kind regards, Jonathan. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
You may be interested in following the discussion at phab:T91201 and mw:Page_Previews/preferences. — xaosflux Talk 14:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
"I think there are other ways to bring it to people's attention which would be adequate and less disruptive." Well, some examples of other ways would be nice.... Because I have trouble coming up with alternative ideas. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Jonathan. Are you seeing this feature on the English Wikipedia or another Wikipedia? The Page Preview feature is not currently deployed to English Wikipedia, but there is currently an A/B test running. A small set of users may see the feature. If you are seeing the feature as part of the test you can opt-out by clicking the gear in the Page Preview. I've passed along your feedback to the product team. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

In April of 2016 there was a Proposal: Enable Hovercards by default. The closing result is phrased as "no consensus" for activating Hovercards, however that appears to be soft phrasing for an effective "consensus against" activating Hovercards. As far as I'm aware, that is the last and only English Wikipedia community consensus on the issue. As far as I have been able to determine this feature is not active (by default) on English Wikipedia.

Jonathan, please provide more information if you are seeing this feature on English Wikipedia. I would be very interested in investigating further. If your concern is that you are seeing this feature on other language versions of Wikipedia, that is a lot more complicated. There can be some discussion of the topic here, and it is possible it could lead to raising the issue elsewhere. However the English Wikipedia Village Pump has no direct authority over decisions for other language versions of Wikipedia. Alsee (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alsee and CKoerner: Yes, this was on English Wikipedia, which I use pretty much all day (it's my default search in the browser), and I made no changes to any configuration locally. There is is a gearwheel on the popup, but it can be off the screen so you can't see it; when disabled it puts "Enable previews" at the bottom of the page after "... Cookie statement Mobile view". It doesn't appear to be controlled by a cookie (I couldn't find it) perhaps it's on the session. The following screengrab (https://pasteboard.co/H6qqxhW.png) which shows an image of Encyclopaedia Britannica inexplicably taking up about half the content area, without any additional text, and with no visible controls. Thanks for interest. Kind regards, Jonathan. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Xaosflux: thanks, will look there. Jonathan.
Hi TheDJ: Regarding other ways to publicise new features, I think something like a "January's New features, why not try them" top-banner for the first few days of a month (like "Wikivoyage is celebrating 5 years" banner, see https://pasteboard.co/H6qAuxq.png) might be a good idea; it tells everything, without the issues I was critical of. If you click on it, you will find changes, if you don't, you won't. It appears in a predictable place with predictable controls. There would be no surprises or unintelligible user-interface issues. What do you think? Kind regards, Jonathan 82.69.229.22 (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Jonathan, Yep, it looks like you are seeing the A/B test. I see the issue you mentioned. Again, I'll pass it along to the product team. I've created a task for the team to look at. Good feedback. Thank you.
I'd like to shamelessly mention Tech News, a weekly newsletter contributors and foundation staff publish about tech changes. You can subscribe via a few different methods. Might be something you'd be interested in. Cheers. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:TPO clarification

[2][3][4]

This is another case where there appears to be a disconnect from talk space guidelines. WP:TPO says that trolling may be removed, but this was not trolling. The IP's intent was to criticize the neutrality of an entire article, not to evoke a negative reaction, as far as can be discerned without mind-reading.

Does this otherwise fall into the "harmful posts" category (TPO bullet 3)? I don't see the harm, and the collapse probably would have been enough to prevent responses to the comment.

If this is considered a legitimate removal case, TPO needs to be updated to bring it in line with common practice. Otherwise, shouldn't we adhere to TPO, or are we all free to remove whatever posts we deem useless? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm unconcerned either way. The post wasn't particularly useful towards improving the article, and I'm not sure it matters much whether it is preserved for posterity or goes away. The current guidelines are sufficient; difference in interpretation of any guideline is going to exist, and you can't make that go away merely by adding more rules. If you disagree, and think that the post was actually useful to the purpose of Wikipedia, perhaps starting a meta-discussion and hold a vote to restore it. That sounds like a phenomenal waste of time and energy to me, but you're free to. But no, rules don't need to be ammended because there will always be disagreements over how rules are to be interpreted; it's an endless fools errand to chase down every edge case and demand that rules be rewritten every time there's a disagreement over an odd case. Hard cases make bad law. --Jayron32 18:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The IP posted and I quote "This article in itself seems racist, and ignorant. It seems to take a stab at calling our president racist, which is completely untrue. How original btw!" .... You Mandruss closed this as "Article talk pages are for improving articles, not attacking them" ...
So please enlighten every person here what part of that IPs comment is helping to improve the article ? ..... The comment IMHO was an attack (and you yourself stated this in the close) and so warranted removal,
Might I suggest you go and do something actually productive instead of continuously arguing over TPO ... it's rather sad. –Davey2010Talk 21:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I reiterate the point I made in the earlier discussion. NOTFORUM vios, for example, are not "helping to improve the article", and they generally are collapsed rather than removed. The criterion for removal, therefore, is not solely whether the comment is helping to improve the article.
Please try to moderate your imperious and condescending tone especially when addressing established editors. This editor does not need schooling on the importance of contribution to articles, and I think you're aware of that. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Attacks aren't collapsed - They're removed (and I will go as far as to say some are revdelled), Point is those sorts of comments aren't helpful and as the article is edited by millions a month I doubt the article could be racial etc .... It's an attack and wholly deserves removal. –Davey2010Talk 21:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Well I admit it's been a while since I've do that much in article talk pages, from the little I've seen I don't think things have changed that much. Off-topic commentary is often hatted. But sometimes they are simply deleted when it's a clear cut case and it's the main post itself which is the problem. This tends to happen more in active talk pages where you get a lot of the NOTFORUM stuff. TPO already seems to deal with this well enough, notably while it refers to hatting that part is primarily referring to where there is a on-topic discussion and part of it goes off-topic rather than where the first post is off-topic. Remember one advantage with hatting is that while the discussion may be off-topic in some rare instances it may still be useful in a general sense. Also it may have been referred to by other participants. Finally it's easier for others to assess if the case was more borderline. None of this applies to the random comments people sometimes leave on article talk pages which are sometimes simply deleted. I don't see any real reason we need to add more complexity about when we should or should not delete off-topic commentary. And most complaints I've seen about the deletion of off-topic commentary have not been cases of "I think this material although off-topic is useful and so should not have been deleted" but rather, "I don't think this is supported by policy so it shouldn't have been done", which to me means to me it's not that important to deal with. In this particular case, I do agree with the comments below. While it's very unlikely the comment will be useful, since it was referring to the article it wasn't off-topic so was probably best left as is. Nil Einne (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The IP was referring to the overall tone of the article, so I don't see how that is an attack or trolling in any way. It can't be a violation of FORUM because he was talking about the article directly, not just the subject matter generally. It wasn't particularly helpful by itself, but it could have started a discussion on what was not neutral about the article. I would not have deleted it and would support restoring it. Polite criticism of an article's tone is absolutely what the talk page is for. I don't see a need to modify policy, btw. I can't help but wonder if that comment had been posted by a long time editor rather than an IP, if someone would still have removed it. The IP was trying to improve the article....by discussing the shortcomings in the exact place he should have been, the article talk page. Again, this is perfectly acceptable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    • How about impolite criticism? How original btw! doesn’t strike me as “polite,” and I fail to see how flatly denying the claims of many sources (calling our president racist […] is completely untrue) is germane. I don’t think being in denial is a NOTFORUM vio, though. The comment wasn’t completely without merit; the article might as well be titled Donald Trump is racist, which (regardless of whether one agrees) would clearly be an unacceptable attack article. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
      • If this thread is limited to discussion of one narrow case, and it has no effect except maybe on some of the very few editors who read it, I agree that it is largely a waste of time and all of us should "go and do something actually productive". Nobody is going to cite this discussion to resolve future such issues, and it would have very little weight if they did. But that was not my intent here. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    Well, the point is that you've brought up a specific dispute which your using to ammend a general policy. You've not established that this one dispute is representative of a widespread problem that policy needs to be addressed. With one dispute like this, one side or the other is interpreting the policy wrong; OR neither side may be and this is an edge case for which WP:IAR was intended to deal with. Either way, one single odd case is not a sign that policy needs changing. --Jayron32 16:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Granted, it wasn't as polite as I like, but considering the average tone of discussions about politics, I wouldn't have blinked an eye at a little sarcasm. If that is the most offensive thing that hits that page this week, I would call that a great week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to note I've restored the comment pretty much per Dennis Brown - We all percieve things differently but for me if Dennis says it's not an attack then it's not an attack, Anyway reinstated the comment, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Contradictory guidelines about "See also" section: repeat navbox links or not?

Guideline 1 below advises that highly relevant links in a navbox should not be repeated in the "See also" section, whereas guideline 2 below implies that highly relevant links in a navbox should be repeated in the "See also" section (if they are not already in the article's body):

  1. MOS:NOTSEEALSO and MOS:NAVLIST both advise: "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Similarly, WP:NAVBOX lists as one of the guidelines for good navigation templates: "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles."
  2. But, a couple of paragraphs later in WP:NAVBOX, we are advised: "Do not rely solely on navboxes for links to articles highly relevant to a particular article. Navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia which accounts for around half of readers."

Is this apparent contradiction between guidelines a problem that needs to be fixed? If not, I will continue following guideline 1 above as I always have.

There has already been some discussion of this issue, but nothing that fixed the contradiction mentioned above. These are the major discussions that I could find:

Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't have an answer on how to resolve the issue, but I believe that the text of (1) above has been functionally in Wikipedia's guidelines for at least 10 years if not more; that may explain the contradiction as this would have predated the mobile version of Wikipedia by some many years; the later addition to deal with the lack of navboxes in the mobile version may have not thought to change the earlier guidance. --Jayron32 03:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no contradiction that needs to be fixed. Links to articles highly relevant to a particular article should not be in the See Also section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Either you just made an ironic joke or I'm not correctly understanding what you're trying to say, because as I read it, your second sentence above contradicts your first sentence, since the first sentence says there is no contradiction that needs to be fixed, and the second sentence seems to advocate in favor of guideline 1 above ("the 'See also' section should not repeat links" in navboxes) and against guideline 2 above ("Do not rely solely on navboxes for links" but rather put relevant links in the "See also" section for mobile users), which implies fixing the contradiction between guidelines 1 and 2 in favor of guideline 1. Biogeographist (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Sounds like the problem is with the mobile version. How about fixing it to show the actual wikipedia instead of some cut down extract thereof? --Khajidha (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I support the idea of Khajidha. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Khajidha's suggestion would certainly fix the aforementioned contradiction, but I imagine that there may be technical or other obstacles to that fix? Biogeographist (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I want to make sure I understand the underlying issue... the older guidance was intended to limit overlinking. The idea was that if an article already contained a link to another article (whether in the main text or in a navbox), then there was no need to link to that other article again in the "see also" section. However, this instruction seems to have caused a problem when it comes to the mobile view, because mobile view does not display navboxes. This means that a reader will not see a link that is in a navbox (but not in the main text). So... to account for this, the newer instruction was written to tell editors not to rely on navbox links, and to repeat the link in the "see also" section. Is this an accurate summary of the issue? Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Blueboar: Yes, it seems to me that you understand the issue perfectly. I think you are also right to point out that the practical effect of guideline 1 above is to minimize the number of links in the "See also" section, whereas the practical effect of guideline 2 above is to increase the number of links in the "See also" section. Biogeographist (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
OK... then perhaps we can narrow down the issue... can we agree that the guidance to not repeat links that are in the article TEXT is fine (for both desktop and mobile versions)... and that the potential conflict is purely with links that are ONLY in a navbox?
If so... I think it would be helpful to know WHY the developers of the mobile view decided to NOT include navboxes (we need to understand that decision in order to decide which guidance is best). Does anyone know? Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Nope. I don't even care why they did it. Either a mobile device has the ability to display the entirety of wikipedia (in which case it should do that) or it doesn't (in which case it shouldn't be used to view wikipedia). --Khajidha (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia administrator Mark Hetherington said in a 2016 Quora post titled "Why are Navboxes (navigation templates) not displayed on Wikipedia's mobile website?" that navboxes were excluded from mobile view because they "can't be reliably restyled for mobile", but as I read it, his post also suggests that exclusion of navboxes from mobile view may be a temporary kludge until the code of templates such as navboxes is updated to be compatible with responsive web design, which implies that guideline 2 above addresses a situation that may be temporary. Biogeographist (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah... then perhaps the solution is for our guidance to note that it IS a temporary fix... effectively saying: “because navboxes currently don’t appear in mobile view, we must TEMPORARILY add navbox only links (ie those that appear in navboxes but not in the main text) to the “see also” section. These should be removed once the developers figure out how to incorporate navboxes into mobile view.” Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Why? The onus should be on mobile device designers to make sure that the devices can handle this site, not on us to fit their capabilities. --Khajidha (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
It isn't. Mobile device designers are not going to design around accomodating a single website (and who will ask them, anyway? We only have control over us). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
(I wrote this before seeing Jo-Jo Eumerus's comment but I will post it even though it repeats the point of that comment:) I don't think the reasoning in Khajidha's last comment is quite right: the most relevant actors here are not "mobile device designers" but rather web standards developers. And I imagine that in general the adaptation mostly happens in the other direction: the developers of MediaWiki and Wikipedia try to adapt to web standards (most notably, in this case, standards for responsive web design), and not vice versa, since the developers of MediaWiki and Wikipedia have little influence on web standards.
A problem that I see with Blueboar's suggestion (that editors temporarily add links to the "See also" section only to remove them later when navboxes are added to mobile view) is that it doubles the effort required of editors: first they have to figure out which links to add to the "See also" section, and then later they have to figure out which links to remove. A consistent (not temporary) guideline would be a much more efficient use of editors' time and brainpower. Biogeographist (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
My mobile device can be set to "desktop site" allowing me to do anything that I can do here on my laptop computer. Is this not a common feature of mobile devices? And, if it is, why don't people just use that and not have to worry about what the mobile version can or can't do?--Khajidha (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Khajidha: In your first comment above you seemed to propose fixing the mobile version of Wikipedia, and later I pointed out that Mark Hetherington's Quora post suggested that might happen in the future; in your last comment you seemed to imply that readers should abandon the mobile version in favor of the desktop version, but I don't see any evidence that will happen in the future. What I really want to know is what editors should be doing about "See also" links: following guideline 1 or 2 above, or doing something else? Biogeographist (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd say follow the "do not duplicate" guidance as the effect on mobile devices is not our problem.--Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The updating of the code for the viewing of templates on mobile seems a priority, if the code can be fixed (the templates are maps of the site for the main topic, and are valuable additions to anyone viewing them, desktop or mobile). Until then some links should be allowed on See also. Not every link in a navbox template can be listed in See also, for space and formatting consideration, but should rather be judged on a case by case basis (some links good, overlinking not so much). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is my opinion, which may be controversial but I feel quite strongly about this. I am an administrator with 50,000 edits in many areas of this encyclopedia. I complete at least 95% of my editing on Android smartphones and I always use the fully functional desktop site with very few problems. Yes, I have tried the mobile site from time to time over the years, and have consistently found it vastly inferior to the desktop site on a smartphone. The desktop site works exactly like a miniature desktop computer on my Android smartphone. People have said I must have unusually good vision. That is baloney. I have amblyopia, cataracts, glaucoma and vitreal detachment. Despite my vision problems, I find it very easy to edit Wikipedia using the desktop site on an Android smartphone. So, my recommendation is to rename the desktop site to the "fully functional site" and shut down the inadequate mobile site. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the "mobile view" is not very useful. I also usually switch to the so-called "desktop view." The mobile format is unnecessary and archaic, as these days most mobile devices can deal with fully functional web sites. I wouldn't waste resources on it. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm partially with Cullen328 on this; when it first started, the mobile site was a Good Idea, as mobile devices were of lesser power, and a "dumbed down" site was needed to work and display properly on mobile phones at the time. I never use the mobile site on my last two phones because modern equipment and internet strength have evolved to make the desktop site work fine. I don't oppose the existence of the mobile site for people who genuinely prefer it, but I hate that I frequently have to override Wikipedia's default when editing from my phone. --Jayron32 13:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has responded so far. I don't see a consensus here that would lead me to change my editing behavior, much less lead to a change in the existing guidelines, but I will keep all of these perspectives in mind during my editorial decision making. We will see what the future brings regarding the limitations of Wikipedia's mobile view. The predominant opinion here seems to be that the lack of navboxes in mobile view is a problem that should be fixed in one of various ways. Biogeographist (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure if this conversation is still open, but why not technically change navboxes so they can be displayed on mobile? This is already the case for Dutch Wikipedia. Also WP:NOTSEEALSO should be amended as mobile readers aren't exactly a minority. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 09:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: One answer to your question "why not technically change navboxes so they can be displayed on mobile?" is in the Quora post by Mark Hetherington cited above. Regarding amendment of WP:NOTSEEALSO, it would not be necessary if/when navboxes are added to mobile view, and there does not seem to be consensus for such a change otherwise: see opposing opinions above and in linked discussions above (most recently at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout § "See also" section and navigation boxes). Biogeographist (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Is “(anime)” a suitable disambiguator?

There is no consensus here to override, amend, or otherwise supplement Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(television)#Series_television (which describes "(TV series)" as the default community-wide case in this situation).

While some raised WP:COMMONNAME, that typically pertains to the actual subject name. For example, if a creative work that's an "anime" TV series is actually called "Amy's Anime" (Amy's Anime (TV series)) but also has "Amy's Anime" as a movie (Amy's Anime (film)), the portion that COMMONNAME is concerned with is the Amy's Anime part; the parenthetical elements are then either covered by WP:PARENDIS or when applicable a corresponding section in a topic-specific disambig guideline.

When exceptions to the guidelines arise that fall outside Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(television)#Additional_disambiguation, local consensus can (likely) agree on how to deal with confusion (e.g., if there are 2 series, one live-action and one animated, released in the same year, etc...), as some mention for edge cases.

There's no opposition to maintaining (anime) redirects.

--slakr\ talk / 04:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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

In general, should articles about anime media use the disambiguator (anime), rather than more general ones like ([animated] TV series) or (film) or, more broadly, (franchise)? There is some disagreement over whether an earlier discussion, WP:VPP#RfC: Is "telenovela" a suitable disambiguator? (permalink), is applicable.

Sub-question: Should Wikipedia:Naming conventions (anime) be created? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

(anime) responses

  • Oppose (as nom). I agree with the participants of that earlier discussion, where this was only brought up as an example of what not to do: Why are these exceptions just because they originate in non-English countries/languages? The argument that this is a "format" vs a genre is flawed as no one can define this "format" in a way that doesn't also fit other (TV series) unless you bring up language, storyline types, or run length - all of which could apply to any other TV series. None of these is sufficient. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose only anime people think anime is more recognizable than having "tv series" in the name, which is what used in more general sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    • As I said before, this information contradicts that (WP:COMMONNAME per WP:RS): [5], [6]. I have seen other sources use "Anime television series" as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
      What's NGRAMMING anime and tv series to each other go to do with anything? (television show is much more used than anime btw). I'm talking about when referring to these animes, TV series and variants (tv show, television series) etc are used more in more general sources than anime. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
      Anime doesn't just cover television series so when referring to x work more sources either use Anime, Anime TV series, Movie, or OVA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
      TV series are (TV series). The rest are (film). -- Netoholic @ 06:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
      We have TV series articles which are about more than just TV series. This is normal when spinoff movies, novelizations, comics, etc. aren’t notable enough for their own articles. The primary subject is still the subject of the article. When it’s an overview article for a media franchise, we use “franchise.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
      This COMMONNAME argument fails if you realize that almost all TV series are described by their genre, in the general public. Survivor is a reality show, General Hospital is a soap opera, etc. Article disambiguation is more about WP:CONSISTENCY, which is why we generalize to use (TV series), (film), etc. -- Netoholic @ 06:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose/No (anime) as a disambiguator should be deprecated. We should not use a specialized word that vaguely defines a particular genre from a single country. Those anime that aired on TV or are release on home media exclusively and arranged as a television series into seasons/episodes should use (TV series). Those that are single productions (aka short films, films, most OVA, etc.) should use (film). For this reason, there is no need for a new/additional naming convention, as all disambiguation within the anime/manga genre can be covered in existing naming conventions. MOS:ANIME can just summarize this on for convenience while linking to the fuller NCs. -- Netoholic @ 06:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding using "(film)" for OVAs: No. They are not films. They are always direct to video releases, and many are serials (meaning they are released in multiple parts). They should not ever be disambiguated as "(film)". In the same vein, they are not TV series, either, as they are never aired on TV as their first release. Disambiguating them as "(TV series)" when they are not TV series would only confuse people, in addition to being flat out incorrect. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    • How is a direct to video release of a serial anime any different to a production like The Crown or The Man in the High Castle, only released online by a streaming service? Those shows have not been produced/released as broadcast TV series either, but there's no confusion around calling them TV series.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
      • To echo this, a home media release (just like a streaming service) is designed primarily to be viewed on a television - that's why "TV series" is used to describe them. Even when there are potentially other viewing options, such as on a phone or tablet or PC. -- Netoholic @ 10:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
        • However, a TV series is a series that originally aired on TV. Go to any reliable source and that's what it will say. See my comment above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
          • @Nihonjoe: Netflix’s House of Cards did not air on TV. We still dab it as a TV series. Same for the others Netoholic mentioned.
            @Netoholic: The problem I find with applying the same logic to home video releases is the lack of anything analogous to a TV network. With VOD or streaming, that role is filled by Hulu or Amazon Prime or whatever provider. It’s definitely more of a stretch when the primary release is on physical media that you have to get into your house before you can watch it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    • WP:NCTV also supports the use of (serial), if that's more appropriate. -- Netoholic @ 10:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
      • That may work for OVAs that have more than one episode. It won't work for singles. Again, any reliable source will refer to them as either a video series or an OVA, so per WP:V, that's what we need to call them. Using "(film)" or "(TV series)" will only confuse people as no reliable sources anywhere will refer to them that way. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
        • A TV series is something viewed on a television screen not broadcast on a television channel - that's why direct-to-video and streaming-only shows are treated as such; all episodic anime would fall into that group. "Film" can naturally apply to any media that isn't a series. That necessarily includes any animes that are not over multiple episodes. WP:V is primarily about article content, not article naming. Furthermore, reliable sources will call the Witchblade produced in 2006 "anime", they will not ever refer to it as "Witchblade (anime)" - just "Witchblade". The addition (anime) is an artificial construct backed up by zero sources, it is only used out of necessity due to the way Wikipedia works - the same would be true of any other term.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Using your logic, watching the Star Trek film series on a TV would make it a TV series. I would be fine using "(series)" for OVA series, and using "(film)" for any standalone OVA would also be fine. I absolutely oppose using "(TV series)" for any OVA as that makes no logical sense. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
            • At the time of release, it was not possible to watch any (let alone all) of the Star Trek movies on a television screen. But here’s a converse that actually happened: The Day of the Doctor, a Doctor Who television episode that was simulcast in movie theaters, could be considered a film under this logic, even though it’s primarily a TV episode. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
              • Yes, but disambiguating it as "The Day of the Doctor (TV series)" wouldn't make any sense. Since it's a TV film, it would be "The Day of the Doctor (film)" (if this title needed disambiguating at all). As for your argument regarding the Star Trek films, my point still stands. Nilfanion stated that a "TV series is something viewed on a television screen not broadcast on a television channel". Technically, his argument is also invalid, since anything broadcast on a TV channel is also something which is (or can be) viewed on a TV screen. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
                • Why “film”? It’s a TV episode (so use “TV episode”). My whole point was that calling it a “film” falls into the same flawed logic as calling a home-video serial a TV series. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
        • If an OVA is only one "episode", then its a (film) - regardless of length ie, short film, feature length, or epic all use (film). -- Netoholic @ 20:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Oh, did you not read what I wrote above? Let me help you: I would be fine using "(series)" for OVA series, and using "(film)" for any standalone OVA would also be fine. Stop beating a dead horse. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
            • How is this putative OVA series any different from this series? All the installments of that series are films. --Khajidha (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
              • @Khajidha: That series is one theatrical film and a bunch of direct-to-video films. Calling them all films is fine. That's what all the reliable sources say they are. I'm saying to use what reliable sources use to disambiguate them. If the sources call them "films", that's fine. If they call them "OVAs", then use that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
                • OVAs are defined as direct to video films. --Khajidha (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
                  • Just noting that foreign-language RSes are useless for en.wiki disambig purposes, and most of the English-language "reliable sources" that shun "direct-to-video film", "straight-to-DVD movie", "video movie", "DVD film" and everything in between in favour of "OVA" are generally questionable-at-best fan sources written by authors who (apparently?) don't realize that "original video animation" is wasei-eigo and is ungrammatical in regular English. "Animation" is not a countable noun. My students (in a Japanese junior high school) might think you can say "animations" in English, but native speakers would overwhelmingly (as in 99.999%) prefer "animated films". I have never seen a self-reflective piece on ANN or similar sites that actually addressed this problem; I have seen self-published YouTube videos by anime fans (which by any objective measure are just as good for Wikipedia purposes as ANN articles, honestly, but I know that notion is not popular) that make such cases, but tend to be dismissed as "trolls". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
            • Or how is it different from this series? Which is described as a TV series. --Khajidha (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Netoholic. As noted the need for consistency is the primary factor in choice of disambiguator, not the common name. I see no reason to have "anime" when "TV series" and "film" are perfectly adequate. That's no different to always using "video game" over "arcade game" and "computer game" (which strictly speaking are more accurate for games that have only ever been in those formats).--Nilfanion (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    • So you are willing to forgo truth and accuracy over consistency? There is a reason why Common name is a policy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgekid87 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
      • We already do that for the "TV" shows I mention above, along with any other original production for a streaming service. A direct-to-video series is still a TV series. WP:COMMONNAME is not about the choice of disambiguator, it is about the primary title itself - as in the bit before the parentheses. With other classes of video productions its unusual to use "TV series", you'd more commonly refer to it using a genre-based label "soap opera" or "drama" or whatever. For consistency we don't use those more common descriptions, preferring the overall "TV series". That also reduces arguments about edge-cases, like an anime version of Who Framed Roger Rabbit.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
      • WP:COMMONNAME rules for the main, undisambiguated, part of the title because that is what the real world refers to it as. WP:CONSISTENCY rules the disambiguator because that is how Wikipedia internally handles duplicate articles for technical reasons. -- Netoholic @ 10:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Netoholic. And the general public just refers to these things as cartoons, specifying "Japanese cartoons" if they feel the need for clarification.--Khajidha (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep dabs per WP:NCCDAB & WP:ATDAB as outlined in the arguments presented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles#Parenthetical disambiguators. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons that Netoholic gives. The desire to use anime in the title seems almost to be a fancruft thing, as indeed is the content at many of those articles. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep dabs Most of the (anime) articles could be converted to (TV series) in titles, however redirects will still need to be preserved for (anime) as these have been proven to be useful search terms. WP:RFD#KEEP #3 (aid searches on certain terms), and #5 (Someone finds them useful). People will want to look up Pokemon (anime) or Pokemon anime even if it goes to Pokemon (TV series). Further disambiguations may be necessary such as with Aladdin (animated TV series) and Aladdin (Indian TV series). Direct-to-video titles may have to dab to (series), (film series), (video series), (web series), but they should not be called TV series if they aren't released as such in their primary market. It also means more "redirects here" hatnotes. Example Witchblade (TV series) currently points to the TNT series aired in 2001-02 while Witchblade (anime) points to the anime series aired in 2006. If you want to make Witchblade (2001 TV series) and Witchblade (2006 TV series), that's fine, but then the hatnotes will have to say "this is the live-action version, for the anime see 2006" and "this is the anime version, for the live-action one see 2001". With (anime) the second hatnote is not necessary as the title as well as the lead paragraph already describe it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    1) There's lots of non-standard disambigs that make good search redirects, I don't see how that affects anything here. 2) Why would you use "anime" instead of "animated" to contrast with "live-action"? --Khajidha (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    In the case of Witchblade, it was originally an American comic book series, so if someone saw "this is about the animated TV series", they might think there is an American comic book cartoon, so then you'd have to specify "Japanese-animated" and then you'd might as well use anime. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    That isn't something that needs to be clarified in the disambiguation, that's what the article text is for. There's probably all sorts of misunderstandings that could be taken from just reading disambigs without reading the articles, but that isn't something we really need to worry about. --Khajidha (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    What is wrong with using a disambiguation that is used by a majority of sources, and is easily identifiable? There is a need to clarify as in some cases you are talking about oranges versus apples. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    It isn't easily identifiable to most readers. And I question whether it is used in the majority of sources about animation in general or TV/films/video in general or just in anime-centric sources. It is jargon and (at best) only borderline English. And your "apples and oranges" comment seems misplaced as you are proposing the use of "OVA" as a disambig to separate one Japanese cartoon from another, which would be a "types of apples" thing. --Khajidha (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    It's something to worry about for the disambiguation page entry and the hatnote, as it would greatly facilitate the searcher who is trying to figure out how to select their desired show. See Peyton List, with two actresses whose birth years can get confused. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Per pretty much everyone. Note that this does not in any way impede the creations of (anime) redirects. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No Disambiguate by form of media, not genre. (TV series) or (film) is sufficient. --Jayron32 19:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I've notified WP:DAB AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As for the second question of whether we need Naming Conventions for anime, that depends on whether MOS:ANIME is good enough to indicate naming conventions. If it's not, then let's get some created. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    • To my mind, no, an MOS page should not be able to override NC pages. I’m not sure what the consensus view on this is. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
      • WP:NCTV, WP:NCFILM, MOS:ANIME, and MOS:JAPAN are all guidelines, so they have equal authority as far as that goes. They each apply to specific areas (or groupings) of articles. It may be good to form a group that creates a WP:NCANIME or WP:NCJAPAN, even if they just point to already existing guidelines. Having them would avoid kerfuffles such as this one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
        • @Nihonjoe: To my mind, an NC page is an authority (inasmuch as a guideline can be an authority) on how to decide a title, and an MOS page is an authority on presenting an article’s content. They should never conflict, because they have entirely different scopes. If someone decides that the titles of, I don’t know, Greek restaurants need special consideration, that belongs in WP:NCRESTAURANT, not MOS:TAVERNA. If we can’t drum up support to get it in the NC page, clearly we don’t have consensus to insist on its use. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: DABs must always be as general as possible. (film) or (TV series) are thus prefereable DABs, followed by (animated film)/(Japanese film) and (animated TV series)/(Japanese TV series) ... (1967 animated Japanese film) ... (anime) would be appropriate in only the edgiest of edge cases. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    @Curly Turkey: Are you thinking of a specific article with (1967 animated Japanese film)? I can't imagine any article where four parenthetical disambiguators would be preferable to simply using the native title, especially when most anime from the 1960s are really only known in English-speaking countries to specialists and fans who would be more likely than the general public to know the Japanese title, like we did back in 2013. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
    No, that was just an off-the-cuff example for something that might need some ridiculous amount of disambiguation. Imagine there were both an animated and non-animated Black Jack film in Japan in the same year that there were a British film called Black Jack—not likely, but ありえる with such a generic-sounding title. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - What bothers me here is the "I think it fits..." type of responses here. Wikipedia is not a place for original research, we should be following what the reliable sources say rather than try to label and define what anime is and should be labeled under. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Knowledgekid87: anime is animation (and in fact is short for animation). Claiming otherwise doesn't even amount to WP:OR—it's counterfactual. We thus default to (animation). Give us a concrete example of when (anime) would be required when when have (animation) and (Japanese animation) to fall back on. Without resorting to OR, please. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
      Oh geez, let's not argue about defining anime by the Japanese definition, otherwise you'll get The Simpsons as anime. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
      AngusWOOF: "animation" is English, and the jargon anime is animation. Thus we use (animation) and not (anime). Nobody has "argue[d] about defining anime by the Japanese definition"—we've argued not to use jargon when plain English does a better job. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
      No, in English Anime is strictly referred to as Japanese animation. There is no jargon here if the term is widely known which it is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
      Knowledgekid87: it's not anywhere near as widely known as you'd like, and regardless, DABs are required to be as general as possible, and all anime is animation—"animation" takes precedence over "anime" regardless of whether it's "jargon" (which it is). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
      @Curly Turkey: Anime, like karaoke and kamikaze, is widely accepted as an ordinary English word. Check your dictionary of choice; mine defines it as a style of Japanese animation. So it’s not a question of jargon; it’s a question of whether we otherwise disambiguate based on filming/animation style. As far as I know, we do not. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
      I have no idea what you're trying to get at. Whether it's in the dictionary is irrelevant—most words in the dictionary are unknown to most people. Anime does not have anywhere near the recognition amongst average people that karaoke and kamikaze do, but that's also utterly irrelevant—all anime, without exception, is animation, and DABs mmust be general—(film) takes precedence over (documentary), for instance, and (animation)/(animated), of course, takes precedence over any genre or style of animation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
      Agreed, absolutely; I only disagreed with one of your premises, not your conclusion. You’d never see something like Home Movies (squigglevision). At least, I hope not. If I do, I’m giving up on Wikipedia. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
      We shouldn't have (animation) or (cartoon) as a disambiguator either if it can be relegated to TV series or film series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – We should not disambiguate TV programming by genre in all but exceptional cases. As redirects is fine. But the base articles should reside at disambiguation using "(TV series)" not by "(anime)". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We should not be disambiguating by genre unless all other disambiguation options are exhausted. --woodensuperman 16:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, as far as I know in Japan foreign cartoons are also called "Anime" and would this change also mean that something from South Korea becomes an "Animaesyon"? "TV series" works fine. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 09:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

What about OVAs?

A large part of the pro-“anime” rationale is that OVAs, released directly to physical media (VHS, DVD, BD), are not rightly TV series, although they are often episodic. If (anime) is discouraged, how should these be disambiguated? (OVA)? (DVD series)? Something else? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I already addressed this above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
You would use an unqualified (series)? Then how would we disambiguate it from a related series that aired on TV? I would go for (serial), as mentioned in the same thread I think you’re referring to. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Using (serial) would be fine, though it's more of a poe-tay-toe/poe-tah-toe thing from my view. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind is that this whole discussion actually affects very few articles. Anime usually have very distinct names which help avoid the need to disambiguation. Mostly, you're just disambiguating between the original manga and its adaptations. Non-Japanese direct-to-video animation has this same issue (see Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (film)) and if we can use existing naming conventions for those productions to solve the problem, so can we use them for anime.
  • If arranged using the season-episode paradigm, use (TV series). Home media is designed for television, its just a different medium of delivery. The same goes for ONAs (web series).
  • If its a single production, use (film). This is true regardless of run-time (short films are films too), and even if the film is split into parts due to the format.
  • (miniseries)/(serial) is also available if the release is a single production split into several episodes like a miniseries.
I believe all can be handled by careful consideration of existing naming conventions at WP:NCTV and WP:NCFILM. -- Netoholic @ 23:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
This. So much this. --Khajidha (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm neutral on the main RFC question, but this side-question struck me as a bit of a non sequitur since, in reality, hardly anyone in the English-speaking world watches anime either on broadcast television or in a movie theatre, so OVAs are not formally different for said audiences (who are also the main readership of English Wikipedia) just because their original Japanese release was in a different format. Most OVAs are either (a) straight-to-video movies (which I'm pretty sure we already classify as "films" for disambig purposes -- correct me if I'm wrong) or (b) episodic television series that were meant to be viewed on a television by means of a VCR or DVD player, as opposed to via broadcast. The latter group may have been different from the rest of what we categorize as "TV series" in their original Japanese release, but are not different from regular animated Japanese TV series from the perspective of the majority of English Wikipedia's readership. And in reality, if the distinction between Japanese OVAs, Japanese animated films and Japanese animated television series is substantial enough to raise a concern, the same problem would be had by lumping them all under the "anime" label. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Would (video series) be acceptable? Video encompasses most of the formats including VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, Blu-ray, and video on demand services. (OAV), (OVA), (OAD) would still serve as useful redirects where appropriate, since that is how they are commonly known in the original media as distributed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (animated series)? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Only if “[video] series” is too ambiguous. I’m still iffy on using “series” alone to refer to anything. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure it's a good idea to tie these things to a particular medium ("video"). Twenty years from now you'll be more likely to consume these things online or as downloadable content than on a spinning platter. However they get served, they'll always be "animated". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Animation is always video, so it’s implied. By “video,” I don’t mean a physical medium; I mean the medium of a sequence of still images shown in rapid succession on literally any device with a screen. But if we call something a “series” (of what?) that could be a book series, a film series, a series of entrepreneurial failures, a series of potholes on a road… the word’s just unworkably broad to use as a standalone dab, IMO. “Video series” is unambiguous in cases where “animated series” is more precise than necessary. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
          • "Animation is always video"—no, "video" is not used as a disambiguator if it means "moving pictures". It should be obvious why. Or are you suggesting we move all (film)s to (video)? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
            • Films are standalone video productions. TV series are episodic video productions that air on television networks or streaming video services. ????? are episodic video productions that are not aired. Any of these may be animated or not; we don’t use “animated film” unless there’s a conflicting non-animated film, etc. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
              • So suggest we move all (film)s to (video). I could use a good laugh. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
                • It would be “video film,” actually, which would be redundant. As would “animated video film.” What dab would you suggest for a non-TV episodic video series that may or may not be animated? A series, yes, but a series of what? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
                  • Enough of this back and forth, lets just stick with "OVA" as it is a neural term. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
                    • Neutral? I consider it jargon. Just say the thing that the OVA is: a film, a video series, whatever. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
                    • OVA is overspecific jargon that will meaning nothing to most readers. Not a chance.
                      "It would be 'video film' ..."—this is headache-inducing. "Video", at the very least, is ambiguous, as to countless millions it refers to the method of delivery (videocassette, DVD, etc). "Video film" doesn't mean to most people what you'd like it to mean. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Then I ask again: What dab would you suggest for a non-TV episodic audiovisual series that may or may not be animated? A series, yes, but a series of what? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Give us a real-world example of some such series that actually needs to be DABbed before we start wringing out hands over it. We use DABs to solve actual problems, and the default is to avoid using them at all. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Following the precedent of Bibleman, it would appear that such would be categorized as television programs and described as "direct-to-video" releases. Either of these would be fine as the disambiguation. Aside from the aforementioned objection to OVA as jargon, it could even be argued that the usage of isolated English words and phrases by a Japanese company does not really fall within the limits of "use English". --Khajidha (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
How about Giant Robo (OVA)? It's a direct-to-video series, released on a not so regular schedule. It wasn't formatted for television. It's one of the old ones where it was released direct-to-video from the get go, i.e. not one of these new "web series" or on demand-released TV series like Devilman Crybaby. The main series already has a TV series. Gatchaman (OVA) would be another direct-to-video series. Again, released in the 1990s, and not associated with any new "web series" / on-demand released series. Appleseed (OVA) on the other hand could be considered more of a film as it's featured length 66 minutes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Seems like film series would apply.--Khajidha (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Afteranother look at the articles I'm not sure where you get the idea that they weren't formatted for television. Seems to the idea was to make a tv series sold directly to the consumer. --Khajidha (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose for all the reasons already given. (OVA) will be archaic, jargon, and inaccurate twenty years from now when it's no longer consumed as a series of tapes or DVDs. The physical means of delivery should not be used as a DAB, nor should specialized jargon—we have this problem with Giant Robo (tokusatsu) as well. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Please don't start going into "will be" here per WP:CRYSTAL. I said it before and I will say it again, I think we should follow the name most used in WP:RS to avoid any WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87: did you just accuse me of OR for suggesting it be called (animated series)? We do not use obscure jargon in DABs, so (OVA) is unaccaeptable no matter what irrelevant WP:ALLCAPSGUIDELINE you link to. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree It has to be classified by its original format. It's not a TV series back then, but a direct-to-video series. Interpreting it by 2018 'on demand' standards like TV series because it would have been on Netflix would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
If it wasn't a TV series back then, then just how did the producers expect the purchaser to view it? Telepathically? It was a TV series released directly to the viewer. ---Khajidha (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Khajidha: "how did the producers expect the purchaser to view it? Telepathically?": Irrelevant. We don't DAB old record albums with (LP)—the method of delivery should not be used as a DAB. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I would find a source to figure out the format rather than saying that this is x because I know it is x. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
It's released as a direct-to-video, so that's how the purchasers view it. Then at some point there's enough interest based on sales of the video, they make more videos. Like List of VeggieTales videos and The Wiggles videography. Those franchises have TV series later on, but their original series of videos are not television series. so (video series) or Giant Robo (1992 video series) would be a better disambiguator than TV series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
This would be like arguing how the Tom and Jerry film shorts should be reclassified as a TV series because newsreels on film are an obsolete media format, and that those cartoon shorts are actually episodes because they are shown as episodes in later bundles of the show for television purposes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
AngusWOOF: "... reclassified as a TV series ...": don't be absurd—I explicitly argued against DABbing by delivery format. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The claim that it's not a TV series because it was released on video first is flawed, as I discussed above. If it's viewed on a TV, then it can be reasonably called a TV series. And that's Japan; most of English Wikipedia's readership can't meaningfully distinguish between Japanese series that were originally released on video and watched on a TV and Japanese series that were originally released via broadcast and watched on a TV, since most of them are only really available on video to begin with. Or streaming, but we refer to Netflix original programming as "TV series" anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The problem with calling it a (TV series) is that then you get major confusion when there are regular TV series that follows. Like with Tenchi Muyo Ryo-Ohki which showed as 2 OVA series, followed by the "first TV series" Tenchi Universe, also referred to as Tenchi Muyo TV1 and a "second TV series" Tenchi in Tokyo, also referred to as Tenchi Muyo TV2. Now if the series did not have unique names, it would be incorrect to call Ryo-Ohki "Tenchi Muyo (1992 TV series)" or make awkward statements saying it was the third TV series overall and the second to be shown on Japanese television. At least using a disambiguator like (1992 video series) it's more helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: All titles must be fully disambiguated, though, so if there is one broadcast television series and one television series that was originally released via straight-to-video, streaming or other, unless the latter is the PRIMARYTOPIC and needs no disambiguator, we can't disambiguate the former as "(television series)", even if some Wikipedia editors and sources (sources on Japanese media written by people who don't read Japanese are not "reliable", mind) insist that the latter is not a television series for some reason. The case you describe is very specific -- how many instances could there really be when they came out the same year? The fact that your specific example doesn't need disambiguation because they all have different names is quite telling, and I don't think any really critical situations are likely to exist. If they do, then they can be dealt with case-by-case, either with a unique solution to a unique problem, or maybe even falling back on a disambiguator we are formally deprecating. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation using (OVA), even moreso than (anime) above, should be swiftly deprecated due to it being a jargon-y word used within the fandom for this specific genre and doesn't conform to how similar media in other countries is disambiguated. Existing methods on WP:NCTV and WP:NCFILM should be used, and each case will have to be looked at individually, as (TV series), (film), (serial), etc. could apply to any of them. No one, I think, is advocating for any one-size-fits-all solution, so arguments that (TV series) doesn't apply to Such-and-Such is a distraction - people just don't want this particular fandom to be an exception anymore. Once this closes, the anime wikiproject can work through them, finding the right disambiguation among the existing NCs that fits. I expect a healthy number of the most complicated ones will have to hit the WP:RM process. That's fine. -- Netoholic @ 21:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "swiftly deprecated"? Are you trying to discourage it from being used in general? Or just for article titles? You'll get much more resistance over the general especially for RFD purposes. No, it should not be condemned or swifty deprecated. That makes it sound like editors have done some heinous actions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: - I was only speaking about the use of (OVA) as a disambiguator. That's the scope of this RFC, the usage in article text is up for future discussion. -- Netoholic @ 05:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I would honestly argue against its being used inline atnall, if that was a hill I wanted to die on, since, like I said above, it's ungrammatical wasei-eigo that anime fans (most of whom don't know Japanese and so don't understand the confusion over countable and uncountable nouns) use in their fan publications, but is unlikely to appear in, say, Monumenta Nipponica even in an article discussing contemporary Japanese straight-to-video animation. So it really depends on what KnowledgeKid and some others have been calling "reliable sources". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
It certainly shouldn't be dropped into text without at the very least a gloss as to what it means. "Banana yori Mango is an OVA series from Dai-Nippon Entertainment" is an example of how it should never, ever be used. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
We are getting off topic here, the discussion is about disambiguation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
As long as we’re slightly off-topic, @Hijiri88: thank you for introducing me to the term wasei-eigo. Much more respectful than Engrish. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome, but that was actually Hijiri who brought up the term. Wasei eigo's not the same thing as "Engrish", though—"Engrish" is a disparaging term used against Asians trying to speak English, while wasei eigo is terms coined in Japanese from English roots, such as sararīman and sukinshippu. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Right, thanks. Corrected. Guess I got the two comments above confused. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Random further comment (I saw CT's Simpsons comment, and someone else Land Before Time comment, further up, but was actually thinking about this earlier) Japanese Wikipedia defines both Batman and Harley Quinn and (if memory serves) all of the Land Before Time sequels as "OVAs". The fact that the term is used among some western fans of Japanese anime to arbitrarily describe specifically Japanese OVAs seems kinda irrelevant, since the Japanese clearly refer to Japanese OVAs and foreign OVAs using the same word. This on top of the ungrammatical nature of "animations". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    Hijiri 88: That wasn't my "Simpsons comment", that was AngusWOOF totally misinterpreting what I said. I said that anime is animation—I didn't argue that The Simpsons was anime. Anime (in any language) is unambiguously and undeniably animation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    Oh, I know you didn't say The Simpsons was anime; I meant simply that both words are Japanese words of English origin, which have been imported back into English with an arbitrary addition to their meaning of "... originating in Japan". I see a different between "anime" and "OVA", though, in that the former is widely recognized by general readers (even if I don't think it should be a disambiguator) and doesn't invite questions like "What's that an acronym for? Is it just a stylistic way of writing the Latin word for eggs?" and "Oh, that's what it means? Can you say an animation or some animations in English? That feels awkward to me..." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not sure where countable animations popped up in the conversation, but it does seem to have become somewhat widespread in the 21st century. I don't have a source to back it up, but I think it started in the sense of having pieces of animation in software or on webpages ("add an animation to this button, and another couple animations here"), and it seems to have started generalizing from there. I don't think it's generalized enough to be acceptible in Wikipedia articles yet, but give it another generation and I'm fairly confident it will. You won't catch me talking like that, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Has there been a discussion about the definition of “TV series”? Some of the rationale in this discussion hinges on disagreement over the meaning of that term, so if there is some established consensus on that matter, that could settle it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC).

  • We're moving into a post-TV age—I doubt you'll see a term settled on in the near future, and whatever Wikipedia decides on will likely be displaced in the coming generation. I wouldn't waste much breath on discussing something that's going to be unstable for the foreseeable future. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    Not really as there are Smart TVs, the term refers to a telecommunication medium. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    Not if others say it doesn’t. There are people here who think it refers only to recurring broadcasts by TV networks, there are those who think it refers to literally anything meant to be viewed on a television screen by any means, and I’m sure there are people in between. Hence the question. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic WP:NPA argument: this is not the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, or WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents).
  • There's no point arguing it with Knowledgekid87, who has trouble separating content from method of delivery. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    Please strike your comment, mudslinging just makes you look bad. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    Please strike your comment—accusations of PA are "a form of personal attack". My comment was directly on point—your refusal to acknowledge the difference between medium of expression and medium of delivery has become a sticking point in the discussion, and I advised the IP not to exasperate themself arguing at cross purposes with you. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    Sigh... if you had just struck your comment I wouldn't have to go more into this than should be. You can feel free to disagree with me as other editors have over the years I have been here, but you don't see me saying to other editors "there's no point arguing with ....". Even if I knew you were wrong in an argument I wouldn't say that to another editor about you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    Sigh ... yes, it's obvious that you don't like to be called out, but it's an issue that needs attention drawn to it, and editors should be warned not to get sucked in. You refuse to strike your PA? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sure there are other venues to discuss this, lets hold off for now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    Then for the time being, let’s prefer “TV/video/film series” over the more jargony “OVA” until this question is settled at another venue. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It really depends on whether disambiguation will ever stretch to the point where it would require "original" "animated" "video", and whether year and country of origin would not be enough to do the job. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Toronto Sun cannot be used in Wikipedia?

User ****** wrote that the Toronto Sun is an unreliable citation. I looked in Wikipedia and it doesn't confirm this. Is the Toronto Sun, which appears to be a major newspaper of Toronto ok to use as a citation in Wikipedia? Vanguard10 (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be better to ask WP:RS/N :) .--cyclopiaspeak! 22:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
And notify users if you are going to discuss them. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I have redacted her username. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The Toronto Sun certainly is one of the least reliable "newspaper" in Canada, and is modeled after The Sun of the UK. It's a tabloid, not a serious source of news. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Should Wikipedia have lists of transportation service destinations?

There is a clear consensus against the proposed addition to WP:NOTDIR.

Cunard (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Should we update WP:NOTDIR to explicitly state that lists of transportation service destinations are outside the scope of Wikipedia? What is the relationship between WP:NOTDIR and WP:GNG for transportation related lists? BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Background

For transportation services, we have many lists of verbose lists of destinations served by transportation services:

In a recent VPP dicussion, a consensus was reached that it was not appropriate for Wikipedia to have lists of airline destinations (special:diff/821923737). In that RFC, the closer noted that, per WP:NOTDIR, these lists were inappropriate. In a related AfD, Spartaz closed by noting that, like WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTDIR supersedes WP:GNG. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Notifications

Previous RFCs on this topic has been impacted by canvassing. For transparency, please only leave neutrally worded notifications and list them in this section.

Comments

  • Strongly oppose if what this poorly-worded RFC is actually proposing—as it appears to be—is a ban on mentioning on where a transport firm operates, or lists of routes from an individual station. Particularly when it comes to railways, the routes operated by any given firm are essential to an understanding of that firm (especially in a fragmented market like the UK, where key routes like London–Birmingham and London–Edinburgh are served by multiple operators using different routes); likewise, the services which run to and from any given station and how those services have changed over time are essential to an understanding of the significance of that station. That doesn't mean we have to include such lists if they're not appropriate, but articles about transportation—a topic which varies wildly both from country to country and within individual countries—are pretty much the poster children for "decisions which should always be made on a case-by-case basis". Aside from anything else, even the tightest interpretation of this proposal, as "only delete pages which have titles in the format [[List of destinations served by...]]"—would wipe out (at the time of writing) 24 Featured Lists. ‑ Iridescent 00:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    (adding) I'll also point out—as it seems to have slipped your mind—that mass deletion has literally just been declared inappropriate in this context with a consensus that these should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. When a decision is reached that you don't like, it's usually good form to at least wait a few days before forum-shopping to try to get it overturned. ‑ Iridescent 00:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment -- A peak at the 2011 backlog of unreferenced articles shows hundreds of Japanese railway stations and trolley stops. The current count of unreferenced rail transport articles is 22,554 [7] , a tenth of all the unreferenced articles in the English language Wikipedia. I'm not sure why this category gets a pass, when high schools lost the presumption of notability that required only one (1) reference.
Lists of airline and bus destinations will be outdated the day after they are edited. They are simply a waste of Wikipedia resources and editors' time. Rhadow (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:SOFIXIT. The category itself is full of articles that have had references added but did not have their talk page templates updated (e.g. Akabuchi Station and 39th Street (Sacramento RT)), so I would not use it for an accurate count.
  • In developed cities, bus routes may go unchanged for years, if not decades, but notability will need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Some systems even have articles for individual bus routes that clearly pass notability, e.g. Route 41 (King County Metro), so they should not be judged so broadly. SounderBruce 07:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding The current count of unreferenced rail transport articles is 22,554, Category:Unreferenced rail transport articles is obviously inaccurate. Looking at the first three articles on that list, they're all referenced; it appears that the tag which adds "this article lacks sufficient inline citations" (my emphasis) to the talkpage (e.g. a specific fact is uncited) is categorising the pages as being completely unreferenced. ‑ Iridescent 09:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Moral support because it appears to be the opinion of many editors that community consensus only counts if it is codified into policy. However, I would need to see specific wording in order to support fully. The phrasing should allow, for instance, lists of destinations of historical companies and perhaps destination lists embedded within articles. AdA&D ★ 00:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
On another note, I fear this situation turning into a trainwreck with a simultaneous DRV taking place. Suppose the DRV results in overturn then this RFC succeeds. What then? AdA&D ★ 00:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
AdA&D, you are right. Editors ignore the results of RfC. We need a policy here. Case-by-case has been abused. Rail is different from bus, ship, and airline, whose routes can change daily. A train station requires concrete. A train station article should require independent reliable press coverage, else it is not notable. It can go in a list of stations on the line. As to the modes of transport not tied to a fixed origin-destination pair, that's basically a schedule and doesn't belong. Any edits will be out of date the next day. Let the article point to the subject's schedule website. Rhadow (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Procedurally, I believe that DRV should be overturned. The entire procedure of that RfD/AfD/DRV has been bizarre from start to finish, was too limited in scope to be true policy, and is why we're here now. If we decide here transport destination articles aren't encyclopedic, we reopen the deletion discussion - I'll even side with deleting those lists if consensus exists. What's important to me is deciding when and how this information gets displayed. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposer fails to provide any justification for this blatant bias and it is our policy that Wikipedia is not censored. People who don't like planes, trains and automobiles should please read about whatever it is that interests them instead. Per WP:NOTPAPER, there is plenty of room for any number of topics. Andrew D. (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close - We need to wait for the DRV to finish before we start on something like this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Nah. If we wait for the decision on a single article, we'll never get to the policy discussion. There will always be "one more discussion" to finish before we tackle the big issues. Rhadow (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: A major argument made in the deletion discussion was that the previous RFC was binding. I think it is best for us to have an RFC to update the policies so we can avoid wikilawyering at AfDs and DRV. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a mistake though in my opinion as these are three huge topics. I would be fully opposed to railroad stations as they are more concrete in history and notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87, please clarify what you mean by "I would be fully opposed to railroad stations." Right now, there are several thousand railway station articles without a single reference. What do you favor? Rhadow (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Those are article fix up issues that can be handled on a case by case basis as would any normal AFD go. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Case-by-case is fine for specific and rare cases. The problem with railway articles is systemic. It is pervasive. There are 22,554 of them. If I nominate five of them, the railroad cabal will jump on this girl like a scrum. Rhadow (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Would you mind linking an example railway article? SportingFlyer (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Akechi Station (Ena), Akechi Station (Kani), Aki-Imuro Station, Aki-Nakano Station, and Akiaga Station are all examples of unreferenced railway articles. Ainoki Station is in the list of 22,554. The others aren't. Rhadow (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
First, thanks for the links - second, it appears the proper procedure with those articles would be to add references, not to delete them because they don't have references. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
By contrast, SportingFlyer, it's easy to look on a JR schedule, add the article, then challenge others to find a reference when the article is PRODded. It is up to the creating editor to back the article up with references. Try PRODding any one of those. Likely it will be reverted. If you take it to AfD, you will be attacked for an insufficient BEFORE, then magically, a printed book in Japanese will appear in the references (the same book as for a neighboring station). It's not my desire to delete good work willy-nilly, but to see that rail fans and airline fans -- and school fans like me -- contribute well-referenced material, not just to make fun lists. Rhadow (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
From an airline perspective, I don't see adding where an airline flies to as a "fun list." An airline schedule, or a list of airline routes, is clearly uncyclopaedic: that's not what we're fighting for, though! I don't have any problem with a list of train routes, either. They don't need to be blue-linked to be notable; a list of stations could be easily referenced, and indeed Wikipedia even has train route diagram templates. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose and ask for speedy close. A broad, sweeping change like this one should not be discussed without a firm case. Railway station lists are widely accepted as having encyclopedic value (which is why they are accepted at WP:FL) and have purpose beyond being mere tourist guides. The stations themselves are individually notable and discussed as a group (in almost all cases), which fufils the requirements at WP:LISTN. At the very least, these lists should be judged on a case-by-case basis, with local editors providing input (unlike some AfDs that are crafted to avoid invovelment from knowledgeable editors). SounderBruce 01:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Many lists individuals airline destinations pass WP:GNG and some lists of destinations were featured lists. If WP:NOTDIR bars lists of airline destinations, surely the same applies to lists of rail stations? I think we need to update our policies to clarify such situations. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello SounderBruce -- The case against lists ... Oh, forget the lists, let's discuss the underlying articles for train stations and airports, for which there are thousands, an enormous number of which are completely unreferenced. In the case of Japanese trolley stops, you cannot even be sure that the photos (with Japanese signs) match the English text of the article. And now we want to make lists of every route? There is a small but vocal interest group here that fights for every station article. Is it encyclopedic? I argue no. Railway articles are ten percent of the unreferenced articles in the English language Wikipedia. Are ten percent of readers looking up trolley stops? I'll bet not. This group likes the status quo; they argue for a speedy close. No speedy close. Let's have the discussion. A little light on this dark corner of Wikipedia would do some good. Rhadow (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I think you're onto something, but I think you're going off topic: this would create policy transportation destination lists violate WP:NOTDIR. A better example than train stations would be List of NSW TrainLink train routes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingFlyer (talk • contribs)
Thank you for linking that, I would say that yes that article is comparable to the lists of airline destinations. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Even with a little work, almost every little train station can have a decent article. Either you create separate articles for each station, or you have a horrendously long article for each line that includes this information for each stop's surroundings, history, construction details, layout, public art, and nearby developments. For example, Tukwila International Boulevard station is little more than two platforms on stilts above a parking lot, and yet it easily met FA guidelines. The status quo was worked out long ago by discussions similar to this (which is why editors are sick and tired of this), and it's generally agreed that the current notability guidelines are sufficient for an encyclopedia that will never run out of paper. The proper forum is a non-binding discussion at the WikiProjects involved, or at deletion discussions for individual stations that are nominated. Not as something as broad and without depth as this. SounderBruce 02:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
This discussion should be specifically about lists of destinations, not about train stations. I believe the "lists of railway stations" is a mistake. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure most of the members of WP:WikiProject Airlines would prefer to retain the list of airline destinations, but, as noted at the AfD, “cross project consensus on policy has more validity then that from a group of editors enthusiastic about a subject” and it is irrelevant that the lists “pass the GNG and are effectively useful”. We should either accept the same logic for other modes of transportation and update WP:NOTDIR, or overturn the previous consensus. BillHPike (talk, contribs) [[07:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.I want to keep this information. This is a badly needed discussion and has a large impact. First, there's a discussion going on regarding the lists of destinations on airport pages and how they should be presented. Second, there's a deletion discussion for lists of airline destinations. The policy at the last Village Pump discussion was limited to airline destination lists but if applied to other topics would have a large impact: as an example, those lists seem almost exactly similar to this article section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Western_Railway_(train_operating_company)#Routes.
  • There have been several past deletion requests for airline destinations and they have survived every time.
  • First, railway stations and airports are similar as they are places. I think there's a lot of train stations which aren't notable, but they do exist in real life. For airports and railway stations alike, I believe where these places connect is worth including in list form, and is not directory information.
  • Train routes/destinations and airplane destinations also similar as they are not places. Train routes typically are fixed in place due to the nature of railways. Airline routes can change at any time, and I think many editors are having problems with this fact. However, airline destinations - which is what we have lists of - change rarely, and when they do, you almost always get verifiable third-party articles talking about added/dropped routes. Furthermore, we have lists of airline destinations for failed airlines, which will never need to be updated. We haven't had a problem maintaining this information for over a decade, and it's important in being able to show the geographic scope of an airline through time, arguably better than a narrative format. Furthermore, since where an airline flies is an important part of the airline, reducing these lists to a narrative format will cause problems: what constitutes a notable route worth mentioning?
  • I'd also like to see which other articles have been deleted for violating WP:NOTDIR. I view a directory as something which involves people: where they live, their phone number, their office number. These clearly don't. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: on an anecdotal level I remember an attempt about 10 years ago to delete a list of mediaeval monasteries based on WP:NOTDIR - like everything else on Wikipedia it's been misused by people pursuing their own agendas. Eustachiusz (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I find pretty unfair to have this discussion and, simultaneously, the one at DRV.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't: I think the fact we need better policy shows the DRV needs to be overturned, at least for the time being. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • And someone realised we need a better policy after a DRV (the fourth instance of the discussion of articles including airlines destinations) was started? Even though we are in opposite sides of the AfD and the DRV discussion, I'm with Knowledgekid87 in this one.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, destination lists keep getting AfD'd repeatedly, and they ultimately always get kept (it looks like this time as well). I hoped this discussion would help minimise the risk of another scrum in the future, but it's not really helping anything at the moment and should probably be closed. SportingFlyer (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. First of all, this is the wrong venue to ask for deletion of these articles. If what you are asking for is a clarification of NOTDIR (so a change to WP:NOT), you should also post a notification at WT:NOT, the appropriate policy talk page. I find it difficult to understand why you single out transport-related lists. List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network and List of Nestlé brands seem to be equally worthy of discussion. As to airline destination lists: like airline fleets, their destinations are an integral part of who they are, and both fleets and destinations receive frequent coverage in reliable sources. For other transportation, the List of London Underground stations is an important part of who they are. Some people have argued that we should just point to the transportation providers as sources for the information. That is fine for a travel guide (but Wikipedia is not one), but unacceptable for an encyclopaedia: we can (and should) give critical commentary and historical context for the list items. General-purpose encyclopaedias bound by paper-based restrictions may not have such lists, but detailed information can be found in specialised encyclopaedias, for example this one. Wikipedia is both a general and a collection of specialised encyclopaedias, and all of these lists are perfectly on topic. —Kusma (t·c) 08:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Some have argued for a speedy close of this RFC. However, Fish and karate and Spartaz, both respected administrators, have closed discussion by stating that WP:NOTDIR meant Wikipedia should not have these articles. Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) also deleted over 400 lists of airline destinations, stating that there was a community policy decision with a clear consensus and that if any other admins undid his deletions, they would wind up at ANI (see diff). It is clear that a significant minority of our community view these changes to WP:NOTDIR as simply codifying a status quo consensus, so our community should have a full discussion on this matter. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    • This discussion should then include the entire population of lists in Wikipedia, as WP:NOTDIR should apply to all of them. You and me know the result of that discussion well in advance.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Describing Fish & karate as a "respected administrator" is stretching things somewhat—"legacy admin who has been inactive since 2008 and logs in once or twice a year to avoid losing the tools automatically" would be nearer the mark. What you fail to mention is that, while Beeblebrox did indeed threaten that anyone who challenged his unilateral supervote would wind up at ANI, it was, challenged, did wind up at ANI, and the consensus was overwhelming that his deletion was inappropriate. ‑ Iridescent 15:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I have concentrated previously on rail stations. I used the category of unreferenced rail articles as my guide. The counterargument is the category is out of date. As I demonstrated earlier, while the category is out of date, it is also incomplete. The alternative now is to approach individual articles on a case-by-case basis, which will be a tremendous waste of time. It can be done.
As to lists of airline destinations, the problem is best discussed in terms of database architecture. When two tables purport to have the same information, one of them will always be wrong. Take JetBlue destinations for example. It has more than one hundred entries. There are only twenty-three references. The same information is duplicated at John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport#Passenger where only two destinations have citations. A portion of the destination list is found at JetBlue#Mint. Databases are now constructed in third normal form, so that an entry needs to exist only once. A correction made once fixes once every place the entry appears. Perhaps someone is looking after JetBlue. I doubt the same care is being taken with Emirates.
In all of these cases, the bar to entry is low and the cost to correct or delete is high. The transportation fans have staked out their ground, often ten years ago, when article standards were lower. Now they ask for case-by-case review. At AfD, the defense is fierce. Only if we have a reasonable policy can this turned around. Else we are looking at another decade of original research articles plugging up the unreferenced backlog. Rhadow (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm in favour of keeping the articles, and I'm perfectly aware of the current article standards, as I've taken (with or without help) several articles to GA status.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Iridescent. I would also note that the language is far too sweeping and would be more likely to cause confusion and problems than solve them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Summary of opposition arguments thus far
  • RFC not specific enough ("too sweeping")
  • Deal with unreferenced articles on a case by case basis
  • Category:Unreferenced rail transport articles is obviously inaccurate.
  • The issue is not tranportation-related, but a general discussion of WP:NOTDIR
  • WP is not printed, therefore no limitation is required
  • Wait till the Adria Airways DRV is completed
All of these objections are deflective; none addresses the matter of the airline destination lists themselves. Only one objection addresses the matter directly. Airline destinations are a crucial description of the purpose of an airline. Is it international or domestic? What freedoms of the air does it exercise? How do these routes demonstrate economic and social ties?
The policies surrounding lists are stretched when these lists are unreferenced. In the area of schools, to include an alumnus, the list member must be notable (blue-linked) AND have a citation demonstrating that the member is an alum. The same can apply to transport lists. Airports are notable. To get on a destination list, there should be a reference. Rhadow (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    • That is silly. Claiming the RFC is too broad and sweeping is as valid a reason as any. If someone wanted to change policy to "all bad edits should be reverted", I would say the same thing: it is too broad and sweeping. An RFC to change policy has to state the problem, explain why it is a problem, provide the solution and offer a degree of protection from collateral damage. Since this doesn't do that, it is comical that you think opposition should be dismissed out of hand. Your "conclusion" shows why you shouldn't be closing discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Not to mention that this discussion not coming to and end is somewhat disrupting Wikipedia. As many others, I am a contributor to airline destinations articles, for which all my contributions are impeccably sourced, but I'm not making any edits to them in view of the possibility (rapidly vanishing, though) that these articles will be deleted. I don't want to waste my time in such situation.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello Dennis Brown, Jetstreamer -- This discussion is not twenty-four hours old and you claim that by its protracted nature, it is disrupting Wikipedia. You like the status quo. I get that. Calling my thinking comical is not contributing to that discussion. I looked at El Al destinations. It's great. It's not like JetBlue destinations, John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport#Passenger, or United_Airlines_destinations. Here is a simple solution: agree that a destination must be notable (easy) and that any edit needs a reference. In the airline realm, I don't think that's too much to ask. No one is likely to touch Pan Am destinations. When a destination list includes an unreferenced trolley stop or bus shelter, that's when we say no. But if we agree, then the no must be firm and not subject to special pleadings. Otherwise, someone will add the Moon to the Pan Am article ... and come up with a dodgy reference. We've gone through the same thing with the cricket fans who insisted on retaining articles about players who played in one game, for whom no one knew their first name, and for whom there was no press coverage. Those articles are going. The bad lists of destinations need to be improved or go. That's my two cents. Rhadow (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I said no such thing. Please retract or strike my name as your statement about my "claim" is pure fiction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This type of discussion has stretched on for weeks now in RfCs, AfDs, and deletion reviews. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, with regards to destination lists, you shouldn't include only notable destinations: "notable" is meaningless in that case. A list should either be exhaustive or not exist. The destination itself doesn't need to be notable; we don't need to blue-link everything. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As to trains, I've seen articles for some Indian routes that even included schedules, which is something I definitely oppose. As one of the strongest enforcers of WP:VERIFY (at least in the airline-related field) I totally agree with the inclusion of reliable references. As many more, I'm not a fan but an editor, and have plenty knowledge of the content policies. We have, on the other side, occasional contributors that think this is a fansite and make all kind of changes in line with anything but an encyclopedia, likely because they are not familiar wih our policies but pretty familiar with the fact that anyone can contribute; the solution relies on reverting, protecting, or discussing the matter at the corresponding talk page, but not on extraneous interpretations of the policies. One thing is for sure: proposing the deletion of these pages will not solve the problem, as it won't at many, many other topics. The discussion regarding airlines destinations should stop at some point, here or elsewhere.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: An RFC to change policy has to...
  • state the problem, ... Many respected users, including several admins, interpret WP:NOTDIR as mandating the deletion of lists of transporation service destinations, notwithstanding WP:GNG
  • explain why it is a problem, ... A significant number of users feels that the above users are misinterpreting policy.
  • provide the solution ... I’ve proposed two solutions: The first solution is to update WP:NOTDIR to explicitly state, that for lists of transportation service destinations, NOTDIR both disallows these lists and supersedes GNG. The second solution is for our community to come to a consensus that some users are incorrectly interpreting NOTDIR to delete articles they don’t like.
  • and offer a degree of protection from collateral damage Each of the two solutions offer the same protection from collateral damage that each of the existing interpretations NOTDIR already provide. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I could pick it apart, but suffice it to say that there is a lot of conjecture here (admin's opinions don't carry any extra weight on interpretation, btw). It isn't that I'm in love with these lists, but I'm less in love with your solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Jetstreamer is worried about the notability of airports listed in airline destination lists. I venture to guess that all international airports have blue-links. Where train stations are concerned, the path is tortuous. I nominated Akita-Shirakami Station for deletion. It had been unreferenced since 2006. Under my proposal, had it been deleted, it would have been ineligible for a destination list. Two references in Japanese were promptly provided with the argument that the subject had the "same notability as all the other stations on this line." Same is not necessarily sufficient or significant coverage. I cannot be sure that the two books provided include sufficient or significant coverage. The other article includes a mention of the station, not a discussion of it. Certainly it exists. I doubt whether the station is noteworthy in a general Wikipedia sense. I am quite sure, however, that no one party to this discussion wants to go through an AfD for 22,558 articles (or however many there truly are). And I was right, editors did pile on the AfD like a scrum. Rhadow (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this proposal seems overly broad. I think it would mandate that we would have to delete, say, List of London railway stations. This is a natural grouping of notable topics, it has obvious navigational value, and I don't see how it's in any way unencyclopedic. I'm sure there are cases where lists of transportation destinations fall foul of WP:NOT, but introducing a sweeping rule like this is not the way to deal with them. And I agree this is the wrong venue, the right place to suggest policy changes is the talk page of the policy. Hut 8.5 18:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose far too sweeping a proposal that would remove many good articles, each article has its own merits or demerits and need to be judged on a case by case basis Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. First, I don't think the RFC question is too broad or sweeping. I can perfectly well answer. No, WP:NOTDIR should certainly not state that lists of transportation service destinations are outside the scope of Wikipedia. Thincat (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:NOT has become a means of giving teeth to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Would prefer to see WP:NOT curtailed, not extended. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I really don't understand the opposition to lists that neatly summarizes information that lends itself to this kind of presentation. Removing these lists makes information much harder to find for a regular reader, and leads to a messier encyclopedia. Featured lists such as List of London Underground stations are not directories, and it requires a ludicrously pedantic reading of the NOTDIR policy to interpret it as such. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Meh... removing the lists may make it harder to find the information ON WIKIPEDIA... but the information is relatively easy to find elsewhere. That’s why the issue centers on WP:NOT. We don’t just present information for the sake of presenting it (because we can)... There are some kinds of information that Wikipedia leaves for OTHER websites. The question is: is this the kind of information we want Wikipedia to present (or not)? My reading of NOTDIR makes me lean towards saying “not”. Blueboar (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Following your reasoning we may proceed with the removal of the entire project as the content of all Wikipedia articles can be found elsewhere, this encyclopedia is built by using external sources.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I changed my vote to oppose as this is way too broad of a proposal, as I said above I also believe that the DRV should close first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Proposed wording A pharasing that would reflect how the previous dicussions have been interpreted would be to add the following to WP:NOTDIR

8. Lists of transportation service destinations. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists of transportation service destinations, such as lists rail stops, airline destinations, or bus services. Such articles should be deleted even if service to the destination passes other inclusion criteria such as WP:GNG.

See previous VP RFC close and AfD Close. I would personally be opposed to this change, but since several admins have indicated that they feel this wording represents the status quo, it is worth having a full discussion on clarifying the meaning of WP:NOTDIR. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • We are not discussing WP:NOTDIR's bullet number 8 because it does not exist at all. Presenting it this way is at least confusing and I strongly suggest to strike this text out.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • How are these being claimed to meet the GNG? Or more specifically, while there are definitely a few routes on these lists that meet the GNG, the whole of the lists do not - sourcing doesn't appear to be independent nor secondary. --Masem (t) 02:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I still have yet to see a compelling reason to remove these valuable, sourced, accurate, and informative pages from WP. We should be focused on building the project, not taking it down, no? Some of these are featured lists--and editors have spend a long time ensuring they are a valuable addition to the project. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 02:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CREEP. We don't need special rules to outlaw topics we don't like. Their notability should stand or fall like that of other lists. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I tend to think that many of the lists are notable, and in general that there are no issues with the usual AfD process for these lists if there are some that need to be deleted. Policy should not be this granular; issues like this should be interpreted at AfD. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose many lists mentioned under this policy are lists of notable entries and actually help organise Wikipedia and make it easier to navigate. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 09:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose we have WP:NOTDIR...aaaand this isn't in it. We have WP:GNG. The proposal seems to be wanting to delete material which would otherwsie fulfil notability criteria. Which I don't agree with. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Reading some of the discussion, I think we need to reapproach this. We can't group airline, train, and bus equivalently here. I do think that there is appropriateness of airports, train stations, and main bus terminal articles (these are fixed structures, typically built by tax money, so there's going to be attention given to them. Bus stops by themselves do not have the same aspect here.) The schedules however are much more transient which is the issue from the prior airline destination discussion - but this is more true for airlines and buses - trains you really can't change all that much, and hence why I'd not be surprised at volumes of books I could read on the London Underground or any major city's subway lines. I would say that - barring true GNG notability for an airline/bus route - where there is nothing that forces them to follow the same path - that their transient nature makes them inappropriate. --Masem (t) 14:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I had argued for a speedy close earlier but now it seems like a lost cause. I fully agree that this discussion is too broad which should be the central flaw here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
You really should read WP:PROBLEM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello Knowledgekid87 -- Thank you for the reading I summarize as, "No article is beyond redemption." I interpret it as an excuse for "one bad apple." My point is that the family of articles List of bus routes in ... is a systemic problem, not just a couple of bad examples. List of bus routes in Lahore includes every route and every stop. It has two references. The rest is original research. List of Chennai Metropolitan Bus Routes has one reference, but every stop on every route. Some lists are very specific, an example is List of night buses in London, which includes stops as well as routes, and is a fork of List of bus routes in London. Sure, Knowledgekid87, none of these articles has an insurmountable editing problem. As a group, however, there is a big problem that allows low-quality articles like these. Rhadow (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Masem -- Perhaps the proposal should have been that all transportation lists are notable. Then the chorus would disagree. Here are a few examples that have been discussed in both academic works and in the popular media: Rhadow (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Where a transportation company serves is relevant, and notable. It provides important context that is needed to understand the subject, not to mention it receives significant coverage in reliable sources. Arguments against basically boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT as people throw out irrelevant policies. Smartyllama (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not only is the proposal overly broad, NOTDIR doesn't apply as these lists are very discriminate and very specific, not at all indiscriminate which is what NOTDIR applies to. There has been zero lessoning to encyclopedic value of WP as a whole since these have existed, which is basically as long as WP existed. These have only been complemental enhancements of this project. --Oakshade (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note that the discussion at DRV was closed as ″overturn″ [8].--Jetstreamer Talk 21:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose such a policy will degrade Wikipedia by removing potentially useful information. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

A different direction

Considering that the RFC above perhaps a bit too diffuse, I would like to propose (for discussion, no formal proposal) considering "permanence" when talking about transportation lists. In this frame, the following would very much likely be notable due to the fact that they typically are permanent structures and will have good documenting in local newssources about their cost of construction, changes over the years, etc.:

  • Roads (highways/interstates)
  • Train/subway stations
  • Train/subway lines (lists of stations a line serves, but not its schedule)
  • Bus terminals
  • Port/Ferry terminals
  • Airports, including hub airports for air carriers

While the following have too much temporal variation (they are not forced to travel a fixed route) and should not be considered appropriate for WP, unless one can show it meets the GNG. These are primarily only going to be sourcable to the agency running the service, and since they can be changed on a whim, difficult to document.

  • Bus route/schedules and intermediate bus stops, and lists thereof
  • Air route/schedules and destination cities, and lists thereof
  • Ship/ferry route/schedules and lists thereof.

How to put that into any type of policy or not, I don't know, but I'd like to open that up for discussion. --Masem (t) 16:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Any discussion that leads to a proposal to establish a line when it comes to "permanence" in transportation lists. Railroad stations aren't going anywhere anytime soon, but for airline destinations those are advertised and fall under schedules. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Would you support the removal of information about which trains services stops at specific stations? For example, service to Tacoma station is clearly ephemeral. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Many specific flight numbers have served the same origin / destination pair for over 50 years and pass WP:GNG. It would be silly to carve out an exception to GNG to bar any reference to these flights, but keep entries on trivial rail stations. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Lets get the lists sorted out before talking about article issues. Any proposal given should talk about what transportation lists are right/not right for Wikipedia to maintain. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Airlines typically have more staff and more permanent assets at minor outstations compared to what railroad maintain at minor stops. Many rail stations are unstaffed and the permanent facilities are little more than a few signs and and maybe an awning. Furthermore, what about ferry services operated by railroads, like the Gravesend–Tilbury Ferry, which has operated for over 150 years? We need to have a consistent policy that doesn't carve out exemptions because certain editors like trains and dislike airplanes. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    • If we have a better measure of permanence for not-quite-hub airports, that would be great. For example, I know there's coverage of Delta establishing a major route through Seattle lately, though I dare not say Seattle is a Delta hub, but it's more than an outlier. What we don't want is the list of all destination cities an airline services. Maybe it's based on airport size or capacity? I don't know, but I feel there's something we can determine as a clear line to avoid indiscriminate while still reflecting the importance of these routes. --Masem (t) 17:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Could the info just be placed within the main article or a split-off that focuses on the airline's history? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Oh, easily. You probably don't need a separate list per-carrier for this. I would figure for the largest airlines, this is probably somewhere between 6 to 12 cities long if you narrow it down to hubs and not-quite-hubs, so that fits easily in the airline's article, and can be mentioned on the airport's page. But this still gets back to the idea of permanance, does this make sense here? Somethings, airlines cannot change on a whim. --Masem (t) 17:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
          • I disagree. There's nothing wrong with the destination lists as they exist right now. They are binary: has this airline ever served this airport? Do they currently serve this airport? They aren't lists of routes, nor are they schedules, and while the "do they currently serve this airport" isn't permanent, the fact they have served the airport is permanent. It's also easily verified and doesn't change all that much. Furthermore, including all destinations both helps demonstrate an airline's reach (including historical reach) better than limiting which destinations are mentioned, plus then you get into a slippery slope argument of when should a specific destination be mentioned. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Further point: It would be absurd for Wikipedia to have articles dedicated to the Heathrow Express service to LHR or the Narita Express service to NRT, but bar any mention of the fact that Japan Airlines has operated a direct flight between those airports for longer then either rail service has existed. (Reference: Fairhall, David (May 16, 1968). "Flight Plans that's stuck in the crowd". The Guardian. p. 20 – via Newspapers.com.) BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The guiding principle should be what we can write fully verifiable articles about. I don't see why "permanence" should have a huge influence. Many lists are not permanent at all (List of current heads of state and government etc.). Why make a special case for "non-permanent transportation-related lists"? Non-permanent sports or television-related lists (List of current NBA team rosters, List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company) do not seem to be inherently better or worse than transportation-related ones. By all means delete or merge unreferenced and unmaintained lists to a suitable parent, but do not outlaw a random class of articles based on random criteria. —Kusma (t·c) 17:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    • For all those cases (current government, current team lineups, current TV schedules), those all then filter to per-year or per-term articles that have historic significance. For example, it is not that we have the current lineup for a given team, but that we end up writing the article about the team's season, which stays historical from then on; we keep broad-stroke TV schedules because there is interest in historical competition between networks, and so forth.
Transportation routes on the other hand do not get that type of historic treatment. I'm sure that there are "trainspotters" here that have keen interest in what the London bus routes were in 1998, for example, but this doesn't get - from what I've seen - the same type of secondary coverage we'd see from the other venues. There certainly can be historically significant routes and those should be documented if they meet the GNG, but not ones that can only be listed from official timetables or databases.
Permanance is not a random criteria here: to have any of the "permanent" items I gave above requires millions of investment often using local taxes, so it's going to be reported on. Schedule changes are not. --Masem (t) 17:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Would you favor deleting the articles in Category:Former Amtrak routes since they are obviously not permanent sevices? For rail services, the capital investment for a new service over existing rail infrastructure is far less than the capital investment associated with a new route served by widebody airliners. Furthermore, many airlines are state owned, so providing air service also requires a significant investment of tax dollars. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
"Transportation routes on the other hand do not get that type of historic treatment". Well, that is just wrong, they do. I used to care about trams when I was a kid, and had a book about Trams in Mainz that included a complete history of line changes (not just for trams, but also trolleybuses and the replacement by bus lines) and of the rolling stock used. You will find books about the transportation history of any major European city in any good local library. —Kusma (t·c) 20:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
As long as you can show GNG notability, then you're fine; I would not be surprised to find such books exist for the world's oldest public transit systems (which will start with Europe). However, I doubt every major city will have a similar level of detail for their transit.
But this case brings up the key point here: We're looking at parts of transportation that have been recognized as historically significant in their field. Selected air routes that haven't changed for 50 years will likely have that, but the current full list of routes today from an air carrier is not. The point of starting with permenance, with GNG as a backup if needed, is that permanent routes or structures will have the type of documentation one expects these to have, not any random schedule or flexible route. --Masem (t) 20:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
As I noted above, these aren't lists of routes: they're lists of destinations, both current and historic. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Given the hub-and-spoke approach used by most carriers, while it is true that we're not listing out all routes with a list of destinations, it's pretty dang close to one. But as I mentioned above, if we limited those lists to larger airports as to where an airline having a presence is a significant undertaking, that might be something better. For example, I'd fully approve that the list of hubs (past and present) in Delta Airlines is appropriately encyclopedic and significant. --Masem (t) 23:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The fact Delta flies to, say, Huntsville, Alabama is appropriately encyclopedic and significant for both the scope of where Delta flies and to understand the level of connectivity of the Huntsville Airport, connectivity being important for transportation-related articles. An article with a list showing Delta flies from Atlanta to Huntsville would not be encyclopedic, or an article on the Delta to Huntsville route would not be encyclopedic. Also, "significant undertaking" would be really hard to define. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Permanence is irrelevant to notability, and airlines rarely change destinations randomly on a whim unless there's some intervening factor (natural disaster, war, etc.), which is rare. Usually there's some advance notice and clear announcements. Smartyllama (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I thinks its worth emphasizing that while airlines frequently update flight times and tweak schedules, it is less common for airlines to add or remove all service to a destination. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Here is what administrator Necrothesp says, "We generally regard all railway stations as notable. I'm not sure if she is speaking for Wikipedia editors in general, or for administrators. In either case, I see now how foolish I was to point out that that this railway station failed the WP:N standard. The law, apparently, is irrelevant when the judge has already made up her mind. Rhadow (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Per WP:NTS, Services with likely notability include... train stations. (Note that NTS was withdrawn as policy in 2009). BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I am a he, not a she, if you'd bothered to look. I have never known a railway station deleted at AfD (and many have been nominated for deletion over the years). That is consensus and consensus is how we determine notability on Wikipedia. No idea why you mention I'm an admin. It's utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agreed with Smartyllama. Permanence is not required for notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too broad. Air route schedules (airlines/destinations) are fairly consistent, and notable. The lists on the other hand are an entirely different argument. Bus and train schedules less consistent, though, and perhaps this would work for them. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I want to stress that permanence here is not meant to be the sole deciding factor, only that we can see the defining line between what we agree is acceptable and what is seen as problematic is when the element lacks the permanence expected. A transient element like an air travel route can still be notable on its own. What is not appropriate based on the previous discussion is a listing of all those routes just because one can, unless you can show that the whole of that schedule is of note. --Masem (t) 22:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I tried to start with what I thought were the least defensible lists of this nature, but there is a whole world of these destination and route list articles. Why? To me it makes no sense. Literally nobody is using these to plan anything, and even if they were, Wikipedia is explicitly not a travel guide. This type of content is just information as opposed to actual knowledge.
That being said I find it extremely unlikely that this RFC will or could succeeed in arriving at a decision not to host any of this. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
If nobody is using these to plan anything , then surely WP:NOTTRAVEL does not apply? Perhaps the contributors to these pages wanted Wikipedia coverage of airlines to be as comprehensive as specialised print encyclopedias (Example: 1942-, Endres, Günter G. (2002). Major airlines of the world (2nd ed.). Shrewsbury, England: Airlife. ISBN 1840373407. OCLC 51781211. {{cite book}}: |last= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
A good list of airline destinations provides knowledge about the airline's current route network, the airline's route network over time and how the airline developed historically in the same way as the development of a fixed transport network such as a tram, though. It has nothing to do with being a travel guide. Not all lists are "good" yet, true, but that doesn't mean they should be deleted. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
And let me add that the concept of knowledge is totally subjective.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment (I'm willing to plainly ″oppose″, but I want to hear what other editors have to say). Per proposer, transportation infrastructure seems to be notable enough for stand-alone articles. I therefore don't fully understand what the proposal is, as nobody should add information without a reliable source. It seems to be a rewording of WP:VERIFY, a very basic policy. And this discussion started because of the mass deletion of airline destinations: why is this topic not explicitly mentioned?--Jetstreamer Talk 22:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't actually mind the proposal that much - I think adding weight to permanence would be helpful for determining whether a transportation article has notability or violates WP:NOTTRAVEL. I've found a couple bus route articles like Stagecoach Gold bus route S5 which although sourced I would consider proposing for deletion under WP:N and WP:NOTTRAVEL, however something like London Buses route 1 has survived two AfDs (they were both bulk deletes of all routes, and one was withdrawn) and has some history. However using it as the main criteria doesn't seem like it works, plus then you get into an argument about whether a list of airline destinations are routes or not. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, most of the first section should be considered notable as individual items (although the proposal actually appears to be about lists). We have generally consistently found all of them to be notable at AfD over many years, so there is clear consensus for this. The only exceptions are bus terminals, where we have generally found only the most significant to be notable, and ports, which haven't been tested very much at AfD. But main roads, stations, rail lines and airports? Definitely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment -- No discussion about whether it is practical to retain all these lists. Take, for example Caribair, likely out of business since 2009. Its list of Caribair destinations still reads, "This is a list of destinations that Caribair currently serves,". It is a completely unreferenced article. It survived AfD in 2015. Rhadow (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • In this particular case, I'd support to merge into the parent article. Meanwhile, I've tagged the article as unreferenced, that is the first step. How can anyone knows the page lacks references without proper tagging? By the way, I've jumped into Category:All articles lacking sources. Are you going to propose the deletion of all these articles just because they don't have references?--Jetstreamer Talk 15:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello Jetstreamer -- I know better than to propose it for deletion. The crowd already spoke. They like it just fine with no references. Destination lists are a protected class, just like railway stations. Here's another article I like Air Arabia destinations. An editor asserts that discontinued destinations come from the subject's commercial website. Rhadow (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • That's patently false - there needs to be more references for these articles. The lack of references doesn't mean they can't be cleaned up, though. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment - began referencing the Air Arabia article. It's very easy to do. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Cool.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello Kusma -- Try it. In the rare instance that the article is a dupe, the response will be, "Why didn't you just do this without asking?" In almost every other instance, the objections will be legion. "The history is valuable; you need to look in the wayback machine." "You just don't like these articles." "It's really not any trouble to confirm this article every couple of months." Forget the notion that the lede sets the bar quite high: This is a list of the current destinations of Acme Airlines. What had been a transcription of the subject's route map requires a separate reference for every terminated destination. (They don't appear on the subject website.) Look carefully. Many articles have a single source, the subject's website. When the airline fails, the sole reference disappears. The wayback machine is inadequate; it doesn't always retain the content of drop-down boxes. I understand the ease of copying the subject's website. In most of Wikipedia this wouldn't be allowed, where train stations and airline destinations are concerned, it appears to be an accepted practice. The argument goes like this, "All the other stations on this line are notable, therefore this one is too." These arguments all center on the authority to retain an article while disregarding the responsibility and cost to keep it up to date. What seems like an easy upgrade to an article -- naming a city airport -- makes maintenance much more difficult. When a destination says an airline serves London, that is one level of complexity. When the article specifies Heathrow, Gatwick, and Luton, the digging needs to be much deeper. That challenge is world-wide. Kiev has two international airports. I sure hope this conversation and the DRV acknowledge the high workload required to maintain the factual accuracy of these articles. Rhadow (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, I have tried one redirection. Why? I thought it would improve things, so I was WP:BOLD. —Kusma (t·c) 13:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Just an example: take the case of SBA destinations, which Rhadow recently AfDed. I suggested a simple redirect. There also was Santa Barbara Airlines destinations, which I redirected to SBA Airlines destinations, since the airline changed its name to SBA Airlines ten years ago. I'm also taking care of the parent article, adding some references and expanding it. Rhadow tagged the article in a wrong manner [9]: it actually had references and someone realised about this [10]; furthermore, official urls in infoboxes do not need a citation, it's just clicking on them to check. I don't doubt about the good intentions of Rhadow, but we need to be more careful on our tagging. And again, we don't need to delete, we need to take care of articles. Proposal: what about assigning different articles to experienced and responsible users to update and put them into shape? I've seen this in other projects and it might work here too.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Permit me please, Jetstreamer, to explain my logic with respect to SBA's website. It is referenced several times in the article and does not support various assertions on the page. SBA is grounded; the website (at the time) was locked with a notice that they were moving their offices in Miami. In fact, as a result, for financial reasons, operations are shut down. I'm not expecting that Wikipedia be updated with daily events, but if a major edit is taking place, then a cursory BEFORE search occur to make sure nothing huge is missing. Your work in reorganizing REDIRECTs to duplicated pages is awesome. If only everyone were as diligent. Thanks. Rhadow (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Everipedia

Is it acceptable to reuse content from Everipedia with attribution? I remember Bazzi (musician) had a few lines which duplicate those on the Everipedia page (his page on Everipedia was created when he was a minor social media celebrity but would have failed the GNG), but those revisions were deleted for copyright infringement. Jc86035 (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No... unless we are directly quoting a source, we should never simply cut and paste. Instead, our editors should rewrite the material so it presents the same information using different words, and then cite the sources that support it. (However, in this case, don’t even do that, since Everipedia is not considered reliable). Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
as Blueboar suggests, the question should not arise because Everipedia is a crowd-sourced site and no open wiki is reliable. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
A slight addendum to the above, with basically the same advice: technically, text in the public domain OR text which has been licensed under the proper copyleft licenses to be compatable with Wikipedia's own license are technically OK to reuse, HOWEVER, you'll find that most of it would be improper to use at Wikipedia anyways for one of two reasons 1) the source itself is not reliable, or 2) The material is not written in a tone or style which is expected at Wikipedia, and would need a complete rewrite anyways to conform to Wikipedia standards. Given that, it is rarely (read: basically never) acceptable to simply copy text and put it wholesale in Wikipedia even if there is no legal hurdle against doing so. It is always (read: always) better to simply write original text which references the reliable source. That is, however, academic in this specific case. Everipedia isn't reliable as a source, so you're best just finding better sources and writing original text anyways. --Jayron32 12:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
OK... there is a distinction between “allowed” and “should”... we are allowed to copy material that is in the public domain, but that does not mean we should do so. Simply copy pasting stuff from another website is intellectually lazy, even if allowed. Plus, if you always rephrase in your own words, you never have to worry about copyright. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I can’t imagine that we would or could consider Everipedia a reliable source. I would suggest taking this to WP:RSN for further discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The talk above here about Everipedia being a reliable source or not is irrelevant. Let's assume you find some text on Everipedia that is well-written and well-sourced. You still can't use that because it was probably copied from another website, an ebook or social media. So copyrighted. And Everipedia does not care. Whatever you find on Everipedia that is not also on Wikipedia should be assumed to be copyrighted content. Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Why are there no ethnic galleries anymore?

As the title says. I really liked it back when I could see examples of people from certain ethnic groups/diaspora. Why was it forbidden? --Spafky (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to dig up the discussion, but there was a lengthy policy debate about this a few years back, and the consensus was that a) the galleries were a source of constant squabbling, discord, and disruption, and more importantly 2) The decision as to who's picture best to represent a particular ethnicity was open to rife abuse and amounted to original research. I'll try to find the discussion. --Jayron32 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, WP:DUE regarding who was selected also. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Archive 13 is the original discussion that closed them down; it was from November 2015; though there had been several other discussions beforehand that led to that final discussion on the matter. --Jayron32 16:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
One issue was Verifiability... how could the reader be sure that the person or people depicted in the image were actually FROM the nation or region in question (and not a tourist/visitor from some other country)? Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, most of the galleries were of famous people who had citations in their article which clearly established their self-identification with the people groups; that was one thing we got right. However, there was still the problem that the sampling of people represented the ethnic groups well, a host of problematic no true Scotsman arguments, and the way that the specific choices could be used to influence WP:NPOV in some really bad ways (such as, for example, carefully choosing people of a particular skin tone, to represent a people group, etc.) It was all too much. --Jayron32 17:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
"They are not black enough" being one particular argument I recall. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the RFC linked at WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES was the last one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
While not "galleries" you can still find many of these images categorized on commons: for example in Category:Ethnic groups in the United States's sub cats. — xaosflux Talk 00:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

user:Yelysavet vs. Interlanguage-links

Yelysavet has been deleting scores of interlanguage-links from articles. Apparently without checking whether they had been or even can be correctly transferred to Wikidata.

User:Andy Dingley and myself have pointed out to him that relevant links pointing to the respective articles in sister Wikipedias have been lost by his wholesale removals.

I have brought this to the administrators noticeboard but was not able to evoke much interest. Instead I was advised to post the issue here.

I am not sure what policies and common practices apply and what to do about this.

I personally would like to see the Interwiki-links restored and I would appreciate your input on this matter.

best regards, KaiKemmann (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC) between

Allow for emoji's in signatures

Not happening!, Majora has hit the nail on the head and I'll repeat it here - Use your words like a normal person and leave the emojis to text messages and Facebook. –Davey2010Talk 16:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Currently some users can get permabanned for having emoji's in their signature, but some users like having emoji's because it makes their signatures more easy to recognise, the signature policy doesn't advise against emoji's but it's not uncommon for people to be requested not to use them. I would like to propose that all users can add emoji's to their signatures as they are not disruptive and are purely decorative. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 09:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Emojis are allowed in signatures. What is not allowed is emojis in usernames. —Kusma (t·c) 09:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Donald Trung, note that Kusma is speaking generally, and not with regards to your particular case. You are banned from using emojis (and special characters in general) in "in edit summaries or non-talk pages"—with signatures as implicit in that, since it would otherwise mean you couldn't comment on WP-space pages like this—as part of your unblock conditions. ‑ Iridescent 10:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I would say that any page which is used for discussions (including this one, AN, etc.) is a talk page; any other sort of Wikipedia: namespace page should generally not be signed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. CLCStudent (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Not only do emojis present an accessibility problem for those that do not have the right thing installed on their computer they are unencyclopedic nonsense. They make everything much more difficult to read, disrupt the flow of conversations, and make it impossible to take the person using them seriously (in my opinion). Use your words like a normal person and leave the emojis to text messages and Facebook. --Majora (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Majora's analysis of this proposal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per a cursory overview of the OP's signatures on other Wikimedia Wikis as the prime example of how excessive use of emojis in signatures is disruptive. We already allow emojis in signatures, what we de facto don't allow are ridiculous signatures that use multiple emojis in a manner that makes communication difficult and makes it feel like we're being trolled. That's not technically part of policy, but it's part of the standard "give someone who has an obnoxious signature a kind nudge on their talk page." Any policy that would make the kind nudge ineffective would be a negative. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Majora hits the nail on the head. Wikipedia is not a social network or a chat media. It's an encyclopedia. I may be old fashioned but I would at least like to keep the informal nonsense out of the signatures. IMO there's too much leeway in signatures already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose--Per Majora and Kudpung.~ Winged BladesGodric 13:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Leaning trout ...all things considered. GMGtalk 13:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The case of a block enacted after a page protection

Hi.

So, please imagine this case: Editor A and B are in a dispute. Nobody else is in that dispute. Admin C protects the disputed page. But then, other things happen and Admin C blocks Editor A for his or her conduct in that said dispute, for a period equal to or longer than the page protection length, and revokes his talk page access. Naturally, at this stage, Editor B has no way of engaging in any sort of discussion, which was the purpose of the protection.

Now what should happen to the protection?

  • Should it be left intact even though it serves no purpose?
  • Should it be extended to by the period of Editor A's block plus the original protection length?
  • Should it be lifted?

Of course, I am open-minded to this issue not being a wholly trinary case.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

In your first option you say that, at that point, the page protection "serves no purpose". First, A was blocked for conduct, not for being wrong in the content dispute. I posit that most often B would still need a cool down period too, and that is the "purpose" of leaving the page protection for the time being. B should realise it is not about "winning" a dispute, and cooling down instead of rushing to convert the page to their preferred version is usually best. B can, if they're sure they're "right" on the content issue (when what they consider the "wrong version" got protected), request to implement the improvements they suggest via an {{editprotected}} template on the talk page, and someone uninvolved would evaluate. They can request the page protection be lifted, if it is very obvious that A had disrupted mainspace (i.e. in the article) before being blocked. Also in this case, someone else would evaluate whether the requested unprotection is justified. But generally I suppose B cooling down for the period of the initial page protection period, and making themselves useful elsewhere in the mean while, being the best option. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: Hi. Thanks for the reply. I am afraid I find it biased, biased and biased, as it assumes Editor B has the following attributes:
  • He or she cannot edit already, because of protection
  • He or she wants to edit and the current state isn't to his or her satisfaction
  • He or she needs to cool down in the first place
  • That cooling down is even possible when he or she has permission to edit other places (Your very strong wording draws a picture of jerk from Editor B. Such a person is already a high risk that might do other not-so-okay things elsewhere.)
Also, {{editprotected}} suggestion is not helpful: In case of a dispute a page is fully protected. Only admins can respond to edit request and they explicitly avoid responding to the edit requests from B, per their "no wheel-warring" mandate, that it is not a good idea to defeat the purpose of a protection by permitting Editor B get his or her way anyway and the controversial "wrong version" issue to which you alluded.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: what a nonsense you're writing now (very strong wording intended). I implied nor pre-supposed any of that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
"I implied nor pre-supposed any of that." Then, are you saying a person who can edit, doesn't want to edit, does not need to cool down, and is not struck by any measure that either eases or facilitates his or her cooling down still needs to cool down? Same question about "winning". —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, what nonsense: I implied nothing of the kind. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Whoa! No need to bite. I didn't come here with the intention of talking nonsense. If you I feel have grossly misinterpretted your comments, then I am afraid your comments are susceptible to gross misinterpretation. But let's not escalate the discussion like what happens in content disputes. At worst, we can bow out and agree to disagree. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
A page protection does not mean only those previously engaged should discuss the issue. In fact, B can use the time to invite neutral editors D, E and F to give their input, hopefully reaching a consensus before the protection expires. Plus, A's block does not mean they or their sympathizers won't restart the edit-warring if protection is lifted without a consensus on how to handle to issue. Regards SoWhy 13:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Hi. I can clearly see there is more experience behind your answer. Here is a couple of things though:
  • You argued against option 1. Still, that begs the question: do you endorse option 2 or 3?
  • Is a consensus established in absence of Editor A even valid? I am just asking; this not a rhetorical question. Because there are arguments in favor and against it. One is that an in absentia consensus does not resolve the dispute, for Editor A can argue that if "I were there, I would have argued my case successfully." Furthermore, it does not improve the relation between A and B. The counter-argument is: Editor B's privilege to participate has been revoked because of his or her own failure to use it. But then again, if he or she has lost the privilege to be part of the consensus, the protection is not necessary either.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
SoWhy's reply seems perfectly compatible with option 1. I don't see in what sense they "argued against option 1"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, I argued for option 1: The protection (and its length) are not void just because one editor is (forcibly) absent. And consensus is not valid or invalid based on whether certain people participated or not. If A disqualified themselves from editing because of his behavior after the protection, they have no leg to stand on claiming a consensus invalid. After all, they removed themselves from the discussion by behaving like they did after protection was set. Consider this to understand my point: What if A was not blocked but chose to go offline for a few days. Should we also wait for them to return to find a consensus? And if so, why?
As for the other part, I already noted why protection should not be lifted, mainly because A's block alone neither means they won't come back (as socks) nor that others won't "fight" their battle for them. Regards SoWhy 14:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I see. I also see why I thought you argued against it: When you said "they won't come back", you actually meant WP:EVADE. Alright, that's a lot clearer now. —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Here are a couple of other things though:
  • When an edit war is resolved by blocking one of the parties, no page protection is enforced out of the fear of WP:EVADE or illegitimate canvassing. Hence, your argument seems to permit a flaw.
  • There is still room for option 2.
  • What if these other who "fight their war for them" actually fight fair? Isn't assuming good faith a policy here? Even better, these additional editors might actual improve other areas of the article or improve the disputed area to the point that the dispute becomes moot.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Re. "Is a consensus established in absence of Editor A even valid" – taking this as an example (editor A "indeffed for undisclosed paid editing" and for "plenty of WP:NOTGETTINGIT" during page protection), any consensus "established in absence of Editor A" would be valid. So it largely depends on circumstances (in different circumstances it may be better to involve the A editor in reaching consensus). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hence, my message above. —Codename Lisa (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Codename Lisa: Sorry, it's clear that you have a specific case in mind. I'm afraid that speaking in the general without being able to review the specific case you are disputing is not helpful here. If you can refer us to the specific case (rather than your partial characterization of it) we can review it and speak intelligently on it. --Jayron32 04:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
None of us come here because one day we wake up and think "Wow! I wonder what happens if an admin did such-and-such." But I can guarantee that I am NOT here seeking appeal to another admin's decision under the facade of a general question. If you feel I have a certain case in my mind, all you have to do is to ignore that feeling and answer generally.
But then again, I can definitely say the same thing about the other participants here. Nobody took each of my three recommended couses of action to analyze its pros and cons individually and objectively. Instead:
  • Francis Schonken said highly judgmental things about a totally imaginary editor, for which I had supplied no previous data whatsoever. I shudder to think what this could imply. He assumed bad faith by default, in violation of WP:AGF.
  • SoWhy's reply is an example of behavior for which Wikipedia admins have gained notoriety. People outside Wikipedia often judge us and I hear their judgments without letting them know I am their target. One of the comments on admins here is that they go to a ridiculous length and breadth to avoid disagreeing with existing policies and their fellow admins, to the point that if two admins do completely opposite and comflicting things, they are ready to swear that they agree with what both did, and their actions are in no way contradictory. And they are not wrong too. SoWhy is very careful to totally discourage the idea of there being the slightest flaw in the existing policy, so much so that intially, it is not obvious whether he is against option 1 or in favor of it.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Re. "said highly judg[e]mental things about a totally imaginary editor" – wrong in every direction, that's why I called the reply nonsense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
And yet you do not make any attempt to correct that wrong. Come on now, Village Pump is not about winning, so there is no need to feel you have lost. It is about intellectually positive exchange. So, there is no need to feel your dignity is smeared. At least, that's not the intention here. Also, "judgmental" is correct; there is no "e" between "g" and "m". —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Lisa, I don't understand why you've responded with hostility to everyone who has tried to respond to your inquiry. The only one who's failed to assume good faith here is you, and this comment is frankly bordering on personal attacks. If you're trying to prod the participants into some kind of realization about an error in policy that you think needs to be corrected, you are doing a transparently bad job of it. Nonetheless, I'll add my insight into the scenario you posited, and I hope that if you need to respond you will not assume I am your enemy as you seem to have done with everyone else here. If you think I've made an errant assumption in my reply I'm happy to discuss, but please don't assume I'm jumping to conclusions. You posted an interesting but somewhat vague scenario (not "wholly trinary" as you aptly put it) and we're all doing our level best here.
I would try my very best in this scenario to not block either of the editors if I've already protected the page, though I acknowledge this is a possibility. Given the exact scenario I would not automatically modify the protection. Responding to your suggestions point-by-point:
  1. I would not assume that leaving the page protected serves no purpose. That could be the case, depending on the circumstances. It could just as easily be the case that the remaining editor is still trying to add unsuitable content, or perhaps the profile raised by the dispute has attracted other editors and discussion is proceeding. There could be reasons to keep the protection just as easily as there could be reasons to lift it; it's impossible to answer definitively given the generality of the scenario.
  2. I can however say for certain that I would not extend the protection as a result of one participant's block, as it is effectively sanctioning the other editor as well, and that is pointlessly punitive. Something along the lines of what SoWhy said, that one editor behaving themselves into a block ought not to cause an impediment to any other editor, insofar as we can avoid doing so. And as a side note if the blocked user were to use their own talk page while blocked to try to participate in the discussion anyway, I would warn them once before revoking talk page access. Although in your scenario talk page access was already revoked, so this doesn't apply.
  3. Again, no, not automatically. See #1.
Full protection is not a cookie-cutter solution, it's a response normally to complicated editing issues that have failed to be resolved through other methods, and as such it's likely a bad idea to suggest that the resolution of any situation involving full protection can be compared to any other such situation. As for your comments about (my flavouring) admins falling over themselves to agree with each other, I see that as less about avoiding the perception of disagreement and more about there being a general overarching consensus about how our policies and guidelines are to be applied. Although I do understand that that's not how it looks to some. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And to the edit-conflicted comment: this isn't Americapedia; "judgemental" is a perfectly valid spelling in other flavours of English. It even says so in the link you provided. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
"If you're trying to prod the participants into [...]". I categorically said there is no such thing.
"you've responded with hostility to everyone". Five years ago, I would have been embarrassed and would have wasted no time to apologize upon reading this. But five years of experience tells me that admins such as yourself simply enjoy preaching and perhaps five years of humbleness on my parts have been a mistake that emboldened your kind. There was no hostility. There was no personal attacks. And WP:NPA isn't meant to be an excuse to suffocate criticism of criticable conduct.
The rest of what you wrote. Didn't read. I doubt there is anything intellectual in them. Alright! I have held back long enough! Clearly we are not having an intellectual debate under this thread; never had. All because you are doing what admins always do: Playing priest and calling people "sinners". Five years ago, when I came here, admins were nothing short of holy to me. Now, most of the Wikipedians with whom I enjoyed working have left; those who have stayed often refrain from entering discussions, which are now markedly more bitter. Admins are supposed to be role models; instead, they are ordinary Wikipedians with extra power, no oversight, and overwhelming need for oversight. WP:BEANS illustrates the behavior seen in babies, not sensible mature people. So, when I say no prodding is intended, and you level that exact same accusation, you not a sensible mature person, let alone admin-worthy.
Enraged, heartbroken, and mistreated,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I am unwatching this page. Please refrain from pinging or coming to my talk page about it. —Codename Lisa (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm sad that you didn't read any of the part of my comment which actually offered input on your question, I was looking forward to your feedback. But I'm going to stand by the assertion that there's only one person playing "holier-than-thou" in this thread, and I still don't understand why. I'm assuming you're not going to read this anyway, and by your request I'm not pinging you.
Does anyone else want to continue this discussion? I do think it's an interesting scenario. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You have given a few facts about the real or hypothetical case. Each case would inevitably have much more that is very relevant to the answer to your question. So the premise that an answer is determinable from the facts that you gave is incorrect. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  • My only comment is this: the fact that the article was protected is but a TEMPORARY inconvenience for Editor B... sure, he/she can not edit the article RIGHT NOW, but that restriction will change SOON. Any changes that need to be made CAN be made... everyone just needs to have some patience. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking this is about Opera (web browser). There's a simple answer: go to the admin who protected the page (in this case, me) and talk to them. --NeilN talk to me 21:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Surprise! I had a change of heart and I came back! (Not really; I was watching your contribution log.) The "Opera (web browser)" case was one of the many cases that made me file this request. But let me be clear about one thing: If I wanted that article unprotected, the one thing I wouldn't have done is to come here, for the very simple reason that it is unlikely to get fast results here. Village Pump discussions often take a long time; weeks maybe. Plus, if that was my intention, I'd have done something to grab your attention before (not after) the protection expires.
Seriously, theories of conduct in Wikipedia are sometimes very movie-like. —Codename Lisa (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Codename Lisa. I think my general point still stands. Every case has its own nuances so it's hard to formulate a general guideline. For example, for me, if one side turns out to be a sock, that's an automatic unprotect (if I remember). If one editor has left an unanswered post on the talk page before being blocked I'm less likely to unprotect. If the dispute has attracted more editors after the block I'll take a look at the talk page. That's why I think talking to the protecting admin is the best first course of action. --NeilN talk to me 22:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, thank you for your no-nonsense no-sidetalk straight-down-to-business answer. 👍 Of course, per Wikipedia policies, talking to the protecting admin is mandatory, unless there is evidence of him being on extended absence. In case of "Opera (web browser)" I certainly do not want compromise my integrity by damaging the olive branch that I offered and you took into consideration. Hence, whether its protection is removed, left untouched, or extended, I certainly don't want to be part of the decision-making process.
Here is the thing though: I have been on the other side of the protection before. You see, there was once a dispute in a template. It was fully protected. I contacted the protecting admin and asked the protection to be dropped to Template Editor level, so that I can edit it. I assurred him that I don't intend to touch the disputed region, which would cost me my Template Editor privilege. He kindly told me that he wouldn't believe me doing such a thing, but because full protection in case of a dispute is the policy anyway, he wouldn't oblige.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
And is that template still protected? Blueboar (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

All options listed are acceptable. It's a case of Admin discretion. On examining a situation, the Admin could conclude that the block fully resolved the problem and that the initial protection wasn't necessary or appropriate anymore. One could equally conclude that B's edits to the article were part of the conflict, and the protection stays in place for B to cool down or seek collaborative input, or any other reason. (One could simply leave protection in place as an inaction-default.) One could also conclude that A WILL be returning to the article, that resolving the situation WILL require discussion, for example some sort of NPOV resolution between A's POV and B's POV might be needed (hopefully with outside input), and that the protection needs to lock down the article long enough for those discussions to occur. It all depends on how the Admin reads the particular situation. Alsee (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it canvassing to notify all participants of a previous AFD if they all !voted the same way?

Per WP:CANVASS, notifying all editors who participated in a previous AFD is generally considered allowed, especially when little time has passed since the last nomination. But what if the last AFD closed as straight keep with no delete !votes except the nominator? Then notifying all participants would mean alerting all people who argued to keep the article even though you would not exclude anyway (assuming both AFDs are started by the same person). Is it still allowed to notify those users based on CANVASS's appropriate notification rule or is it now votestacking because you can not avoid notifying people who already expressed an opinion (but who might change it given the new arguments)? Regards SoWhy 14:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As long as no one is excluded, notifying all previous contributors to a discussion in a neutral manner is not canvassing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I've done such notifications sometimes when people contested my deletions, and never has anyone complained about it. I am minded to agree that so as long as you aren't leaving off some users it should be proper. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Votestacking (trying to establish your desired result by selective notifications) is only an issue if your list of notified users is intentionally chosen by the expected result. "Everyone who participated in the most recent relevant discussion" is a truly neutral criterion, even if the discussion went in your favor. Do make sure the nominator of the original discussion is aware of the new discussion (not an issue if this same user is the nominator of the second discussion). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • What they said. If the criteria (everyone) and the method (without imposing a viewpoint in the notification) are neutral, then it isn't canvassing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The most efficient way to resolve an issue is generally by people already familiar with the subject. It is perfectly appropriate to make an unbiased notification of an previous appropriate and unanimous consensus. The only way I see a problem is if there is some other problem involved. For example if it turns out that the unanimous discussion was itself a canvassed/meatpuppet fanclub voting to keep their favorite band. Then the notification would be re-canvassing of the original canvassed group. That would warrant (at minimum) a stern canvassing warning, and as a closer I'd certainly evaluate it as a re-canvassed group. But that is a corner case. Notifying a unanimous consensus is, in general, appropriate. Alsee (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Non-admin closure of AfD

Background

Given recent disruption caused by non-admin closures of WP:AFD, I am proposing that non-admin closures/relistings be banned except in very limited circumstances. The most obvious exception being when someone withdraws their own nomination (there may be one or two other exceptions but that's the only one that comes to mind for me). Here are two recent ANIs where someone has created disruption by closing an AfD Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive976#Many_non-admin_AfD_closures_by_User:Jdcomix & Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive971#Inappropriate_AfD_closure_by_number_of_votes. This seems to be a recurring issue and I think this is the best way to deal with it. I understand that admins are busy and others try to help, but it is actually creating more work when someone has to go back and review poor closings/relistings.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • Oppose - We do have some problems, but most non-admin closers do fine. What happens is sometimes a new closer comes in and won't listen to feedback, or non-admin closes AFDs that they shouldn't close. Policy already states they should only close the most obvious AFDs. If they do this, closing those that do not require a lot of accountability, then they are helping. Admin have higher accountability due to policy, but we aren't smarter by virtue of the bit. Once a non-admin shows they aren't accountable or receptive, then they just need to be taken to ANI and topic banned from closing anything. Thankfully, those are rare cases, which would make changing policy a bad idea as we would be missing out on the good work of most non-admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Dennis - we have means to deal with the bad apples, but the process is otherwise fine. --Masem (t) 02:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above. Those two examples look like the system is working. Someone steps out of line, they get taken to ANI. It seems we've got quite diligent folks observing and watching AfDs, so it doesn't seem too drastic of an issue. Each case appears to be specific to the user, and I wouldn't want to paint all NACs with a broad brush, especially when they do so much good. I do think there's a chance that an NAC can fly under the radar, if folks aren't aware of who all the sysops are, so I could support a bot auto-labeling NACs when they happen. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a baby and bathwater approach. There isn't a widespread problem at AfD with NAC's except in rare cases. Given the ratio of non-problematic NAC's versus problematic NAC's is vanishingly small, it is best to deal with it on a case by case basis. Blackmane (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This seems to come up about once a year, maybe a bit more. It does not pass because of the fundamental open editing ethos of Wikipedia. So, until Wikipedia is no longer Wikipedia, it will not pass. Suggest it be added to Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. Jbh Talk 02:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I believe that in the legal world they say "Hard cases make bad law". If some non-admin is closing things inappropriately, deal with that person, or ask for a re-opening. There's no need for this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposeas too Draconian. It has to be noted that there are non-admins who make correct closures and this would bring that to a halt. MarnetteD|Talk 02:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per WP:NOSE. Non-admin XfD closures are not causing significant disruption (as far as I can tell), and I don't see any reason we should prevent experienced editors without the bit from assessing consensus on XfDs. Indeed, there are some non-admin editors I'd trust to assess consensus better than certain uers with the bit! -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs 03:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - admins are vetted for their ability to interpret community consensus. It makes sense to leave closing deletion discussions, which decide whether or not a specific sysop tool is used, to those in the sysop group. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per ajr. It's been mentioned in recent RfAs that one of the big things the community wants more admins for is for AfD closures, and there is a general sense that the current quality of NACs is low at AfD, and wanting more sysops to deal with it. WP:Relist bias is probably the best essay on the subject as it relates to AfD and relisting, but the general principles are the same. The things that non-admins should feel comfortable closing aren't the things that are taking up much time anyway: clear cut keeps. Anything beyond that, should be an admin call per our guidance. There are plenty of places that are more NAC-friendly (I was a frequent RM closer before I got the bit, and RM is probably the most NAC-friendly environment we have on en.wiki), but AfD really isn't one of them.
    People like NACing there as it seems like an easy way to get experience for RfA, but it usually isn't even that, as someone will either make a bunch of dumb closes and get opposed on the grounds of general annoyance without citing diffs or the closes will be so boring that no one will really care. I see no real negatives to this proposal for the community or for the individuals closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if I wasn't able to do NACs, I probably wouldn't have wanted to become an admin, and if you read my RfA and TP archives, I certainly wasn't perfect as a closer, and still am not (I'm certainly not much better at avoiding completely unnecessary run-ons ). We should give people a chance. If they do a bad job and aren't receptive to feedback, then deal with them individually. I'd say most NACs are probably fine. ansh666 08:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The only privilege admins should have is the direct use of the extra tools in the admin toolkit. Closing discussions should merely require a keyboard and (optionally) a brain. If a user is causing a problem, handle that as you would any other dispute or source of disruption. --Jayron32 16:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This would need evidence of sustained and pervasive disruption, which does not mean two recent ANI threads. See also availability heuristic. GMGtalk 16:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose--Needless policy-expansion.Echo GMG.~ Winged BladesGodric 16:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Bad" closes are not limited to non-admins, and all can be corrected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The only reason admins are the primary closers is that they have the tools needed to delete if that's the consensus. Admins are also called on at AN to evaluate consensus but there, like here, any editor in good standing can and should be able to do it. The only practical reason for non-sysops to not close "delete" results is the possibility that they can't find a sysop who's willing to go along, with resulting drama and disruption. If we had a rule that admins had to enforce non-sysop "delete" closures without dithering (and without fear of being criticized), I'd be fine with that. This should be a community decision; not a sysop-filtered one. (Which is not to criticize admins in the slightest; this is just a comment on this being a wiki, not on admins.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - As mentioned above, this is a very bad idea in general. Admins are already overloaded with work, and in many cases don't have time to close AfD discussions (which can end in Keep/Merge/Redirect/No Consensus outcomes, none of which require sysop involvements). While there are occasional issues with non-admin closures, these are relatively small in proportion to the number of good ones (and remember that even admins sometimes make questionable closes too, hence WP:DRV). As for the issues with users making questionable closes, this is better resolved through other means specifically meant for that particular user, as opposed to a blanket ban on NACs, the vast majority of which are constructive. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've closed and relisted AfD discussions. I've made a few mistakes starting out (see here and here), but I am happy to listen and correct my errors. It becomes a problem when folks cannot listen to constructive criticism. We should be looking at how many 'naccers' there are on average and how many of them are causing problems. Hopefully the numbers should reveal the actual extent of the problem. !dave 08:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this and the alternate proposal. The few non-admin closing errors are easily corrected. It seems the reduced workload for admins by having non-admin closers and relisters far outweighs the work created by an occasional error. That being said, I personally have never closed an AfD as there is no rush, I'm happy to wait for an admin to get around to it. I wouldn't encourage another non-admin to start doing this unless they are trying to establish a case for future RfA. Jack N. Stock (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm opposing this because I believe we can handle it on a case-by-case basis. That said however, because maintenance areas are very clearly a playground for new and/or inexperienced users and those who simply enjoy the power of being 'anyone who can tinker with Wikipedia's back office', we must be more firm in asking them to refrain from NAC until they are more competent, or face a T-ban from NAC. Anyone who makes NAC to gain 'experience' in order to become an admin should already know enough about reading consensus at AfD without messing about with it. Anyway, that's how I learned about it, and I didn't close or need to close any before I ran for the bit. I had nominated a few hundred though and watched them to see what happened to them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's disappointing to see my essay, WP:Relist bias, being used to support non-admins being barred from making closes over a wide class. The real issue is poor NACs, not NACs in general. We have plenty of non-admins who are fine closers, and many of our experienced admin closers got their starts as non-admin closers (myself included, though I've not been particularly active closing discussions recently). If non-admins make a mistake, try talking to them. This step is often skipped in favor of complaining about their action, but usually, a quick word can make a difference. If the non-admin is particularly stubborn in refusing to listen to advice from experienced editors and makes persistent mistakes, then that's a behavioral issue that can be dealt with as usual. ~ Rob13Talk 03:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

How about we make it so that NACs/relistings can only take place after 8 days, as opposed to the ordinary 7? I know NOTBURO and CREEP are concerns, but this would temper the super rushed attitudes of many non-admin closers. ansh666 02:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  • This still seems to be fixing a problem that doesn't really exist. The current system seems to be working fine, so I'm hesitant to make the policy more complicated for a problem that is already under control. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment (edit conflict) If we are going to address hasty closes we might as well say best practice is that no one close an AfD until it rolls into the old log. This was suggested at WT:AFD#When did AfDs go from running for 7 days to 6 and a bit days? because of a perceived problem with admins closing AfDs too soon. Personally I think it would be a good idea and should cut down on a bit of drama. Mind, I think drama is a constant on Wikipedia and if we tamp it down at AfD it will merely rise again elsewhere - but might as well give it a try. Jbh Talk 02:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support- It seems that the non-admin closures mostly occur before an admin has had a chance to close, this would prevent this. I don't see why anyone should oppose AfDs closures being delayed up to an entire day if the outcome ends up being correct, rather than have someone jump the gun and do a poorly thought out close. Of course, there still needs to be the exception for withdrawing your own nomination.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - We may as well try it, although I may have a CoI because I am one of the editors mentioned at the top. :) Jdcomix (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and I'd actually make it wait until it hits the second day on the old log. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a rule, though I'd support this as a suggestion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think requiring non-admins to wait an extra day is going to make any significant difference. They'll just be jumping at the bit to close the discussion at the new time. I think a better idea would be to consider why the non-admin closers are so rushed, when the admin closers don't seem to be. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Ajraddatz, see my comment above re: RfA for the first part of your question. I highly suspect people view it as a way to get experience for an RfA not realizing it isn't something anyone really looks at unless you make mistakes or are annoying and relist everything without thinking. Admins are relaxed because most of these things aren't emergencies, and IMO, AfDs are relatively boring to deal with. I've been doing more AfD closes of late, but I generally don't enjoy them and mainly do it as a chore because I think that it's an area admins should help out in at least once in a while to keep aware of the practical application of community consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:SNOW closes are not restricted to admins nor should anyone have to wait for them to occur. Also waiting 24 hours makes no difference to a close. MarnetteD|Talk 04:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I didn't explain very clearly in the original proposal (and it's certainly not ready wording-wise in any case), so here's some more detail. Within the last year or two, there have been a spate of non-admins closing and relisting discussions rapidly, frequently before or right after the discussions come to the 168-hour mark. The latest went through the newest "Old" log barely an hour after it ticked over (midnight GMT), making questionable closes and relists before a more competent closer was able to get to them. Maybe they're racing to get pseudo-admin edits in before the actual admins get there, I don't know. This new rule (I'm fine with it being just a suggestion per Power, as well) would slow down the non-admin rush, cut down some on relist bias, and help give admins - who as Tony says are generally a lot more relaxed about closing times - a chance to see discussions that have petered out and can be closed (especially those that should be closed as delete) before, for example, someone gets to them and puts them in a new log just because the outcome isn't immediately obvious. Of course, the obvious exceptions for speedy/SNOW closures would still apply. And at the very least, if this doesn't come to pass, we should add a reminder somewhere about WP:There is no deadline and that having old AfDs sit in logs that are over 7 days old isn't necessarily a bad thing. ansh666 08:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    Ping Dennis Brown, Ajraddtz, and MarnetteD for my explanation above; sorry about the short initial statement, but I was in a bit of a rush and didn't get to explain as well as I should have. In short, I do think it'll make a difference, both in the quality of closes and in the number of meaningless relists. ansh666 08:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    /facepalm I can't spell Ajraddatz, sorry! ansh666 08:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't see that an additional day makes any difference at all. Either they're allowed or they're not. Again, if a particular editor is a problem, they can be dealt with individually via warnings, sanctions, or bans. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose implies that admins are prefered when closing discussions. They should not be. Admins are only preferred when protecting an article, blocking a user, or deleting an article. The actual closure of discussions should not be restricted to admins, nor should admins be given preferential treatment thereof. --Jayron32 16:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    WP:NAC (Experienced non-admin editors in good standing are allowed (although not necessarily encouraged) to close some XfD discussions. - emphasis mine), the existence of WP:BADNAC, and WP:DELPRO/WP:NACD (Usually, both closing and relisting are administrator actions.) disagree. The scope of NAC has grown a lot since I started at AfD about 5 years ago - it was intended for super obvious cases, but because of the super-backlog year or two at AfD, non-admins started doing more complicated closes and more relists. Non-admins are unable to consider the full spectrum of results, which results in bias towards certain results - I still have my own bias towards merge/relist, which was a source of opposition at my RfA regarding bad NACs. There are obviously varying opinions on whether this bias is a problem or not, but the fact that, as you say, admins are preferred when closing discussions shouldn't be under dispute. ansh666 18:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    It should be under dispute, and we should be constantly pushing back against any notion that admins are a special class of editors who deserve special privileges beyond that which their toolset directly grants them. Non-admins are not automatically lesser citizens in the Wikipedia world, and should not be treated as lesser. They have full respect and rights until such time as they have proven untrustworthy as individuals. --Jayron32 13:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    A fine sentiment, and one which is true in most places on Wikipedia. But it's wholly unsupported by policy in this specific area. Non-admins do not have the "right" to close discussions as delete, which leads to problems which this proposal is intended to address. (And honestly, nobody has any rights here, only privileges, but that's a whole different discussion.) ansh666 19:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    Arguably, Wikipedia is built neither on rights or privileges, but on utility. You're only judged by how useful you are in working on the organization's core mission. You don't have rights or privileges, you are only useful or not useful. And on the question of policy, policy does not exist before us, it exists after us. Wikipedia policy does not shape behavior; Wikipedian's behavior shapes policy, and if we decide we want to stop treating non-admins like second-class citizens at Wikipedia, then we just do that. Policy is only as useful as it is useful to our mission, and we don't follow policy simply because someone who got here before us wrote it. We follow policy because following the policy makes for a better encyclopedia. --Jayron32 19:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    So you're saying that you want non-admins to be able to delete pages? Because I don't understand what else you could do to "stop treating non-admins like second-class citizens" at AfD. As I said, in this area there are certain things that the community has determined that non-admins shouldn't be able to do, to, as you say, make for a better encyclopedia. (I'm honestly not understanding what you're getting at here). ansh666 19:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    I've never used those words. Until such time as you read the words I've said, and are able to correctly quote them, I'm not sure we can have a productive discussion. When you deliberately misattribute something I say to serve your own purpose, that is not a way to treat one's interlocutor with respect. It's a shitty thing to do, and I did nothing to deserve that. Vaya con dios. I'm out.--Jayron32 04:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say, since I legitimately don't understand your point. ansh666 03:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seven days is not really "rushed". Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    The rush is after the seven days. Admin or not, discussions shouldn't be closed before then anyways. ansh666 03:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this would be an effective ban on the non-speedy cases of WP:NOTBADNAC, except when a backlog develops at AFD. Most closers know when to close and when not to close, and as has been said already, those that don't can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Iffy★Chat -- 13:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose there are many very experienced good NAC closers so this is unnecessary. Where there is a problem with a closer they can be looked at individually Atlantic306 (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

questions about the the Retrieved date on a citation

What is the purpose and the update process for the Retrieved date on a citation?- Bevo (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If it is online, web sites change content on their pages, so it is helpful for other editors to know what version of the URL was intended in the citation. Even news stories change online. Also, if the source is no longer available, it helps someone find a good archived copy, hopefully the same version that was originally cited. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Jack N. Stock. I'd add that if you are thinking of updating the retrieved date, you should verify that the version of the website you are reading still supports the statement in the Wikipedia article. It's always possible that the source never really supported the statement, or it used to at the time the citation was added, but the web site has changed. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Dating and other relationships

Do any of the guideline pages cover when to report that people are dating? I'm asking in connection with a series of edits over the last few months at Brandon Flynn and Sam Smith (singer). Following the posting of photos last fall of the two of them kissing, there were a flurry of claims in these articles that the two were dating. I reverted them, as they were unsourced (though I could find sources myself, but those were just snapshots and gossip), and who even knows whether a couple pictured together for the first time last week are still together this week? Now, several months later, it's fairly well established in sources that they're dating, but is that still to be mentioned in either article? And, now, someone added Sam Smith as "partner" in the Brandon Flynn infobox. With no source. I'm assuming that people aren't partners until a reliable source says so, right? Anyway, even though I'm not second-guessing my actions, I figured I'd find out whether this is all covered somewhere already. Largoplazo (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Decisions about what information to include or not include in an article is subject to both reliable sourcing and consensus. One or the other is NOT enough. It should be handled on a case-by-case basis and decisions should be made based on discussion on the article talk page where there is some disagreement. Don't let anyone say "because I have a reference, this MUST be in the article" or get upset about "removal of sourced information" or some such. Having a source is a necessary but not sufficient condition for putting some information in an article, there also needs to be agreement that the information is relevent. I have no opinion one way or another on this specific bit of information, but that decision has to be reached (in consultation with the sources; the type of source and depth of coverage is good evidence of relevence, for example) by discussion and no policy at Wikipedia will ever be able to bypass the need to discuss and reach consensus. --Jayron32 13:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Guidance on removing comments from closed discussions

The consensus here is that closed discussions (i.e. those discussions to which a closing or archiving box has been applied in good faith) are intended to be preserved as-is, and may not be edited. Subsequent good-faith edits inside the box should be moved outside the box. Comments should not be reverted for this sole reason, but may qualify for removal for reasons described at WP:TPO. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Just a few minutes ago, I reverted a commented added to a closed discussion (the RfC above about airline destinations). My revert was then reverted by Mandruss, citing WP:TPO. The language on the RfC closing template seems to contradict WP:TPO. Can anyone help clarify what should be done here? Thanks. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: [11][12][13]
I'll ask again: What part of WP:TPO authorizes this removal? The fact that a comment violates a guideline (let alone a comment generated by a template, which was what was cited by Francis Schonken) does not authorize removal, or we would be allowed to remove vios of NOTFORUM etc. We are not (and, by the way, NOTFORUM is part of a policy). Removal is a serious action and it is reserved for the most egregious situations. Even if commenting in a closed discussion is considered disruptive, TPO bullet 3 states: "Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." It is not considered disruptive in my experience, and in fact I was roundly chastised once in my younger days for simply objecting to comments added after a close. A close is a suggestion, not the 11th commandment.
The rules must be applied evenly to all comments, including useless comments by new editors. To do otherwise is a very slippery slope. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Rather than REMOVING a comment added to a closed discussion, I would suggest that the appropriate action would be to create a new sub-section (perhaps entitled “Comments made after closure”), and MOVE the added comment into that sub-section. This way others know the sequence of events. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Right, it makes perfect sense that you wouldn't want it to look like the comment occurred before the close. It could be done as you say, or one could just move the comment below the {{closed rfc bottom}}, {{abot}}, etc. Either would be acceptable under the refactoring provision, as I see it. Removal is not refactoring any way you shake it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
And it was my bad for not doing that instead of the plain revert. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support removal - The bottom of that closed discussion clearly states The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Admittingly after maybe an hour I've added a comment to a closed discussion as part of an update or to say thanks but other than that discussions shouldn't really be edited especially after 5 days of it being closed, Removal was fine. –Davey2010Talk 19:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing in TPO about removal of comments that "shouldn't really be" posted. If you're invoking WP:IAR (aka WP:IJDLI), at least say so. Or, you could play the "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" card, or any of the various other trump cards that shut down policy/guideline arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
I never said there was - TPO IMHO is unrelated, I'm not invoking anything - Read the template which again I will quote for you! - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. - It clearly states No further edits should be made to this discussion. - What's hard to understand about that ?..... He shouldn't of added it and you shouldn't of blindly reverted the reverter,
WP:WIKILAWYERING isn't going to help you at all - Accept you were wrong and move on. –Davey2010Talk 21:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey dude, save the tone for noobs who are impressed by it. When the community (read reasonable consensus here) tells me that a message generated by a template trumps TPO, when neither TPO nor the template message say anything to that effect, I'll gladly defer to community consensus. In almost 5 years, I've yet to defer to intimidation attempts by lone editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
No one is intimidating you and I'm by no means "The voice of Wikipedia" but it's common sense .... if the bottom of a templates tell you not to edit that discussion then you don't edit it it's that simple and as you've been here for more than 5 years none of this should be new to you, Point is you shouldn't of reverted and point is TPO is wholly unrelated here. –Davey2010Talk 22:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I have never known "Don't do this on talk pages" to automatically and invariably translate to "It's ok to remove this if somebody does it". Look at the template message produced by {{atop}}. 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. It does not say No further edits should be made within this close box—it says "discussion" and that means thread—and yet experienced editors often add comments below the close box when there is a legitimate reason. Are those comments removed because they violate the letter of the template message? No, they are not. The comments aren't even collapsed, let alone removed. And "legitimate reason" gets a very liberal interpretation, and even pointless humor is tolerated unless it drags on too long.
If your common sense is so common, how do you explain the fact that 12-year editor Blueboar said something completely different above? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Support removal - when someone adds content to a closed discussion, they make it look like this content was part of the content which the closing admin had before him/her and considered when determining the consensus. Such sections should be removed, in order not to mislead subsequent users viewing the discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support removal--Per OD and that's how we normally do things.Winged BladesGodric 11:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support removal as per the template instruction Atlantic306 (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    • The "template instruction" is only about the text within the box of the closed discussion. It doesn't (and shouldn't) ordain what text should appear outside it. – Uanfala (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep the comment especially in this case – a newish editor expressing their frustration with Wikipedia, to then have a notification saying that their complaint had been reverted without explanation is a great way to WP:BITE a newbie. How much more work would it have been to move the comment into a new subsection below it, to at least acknowledge them? Either way, WP:TPO should be updated to cover closed discussions, and I don't think it should be used as a reason to silence others' comments on a subject unless in the most extreme cases (e.g. posting personal information, etc.). ‑‑YodinT 12:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep the comment in some way We actually do have an established practice by many experienced editors to sometimes add comments after something is "boxed" closed - it usually is placed directly below the box - so, generally do that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Alan. It shouldn't be deleted outright, but Od Mishehu is right in that leaving it within the closed discussion box leaves a on incorrect impression of what the closer actually saw. Moving the comment below the close box (possibly with a subheader) is the best solution. oknazevad (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Closed discussions are supposed to be a snapshot of what the closer saw – thus the bold, red text that tells you not to modify it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep in some way- outside the box is fine, and if it's inside the box then it should be moved out of it. Particularly if someone is writing a comment then gets edit conflicted by the closer. Reyk YO! 13:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove and/or Move the comment to outside the box as needed. Each case should be taken of its own accord; as a general policy we should not allow editing within a closed archive box; however if additional commentary is needed, the option should exist to either remove it (for inappropriate comments or ones which are not needed) or move it to outside the box (if necessary; i.e. commentary on the close itself). If an archive box is used with a summary statement, it is inappropriate to add additional commentary inside the box, as it implies the closer had access to that statement when closing. We should leave legitimately closed discussions as-is in most cases, and if additional comments are needed, start a new thread. --Jayron32 15:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Generally Move the comment to outside the box per Alanscottwalker. Although Jayron32 is right that this is a case by case decision. Some comments can probably be removed as disruptive or untimely, but the default rule is (or ought to be) to move a late comment "outside the box".
  • Regarding having comments added after the closed discussion: at least once I've added a comment after the closed discussion and it was removed. I appreciate there are situations where prolonging the discussion is undesirable (such as a discussion that has been going around in circles for some time). I think it will depend a lot on the nature of the comment: if it's yet another repetition of a point that's already been made multiple times, then it can probably be safely deleted without affecting matters. If it's something new, then it may be reasonable to keep the post-closure comment (outside of the closed discussion). isaacl (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The comment should be transferred to the talk page of the closed AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC).
  • Keep in some way outside the close box - Assuming of course that the comment is not qualified for removal per WP:TPO. Completely clueless comments like the one that triggered this discussion are sometimes removed as trolling (TPO bullet 3), but that word gets as much misuse as the V word. Actual trolling has no purpose but to disrupt and produce a big negative reaction, and there needs to be fairly clear evidence of that intent. Outright removal should be used very conservatively, and we should err on the side of retention. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move outside the box. Adding comments to a closed discussion is discouraged simply because they're most likely to be ignored: the community has discussed the matter, a decision has been taken and then everyone has moved on. But if an editor decides to add a comment, then there's nothing stopping them. There are many cases where it's useful to add such comments – say, for an update or a follow-up comment, and even in cases where it isn't (for example when the poster is venting about the injustice of the close), they're tolerated. And obviously, the comment should be moved outside the box because otherwise it would be misleading. – Uanfala (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support removal the person can move them outside the box themselves afterwards if they feel like it. Reversion is fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep but move outside the box per Uanfala. Double sharp (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, outside the box. It is useful to have, for example, a link to a further discussion about implementing the agreed action, without it being either removed on procedural grounds or mistaken for part of the decision process. Certes (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep but move outside the box. (Technically, that's moving the box and/or the comments in it, in a relativistic way) The whole "WP:consensus can change" thing implies that no discussion is ever truly closed - only the box is closed. Wnt (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quotation marks in title display

Here it was pointed out that the syntax for quotation marks in Template:DISPLAYTITLE does exist (for articles on compositions, mostly songs and singles), but "there is no consensus" on its usage. Was there a relevant discussion on it or it simply was not implemented by default lack of discussion? There seems to be some inconsistency, as the template is already used for italicized titles per MOS. Brandmeistertalk 12:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I would have to search the archives... but I do remember multiple discussions at MOS on this... so I think the note about “no consensus” is a case of the community disagreeing, rather than one of lack of discussion. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry policy title change discussion

 – This has already closed with a WP:SNOWBALL against the move proposal.

I have initiated a discussion on changing the title of the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. Interested editors may wish to comment in the discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization in genocide articles

I noticed the inconsistency regarding the Armenian Genocide, Assyrian genocide and Greek genocide. The question, which capitalization is correct, seems to depend on whether or not these are proper names. WP:NCCAPS. St.nerol (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I suggested moving Armenian Genocide to Armenian genocide , but the consensus went against me. See Talk:Armenian Genocide#Requested move 3 February 2018
I'm pinging the other editors who commented on the move request at Talk:Armenian Genocide (@Ribbet32:, @Diranakir:, @EtienneDolet:, @Dr.K.:) BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd have anything to add beyond what I wrote in the last RM. If anyone can demonstrate Greek Genocide is systemic capitalization in the literature justifying a move, it can be RM'd. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
What do the preponderance of reliable sources use (for each individual article title). Whatever that is, do that (for each individual article). --Jayron32 03:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this. The prevailing capitalization may well not be consistent throughout among the articles. Each title should be decided based on the prevailing capitalization in reliable sources. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The key is to discover whether the word “genocide” is being used descriptively or as part of a proper name. Do reliable sources routinely NAME the event as “the X Genocide” or do they merely DESCRIBE the event as being a genocide. To determine this one has to look at lots and lots of sources, compare how THEY capitalize, and see if there is a trend. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Does this help or hinder? Thincat (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about the phrase "manned mission" and weight of sources

Talk:Human mission to Mars#Requested move 5 March 2018

Is "manned mission" a gender-neutral term, and how much weight do we give to NASA's style guide? -- Netoholic @ 03:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Predicting the outcome of US Elections

Please join the discussion of how NOTCRYSTALBALL should be applied to predictions of US election outcomes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Change to the wording of Wikipedia:No original research

Diff. Comment by @Chris troutman: "While you're probably right, I don't think it's appropriate to change the wording of a policy without consensus.". I didn't think I really changed the meaning, but I can see the point, so lets see if there would be consensus. Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm not opposed to the addition, although I think some wordsmithing might be needed since the following sentence about something being attributable versus being attributed better appears immediately following the point about Paris. I would like to see if there's consensus for this change. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    I would oppose it, but for a rather nuanced reason. The "citing the sky is blue" trope is too idiomatic at Wikipedia to carry meaningful policy weight; there's an entrenched, old debate over the specific idiom to the point where we have competing essays, Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue and the nuance is that sometimes you do actually need to cite the obvious and sometimes you don't, and context (not policy) will tell you when. I think the OP made a good-faith clarification, but the Paris, France example is sufficient and unlikely to carry the cultural baggage that the "sky is blue" idiom just does at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 05:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Okay. I didn't really make the edit to clarify it though, it just seemed like the most sensible way to put WP:BLUESKY in there. Any suggestions to link BLUESKY, or should it not be linked at all in the policy? Or should BLUESKY be changed to FRENCHCAPITAL? Alexis Jazz (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you should link anything there, the meaning of the sentence is plain and unambiguous and doesn't need further elaboration. --Jayron32 05:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn’t link to WP:BLUESKY without also linking to WP:NOTBLUE. So best to not link either. Blueboar (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Something else to consider... the reason why "The capitol of France is Paris" is a good example to use in the NOR policy isn't so much that the truth of the statement is obvious... but that (as a statement) it is extremely verifiable. There are literally thousands of sources that could be cited to support it. In other words, it is the fact that the statement isn't original research that is obvious. Now... "the sky is blue" is also quite verifiable (and thus is not OR)... but... the counter argument (that the sky isn't actually blue) is also quite verifiable. So it does not make for a good example to use in our NOR policy. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't see the addition adding to the policy. In general, the shorter the policy, the better, and any addition that doesn't add context or explain the policy better is superfluous. Making it longer just to add a link WP:BLUE seems pointless since that information page isn't about original research, it is about citations for things that are obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As for the proposal, I suppose it wasn't the best idea.
As for France, @Blueboar: I am starting to have some doubts. How would you source the fact that the capital of France is Paris? Sure, you could link some maps. But that's not exactly an authoritative source. You could link paris.fr, that may be slightly better but still not the source. On the Paris article the statement "By the end of the 12th century, Paris had become the political, economic, religious, and cultural capital of France." is backed up by a 2010 city guide. Um. It seems to trace back to "Clovis the Frank, the first king of the Merovingian dynasty, made the city his capital from 508." which looks like an uncited fact. (although I suppose it'll be found in "Paris, des origines à Clovis" cited all the way at the end of the paragraph) I now actually do wonder what a proper source for the statement "The capital of France is Paris" would even look like. My best guess would be it's codified in law somewhere. I wouldn't mind if Wikipedia linked that law, even if only for historical purposes. Alexis Jazz (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Alex... just about any modern atlas could be cited for “the capitol of France is Paris”... it is also mentioned in numerous encyclopedias, dictionaries, almanacs, newspaper articles, tourism guides... etc. etc. etc. this isn’t the kind of controversial fact where we would require a high end scholarly source (but if someone insisted, I am sure there are plenty that could be cited). Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
How about a source for this statement: "There was no hurricane anywhere in Modesto California yesterday." North8000 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@North8000: You would probably use something like https://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sto&sid=KMOD&num=72&raw=0 as a source for that, although that only proves it wasn't that windy. In general you can't prove a negative. A source for "The capital of France is Paris" could be given, but a source for "There is no God" can't be given. Have some tea. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: But that would be O/R / synthesis to derive my statement from that  :-). My example was kind of whimsical, but we had a real life issue like that. An otherwise-RS made an error (or poor choice of words) and called a public figure something that was somewhat negative but obviously in error, so blatantly untrue that (like my hurricane example) that no source is going to cover to say the opposite and refute it. Some POV folks liked the obvious error and used wiki-policy to keep it in. North8000 (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@North8000: Now I'm curious what exactly you are talking about. What is it? Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:It was a painful old dispute that was formative in my wiki thought process that I really don't want to go back to, but the statement was that Ron Paul (the guy advocating trade with Cuba) is an isolationist. I think the mis-statement came from him being a non-interventionist. I learned a few things from that. One is that even genuinely wp:"reliable" sources can be unreliable on a particular topic. The second is that sources don't cover implausible statements that practically nobody is making. Such as my hurricane statement. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Blueboar: So citing another encyclopedia for a fact is acceptable? Did not know that. I won't insist on a source, but I wondered what it would look like. I mean, if we were to cite an atlas you could ask the atlas people "so how do you know?", you ask whoever they mention how they know and eventually you should arrive at some actual source. I wondered what that might be. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, a lot depends on the specific encyclopedia and the specific fact... but yes... just about any published general encyclopedia would be quite acceptable for verifying which cities are national/regional capitols. As for what the citation of an atlas might look like... it would look something like this:[1]
  1. ^ The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World (14th ed.). HarperCollins UK. 2014. p. 23. ISBN 978-0007551408.
(note: I don't have an actual copy of the Times Atlas in front of me, so I did make up the page number - just for the sake of giving an example... obviously if I were formatting an actual citation, in an actual article, I would take the time to look up the actual page to cite). Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer and information on citing another encyclopedia. What I actually meant though with "what it would look like" was if you would ask the atlas people how they know, they point (for example) to the map makers and you ask them how they know, they point to some database and you ask the people who made that how they know.. And in the end I guess you will end up with a law or similar I think? And what does that law look like. For "The United States is a nation" for example, I think you'll end up with the United States Declaration of Independence. But I don't know what you would get for "The capital of France is Paris" and that's what I am curious about. Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
That would be a primary source, which policy says we should avoid when possible WP:PRIMARY. At the time, there wasn't universal acceptance that the Declaration of Independence established the United States as a nation, so it is not irrefutable. Some people might say it is the Constitution or some other document that established the United States as nation, and some might say that the Second Continental Congress had no legal right to declare independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain (the British certainly disputed it at the time). Thus we need WP:SECONDARY WP:RELIABLE sources to verify that the United States is a nation. As for Paris, I'm just not sure. What makes you think that Paris is the capital of France? Right now, the source in the Paris article is Le Parisien and, on the face of it, I can't consider that source to be completely impartial. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jacknstock: I can't thank you enough for your response. No seriously, I can't. The thanks system is broken. And you are absolutely right. I think Le Parisien is pulling our leg when they say Paris is the capital of France. Everybody knows Paris is in Denmark. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
IMHO, this aversion to citing primary sources sometimes reaches a phobic & impractical extent. If one needs to cite an authority to state that the Athenians (& allies) defeated the Persians at Marathon, why not cite Herodotus directly instead of a secondary source? Those secondary sources will rely on Herodotus for that fact. (As for the consequences of this battle, yes a secondary source should be cited to substantiate an opinion.) As for an authoritative source proving that Paris is the capital of France, has anyone here considered there might be an administrative French law establishing just that? (Which one, I don't know. I would contact a French embassy for that fact. That is, unless anyone reading the article will get cooties because a primary source is being used.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a reminder: You (the individual editor) should not revert anything unless you personally object to its actual content. Your objection can be quite minor, but it should be an objection that you actually hold. This is actually our formal policy on the subject of updating policies: "you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it and, if one hasn't already been started, open a discussion to identify the community's current views."

One of the reasons for this is if you revert something because of your guess that some other, hypothetical editor might object (or because you don't think that WP:NOTBURO should be a policy), then the BRD-based resolution process is going to be broken. Those conversations tend to go like this:

Bold editor: So why do you object to this change? How can I improve it?
Reverter: I don't.
Bold editor: So why the heck did you revert it?
Reverter: Aren't you supposed to get written permission first, before making a change?
Bold editor: Not according to WP:POLICY. Not according to WP:NOTBURO. Not even according to WP:CONSENSUS.
Reverter: Well, someone would probably object. I'm sure there's something in every change to a policy that would bother someone.
Bold editor: Well, nobody actually did object, did they?
Reverter: I dunno. But someone told me last year that I had to get consensus for my change, so you have to get consensus for yours.
Bold editor: <screams>

Let's not have that, okay? If you personally don't believe that a change makes a page worse, then please (please!) let the reverter be someone who actually does hold that POV. Then the bold editor actually has a chance at finding out what's wrong with the proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about replacing CSD G6

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Proposal:_Replace_G6_with_explicit_finite_criteria about replacing CSD G6 with more defined criteria. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: update to banning policy for repeat sockmasters

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
  • Summary--The proposed policy change has a near-unanimous consensus and the amendment to the policy is thus Approved.
  • Details--
    • It's snowing rampantly over here and given the advertisement of this discussion at multiple prominent venues, there does not seem to be much rationale in keeping this open for any longer span of time.
    • As to the finer nuances of the wording:-
      • The word de facto shalln't be introduced in the policy-write-up.
      • GreenGiant's slightly-tweaked wording also fits nicely.
    • There has been an idea to introduce a parameter at Template:Sockpuppeteer to identify banning under the purview of this policy-change.That may be tried out.
    • To re-iterate two salient themes of the discussion:--
      • The CU evidence must be publicly documented.
      • Socks tagged solely on basis of behavioural evidence will not be considered under the purview of this upgradation.
  • Signed by ~ Winged BladesGodric at 07:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

After being pointed out by Newyorkbrad at AN earlier that we might want to find a streamlined way to deal with community bans for repeated sockmasters to avoid what has become a recent trend of seeking formal bans for them at AN, I began workshopping some language with other users, and would like to propose the following additions be made to Wikipedia:Banning policy:

Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are considered de facto banned by the Wikipedia community. Publicly documented CheckUser evidence should typically be involved before a user is considered banned in this way. Users fitting this criteria are subject to the same unban conditions as users banned by community discussion.

Administrators should typically place a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard alerting the community of such a ban as well as place Template:Banned user to the master's user page and add the user to any relevant Arbitration Committee sanctions enforcement list.

The terms of the proposal would make it so that after three indefinite blocks, a user is considered de facto banned under the banning policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment – "this criteria" should be corrected to "this criterion", the correct singular. "Criteria" is plural. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC !votes

  • Support as proposer. Common sense alternative that codifies existing practice on unblocks in these scenarios, and will cut down on the threads at AN. The second paragraph being the standard form of enforcement, but distinct from the core of the proposal which in the first paragraph. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A return to the way it used to be. This used to be codified into policy years ago, something to the effect of "Any user which no admin would unblock is considered de facto banned, and subject to the same restrictions as any banned user". Somewhere along the line, the common sense of that thinking was replaced by stupid worthless bureaucracy. It's time we returned to the notion that we don't have to vote on everything, if someone has been shown the door and can't stay away, they're just not welcome anymore. --Jayron32 19:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This will end the need for threads at AN and AN/I about these editors. MarnetteD|Talk 19:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The AN/ANI threads like this are ridiculous and only serve to give recognition to the trolls. Anyone who is socking to the point of being blocked on sight doesn't need a community discussion for us to know that they shouldn't be here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support GMGtalk 20:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I would support if that second paragraph were removed. You want administrators to notify the community via AN whenever an editor is found to have engaged in sockpuppetry twice? That wouldn't reduce the number of ban threads, it would greatly increase them. Sro23 (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Sro23, it depends on the situation, this was seen as a positive during the brainstorming as a way to keep accountability up. Obviously DENY is in play here, and the second paragraph was tweaked because of that. Looking over the AN threads, the comments I received on my draft of this, and other comments I received off-wiki, people prefer that there be some accountablility here, and that the tagging here fall under admin accountability, even if it is mainly clerical.
      I thought of this earlier today, and I think in practice the implementation would be somewhat like the requirement to notify for ECP or AN/RFC: a transcluded subpage could exist that archived quickly, but allowed for more public viewing of actions here. I don't think this is something that would be necessary for the random trolls and copyvio people who have made less than 100 edits, but would be something we want for vested contributors who later turn out to be sockmasters in order to promote transparency.
      As I said during the drafting, a lot of these concerns are about specifics of implementation that can be dealt with on a more practical level after the RfC by bold edits. The feedback I got was that people wanted a streamlined system that was also accountable. I think this is the best way to accomplish both of those goals, and think that there are ways to address your concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The WP:AN thread would consist of "I blocked XXXX the sockpuppet of YYYY and put a banned tag on YYYY's page as this is the 3rd instance of socking by this indef blocked editor. Putting here in case anyone wants to review." That is about it. It won't be a long drawn out discussion. Maybe a few editors will say "looks good", or if I have screwed up, they will say so. Tagging like this should be an admin only thing, and subject to WP:ADMINACCT, thus we need reporting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per the clarification below and subject to it only applying once enacted and not retrospectively. Mjroots (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Jayron and applying a sudden outbreak of common sense. And I'd rather see a dozen "Notification" threads then yet another "Let's discuss this but we all know how it's going to happen and then hopefully there will be a snarky close which I will chuckle at" thread. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support would reduce the number of pointless noticeboard discussions. Hut 8.5 22:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Much faster process than opening a discussion at AN or ANI. — MRD2014 Talk 00:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Considering TonyBallioni's reply to my question below.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, but suggest using a parameter in Template:Sockpuppeteer to indicate banned status, rather than slapping around separate templates. GABgab 02:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Time to stop wasting time with these people. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The latest 3 or so banning discussions on AN proved that something like this is long overdue, because the pile on support is just symbolic since no reasonable editor can argue against enacting such ban on prolific socks and recidivist vandals (cf. Dysklyver speedily closed ban discussion). I also agree with GAB's suggestion, to add parameter to {{Sockpuppeteer}} to indicate this kind of auto-ban. The traditional {{banned}} then can still be used where the discussion did indeed take place, since this proposal is not proposing abolishment of ban discussions completely. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Avoids the ANI thread of horror. !dave 06:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It will save a lot of time and frustration. How to deal with articles started by those sockpuppeteers and sockpuppets? The Banner talk 11:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - time the process was streamlined. Not that banning will stop the socking - like it didn't with Kumioko's WMF ban (Ha! I actually met that guy) - but it will be easier to close the SPIs they cause and range block them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This solves a couple of problems, including the perpetual AN ban discussions for editors who are already banned, as well as answering the question about automatically reverting edits of their socks. Rarely do we really need a de jure ban discussion for prolific sockmasters, so this would reduce the paperwork for what is always blindingly obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This sounds reasonable and will hopefully free up admin attention to other priority topics. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Each time a thread is started we're essentially giving recognition to the trolls/socks, Doing it this way is not only quicker but also we're pretty much DENYING any sort of recognition, 110% support. –Davey2010Talk 16:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and pretty much everything written above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons given above. These come up more than occasionally at Category:Requests for unblock and I believe this proposal will help clarify such cases. I don't particularly see a need to post a nice at WP:AN but I believe we expect such notices would be literally that, a notice where typically nobody needs to comment. So, fine, I can see the value. :) --Yamla (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have been myself treating a couple of sockmasters that they are "on verge of getting sitebanned".[14][15] This proposal will make things easier but I disagree with "CheckUser evidence should typically be involved". Banned editors like Colton Cosmic have been socking with IP [16] and CheckUser won't help you there. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If CU evidence is involved, they should be CU blocked, not community banned. Note that any such community ban would be appealable to ArbCom, as private information (CU evidence) would be involved. ~ Rob13Talk 18:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No, BU Rob13, CU don't make policy, they just provide us with the information we need to help us in our decisions to block and/or ban. A 'CU block' is only where private information, such as linking a name to an IP is not allowed, but in many banning cases, the socks have already done that for themselves. And of course, try as they may, Arbcom do not make policy either - they implement it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't care at all about that, obviously. It doesn't change ArbCom's workflow at all. It does make it impossible for individual CUs to lift blocks on long-term sockmasters without community consultation, but they don't do that anyway. What I do care about is that now almost every CU block ArbCom reviews will also (technically) be a community ban. That's going to cause drama that no-one really wants to deal with. ~ Rob13Talk 02:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Neither group makes policy, but the existing blocking policy allows CheckUsers to make any block based on CU data a CU block. The data they based the block upon is the private information you reference. The Arbitration Policy allows ArbCom to review the appeal of any block or banned user. We choose not to review community bans except in the presence of private information. As noted earlier, CU data is always private information, so any block or ban based on CU data can be appealed to ArbCom. ~ Rob13Talk 01:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I raised the option of making CU blocks effectively bans in an earlier discussion. The RFC takes nothing away from existing CU blocks that involve private date, but is for removing the unnecessary bureaucracy of ban discussions on publicly known sockmasters where a CU Admin has confirmed that 2, or more, accounts are linked. Mixing CU blocks involving private information with this discussion muddies the waters. Blackmane (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Blackmane: The point of a community ban is to force community review before the editor is unblocked. That is the only purpose of a ban, since our policy treats banned and blocked editors otherwise the same. In the case of CU blocks, those blocks can't be lifted by the community, and so a community ban is pointless. Note that individual CheckUsers essentially never lift CU blocks for reasons other than mistakes; they just let ArbCom handle it. ~ Rob13Talk 16:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Not entirely true: ArbCom does have the capacity to review CU blocks and bans involving private information, nothing would change that. ArbCom already might be involved in the reviews of every CU block that is also reviewed by the community: nothing here would change that either.
You are wrong, however, in saying that it is not normal for the community to review CU blocks. It is relatively standard for a blocked user to make an unblock request via UTRS or even on their talk page, a CU to review it, post results, and then it be brought to the community for discussion. These are all examples of CheckUser blocks reviewed by the community: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. This addition has no impact on the ability of ArbCom to review a CheckUser block. What it does do, however, is require that in situations where a user has block evaded multiple times, that short of an appeal to ArbCom, they must have community review.
If this is already standard procedure for non-ArbCom reviewed CU blocks, then all we are doing is codifying it, which is a good thing as it makes sure these reviews are consistent. If it is not already the standard procedure, then it is also something that the community clearly wants as this has near unanimous support. Nothing here impacts ArbCom's abilities to review blocks. All it does from an unblocking angle is make procedures clearer for CUs and admins who are dealing with requests made on user talk pages or via UTRS. If what you say is true that all CU unblock reviews should be handled by ArbCom and people see this as an making it harder to be unblocked short of a direct appeal to ArbCom, then it would also be good for you as it would encourage them to make an appeal there. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: The purpose of the RFC iss to define the practice around editors being indefinitely blocked, but not by a CU. If a CU comes along and makes the call to levy a CU block, that changes the block conditions to those governed by the CU block policy, and would be at the discretion of the CU admin. This RFC has no impact on that. What is being set up here is a process whereby editors who are indefinitely blocked by non-CU admins and who have been caught socking, with the assistance of a CU admin, are considered banned, but not as a CU levied block. The block would remain a non-CU indefinite block just that the conditions around that block would now fall under the banning policy. I'm not sure where the confusion is. Blackmane (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
For clarity, CU blocks would fall under this, but the ability of ArbCom to review them would not be impacted. This simply cuts down on the pointless ban discussions and sets a procedure for when a user has not specifically appealed to ArbCom, but has appealed on their talk or via UTRS (which any search of the AN archives shows is not out of the ordinary.) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Cuts down on the discussions by initiating a discussion for every single editor blocked twice for socking? This will increase discussions, given the reporting requirement at AN. I'll reiterate that CU blocks should be used if CU evidence conclusively proves socking. Given the requirement for "publicly documented CheckUser evidence" before implementing a ban of this type, that's your whole use case. ~ Rob13Talk 03:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: there is no requirement to report the ban at AN (and I can see reasons not to). This is about the basics - anyone who is caught twice socking while being indef blocked is deemed community banned. Full stop. No discussion needed, no tagging needed - that is the plain mathematical outcome. Three strikes and you are out. Whoever wants to do the tagging/reporting/recording is fine, but if the sockmaster repents and tries to request an unblock, then the administrator that is considering to pull the trigger should be aware, even if the editor was not tagged, that they are actually community banned (and there may be reasons to actually not make it public (deny the trophy), as there may be reasons to actually hold a community discussion even though this policy applies (award the trophy)). And although CU blocks technically fall under this, 'Publicly documented CheckUser evidence should typically be involved' (my bolding) leaves the possibility open for clear WP:DUCK cases where there is no true CU evidence (needed). If someone returns as a mallard, as a ringed teal, as a common scoter, as a golden cascade, ánd as a hook bill, they are still definitely socking more than two times - and hence would be considered community banned, and a discussion on WP:AN would have the same effect as that: the regular consensus to consider the editor community blocked (and hence would need community consensus or ArbCom to get unblocked). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Seems like a sensible way of streamlining the process. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support — Per nomination, and other support votes, would greatly streamline the process.
    Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – I've never really understood the need to request a community ban for these kinds of editors. The administrative state of affairs changes only marginally, if at all, before and after the decision to ban. As this proposal is designed to cut back on such proposals at the admin noticeboards, I suppose I support this in principle, though I'm not sure whether even Template:Banned user is necessary per WP:DENY. Mz7 (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I cannot understand BU Rob13's opposition (as in, I'm reading his words but can't make out the meaning). Anything that closes the door on ne'er-do-wells is a good thing, private information be damned. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Chris troutman: I'm saying that CU blocks already close the door. You're building a second door and then shutting that one. If the original door were to open, the fact the new door is closed would be irrelevant. Perhaps I'm straining the analogy, but I think it actually works fairly well; if ArbCom accepted an appeal of a CU block, we would also lift the community ban. This is adding a bunch of process wonkery that is completely irrelevant to any end results. It has no effect but to increase bureaucracy, make a bunch of pointless threads at AN, and waste the time of editors who could do good elsewhere. ~ Rob13Talk 17:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Fixing ping: Chris troutman ~ Rob13Talk 17:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
BU Rob13, this is beginning to divert from the essence of the proposal. As I read it, the RfC not intended to endanger the 'power' vested in you (or others) in giving you the CU bit or you being an Arbcom member. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support As I was involved in a small way with the drafting of the RFC, my support is obvious. Blackmane (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm one of those editors who almost always !votes in favor of a formal ban for such editors, feeling that an understood de facto ban was just not enough, and a formal ban give a little more protection to those deleting the contributions of those editors. I'm happier with this, although I don't think the phrase "de facto" needs to be in there, as what is being proposed is essentially a formal ban under X circumstances. Nevertheless, I support this, as the formalization of a de facto ban in policy makes it a formal ban, and therfore no longer de facto. (I hope that wascomprehensible.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    @Beyond My Ken: Perhaps I understand you. "De facto" should not be in this proposal and should be removed now. Because what usually happens is that a repeat sockpuppeteer (Like Dysklever example above) is usually de facto banned once they accumulate like 2-3 entries at SPI and that's why discussion to turn the ban into de jure is usually closed speedily as enacted. Now if this proposal passes, then it will effectively triggers de jure ban automatically at second instance of socking which is as effective as any ban enacted after AN discussion. Therefore since ban enacted after AN discussion is not de facto but formal this one too is not de facto but formal. But if the proposer is aware of this and still meant it to be de facto then still we need to discuss the real formal ban at AN. And from the impressions of everyone above and the intent of the proposal (as I understand it) is to stop the needless and largely symbolic ban discussions at AN which are time waste and even dignifying to the recidivist sockmasters whom we should WP:DENY. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    @Beyond My Ken and Ammarpad: to borrow a line from BMK's talk page, this is a crowdsourced horse. I mainly drafted it and got feedback on certain points in order to craft language that I thought would be a consensus version that everyone could get behind when put to an RfC, even if they had minor quibbles. The de facto language was wanted by some because it made clear that there had not been a discussion. I don't think it necessary, but I also don't see the harm. The language is clear that WP:UNBAN applies to these cases, which is the only functional difference between an indef block and a ban. Because that is the case, the distinction between de jure and de facto ban is no existent in terms of actual impact. The only difference is whether a discussion has been held. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    I can live with it, I was just pointing out a logical inconsistency. Better to have it than not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    Agree too, it is an improvement, though not as I expected. So under the current system, a repeat sockpuppetter is usually seen by the community as banned both through despising their actions and how they respond in banning or unblocking discussion about them. But this practice is not codified and not written anywhere, and that's the essence of this proposal to codify and give written recognition to this accepted practice. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support proposal in spite of believing its verbiage can be improved. It is sufficiently sound and no time limits prevent improvements from coming about later; over time.--John Cline (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The less long and useless threads, the better. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with minor tweak. "De facto" means that it's not codified; that's like saying "When someone's found to have gotten three indef blocks for sockpuppetry, he's officially been unofficially banned." But the point of the proposal is great. Almost never do we need to have those ban discussions, because such users are almost guaranteed never to be unblocked without a long and careful discussion. And in the situations where we do need those discussions, it's because the user's somehow less obvious (e.g. making appeals on UTRS) and might get unblocked by someone not aware of the situation. Such users should never be unblocked without a discussion, so let's make it official that they are to be considered banned and that we can place a template indicating "banned user" onto the userpage, to ward off ignorant unblocks. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    • ​I'm fine with the tweak removing de facto I think there has been enough feedback on that point here to suggest it isn't necessary, and the wording at the end about facing the same unban conditions as those banned by community discussion makes it clear that there wasn't a discussion. Also, agreed, on all your points. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support wording and implementation can always be tweaked, but the idea is right - avoid unneeded ban discussions and show baby-sockmasters that they are sitting on the ejection seat. Agathoclea (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Easy support Makes perfectly reasonable sense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per TonyBallioni and further it saves time to avoid Ani discussions and clearly a way to steamline the process.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I was actually thinking about this the other day; it makes it easier to go to sites like Fiverr, Upwork etc. and go "this user is indefinitely community banned on Wikipedia, please remove their paid editing services from your site". jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This strikes the right balance between protecting the project and allowing for mistakes by users acting in good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Nyttend. --NeilN talk to me 14:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments. I didn't know this existed until now, hence my belated comments. First, the language. Simpler: "Editors who have created two new socks after an initial indefinite ..." I don't know what exactly "publicly documented CheckUser evidence" means. I assume that a CU has to be involved in the blocking of the two new socks, but does the finding have to be confirmed or "technically indistinguishable"? Can it be likely? Possilikely? Seems fairly ambiguous to me and likely to lead to interpretation issues. Finally, there are two uses of "typically" in the language. Both strike me as weasely-problematic. When should a CU not be involved? When should admins not place a notice at AN?
  • Second, problems other than language. If the community decides to unban a sockmaster who was CU-blocked, at least one CU has to consent, and the community cannot "force" consent. Also, many cases are created where the master is stale from the outset. That means the puppets can never be connected technically to the master. How would that work with the CU requirement?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A CU does not have to consent. A CU needs to be consulted to provide evidence that the blocked user has abided by WP:SO or whatever terms the community feels should have been met to qualify for being unblocked. Checkusers, like admins and ALL other users with advanced permissions, are servants of the community and do not hold power over the community. They have extra tools so they can be useful, they do not hold extra powers so they can override community decisions. --Jayron32 15:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The community would first have to change policy. See WP:CUBL. Right now, the community cannot unblock a CU-blocked account without CU permission. Otherwise, all CU blocks would be subject to review by the community. Besides contravening policy, it also alters fairly long-standing practice. I have of course seen on a few occasions the community give advice, particularly in the case of WP:SO.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Nope. That policy does not say that the community cannot override a checkuser. That policy says that a single administrator acting alone should not undo a checkuser block without first consulting with that checkuser. Nowhere does that policy grant checkusers the superpowers you say that it does. It also does not say that checkusers must consent to the unblock, merely that they are consulted. We do this all the time with WP:SO discussions. I can bring up a hundred such discussions at AN, where a blocked user requests an unblock claiming they have been good, someone pings a checkuser, the checkuser gives their input based on their CU tool, and then the community discusses unblocking. They don't need permission or consent to unblock. Just information the checkuser is able to give them. Again, you have stated something which is neither backed up by written policy or practice. If YOU want to give checkusers more power than the rest of the community, YOU'LL have to change that policy. Because that policy at once both confirms what I said, AND contradicts your assertion that the community is somehow beholden to the whims of a checkuser when they make decisions. --Jayron32 18:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Bbb23, these are very good questions, and I'll try to answer them: Re: publicly documented CheckUser evidence, that just means that it has to be on-wiki and stated that the master is confirmed (or very likely). Admins should not go around putting banned templates on users just because they see a CU block template in a block log. Re: your unblocking concerns, nothing here would give the community the ability to undo a CU block. The language would require that someone who has block evaded twice and is seeking a SO go through community review after a CU has consented to an unblock.
    The most practical impact here outside of CU blocks would be for users that CU has confirmed or has come back as very {{likely}} for but the CU has not blocked and requested behavioral evaluation: these would not be CU blocks.
    The typically language re: AN would be for DENY situations, similar to tagging. I also anticipate that For cases such as mass use of throwaway accounts or the copyvio socks with less than 100 edits we frequently get there wouldn't be a community demand for it. What the language is intended to do is provide oversight of the process and allow comment if an admin has applied the policy wrong in situations where an unblock/unban is likely to be potentially controversial: users who have good faith somewhat significant contributions, are likely to make an unblock request, and where the community would like to be consulted before an unblock is made. This would also impact users who are indefinitely blocked before hand, are confirmed to be socking, but the indef is not converted to a CU block (different CUs have different practice on reblocking in these cases).
    In terms of the typically in front of CU evidence, the only situations I could think of would be ones like DisuseKid, where the master was stale, but they eventually admitted it and we had CU evidence to tie his other socking together. I think I answered all of your questions there, sorry if I missed any. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Tony, thanks very much for your responses. The only two concerns I have left are probably in the minor category. First, it sounds like even if there are a bunch of accounts that are CU-blocked for socking and tagged, if there's no SPI, there's no "banning". Sounds a bit inconsistent with the intent of the policy change. Second, although your clarifications are great, it would be better to make changes to the wording so there's no ambiguity. At the same time, maybe it's only me being too picky, and I do understand that any substantive changes to the wording are problematic in terms of the previous voting, which has been going on for a while. As for wordsmithing tweaks, I think Green Giant's below are excellent.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @TonyBallioni: read my comment above. I had also raised the issues with this proposal. I had also mentioned that there are banned editors who are using IP address for sock puppetry and CU won't help you there. This proposal can potentially encourage meat puppetry as well. I think you need to modify your proposal and just ping all involved editors after you have modified it. I am sure they will support it. Sock puppetry violations must fall under violation of WP:SOCK, not heavily depending on the circumstance that is "confirmed" abuse by CU. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23:I agree with your points, and think that they could probably be addressed with a footnote as to what publicly documented means (I would consider a CU tagging a master as confirmed ad public documentation as it is on-wiki, and was actually thinking of when I had seen you confirming masters in unblock declines when I used that wording. The point is to prevent admins from playing guessing games or tagging solely based on behavioral evidence)/ Same goes for wordsmithing and minor tweaks for clarity: that normally happens after a major policy RfC close to take into account the feedback from the discussion. As I mentioned to BMK above, I shopped this around to a lot of people to get a consensus version, and things written by committee tend to have clunky wording. I appreciate your feedback on this a lot.
    @D4iNa4: the point of this proposal isn't to document every type of user we want banned or even to necessarily discourage sockpuppetry. The people who it applies to are likely going to sock anyway. The purpose here is to clarify a current ambiguity in the unblock policy and to cut down on the pointless AN ban discussions for LTAs that have become a trend of late. I think the wording works fine for that, and the tweaks that we are talking about are pretty minor and can be worked out in practice. I don't see a need to change and reping everyone at this point. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but I would suggest tweaks of the wording (underlined and struck out solely for highlighting the changes):
Users who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for any reason, are considered effectively banned by the Wikipedia community. Publicly documented CheckUser evidence should typically be involved before a user is considered banned in this way. Users fitting this criteria are subject to the same unban conditions as users banned by community discussion.
Administrators should normally place a notice at the Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard alerting the community of such a ban, as well as place Template:Banned user on the master's user page, and add the user to any relevant Arbitration Committee sanctions enforcement list.
Green Giant (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Way back when I first started editing, this was standard practice. For repeat sockmasters with few if any positive contributions, you didn't need a formal ban discussion; you could just add a "banned user" template to their user page and be done with it. Sometimes the formalities are a waste of time. Kurtis (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Looking above I know I'm probably swimming against the tide here.. I share some concerns about the wooly nature of the language being proposed ("found ... after an initial indefinite block...", "...CheckUser evidence..."). I am concerned that this imposes bureaucratic obligations on admins ("Administrators should typically place..."). However I am also concerned by the additional bureaucracy that a blocked user must be paraded in front of an admin noticeboard, before unblocking, where they will typically be condemned to wait "two years" or similar by a permanently angry mob. I prefer the previous situation that Jayron32, Kurtis and others mention above, that a user is banned unless an admin is willing to lift the block. Sometimes admins acting almost unilaterally, using their good judgment in line with policy, is a good thing. I have no problem with getting rid of the banning requests posted to admin noticeboards, but requiring discussions on the admin noticeboards either at the time the block or in order to unblock is not an improvement, IMO. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pile on support. At the moment editors can go on socking until they lose enough patience of editors that we finally (after 20+ socks or so) get a rather useless formal AN banning discussion. If you want to return to editing, get your main account unblocked before we get this far. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the first paragraph per WP:DENY, not so much the bureaucracy creep in the second. Bishonen | talk 10:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC).
  • Support. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Support. Makes perfect sense. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: CU indefinitely block and/or even global lock is already banned for them, it is ridiculous and waste of time to give them the AN/ANI threads attention on the discussions, for unban as per WP:SO need to via their talk page and AN/ANI threads on the discussions, as IMO. SA 13 Bro (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the principle. The wording is a little ambiguous here and there and I'll post a Q about this below. Ben MacDui 18:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support mainly for the WP:DENY factor. A discussion at a drama board for such cases is unlikely to be helpful, and the issue should be dealt with in a cool and semi-automated fashion. Johnuniq (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is a good idea: it will turn the longstanding convention of such editors essentially being de-facto banned into a more formal ban. Nick-D (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 'Support Seems sensible, and not WP:CREEP when it merely strengthens existing practice. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Of course. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Users like Slowking4 who have only evaded their block on good faith should not be considered "banned", and a block is a preventative measure, if an evading editor doesn't repeat the behaviour that lead to the block this is a punitive measure that doesn't help improve the encyclopedia. This entire proposal is punitive and only serves as instruction creep. --Donald Trung (No fake news (Articles Respect mobile users. 00:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It is impossible to block evade in good faith, as this is explicitly against one of the strongest community consensuses, and ignoring it is essentially saying “Fuck you” to the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC discussion

  • Question "The terms of the proposal would make it so that after three indefinite blocks, a user is considered de facto banned under the banning policy" - this applies only to sockmasters yes? If an editor had three indefs for other reasons, they would not fall foul of this, would they? Mjroots (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Mjroots: No, they would not. That was my simplifying the wording to surmise the impact it would have re: socking and block evasion, not part of the actual proposal (which is in green). The simpler and more precise way of putting it would be: any user who socks twice after being indefinitely blocked is de facto banned. Thanks for the question. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Question I'd tend to support, but why there should be two occasions after an indef block? Wouldn't it be enough with just one? Sockmasters are warned about their behaviour, especially after a CU.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Jetstreamer, well for one, I don't think we could get consensus for de facto ban on the first occurrence of socking for block evasion, and so I wrote the proposal for what I thought would pass, but on top of that, we recognize that users fuck up. There are users like DrStrauss, who got CU blocked, and then tried to clean start, and got blocked again. He made a mistake, and I know for a fact that there are many admins and functionaries, and likely some ArbCom members who would probably be willing to unblock him after a CU gave the all clear without needing the whole ceremony of an AN appeal (and I say this as the editor who filed the SPI on him), and if you opened up a ban conversation on him now, it would likely fail at AN.
      Nothing in the proposal prohibits admins for taking blocks to AN for review, nor does it prohibit users from asking for a ban at AN if there circumstances that would warrant it before two occasions of using socks to block evade. It just sets a clear criteria for when the conversation isn't needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, in some cases users forget to log on and get blocked because it is believe they are socking. It's bit harsh to drop the banhammer in that case. Others may lose their password and create a new one account but neglect to create the link between the two. Various permutations on these sorts of things will happen, especially to new users. The proposal allows for some level of AGF. Blackmane (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - while I support the merits of this proposal, I do believe that where it says "... to have engaged in sockpuppetry ...", sockpuppetry should be piped from Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts as: "sockpuppetry", to remove any confusion as to whether or not Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses are meant to be part of the cumulative threshold for banning; perhaps they are?--John Cline (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    Can you come up with a single legitimate reason to use a sockpuppet to dodge a valid block? --Jayron32 13:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    By definition, if you use a 2nd account for legitimate reasons, it isn't a sock puppet, it is an alternative account. The term sock puppet is only used (or should only be used) when describing the use of an alternative account for abusive purposes. No further explanation should be needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    yep, that is what i was going to say. nonissue. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    No Jayron32, I can not. Was there something in my comment that led you to ask such a question? Dennis Brown If the term sock puppet should only be used to describe the use of an alternative account for abusive purposes, why does our policy on sock puppetry have an entire section on legitimate uses? I merely suggested, in light of the policy oxymoron, that the raw term has the potential of being confused whereas piping the term, as described, allayed that potential at the cost of added clarity. If it's a nonissue, it's a nonissue raised in good faith. I'll rest on that.--John Cline (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, John. In a discussion about people using a second account to dodge a block on a first account, you brought up the point that are legitimate uses of second accounts. I was questioning the relevance of your point, since I have not, in 12ish years at Wikipedia, ever seen a situation where a person who was blocked on a first account ever had a legitimate excuse for then using a second account. So, I get that there ARE legitimate uses of second accounts. None of them are relevent to this discussion, which involves someone first being blocked, THEN using a second account, THEN being blocked again for that and THEN using yet ANOTHER account. I was struggling to understand a scenario where that qualified as, "any confusion" over "legitimate uses". --Jayron32 18:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you Jayron32. I understand your dismay in the context described. I disagree, however, that such context ought be intuitively gleaned from the proposal as written. Found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block does not unequivocally mean the engagement in sockpuppetry occurred while the indefinite block was active. It could as easily mean sockpuppetry that commenced after the initial indefinite block had been successfully appealed; I would argue that the ban provision is best served by allowing for both eventualities, as it is written. I assure you that if the proposal had said: found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions, circumventing an active block (or something similar) I'd not have commented as I did. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    Actually it seems to me John Cline has hit on an important point here. Isn't this policy only intended to cover editors who sock while indefed blocked? I mean if someone gets indefed and then is unblocked, and then later, perhaps much later, is socks twice for reasons unrelated to ban evasion is this policy intended to cover that? As worded it seems it does but I'm not sure if that's the intention. After all it excludes people who sock twice but have never been indefed. Nil Einne (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    If someone block evades twice involving CU data, it is highly unlikely they will not be indef'd. This doesn't cover people who haven't been indef'd, as well, they aren't indef'd, so it makes no sense to go to unblocked to banned immediately. This is focused on block evasion after an indefinite block. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    To follow on, Jayron32's reply also asserts, if I may paraphrase, that this proposal intends only to weigh on indefinitely blocked sockmasters who are subsequently indefed again for socking anew to evade their initial block, and then found evading sanctions once again from yet another sock still. While I believe this is the requisite criteria intended for triggering a ban under this proposal, you can not expect ambiguous verbiage like editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block to adequately convey that premise.
    Unless you expect users downstream to refer to this discussion for understanding, IIMO that the proposal's text ought to be reworked to reduce confusion and improve clarity. "At least two occasions" does not exclusively mean "two unique sock accounts", one account can certainly be found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on two distinct occasions and nothing currently written suggests the occasions (or sock accounts) must emerge sequentially, as given in Jayron's reply, with the first sock evading and being blocked before the second sock publishes its first evasive edit. Thank you all for considering my regards, or for ignoring them with civility and kind manners. I am beholden either way. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

    @TonyBallioni: But that's precisely my point. The proposal may intend to cover only those situations, but it doesn't as worded. An indef as we all know (or should know), does not have to be permanent.

    For example, as worded if an editor is indefed, perhaps due to WP:competence as a 13 year old who shows behaviours not atypical of 13 year olds, and then 4 years later makes a standard offer request and is unblocked. And then 5 years later, with a clean block log since the standard offer, gets angry over something and gets blocked, foolishly socks in a very obvious fashion a single time and then stops and after their (we can presume extended) block expired comes back. And after another clean 8 year history they get angry and get blocked again and again foolishly sock again in an obvious fashion, they are basically community banned per this proposal.

    However there is a strong chance this user hasn't been indefed in 13 years (half their lives) in such a situation. So they're community banned without an indef block during the socking. And despite the fact they've actually been in good standing for a substantial portion of their editing history (or their lives). And their socking was 8 years apart, with nearly all of that time the user being in good standing. Our only saving grace here is that the proposal does say that CU evidence is normally needed and I imagine CUs will often not bother with either socking but that seems unnecessarily complicated. (Especially since you don't really have to change the story that much so that CUs may have been involved.)

    The proposal doesn't say the indef block has to be concurrent to the socking. Or that it has to be active. It just says the editor has to have been indefed before the socking. Even if we exclude cases where the indef is considered unjustified, I don't see how it's clear from the proposal that it excludes cases where the editor was rightfully indefed before, but is no longer indefed when the socking occurs.

    An indef block doesn't magically disappear when the block is removed. They indef block may no longer be active, but I'm fairly sure most people would agree that the editor was indefinitely blocked. (To give another example, if editor A is running for admin or whatever and another editor asks about their previous indef block and editor A says they were never indefed because they were unblocked after 4 years, editor A's RFA is liable to crash and burn.) I mean they don't have to have even been blocked during either socking incident. The only reason I included blocks in my example was because socking (i.e. abusively using multiple accounts) while not blocked tends to be worse.

    Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we have to rely on admins who are dealing with SPI and unblock requests having common sense. The natural understanding would be that the indefinite block on the master account needs to still be active. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not common sense that you're speaking of, it's specialized experience and knowledge. Or perhaps I haven't got a lick of common sense because I frankly can not comprehend the angst over saying what you mean. Why in the wiki-world would you prefer saying "on at least two occasions" if in fact you mean from at least two additional socks? Because the beautiful people will understand; really? I apologize for being a bit comely, and do regret commenting as I did. I should have just jumped on the bandwagon, and come across like I had common sense too. You won't read another stupid comment from me. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
There was no intention of calling anyone stupid, it's just that most admins who handle unblock requests aren't going view it in a hyperliteral way. The reason for the choice of wording was because this isn't sock three times, it's indef+two occurrences block evasion. The first block does not need to be for socking, and the wording of two additional socks is problematic as it relies on the number of accounts, not the instances of it happening. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
And at the very top of that section, it points to the two main Categories for legitimate alternate accounts, and goes on to say why it ISN'T sock puppetry to use accounts for the following reasons, ie: "These accounts are not considered sockpuppets." (emphasis mine) So it couldn't be more plain. It is logical to explain what is (top section) and what isn't (bottom section) in the same article, since people throw the term "sock puppet" around. I go into greater detail in the essay Wikipedia:Dealing with sock puppets, which I started after working at SPI for a year. To call multiple accounts "socking" requires a showing of ABUSE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Dennis Brown. I acquiesce to your expertise in this regard. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: What do we mean by "CheckUser evidence should typically be involved"? Is it enough if it is involved at one stage in the process (in which case the ban could be enacted for a final infringment without CU involvement) or does it mean that CU evidence must be involved for every accusation of sockpuppetry? Or what? Apologies if this is dealt with somewhere above. Ben MacDui 18:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Ben MacDui:: this was brought up during the brainstorming. It is worded this way because SPIs don't always involve CU data every time. A frequent pattern is "Behavioral case #1, behavioral case #2, CU case on #3 to check for sleepers and an underlying range", where a CU may tie new socks to the ones in the original reports. I get a lot of the ambiguity concerns, but part of the reason for that is to try to allow admins and CUs a small bit of flexibility here in cases where WikiLawyering is going to be likely if there is ever an unblock appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
      • @TonyBallioni: Thanks for your reply. I am aware that SPIs don't always involve CU data and what I am concerned about here is not so much wikilawyering by the mad and bad as the potential impact on an SPI behavioural investigation. Let's say an editor is indef blocked for non-socking behaviour some years ago. They return and are caught out by CU for some naughty but fairly minor socking infringment. Time passes, they make productive contributions and then are accused of having socked again but the clerks can't offer CU because one or other of the accounts is stale. Behavioural cases are sometimes not at all clear cut so I am assuming a possible advantage of the vague language is that if an admin finds this additional socking proven that they are at liberty to block, but not ban the editor on the grounds that "Administrators should typically place a notice..." does not mean that "Administrators are instructed to place a notice..." and that leeway exists in cases where the balance of the editors contributions might weigh against the likelihood but not certainty of socking abuse. (I can offer you an example of something like the above if you wish.) If this flexibility is intended then I am fully supportive. Ben MacDui 12:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
      • @TonyBallioni: I get the impression from the comment below by Dirk Beetstra that such flexibility is intended. On the other hand, if it isn't, I'd appreciate a reply. Ben MacDui 19:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Sorry I missed this. Yes, flexibility is intended. We don't always need bureaucracy and while the clarity here is good for unambiguous cases, the principles in the banning policy that already exist In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned, this proposal, and IAR show cases where an administrator could use their judgement to determine that the conditions are met. I expect in these cases, if it is an established user, the notification at AN would be important for review. I hope that makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: What do we mean by "Publicly documented CheckUser evidence"? Doesn't WP:CHECKUSER say even if the user is committing abuse, personal information should if possible not be revealed? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Hawkeye7:: see my response to Bbb23 above. There was concern by some that this could lead to people going around banning users just by seeing a CU block and without the evidence presented on-wiki. Basically, a CheckUser should make a public connection between, via an SPI, by tagging a page, or confirming on a user talk or other public forum. It was worded as "publicly documented" to allow for it to include cases outside of SPIs (CUs will often comment at AN or on user talks if pinged for a block review). As I said to Bbb23, I think this can be handled via a footnote. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Early Close? I think we are getting pretty close to the point where this could be closed w/o controversy given the extremely lopsided consensus and the fact that it has been open for over a week. I'm involved so I'm not going to do it, but I honestly see no realistic likelihood of a dramatic shift in consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Question/test case

I would rather this stay open because I have some questions, specifically about needing CU results. For an example, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Masoom.bilal73. This sockpupeteer is extremely obvious. In short, they suck at block evasion, every one of these is a  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me situation. That being the case, I’ve never bothered to CU them. So, they wouldn’t be banned even thought they’ve been blocked about 15 times under as many identities? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  • They wouldn't be impacted by this, but briefly going over their unblock requests, I also find it very unlikely that any admin would ever consider unblocking or even taking an unblock request to AN as I haven't seen a half serious unblock request from them once. This isn't meant to outline every situation where someone should be banned, just a narrow set of circumstances where the community has decided that a ban conversation is not necessary. Dennis Brown was the one who proposed the CU requirement if I recall correctly, and it was meant to make this conservative so we don't have good faith editors subject to unban requests based solely on one admin's behavioral judgement call.
    Consider the scenario of an indef'd user who does not block evade, but has two socks blocked solely on behavioral evidence: this could reasonably be addressed in an on-wiki unblock or UTRS appeal without the need to go to AN, especially if there was evidence against socking that UTRS would be better to handle than AN. The CU part is a bit of a safety net in those cases. Reasonably where this makes the most practical difference (other than cutting down on the AN discussions) is for the users who have been blocked with a mix of good and disruptive contributions, and continue to block evade. This would require an unblock discussion in addition to consulting with a CU, which is already common practice, but just formalizing that. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I should have explicitly mentioned this as well: to be clear, I am definently in favor of the overall concept and the idea behind it, ending unecessary ban discussions. I’m just not wholly convinced that CU needs to be involved every time. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that, and it's something I struggled with when drafting and taking feedback into account. Like I said to Bbb23 above, I think there are some cases like DisuseKid or others where we don't necessarily need a CU on the original master, and this is why the wording is a bit fuzzy (and requires posting to AN for review). I was trying for a step forward that could get very broad consensus rather than a controversial but might pass proposal. I agree there could be tweaks as we get more experience with it, but think this is a step in the right direction. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
And I would argue that is the function of the word 'typical' in the description. I would say that if we would bring this editor to AN for a CBAN discussion, the !vote would likely be just as anonymous as for any other where there is proper technical evidence to link the editors (and CUs sometimes don't have technical evidence, but go for the same duck-test), and that we would want to avoid said AN discussion. I don't think that we should hook the proposal too strict to checkuser evidence. I would consider that any editor who gets an indef block, and then evidently socks two times in evasion of their initial block are plainly CBANned. I would however imagine that on weaker ducks the number of socks would possibly increase, to the discretion of the tagging admin. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two Roads, One Path: COI Edit Request System vs. WP:AFC

Background information:

  • In 2011 the Pat O'Keefe article was created. The article concerns the life and times of a boxer who lived during the roaring twenties. The article was created by an editor who placed very general information upon it, such as the birthdate, name, etc. Very general claim statements. Over the years, the article never grew beyond a few sentences at most.
  • Fast forward to today, where a relative of the boxer (who has an announced and recognized COI) has written a brand new article (which I'll call the draft version). They would like this draft version to supercede the current article (which I'll call the LS, or long standing version). They have been using the COI edit request system in the attempt to place the information from the draft version into the LS version. I have two questions here:
  1. The LS version, since the day it was activated, has never undergone any kind of formal review process, such as WP:AFC. Its texts have never been examined in detail, nor has any other details, large and small, been vetted through the lense of the AFC process. With this new draft version, isn't now the best time to place this draft in front of that process, in order that it might receive all those benefits, carried out by editors experienced in the AFC process?
  2. Is submitting the draft version for COI edit requests an appropriate use of the COI system? I had thought that edit requests were to be actionable directives placed before the community in order to quicky review and approve information into already well established and functioning articles where a COI presence was indicated. It is rare for a COI edit request to involve the entire article. Is the proposal to re-write the article within the intended scope of the COI edit request system?

Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to reading your responses. Spintendo      19:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  • As there is an existing article, it should not go through AfC. We would have to delete the existing article, and move over (which we won't do), or delete the existing article, and then undelete it, to have a history merge so that we can have the history of the article in case someone want to revert the changes. I'll save you my rant on the issues that are involved with AfC and COI (tl;dr, it is a system that has structural advantages to being a COI editor rather than a non-COI editor.), but there would certainly be more eyes on it in mainspace, and it doesn't fuck up the article history. It should be done through the COI system, and changes be proposed incrementally (as I highly doubt the entire draft is ready for publication). TonyBallioni (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the information Tony. Spintendo      20:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Some kind of process/system would be useful. Many CoI editing requests are not for creation but for modification, and it can take significant work on the part of editors willing to get involved. See Talk:Realtor.com for recent example. When there's not such a neutral, experienced editor available, what usually happens is either: A) permissible changes by a conscientious CoI editor doing it right are rejected out-of-hand by a drive-by respondent to the edit request, usually on the vague basis of "no consensus to make the changes". This is actually problematic under WP:EDITING policy; no one has to get permission first to improve an article here. Or, B) non-neutral edits which should not be made, and were written by a PoV-pushing CoI editor who is not doing it right, get approved willy-nilly by someone who didn't bother to read them carefully, and this is of course a problem under WP:NPOV policy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections?

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction

Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections? Bright☀ 12:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Spam on talk pages

I'm not sure why this is the first time I've noticed this, but I have found some spam on a talk page. I'd like to remove it but thought I would ask for advice here first. I searched the archives and have not found this question. Thank you ahead of time for your answer(s). Please ping. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 07:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk pages and article talk pages are different. If the spam is on an article talk page then you can remove it per WP:NOTAFORUM. If it's on a user talk page, you should ask the user to remove it. But if you are fairly sure the person who placed the spam is evading a block you can remove it per WP:EVADE. If the spam is horribly disruptive you can ask an administrator to exercise a Wikipedia:Revision deletion. If you can be more specific, I might be able to help further, Barbara (WVS). Binksternet (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick answer. The spammy content is on the talk page of Vulvar cancer. Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 07:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The comments at Talk:Vulvar cancer are not a problem. They could be regarded as spammy but they are good-faith attempts to promote a related cause without any disruption. Yes, that's a misuse of a talk page but it's very inconsequential. I could archive them if wanted. Re user talk pages, often spammers post stuff and are not seen again. If the user is not active, just blank any user page with spam. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

External links from talk pages to potentially infringing content

It recently came to my attention (thanks to Fram) that the common practice of linking to YouTube videos and similar user-generated content from talk pages, where the copyright status of the linked content isn't 100% clear, may be disallowed by WP:COPYVIOEL and WP:COPYLINK. I think the policy is heavy-handed and deserves to be reevaluated, and in my view should narrowed to apply only to article space. If this requires WMF's consent then sobeit, but getting the community's reaction would at least be a good place to start, if for no other reason than to get WMF's attention.

At least as applied to good-faith links from talk pages, the policy is extreme and reflects an outdated analysis of copyright law. It's settled law at this point that linking to infringing content does not create liability, except potentially in very narrow circumstances that don't apply to Wikipedia (i.e. profit-driven encouragement of copying, a la Piratebay). WP:COPYLINK cites a single court decision from 1999 that's widely viewed as an outlier. And the sentence in WP:COPYVIOEL, "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement," is outdated. The ALA article the sentence relies on, which the ALA has actually taken down, didn't take into account any court decisions after 2000, when Internet law was still in its infancy. The law in this area has come a long way since 1999-2000 and our policies should be adjusted to reflect that.

Beyond the legal issue, restricting links on talk pages in this way is simply extreme and unnecessarily inhibits discussion and the development of the encyclopedia. I can't count the number of times I've used external links from talk pages to unvetted content to assist in research efforts or to advance an argument. We can't reasonably be expected to assess potential copyright issues every time we link to something for internal discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Where there is possible fair use involved, I could agree that we should not be strict on links. But regardless of the question of linking, we can enforce stronger than US rules to, for example, disallow any links to a clearly non-fair use video (eg a full upload of a copyrighted movie without any transformative elements by the uploader). From the video games project, we have to be viligant against pirate bay-type sites, illicit key generation sites, etc. that we take away from articles and talk pages all the time but we don't want WP to be seen as complicit on the copyright vio. That may be stronger than case law, but it is a good reason to be stronger than case law. But when you get to things like research papers published on researchgate.net by the authors, despite the fact they had seemingly given copyright to the journal, that's a gray area - wouldn't use as an EL in an article but would be reasonable to help on a talk page since one can argue the fair use there by the researcher. --Masem (t) 19:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair use isn't really an issue. Linking is legal, so there's no need or reason to invoke a legal defense, especially one as squishy and misunderstood as fair use. Of course our policies can be stricter than the law requires; what I'm saying is that in this case it serves little purpose and is detrimental to the project. If talk pages are being used as Piratebay-style clearinghouses for infringing works, then certainly that can and should be forbidden, though I'd think that would be sufficiently covered by WP:NOTHERE. I'm talking here about links included in comments permitted by our talk page guidelines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: the title of this section is misleading. No-one is prohibiting links to user ‘’’generated’’’ content. This is linking to data on, e.g., youtube that is not user generated, but to material that is hosted on, e.g., youtube in violation of copyright. I would ask you to make that clear in the title.

Bringing in a fair-use argument is a red herring. If the material that we link to is fair use on the external site, it is not a copyright violation on that site. In that case we are not prohibited to link to that (at least, if we put it in a fair use context).

Youtube however carries material in violation of copyright. Youtube takes such material down. That is material that is not fair use on youtube, and hence it is also not fair use for us to link to it - we link, like The Pirate Bay, to material provided by someone who is not providing the material under a fair use rationale, but is providing material in violation of the owner’s copyrighted. Whether ‘’we’’ would discuss it in context and could claim that through our discussion of the material is fair use, the material we link to is not fair use but a plain copyright violation.

Linking however to the original would be fair use, and that is ‘’always’’ the existing solution. That will result sometimes in ‘linking’ to material that is not available online. Although I can see that that is inconvenient, unfortunately it is a fact of life that we have to live with some inconveniences - we will have to load the DVD, sit through the first 45 minutes of Frozen until she finally sings ‘let it go’. —Dirk Beetstra T C 12:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the heading; it wasn’t my intention to mislead. In any case, no offense, but your understanding of copyright law is way off the mark here. The main point is that good-faith linking from Wikipedia to potentially infringing content is perfectly legal regardless of whether the linked content might be protected by fair use or any other copyright defense. So there is no reason or need to perform a fair use analysis. It’s unreasonable and unnecessary to expect editors to conduct a fair use analysis before linking to other websites. And no I’m not just talking about YouTube. I’m also talking about things like copies of research papers, paywall newspaper articles that are re-posted to discussion forums or blogs, etc. That sort of content is infringing and not fair use, but linking to it for the purpose of improving Wikipedia is beneficial and perfectly legal. We should allow it. ————— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrFleischman (talk • contribs)
@DrFfleischman: But that is not what is discussed in that policy. What is discussed there is linking to material that plainly violates copyright, not cases that may or may not, or may be fair use. If I rip a DVD of a current movie, and upload that on YouTube, I am infringing the copyright. I am not allowed to link to that copy from Wikipedia, and YouTube will take it down. It is not your responsibility to check whether what I uploaded is a copyright violation, but if you notice, or if someone tells you that it is a copyright violation, then you should remove the link, and you should not add that link again. All the other cases that you mention have nothing to do with infringing copyrights and are legal to link to. Question is whether it is ethical to do so in some of the cases, and I will continue the argument that it is in all cases not necessary to link to material that violates copyright, so why specifically bother.
I do think that WMF has reasons to have that policy more restricted than maybe needed, and that this should first be consulted with WMF, as I doubt that any consensus here could trump WMF legal (again, I could bring an ad absurdum argument here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I think I see the cause of our disagreement here. WP:COPYLINK and WP:COPYVIOEL have key differences. WP:COPYLINK only says not to link "if you know or reasonably suspect" that the linked content is infringing. WP:COPYVIOEL has much stricter language and says that when linking to sites like Scribd, WikiLeaks, and YouTube, "due care" should be taken. But as I look more closely, it appears that WP:COPYVIOEL, which is part of WP:EL, is just about external links from article space, not about links from talk pages. So maybe this is a non-issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a bolded part in WP:ELNEVER .. though the guideline applies in general only to content, that part applies throughout wikipedia, per the underlying policy.
I don’t understand why you, Dr. Fleischman, are so insisting about this after you linked to wat is very likely a copyright violation in such a frivolous way - there was nothing even remotely fair use in that link, and you could have easily given credit to the original, and I think that user:Fram rightfully removed that use. This has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with what is maybe not illegal for you to do, I hope you understand that. I am waiting for the first editor that agrees with you. If this subject is so important to you, then please have the curtosy to watchlist the pages where the discussion is going on, at least while the discussion is running. —Dirk Beetstra T C 19:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
You are poisoning the well and personalizing a good faith discussion. You are actively misrepresenting WP:ELNEVER, which doesn't say anything about "throughout Wikipedia." You are also using your misunderstanding of the law as some sort of cudgel to attack me personally. I do not appreciate this one bit. Have a nice day. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
ELNEVER says without exception, WP:COPYLINK is specifically stating not to link to works in violation of copyright. I am not misrepresenting anything. But seen some recent discussions the issue seems to be that we want to be allowed to anything outside of mainspace, for whatever reason. I have early on said that thisis notgoing to change unless WMF changes it, we cannot do anything without that, it is moot. —Dirk Beetstra T C 05:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we all agree that we can't set a local policy that violates WMF policy or the law. As there are several court rulings regarding linking to copyrighted content and the possible contributory infringement by the linker, I think we should get WMF Legal to opine on the matter. If they say "never" than that rather curtails the discussion. Likely the answer will be what it typically is with copyright questions: "it depends", after which we can then discuss how we want policy to reflect that; rather than going back and forth about what is or isn't fair use, we can focus on what does or doesn't fit with NFC as it pertains to ELs. CrowCaw 22:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

First off, this is not about NFC; NFC explicitly says, "Note that citation sources and external links raise other copyright concerns that are addressed in other policies." And the answer to the legal question is not "it depends." Other than someone subverting Wikipedia talk space and by turning it into a clearinghouse for pirated works (which is clearly prohibited by WP:NOTHERE), linking to infringing content is perfectly legal. But that's something WMF Legal will decide for itself. How does one ask them to opine? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
It may be legal, but should we do it? NFC is an example of a policy where we go far beyond what "legally" is allowed because we want to make freely available content. Since that all of WP can be copied, thus making the presence of al link to purely copyvio material, it seems in the same vein to steer away from such links so that the text can be used by anyone. (The legality of linking to copyvio material is not universal around the globe) --Masem (t) 05:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
That is actually what I think is the reason behind the more strict 'legal rules' that WMF set in this respect, than what is 'in real life' legal/illegal. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
It doesn’t matter if it’s legal. What matters is what our policy says, which is pretty clear: we don’t link to copyvios. Full stop. The legalities are something for lawyers to figure out. The advantage of our policies (which on copyright are often stricter than required) is that you don’t have to be a lawyer; you just have to follow the policy. We are free to prohibit linking to possibly copyvio works, and we do. What courts would say if someone brought a suit doesn’t matter: we don’t allow it. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
While I agree with this stance, there is a concern I have that we don't want WP editors being arbitrators of determined "possible copyvio" works. We can easily tell a link to a full copyrighted movie posted by a random user on YT is a copyvio link and remove it, but on the other hand, a user's review that includes clips of a movie is a grey area for both copyright and our use. We do want users to be vigilant and remove links that are to true copyvios, but not those that are in the grey area. --Masem (t) 14:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I get your point, but I typically prefer the precautionary principle in use on Commons, and think it makes sense here as well. Perhaps a better way to phrase than possible copyvio is “reasonable odds of copyvio” or something of the sort. We don’t want our editors being IP lawyers, which is one of the reasons our policies are so strict: it’s easier to follow clear policy than the nuances of intellectual property law, and we want to discourage editors from attempting to play copyright lawyer. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Its pretty clear if you look as a whole WP:PRJC "Editors may not violate copyrights or harass anywhere on Wikipedia. " - Wikipedia:Copyright violations "Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to." - WP:ELNEVER "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement.This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd, WikiLeaks, or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright. " - WP:ADMINH "Editors are entrusted with the responsibility of upholding the integrity of Wikipedia while adhering to intellectual property rights, such as avoiding plagiarism, respecting copyright laws", pls read over Contributory Infringement--Moxy (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

One thing I will add that recently came up was this Feb 2018 result in a NY District court, that rules that embedding tweets could be considered copyright infringement. No, it's not US case law yet, but it would definitely impact how we treat ELs (since we have full control over them). --Masem (t) 14:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Legally speaking there's a world of difference between embedding content and simply adding hyperlinks. Recent court decisions are split on whether embedding content can constitute copyright infringement. They are not split on hyperlinks (again, with the exception of PirateBay-style profit-driven encouragement of pirating). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
"Europe's Court of Justice rules that hyperlinking can infringe on copyright". The Verge. Retrieved 12 September 2016.. —Dirk Beetstra T C 04:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

While this was ongoing I ran into Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing. To me, that appear to be very similar cases as linking to a possibly/likely copyvio (and there it is in a context of news, here it is sometimes even frivolous use). (But I likely don’t understand ...). The part that I cannot get my head around is why it is even needed to link to a possible/likely, if not plainly clear, copyright violation. To me the whole question whether it is not illegal is completely moot, it is plainly unneccesary (avoiding stronger words). As linking to (possibly/likely) copyright violating material is simply disallowed by policy, I would suggest that such material gets blacklisted on sight if it gets mis/abused (also to avoid it accidentily appearing in content space). —Dirk Beetstra T C 19:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Why are Paralympians less notable the Olympians?

Why is it that every person who has ever competed at any Olympics winter or summer is entitled to an article; even if they only competed in one event and were only at the Olympics to make up the numbers. Some Olympians are selected by national authorities and get a place through filling of a continental quota. This is hardly the best way to become notable. Simply entering the Olympics should not be notable if the same is not extended to the Paralympics. I cannot see how notability can be granted for all Olympians ever no matter what. Where as Paralympains are only notable if they are a medalist.

This is not a paper encyclopedia and there should not be an arbitrary distinction between Olympians and Paralympians everyone should have an article or the rules should apply equally across both. What is the reasoning behind the rule that Paralympians must be medalists to be notable? This seems to be a distinction without a reason and purely arbitrary. The rules should be consistent across Olympic and Paralympic athletes. WTKitty (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It essentially comes down to what is covered by sources. A LOT of sources (be they sports media covering the current games, or historians covering past games) cover the “regular” Olympic Games in depth... and all but ignore the Paralympic Games. We base our coverage (Notability) on that coverage. In other words, if there were more sources writing about Paralympic games and athletes, wikipedia would have more articles on Paralympic games and athletes. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
There sources are there and are ample. A great deal of work has been done over the last decade, and historians and media now produce ample resources. The Paralympics are not ignored. Notability is not an issue. The distinction is purely arbitrary and there is no reason for it; it is just a historical quirk, like the fact that porn stars have a special status on Wikipedia. Wikimedia supports the creation of articles on Paralympic athletes. Note that it only means that Paralympic athletes are presumed notable only if they have won a medal; WP:GNG still applies, and there is no restriction on creating articles on worthy Paralympians. So WTKitty, if you want to create an article go right ahead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
For the majority of Paralympians before 1976 or so (and many in the 1980s as well), you will be hard-pressed to find good sources. The same goes for early Olympians (pre-1920), and the push should not be to lower the bar for Paralympians, but to raise the bar for Olympians. And even now, Paralympians routinely get a lot less coverage than Olympians, just like ijn many countries, the Paralympic Games as a whole get a lot less coverage than the Olympics. And of course, getting a medal in Paralympics is relatively easier than getting one in the reular Olympics, as the number of participants per discipline is generally a lot less. As an example, Austria at the 1980 Summer Paralympics: 48 participants, 45 medals. We have for example an "M. Petschnig" winning a silver medal (Advanced metric round open medalists). According to NSPORTS, he may get an article and is presumed notable. I haven't been able to find any further information on him though (well, he presumably is named Manfred, or at least there is a para-archer Manfred Petschnig listed in one other database). For any medalist at the 1980 Summer Olympics, finding sources is easy enough (the equivalent archer from the regular Olympics is Boris Isachenko). But for Paralympics this kind of even basic coverage is still missing, even for ones generously but mistakenly "presumed notable" at NSPORTS. Fram (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
It does not mean that articles cannot be written about paralympians, just that notability must be established through coverage in reliable sources. Olympians on the other hand are assumed to be notable, that is, the assumption is that sufficient sources exist to write an article. TFD (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
It’s actually a half step below that. Yes, we do start with the assumption that sources covering Olympians are extremely likely to exist... but on occasion, a diligent search for sources does turn up empty. On the rare occasions when that happens we admit that the Olympian is not in fact Notable enough. We have deleted articles on Olympians... not many, but a few. Blueboar (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Eh... that may be giving a little to much credit. It'd be probably a little more accurate to say that the WP:NSPORT is overall one of the worst offenders as far as setting a standard that is often well below WP:GNG, and probably many thousands of such articles should therefore be rightfully deleted if we were to perfectly harmonize our policies. However, most people who have a strong opinion about it (like yours truly), also realize that it was a fait accompli a long time ago, and it's not worth the time trying to fight back the ocean, when you could be doing literally anything else that improves the project more than deleting a bunch of one line stubs with tremendous effort, mixed results, and tons of resistance. GMGtalk 11:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Which I guess is what Notability is a guideline, not a policy. TFD (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, SNGs are supposed to be a useful heuristic for whether a subject is likely to meet GNG. Some time ago we forgot that bit, and just decided to make them a replacement for GNG in special cases. It doesn't help any that NSPORT outright contradicts itself on the matter when comparing the lead there to the "Applicable policies and guidelines" section. Either way, lots of "articles" for which no actual article can be written, and not much to do about it in any practical sense. GMGtalk 12:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Same reason they get less TV time.. it's sad, but it is what it is. Also we are FAR FAR away from having articles on all Olympians. Usually only if they have won medals in the olympics themselves, or in world/continental championships or multiple medals in national championships are you likely to be guaranteed to find an article on olympians. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_141&oldid=1142561384"