This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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.
When can WP apply labels/categorize BLP/groups in a factual tone
This is related somewhat to the discussion in the immediate section but something of longer-term interest to me. Generally, per WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:LABEL, when we have reliable sources that use negative labels on people (that are considered public figures) or groups, it is generally appropriate to include that label in the article with in-line attribution. These labels range from things like "alt-right" to "white supremacist" to "climate change deniers" and so on. However, there are cases of people or groups where there is clearly enough high quality RSes that use that label to a point where from WP's standpoint it might as well be stated factually in Wikivoice, not requiring inline attribution though still needing sourcing.
The problem that I see is that editors frequently do not readily demonstrate the widespread use of a label before using that label as factual in Wikivoice. I would like to suggest that we have some set of guidelines, not hard rules but principles to base consensus discussion on, for when sourcing is sufficiently widespread to use labels factually on persons or groups. I don't know where this advice would immediately fit in a policy or guideline page, so I'm bringing it up here for discussion.
The way I see it, some of the key principles for when we can say a label can be used factually is:
The person or group in question is readily covered by reliable sources. A person may be notable but if all the coverage of that person is in 5-6 sources, sufficient for notability, we don't have a good enough media sample size to say a label in a factual manner.
The coverage should be from a wide range of high quality reliable sources, avoiding op-eds. If we have papers ranging from the NYTimes, the BBC, the Washington Post, the Guardian, CNN, etc. all applying a label to a person or group, that's a wide breadth of usage to show that the label is reflecting many different media voices. To contrast that, there are probably several people that have labels applied to them repeated by Fox News, but few other sources; that's not sufficient for using the label factually. And of course, we want to avoid low-but-usable quality RSes here as the demonstration.
The coverage should be over a broad period of time, at least 6 months. We don't want people or groups, suddenly thrust in the spotlight, to have labels applied to them in a factual tone, per RECENTISM. This prevents minor spats than end up resolving or become non-essential in a few weeks to using the label. But if that label is used over several years by different sources, then that shows it has the longevity to be important for encyclopedic coverage, then it can be used factually.
Editors should not have to be cherry picking sources to show the label applies. It is not expected that every mention of the person or group in the media will include the label in question, but it should be used with some reasonable frequency to know its common enough. If I can dig up only, say, 3-5 articles where the label is used for a person, but that person is otherwise the center of 1000s of articles, then we should not be using that label factually. In essential, this is a question of how UNDUE is the label's application. If its used frequently, then UNDUE is met.
Failing to make all of these points, the label can still be considered usable but should always be used with inline attribution (that is, using inline attribution for a label should be considered the default) However, in considering the last point, editors should also consider the UNDUE nature if it is not used that frequently.
If the label is shown to be used sufficiently to be treated factually, it should not be required to include all the sources that use it, but editors should select the best 2-3 representative pieces that address it (eg if you have a NYTimes piece using it, that would be one of those sources to cite). Ideally, determinations would be made on talk pages by showing the collection of sources, and archived, so that if a new editor comes along to dispute the factual presentation of the label, they can be pointed at the analysis in talk page archives.
This also would apply to categorization that uses labels. People nor groups should be categorized by these labels unless we know we can apply the label factually. If we are using inline attribution for the label in the appropriate article, then they should not at all be categorized in this manner, since we're not factually stating they are of that label. (Categories lack the ability to attribute, so this is where we have to be careful).
Of course, these are not all the considerations (for example, if the person or group self-identifies by the label, there's little question that that's a fact we can use), and its not meant to be prescriptive, but instead draw some lines that should be easily demonstrated and serve as points of reference in future debates. There might be other considerations or factors I've not considered, which also is what I would like to see further discussion on, in addition to, if this is reasonable language to include, where should it be included. --Masem (t) 17:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Aside from self-identification, the fundamental problem with applying contentious labels is that they're almost never neutral. Take a person whom many sources call a conspiracy theorist: does the person agree? If not, don't use it in the intro. Discuss the opinions of reliable sources in an appropriate place, but don't label the person as such ("John Doe is an American conspiracy theorist..."), and don't put the majority point of view in the intro ("John Doe is an American whom sources X, Y, and Z call a conspiracy theorist..."). Find a neutral description and summary ("John Doe is an American writer whose focus has been on X, specifically advocating position Y") if it's critical to an awareness of the person, or leave it out if it's not. After all, there are plenty of disputed concepts with terms used by both sides, e.g. "John Doe is an American ufologist", not "John Doe is an American pseudoscientist who advocates alien abduction". Virtually everyone known for advancing such positions is a public speaker or a writer or a politician (how will you become well known if you don't do any of those?), so use the relevant term. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Draft of partial/temporary office actions consultation now live
Hello all,
Last month, the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team announced a future consultation about partial and/or temporary office actions. We want to let you know that the draft version of this consultation has now been posted on Meta.
This is a draft. It is not intended to be the consultation itself, which will be posted on Meta likely in early September (the exact launch date will take into account the completion status of the Fram case). Please do not treat this draft as a consultation. Instead, we ask your assistance in forming the final language for the consultation.
For that end, we would like your input over the next couple of weeks about what questions the consultation should ask about partial and temporary Foundation office action bans and how it should be formatted. Please post it on the draft talk page. Our goal is to provide space for the community to discuss all the aspects of these office actions that need to be discussed, and we want to ensure with your feedback that the consultation is presented in the best way to encourage frank and constructive conversation.
Please visit the consultation draft on Meta-wiki and leave your comments on the draft’s talk page about what the consultation should look like and what questions it should ask.
This "draft consultation" asserts partial Foundation bans "are final and non-negotiable." Did the Fram fiasco teach them anything at all? Jonathunder (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It's just a repetition of the current policy. They've not changed anything. From the look of things this is requesting input on what the consultation will look like. What I find funny is that WMF is letting this be done in-house rather than hiring professionals to figure out how the community feels about this. Makes me wonder how any of the data resulting from this will be used, if at all. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Eh, I don't think that's an argument that'll go anywhere. WMF can make whatever bad policies they want that they'll follow. Whether we respect them or consider them binding upon us is a different matter entirely. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Worth adding to WP:CENT? The list is getting pretty long, but removing the chess and tennis ones would seem legitimate, they surely can't be project-wide affecting issues (the chess one is also functionally done). Nosebagbear (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Unified Code of Conduct
While there is a general link to all the working group papers, it's such a long list, that I thought I'd draw specific attention to the recommendation for a unified code of conduct across all wikiprojects...something that has drawn some firm views in the past and it had received no specific attention on en-wiki.
For those either against or in favour of a unified code of conduct across all the wikiprojects, there's a specific working group discussion on it at meta. I think it could use some extra discussion. Link to Basic SuggestionsNosebagbear (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Does the community have the ability to remove an arbitrator from his position before an arbitrator is up for reelection? If not, then perhaps it should have that ability. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
You can ask them nicely to resign or you can petition the other arbitrators to remove them.
Mandatory recall for arbitrators is probably not a good idea for the same reasons that mandatory community recall processes for administrators, checkusers, oversighters, and stewards do not exist: they will have to make decisions that are not always popular. That's why we have ArbCom: to make decisions that the community can't. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought oversighters did a great deal that annoyed more than a couple of people (notwithstanding their creepy-ass logo) Nosebagbear (talk)
People get mad when they’re told no, and on a rare occasion OS blocks can be controversial, but, yeah, generally it’s pre laid back. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Are you meaning merely removing the arbitrator from Arbcom, without anything else necessarily happening? If an arbitrator got into a mess and did things that deserved a community ban, presumably the arbitrator would be removed from the committee if the ban ended up happening; it would be bizarre (and not particularly likely) if a community-banned user continued functioning on the committee. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I’ve talked about this before, and the best way to do it currently is to organize a petition to amend the arbitration policy (all you need is 100 signatures) to trigger a referendum on the amendment. The amendment could be “Effective immediately, [Arbitrator X] is removed from the Arbitration Committee. Attempts to reappoint [Arbitrator X] by any means will result in the immediate and automatic removal of [Arbitrator X] from the Arbitration Committee.” The second sentence is in case it’s expected Jimbo Wales would try to overturn the dismissal for any reason and reappoint the arbitrator. Alternatively, you could get an amendment going for a recall procedure, which would be better policy than a one-off removal, though of course there are those who think recall referenda are themselves a terrible idea. But as long as the community is free to make amendments to the Arbitration Policy, we are free to use an amendment to remove an arbitrator that the rest of the Committee refuses to expel. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
This is simply a Very, Very Bad Idea. As explained above and within the existing policy, the Arbitration Committee is entrusted with the power to serve as the final, binding decision in resolution of a dispute. Wrangling together a hundred signatures of disgruntled individuals who disagree with an arbitration decision and using it as a justification to "throw the bums out" contravenes the spirit of Wikipedia policy (WP:NOTDEM, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTBURO). But more importantly, it's ethically wrong. Duly-elected judicial bodies in healthy governments function through the concept of judicial independence, which means they are not subject to the whims and vagarities of straw polls, activist groups of legislators, executive fiats, etc.. Establishing a precedence that an arbitrator's decision can be overturned (or indeed an arbitrator removed) based on a canvassing of 100 editors would be akin to President Trump passing an executive order throwing out all of the Supreme Court Justices and null-and-voiding their decisions in the past year because their most recent ruling ran contrary to his policy positions. That would result in a constitutional crisis. If that's the sort of wide-scale disruption you're gunning for, you certainly have that right, but I guarantee you that the WMF or even Jimbo Wales himself would almost certainly intervene under those circumstances.--WaltCip (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I mostly agree this is a bad way to handle an issue with a single member, keep in mind the "100" editor petition doesn't enact a change - it is a means to force a referendum on a matter to become open for community voting, when the committee doesn't otherwise approve the referendum themselves; it would then still require a community vote with 50%+1 in favor and with at least 100 supporters to pass. So no: 100 disgruntled editors can't hijack the committee if they are a minority. — xaosfluxTalk13:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I suppose technically there could be a race condition type of attack here where the 100 coordinated supporters all voted instantaneously on the referendum as it doesn't specify a minimum voting period - but WP:NOTBURO and even WP:IAR would be sufficient safety valves against that. — xaosfluxTalk13:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I see now where you mentioned that ratification of an amendment requires "majority support" and that the 100+ member petition is merely to bring the matter to a vote. My mistake.--WaltCip (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with having such a procedure, so long as it is very difficult to succeed, but would not vote to enact one for the purpose of removing an incumbent (hypothetical, I'm not referring to status quo). And I believe others would be similarly reluctant. If so, given the lethargy that overcomes the community when their ox isn't gored, I think such a proposal would be difficult to pass--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I've long held that my "administrator" recall procedures can be extended to arbitrator (or bureaucrat, or any other hat I might hold). Indeed, I first put up the notice back in 2013, and made sure it was there to keep my head in check when I realised this oncoming storm. I'm fairly unusual with that, but Arbs are reasonable people and if a significant number were petitioning for recall of an individual, I'm sure they'd listen. WormTT(talk) 15:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
What is the policy for Summer Camps
Hello,
I have been doing a bunch of searching on the wiki for states and found that there are a ton of sleep away camps with poor sourcing and notability. Is there any specific policy or criteria for them? Some are very promotional and others are just stubs with primary sources. I have nominated a few for deletion already, but am wondering if summer camps were even worthy of inclusion. Of course if they pass the WP:GNG they are, but what about the others I mentioned above?
AmericanAir88, you could argue that WP:NORG may apply, but if you're looking for a set of special criteria that automatically establish a summer camp's notability, I'm not aware of one and would be quite surprised if we had one. signed, Rosguilltalk22:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The purpose of this RFC is to determine what are considered to be the purposes of portals. 01:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Some of the purposes that have been proposed are:
1. Showcasing our best content to readers. The Main Page, for example, is a portal with this very purpose. The Main Page is also very labor-intensive. Showcasing is work.
2. Navigating the encyclopedia. Along with lists, navigation templates, and categories, portals are one way readers can navigate the encyclopedia.
3. Containing content not available elsewhere on the encyclopedia. Some editors have stated that portals contain content, so that content is harmfully deleted when portals are deleted.
3A. Unique, forked or transcluded encyclopedic content
3B. Explanatory content such as guidance and reviews (others?)
4. Planning and management of WikiProjects. Portals allow editors to keep track of the current and planned scope of the project's coverage.
5. Metatext and reviews of the topic.
6. A statement of the importance of the topic. The provision that portals should be about "broad subject areas" is more commonly remembered and quoted than the qualifying clause, "which will attract readers and portal maintainers". A portal is seen as a declaration that a topic is a broad subject area.
7. An invitation to readers and editors to develop particular articles in a topic area.
8. Fun, or exercise. Some editors like making portals.
In the Survey, please specify between 0 and N (currently 8) purposes that you think are valid purposes of portals. You may add numbered purposes to the end of list and !vote for them also.
Only 1 and 4 are appropriate and feasible purposes for Portals, either old-style or new-style, and it's not really suitable for 4. Outlines or Wikilinks in the main article can replace the otherwise appropriate purposes 2 and 3, and invisible comments in the outline can better serve the purpose of 4. — Arthur Rubin(talk)06:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
1, 2, 3 (presentation style and selection), 7. I think portals can fill a niche that lists and navboxes cannot fill. An interactive guided exploration into the subject scope utilizing multimedia and a more visual narration style than what would otherwise be acceptable in the article space. Wikipedia's navigation methods are horribly outdated, hence other websites and web-apps survive solely by scrapping wikipedia, summarizing content and presenting it in a more modern visually engaging format. A lot of portals at the moment are just colored boxes with a bunch of navboxes stacked inside. I agree, you do not need portals for that and no reader in their right mind would use such a navigational tool. But that does not mean there is no potential behind the concept of portals. --Hecato (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I find myself in agreement with most of what Hecato states above, particularly formatting portals to further evolve as an "interactive guided exploration into the subject scope utilizing multimedia and a more visual narration style" and utilizing "a more modern visually engaging format". Very sensible notions. North America100008:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
None of the above are valid. Wikipedia portals are a failed experiment. None of the functions above justify creating a standalone page in a separate namespace.
Web portals were a major feature of the web in the early 1990, but their usage fell of a cliff in the late 1990s, because they were made redundant by two new developments: A) powerful and effective search, B) massive and deep cross-linking.
Wikipedia portals were created from 2005 onwards in a rush of naive enthusiasm, hoping that a few part-time Wikipedia editors could build a model of navigational tool which had became redundant even with huge commercial resources behind it. Unsurprisingly, they failed.
Despite 14 years in which editors can develop, test, and experiment with formats for portal, not one of the non-frontpage portals has come anywhere meeting their goal of being used by large numbers of readers.
I have sent months examining portals, looking at different models of portals, comparing states of maintenance, pageviews, incoming links ... and the simple answer is that in the end, none of them works. Even lovingly-maintained portals with plenty of incoming links still get abysmal pageviews, and most still have very poor functionality: e.g. most of them require a page refresh to view another set of topics, which is a massive usability fail. Almost none of them is designed to take advantage of the preview-on-mouseover built into the Wikimedia software.
The stats show very clearly that readers do not want portals. The portals are being created for the entertainment of their creators, rather than to meet a need. It's time to stop the farce of claiming that better design or more maintenance or or links will resolve the fundamental problem of redundancy. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Potentially, 1 and maybe 2. But on the whole I agree with User:BrownHairedGirl. The "portal community" have no one but themselves to blame, as they chose to chase quantity rather than maintaining and improving quality on a smaller number. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
None of the above are valid or useful in real life. BTW, the common meaning of portals does not include the main page. Trying to lump them together is IMO a bad move.North8000 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
1 and 2 only, but these criteria are only met for a handful of portals with very broad scope. I agree with much of what BrownHairedGirl says. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk)11:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
2, and to a lesser extent 1, 4, and 7, NOT 8. 1 is valid but labor-intensive and diluted the more portals there are. 2 is probably the best/most convincing, IMO. 3, 3a, and 3b are close to OR, SYNTH, etc. 4 is valid but not unique to portals; Many of Wikipedia's earliest articles, like CountriesOfTheWorld, were lists of redlinks to be created, and others exist in the main namespace to this day. 5 likewise hits close to OR. 6 can be dealt with via vital articles and the importance parameter of WikiProject templates. 7 is much the same as 4. 8 is quite silly, IMO; fun is not enough rationale for an entire namespace when the sandbox exists. Agreed with BHG wholeheartedly, would support the deprecation of all non-mainpage portals. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Deprecate all non-mainpage portals. The results of a one-by-one examination of portals over several months are clear. It's time to mass delete all the portals except those linked from the main page. Perhaps this is what the next RfC should be about. – Levivich14:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
There are good portals that play to different subsets of these criteria. I am mostly into 1,2,3,4,7 but I think 8 (experimenting with new ways to do 1 and 2) is also kind of valid (this also means that when one click portals were invented, there was no need to create more than one of them). —Kusma (t·c) 12:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1, 2, 4 and 7 are all valid reasons for portals to exist. The current portal guidelines are over a decade old, vague and limited, a situation that has resulted in a poor understanding of portals, huge variability in quality and design because editors aren't sure how to create good ones that meet these never-before-clearly-articulated aims. The knock-on was, first, a licence to mass-create poor-quality portals followed, second, by a licence to mass-delete as many portals as possible - a campaign that continues as we write. Clearer guidelines are desperately needed before portals disappear entirely, something that would be in flagrant defiance of the community's consensus. Bermicourt (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
1 and 2; perhaps 4 and 7. 1 and 2 are core purposes. It's unclear whether portals should also serve as a sort of wikiproject for editors. A little of 3A is also acceptable, because transcluding encyclopedic content is an effective way to showcase. Certes (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
1 and 2; perhaps 7 - In general, I agree with those who say that portals are a failed experiment. However, that doesn't mean that they couldn't theoretically succeed. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@StudiesWorld, after 14 years of the failed experiment, I think it's time to abandon the hope that the theoretical possibility will ever be realised. The reasons for its failure are quite simple:
portals are mostly redundant to powerful search and massive cross-linking and built-in-preview. They don't add value unless they are v well-designed and have a lot of ongoing maintenance
V v few portals get enough maintenance to actually value
So unless there is some sudden surge of editors will keen to beaver away at portals pages which are almost unviewed, the theoretical possibility will remain theoretical. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
None of the above are valid per BrownHairedGirl. Portals have been an abject failure on Wikipedia, as 14 years of hard data has shown. A very deep cull of portals is needed, as they are overwhelmingly shown to not be useful for or wanted by readers. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Navigating the encyclopedia? Yes. This is the ostensible purpose. A better word than "navigating" would be "browsing". The current portal system fails this purpose. Portals fail this by rapidly directing readers into the backrooms (eg WikiProject pages), and by failing to point to comprehensive browsing tools. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Containing content not available elsewhere on the encyclopedia? No. Portals should not contain content. I previously supported the idea of article lede transclusions, but that experiment failed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Planning and management of WikiProjects? No. A really bad idea. Portals are like doors, not management. WikiProjects pages are for planning and management of WikiProjects. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
7. An invitation to readers and editors to develop particular articles in a topic area? No, That is the purpose of WikiProjects. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: Part of the reason it's worth having an RfC, regardless of where, is that there really is no agreement about what the community sees as the purpose of portals. While you're right this is a straw poll, getting a wide range of input is actually helpful for moving forward with updating POG. I do think having two separate portal RfCs on the same page at the same time is somewhat excessive though, it may be better to merge with the one above so it only needs a single RfC tag. Wug·a·po·des 04:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I think we need to ask a second question: Are portals the best method of achieving these purposes? For example, I do think topic navigation is a valid “purpose” of portals, but I think that between blue links, navboxes, infoboxes, and categorization there are much better ways of helping editors and readers navigate to related topics. Blueboar (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
But it is a well known 'fact' of pedagogy that there are different styles of reading and different learning modalities for each of the billions of readers Wikipedia seeks to be open to. Someone of even a modicum of curiosity could go to most portals and make connections they never thought of before (ideas of things to work on, etc). In short, it would not be an "or" issue (only, 'these' or 'that') -- 'plain list' or 'formatted illustrated page' -- it is an 'and, and', which is, more than incidentally, the spirit of the wiki. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
This is part of the reason why I think it's not really necessary to have an English Wikipedia-wide consensus on the purpose of portals. If there is a group of editors who are interested in developing and maintaining a portal for a given purpose, either one listed above or another one entirely, and they manage it in a way that does not burden anyone else, why not let them have their portal? I might not agree with that purpose, but if I can safely ignore the portal, why should I deny others the advantage of using their preferred tool? (I would consider a poorly-maintained portal to be a potential burden to readers and thus indirectly to the editing community.) isaacl (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
But it's the "well-maintained" part that's the issue. Something like Portal:Trains consistently gets fewer views than my user talk page, but I have no issue with it because it's kept up to date and may be useful to someone. Where it becomes a problem is when a portal is out of date and inaccurate, but is linked from article space, so readers regularly stumble across it. ‑ Iridescent16:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I've already written lots of words on the need for maintenance on the portal WikiProject discussion page. (In short: I agree.) I was commenting on this discussion's seeming goal of agreeing upon the purposes for portals. isaacl (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Whatever style of reading or learning suits anyone, that style is not served by a sprawling collection of under-maintained (often abandoned or stillborn) pseudo-portals displaying outdated and/or factually wrong unsourced information.
Average daily pageviews of portal on en.wikipedia in April–June 2019 The reality is that nearly all portals are ignored by readers, and only 6% of them exceed even the low rate of 100 daily pageviews. The result is that mostly poartsl almost unused, and are under-maintained or abandoned.
In an ideal world, "both and" is a lovely principle. But the reality of Wikipedia's 14-year experiment with portals is that we simply cannot keep more than a handful at the level needed to make them viable. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, we have discussed this before, and for readers of this discussion unfamiliar with that one prior discussion, you know I reject your few readers complaint because even 'one' reader/editor who gains something is great. And, yes, everything, everything, on Wikipedia could use improvement. (And for others, I am putting this in as abbreviated a way as possible, to just get the gist across, because it is now clear to me that no matter what, BHG thinks numbers is what matter, so much so, that it gets to angry words if someone disagrees). - Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Alan passionately disagrees with the long-standing POG guideline that portals should be a "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Sadly, Alan does not accept the consensus has sustained that guideline for many years.
Alan also knows full well that my main objection to underused portals is not that numbers is what matter. My concern is that the numbers are reliable predictors of poor quality and of attack vectors for vandals of POV-pushers; and the existence of this huge collection of neglected/abandoned portals is a massive net negative.
But sadly, Alan prefers to misrepresent my position as being all about numbers. Other editors with more concern for truth can check my MFD nominations, where I have analysed the abysmal quality of many hundreds of portals.
It's a great pity that Alan is more concerned that I might be angry at his misrepresentations than he is concerned about refraining from making misrepresentations in the first place. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure how you found that particular brand of "passion" in what I say. At any rate, your commenting is in full WP:BATTLE mode. I just hold views that contradict your position, that is all, that's not a misrepresentation. This is the only the second time, I have discussed this with you. And both times you instantly come out come out in WP:BATTLE. This is getting worse and worse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It's just not true. You already knew I disagreed with your premises before you replied to my comment, here. Yet, what did you do, repeated the same things over again, to me, because you are in BATTLE mode. If my brief experience with you on this is any indication, you cannot ever accept in good faith that people hold positions contrary to yours, on this. Someone else above said they were fine with having portal TRAINS, that's my position too, that is all (and TRAINS is just an example). Because I don't hold to your BATTLE mode. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Alan, you are entitled to hold whatever position you like, but you are not entitled to misrepresent my position.
I have misrepresented nothing. The BATTLE comes in your failures of proper conduct and assumption. Not from the very few times I have spoken on this. It's just that I agree with above that no matter your view of the numbers for portal TRAINS as 'too small' by some metric someone has chosen, it is still fine to have portal:trains, and portal others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Alan, you said BHG thinks numbers is what matter.
That is simply not true; my view is numbers are a part of what matters.
So you misrepresent me, and then claim that my objections are BATTLE ... and claim that objecting to being misrepresented is not "proper conduct". What an utterly vile idea you have of "proper conduct". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
You are over-the-top in rhetoric. Nothing I have said is or even hinted at is vile and only someone so deep in WP:BATTLE could imagine so. You say numbers matter to you and I say numbers matter to you, it is thus plain you are so deep in blind BATTLE that all you can reach is BATTLEGROUND bad faith. Your failures of proper conduct and assumption are manifest. Multiple editors on this page have in effect said you need to dial it back, please do. I thought I made it clear when I said I agreed with another above that despite whatever numbers argument, having a portal, in that case TRAINS, is fine. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
You repeatedly misrepresent me, and then accuse me of bad faith and failures of proper conduct and assumption for challenging that.
Your rhetoric is over-the-top, and thus further evidence of your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Your battleground behavior has been noted by others as well. Again, I thought I made it clear, when I said regardless of the numbers, in whatever degree you claim the numbers matter, I agree with another, that for example portal TRAINS is fine for Wikipedia, even when someone comes along to claim numbers matter in any degree. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
A bit of most of them..
4 is what I use them for myself for project management. Working on a portal draws one's attention to the knowledge gaps in the topic.
7 is a natural byproduct of 4.
8 is incidental, and relates to why most of us edit the encyclopedia.
3A is a natural consequence of the existence of a portal, but unique encyclopedic content should be in the mainspace article. Portals should only transclude encyclopedic content, so it is not necessary to update it in two places, and so that portals do not need independent referencing.
3B would be useful to any readers who do use the portal. Does it really matter how many there are? if a portal exists, it may as well serve as many functions as one can manage.
5, like 3B is useful if it is available.
6 is an automatic consequence of the existence and quality of a portal, whether intended or not.
2 is also automatically there, whether it is as efficient as other options or not, it can be used for navigation, by anyone who wants to. Whether it is another way of expressing the content of one or more navboxes, or indexes or outline lists, or is built up on a dedicated list should not be an issue. Reuse of navigational tools in alternative ways is a saving on labour in the long run.
1, where possible is nice. Why not?
The amount of work put in by an editor who chooses to work on portals is not relevant. We are volunteers, if we want to spend all our time on a single portal, that is our prerogative. If it contributes even slightly to the utility or quality of the encyclopedia it is in line with the terms of use. The database space used is trivial. More storage space and editor time has been used in getting rid of portals and arguing about it than the portals ever occupied (I have no proof of this, it is based on personal impression. Prove me wrong if you disagree strongly enough, I would be interested to see actual data.) Spending an inordinate amount of time getting rid of portals against the will of editors when they do no harm is not a useful allocation of time. It is even more disruptive than having a large number of poorly maintained portals that nobody reads, though possibly less disruptive than banning an admin without specifying the reasons. This whole portal deletion drive is a storm in a teacup that has caused a large amount of distress and wasted a large amount of time and goodwill for no added value.
If someone chooses to create or maintain a portal, they have my acceptance as long as it complies with the terms of use and policy for the namespace in which it exists.
If an editor wishes to experiment with new and unusual formats, fine, it is their time, and there is a possibility that something new, interesting and useful may come out of it. The less the readers use the space, the less damage can be done, the more the readers use the space the more useful it can be. It is unlikely that they will break the encyclopedia or the servers.
If a portal is stale, out of date and unmaintained, by all means nominate it for deletion as a normal part of keeping down irrelevant clutter that no-one uses, but if someone steps up at the deletion discussion and personally undertakes to maintain it, let them do so, it does no harm, and spreads goodwill.
These are my opinions, as requested. I am prepared to debate disagreements of fact, based on evidence and logic. I am prepared to clarify my opinions where they are not clear. Telling me that my opinions are wrong is likely to be met with the attention it deserves.· · · Peter Southwood(talk): 06:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Interesting thoughts. In broad strokes, the logical purpose would encompass multiple facets of in no particular order, organization, inspiration, information. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Multi-part question for User:SportingFlyer - First, you complain about the deletion of content when the portal on the 1948 Australian cricket tour in England was deleted. Was the content unique to the portal, or is the content still present in the article? If the content was unique to the portal, why wasn't it also in an article? If the content is also in an article, why was the portal the best way of introducing readers to this particular interesting sports topic? Second, you are generally Opposing adoption of the long-standing page as a guideline. Is that because you would prefer no guideline, or because you think that the guideline should be different? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: The "content" was created by the portal creator, I'm not arguing it's distinct from the article but work was still put in. The portal was an excellent way of getting an overview of the topic because it listed all of the featured articles along with presenting a couple of those articles at random. It's saying, this topic is well-developed and there's all the best content on this particular topic. I thought my oppose !vote was for trying to make portals extremely narrow. They serve a purpose in narrow topics, if that topic has been developed very well. SportingFlyerT·C17:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Re "The portal was an excellent way of getting an overview of the topic because it listed all of the featured articles ..." an overview of a topic and a list of FAs are very different things. This is perhaps most clearly seen at the likes of Portal:Vietnam where nearly every FA listed is about an event, military unit, American aircraft etc of the 1950s-60s (and others are articles such as Black stork) - not articles about Vietnamese cities, regions, culture, 21st century etc that might make a good overview of the topic. Similar issues were pointed out at the MFD for the Trump portal. DexDor(talk)20:31, 1 August 2019 (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.
What the right honourable gentleman is referring to is his continued war against anything he doesn't like, despite input from other editors against this. He also fails to at least have a basic understanding of the term 'fan art' anyway. We go through this charade every few months before he disappears for a while. Jeni(talk)23:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Whether the image is "fan art", whatever you mean by that, is normally irrelevant, and there is no rule against using "unofficial" or editor-made images. The listed exceptions have to do with circumstances where there is literally an official, correct version of an image, as with a logo. Whether the art is "not very good" is a subjective matter, and you'd have to look for consensus. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Looking into this I noticed that some of the images being removed as fan art and then restored were all the images from British Rail Class 158#Liveries though I’m not sure if this dispute has carried over to other article. Admittedly not what I was expecting.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The images in question seem to be photographs of trains and technical drawings of train liveries. I would not describe them as "fan art"; their purpose is to explain real-life subjects more precisely and concisely than words could. There has been discussion about how best to photograph a train – some angles may be more artistic but less encyclopaedic – but I'm not sure that it needs a WP-wide policy debate. Certes (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider the train livery images to be fan art, Fan art usually are drawings drawn from scratch whereas these are from templates (the train template is the same in all images so clearly wasn't done from scratch although the livery on them were),
IMHO I would consider the images to be of use and help to our readers and I believe these images achieve more than just actual photographs,
The images at British Rail Class 158#Liveries are not fan art and provide useful information. Arguably more effectively than most photographs for that specific purpose. They are very adequate quality technical illustrations, well suited to their function. I cannot comment on other possible cases I have not seen. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 20:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Those are quality technical drawings; assuming that they are accurate, they’re more clear and useful than photographs would be. Which is always the whole point of using illustrations... OP is mistaken on all counts, including what “fan art” means. postdlf (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
These are very well done, freely licensed, and in my view very much contribute educational content to the article. I would not at all consider them to be "fan art", and would support retaining them. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the images at British Rail Class 158#Liveries are of high quality and should remain in the article unless someone points out some gross inaccuracies. There were said to be more examples of this controversial "fan art", could someone involved list some (or all) of these other examples? I do not like to judge the entire issue based solely on one example. --Hecato (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, X201. I feel the same about these images as I do about the images in British Rail Class 158#Liveries. They are useful, sufficiently professional and of sufficiently high quality. They should remain in their respective articles. I also do not consider them to be "fan art", which (so far) appears to be just a buzzword used by the topic starter in place of real criticism. --Hecato (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
When I heard the term "fan art," I immediately assumed someone had drawn pictures of say fictional characters for use in the encyclopaedia, which I would be against for illustrative purposes. I am not at all concerned about the train drawings, nor do I consider them "fan art." SportingFlyerT·C06:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I see little difference between badly-drawn irrelevant pictures of trains and badly-drawn irrelevant pictures of (say) "Hermione from Harry Potter". Neither has any place in a professional work. Tony May (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Tony May, we are not a professional work, but a volunteer-written encyclopedia. You are free to volunteer to contribute better images, but these appear relevant and certainly better than nothing. Unlike fan art (which involves interpretation), they also appear to be a faithful representation of the way these trains look. If they are not, please state exactly in which way they are wrong so they can be improved. —Kusma (t·c) 09:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your considered response Kusma - but the problem here in part is that there are better images. The drawings lack appropriate logos, and I cannot confirm their accuracy - it is likely that the author misses underframe detail, but he might also get the major dimensions wrong. Without a reliable technical drawing to compare them against, it's not that they are inaccurate, it's that we don't know and can't know how accurate they may or may not be. Tony May (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I do not see that underframe detail, exact structural dimensions etc really matters for images that are intended to show liveries. The one ground I could see as applying to user-generated art is if there was concern that original research applied, as has been the case with some depictions of ancient flags/insignia. Is it your contention that those liveries are basically drawn from the imagination of the creator? If not, I cannot see the issue in this specific instance. - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Your argument boils down to "I don't like them and I don't trust them." For the first part of that, no one agrees with you so let's move on. For the second part, if you think they are inaccurate you would help your case by proving it, rather than speculating on what might be wrong with the images. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
A few things:
User-created images are fully acceptable on en.wiki and commons. We expect in so much as possible that users uploading their own work release them as a free license unless for some reason the material requires a copyright. (for example, if uploading a photograph of a public statue that is in a place where Freedom of Panorama does not exist, we expect the photo to be freely licensed, but noting the copyrighted statue keeps it non-free).
Most of the time, we expect these images to support the topic, and not just "I'm an artist, look at my work!". So in something like OS-tan and furry fandom we have user "fan art" but presented as illustrative of the topic, and not in a manner meant to further the exposure of the artist. Other examples include recreation of graphs from sources that provide data, illustrations that mimic but do not directly copy the aspects of copyright illustrations, and so forth.
Now all that said, I see the article in question involves the liveries on British trains. That may be a problem in terms of being a free work, because of the very low threshold of originality for copyright in the UK. The shape and function of the train cannot be copyrighted, but the paint job can. Photos of trains from askew are fine, because the livery becomes de minimus to illustrating the trains, but the user-made images may be questionable. I don't know if this aspect has been discussed before. (Those images would be fine on en.wiki under one of our PD tags here, because in the US they are too simple for copyright). --Masem (t) 16:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure 'fan art' is the most useful descriptor here, but I do share some reservations for these images' usage. For one thing, I have to say that by the standards of illustration, these are not great. Viewed at full-resolution they're rather low-quality, with jagged, aliased lines everywhere. If you're going to make these sorts of diagrams, they really should be vector-based SVGs, or at least much cleaner rasters. Secondly, there's an obvious verification issue here—a reader has no clue whether or not these liveries are actually accurate, and I have no way of checking it (even comparing to images isn't a great option, because there's plenty of room—in the creation of these images as well as trying to check them against the real thing—for real-world factors like distortion to crop in and make these not very accurate as technical diagrams.) Finally there's the copyright issue—these are being uploaded to commons under free licenses when they are using logos (claimed under fair use, as here, which is a gross misunderstanding of Commons and copyright) and when the liveries themselves could meet the threshold of originality. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk12:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Look at File:Class 158 in the Transport for Wales livery.png. For one thing, this is a really basic colour scheme; I don't see how this could be a copyrightable subject (except by the person who drew the image of course). Moreover, the uploader says that there weren't any visible logos in the picture from which this was created — is it possible that there is no logo on some of these coaches in real life? If so, the absence of a logo is not fundamentally a problem. As long as this image is reasonably close to the actual coaches' paint schemes, there's no reason to object to it, and the same is true of all other images of this sort if we ignore copyright concerns. Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
And per Masem's comment, the problem with fan art is when people upload their own artwork for the sake of glorifying themselves, or when they upload stuff that's pretty grossly out of scope, e.g. "My impressionist painting of a sunset.jpg". Also, demanding that all the little underframe details doesn't really make sense; the focus is the paint scheme, and getting the underframe details precisely right is no more important than getting tons of islands' borders perfectly right in a national map, e.g. File:Philippine provinces by income classification.PNG. At worst, little detail errors are grounds for improving the image or replacing it with a better image, not grounds for replacing it with no image. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Exactly on this point. As long as user-made images are not purposely mis-detailing critical features, these types of "errors" can be routinely ignored. For example, I can see the case where a user provides a simplified drawing to help expedite explanations (such as File:Notre-Dame de Paris composite transverse section.svg used to help describe the parts of the cathedral that are important to under the Notre Dame fire). The drawing may not be perfectly accurate CAD, but its good enough that I know exactly what's being talked about and can recognize the various parts in real life photos of the cathedral. --Masem (t) 02:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
As yet another point of reference, at one point we lacked a free picture of Kim Jong-un (but since then he traveled and later met with Trump which generated tons of images). In the past, "fan art" was considered a suitable replacement as long as it 1) wasn't crappy and 2) was not meant to be overly artist. See for example this archived thread. --Masem (t) 02:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean, just to push back a bit, all the material in the Wikipedia is suppose to be ref'd. "This drawing is what I personally believe the entity looks like" is kind of similar to "this writing is what I personally believe the entity did", n'est-ce pas? You'd prefer something from a publication where the drawing went thru a fact-checker who compared it to photos in a book (or whatever, depending on what the publication's fact-checking procedure is). So User:Tony May makes a very valid point. (Use of "fan art", which is unnecessarily abrasive and also misleading, doesn't help him make his point. But not expressing yourself ideally, and being wrong, are two different things.)
I mean, where is the proof that the image is correct? "It just is, I saw it myself with my own eyes" is not sufficient ref for text, why should it be for images. If the artist is using a source, why not use that source directly? It's OK if the artist is working from a text description (e.g., making an image from the text "The flag of Libya is a green rectangle, ratio 3:2, precise shade #008000" or whatever), or from another image that shows what the drawing shows but not as clearly or prettily.(We sometimes do this for pictures of people's pudendums and so on, and other cases where a schematic or drawing elides distracting details.) But you need a source. If there's a source, the person ought to be able to point us to it, and Bob's your uncle. If the artist doesn't have a source that she can show us, tho... that's a problem.
the train livery example needs a ref(s). At the end of the section or whatever. We're not in the business of "This is what it looks like. Trust us." The reader needs to be able to satisfy herself that it's correct. Unref'd material that is challenged -- as seems the case here -- on almost any basis is not usually kept. Herostratus (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It is not unreasonable that if someone is making an image that is representative of something else and that the image is meant to be close to the real thing, that they provide the necessary references to back that up on the File: page, per WP:V. At the same time, there may be some things so "obvious" that there's no need to evoke WP:V. That should be a consensus of discussion to make that determination. --Masem (t) 03:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It's certainly a solvable problem, as commons has photos of actual examples of each and every one of these liveries. A lot of photos. Some people really like their trains: Commons:Category:British Rail Class 158. If anyone asks why have technical drawings if we have real photos, my personal answer would be that it's really hard to convince the train cars to stack themselves so perfectly for comparison, but that should be a matter for consensus at article talk page anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't even call those original research. I would just say it is obvious that neither of them is an attempt to faithfully represent the article's subject. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Christiaan Tonnis may be a nice guy and all, but his thing is not producing faithful-to-life illustrations; he's trying to capture "psychological knowledge" and represent the person's emotions. In general, portraits are very different from images of manufactured objects: if you get a few of the details wrong the person might not be recognisable, and if you just leave out the little details the person looks unrealistic, but with the manufactured object it just looks like a simplification. A better comparison might be the use of a simplified person and simplified animal, e.g. File:Apatosaurus scale mmartyniuk wiki.png. Were these dinosaurs really smooth and rounded, did Brontosaurus parvus really have a sharp vertical spot at the base of its neck (under the "m" in "20 m"), and are all humans a bit shorter than 2m? No, probably no, and no. We continue using this illustration because a simplification is perfectly fine here, and the person isn't intended to represent a specific individual like the Burroughs images are. Nyttend (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
We look very deeply into human faces. There is no room for error. Images that are non-photographic that are notable can be used even though they've taken liberties with appearance and especially if they've stood the test of time. But hand-drawn imagery of faces that are of no particular notability and especially if recently produced are unacceptable. They are too interpretive and we know nothing about the context of the interpretation. Gertrude Stein was painted by several notable artists and we correctly include images of those paintings in that article. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I will again point to the various user-made drawings of Kim Jong-un discussed here as examples of acceptable, not-artsy representations of a living person in lieu of a photograph that were all considered acceptable. in constrast with the example from the Tonnis image above. Yes, there's a small amount of creativity (line weight, medium, etc.) but each of those focused on accurately showing Jong-un to a point that if you saw a photo of Jong-un, you would likely recognize him from the drawing. Where there is a question of artistic liberty being used, that's a matter for consensus to determine if there is too much, but I would not be against guidance that says "user-made images should avoid taking excessive creative liberties and should strive to be more visually accurate. user-made images are not meant to be showing off your art skills but for illustrated encyclopedic topics". --Masem (t) 14:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Nearly everything that goes into mainspace is some form of "original research" by editors in terms of how we interpret a reliable source and summarize it. This is however an acceptable form of original research as long as we don't interpret or synthesize beyond that. Similarly, a drawing that is a sufficiently close approximation to a real-world image, such as those Kim Jong-un, are also acceptable "original research" because there is no attempt to interpret or synthesis the image. Contrast that to the Tonnis image described above, which is absolutely interpretive of the real person. That is unacceptable original research. --Masem (t) 18:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if there is no attempt to interpret the image because such interpretation is unavoidable. Your argument should be that even photography is interpretive. While this is true, photography is a world apart from drawing. Except in the case of a manipulated photograph there is a rational relationship between the subject photographed and the image produced. A camera functions identically no matter what it is photographing. A camera is a mechanical device. There is an element of rationality versus irrationality that distinguishes a photograph from a drawing. Bus stop (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
For en.wiki, that does not matter. Yes, a camera makes a "slavish copy" so that it should still be accurate of the original object photographed with no new interpretations/copyright, but the same can be done by a non-photographic work too. As long as the drawer has made something that is sufficient accurate and does not add excessive artistic interpretations, we can use that, period. The objections raised would eliminate far too much free imagery on WP and commons. --Masem (t) 18:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
"The objections raised would eliminate far too much free imagery on WP". Can you link to some examples in article space, especially ones involving the human face? Bus stop (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
What do we implement as a solution to Tony May being regularly disruptive and doing his best to drive other editors off the project? He's scored one already, it appears he's after another. Edit-warring against others (and there's no support for this on the project talk page) to repeatedly remove images with summaries like "tidying up" and "fan art" is unacceptably dismissive of the work of other editors, even if it's no clear breach of CIVIL. This is a nett negative here and we'd be much better without it. I'd support formal TBANs. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean, that's a fair point... to a degree. User:Tony May needs to learn that an edit with a summary of "Removed fan art -- tidying up" is not acceptable, while the exact same edit with a summary of "Removing unref'd image, not confident that this image is correct, please provide ref if restoring" is fine. Edit summaries are part of the edit. I have (on occasion) rolled back edits that were perfectly fine solely on their edit summary. Not often, but not never; an excellent edit that improves a section, add refs, improves grammar, fixes typos, and removes unneccessary text, but with an edit summary of "Fix nonsense written by morons" -- I will revert that in a New York minute. So can you. You can't talk to people that way. User:Tony May, are you listening? You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. We are a colloborative project, and that can trump narrow concerns over particular points of disagreement over content.
So it's two different issues: this persons's attitude and behavior, and the question on the merits what images are acceptable. On the first, we have certainly had excellent editors shown the door for being assholes. (I don't know this guy so I don't have an opinion.) That is a matter for WP:ANI I guess. Go for it. The Admins are (mostly) smart and savvy, they will give good advice. All you will probably get is a warning to the person, but that's a start. Maybe he will get the message; if not, you have a marker to point to for future actions.
On the second matter, images need to be ref'd. If there's actual reason to believe that the material is wrong, out it goes. If there isn't, but you just want it ref'd, and it's a detail and not key info, my usual procedure is to tag the section, wait a year, and then delete if nobody's come up with refs. However, that's not written down anywhere, it's just best practice IMO. However, I have enforced people just taking stuff out out. My usual point is something along the lines of "You're not asserting that material is wrong, so your options are to 1) go find the refs yourself and add them, 2) if you can't be assed to do that, tag the material, and wait a reasonable time for someone else to do it, and 3) if you can't be assed to do even that, the just let it go. So on that basis I'm restoring the material for now". (But then I usually do go find the refs myself.) I would support any editor who adopts this policy.
Just to throw my hat in, i've been one of the editors Tony seemed to hate, much to the point he'd message me on here after removing my diagrams with words to the effect of cease immediately Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Starting a pointless AN/I thread is an attempt to derail this discussion. It would be good to reach consensus and confirm the legal issues. Tony May (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The ANI thread is far from pointless. As we've spent this year (maybe longer) having you repeatedly attack a range of other editors like this, it's now time to discuss whether formal restrictions on your editing would give the rest of us a better editing experience.
As noted there, it's not about "what makes the best photo?", it's about whether it's OK for you to keep telling other editors, "Firstly I don't need to make you look like a "shit photographer" - you're managing that all by yourself on Flickr." and many more in that vein. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
RFC: Formalize Standing of Portal Guidelines as a Guideline (18 July 2019)
Should the existing page that is labeled as Portal Guidelines have the status of a guideline? 19:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
This page has been in place since 2006 and has, in general, been recognized as a guideline, but some editors have questioned whether it was ever properly adopted, and others have wished to suspend it. The purpose of this RFC is to clarify either that it is a guideline, or that it isn’t a guideline. If it isn’t, then we can go back to square one and adopt a new portal guideline, or we can we Use Common Sense.
The key sentence of the guideline is, and has been for more than a decade:
Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers.
If the guideline is adopted or re-adopted, changes to it can be made by another RFC.
Please Support or Oppose adoption or re-adoption of the guideline in the Survey. The Threaded Discussion section is for back-and-forth discussion.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Survey
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is clear consensus that the "Portal guidelines" are not, in fact, official guidelines. There is weak consensus for the page to be tagged as an information page; I will add that tag. Further discussion about if it should be an information page, a {{failed}} proposal, or something else can take place in the future; I suggest that the users that participated below be invited to participate in any such future discussion. Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. Feel free to ask me if there are any questions about this close. (non-admin closure) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC) I will post a copy of this close at the current village pump, since I closed it after the discussion was archived.
Oppose (i.e., keep it as the internal documentation of the portals project and don't elevate it to a Wikipedia-wide rule). I appreciate the sentiment, but the small-but-vocal "the more portals the better" faction will take the existence of formal Wikipedia guidelines for portals—whatever those guidelines actually say—as evidence that portals are an integral and indispensable element of Wikipedia, meaning any further attempts to remove even the most moribund of portals will be met with "but this is a broad subject area, the guidelines say it should have a portal, and the fact that it has zero readers and hasn't been updated since 2007 is irrelevant", turning MfD into even more of a mess of portal-related wikilawyering than it already is. ‑ Iridescent19:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I would actually prefer to see "evidence must be provided for the utility of a portal, to include significant pageviews (possibly in proportion to the number of articles under a portal's sphere of topics or the portal's prominence)" as an explicit rule here or elsewhere. That would kill the conflict stone-cold dead and give us something trivially measurable. --Izno (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Support - It has been the working guideline for 13 years, regardless of whether it was properly adopted or not, and it is a guideline that works well if one takes note of the key phrase with its qualifications, so that "broad subject area" cannot simply be determined a priori because readers and portal maintainers must exist a posteriori. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It is demonstrably not a guideline, if a guideline is something documenting community consensus on how something should be done. The page nominally described how to make Portals, with very loose criteria, and portal deletions at MfD from 2018-2019 prove that as a guideline it failed. How can this happen? Look at the history. It was advertised, rejected, nearly everyone moved on, someone surreptitiously tagged it {{guideline}}, it and most portals continued as walled gardens. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose POG tagged as {{guideline}}; badly written, bad guidance, never had support; following it leads to page creation that needs deletion at MfD.
Oppose POG tagged as an information page, that's the lukewarm policy page;
Oppose: The whole idea that a portal needs a big number of readers and maintainers to be kept around is nonsense. Readers come and go, and may be lured into portals if so badly needed. Note that the most viewed portals are, unsurprisingly, those mentioned at the top of the main page. The criteria must be a stable one, like the notability guideline for articles, which is not temporary. Maintainers? A good portal should not need maintainers: just set it up, give each section a populated queue of articles to display, and that's it. New articles may be added later, but it would still be a functional portal even if completely abandoned. I have seen deletionist users saying "this portal has a mistake, delete it!" or "nobody is keeping an eye on this portal, delete it!". Nobody keeps an eye on it? See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement). There is a mistake? So fix it!. I propose that we demote this page to an information one, decide a notability criteria for portals (with that name or another), and in the meantime decide things using just the breath of topic Cambalachero (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that, without someone keeping an eye on them, portals are vulnerable to vandalism, and the introduction of Original Research or POV bias. They do need to be maintained. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
But that is not at all unique to portals, and less meaningful than in articles our main body of work (and percentage wise makes portals look like basically nothing - and thus whatever portals problem there is basically nothing), which articles are riddled with multiple problems as anyone honestly touring our articles knows, so the work continues and never ends. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
By "keep an eye" I meant "someone working with it" (yes, not the best choice of words), as usually requested in MFD discussions (a usual argument is "the last significant edit was in X date"). Add it to the watchlist and revert any potential vandalism? Most portal creators have probably already done so, and if the creator left the project anyone concerned can watchlist the pages as well. But that's something that is largely unseen, because portal pages are hardly ever, if at all, vandalized. Vandalism in portals is basically a non-problem, and we don't need a Springfield Bear Patrol to control it.
@Cambalachero, articles are the actual encyclopedic content of Wikipedia. They have inherent merit, which is why we cut them a lot of slack even if they are in poor shape, because they are at least the germ of better content.
Portals are not content. Their function, if they have any, is purely utilitarian, and so if they lack utility they have no purpose.
As to watchlisting portals, try watchlisting say Portal:U.S. roads. To do so, you need to watchlist all its subpages, and that is such a huge task that very few editors will ever do it.
@Moxy: I don't think that is true; I watch the main page and have never had an edit to one of its subpages appear on my watchlist. Is there a preferences setting that turns on ths subpage watchlist functionality? UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Moxy:. False, it does not work like talk pages. The only way to be notified of an edit to a subpage is to have that subpage on your watchlist in addition to (or instead of) its main page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Support it continuing as a guideline. I believe guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive, and this guideline describes how portals work today (and how they have worked for the many years this has been tagged with the {{guideline}} template): the community rejected WP:ENDPORTALS, and strongly rejected the mass creation of new portals that did not match this version of the guideline. More telling, despite frequent claims that this guideline does not reflect community consensus, no one has proposed significant changes to this guideline that have succeeded in achieving consensus. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose and tag as an information page. At its inception, the page never received actual formal discussion to be enacted as a real English Wikipedia guideline page. Instead, label Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines as an information page using the {{information page}} template. There are many reasons why.
The gist of the lead for the portal was added subjectively and unilaterally by one user in 2006 (diff), and no discussion appears to have actually occurred about it until relatively recently. Guidelines should be decided upon via consensus, not by a unilateral addition of content from one user. Meantime, the page has been treated as an actual guideline, despite the content being based solely upon one person's opinion, which furthermore, was added to the page at its infancy.
Furthermore, the page was shortly thereafter marked as historical (diff), with an edit summary stating, "{{historical}}, not an active proposal per lack of talk page activity; suspect lack of advertisement".
After this, and importantly, the historical template was removed (diff), with an edit summary stating, "removed historical tag; this was not intended as a proposed Wikipedia Guideline, but merely guidelines as in advice for portal creators." (Underline emphasis mine).
Per the diffs, the page was not even intended as a proposed guideline from the start, and no consensus was ever formed for the content therein. The page was intended from the start as an information page. It's actually rather a farce that the page was somehow converted to a guideline page, because there doesn't appear to be any meaningful discussion leading to that change. It's like someone just slapped the Guideline page template page on it and it just simply stuck thereafter, sans any consensus.
Furthermore, the lead of the present WP:POG page is worded as an illogical and bizarre syllogism. Some users have been stating that if a portal does not receive what they deem to be adequate page views or maintenance, then the topic itself is somehow not broad enough. Of course, this standard could not be used anywhere else on Wikipedia, because people would reject this as absurd. For example, the Physics article does not receive a great deal of page maintenance, yet the topic itself is obviously broad in scope, both in terms of the topic itself and in terms of the amount of related content available on English Wikipedia. The manner in which this syllogism is worded on the page is subjective and inferior, and has been misused to define topical scope as based upon page views and page maintainers, rather than upon the actual scope of a given topic. North America100009:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: As I have already said elsewhere: The page is probably good advice to portal creators and maintainers. It is not framed as the list of demands that it is made out to be in recent discussions. Taken as a guideline it just serves to fuel the mass deletion efforts. A group of editors wish to delete almost all portals on this site based on pageview statistics and the guideline appears to be vague enough to enable it. I do not think the people who wrote that lead section thought it would be used in this way a decade later. --Hecato (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
No problem. I have set my preferences so that I no longer see any pings you create. :) I would hate to have to break in another bad example to show anyone else who really likes portalspam or WP:BLUDGEONING. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2019 (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.
ALT1
REJECTED
There is consensus against the alternative proposed guideline presented here. Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. Feel free to ask me if there are any questions about this close. (non-admin closure) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC) I will post a copy of this close at the current village pump, since I closed it after the discussion was archived.
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.
Replace the whole of the portal guideline with the one sentence quoted above by Robert McClenon: Portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers, plus a second sentence very very few portals can ever meet this criterion..
Nearly everything else about portals is disputed. But after nearly 6 months of MFDs, it is very clear that there is sustained community support for the basic principle that portals have to be good, have lots of readers, and be well-maintained.
Other proposals, such as that by @Izno, may be considered later. But the two sentences I propose above clearly mandate the continued cleanup, while other issues are debated at leisure. I hope that addresses Iridescent's concern. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: It does not add any new criteria, I don't see the point to it. And is "Very very few" a typo, or an intentional remark? Cambalachero (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Cambalachero, the point of it is to cut the ground from under the professional dissemblers such as NA1K, who have been engaged in a campaign of twisting plain English as part of a FUD strategy. The argument being made by NA1K is that since most portals get abysmally low page views( >60% get less than 25 views per day), the phrase "large numbers of interested readers" when applied to portals actually means a number of daily views which is near-zero. That is of course a negating-interpretation, designed to render the guideline meaningless; if "large" just means "greater than zero", then the word are has effectively been abolished. .
It is difficult to deal with the FUD tactics of serially dishonest editors like NA1K, but rather than a prolonged conduct case I think that the simplest way to stop the nonsense is just to clarify the guideline. There may be other forms of wording which would do so more effectively, and I am open to other suggestions for wording. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
As I said, @Cambalachero, I am open to other suggestions. If you don't think that "very very few portals can ever meet this criterion" is clear enough, the what wording do you suggest to make it clear that "large number" actually means "large number", rather than "very small number shared by a big set of other failures"? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The problem here is that there is an actual conflict between a) those who use the actual meaning of words and b) a worryingly large group of portalistas who take a Humpty Dumpty approach to language. We have actually had portalistas arguing in all seriousness that a topic which has three articles in its scope is broad enough for a portal. Many of them still believe that 20 articles constitutes a "broad topic".
I don't like instruction creep, but when people don't apply common sense to the English language, it is necessary to spell things out in more detail to avoid endless conflicts with those pursuing fantasies. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose This is primarily a value judgement that does not have consensus other than among a few users who generally dislike portals. The most recent large-scale community consensus suggests that the idea that only "very very few" portals should exist is not the community's opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Broadly support: "Very very few" is overkill (although I understand why it was suggested), but I would be happy with just "few". It is essential that all navigation aids, of whatever kind, are well maintained. The idea that they can be set up with a list of articles and just left is nonsense; important articles are regularly split and merged, less important ones can decay into uselessness, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Generally oppose I was very disappointed when a very well done portal was deleted on the Australian cricket tour of England in 1948. This may strike those who aren't cricketers as incredibly narrow, but there are several featured articles on the topic and even more good articles, and the portal did a fantastic job of drawing you into the subject. It was deleted in the great purge for being too narrow of a topic. This may be a one-off, but there needs to be some common sense here - a good portal should be a gateway into a topic, especially if the topic is well done. I admit most of them aren't/weren't, especially the template ones. SportingFlyerT·C06:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
No When we see deletion being advocated even for a brand-new and carefully constructed portal - the one on Climbing - on the grounds that large numbers of editors have not instantly become "maintainers", it seems evident that a different formulation is needed. Agree with the condition that portals should be well-maintained (no matter by whom), and on a broad topic - which I would identify as one with extensive coverage in Wikipedia, so much so that an overview of that coverage cannot readily be gained from the main article with its attendant links, navigation templates and categories. The part about pageviews doesn't wash either, under the present search facility which leaves portals as among Wikipedia's best-kept secrets: readers aren't viewing portals and rejecting them; they've never seen them. Were readers searching for broad topics to be offered such portals as have passed tests for quality and breadth, then pageviews would be a valid criterion. To reach this point would need a lot more constructive engagement with portals; after the mass-creation and mass-deletion blitzes, is the interest there?: Bhunacat10 (talk),16:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose insomuch as it misses two points, the first mirroring the above comment. A portal can/could be of high quality and useful, but only to a (seen to be) small fraction of WP's audience. Heck, anything that is not sports or music is already in the lesser degree of 'interest'. Requiring a portal to satisfy a - say >1% slice of readers - is an artificial criterion not meeting the goal of improving WP. As always, judgement is required, and a portal on diseases of the sigmoid colon is ripe to be flushed, if urged.
The second point I haven't seen mentioned (enough) is that any large page/topic/subject/portal is going to take time to take shape. "Not of sufficient quality" is/was true of so much of WP. "Portals must be perfect" immediately (by implication) is wrong. Shenme (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Reader numbers are artificially lowered by excluding portal links from many places where articles are linked, such as the default search. Portals on stable topics can remain of high quality with minimal maintenance. The second sentence prejudges potential portals as inadequate and is not an assessment criterion. Certes (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
More fantasy. There is nothing at all artificial about the fact that when readers search for articles, the results are a set of articles. It would be thoroughly artificial to respond to search for encyclopedic content by returning pages from a namespace consisting predominantly of unmaintained junk. (Yes, there are some good portals, but most of them are junk).
It is particularly ironic to see this suggestion coming from Certes, because Certes opposed the speedy deletion even of TTH's portalspam, callling it a war on portals. In the 4 months since the bulk of portalspam was deleted by overwhelming consensus at two of the best-attended-ever MFDs (mass deletions one and two), Certes had been moaning endlessly about the deletion of the remaining abandoned junk portals. We're still finding portals which have been rotting for thirteen years; there's at least one at MFD right now.
If Certes had had their way, the portalspam and the abandoned junk would still be live. So what Certes really wants is that editors who search for encyclopedic content should have their results set polluted with spam and abandoned junk. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Support per BrownHairedGirl. Very few portals benefit readers, while a huge number of portals waste readers' time by luring them to abandoned junk stuck in decade or more old time warps from when they were first abandoned, often just after creation. This change would bolster the good faith efforts of editors like BHG to clean up this long obscured area of Wikipedia that was allowed to decay on a vast scale. The portal sphere on Wikipedia is clearly broken and in need of a clear quality enforcement standard like this, to counteract the warped portal quality expectations a decade+ of festering decay allowed to set in. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose – I could be mistaken, but the way this proposal is worded, stating to "replace the whole of the portal guideline" comes across that all other content on the page would be removed, except for the two proposed sentences. It is unclear if the proposer is referring to the entire guideline page, or only referring to the lead paragraph, and it seems that others here are perceiving that the proposal is only regarding the lead. However, the word "whole" is used in reference to the "portal guideline" in the proposal, which is defined as "All of; entire". As such, this comment is based upon the former. Replacing the entire guideline page with the two proposed sentences would put portal criteria in a state of limbo, make general portal standards confusing and ambiguous, and would leave users who come along with an interest in working on portals with no criteria to base their work upon. North America100023:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. That line belongs in an essay, as a valid interpretation of the mess that is the state or Portals. They do serve any valid purpose, except maybe the several mainpage portals, and the mainpage itself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - Common sense dictates that most portals are useless if they are not regularly maintained, or if they don't attract any significant number of readers. This guideline is needed to prevent Wikipedia from being overrun by outdated, low-quality portals. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _03:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Support: this sentence has a broad consensus and is used often, while the rest of the page is more disputable and rarely used anyway. Nemo11:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: "likely to" is vague language and can be interpreted however you want. Also does not take into account new portals which are unlikely to instantly have large view numbers. Also it is questionable that all portals need to have large view numbers. The question should be whether they are useful and convey accurate information. We don't delete categories just because few people use them. --Hecato (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2019 (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.
Threaded Discussion (POG2019RFC)
Comment As background to this, some editors have been on a deletion spree attempting to remove portals. Among other possible problems, one deletion justification put forward for a portal to be deleted is that it has been unmaintained for a while. So in the crucial sentence mentioned above, portals being broad is uncontroversial, but the subordinate clause apparently requiring regular maintenance, IMO needs more discussion. In article space, we have the general consensus that there is no deadline. In WikiProject space, projects with few recent edits might be marked as inactive, but they are allowed to stand. Whilst an infrequently edited portal is perhaps less useful over time, why are portals an exception to the no deadline consensus? For my part, I would have a hard time accepting this as a guideline with this apparent editing frequency Sword of Damocles built in. And if the consensus is that it should be in there, I think thresholds need to be established, so editors are clear when a portal is endangered due to lack of recent edits. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}19:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Just some additional background: that portals are intended to be maintained has been part of the guidelines since before there was a Portal namespace. The 9 July 2005 version of WP:PORTAL says, in bold, Only create a portal if you intend to maintain it. Of course, consensus can change, and I agree there should be more discussion on this point. Wug·a·po·des 23:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the history. While I am a proponent of not setting deadlines in general at WP, I didn't appreciate that active maintenance was built into the Portal ideal. I tend to think of a portal as a prettier version of an outline, which is just fine as a reasonably static entity. But if dynamic content is seen as a core requirement or purpose of portals, I can understand how others editors consider infrequently edited portals as failures. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}00:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
At some point in the past I suggested merging outlines and portals mostly for that reason. Part of the problem is that the outline/index/portal system is so fragmented that it's not obvious what function they each uniquely serve. Consider how much different Portal:Contents/Outlines is from Portal:Sports for instance; the only thing they seem to have in common is the namespace. Wug·a·po·des 01:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment If you want to get editors to try and improve portals and make them more attractive and useful for the users, then going on huge deletion sprees based on pageview numbers is probably not very productive. And telling those editors who try to improve portals that they are just wasting their time and they should just get in line for the purge is not helpful either. If this is how portals are treated then you might as well do another RfC and delete them all. Nobody wants to spend time on a portal if the deletion squad comes next week and deletes it all anyway. --Hecato (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hecato and Mark viking: The portals project left many hundreds of portals abandoned and outdated for over a decade, and then allowed itself to be used as the base for mass exercise of portalspam. The project did nothing to cleanup the portalspam, and nothing to cleanup the junk which it has left around for a decade. On the contrary, the portalistas have hurled indignation, abuse, vitriol, lies, and much else at those who have done any stage of the cleanup which the portalistas themselves shirked.
Average daily pageviews of portals on en.wikipedia in April–June 2019The main issue now is that there are still way more portals than readers want or use, and way more portals than there are teams of maintainers.
So no, at this point we definitely do not need editors to try and improve portals and make them more attractive and useful for the users. What we need is a much deeper cull of portals, to get them down to a very much smaller number of portals that are actually used and actually capable of being maintained. Basically, we need to chop off the long thin tail on that graph, and concentrate on a very small number of portals. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Hecato - When you have made one-third as many edits in portal space as User:BrownHairedGirl has made, perhaps she will be ready to answer one-third of your questions about "improving" portals that no one views and that contain obsolete information. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
With the benefit of his vast experience of 35 days as a registered editor, and his massive contribution of 605 edits, Hecato is making a lot of very strident pronouncements about issues which others have grappled with on Wikipedia for many years. It can be amusing to see someone sign up and then pronounce as if they had years of experience, but it's rarely an approach which ends well in any field.
One of the many things which Hecato misses is that one of the roles of an editor is to actually to edit by removal. We edit articles to remove surplus verbiage, unsourced assertions, falsehoods and other extraneous matters. We delete article on non-notable topics, and we merge other items to lists of broader articles. We edit the template namespace to remove unused or unhelpful templates, such as navboxes with too few links. We edit the category namespace to delete categories which fail any of a huge range of criteria, and to purge many other categories.
So what Hecato maybe hasn't noticed is that in their enthusiasm for keeping a page which they created, they have aligned themself with a group of fundamentalists who object in principle to any deletions in portalspace, even of spam, and who have made it their mission to preserve the long tail of unread, abandoned portals. Hecato is entitled to join that team if they want to, but the preservation of abandoned junk seems a very odd priority for joining Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I did not know on wikipedia arguments are won by seniority. You wrote a lot of text with assumptions about my motivations and the characters of people you assume I have "aligned" or "allied" myself to, but you forgot to answer my question. What portals are you currently improving? Do you intend to invest a lot of time working on improving portals in the future, once you are done with your so-called "deep culling"? --Hecato (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Jo-Jo Eumerus - It has been marked as a guideline for 13 years, but recently some of the editors who defend all portals including crud portals proposed to suspend it, and then User:SmokeyJoe discovered that it had never been formally adopted as a guideline, and so it has been variously tagged. I would have thought that being used as a guideline for 13 years would grandfather it, but some editors now think that it is disputed. So the purpose of this RFC is to formalize the existing page to be a real guideline if it wasn't one. Thank you for asking. I didn't think it should be necessary, but it apparently is necessary to re-establish it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, the basic dispute about the guideline is quite comical.
In a nutshell: the guideline is entirely the work of portalistas, developed by them over a decade. The cleanup volunteers have been using the criteria set by the portalistas themselves as the principle by which to delete the vast piles of abandoned junk portals. This has outraged the portalistas, who are incandescent at the sheer wickedness of the cleanup volunteers' effort to stop wasting readers time with decade-old abandoned junk. So the portalistas have been repeatedly trying to remove from their own guideline anything which assists in the deletion of the unviewed abandoned junk portals which the portalistas love so much. Those text-removal attempts failed, so now the portalistas don't seem know whether they still want their own guideline or not, and the most currently vocal of them has taken up a stance which oscillates between fantasy and outright lying about what the guideline actually say.
So basically, expect this RFC to have people coming at it from all sort of unexpected angles. It will either be a damp squib, or an excuse to consume lots and lots of popcorn. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
User:Mark viking and User:Hecato complain that there has been a "huge deletion spree". The history is that there was a huge reckless portal creation spree in late 2018 and the very beginning of 2019, in which thousands of portals were created using automated portal creation scripts that created portals in a few minutes at a time. The portal creation spree took place quietly, subtly, because the creation of pages in Wikipedia is a quiet process that doesn't have to be broadcast. Much of that portal creation was reversed by two systematic deletions involving almost as much work by User:BrownHairedGirl in identifying those portals using AWB and listing them as it took to spam them into existence, and these deletions, like the individual deletions underway at MFD, are a noisy process, done with full publicity and plenty of notice. In the process, User:BrownHairedGirl and I and a few other editors discovered just how bad many of the portals are. While the portals that were created by the portal platoon in late 2018 were nearly all crud, we discovered that crud had been building up for at least a decade that still needs to be sent to the bit bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I will add that, as to the complaint that editors are not being encouraged to improve portals, it is true that BHG and I are not encouraging last-minute slapdash improvements to existing crud portals. Existing crud portals should be deleted before we decide which ones should be maintained and improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry, but your words are hard to believe when I read discussions like this one called "Unwanted portals" which is entirely based on pageviews and not the quality of the portal or "breadth of subject" or whatever other policy is poorly hammered into shape to justify the delete-no-matter-what vote on the MfDs. I do not believe you will stop once all the so-called "crud" portals are gone. --Hecato (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hecato, if you have found a measure other than pageviews by which to identify unwnated portals, then please present it for consideration.
Note that even after 5 months of deleting ~84% of all portals (the spam and the abandoned), 94% of the the remainder get less than 100 page views a day. Over 60% get less that 25 views per day. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment Firstly, let me apologise to readers who have read this comment before. I repeat it because this is the umpteenth forum to restart this discussion and some editors may have missed the prequels. In 2018 there were about 1500 portals. WP:ENDPORTALS, whilst it did not endorse every single portal, found a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time. Many more portals were created, some on narrow topics and containing errors, but almost all were soon deleted. The deletion process then turned to existing portals. Although the rate has slowed, we are now down to 858 portals and losing about five a day. Many of us see a frog-boiling process of inventing ever more innovative deletion criteria. One of many examples is WP:REDUNDANTFORK, which explicitly states over 100 times that it applies only to articles. (Portals will by necessity present material which is already in articles; that's their job.) WikiProject Portals and associated pages such as WP:POG are now a dysfunctional WP:BATTLEGROUND. The talk pages have become unusably large, as any attempt to improve or even justify the existence of a portal is met with a WP:WALLOFTEXT from those who believe portals to be junk and crud and that we definitely do not need "editors to try and improve portals and make them more attractive and useful for the users". Editors are being driven away from portal maintenance, and possibly from Wikipedia. More importantly, none of this helps our readers. Certes (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
WARMONGER Certes LAMENTS WAR HE STARTED. Certes has a really brass neck writing that, because Certes is one of the two editors most responsible for insisting that portals become a battleground.
Back in February/March, there was extensive discussion about how to remove the 4,200 automated spam portals created by @The Transhumanist (TTH) and his cronies. There were proposals for speedy deletion of the spam, much of which was created by TTH just for the heck of it."
Certes was one of the most vocal opponents of using speedy deletion criteria to clean up the spam. Not only did Certes demand that each of these portals be examined individually, Certes explicitly refused to assist with the one-by-one cleanup which he insisted others do.
Even at this stage, when the issue was just a torrent of spam, Certes denounced those trying to clean it up as waging "war on portals".
When I tried back in March to assemble a group of editors from across the spectrum to draw up an RFC on ways ahead, Certes refused to participate.
When the cleanup of the 4200 spam portal revealed the existence of hundreds more portals which had been abandoned for a decade or more with negligible readership, the MFD process has continued.
It is a great pity that it has become so conflictual. But a very large proportion of the blame for that lies directly with Certes, who has consistently rejected dialogue and actively sought to create a battleground. The editors who have worked on clearing TTH's portalspam and then on the sea of abandoned junk have been subjected by the portalistas to sustained abuse, hostility, personal attacks, repeated lies ... and Certes is one of the instigators of the battleground atmosphere in which cleanup has proceeded. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that this is the level of dialogue administrator BrownHairedGirl brings to all discussions related to portals. --Hecato (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Warmonger? Cronies? Really? If you want to lament that this is a battleground ripe with conflict, start by examining your own behaviour... Headbomb {t · c · p · b}16:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunate, and there needs to be a dial back. The WP:SHOUTING by BHG is another sign. Please look again at WP:ADMIN and the conduct expectations there, also, basically every Arbcom case has something like these words, 'even difficult situations should be addressed in a calm and dignified fashion'- so, something to ponder. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb, I have been on the receiving end 6 months of battlefield conduct from Certes and his cronies, who have sustained a barrage of accusations, name-calling, lies and ABF ever since the first moves were to remove the flood of portalspam. After month of being passively on the receiving end of these warriors' antics, I am now calling it out per WP:SPADE. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Or you could take a WP:Wikibreak and dial things back down, and realize you are getting worked up about pages very few people even care about. The world will not end if Portal:Physics remains as is. Get perspective. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}17:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I could indeed do that, @Headbomb. But I believe passionately in the principle that we are here to build an enyclopedia, and in the principle that we build it by consensus between editors who discuss in good faith with integrity and mutual respect.
If the battle-mongers like Certes and the liars like NA1K succeed in driving away from a whole namespace those who actually try to use evidence and data and research to uphold long-established principles, then we have a much bigger problem than this dwindling number of unread hobbyists pages. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I have now repeatedly seen you call administrator NorthAmerica1000 a liar and other such epithets, while I have only observed them to be polite, helpful and interested in solving issues. To me you have also been rude repeatedly, despite me being a relatively new user who was not involved in any of these past events you talk about. I hate to play the victim here, but you even degraded me for my real life occupation and told me I was not welcome on this website. Regardless of what has expired in the past, I do not think it justifies the behavior you have demonstrate here and elsewhere on this website. --Hecato (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hecato, my initial contact with you was that I wrote a welcoming, encouraging and detailed post to you. You chose to respond promptly with a set of smartarse misrepresentations designed to score points. Your choice to poison that discussion and then double-down on your rudeness was your choice; don't blame anyone else for your choice.
I get that you have chosen NA1K as an ally, because you share the same objective of not deleting portals. But the problem with NA1K's conduct is that civilly-phrased lies and misrepresentations are still lies and misrepresentations, and I am one of those people do not consider a campaign of lies and misrepresentations to be civil conduct. Evidently we disagree about the acceptablity of lies and FUD. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I know you think you've shown restraint, and perhaps relative to your current tack, you have. But I wouldn't describe your previous reactions as passively receiving criticism. You have been objecting to the behaviour of others throughout. It is, of course, not unusual to engage with critics, but it would be helpful to avoid ratcheting up accusations and interpretations of motives. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: There was a proposal to end all portals just a year ago, with a community-wide discussion, and it was decided not to do it. Nominating one portal for deletion is not a problem, but the users advocating it are very clear that they intend to delete basically all portals except for just 5 or 6 ones. Meaning, take a long detour to do the very thing that the community has already discussed and rejected. One of those users even called it unironically a "[cull]". This seems like a case of Gaming the system. Cambalachero (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cambalachero, the only "gaming the system" here is the efforts by a few portalistas to misrepresent WP:ENDPORTALS.
ENDPORTALS was the rejection of a proposal to delete in one go all portals.
It was not a decision to keep any portals, because that question was not asked.
If you or anyone else wants to propose that there should be no deletion of abandoned junk portals, or no deletions last numbers of failed portals with abysmally low readership, then go ahead and make that proposal. You could call it WP:DEFEND ABANDONED UNREAD JUNK.
It was decided that Thanos can not simply snap his fingers and make all portals dissapear just like that. That doesn't mean that Thanos can simply take a machine gun and start killing everyone one by one to achieve the same culling. That is gaming the system. Cambalachero (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
What a strange and dishonest metaphor. As you know well, there is no machine gun.
There have been hundreds of MFDs of portals in the last 6 months, each of them open for at least the minimum 7 days, and overwhelmingly they have closed as delete.
Labelling that long process of individual assessment by open discussion as "machine gun" is hyperbole designed to mislead, because it is only by such misleading hyperbole that you can lay the false charge of gaming the system.
It's something called "humor". Why so serious? But if you did not get it, I will repeat the idea without humor. A year ago, it was proposed to delete all portals, as a single and unified action. This proposal was rejected. Now, you are proposing to delete all portals... though a long and time-consuming of nominating them one by one at MFD, to achieve the same end that the community has already rejected. Any individual MFD discussion can not be blamed, but the bulk of them, added to your proclaimed goal, is a clear case of twisting the rules to evade the consensus against your proposal. Cambalachero (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Irony is not conveyed well in ASCII text. If you want to use irony, it is best accompanied by indicators.
Anyway, your substantive argument is based on a misrepresentation of my position.
I do not intend to use MFD to remove all portals. I use MFD only to propose removal only of portals which clearly fail the quality standards set in the long-standing portals guidelines.
In the course of spending over a thousand hours analysing many hundreds of portals, I have come to the conclusion that the set of portals as a whole is a failure, and that there should be a mass cull of all but the most successful. But that would be a proposal for another venue, possibly RFC; it is not a matter for individual MFDs.
I have actually been repeatedly surprised that my efforts to MFD the abandoned junk portals have continued for so long, because I never expected that after hundreds of abandoned portals had been deleted I would still be finding abandoned crud such as Portal:IndyCar. I remain shocked by the fact that after 40% of the pre-TTHspam portals were deleted, junk like that still exists. And in one day last week, I found over 20 further portals which are in barely better condition. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
In a section above this one, you wanted to remark that "very very few portals can ever meet this criterion". Keeping just those "very very few portals" that would comply with your criterion... isn't the same thing as deleting almost all portals, who would fail it? And note that, despite the shortcut, the ENDALLPORTALS proposal also made an exception for some "very very few" portals as well, such as the current events one. Cambalachero (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Some editors state that certain levels of regions, such as nations or states, should routinely have portals, and that such portals should not be deleted. I would suggest that any proposal that national or state portals should have a special status can be included in the portal guideline. Of course, that will depend on re-enacting a modified version of the portal guideline. I suggest that an advocate of regional portals add some provision to this RFC to ask an additional question about a guideline for regional portals. Should regional portals be:
I would argue never, or at least hardly ever. It is better to have no photograph of a subject than an irrelevant, tangential one, such as a model of the subject or something or someone that looks a bit like the something or someone that is the subject.
I ask because a couple of interesting cases here where we lack photographs of the subject.
In British Rail Class 799 the solution adopted has been to have a photograph of an entirely different class.
In British Rail D0260 the solution adopted has been to include a photograph of a somewhat accurate (but also somewhat inaccurate) scale model.
In both cases, I believe that this is fundamentally dishonest and unprofessional to include photographs not of the subject. The mitigation that it is noted in captions that the photos are not of the subject is insufficient. It would be better to wait in both cases for photographs to become available, which they will do, given time. There are plenty of articles without photos, so this is not in itself unusual.
If anyone can think of any other articles that do this, please bring them to our attention here.
Unfortunately my attempts to imrpove both of these article have been met with unnecessary aggression, personal attacks, and refusal to discuss policy issues. I hope that we can have a productive discussion here. I half expect editors to not engage, accuse me of being rude, etc, etc, and but I refuse to lower myself to such levels. Tony May (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
It is probably inappropriate to use an image that is not clearly of the topic as the infobox or lede picture, but that could be used elsewhere in the article. But it also depends on how much difference there is to the causal reader. For example, on several aviation disaster articles, we likely don't have a picture of the plane involved, but do have a picture of the same model in the same airline. That's fine to use as the infobox picture because for the causal reader, there's clearly no visible difference. I can't say if that's the case for these train articles or not. So, for example, the D0260 example above seems fine to use the photo of the model as long as the caption captures this: the reader knows its a scale model but can still identify the engine. Not so sure on the Class 799 case but that seems like the wrong approach and that photo should go into the body. -Masem (t) 15:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Based on those examples, the "hardly ever" seems like the wrong answer. On the first one, the photo is of the actual single unit of the subject class, but before it was converted to run on hydrogen. The caption could be more clear about that; you have to read the arrticle to figure out what it means. And the model is not a bad stand-in on the other one. In both cases, post a call for a better photo, too. Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree here regarding British Rail Class 799, particularly based on the beginning of the lede: The British Rail Class 799 is a one-off... That significantly increases the difficulty of obtaining a photo. Of course, if it only runs in a restricted geographical area -- e.g., if it runs regularly on a particular line -- and is in service with reasonable frequency, it shouldn't be so hard to get a photo. As a general principle, though, I agree with Dicklyon that the photo of the same car before its conversion seems like a reasonable option for the time being. --Tkynerd (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The image use policy is at WP:IUP. It should inform a discussion on the article talk pages about what are appropriate images for the articles. Dispute resolution is where you should go to resolve a content dispute, which is what this is, that you can't figure out on the talk page. VQuakr (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tony May: no, I do not think it needs to be rewritten. You are posting to WP:VPP; it made sense to link the relevant policy. So I linked it, then noted that you aren't really at the right place to resolve a content dispute. You have correctly ascertained that the train photos you linked in your OP are not in violation of policy. VQuakr (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. This is the place to discuss policy, right? And WP:IUP is the policy on image use, but it does not discuss image use, but it does not need rewriting. I'm glad we've got that clarified. Tony May (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tony May: WP:IUP does indeed discuss image use, it just doesn't preclude use of the images that you link in your OP. WP:CON is also policy (as is WP:DR that I linked above); maybe they are more relevant to your original question. VQuakr (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure WP:IUP actually does discuss image choice. It says they must be copyleft images. I get that. But let's say we've got 60 copyleft images, and we need to choose 4-5 to go in an article. How can we make the choice based on policy? Because I'm being crucified here for suggesting that relevance and technical image quality are important - which I think is rational and most people would agree with - yet I can't refer back to any policy that states this. Tony May (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I said image use, not image choice. Image choice is editorial; the selection you are asking about is guided by WP:CON as determined on the article talk page. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE has been linked below, which isn't policy but does have some additional guidance. No one is "crucifying" you here. But if you goal was to end-run around discussion and consensus building by finding or creating some oddly specific ruleinviolably enshrined in policy, you are going to be disappointed. So. Use the article talk pages, find out if others agree that the cases you link above have significant relevance and technical quality issues as you claim, and achieve consensus for what to do next. This is a collaborative project. VQuakr (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
There are two problems here. Choice of image, and Tony's evident inability to discuss such choice without it turning into attacks on other editors. In one of the examples here, his response to a number of other editors disagreeing with him is firstly to edit-war, then to start accusing other editors of being sockpuppets.
As to image choice, then really it has to come down to the consensus per-article at the end, not encyclopedia or project general guidelines. If there's multi-editor consensus to do it one way on that talk:, and if there's no strong policy reason (i.e. copyright) against that, then it should go that way – even if Tony doesn't like it.Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
To clarify here, as requested, I used "other editors" in a generic sense, to avoid having to identify the one editor to whom Tony's response over them sharing the majority position over a content disagreement was to accuse them of being a sockpuppet. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
MOS:IMAGERELEVANCEImages should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. For example, a photograph of a trompe-l'œil painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate. Similarly, an image of a generic-looking cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, as long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated.Wug·a·po·des 16:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
A point has been made linking to c:User:Elcobbola/Models that for models that are detailed representations of real-world objects which normally are ineligible for copyright like a train, those models may have their own copyright by case law; in other words, makign the "free" model image non-free, and thus would make much more sense to use the cover scan for the accuracy since non-free has to be used either way. --Masem (t) 17:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
RFC: Clarify use of external links in a "Publications" list (17 Aug 2019)
The consensus is that URLs are fine as a normal part of a bibliographic citation (but not fine as raw links by themselves).
There is no consensus on whether the external links in the publication lists can be raw URLs. This is principally because I cannot tell whether "URLs" in "URLs are fine" refers to "raw URLs" or to "external links that are not raw URLs". In some cases in this RfC, I cannot tell whether RfC participants may be using "URL" interchangeably with "external link".
This RfC discussed two issues at the same time: (1) whether external links be allowed in publication lists and (2) whether raw URLs be allowed as part of the bibliographic citation. Discussing both questions at the same time may have confused some RfC participants, though Finney1234 did a good job in asking for clarity from some editors. I recommend starting a new RfC to discuss (2). The RfC question could be made clearer for editors to understand by using an example from Henry G. Ferguson#Selected publications. Here is one way to word a followup RfC:
In this RfC, the community concluded that external links should be allowed as part of a full bibliographic citation in a publications list. Here are two different ways to include an external link in a citation:
The first way has the raw URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/30055594.pdf. The second way does not have a raw URL. This RfC concerns whether the first way is allowed. Should raw URLs in a full bibliographic citation in a publications list be allowed?
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.
Trying to get consensus on whether or not (and how) to use external links in a Publications list.00:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
First time here! Please correct anything I've done wrong with the niceties (e.g., I don't know where RFCID comes from).
External links to online texts in a Publications list (when legally available)
are valuable to the reader, and are particularly useful in geology biographies, where most USGS publications are available on line.
WP:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Order_of_article_elements explicitly defines a Works or Publications section
as an Appendix outside the textual Body of the article, so the prohibition of links in the Body (e.g.,WP:External_links#Important_points_to_remember, item 2) does not apply. In addition,
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works#Online_books seems to explicitly allow external links in a Publications list.
1A. External links should not be allowed in any form in a Publications list, and the MOS should be changed to reflect this.
1B. A Publications list should be tagged with <ref>'s so that the external links themselves are restricted to the References section. (If this is your preference, I'd be interested in pointers to any supporting documentation.)
3. External links are acceptable in a Publications list, but they shouldn't be bare URL's. Use the "url=" field of a {cite} template. (if this is your preference, I'd be interested in whether there's any Wikipedia documentation that supports a prohibition against raw URL's in user-visible text)
4. Raw URL's are acceptable in a Publications list.
Sending a second and final ping about this RFC to most of the participants in the earlier discussions referenced above. According to Help:Notifications, this Wiki syntax should do an appropriate notification; let me know if this is not the case.
URLs are fine if the URL is a normal part of a biographic citation then the link is fine. For some journal articles, this would be the DOI, not URL, but still, same idea -an EL to the authority source hosting the work. URLs to things like academia.com or the like which are of copyvio questoinality should not be used. --Masem (t) 00:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Option 3: URLs are fine, but fill citation is preferred - Masem summed up perfectly the reasoning for allowing links to be included. The use of a full citation should always be preferred over a bare url, since if the url stops working a full citation still gives the information needed to locate the source. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, DannyS712. Since a Publications list such as the one in Henry G. Ferguson contains all the information necessary to locate the source (as well as the bare URL), it sounds like you would consider this approach to be acceptable, even if not the best. That is, you're OK with Option 4 as well as Option 3; is this a correct interpretation? I just want to make sure the consensus result of this RFC (whatever it is) is clear-cut. Finney1234 (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod: I would like to understand the terminology and the existing documentation. Is "raw link"( or "completely raw link") defined anywhere in the Wikipedia doc? I tend to interpret it simply as the use of a URL, e.g., "http://foobar.com/a/b" (which I might also call a "bare URL"), whereas you seem to interpret it as a URL that has no further descriptive information (e.g., author & title). Per prior note, my main main concern in asking is to make sure that the consensus result of this survey (however it turns out) is as unambiguous as possible. Finney1234 (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Johnbod It's basically just a terminology and documentation thing; you've clearly stated your interpretation of "raw link" (approximately: a URL link that is not juxtaposed with additional information that could help relocate the link if it goes bad). I'm fine with that interpretation, but I am curious if there's any place in the WP:MOS that defines it that way. Also, one additional term that I think is useful is "bare URL" (e.g., "https://www.cooperhewitt.org/2014/09/23/elusive-oxblood/" vs something like "Spiffy Link Here") (this is my own interpretation of "bare URL", I don't have any WP:MOS page for it). Is it correct that either of those ways works for you, as long as they're tagged with additional information (author, title, ...)?
Also, re "Completely raw links are never ok on WP". I'm fine with that, but I'm interested in understanding details of documentation; what sections in the WP:MOS address this? I was involved in a somewhat contentious discussion of this elsewhere, so I really want to be precise on terms and explicit MOS policy. Thanks. Finney1234 (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, WhatamIdoing, I'd never seen WP:Ignore_all_rules. FWIW, the reason the discussion started (and escalated to this RFC) is because of an instance where URL's accompanying a full bibliographic citation were removed from a Publications list because of a (not uncommon) perceived view that URL's are only allowed in an "External Links" section (look at the talk and history of Siemon Muller starting on May 22). This RFC is an attempt to get clarification/consensus on the issue. Finney1234 (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
URLs are fine if they accompany a proper bibliographic specification. They are not ok by themselves (I would ban those everywhere). Zerotalk11:10, 23 August 2019 (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.
Copyright of works created by children & their suitability for inclusion in the encyclopedia
I'd be wary of such works; it's a well established principle of intellectual property that copyright is usually assigned to the author, and I am pretty sure that being a minor is not an exemption to that principle in any law that I know of. A legal guardian may be able to licence a work on their child's behalf but I wouldn't assume so without an actual expert saying that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I've had a look round and not seen anything clearcut. I think someguy1221 is correct - unless and until the WMF signs off on it then it shouldn't be done. Even then, it might be worth discouraging because it's more a field of parental control than purely copyright, different countries could have radically different rules even if they all follow the Berne convention. Bluntly, not worth the hassle. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been being a debate between me and other users including User:Crossroads1 about adding Sodom Gomorrah part in the history section, which was never seen in there and adding religions name in religion section who support or oppose or hold different point of view. Please help me giving your logical comments here. Lazy-restless (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2019 (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 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.
@Lazy-restless: seems to have many conflicts with several users on the theme of homosexuality and not only with me. He seems reluctant to debate on the Talk pages and he continues to editwar without any discussion.-Arorae (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2019 (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.
Seems like completely appropriate removals under NOTGUIDE. If there are secondary sources that have details of a station's layout, that would be reasonable to describe in prose, but these tables without sourcing are inappropriate. --Masem (t) 13:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
It's probably okay with the sourcing in that. But the ones they were removed from that I spot checked were stations barely meeting notability, so would not be appropriate there. --Masem (t) 14:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:JAN / WikiJournals
The proposal to enjoin Wikijournals as a sister project is currently being advertised widely. Through that I learned that we're directly incorporating articles published through the Wikijournal process, using WP:JAN as the nomination method - see the comment here by Evolution and evolvability. I am not the only one who is objecting in the meta discussion on grounds that include WP:OR and the possibility that the goals of the project are fundamentally at odds with our founding principles, and potentially as much a vanity project as anything else. Why these people cannot choose to be published in the bazillions of academic journals that already exist is beyond me, unless their articles are not in fact up to scratch.
Having seen the note about WP:JAN, I went there and saw that Bengal famine of 1943 is proposed to be overwritten on the basis of being published in a WJ. Now, I realise WP:JAN says that the WP articles are not locked against future changes but the Famine article has a history of disputes largely centred on a massive rewrite that hit problems at WP:FA, after which it seems the re-writer has gone to WJ, got a version of the thing published and then will come back to WP to have it inserted as an overwrite of existing content on the basis of the "peer review" at WJ. That's a specific, much criticised version of the article and WJ hasn't merely been used as a potential mechanism for OR but also to bludgeon a preferred version into WP space. The entire row in the first place had blown up because the writer rewrote the thing outside of mainspace and then pasted it over existing content, and now we're back in the same situation and having to adjust things piecemeal.
Has WP:JAN itself ever been approved? Does this process and the use of it appear to be acceptable?
The process is confusing to me but I note that the preprint of the Bengal article says in its sidebar It is adapted from the Wikipedia article Bengal famine of 1943. It contains some or all of that page's content licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License and will also be used to update that article after peer review. Surely that is circular? - Sitush (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
That's particularly concerning (and I'm concerned with the general OR issues). It would also make it immensely tough to filter out what was circularly sourced and what wasn't. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I know little about the WikiJournals project, and I'm concerned about it, but what you've written in the paragraph about the Bengal Famine of 1943 article is near-completely wrong. 1) I went there and saw that Bengal famine of 1943 is proposed to be overwritten on the basis of being published in a WJ - False, and that's easily demonstrable. This has not been published at WikiJournal. There's a goddamn disclaimer that reads This article is an unpublished pre-print not yet undergoing peer review. 2) The WikiJournal article is a copy of the current Wikipedia article on the Bengal Famine of 1943. Consequently 3) That's a specific, much criticised version of the article and WJ hasn't merely been used as a potential mechanism for OR but also to bludgeon a preferred version into WP space is nonsense, bullshit even. The "preferred version" you're referring to has been on Wikipedia for years (heavily cut down since then due to size concerns). Again, refer to the disclaimer: It is adapted from the Wikipedia article Bengal famine of 1943. It contains some or all of that page's content .... In this case, it contains the entire copy of the Wikipedia article on the subject. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I was going to add that you were correct about the article failing at FA and being heavily criticized, but edit-conflicted. That much is true. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The main thrust of Sitush's comments about Bengal Famine 1943 are incorrect. No one is ramming a dispreferred version through into article space using JAN as a ramrod. That assertion is a little thin. The version that currently sits in article space is a very heavily trimmed/cut version of the one I wrote, but it is still very faithful to what I wrote... I'm a little disappointed that you have so little familiarity with the process involved there, and yet so much eagerness to slam it here. But I am not at all surprised; this is de rigeur at Wikipedia. Moreover, all the FAC conflict you mention was 100% personal; arguments against the article were specious. The article is demonstrably not WP:OR, demonstrably not WP:UNDUE, demonstrably not WP:POV, not... in violation of any policy or preferred practice essay or anything at all. It may [very arguably!] have "too many" footnotes, whatever that means. But it is in line with WP policies and practices in every other way imaginable... Feel free to read the FAC with an open mind, and see for yourself.... Quite frankly, you Oppose JAN (which is perfectly OK), and you are using BF43 as a flimsy excuse for doing so. I am not at all unhappy that you disapprove of JAN. In fact, I stopped my efforts to place BF43 in JAN because I am not so sure (yet) that I totally approve of JAN. [I would need to see more discussion.] But don't try to use BF43 as a thin excuse for your JAN opposition. Man up and martial real arguments. Thanks for your time. ♦ Lingzhi2(talk)12:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Did you see my question about JAN in my comments? I asked has it been approved. The BF thing is just an example of potential problems to come. And, no, you may think that the failed FA was entirely "personal" but that is not how I read it; furthermore, somewhere around that time you were hauled to some noticeboard due to the general concerns about the editing method, ie: overwriting the entire article with your preferred version. I've no idea what the consensus was but hypothetically at least, the JAN process seems like a potential way to bludgeon the same sort of methodology. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
If you're gonna argue against JAN, I strongly support your right to do so, and may even support your reasons for doing so. [Haven't read arguments yet, as I said.] As for BF43's FAC, yawn, meh, yawn, that was a purely personal hit job. All arguments were refuted with an overpowering amount of statistical data, and no one retracted their arguments, which as I have always said is the paragon of bad faith. There was one argument early on that the article didn't cover relief efforts; that was reasonable. After that, just unmitigated Gish gallop. But whatever. WP's content review forums are easily hijacked by anyone with a vendetta. Anyone can see. ♦ Lingzhi2(talk)13:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know the full detail of what went on the the BF article and the FA reviews thereof. I largely kept out of it, except I think to express unhappiness with a wholesale change of the thing being made via a sandbox type of paste, which I think is as much an overwhelming style of making change as the Gish galloping to which you refer. I do know it was controversial stuff and the potential exists for JAN to be used to end-run existing processes. That it seems you have reconsidered your involvement with the JAN process due to your own uncertainty regarding it is much to your credit but that does not mean others will and my core question remains: has this notion achieved consensus on en-WP as a mechanism. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The whole sandbox-to-FAC immediately thing was a gross error on my part. I think no one knows that I informed one FAC coordinator via extended email conversation that I was gonna do it a very long time before I did it. I won't say who, because perhaps that person doesn't want his name revealed. That's OK. I don't mind; I respect people's privacy and freedom to make such choices. But I admit it was a gross and grossly unnecessary error. I did it from a somewhat silly fear that other edtor(s) [again, unnamed, but for different reasons] would immediately jump in and argue and revert until the heat death of the sun. I was hoping that getting the article into a FAC would put more eyes on it, reputable eyes at that, forestalling the feared edit wars. Alas, woe is me, what I got instead was many orders of magnitude worse than the edit wars I feared. Fearing a dogfight, I ran into a lions' den. But again... whatever. Meh. I am still bitter, but no longer care about justice. As for your concerns about JAN, I am sure there will either be a RfC or a Wikimedia Papal Diktat, or even both, in the very near future. So marshal your arguments. I won't watch. I'll wait for the outcome. ♦ Lingzhi2(talk)15:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Here and in the discussion on Meta, I'm constantly seeing the concept of circularity being misconstrued. Using a Wikipedia article as a base for a peer-reviewed article, then updating the WP article with text from that article, is not circular - it's in essence an enhanced GA review. Having that review done off-site does not suddenly make the text unsuitable for use in a WP article. Circularity can only arise when material from WP is used in an outside text and then that text is again used as a source on WP. (I know that the specific case of WJ articles being cited on WP is being brought up as a main criticism of the WikiJournal approach, and I'd argue that it does not apply either: external peer review by a subject expert removes the reason for the within-WP cite restriction and vets material into a citable outside canon. But I don't want to go into this here.)
Consider the recent WikiJournal of Science article, Baryonyx. The main author did the majority of work on-wiki at Baryonyx, then submitted a version of the article to WJS, where it received review from one of the principal experts on the genus [2]. He revised the article according to the reviewer's comments, then incorporated the changes back into the WP article. Which continues to evolve and be edited since, as it should, and the author's updates are subject to normal further editing, discussion, or removal; the published version of the article remains as a dated reference point. That's the basic model for a WJ article based on a WP article. I fail to see where circularity concerns enter here.
A side note on "if these people can't get published in an existing journal, it must be crap": consider that some scientists are actually interested in improving Wikipedia while at the same time getting some citable credit for their labours - they provide Wikipedia-ready material in the same wash as publishing a novel review article. That is how articles like Teladorsagia circumcincta (WJS version [3]) get written from scratch, by one of the principal researchers in the field. Discrediting such efforts in these terms is at best ill-considered. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The encyclopaedic article on Teladorsagia circumcincta in the journal only seems to be there to include the names of some of the contributors, or what, the journal is going to accept another article that disputes assertions made in the first. The only use I see of WJ are to fork wikicontent, it is not what useful journals do, and my suspicions only deepens when I read the tortured defences and rationalisations of the project's merits. ~ cygnis insignis23:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
There are some interesting points here, but I think it could be worth separating out process and principles, and clarifying a few aspects:
Processes versus location:. Is the crux of the issue whether the content is exported during its review then imported again, or the soliciting of outside expert feedback? My impression is that the concept of asking for external expert feedback isn't hugely controversial and has been informally practiced for along time. There's even a category Category:All articles needing expert attention (1,332). Note that the process is not intended as a competitor for GA and FA. It is a complementary system for getting feedback from a different demographic. I would hope that most GAs and FAs would fare fairly well during external peer review. This has been largely the case, with many reviewers specifically praising the articles for their accuracy and often expression surprise at the quality, though not always (example). If the issue is the location, there could be scope to organise external peer reviewer comments whilst the article is still on Wikipedia, more directly similar to FA/GA process (or pdf export the version to be sent to reviewers). Having a separate version was, in part, to present articles to external reviewers in a more familiar format, similar to the process followed by Open Medicine in 2014 with their review of the Dengue Fever. However the BMJ organised external peer review of the Parkinson's disease article in 2015 whilst it was on Wikipedia, so it is possible. Each location has its benefits and limitations.
Original research: Some WikiJournal articles are original research articles (example), from which no OR content is added to Wikipedia. They are stand-alone articles. In some cases they may be useful items to point to in Wikiversity courses (example). For review-style articles, authors are instructed to give a balanced summary of the relevant topics and that "Wikipedia cannot include any original research (including synthesis of ideas). Original research, such as tentative conclusions, personal perspectives, outlook, or opinions can be included in a separate section for the published journal version of the article; it will be omitted from Wikipedia. (WP:OR)". No original research parts from articles should be copied over to Wikipedia.
Circular: The aim is not to have Wikipedia articles that cite themselves, or use themselves as the sole source. The citations contained in all of these articles still point to external sources (example). It has also been relatively common practice for people to have a copy of an article in their userspace that they are working on before re-integrating that back into the wikipedia article.
Thanks for the input but my questions remain: Has WP:JAN itself ever been approved? Does this process and the use of it appear to be acceptable? I suppose you are at least in part addressing the second but not the first. - Sitush (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for re-clarifying. I do not believe that there has been a formal approval process for the WP:JAN page. Indeed, I didn't know that there needed to be one. I did search the wikipedia policy pages, but there are so many it's totally possible I missed the relevant one. There has been discussion of the process since 2012 at the WP:W2J page. The external peer review by the BMJ via a user sandbox and word document in 2015/16 (User:Anthonyhcole/sandbox) seemed to be generally well-received. WP:JAN was intended to make the process clearer, since the original example by Open Medicine didn't have an established mechanism and was organised directly with their EiC. The articles are licensed CC BY-SA and attempt to transparently acknowledge both the source location and contributors, and so far the majority of updates to the wikipedia articles based on the peer reviewer recommendations have been well-received by the editor communities of those pages. I can give examples and counter-examples if useful. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk12:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: In general, I think the only policy directly related to such community processes is Wikipedia:Ownership of content (there are also some TFA-related provisions in Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Edit warring). I guess without any further consensus what would happen is that any user would be able to revert JAN modifications with justification; the act of content addition itself could probably be seen as analogous to copying an article into a user sandbox, improving the article and then copying the sandbox's contents back into the article. Jc86035 (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I have just translated and published an article, Anders Burius, but I am unsure if I properly translated his media nickname. Media in Sweden seldom, or never, publish the name of non-public figures and instead rely on nicknames such as "the 48-year old" or "the RL man". As such Anders Burius is probably most know as "KB-mannen" to the Swedish public.
This is what I am unsure about... When I refer to his media nickname in English, e.g. when quoting, should I say A) the Swedish "KB-mannen", B) the semi-translation "the KB man", or C) the full translation "the RL man"?
Ooh, I like this question! :-) Speaking as an American living in Stockholm, my inclination would be to use "KB-mannen" and add a translation with an explanation of what KB stands for, I think. I'd be interested to hear other opinions. You should also consider whether there are any WP:BLP considerations in using his name, if he isn't publicly known by name in Sweden. (I know nothing about him.) --Tkynerd (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
His name have been released to the public and it is used frequently in documentaries. But in the public mind he is most known as "KB mannen" rather than "Anders Burius". Also, Swedish Wikipedia have used his proper name for 11 years. --Christoffre (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Has there been a resolution on WP of the Native American name controversy? There are some editors who use, or insist on using, the word Indian. This word is considered pejorative or racist by some. It is also inexact in an internationally available site or publication, as it refers to persons of the sub continent.Oldperson (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Since no one else has commented, I'll offer my opinion. Oldperson, what you have linked to is an article describing common usage that is not necessarily followed here on en.wikipedia. I don't know what the official policy is in referring to Native Americans -- or if WP has one. (If one needs to be created, I don't see that will be a harmonious discussion.) If you are asking because you need to refer to these people in an article, my advice is to follow your instincts, & if you're wrong someone will volunteer to set you straight. (Hopefully in a respectful manner.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
You are correct Llywrch Words that have controversial social implications evoke intense feelings, especially amongst those whose bias underpins their identity and helps inform their world view. Myself, I have no intention of using the word"Indian",simply because there are some in that ethnic group that consider it analogous to the"N" word. I also know that others, especially some elders, don't share that opinion. But I have received an answer on RfC and consider it (currently) acceptable. I also know that there is a large segment of the American population, that intensely resents not using the "N" word, using as an excuse that "blacks use it why can't I", the answer should be obvious. The same situation arises with the word "queer". Gays use it amongst themselves but object when the outside community uses it to describe them. The "N" word and "queer" are used as wounding , demeaning and hateful epithets when hurled or used by those not in the community. However those inside the community use them as a means of immunizing themselves against the use, sometimes as a form of endearment,but simply because they too are members the word cannot be used to demean, subjugate, harm or shame. Oldperson (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Interpretation of WP:MOS
Is there anything in Wikipedia documentation that specifies how documents like WP:MOS are supposed to be interpreted? My natural tendency is to assume something like "anything not explicitly forbidden is allowed", but during the discussions that led to the External Links RFC above, I was told that I shouldn't use external links in a bibliography section without first requesting consensus here at WP:VPP, even though a careful read of the MOS showed that nothing prohibited such usage. Which is more like "everything is forbidden which is not explicitly allowed". I'd be curious if there's anything specific in WP documentation that addresses this (other than WP:Ignore all rules :-) ).
I am planning to do some small tweaks to the MOS to clarify external links usage, based on the comments/consensus in the External Links RFC. If anyone has suggestions on the preferred way to proceed, I'd be interested. I'll reread WP:Consensus before doing anything. Thanks. Finney1234 (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Editors are encouraged to be bold, but they're also expected to follow the spirit of the rules, not a literal reading. We don't exhaustively list everything that you're not supposed to do. If the MOS says not to use italics for quotations, you shouldn't use oblique type, either. On the other hand, if there's a situation where not italicizing the quotation will cause readers to be confused, you can ignore that guideline. So, be bold but don't wikilawyer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd say as with most everything else, if a consensus of editors finds that your interpretation of a guideline is wrong, then the project will side with the consensus. Breaking a guideline is, in isolation, no big deal. If the consensus is to follow the guideline and revert the editor who broke it, still no big deal. Only when this becomes a frequent occurrence with one editor do admins need to get involved. Though one bit of advice, you really shouldn't be writing posts on talk pages as if you have the authority to close, conclude or otherwise determine the outcome of a discussion you were a part of. You don't have the authority anyway, so it just looks weird, and others may have a less charitable interpretation. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Someguy1221: FWIW, my (unofficially) "concluding" the discussion in Talk:Siemon_Muller was based on discovery of text in the MOS which explicitly permitted what I'd been arguing for (and thus consensus had previously been reached on the topic). Up till that point, I'd repeatedly pointed out that nothing in the MOS prohibited the use of external links in a "Publications" section, but to no avail. The online books section made it clear that the removal of external links on May 22 in Siemon Muller was, in fact, an explicit documented violation of the MOS. So it wasn't simply me trying to enforce my opinion.
BTW, as I said, I will carefully re-read WP:Consensus before doing anything to resolve the External Links RFC, but if you can give me any suggestions as to the proper way to proceed I'd appreciate it. A month hasn't expired yet, but the discussion has been quiet, and there seems to be a fairly clear consensus on the major issue (external links are allowed) and some variation on a minor issue (how the links in a Publications should be formatted). However, I realize that my perception of the consensus outcome has a conflict of interest :-). Finney1234 (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
"anything not explicitly forbidden is allowed": Absolutely not! Per MOS:STYLEVAR, follow the set standard, unless there are absolutely compelling reasons to not follow, in which case, get consensus first. Thanks, Lourdes 13:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
That's true for established article which have a set style on a particular matter, not so much for new articles, or those where the question hasn't arisen before. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes John, for new articles, I quote the twoprinciples from Arbcom:
"The Manual is prescriptive in areas that enjoy broad consensus; where there is no such consensus, the available options are described, but no prescriptive guidance is provided. Editors are expected to follow the Manual of Style, although it is not policy and editors may deviate from it with good reason."
"Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike."
In my opinion, any good reasoned exceptional deviation from the guideline or introduction of a new style (not explicitly forbidden) should be discussed before getting implemented, even for new articles. Thanks, Lourdes 00:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I find this question odd. First, my understanding of the purpose of WP:MOS is simply to save volunteer time & energy thru avoiding edit wars over trivial & WP:LAME matters. However, there have been a number of people who frequent that part of Wikipedia who believe WP:MOS must be prescriptive & have added a lot of text there. (Or so I'm told. I haven't looked at that part of Wikipedia since before my oldest daughter was born; she will be 12 next February. I simply follow the guidelines set forth in my copy of the MLA Style Manual, look to examples in FA & GA class articles, & have yet to encounter any serious push back.)Second, no Manual of Style will cover every possible situation, so one will be confronted on occasion with a situation that requires some thought & individual judgment. Hopefully, one will arrive at a solution that meets with community approval; if not, well, we Wikipedians are known for our willingness to discuss matters. Sometimes we discuss things too much.Lastly, almost everyone who contributes to Wikipedia comes with at least a rough idea of what style a Wikipedia article should have. There are dicta any manual of style must assume its user to know or accept, & these will not be explicitly defined; these dicta are gathered under the rubric known as common sense. So the best answer I can give to you is simply, "What do you think?" -- llywrch (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
llywrch FYI, my own concern is that (if I'm not mistaken), WP:MOS effectively *is* the outcome of consensus, so it's a good place to go to find out what an acceptable approach is to editing Wikipedia (it's not just a list of arbitrary rules). I like the idea of going for the spirit of the rules, 5 pillars, ignore all rules if what you're doing makes Wikipedia "better", etc., but those all require a fair amount of flexible interpretation and are subject to personal bias, and can lead to extensive argumentation. So, to some extent, the more that can be codified, the better. The issue I posed about interpretation was genuine and practical, related to a real-life experience where I had to defend (in a discussion with multiple senior editors) the use of external links to online source in a Publications section *even when nothing in the MOS* states they're not allowed. Any attempt to personally claim that something violates "consensus" or "proper Wikipedia approach" is somewhat meaningless without some explicit documentation that consensus has been previously reached on that issue; without that, it's too likely that the claim is just an expression of a personal preference. Finney1234 (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
RFC: spelling of "organisation"/"organization" in descriptive category names
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I am closing this discussion as there is minimal further discussion and no obvious consensus. This is evidenced by the fact that it has been going on from April to September, re-opened twice, and sent to the the Administrator's noticeboard for review. In summary I am closing this as no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination. I would encourage everyone interested to read the Administrator's noticeboard review summary. If this RfC gets re-run I would strongly encourage it to be advertised widely and all relevant stakeholders informed as per the recommendation. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is a close, complicated by allegations of votestacking, which might, in itself, be reason for finding "no consensus". The OP has premised this as a means to resolve conflict/disruption as a systemic/ongoing issue. They note that the guidelines (RETAIN and ENGVAR) that normally resolve these issues do not explicitly apply to categories. I have looked for a "weight" of arguement to support or oppose the proposition that the solution is to stanardiz[s]e on a particular spelling in categories (as opposed to !votes). The most compelling arguements are to embrace our differences. Perhaps this might be done in a more formal way and make this explicit to categories (CREEP to avoid CREEP - irony). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
This question may sound like trivial pedantry, but Category:Organizations has about ten thousand descriptively-named sub-categories. Those are inconsistently named, and therefore generate a steady stream of renaming proposals at WP:CFD.
Per WP:NCCAT, category names should "follow certain conventions", but there is no clear convention here; no single principle (or even agreed set of principles) defining which spelling to use. This makes the category system hard to use and hard to maintain, because it is difficult to predict which spelling is in use in each case
Over the years, these categories have been the subject of numerous renaming discussions, and several are open now. Several well-established principles are applied, but they are often fuzzy or conflicting, and they produce varying outcomes depending on the good faith interpretations of the experienced editors involved. Many categories have been renamed multiple times.
MOS:TIES recommends that for English-speaking nations, we should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. However,
It is often hard to determine which (if any) usage is preferred in any given country
There is disagreement about whether the "S" spelling is actually the clearly-preferred option in any national variant of English
MOS:RETAIN advocates that the initial version should be retained in the absence of consensus to the contrary.
Geography. No policy appears to cover usage in non-English-speaking nations, so editors apply in good faith a variety of well-reasoned principles which produce different outcomes, e.g. A/ Countries which are geographically closer to the UK than the US should use the British spelling, and vice-versa B/ Commonwealth countries (i.e. the former British Empire) should follow British spelling. However
Those two principles clash for the many former British colonies in the Americas
There is legitimate dispute about the extent to which British usage persists 50 years after independence
These inconsistencies create clashes of principle. If MOS:RETAIN is applied, then each container category ends up with a random assortment of spellings, depending on the choice of the creator.
In CFD discussions, the main argument for standardisation is that per American and British English spelling differences#-ise,_-ize_(-isation,_-ization), some British usage prefers the "S" spelling, bit there is no overall preference ... and that while the "S" spelling" is unacceptable in American usage, the "Z" spelling is acceptable variant in all countries.
On the other side, arguments against standardisation prioritise MOS:TIES, and assert that "S" is the standard British usage. They note how ENGVAR variations are accepted in other types of category. One example of this is Category:Association football players, whose subcategories variously use "association football players", "footballers" or "soccer players", depending on local usage. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Organizations: Discussion/survey
add your comments and/or !votes here
Use "z". I'm British, and use both spellings interchangeably. In some parts of the English-speaking world only "z" is correct, but in others both "s" and "z" are correct. I don't know of anywhere where "z" is incorrect. I must add that it's very tiresome that we have to even discuss this, but there are certain editors who seem to like arguing for arguing's sake. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Couldn't category redirects solve tis without renaming anything? If the answer apears to be "no they can't" then I agree with every word of the above comment by Phil Bridger. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox, two years ago I thought that redirects might be a partial solution (with the limitation which @Fayenatic notes), provided that there was a bot to apply them in all instances, on an ongoing basis. So I proposed the bot, at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 3, and there were so many niggles that I gave up. (The bot was approved for a trial run, but there were strong objections to making it an open-ended task, which is exactly what would be needed for the bot to solve the problem).
That's why I have come around to the view that we should fix the problem at source by abandoning the pretence that British English has such a strong preference for the "s" spelling that we shouldn't use Z in any topic relating to the former British Empire other than in the United States. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't standardize. Personally, I use British English with a "z", but I don't think it is good idea to bow to the consistency zealots on this. They'd only find something more serious to worry about. Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
If there is continuing conflict without standardization, "don't standardize" is the wrong solution. There might be some reasonable middle ground toward standardization and away from conflict, but a basic non-vote definitely isn't it. --Izno (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Use z. I'm British and use "s" in my personal and professional writing, but it is often inconvenient in Wikipedia that the spelling of categories for orgs is unpredictable. Using the Oxford spelling with the "z" is not un-British anyway. We already use the non-French "z" spelling for France (see CFD in 2017 closed by me) and various other countries in Europe/Commonwealth. Let's take it all the way. – FayenaticLondon22:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I am prepared to make exceptions for Australia and New Zealand. NZ apparently uses -ise; these sources are not best quality but IMHO suffice to demonstrate that point.[4][5][6] However, other former colonies are not so evidently wedded to the "s" spellings. Let's switch to "z" in UK, British Overseas Territories, Europe, Asia, S America, the Caribbean, and the remainder of Oceania. – FayenaticLondon08:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Support - organize was good enough for Samuel Johnson and so it is good enough for me (in the UK). The Americans have in this case adhered to correct classical English. Oculi (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Use z. I agree with the observations of both Phil Bridger and Oculi. And if something is correct everywhere, it ought to take precedence over one national preference. Now the consistency folks can worry about why Category:Television shows by country rolls up to Category:Television programs where "shows" is correct wherever English is used but the spelling of program/programme may differ. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Use "z", since it is considered acceptable in British English (unless I've been doing it wrong all this time). Jc86035 (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't standardise. Continue to use "s" in countries that predominantly use "s" (like the UK, Australia and New Zealand). It's very rare to see "z" in the UK outside Oxford these days. We don't change other category names for consistency, so I have no idea why we'd want to here. It is clear from the media, from previous WP discussions and from usage in WP articles by British editors that "s" is now greatly preferred in the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Necrothesp, your statement that we don't change other category names for consistency is plain false. On the contrary, large numbers of category names are changed for consistency every single day. Most weeks, several hundred categories are renamed for consistency at WP:CFDS per WP:C2B, WP:C2C, or WP:C2D ... while new consistent conventions are repeatedly established at full CFD discussions.
It's also clear that you well know that statement to be false, because you yourself have made plenty of CFDS nominations on the basis of consistency. including [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. That's only a small sample, and it is very sad to see an admin asserting as fact something which they have demonstrably known for many years to be untrue.
The reason we seek consistency, as you clearly well know, is that inconsistent titling is confusing for both readers and editors. You also do huge numbers of article moves on that very basis per the policy WP:CONSISTENCY (part of WP:Article titles), and as noted above the same principle applies to categories: see WP:NCCAT.
In this case, we have policy on what to do: MOS:COMMONALITY says "For an international encyclopaedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable: Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles". In this case, the Z spelling is a universally accepted variant, even if it is not universally preferred ... whereas the "S" spelling is not acceptable in American English. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. As usual, it appears. We do not change category titles for consistency in WP:ENGVAR circumstances. We may change them for consistency in non-ENGVAR circumstances if it is uncontroversial, yes. This is a different issue. And despite claims to the contrary, this is an ENGVAR issue, as "z" is indeed very rarely used these days in British English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
No, Necrothesp, I did not misunderstand you. I correctly understood the clear meaning of what you actually wrote, which now turns out to be radically different from what you now claim you intended to say. Please do not misrepresent your change of assertion as someone else's failure to understand.
As to ENGVAR, for over a century the leading dictionary of British English has been the Oxford English Dictionary, which continues to recommend the "Z" spelling as the preferred form. Are you really, seriously, trying to claim that OED's recommendation is not an acceptable usage in British English? Really? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Our present policy wastes a great deal of editors' time and effort. It doesn't produce consistent results. Consistency in country subcategories is achieved at the expense of inconsistency in all the other hierarchies. Consistency would increase our efficiency and enable us to quibble about things that are more important. There is nowhere where spelling organization with a z is wrong. The problem really is that in the UK it is seen, quite mistakenly, as American linguistic imperialism.Rathfelder (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
No, it's merely seen as uncommon in the present day. An archaic usage preserved by Oxford but not much elsewhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Support "z" - Barring specific cases where a proper name using "Organisation" is involved, the more inclusive "organization" should be used in all other cases. It is clear that this has been an ongoing issue that repeatedly comes up and it will save everyone's time in the long run to make this a standard convention. The fact that one spelling ("z") is acceptable (if not preferred) globally and the other is unacceptable in large parts of the world makes this change an obviously better convention over the current hodge-podge of MOS:RETAIN-based random spellings or multiple CFDs to attempt to meet MOS:TIES. I think BrownHairedGirl has made a very compelling argument and I haven't (yet?) seen any substantive argument against it. - PaulT+/C14:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't standarise per Necrothesp. There's no reason to change the status quo here, and Oxford is not an authority for the whole of British English (and definitely isn't for Australian or New Zealand English, where -ise is strongly preferred). Iffy★Chat -- 14:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, this is NOT a commonality issue, many parts of the world primarily use 's', just as much as many areas use 'z'. This isn't the American english Wikipedia, it's the English language wikipedia for all users of the English language. Iffy★Chat -- 08:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Slightly alternate proposal: Use "z" but create a preference setting where editors who want to see the word spelled with an "s" in category names can see it that way. bd2412T14:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@BD2412 I appreciate the quest for a solution which gives as many people as possible most of what they want. That's a good approach throughout life.
So I have no objection in principle to that idea, but is it technically feasible? I know that much wizardry can be achieved by AJAX, but even if some cunning code could change the displayed spelling of category titles as they appear at the bottom of an article or at the top of a category page, how would it distinguish between descriptive titles and proper names, so that it converted Category:Sports organizations of Estonia but not Category:International Labour Organization or Category:Organization of American States?
Readers might like this, but it would cause problems for editors, who would never see the actual title of the category, and be mystified why tyoing in the "S" spelling produced a redlink. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
My initial thoughts on this would be that 1) some kind of tag would need to be put on formal names to prevent them from showing up with the "s" spelling, if we care to do that, and 2) irrespective of the outcome of this discussion, there should be a category redirect pointing from the "s" spelling to the "z" spelling. When using hotcat, at least, this will change the input to the correct category. bd2412T15:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
So who gets the job of tagging all the relevant categories, and maintaining those tags? As the Pages per ActiveEditor ratio continues to grow, we need fewer of those maintenance tasks, not more.
As to redirects, yes I agree. As I noted above in reply to Beeblebrox, I tried two years ago to create a bot to do just that, but the BRFA got drowned in nitpicking so I gave up.
I do think that Phil Bridger's reminder of the fate of the time/date preference thing is worth remembering. It was all just seen as too much complexity for too little benefit. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Before going too far with that proposal I would remind editors that we used to do something similar with dates in articles, where they were presented in dmy or mdy format in accordance with a preference. That system was done away with - here is one discussion but I'm sure there were more - for reasons that could also be applicable to this proposal. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Support "z" I do a lot of work on organizational categories. Our present policy wastes a lot of my time and energy. It prioritises consistency by country over consistency by subject, for no obvious reason, even where English is not a native language in the country concerned. Personally I have been using s for about 55 years, even though I was brought up to revere the Oxford English Dictionary, but I think the importance of consistency should outweigh personal preference I . Rathfelder (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose standardisation z these days is a variant, not the standard modern spelling in British English with the OED and related publishing house very much fighting a losing battle on this. In other countries z is used even less. Whatever is done there will be inconsistency as there are numerous main articles and lists using s, to say nothing of other cases where different spellings and terms are in use (programmes/programs/shows has already come up) so trying to impose a global consistency just isn't going settle things. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't standardise. I don't see this as a problem, and "z" is not acceptable in Australian (or I presume NZ) English. Frickeg (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Frickeg, do you have any actual evidence that the "Z" spelling is not an acceptable variation in Australian English? Sorry to be a where's-the-WP:RS pedant, but in countless CFD discussions I have seen many confident assertions of national preferences in spelling, but there is almost never any evidence offered. Please can you fill the gap, and be the one who actually provides the sources which support your claim that "Z" spelling is never an acceptable variation in Australia? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The Macquarie Dictionary, the closest thing to an authority here, says (paywalled) "Current Australian usage clearly favours consistent use of -ise". Although Macquarie does list "-ize" as a variant (perhaps "not acceptable" was an overstatement, but "very rarely used" is certainly true; Macquarie also lists practically all US spellings as variants, which doesn't mean they're generally acceptable in AusEng), I have been unable to find a single Australian style guide that allows "-ize", and you will practically never see it in Australian publications. It is clearly recognised as an Americanism, and even if there is some doubt about the common British usage, there really isn't for us. I see no reason why WP:TIES would not apply, and WP:RETAIN when we are talking multi-national categories. Frickeg (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Frickeg. Would you be ale to quote the rest of the entry? The actual wording is important to the application of MOS:COMMONALITY, and your paraphrasing raises a few questions for me.
As to WP:RETAIN, it is a disastrous principle to apply to any category set and esp large sets, because it produces random outcomes across category trees. That makes it hard for editors to add categories, hard for readers to type them, and massively complicates all sorts of maintenance and templating functions. That's why so many categories of all types are renamed very day per WP:C2C. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The entirety of the entry "-ise": "a suffix of verbs having the following senses: 1. intransitively, of following some line of action, practice, policy, etc., as in Atticise, apologise, economise, theorise, tyrannise, or of becoming (as indicated), as crystallise and oxidise (intr.), and 2. transitively, of acting towards or upon, treating, or affecting in a particular way, as in baptise, colonise, or of making or rendering (as indicated), as in civilise, legalise. Compare -ism, -ist. Also, -ize. [from (often directly) Greek -izein. Compare French -iser, German -isieren, etc.] Usage: -ize is the usual spelling in US English. In Britain there is some variety: some publishers standardise on -ize, but others use -ise. Attempts to distinguish -ize in words based on Greek (idolize, monopolize) from -ise in words that have come to English from or through French (realise, moralise) founder on the difficulties of knowing the precise history of many words. Current Australian usage clearly favours consistent use of -ise, a practice which has the advantage of being easy to remember."Frickeg (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks, @Frickeg. That's a clear recommendation of "ise", but not an outright deprecation of "ize". That would certainly support using "organisation" in articles ... but in category titles, which are navigational devices rather than enyclopedic content, it seems to me that MOS:COMMONALITY justifies using the non-preferred spelling. This isn't a petrol/gasoline issue, where one usage is clearly deprecated. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Use "z" - Just for fun, I did a survey of usage on Belizean news sites. Belize is a Commonwealth country, but geographically close to the U.S. I expected usage to be about even, but usage of "organization" was 34 times higher than "organisation"! I would be OK with leaving a specific exception for UK-related categories, but overall it seems like "organization" is the more internationally-prominent spelling. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Alternate Proposal - use z for all categories except in the country where s is the clear choice - and I'd suggest a discrete list be created of these (UK, NZ, Australia are primary). This will at least shrink the issue - where it's an either/or, or any of these geographical proximity cases, they default to z. It won't quite resolve the issue, but I think it's an improvement that will avoid most of the likely blowback from fellow s-speakers. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear, I'd very much prefer simple standardisation, but I think that your proposal could provide some limited improvement if this RFC agreed an actual list of which countries fall into that category. Without that definitive list, we would effectively have no change; we would still face the same CFD debates over and over again about which if any is the preferred usage in Ruritania (see e.g. the CFR debate on Organizations based in Oman). I appreciate what you are trying to achieve by changing the default, but it still risks an ongoing saga of many dozens of case-by-case debates. So I think that proposal would have more chance of meaningful assessment if there was some actual evidence for the claimed clear preference for "S" usage in NZ+Australia, and in any other country which editors want to list. As I note above, these discussions are overwhelmingly dominated by assertions rather than evidence, but the sincere indignation which often accompanies the objections is nearly always unevidenced. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Use z unless the content categorized is predominantly using s. That is, default to z which is acceptable in every ENGVAR, but retain s for local WP:CONSISTENCY if all or most articles in the category are non-North American and (not "or") are also using the s spellings in their content and (where applicable) titles. E.g., a "Category:Animal rights organisations in England" category should likely not move to the z spelling, but "Category:Animal rights organisations" certainly should be (and is) at Category:Animal rights organizations, for MOS:COMMONALITY reasons. The z spelling is preferred even in British academic writing (and an encyclopedia is basically academic writing), so z is a sensible default for multiple reasons. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I see several problems with that:
It would lead to inconsistencies within the category tree for each country, which would be even worse than the current mess
It would make category titles unstable, because as articles are created or deleted or recategorised the balance would change
Assessing it would require a lot of editor time, but editor time is increasingly scarce: the ratio of articles per active editor is almost 4 time what it in 2007, and participation in CFD discussions is at ~5—15% of the levels in 2006. There is a persistent, multi-month backlog of CFD closures. However nice it might theoretically be to have such fine-grained decisions, we simply don't have the resources to sustain them.
I don't see 1 as a real problem. There will always be inconsistencies, unless Oxford/Harvard spelling is made mandatory on Wikipedia for everything, which isn't going to happen (though it's a proposal I would support for the same reason I supported MOS:JR getting rid of the comma that some older Americans still prefer). Not concerned about 2, either. It's already a criterion (a speedy one, in fact) that category names are to align with article names, so it's already just a fact that they'll shift over time as the mainspace content changes; this is a dynamic site. But the rate of change of s/z stuff is barely detectable, anyway, so there's not really much potential for churn. I'm not sure how much editor time would be consumed, per point 3, but it's something we already do at CfD anyway, about lots of things. It only consumes the time of editors who choose to spend a lot of it at CfD, like you and I do, and we're pretty good at recognizing patterns and getting on with our !votes. If we had a rule like this, it should produce one outburst of category renaming activity, then remarkable stability after that: defaulting to z, unless there's a compelling and demonstrable reason to use s for a particular case. I'm "optimizing for the probable rather than the possible" here; there is no limit in the imagination to what could be possible, but we know from experience that most British topics, for example, are going to use the s spelling, so we can already predict how British-specific categories are going to be spelled. If we default to z for stuff with no national tie, then we can also predict how the majority of categories will be spelled, absent some overwhelming cluster of s-titled articles within one. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Use "z" - Our categorization system should not be a endless battleground for nationalistic emotions or editorial ownership, but to serve as an internal system by which we order pages. As such, having a consistent style which makes life easier (and faster) for readers and editors, and will save time wasted in category discussions, is much better goal than any variation of the current system. Also editor supporter statements above me. --Gonnym (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Use "zed" (or "zee" if you like) As a bit of a traditional Brit, I support Oxford spelling which prescribes -ize endings and hence avoids transatlantic conflict. Not sure on Australian / New Zealand / Indian usage though. Greenshed (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Use "z" – Though "s" may be more common in the UK, that's like 60 million people compared to 1.5 billion English speakers. Z is more global, used either primarily or as an acceptable variant in almost all if not all English-speaking countries. Standardization is a good idea for consistency, readability, searchability, and reducing the needless category renaming. Levivich22:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
India, Australia and New Zealand all use 's' primarily, and so do most English speakers in Europe and Africa, It's not just Britain. Iffy★Chat -- 08:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Iffy, do you have any actual evidence from reliable sources to support your assertion that most English speakers in Europe and Africa use 's' primarily? I don't mean some cherrypicked example, but some evidence of the claimed pattern of usage. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Use "z". When I use HotCat to put articles in categories it is a nuisance to have two seperate alphabetical lists. And my copy of the Collins Paperback German Dictionary, 1988 edition, only lists Organization in the English side. It tells me that Organisation is the German spelling. Bigwig7 (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Use only one, this is a direct presentation to readers, so having 2 content categories for a spelling variant isn't useful. I prefer the "z" option slightly, as there seem to be more sources with that variant. — xaosfluxTalk18:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
This isn't about having 2 sets of categories for the 2 different spellings, it's about how the categories should be spelled. Iffy★Chat -- 08:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Mostly use "z" - except for English-speaking countries where "s" is more common, use "z" everywhere. It's more intuitive, although this doesn't override the ENGVAR principle to use the local spelling. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu15:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Standardise on "z", with the exception for names involving "s". I'm normally one for letting people use whatever spelling they feel is appropriate, but this seems like a reasonable case for standardisation, and as noted, there are very few contexts in which "z" is actively wrong rather than merely not-preferred. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Use "z", except in official names of organisations (sic). My initial idea was to use "z" for all non-specific categories and "s" for categories specific to regions that use that spelling, but it might be too hard to determine for non-English-speaking countries. We'd waste a lot of time arguing over individual countries, like Russia where usage can be quite split. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Use "z" When it comes to global categories like this standardization is far more important than ENGVAR. And I say that as one who has always spelled organisations with an S. Harry Boardman (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Use "z", except when referring to a proper name. A convincing cost benefit case has be made for more uniform and predictable categories. A Google comparison of hits for the two spellings shows a 76% dominance for the Z spelling, and I came across a graph showing that Z is dominant in the UK by a 2-to-1 ratio and apparently increasing. Australians and some others may not be happy, but they surely are familiar with the predominate US/UK spelling. At least they will find that Wikipedia consistently has the "wrong" spelling, rather than having to deal with it being chaotically wrong. Alsee (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Followup comment: Regarding WP:ENGVAR, there is a big difference between articles and categories. Individual articles can happily co-exist with different ENGVARs, however categories are encyclopedia-wide and a category naming must be done (as best we can) from an encyclopedia-wide perspective. WP:ENGVAR does not apply to categories, and I reject slippery slope arguments that this proposal is a threat to article content. The opposes are making a very poor argument that unpredictably and inexplicably confusing the majority is somehow preferable over predictability and minimizing the issue. I also urge the closer to take into account Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome that consensus is not determined by counting heads, and the fact that there was an abrupt surge of oppose-votes after this discussion was selectively canvassed. That surge in opposes is clearly not an accurate reflection of general community consensus, and canvassed responses should be weighted accordingly. For comparison, I closed a 20-vs-10 RFC[12] with a firm consensus for the 10, after almost entirely discounting the majority as blatantly canvassed. In this case the result is easier - I believe there is still a majority for Z even with the canvassed responses. Alsee (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll bet money the answer is "no". NZ doesn't have any NZ-specific style guides from a reputable publisher. NZ writers follow British style guides, like almost everyone in the rest of the Commonwealth, aside from Canada. Even Australia does (the government-published style guide is obsolete and generally ignored, and the Cambridge style guide for .au is simply the British one with some Australian vocabulary added, and Oxford doesn't make one for .au in particular, nor does any other publisher we'd care about). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Support a common-sense standardization that will free up editor time for more important things. MB15:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Use "z". I agree with OP arguments, and find opposing comments ineffective. Years back, the article Theater (Amer Eng) was moved to Theatre (Brit Eng) based on the fact that Americans sometimes spell it the British way, so MOS:COMMONALITY overrides RETAIN. The same argument is works here: Americans use only one spelling, but British use both, undermining any TIES argument. RETAIN is a fall-back position used when nothing else can reach consensus. Now, in all the many thousands of categories, I suspect there may be a very few specific exceptions that can be made, but I believe that for "Organization", COMMONALITY trumps RETAIN, and these should all use "z" to avoid the great majority of pointless future category spelling discussions, and let a new separate special discussion/RFC can started for the very few that somehow "must" use "s". --A D Monroe III(talk)17:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
It's possible that in New Zealand, or some other part of the English-speaking world, "z" is regarded as incorrect, but is anyone really offended by its use? I, as a Brit, do not get offended when I read an Indian or American book in English that doesn't always use the same grammar or spelling that I use myself, but simply, if I notice it at all, treat it as part of life's rich tapestry. Surely we have more important things to concern ourselves about? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CREEP, WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES. The category system is broken and needs replacing with a more sensible system of attributes which can be combined freely rather than being constrained into an arbitrary tree. A better system would provide for synonyms and that's a better way of handling such variation. I'd expect this to emerge as WikiData becomes more established and we can then discard the categories. Andrew D. (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Use "z" - "z" is accepted almost everywhere. When categorizing articles, it's tiresome to guess which spelling a specific category uses. Standardization to the most common spelling is the best solution. -Zanhe (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - WP:CREEP, WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES are pretty clear in this regard. Unless we're going to go down the same route Wikidata have taken - treating US English and UK English as different languages, and therefore setting up a whole new Wikipedia project for one or other of them, then let's continue to be inclusive and stick to the existing guidelines. WaggersTALK11:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Use Z because category names need to be predictable and standardized to serve some of their controlled-vocabulary purposes, and thus should be considered all part of a single document for the purposes of ENGVAR. EllenCT (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Do not standardiseWP:CREEP, WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES, as cited by others, are convincing and clear. We shouldn't be forcing editors to use what are considered clear misspellings in some countries. If we were to standardise then it should be to international English but I wouldn't support that as that would be considered incorrect in the US. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I though we had WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES precisely to prevent this kind of direspect to linguistic norms in other countries. It is "organisation" in Australian English. Kerry (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
"The Manual of Style (MoS or MOS) is the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles." Categories are not articles. Oculi (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Oculi: "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of the language over any other." I don't see a need to distinguish between categories and articles here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Use Z - As we are talking about categories - a Wikipedia-based navigation structure - we should simply use the spelling most often used in English as a whole. MOS:ENGVAR is an article prose guideline - it does not strictly apply to categories of Wikipedia origin. As has been pointed out, some countries use "s" predominantly, but its often inconsistent and seems to be on a decline. In fact, Google Ngrams limited to "British English" only shows a "z" dominance. The key, though, is that "z" is recognizable by almost everyone. This is a default, and exceptions may be allowed for categories with strong WP:TIES, but editors would need to demonstrate with strong evidence "S" is dominant for that category's topic area. To accomplish that, I would say we hold at least 3 sub-RFCs after this one to determine specifically the S/Z question for UK-, Australia-, and NZ-related categories - perhaps held on their respective WikiProjects. Evidence, not anecdotes must be presented. -- Netoholic@14:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Use S - This is English Wikipedia and we should be using the standard spelling in England/Britain. Z is American, and since the British have colonised almost every country in the world, we should be using the Queen's English, not American English, unless the organisation in question spells its name with a Z. To use the American spelling here would be pushing for the American spelling rather than traditional British spelling. Despite their super power status, America did not colonised the world, and most English speaking countries especially in Africa use British spelling, not American spelling. E.g. colonised (and not colonized), organised (not organized), organisation (not organization), capitalised (not capitalized), etc. The English language came from England, not America. So let's use the traditional spelling in England. Failing that, let's not standardised but leave it up to individual editors.Tamsier (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose -- I'm not persuaded that we need a one-off micro-exception to ENGVAR just for categories. Though ENGVAR has its rough edges, it has kept relative peace for more than a decade. Keeping category names tidy doesn't seem like enough benefit. --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Weak support for stanardizing but don't care if it's s or z. Can we start making deals? Maybe America agrees to concede ou/o (colour) and ll/l (travelled) in exchange for s/z? Or we could hold an ENGVAR draft! :) — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as written: Lets not be confrontational about something that has been pretty well settled for at least a decade, if not longer. There is little to be gained by this proposal. Can't ReDirects from one spelling to another be set up rather than, as one person above alluded to, setting up two separate language wikis? I'm American, by the way, and I cannot support, per WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES. Think about it. GenQuest"Talk to Me"21:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
comment unlike a spelling like 'color', the use of '~ize' is a regional affectation. A support vote suggested it would be "fun" to do this, the enjoyment being the reaction I assume; unnecessary, overtly divisive and disruptive 'fun'. cygnis insignis01:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose standardis/zation, it's incorrect to say category names are inconsistent, simply on the basis they differ from the American spelling. As per most things on Wikipedia, WP:COMMONNAME should apply. If the categories are related to countries where 's' is normally preferred to 'z', then why is "organisations" not perfectly acceptable? The important thing is the category 'tree' and being able to find the correct category as easy as possible. Sionk (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
No need to standardize - ENGVAR can guide us when there is a strong national tie to the categorization... and where there is not, I see no need for over-consistency ... No one will be confused if a category using “ise” contain a sub-category using “ize” and vice-versa. Readers will still be able to navigate between related categories and articles. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose – We should not be giving preference to any particular variety of English. ENGVAR is a long-standing agreement, and the precedent established by overruling that here would be a bad one. – bradv🍁16:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose last tim ei check this was the English language Wikipedia, not the US Spelling English language Wikipedia, or for that the English spelling English Wikipedia. As so many before have link ENGVAR says acceptable to either spelling, this action stikes me that it ahs a a lot similarities to things like Infoboxes & Templates which have already altered a person understanding of a topic. Why would we as the English language Encyclopaedia want to destroy what is a beautiful language that accept variations in all its glory, whether its an s or z it doesnt matter each have their origins in difference that make English such a wonderful language where we can use the same spelling to describe so many different things in different ways, where every place adopts words from where it is.... To stay ture to being an English language Wikipedia then our priority should be to ensure the regardless of the variants in spelling or meaning we should embrace its usage to reflect its diversity. Until there is a body like that in France which defines every french word, its usage and spelling then value our differences as they are, there enough other work around here to be done that has real benefit. Gnangarra07:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Z is not American usage. Its the original British usage. MOS:ENGVAR is very unhelpful when it comes to categories, because if people use Twinkle, as many do, it creates two seperate lists of categories. Nobody is suggesting changing the spelling of the names of articles. What we have at present is a system which standardises categories withing a country, but messes it up when it comes to the other heirarchies of categories. Rathfelder (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
No. Category police should not be making ise/ize decisions. Instead, categories should always reflect and defer to decisions made at the parent articles. Top level categories should always have a parent article. Categories exist to serve article navigation, little more. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I don’t see any problem ... the Czech articles are categorized with “z” and the Slovak articles are categorized with “s”. Simple enough. different categories, different spellings. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose /Do not standardise - I asked for the debate to re-opened. A lot of groups use the -s spelling. There is no need to standardise, just use common sense. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Do not standardise: while the primary usage in Britain may be up for debate, that's not the case in Australia (admittedly I don't have access to an authoritative Australian style guide, but other Australian Wikipedians seem to agree, and I've found several sources that imply "-ise" is common in Australia (e.g. It’s time to recognize and internalize the US suffix ‘ize’) and a couple of style guides (e.g. National Museum of Australia)). The nomination mentions several unresolved disputes, regarding ise v. ize in various forms of English, that affect the application of MOS:TIES; the solution is to resolve those disputes, not this attempt to impose a standard contrary to ENGVAR. EDIT: I've just noticed Frickeg has been kind enough to quote the Macquarie Dictionary, which says "Current Australian usage clearly favours consistent use of -ise". – Teratix₵13:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Although the goal of standardisation (nudge nudge wink wink) is a noble one, as others have said, ENGVAR exists for a reason. Here are some RS to illustrate the dominance of "-ise" in Australian English:
The Conversation article quoted above by Teratix[14]: Craving the firm foundations of the establishment, Australians have standardised ise as the correct national form. Proselytising for ize is to no avail. Text editing changes ize to ise by default.
In the Australian Journal of Linguistics in 2014 [15]: The Australian English references (columns 3–6) show complete unanimity on -ise across three decades... the consistency of the Australian references contrasts with the ultimately uncommitted treatment in the British set. Further, Looking first at the Australian frequency data in columns 2 and 3 of Table 2, we see the -ise spellings well in the majority from the 1980s on, based on the uninflected forms of the three verbs; and close to or over 90% when the -ed forms are added...
In the AJL in 2010 [16]: English in Australia starts with a clear majority of <ize> and moves to an even more pronounced majority of <ise>.
I hope that goes some way to providing the evidence being requested in this discussion.
I dont see a big problem in leaving S in the categorisations for Australia and New Zealand if it will let us standardize the rest of the world. But nobody is suggesting that any actual articles should be changed. The different spelling wastes a great deal of editors time. Rathfelder (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Once this change is made, the next suggestion will be changing the articles as well. My view is that "-ise" is used in more countries so perhaps go with that. This does seem like debating trivialities. Someone did mention developing a system that would translate between "-ise" and "-ize"? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't standardise Per WP:ENGVAR. I have to go back and forth between -ise and -ize in the work I do based on the client, and it doesn't make sense to mandate the usage of a different form of English in areas that clearly use one form or another. I would say that in the event of a conflict, -ize should win out, though. Also, thank you to the person who reopened this discussion. SportingFlyerT·C05:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea of a Preference setting--show everything not in quotation marks in US spelling or UK spelling. How does he Chinese WP decide which form of characer to display? Isn't that a user option? DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
zhwiki uses ugly wikitext to specify alternate names that a reader might see, depending on their preferences (that link goes to zhwiki where the "Content language variant" preference can be seen). For example, "-{zh:米;zh-cn:米;zh-tw:公尺;zh-hk:米;}-" is the wikitext for the name of the m (meter/metre) unit. The feature is interesting but far too intrusive for use here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a tempest in a teapot - This discussion is using a blatantly disproportionate amount of resources compared to the scope of the dispute. It should be ended in whatever way, in the closers best judgement, kills and buries this issue in the most permanent manner possible. In particular, oppose any no consensus or wishy-washy resolution, make a decision that ends this, and stick to it. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Do not standardize per ENGVAR. My second choice would be something similar to what SMcCandlish proposes above: default to "z" unless there are significant MOS:TIES to a country where "s" is preferred. Wugapodes[thɑk][ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz]02:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I would agree on that as well, if standardization is beyond reach. Many editors in this discussion seem not to realize that this is not primarily about what to use for Australia or the United Kingdom, but most and for all what to use for China, Thailand, Iran, Turkey, Russia, Spain, Senegal, Angola etc etc Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
When a blanket change is created it impacts other uses. It would be better to just change those categories rather than change a policy where it has impact it to usages that are otherwise correct. One size doesnt fit all. Gnangarra07:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I dont think some of these contributors do much categorization. They dont know how much editots time and effort is wasted because of the lack of standardisation. Rathfelder (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Note Votestacking. This RFC has been subjected to blatant WP:VOTESTACKING (or more precisely Votebanking) by @Number 57. In these 12 edits[17] on 17/18 April, Number 57 notified 12 WikiProjects which have clearly been selected as likely to attract editors who prefer the "S" spelling.
The votestacking has worked; it clearly did produce the desired influx of editors who support Number 57's view.
It is surprising and very disappointing to see a long-standing and experienced admin engaging in such a clear attempt to rig the discussion. Note that for example Number 57's list of counry projects notified [18] didn't even notify the two major English-speaking countries in North America, i.e. Canada and the USA — clearly because they prefer the Z spelling
I hope that Number 57 will apologise for this, and make some amends by promptly notifying every country WikiProject ... and that this RFC's clock will be reset from the date when #57 confirms that the notifications have all been made. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Notifying the WikiProjects of countries that use the "s" spelling is a perfectly reasonable thing to do when there's a proposal to stop using their preferred spelling across the whole of Wikipedia, and it's not something I'll be apologising for. Cheers, Number5714:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Number 57, you know perfectly well that this is nota proposal to stop using their preferred spelling across the whole of Wikipedia, because it applies only to a limited set of categories, and not to any other pages.
As an admin for 12 years, you also know perfectly well that this sort of votebanking is a very basic form of disrupting consensus formation.
I disagree with both of your assertions, and I won't be posting the message to WikiProjects of countries to which the spelling doesn't really matter. Number5715:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Number 57: The RFC very clearly applies only to categories, so your decision to "disagree" with that fact is a simple misrepresentation of a simple reality.
The policy on votestacking is also very clear, and it seems that you "disagree" with that too.
It is clear canvassing. You cherry-picked the WikiProjects which would increase your POV vote tally. --qedk (t桜c)06:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I can appreciate 57's point of view here (disclosure: I participated in this discussion after viewing one of his notices). He was notifying projects which he thought would be most affected by this proposal. Example: the United States WikiProject won't be affected by this discussion, because the US usage is "z" and all US-related categories probably already use it. In contrast, the Australia WikiProject will definitely be affected because the Australian usage is "s" and so Australia-related categories would be changed as a result of this discussion.
It is important to understand the intent here. The term votestacking implies a bad-faith intent, which was not the case.
An easy solution is to notify any projects deemed relevant that weren't alerted initially. There is no need to escalate the matter. – Teratix₵08:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
The current usage is mixed, which is what we are seeking to standardize, if you think this is not canvassing, you should read over WP:CANVASSING again. The policies are clear and the malintent/intent is secondary to the canvassing that took place. If Number 57 will inform WikiProjects which are inclined towards 'z' usage as BHG said, that would be construed as informing, this is just blatant. --qedk (t桜c)08:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Canvassing: "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Intent is essential for an action to constitute canvassing. 57 has outlined his reasons for not informing other countries' noticeboards. This was not done with malicious intent.
Again, a simple remedy is to notify any other projects deemed relevant. It doesn't have to be 57, anyone can do it. – Teratix₵09:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Please read the entire page, i.e. WP:VOTESTACKING as well. Intent only matters upto the point it can be construed to be a mistake. If I wanted to change all references on Wikipedia from PRC to China and I informed only PRC-related WikiProjects, that is canvassing, my intent is irrelevant. The onus is on Number 57 to make this a non-partisan notification, not me, or anyone. --qedk (t桜c)14:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
From WP:VOTESTACKING: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus ...". Again, intent is central. Qedk's example of PRC and China misses the mark here; for a start there is no separate PRC WikiProject (it redirects to WikiProject China). Secondly, it makes sense when changing all references to a country to inform all WikiProjects related to a country; both WP China and the hypothetical WP PRC are involved, as articles related to them would be affected. This is not the case here. US-related (and others that use "z") categories won't be affected by this discussion, as the primary usage in the US is already "z" and thus categories will already use "z". This proposal is only looking at extending the "z" usage to other countries's related categories.
@QEDK: I never said the onus was on you to notify other projects, merely that if you felt concerned, the option was available. – Teratix₵01:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Teratix, the majority of countries are not English-speaking. Some of them have a consistent usage, and some do not. Those which have been standardised on one spelling have been chosen on a range of ad-hoc bases as set out in the nomination.
If these notifications had been done in good faith, they would have been done transparently, i.e. with a disclosure here of which projects were notified and why. @Number 57 is a very experienced admin, and knows well how to ensure that the neutrality of notifications can be scrutinised. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
It is possible to assume bad faith on both sides of this proposal. For instance it could be argued that if standardisation truely is the goal, then this RFC would have been to adopt common spelling, not “only Z”, with the spelling to be determined by a separate (or a preferential) poll.
The solution is to identify and notify any relevant WikiProjects that haven't been already. 57 notified the WikiProjects that would most obviously be affected – countries that use the "s" spelling. – Teratix₵06:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm amazed this discussion is still active, seeing that I asked for it to be re-opened. I had no idea WP:VOTESTACKING and WP:CREEP were concepts. I actually felt that the original discussion was a potential "vote stacked" effort to push through presumed consensus, and it's nice to have had a wider discussion about this policy. I re-iterate one of the problems was that once you made the change to categories, which some claim is trivial, it would eventually migrate as a policy to most wikipedia pages. What's the ideal solution? No, idea. However as my previous vote above would suggest that there is no policy on -ise or -ize. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Master Of Ninja, it is utterly bizarre to suggest that the original discussion was a potential "vote stacked" effort. The proposal was made a central venue, and listed[19] at WP:CENT.
@BrownHairedGirl - I think what I had written was perceived in a way that I did not intend, and I am not making any allegations at all. As I mentioned I am not familiar with WP:VOTESTACKING apart from having went through the link, and the accusations made against another editor on the above thread. My feeling that such a change did not go to a wide enough forum, seeing that after re-opening the discussion there has been much more activity on this thread. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment- I was going to close this mess, but after a few hours of sifting through the discussion, and poring over the policy, I just decided that I didn't want to close this. I think it's fair to say I am fairly well-versed in category, naming convention, and cavassing policies on Wikipedia. But after I started to write up what was turning into a lengthy close, and with my sincere apologies, I just was having a hard time bringing myself to care enough to continue on, so I decided that I'd rather let someone else step in and close this if they want. Here are a few things I found, in case it should help whoever closes this: a.) To start with, clearly there was inappropriate canvassing done. The Wikiprojects notified were all regional ones. And were clearly a small subset of all regions potentially affected by this discussion (the whole English-speaking world). And what about Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics? Please see WP:CANVASS for more information on how to appropriately canvass. b.) Much of the discussion is subjective "I prefer z" or "I prefer s", rather than policy references or reliable sources. After sifting through policy (like ENGVAR and COMMONALITY), it seems that this is what is apparently being relied on, for referenced usage, in policy. As forWP:RETAIN,it would seem to not apply to this discussion because, as it states: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." - This discussion is about a page's name, not the contents of the "body" of it. And finally, International Organization for Standardization - this page's title struck me funny in light of this discussion. Happy editing : ) - jc3709:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
It is not true that all English-speaking nations will be affected by this discussion. For example: United States-related categories will use the "z" spelling no matter the outcome of this discussion. This is true of all countries using "z". – Teratix₵07:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I suppose that's technically true, but I count one serious !vote in support which boils down to "English Wikipedia should be in British English only." No basis in policy (indeed, outright contradicting ENGVAR), not addressed in the nomination and no chance of passing this discussion. A non-issue. – Teratix₵06:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Creating a straw man argument and then being dismissive of it as an option, does not change that the notification was clearly done in contravention of WP:Canvassing. Make no mistake - if such disruption were to continue, any uninvolved admin, may choose to take preventative action, which could include blocking. I would rather to not see that happen. - jc3723:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jc37: Please explain what about my reasoning constitutes a straw man argument. You have claimed there was inappropriate canvassing; your justification was The Wikiprojects notified were all regional ones. And were clearly a small subset of all regions potentially affected by this discussion (the whole English-speaking world). In my reply, I have explained why this is not the case with a supporting example. Levivich has raised a valid objection (there was technically another option), so I have pored over the discussion and found virtually no-one taking it seriously. I summarised and examined the one serious !vote I observed, and found it to be completely lacking in policy-based reasoning. Then in your reply, you repeat your initial assertion and for some reason raise the possibility of a block. Why? – Teratix₵00:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@jc37 - this is why the whole rushed proposal was an utterly bad idea. You can see how much debate can be had on this, and I don't believe it's Wikipedia's role to standardise [;-)] English. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@jc37 - Can you clarify why WP:RETAIN would not apply in the light of WP:AT, which advises that "…The rest of MoS […] applies also to the title."? Thanks. I'm just trying to better understand the blend of guidelines. ogenstein (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, first off this discussion concerns category titles not article titles. Secondly, I went to WP:AT for find your quote to see what context might be found there, and when I did a page search for the word "applies" (among others), I did not find anything like the sentence you quoted. But to answer generally: We follow the MoS when applicable, though, when necessary, we of course may WP:IAR, or create new exceptions to the MoS, as necessary, as well. Which I believe is the intent of this proposal, and what you all appear to be discussing the merits of. - jc3723:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Do not standardise this is not the American Wikipedia, it is a project for all English speakers. This is why not every article is written in US English. ENGVAR is very clear on this, and many countries use the s, and they should be allowed to continue to do so. Joseph2302 (talk)10:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
It's easy to say use British for UK/Commonwealth and US otherwise but what about the rest of the world? TBH I do think things should be standardiz/sed but how, eh? Maybe British for Europe and American for the rest of the world. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment So you want to force uniformity and tromp on one 'side' or the other, but "hard redirects are too hard"? Precluding a technical solution while preferring a politiciṡ̃ƶed solution seems to incline towards bias rather than away from it. "Or what's a wiki for?" Shenme (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment - British spelling isn't so much a mode of spelling as it is a set of stylizations which make it different from the American or Irish English. This small set of stylizations can be listed and evaluated, and each seems like they will come up short, when put to a vote (as is here). Why use s when its vocalized z? Why use ou instead of just o, per French influence (is everything French the ideal form?). -ApexUnderground (talk) 06:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The problem always is on which accent should you base the phonetics? @ApexUnderground: is that not the wrong way around? The major differences between English and American English spelling came about by Webster's concious decision. As regards s/z and or/our there are subtle differences in pronunciation. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2019 (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.
re Cinderella157 Having read your summary, I find myself unsure what your finding is. What does "embrace our differences in a more formal way" even mean? And is your closing rationale an actual finding of consensus, or your opinion as to what editors seemed to lean toward supporting most, but will require another RfC to action? Please clarify both of these things.
As this has been archived there, I will respond here. Please note a copy edit to my close. As QEDK observed at WP:ANRFC, there is [alleged] VOTESTACKING and multiple proposals. The former is, itself, reason to find "no consensus" as opposed to "consensus against". There are many !VOTES each way and some alternative proposals that take a middle ground (but without sufficiently clear support). There are arguements of MOS:COMMONALITY etc on the one hand and ENGVAR and RETAIN on the other. COMMONALITY does not appear to say what the title might imply.
BHG has Identified a problem, provided an appreciation of the issues and proposed a solution - to standardise on a particular spelling. Part of their appreciation is that ENGVAR and RETAIN do not explicitly apply to categories. Where they do explicitly apply (to articles and titles), they are the solution - if not a perfect solution. The general leaning is to embrace the difference (ENGVAR) and/or adopt a middle ground. Assuming there is a general perception that a solution is required, this would need to be formalised, that ENGVAR and RETAIN be broadly construed and applicable to categories; or, a middle-ground proposal achieving consensus would also need to be formalised. So yes, if there is a will to proceed, this will probably require a further RfC. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cinderella157: why, then, did you cite them in your closing statement as a possible reason for finding no consensus? Did they affect your decision or not? If not, why mention them at all? – Teratix₵08:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I will support the summary that the best decision is having consensus that there is no consensus. I have no idea how this issue/non-issue can be sorted out - except saying that User:Cinderella157's thoughts that we should embrace ENGVAR are probably the right thing to do for now. Otherwise we will just get bogged down in this discussion for months. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we could consider for each country whether there is clear evidence of local usage? I'm not convinced that membership of the Commonwealth has much influence on spelling, and it seems strange to impose ENGVAR in places where English is not a local language. Rathfelder (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Cinderella157 when I started closing RFCs, I set a pair of goals for myself. In my opinion crucial criteria for the job are (1) being willing and able to close against one's own preference on an issue, and (2) knowing when to close against a majority and being willing and able to do so. My most memorable close was a 20 vs 10 discussion, where I issued a firm close for the minority. I mention this because 17 of the majority-20 were blatantly Canvassed to the discussion. I gave the canvassed votes all the weight they warranted - NONE. After discarding the 17 fabricated votes it was actually a 10 vs 3 discussion. Unsurprisingly the 10 had the right answer.
This RFC was running about 75% support before it was massively canvassed. As a closer your "remit" is to serve the community, by putting the close on this that the community as a whole would want you to put, to the best of your ability. If I create 100 accounts and cast 100 votes on an RFC, those votes are obviously not any reflection of community consensus. If I canvass 100 votes from others onto an RFC, those votes are equally not any sort of reflection of community consensus. You acknowledge above that you made no effort whatsoever to account for canvassing. You didn't attempt to assess the consensus of the community. I believe this is grounds to overturn the close. I request that you withdraw the close yourself.
Your given rationale for the close was that you set aside any numbers, and that you closed based on the weight of arguments. While that can be a valid basis for a close, it's hollow here. A primary argument of supporters is that chaotic category names disruptively hinders the work of editors. Your closing rationale is that disruption of work is is irrelevant against the all-overriding-weight-of-argument.... to embrace our differences. I literally had to do a confused double-take trying to figure out what your rationale even meant. All I see is "empty fluffy supervote". If your going to make the core of your close an overriding weight-of-argument then you need to cite something credibly respectable. The hollow rationale here is either grounds for overturning the close, or more support for the case.
I was disappointed but not surprised when I skimmed your usertalk. Not only did you conveniently close in favor of your personal spelling preference, it borders on statistical anomaly that this RFC would randomly be closed by someone who prefers 's' to the unusual degree that you do. You use 's' on everything, including "winterised". According to Google "winterised" is a borderline-fringe 6.8% usage. "Winterized" comes up at 93.2%. While it may well be a coincidence that you personally lean so far towards 's', it hardly gives confidence that your disregard of canvassing and the substance-free rationale are an unbiased assessment. To put a positive spin on it, maybe you just didn't notice how far out of sync your use of 's' is with the rest of the planet.
P.S. I've never been involved in this issue other than responding to the RFC. However I do care about respectable closes. Alsee (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Response:
Commentary that considers consensus in terms of votes and percentages and weight in binary terms is fundamentally at odds with the WP concept of consensus - WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.
If the allegations of VOTESTACKING are presumed, would it rally be possible to objectively disentangle the result and without an hue and cry ensuing? I could not see a sound objective basis.
Casting aspersions of bias is unbecoming. Statistics should be (IMO) used with caution to define or resolve a social issue. "Winteris[z]ed" is not the subject of this discussion. The comments made have the appearance to me of polemic ad hominem. "Vilifying groups of editors" for following different spelling conventions does not foster collaboration and respect.
Your closing rationale is that disruption of work is is irrelevant against ... This is a gross misrepresentation. As such, it is both uncivil and a strawman arguement. Please do not misconstrue my circumspection for other than what it is.
If the problem requires resolution, move forward to a result that will achieve broad support of the community. A strong consensus has bipartisan support that everybody can live with. Unilateral decisions are generally weak.
Actually I note that further discussion on this topic is now being done at this page posted above by Cinderella157. It sounds like everyone there is also agreeing to disagree, and no-one can come up with a good summary of the outcome of the discussion. Master Of Ninja (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Haha, I had noticed the the post-post closure discussion had moved there, with everyone just rehashing their discussion and post closure discussion POVs on the RfC.
The truth is no one wanted to make a determination for over a month, then when someone bravely did (and unsurprisingly determined no consensus) they were attacked for having the courage to make a close.
As for Alsee,s arguments for overturning the close, they boil down to:
Cinderella didn’t vote count after discounting a number of !votes
Cinderella is Australian and so could never make in impartial decision
Per this post at the close review, I raise what I believe to be significant concerns about the process of this RfC. Specifically, that MOS:ENGVAR does already specifically apply to naming categories, that those commenting here have been inadvertently misdirected as to the premise of the RfC and, in consequence, the RfC, the close and the review have been compromised. I acknowledge that I was misinformed/misdirected. I suggest that what follows requires further discussion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Seeing that no-one else wants to close this, and the discussion has been going on since April without any resolution, I am closing this myself now. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Might be the only option. If you read the ongoing discussion on the administrator's noticeboard, there might be a move to re-run or re-open the proposal. Hope this will help the situation is unclear. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
A kind notice, language converter already exist for people with various preferences, therefore, we don't technically need to maintain two category tree, just make one system, and have an option to make them look the way one prefer. viz✦01:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Why is this even a problem? Category pages can be redirected, so both language versions can be made available for pages where it would look odd or inconsistent to have a particular spelling. SpinningSpark10:01, 31 August 2019 (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.
See the response above. Many other editors have reinstated and altered the content since the banned editor wrote it. You are the only person out of 10+ participants who are still stuck on this. Please get a clue and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Sergecross73msg me01:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Let's see. Looking at the article's history, since the issue began a year ago far more people have tried to remove the entry than keep it, as most of the reverts re-adding it have been either a bot, the banned troll (or "editor" as you like to call him) and you. By the by, nice use of WP:DROPTHESTICK; a favorite essay repeatedly named dropped by the banned "editor" [21][22][23]2600:1700:B280:B1C0:401:9D0D:384D:6176 (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC).
We don’t gauge consensus by digging through page histories, we do it through discussion. And the latest RFC had no consensus for removal. And are you insinuating that there’s something suspicious about two editors citing STICK? Yeah, nice try. That’s extremely widely cited concept. Did we both cite WP:V and WP:ATD-M too? Give me a break. Sergecross73msg me19:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
"Many other editors have reinstated and altered the content since the banned editor wrote it," then "We don’t gauge consensus by digging through page histories". Can you try to keep a track on what you're saying. Your "many other editors have reinstated" is pretty much just you and the troll, and as for the multiple editors altering the content, they only did so in an effort to balance the content in accordance with WP:NPOV and try to bring about a compromise since you won't let it be removed. And is anyone shocked than an RFC ended in "no consensus" when one of the two people dead set on keeping it as is voted multiple times under sockpuppet accounts.
And I'm not saying you and the troll in question are the same person, just that your agendas align strikingly too much to the point that not only do your tactics overlap, but you seem to be purposefully downplaying his actions. Despite long term abuse going back years, you referrer to him as an "editor" while everyone else referrers to him as what he rightly is, a troll. And while everyone else sees his addition to the article for what it is (trolling), you won't even acknowledge that fact. Lastly, if you look at the article's history, and you go all through the talk archives, you will see that far more people have tried to remove the entry than keep it, as for the past year there have really only been two people regularly, continuously working to ensure it remains on the list: the troll and you. You don't acknowledge the troll for what he is, you don't acknowledge his actions for what they are, you work regularly to keep the spirit of his actions alive, and you've come extremely close to WP:OWN with List of music considered the worst by making yourself a de facto guru and talking down to anyone who disagrees with you because "I edit this list regularly!" (so much so that you were finally called out about it, but of course you had to throw in one last knowitall-ism on your way out the door). 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:81B7:9ADA:FA2B:E566 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes yes, you lot love to make me out to be the bad guy, like I’m the cause of all your complaints, but the fact is, I’ve sat out those content disputes for the entire month of September, and they’re no closer to a resolution than when I was actively participating. I can’t tell if you’re honestly believe everything you’re typing, or if it’s just trying to gaslight me, but its not just me here, I’m merely the one who responds to you all the most. And with that, I’ll step away from here now as well, as the answer has already been given to this question, an this is all just spiraling off-topic again. Sergecross73msg me21:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:DENY is about vandalism. One should presume that if a good-faith editor is vouching for an edit, it isn't vandalism.
It feels, though, that you have a particular situation in mind – people might be able to give more useful feedback if you pointed to it so we can see an example. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Caeciliusinhorto: Well, let's say that a suspected IP sockpuppet of of The abominable Wiki troll added an entry to List of music considered the worst, but the edit was removed/reinstated multiple times since its addition.
For those unfamiliar with the situation, here is the CliffNotes version: Several years ago The Abominable Wiki Troll added The Beatles' album Sgt. Pepper to List of music considered the worst , and it was removed as people felt it shouldn't be there since it regularly appears on various Greatest and/or Most Influential Albums of All Time lists (very often coming in around #1). Just over one year ago an IP re-added it to the list, using the same sources from when it was originally listed. Due to the fact the "Worst Music" list has an unbelievably weak criteria (right now all that is required for inclusion is a single person calling the album/song the "worst"), edits trying to remove the entry (and there have been many) are constantly reverted with the rational "you need to get a consensus first". In February, an RFC was launched to reach such a consensus, and after two months and dozens of editors participating, it was closed as "no consensus" and the entry forced to remain. It was subsequently discovered that not only was AWT one of the two main editors arguing to keep Sgt. Pepper on the list, but he voted multiple times under different sockpuppet accounts (ironically he insinuated multiple IPs voting to remove the album were sockpuppets and said the RFC was tainted). Upon further investigation by Grand Delusion, it was discovered AWT was the IP who re-added Sgt. Pepper to the list and started the whole mess. However, despite the fact the entry was added by a user evading a ban (WP:BANREVERT), and added to the list (and continually re-added) as an act of trolling (WP:DENY), attempts to remove the entry are still being reverted. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:401:9D0D:384D:6176 (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and it’s been re-added and altered many times by unrelated editors in good faith since this ban-evading editor added it. Which is why it’s not appropriate to deleted from the article. This is just a poor attempt at Wiki-lawyering their way into getting their way in the dispute. Luckily most editors on both sides of the dispute realize this isn’t the right way to be going about it. Sergecross73msg me15:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the history page, the only editors that have re-added the entry in the last year are you, the troll's Sockpuppets, and Popcornduff (which re-added it since there were discussions ongoing, not because he was in favor per-se of the album being on the list). So where are the so called editors that have re-added the entry in good-faith? All I see is the work of a troll and an admin who supports his obvious troll work. (By the way, as noted by 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:401:9D0D:384D:6176 up there, both of you write in a very similar way...) WKMN? Later[ Let's talk ]17:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
We’re not just talking about reverts. There was a massive RFC with a ton of participants that ended in a no consensus split, with half favoring inclusion. They count too. The banned editor was not every single one of the many who fell on the inclusion side. (I’ll again warn you of casting WP:ASPERSIONS. You’ve only gotten away with that in the past because so few people noticed it. Not the same case here at VP. Don’t make baseless accusations. I have no sock puppets. And I certainly didn’t operate two accounts, one to adminship, the other to a site ban. That doesn’t even make any sense.) Sergecross73msg me19:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, let's count to see if you're telling the truth. Let's check how many voted in favor of keeping Pepper in the list of worst music, and how many voted against it. RFC link here.
In favor:
SummerPhDv2.0
Sergecross73
Micky Moats (Sockpuppet)
Ilovetopaint
82.132.218.91 (blocked IP due to vandalism)
Noelrock (Sockpuppet)
BLZ
Tosk Albanian
2A02:C7F:8E93:DF00:857B:F747:3D05:225 (blocked IP due to vandalism)
Herostratus
Jayron32
Against:
108.199.123.95
72.192.15.119
A Quest For Knowledge
91.84.66.228
WKMN? Later
GenQuest
Rjrya395
Indynotes
Hunter Kahn
LM2000
Curly "JFC" Turkey
So that's 11 votes in favor, from which 2 were sockpuppets, and 2 others were trolling accounts that ended up being blocked. That leaves 7 valid votes to keep Pepper on the list. Against 11 votes against. And yet you defend that "half" of the RFC voters were in favor of keeping Pepper. That's not taking into account the rest of the discussions in the talk page, in which many editors are against keeping Pepper on the list, and you're the only one who's in favor (you and... the troll, of course.) Also, I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just stating the facts. Sockpuppets were trolling to keep Pepper on the list, and you agreed with them. I've still not read a valid reason to keep Pepper on the list, other than "DROPTHESTICK", and "other good faith editors", and "get consensus". WKMN? Later[ Let's talk ]20:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Great, but we’re not rehashing that dispute in yet another venue. We’re discussing BANREVERT application. And as you’ve just pointed out, there were 7 good-faith editors who were in favor of inclusion. And that’s a reason why the content isn’t being auto-deleted. Thank you for digging that up and clearing that up for me. Sergecross73msg me20:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
And there were 11 who were against. The RFC conclusion was invalid - its results were tampered. There are everyday more editors that are against putting Pepper on the list, than there are in favor (I feel I'm explaining this to a five year old: an album which is considered the best of all times had its couple of detractors; that doesn't make it a candidate for a worst music list). Since it's been discovered that the entry was added by the troll, and when people deleted it, it was reverted by the troll, and when the RFC was made the troll voted for its inclusion on the list, and many, many more editors are against putting Pepper on the list; we could change our logic. The current logic is: "Pepper is on the list. If you want it removed, get consensus." It should be the other way, since Pepper being on the list has been defended by the troll and opposed by many more editors. It should be: "Pepper is not on the list, because of its universal appraisal. If you want it on the list, get consensus." I'm sure many, many more editors would agree with this instead of the current politic. WKMN? Later[ Let's talk ]20:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Changing/Adding restriction on moving pages to allow "Pagemovers" to move pagers where right now only admins can do so
I came upon a request at Uncontroversial Technical Requests to move a page and found that the page was locked for moving so that only admins can move it because the page was moved a few weeks prior because someone jumped the gun. I think that the lockdown of pages should be so that it should also include the PAGEMOVER rights. There are only a few of us and we are granted this right because we are trusted not to abuse it, and we know when to use it. I just think it's one more layer of bureaucracy we can get rid of. Sir Joseph(talk)14:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I would support this, but edit protection and move protection currently use the same user permissions, so unless the user permissions were unbundled, this would let page movers edit fully protected pages. Iffy★Chat -- 16:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Iffy, the page I was talking about had just move protection on it, not edit protection. Many pages have a special protection that you can edit it but you can't move it because there was a move war but not an edit war. Sir Joseph(talk)17:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: Both of those are controlled by editprotected, this needs to be split so editing and moving are treated differently before this proposal has a chance of achieving consensus. Iffy★Chat -- 17:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
In general, if protection is no longer necessary, the page should be unprotected - not just actioned over the protection. As to the specific proposal above, if this is for adding (protect) access to extendedmover then I'm against it as access to that function was not something that current extendedmover's were evaluated against. — xaosfluxTalk16:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Xaosflux on this. Current extendedmover's were not evaluated based on having the ability to move pages that were fully move protected/having the ability to edit fully protected pages (if not unbundled). There is also a lot more room for vandalism (you could even, theoretically, move the Main page with that ability (I know that you can't delete it anymore as an admin, but wonder if they also removed the ability to move it....do you know Xaosflux?. --TheSandDoctorTalk20:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that admins can't move a page with more than 5,000 revisions for the same reason they can't delete them - as moving effectively is a deletion and re-creation? Black Kite (talk)20:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The enwiki Main Page cannot be deleted or moved, that's correct. As a point of interest, it does not have move more than 5,000 revisions. ~ Amory(u • t • c)21:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Pages that have 5000+ revisions don't throw the "nope" error that requires 'bigdelete' access - but I'm not about to try to move one :D — xaosfluxTalk21:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Chiming in here as I actually had the same thought as the person who opened the discussion, so I poked around the ListGroupRights to see what's possible. As an alternate solution if move protection can't be unbundled from edit protection, there are a few possible options? I noticed that sysops have the "move pages under pending changes (permission being movestable)". Could an additional right perhaps be created that allows moving full protected pages (e.g. moveprotected) that would give them the ability to move these pages but not edit full protected? I agree that the potential for abuse is rather low, there aren't many page movers around and the backlog at RM gets quite large, so if this can be technically implemented I think it's a good idea. StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes!06:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Tony May and persistent criticism and belittling of other editors on British railways. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Administrator note: This RfC was closed on 17 April 2019, and reopened after editors suggested the same at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Further discussion of recent RfC on organisation vs organization. Lourdes 07:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Should all Wikipedia categories which use the word "organisation"/"organization" as part of a descriptive name per WP:NDESC be standardized to use the "Z" spelling, i.e. "organization" rather than "organisation"?
. --TheSandDoctor Talk 21:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
