Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 118

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

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197

Bots filling talk pages

We have some very long user talk pages. It would be good if bots like User:SuggestBot, User:EdwardsBot, User:MiszaBot, User:MediaWiki message delivery, etc, did not deliver to pages, which were over, say 100,000 bytes in length. They could perhaps, leave a one-off short note explaining that they would resume (or could be asked to manually), once the page size was reduced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

SuggestBot (talk · contribs) can be configured to overwrite its previous message, as here. EdwardsBot (talk · contribs) hasn't edited in six months, and MiszaBot (talk · contribs) has been blocked these three years. As for MediaWiki message delivery (talk · contribs), that's not a bot, but a generic username used by a software feature, see m:MassMessage. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Red, this discussion is a fork of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 133#User talk. It may be best to centralize the discussion there. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't look like a fork to me. It's a related topic, but a separate question: the VPT thread was about where to get a report of long user talk pages from. This one is about preventing bots from posting to long talk pages, which might be the same ones listed in that report, but probably aren't - the report linked above includes several pages that are not in User talk: space, such as Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her, so that's not a given. Also, since a bot cannot be expected to run a report - or even check a pre-prepared report (which may well be out of date by several months), presumably the bot would be coded to read the page size prior to posting to that page. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This is an excellent idea. I have seen several user talk pages where the user has been inactive for months or years, yet the talk page still accumulates spam from newsletters and what-have-you. I would go further and suggest an API addition so a bot can quickly determine whether a user has been inactive for an extended period; there is no point delivering newsletters to someone who has been inactive for six months. However, something concrete that can be done now (such as a page-size limit) rather than pie-in-the-sky proposals may be better. One issue is that adding a section to a talk page does not involve reading the whole page, and I don't know if there is any other way to get the size of a page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, your suggestion might be going too far. See this discussion for why we don't want to automatically stop sending things to retired users just because they're retired. However, stopping at a particular page size is a good idea. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Six months might be too short, but a longer period, such as two or three years, might be a good idea. That should cover all the people who are offline due to military deployments, serious illness, or other all-consuming life issues. If none of WikiProject newsletters from the last two years have motivated a single edit, then next month's WikiProject newsletter probably won't, either.
However, the subject of the message matters: Notices of copyvio-related deletions should probably be delivered no matter what. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Survey (RfC) at G. Edward Griffin

Original Question: is it correct for WP to refer to Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first line in WP's voice, as the article currently does? (based on the sourcing provided here (and in the article if you like), and WP:policies and guidelines (including of course WP:BLP and WP:PSCI)

First line in the article states: G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American conspiracy theorist, filmmaker, and author. Atsme☯Consult 04:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Commercial VPN block exemption

Recently there has been a large number of blocks when using commercial VPN providers. I understand the no open proxy policy, but many people including myself use VPNs to avoid the insecurity of open wifi hotspots.[1][2] Also they are hardly "open" when your paying for them. I doubt as many trolls will actually spend the money on commercial providers as they would on free ones.

Currently just about all of Private Internet Access and TorGuard are caught up in the following broad subnet block for no apparent reason -
Editing from 104.207.128.0/19 has been blocked (disabled) by User:DeltaQuad for the following reason(s): The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

I would suggest unblocking them, but in the event there is some reason for paranoia you could still implement an exemption for logged in users.
Ideas:

  • Freenode uses SASL, perhaps something similar for Wikipedia?
  • Allow users to edit only if e-mail is verified; add captchas for good measure(?).
  • They could also only be allowed to edit if their e-mail has been verified and their account registered over x amount of days.

So I simply propose that an effort be made to stop blocking users of commercial VPNs. As a user trying to maintain security on public networks I am disappointed in the apparent changes that happened recently. (Wasn't blocked even a few weeks ago). The result will be more security for the end-user. Thanks for your time. - Gaming4JC (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gaming4JC:, I apologize that my block of the range is getting the way of your editing. I used to aggressively block VPN ranges a long time ago, but I do not any longer. The only reason I usually block them now is because someone is evading a block, or using one IP to create an account, then editing right through the block which was targeted at them in the first place. Also, sometimes these webhosts have open proxies within them, which is another preventative measure. I have reviewed the block at hand, and removed it, so it should not interfere with your editing. I sadly don't have the time to go through and review each and every such block I've made, but I will address them on a step by step basis. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: Thank you! I also found a list of their servers, you can likely ping them to find the IP and see if the range is hardblocked. [3] Time to get back to editing. :) - Gaming4JC (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for reformation of 'fringe theories' and the supposed 'neutral stance' of Wikipedia

"Mainstream" has nothing to do with anything.

  • In deciding whether to write articles about things, we look to whether they are notable, meaning that they are significantly talked about. Doesn't matter if the things are legit or not. See Wikipedia:Notability.
  • In deciding how to write articles about things that we have decided are notable enough, we try to maintain a neutral viewpoint, which means that we address the concept in a stale, detached, objective manner and don't make value judgments about it. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

That's it. — Omegatron 22:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bingo! I've been trying to express something like that, but have obviously failed! This guideline is just plain absurd, confusing, biased, unnecessary, useless. Lakinekaki
Legit might as well be reliability. --ScienceApologist 23:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No. Reliability of sources pertains to how trustworthy they are for the things that are cited to them. This is orthogonal to the legitimacy of what is actually being said. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
Completely bogus claims can be cited with a reliable source, as long as they're attributed. You're not using the source to say that the bogus claim is true, you're using the source to make the who and what of the claim verifiable. — Omegatron 01:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
To me, this guideline has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the theory ... The key to this guideline is indeed notability... a Fringe theory must have achieved a degree of recognition (ie coverage) in the mainstream for it to be notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia (either as its own article or as a section of some other article). That recognition can be approving or disapproving of the theory... that does not matter... all that matters is that it can be shown that at least one mainstream source has taken notice of the theory and discussed it in some detail. Blueboar 13:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, notability. "Mainstream" is not notability. Notability refers to coverage in peer-reviewed journals just as much as it does newspaper articles written by people who flunked high school science classes. We need to stick to our actual notability policy and not shoot off on tangents about peer-reviewed research. If it's worthy of note, we write about it. — Omegatron 13:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Your last sentence is where I have a problem... how do we determine if something is worthy of note? "Worthy" is subjective, I may think some totally rediculous theory is "worthy" of being noted, but you may disagree. No, we have to draw the line at things actually being noted. I would say that publication in a peer-reviewed journal is certainly a great way for something be be noted (and for scientific theories I would agree that it is probably the best way). But there are other ways for something to become notable... such as being discussed in "mainstream" newspapers. Blueboar 17:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This conversation says it all about the bias of Wikipedia. It's obvious that Wikipedia has a liberal agenda. Articles labeled 'fringe theories' should be observed with NO judgement, as to uphold an actual 'neutral stance'. This is NOT being practiced on Wikipedia[4]. Only articles that are recognized by the mainstream media recieve a non-condensing observation. Subjects, such as the events of September 11th, 2001 is a perfect example of such bias. A 'terrorist' claims responsibility for this attack, so the fact that these towers defied physics in their collapse is automatically discredited as a fringe theory? How is this stance 'neutral'? It could it be that this was never reported by a mainstream media outlet. News outlets are known for their political bias, to the point of lying. I just don't understand why politically bias mainstream media outlets are the only 'credible' sources. It's like when Galileo reported his revolutionary (and very true) findings, and the crown forced Galileo to rescind these findings, or otherwise face execution. Why did the king do so? The findings of Galileo contradicted the Bible, which has more plot holes than swiss cheese. Is this what Wikipedia is coming to, feeding the public lies at the expense of monetary execution? This is why Wikipedia needs reformation.

2607:FB90:422:2134:AADE:CFC:FCD8:E84E (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If Wikipedia allowed everyone to "neutrally" describe their favorite theory, readers would have no way of knowing whether what they are reading is junk. Instead of being an encyclopedia, this would be a repository of all wacky ideas, each competing for the reader's attention with ever-more extravagant claims and just-so stories. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Except most cannot edit Wikipedia. If one tries to, and their edit doesn't uphold the liberal bias of Wikipedia, it is quickly reverted. Any attempt for discussion on controversial subject is met by rabid editorial police of Wikipedia, such as yourself. It doesn't matter how well sourced your information is. If it goes against the liberal bias of Wikipedia, it's gone in a heartbeat. Wikipedia calls itself neutral, and yet it screams liberalism. This is what needs be 86'ed.

Note: Please do not add needless comments (lol, wtf, etc) to this discussion. It is counterproductive, and will subsequently be removed. 2607:FB90:422:2134:AADE:CFC:FCD8:E84E (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Lol. --NE2 09:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
You have no idea how long many of us have been waiting for someone with your courage to come forward, secretly harboring the same thoughts but afraid to speak up for fear of being chastised, castigated, cast out to wander forever in the wilderness. You are our savior, the leader of a new movement that we will call 2607:FB90:422:2134:AADE:CFC:FCD8:E84Eism.
Seriously, though, did you actually expect to find anything resembling a receptive audience for this here? Do you walk into mosques and loudly condemn Islam? If you did, do you think the people there would hear you, suddenly see the light, and convert the mosque to a church? In other words, do you know anything at all about human nature? Please, for your own sake, go away. If anyone cared to hat this thread, they wouldn't get a complaint from me.
By the way, per WP:TPO, do not remove other editors' comments. You started this thread, but you do not own it. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
No, but am I wrong for wanting to speak my mind about the very visible faults of Wikipedia? Why don't you go away, you rabid Wiki-nazi? I'm only looking for constructive criticism from editors that understand etiquette. Not sarcastic assholes who are editing pages because they're a troll. I might not own this thread, but any serious editor would agree that spam comments are both annoying, and unhelpful. Getting back on topic. Having a obviously Liberal agenda and claiming to be neutral is a serious conflict of interest. This at least merits a fair discussion. UnifiedBalance (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
So science can be divided into "liberal" and I guess "conservative" science? With what many people call "mainstream" being actually "Liberal" with a capital "L". Huh? Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like these editors are asking for "equal balance" as the news media often calls it. But, they are asking for "equal balance" between the unquestionable true and conspiracy nonsense. Creationism and evolution should not get equal balance in a discussion of science. Climate Change and its denial do not deserve equal balance. The effectiveness of vaccines and claims they cause autism do not warrant equal balance. The safety of GMOs and the theory they turn people into mutated monsters do not deserve equal balance. Doing so is lying to our readers and a huge disservice. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

"am I wrong for wanting to speak my mind about the very visible faults of Wikipedia?" No, you are wrong to resort to offensive personal attacks on people who do not support your opinion. And you seem to be using evidence (itself open to question) regarding one subject to argue about something else entirely. And if you are actually here to bring about change, you are going about it completely the wrong way. Not that such change would achieve anything beyond driving readers away. There are other Wikis that have attempted the sort of spurious 'balance' you support - and none of them have succeeded in attracting a readership remotely approaching ours. Readers chose Wikipedia because of its content - which is a result of its policies. It is open to anyone to provide an alternative. They can even per the creative commons license create a fork, starting with our content (that has been done too). The failure of such approaches is self-evident. Why should we emulate failure here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So basically what you're telling me is that if it's not covered by the mass media, it'll never be covered by Wikipedia? How is that fair? I don't understand. "Creationism and evolution should not get equal balance in a discussion of science." Look at the page for Creationism. Creationism is not slammed nearly as hard as pages on alternate theories. "The safety of GMOs and the theory they turn people into mutated monsters do not deserve equal balance." Nice sarcasm. Nobody said anything about GMOs contributing to mutation. The safety of GMOs and possible negatives of how they affect the himan body deserves to covered. "Doing so is lying to our readers and a huge disservice." Wikipedia already lies and throws away evidence that doesn't agree with their Liberal mainstream agenda. How is that fair to people who are doing research on controversial subjects (JFK, MLK, 9/11) etc? Those people cannot rely on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia refuses to cover aspects that coincide with its obvious Liberal point of view.

Funny that you automatically assumed that I was 'relying' on personal attacks. Did you even bother to read any other parts of the conversation? Of course you didn't. I'm pretty sure Mandruss' was the first to resort to personal attacks. UnifiedBalance (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No. What I'm telling you is that existing policy (which requires that material be verifiable in published reliable sources, and that we don't give undue weight to fringe opinions) is what makes Wikipedia what it is - and that it appears to be what our readers want. If you don't like it, and you don't think it is 'fair', start your own Wiki. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I updated what I said above, please re-read. Why should I have to start my own Wiki? I though Wikipedia was for everybody. Apparently it's only for those who are willing to buy it's Liberal lies. UnifiedBalance (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
And please don't edit your posts after they have been replied to - it makes following the discussion difficult to understand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought of it while waiting for you to reply. My point still stands about Wiki-unfairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnifiedBalance (talk • contribs) 22:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Since you have made precisely nothing which even approximates to an actual proposal for specific change in Wikipedia policy, and instead are merely using this page as a forum for your ill-considered ranting and repetitive blather, I have nothing further to say to you - I suggest you take your soapbox and tinfoil hat elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
How hypocritical of you. You tell me not to rely on personal attacks. So what was that? Can I please get a user that is less egotistical and immature? UnifiedBalance (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I see this editor has been indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment requested

Comment is requested on what text to use to link to Wiktionary on templates. Please comment at Template talk:Sister project links#Wiktionary. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on accessibility of awards tables

Please see WikiProject Accessibility talk page topic Awards arranged in two columns using tables for layout. This has been cross-referenced at 87th Academy Awards talk page topic Changed list for accessibility.

I appear to have inadvertently Canvassed by moving the discussion (at another's suggestion, but still...) and am posting it here to attempt to get broader viewpoints. I do not intend to post it anywhere else. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've added a before-and-proposed-after example further down the Awards arranged in two columns using tables for layout thread that solves the accessibility issue while retaining a layout table. Please visit. This notice is being posted at the Village Pump, the 87th Academy Awards talk page topic Changed list for accessibility, and pages on tables. Thisisnotatest (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Names... when sources conflict with MOS guidance

Comments are requested at WT:MOS on the following question:

When a significant majority of reliable sources (especially those that are independent of the subject) consistently present a name with a stylization that is contrary to our MOS guidance, should Wikipedia:

a) ignore the sources and conform our presentation of the name to MOS guidance... or

b) ignore MOS guidance and conform our presentation of the name to the sources?

Please respond at WT:MOS#MOS vs source styles? and not here. Blueboar (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

City-data.com

Someone has added a substantial amount of information to the Tennessee article using only city-data.com as a source. City-data is not considered a reliable source, right? Bms4880 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a copyright infringement if nothing else. Southern American English would also be a better place, but that needs attention from an expert, not a copy-paster. There should perhaps be a single sentence in Tennessee linking to that article (and AAVE?). --NE2 19:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Net Worth

In the Template to the right in biographical articles, why are Net worth figures given for business persons (examples Warren Buffet and Bill Gates) and not for political figures (examples Bill Clinton and George W. Bush)? Why the bias toward disclosure for business people, and a free pass for politicians? Isn't there overlap sometimes (example Mitt Romney)? What can be done in the interests of transparency for government employees and a more level playfield for business people? Thank you. nobs (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The simple answer is that editors are free here to do as they wish so long as they obtain silent or affirmative consensus. Part of that freedom is to use whichever fields of templates, in this case {{Infobox person}}, that they care to use so long as no one reverts or objects on the article talk page. Another part is that every article stands on its own and what happens in one does not determine what happens in another (see, e.g. WP:OTHERSTUFF and "see also's" linked there). The only way to require uniformity between articles is through a policy or guideline. If you'd care to try to create one, follow the instructions at the Policy policy (not a typo). (If you succeed in making such a policy, you should note that the template that's used for politicians is {{Infobox officeholder}} rather than {{Infobox person}} and that template does not currently have a net worth field, so part of your policy proposal should probably be amending that infobox to include it.) Having said that, it seems to me that you may be making a false dichotomy here: With Gates and Buffet being ranked the two richest people in the US and within the top three or four in the world, their net worth is notable/significant in itself, having noting per se to do with whether they're businessmen, lottery winners, politicians, or simply heirs. (And in that regard, you might want to look at Christy Walton, whose net worth is listed as the richest woman in the world, but who holds it only as an heir, not as a business person.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly... there is no way we can (or should) list every factoid about a person in an infobox. The factiods that we do list should be relevant to what makes the person notable. The info box on Gates, Buffet or Walton does not list what political party they belong to - because their political views have little to do with what makes them notable. Similarly, the info box on Clinton, Bush, or Obama does not list their net worth, because their financial status has very little to do with what makes them notable. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much. This is very helpful. So it's optional using the Infobox person template, even for a CEO, (for example Patrick M. Byrne). It looks like an arbitrary cutoff at $1 billion; Gates, Buffet and Oprah Winfrey are listed but Mitt Romney & Bill Clinton's Net Worths are only in the hundreds of million and the reader needs to hunt for this information. If financial status has very little to do with an office holder's notability, that would be easily verifiable by checking their Net worth against Median income. nobs (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Close, but I don't think you quite have it yet: National politicians are ordinarily notable merely because they're a politician. (And the concept of notability only affects the question of whether or not we'll have an article about them at all not what's in the article.) The question of inclusion of a politician's net worth is one of those things which, if disputed, is going to turn on whether it can, first, be supported with an inline citation to a reliable source and then, second, whether it's inclusion gives that one particular fact about the politician undue weight. One way to demonstrate that it's not undue would be to demonstrate that his or her net worth has been a topic of significant discussion in mainstream reliable sources. To suggest that it ought to always be included in politician's articles is an argument which, I fear, is going to be fraught with difficulty: first, while we have lots of rules about things which cannot be included in articles or which can only sometimes or under certain circumstances be included in articles, we have very few rules — indeed, just off the top of my head I can't think of any — which mandate particular substantive information (i.e. versus particular formatting, citations, and other procedural matter) to be included in articles. The first question for such a mandate will always be: whose duty is it to insert that information and what's the consequences if they fail to do so? Once you're past that hurdle — which I consider to be near–insurmountable — there are a million other details to argue over, starting with which politicians? US only? Federal, state, or local? and so on. Second, there are those who will say, maybe (or maybe not) with some justification, that the mandatory inclusion of net worth information on politicians implies a certain non-neutral political or ideological point of view about politicians and wealth which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Frankly, I think the attempt to mandate it would be a colossal waste of time and that editors would be better served by deciding whether or not it is appropriate on a politician-by-politician basis. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with TransporterMan. The addition of net worth should only be in proportion to the weight in the reliable sources. Examples are Silvio Berlusconi and Stacey Jordan. It would be ludicrous not to list Berlusconi's net worth and ludicrous to include Jordan's. This information should be done on an article by article basis.--Adam in MO Talk 04:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:FLORA issues

The principle of the guideline is as follows:

"The guiding principle of this guideline is to follow usage in reliable sources. In the vast majority of cases, this will be the current scientific name. This is because the vast majority of plants are of academic interest only to botanists, and botanists almost invariably use scientific names in their published works. On the other hand, when a plant is of interest outside botany—for example because it has agricultural, horticultural or cultural importance—then a vernacular name may be more common.
Other principles in play here include precision and consistency. Both of these lend further support to the use of scientific names, and the latter leads to standardisation on certain orthographic points"

I have and continue to see issue with this guideline as I feel this is a case of WP:IAR. The wording "This is because the vast majority of plants are of academic interest only to botanists" is biased and as a result narrows the scope of the articles for those who are not botanists to weed though latin phrases that they may have no idea what the heck they mean but do have a common english name. For example, if I was curious on what types of trees grew in my area I might know one or two based on common name but would have no idea where to go from there due to the jargon being used in the articles. When it comes to schools, other than college studies maybe and possibly high school elementary school kids through middle school do not use latin phrases when doing science projects. This guideline also goes against WP:NOTGUIDE as Wikipedia isn't a book about plants but an encyclopedia. So in closing, are we going to narrow the scope of our articles so just a botanist can understand it, or can we make the article titles user friendly so everyone can look them up? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are talking about the article title that's why there are redirects. Plus look at some of them, Poet's daffodil or Narcissus poeticus, which is the most common of the five names? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a procedural note: I've left a notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)#Discussion at Village Pump. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The most common English name would be used then, redirects aren't enough unless you know the english plant names and only serve that purpose. My thought is an average editor looking through Wikipedia plants for a science project or the like and not knowing what the heck the latin names mean. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Not quite... it's a subtle distinction, but WP:COMMONNAME does not say to use the most common "English name"... it says we should use the name most commonly used in "English Language sources". For most topics, these will be the same... but not always. In the case of plants, the name most commonly used in English Language sources is usually going to be the scientific name. The rational behind the instructions at WP:FLORA is this: while one source may use vernacular name X when referring to a plant, another may use vernacular name Y when refering to it... but both will mention scientific name Z. That means Z will actually be more common (and thus more recognizable) than either X or Y. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Im saying this is a case where we should WP:IAR so more readers can understand the titles, a more user friendly experience. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't follow. If English names aren't enough, how would it help if the article titles were changed? After all, vernacular names are used in species articles, and are used in redirects and disambiguation pages. Guettarda (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Im saying English names should be used whenever possible, latin ones secondary, we aren't a plant guidebook that caters to just botanists. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Well... you are entitled to your opinion. But the issue has been discussed multiple times, and each time there has been a solid consensus to continue do title these articles the way we do. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I realise that you're saying that we should use vernacular names. I don't follow your reasoning as to why we should use them. As I'm sure you realise, using these names are very difficult because they aren't standardised; most plants have dozens of vernacular names, or none at all. Very often the so-called common names used in guides are just made up by the person who writes the guide, or are just a translation of the scientific name. We've discussed the utility of this for a decade now.

I understand that you're unhappy with the current system of naming. But it exists to deal with real problems with naming plants. What's the mechanics of your system, how does it deal with the problems posed by using vernacular names? Guettarda (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The use of this naming system is practical, not pedantic. Guettarda (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Precisely. For some kinds of organism – birds are a good example – there is a system of English names which has reasonable acceptance worldwide, although it does still lead to names which are not generally used in any particular country (like American robin or European robin, for example, both of which really have the common name "robin"). For plants, experience shows that there just isn't such a system. Both within and across countries the same plant has very varied names. Sycamore is a good example. In North America, this name is used for species of Platanus, which are called "plane trees" in English in Europe where "sycamore" is used for Acer pseudoplatanus. Look at all the articles in Category:Set indices on plant common names. What's "buffalo clover"? What's "mountain ash"? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Or what's ironwood?--Melburnian (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87 - for me it's about conformity - for instance, Eucalyptus cladocalyx is the sugar gum, but it'd look silly at sugar gum if there are several hundred species of Eucalyptus at their scientific name pages. I prefer to see them all aligned with each other. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
One point that hasn't quite been touched on yet is that a lot of the published "common names" for species don't accurately represent the vernacular. That is, people writing field guides and floras and so forth feel compelled to provide a name other than the Latin binomial, but in many cases, there really is no regularly-used English name for the species; the authors wind up inventing them, usually by translating the species epithet. So in trying to determine the "common name", a lot of published evidence will be adduced which doesn't really reflect usage. (e.g., for more or less any sedge, Carex, the only people who can identify it will refer to it by the scientific name anyway.) Choess (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I speak as an amateur gardener, not as any sort of botanist. When I look through my garden catalogs, they're more likely to have entries under "Rosa eglanteria" than "Eglantine", more likely to have "Clivia miniata" than "Natal lily." Gardeners use Linnean names to communicate because they are precise. If I say Spanish oak, I could mean one of (at least) three different trees. If I say "Quercus coccinea", I could only mean one. Furthermore, there is no agreement on the common names of plants: Amaranthus caudatus has a colorful set of names including "love-lies-bleeding", "velvet flower", and (not on the Wiki page but my favorite) "Kiss-me-over-the-garden-gate". For most garden plants I wind up knowing both a vernacular name and the Linnean name, but if I'm trying to mail-order any but the very commonest plants, the Linnean name is my best bet. Serpyllum (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Length of day

Is Talk:Length_of_day#Proposed_material acceptable per WP policy and may it be put in the article space at Length of day? Iceblock (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are proposing that this formula is to be the sole content of the article, I'd say not. It entirely lacks context, and appears to cover the same subject as discussed in our daytime article in greater depth. I con see no logical reason why we need a separate article for a formula. Assuming it is correct, it can be added to the daytime article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
One wonders why Length of day redirects to Earth's rotation instead of Daytime. One also wonders why we need both Daylight and Daytime. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I imagine "Length of day" is a redirect to "Earth's rotation" because the editors who created and supported the redirect were thinking of the length of day measured from noon to noon (and possibly averaged over the course of a year). This is discussed in detail at "Earth's rotation". If editors think "Length of day" is just as likely to mean the duration from sunrise to sunset, they could turn "Length of day" into a disambiguation page. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! I have now also discovered Day length, which possibly is suitable for merging with Length of day, Daytime and Daylight. Iceblock (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Editors seeking consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#RfC: to amend the table layout consensus to allow rowspan in year column of filmographies. Comments welcome. Xaxafrad (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see Featured list criteria: Accessibility as criterion Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Large deletion by new user

A brand-new Wikipedian has made some significant changes to SkillPages without explanation. I don't want to start an edit war or rebuke him without pointing to an appropriate policy page, but I don't know where to look for it. See Talk: SkillPages#Deletion of material about spamming. Can someone help me out, possibly even pointing this fellow in the right direction for both policy and behavior?

--Thnidu (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That user's account has evidently been deleted. I've restored most of the material he took out. Unless it gets deleted again, I think the issue has been settled now. --Thnidu (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

A process question: misuse of flag icons

This is a question about correct process. If it would be better placed somewhere else, such as Help desk, let me know.

There seems to be widespread misuse of flag icons per WP:ICONDECORATION and WP:MOSFLAG. For example, I'd estimate that upwards of 90% of major aircraft accident articles contain a table listing the fatalities by nationality, with a flag for each country. A typical example can be found at Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Passengers and crew.

Does widespread violation of a guideline constitute a community consensus that overrides the guideline?

If so, shouldn't the guidelines be modified to reflect this consensus?

If not, what would be the best way to go about correcting the misuse? Should one just start removing the flags, citing the guidelines in each edit summary, and fighting the inevitable battles one article at a time? Or is there an easier way? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In light of the current discussion of flags at WP:VPR, I would like to narrow the scope of this thread. I'm now talking only about fatalities tables in aircraft accident articles — not about other uses of flags in such articles, or about the use of flags in general. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No response in 3-4 days, that surprises me since it's a fairly simple question, and especially since I have narrowed the scope dramatically. As I said, let me know if I'm in the wrong place, but there must be somewhere an editor can go for advice like this. If the best wisdom is that I should drop it, I could accept that with a brief explanation. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Mandruss, as you know, I support the limited use of flag icons in other "representative" contexts. I would, however, register my !vote against using flag icons in airline fatality tables. No one represents their country by virtue of dying in a plane crash. That being said, this is the wrong place for this discussion. Move it to the talk page for MOS:ICON, and I will gladly voice my support for your position. Bottom line for me: no representation in some form or fashion, no flag icon for the subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: Thanks for the reply. It's here because I'm not asking for gray-area opinions about the merits of this usage. The guidelines I cited seem very clear on this question, and the only counter-argument I've seen is based in the assumption that the usage wouldn't exist unless editors had discussed it and consensus was reached for it (not in only one article but in many). That is simply a faulty assumption. I have brought up the issue in the presence of experienced editors, including at least one very experienced in the area of aviation articles, and no one has pointed to an existing RfC or other consensus for this usage.
Rather, I'm here seeking advice as to strategy, and actually I was hoping for two or three experienced editors to agree that these flags should be removed per the guidelines. Then I could link to this in my edit summaries and that would do a lot to reduce conflict and save time. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

is it okay to create an account for the creation of a new article only (and so I can ask to see deleted version)? Can my username reflect my agenda?

I wanted to create a redlinked article, and in point of fact it's about three founders who made a very large exit (meaning sale of company, in this case for nearly $1b), two first two wiki links had brief bios but the third was redlinked. I wanted to create this article, as I tihkn it's important that the third one is african-american and there is little representation among technical founders (3%) versus general population. My question is whether I can

1) Create an account for this purpose. I also see that there was a past deleted version, and I can only see it with an account (rather than as an IP)

2) On naming, could I name the account "fanofequality" which literally pushes an agenda? (In the sense that perhaps some people think all African-Americans should be low-paid workers and be given no capital or founder-of-startups status -- this is a straw man argument in the sense that I'm not accurately summarizing anyone's viewpoint, I am just naming a hypothetical, but I mean to say that mine is definitely an "agenda", in the same sense. Not everyone in the world has the same agenda. And I would literally be doing it so that there is a more prominent African-American founder (since a ~$1 billion exit is a very large one and quite notable). This something that was done in the past with Women founders, and now women are very well-represented among founders, but were not until there were some prominent examples. Another example would be very young founders (18-22) which is quite a different demographic than had been entrusted with millions in venture capital in decades past (50's, 60's, 70's, let's say). So that the difference, I think, was a few prominent examples (like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates), and although I don't have a founding sole-CEO who is now worth $40 billion as an example, a ~$1B exit example is a very good start. I'd like to promote this person (no relation) simply due to my agenda I've shared here.

Can I do so? Can my username reflect this?

Finally, I am not doing this for brownie points or whatever (though a poor choice or words), and don't especially want recognition, which is why I wouldn't really associate with the account, which would just create the one thing, except of course any editors with the right could look up my IP, or I think my writing style in many ways is quite easy to identify.

Please let me know if all of the above is in line with policies and so forth. You can also offer specific guidelines with regards to the specific things I've listed.

Thanks so much.

212.96.61.236 (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

1) Yes, you can create an account in order to create an article. It doesn't matter if you plan to only create one article, or many. Go ahead and create an account. 2) I don't see any problems with the username fanofequality. That's not pushing any agenda. 3) Having an account will not automatically allow you to see the deleted article. You will have to request that an admin share it with you. 4) You haven't shared the topic of the article here, but it may or may not meet our notability guidelines. You should check the deletion discussion to see why it was deleted. You would need to overcome that issue if you want to recreate the article. 5) If you need any help, let someone know! We have lots of helpful users here! Good luck!   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
[EC] Thanks!! These responses have been most helpful, and I will proceed this way :) On "If you need any help, let someone know! We have lots of helpful users here! Good luck" I actually would like your help. I don't want my efforts to go to waste.
I believe what I've just mentioned has met WP notability guidelines already. There is no way to take away notability, it can only be increased with further information. (i.e. there is a ton of other notable info about him as well.) The other two founders have brief bios, his name (now redlinked) is the tenth word on a huge article with 40+ references and 500+ edits going back to 2009, and I believe his article was deleted out of simple racism as 'no black person can be as prominent as a white person, it must be self-promotion.' (Even though being one of a few makes him MORE notable, not less.) The exit (acquisition) I mention is huge and makes him prominent on its own, wouldn't you agree? I'd like your confirmation that the description makes it prominent, and your agreement to fight for me against racism actively deleting that page once I write it neutrally, with references (guy has newspapers articles about him, half a million google hits). Could you agree it's prominent now and that you won't let racists (i.e. anyone) delete it on notability grounds? In summary:
  1. Brief newspaper articles about him in highly prominent newspapers
  2. Half a million Google hits
  3. Tenth word, (wikified, but now redlinked) in an article going back to 2009 with 500+ edits.
  4. Huge exit at nearly $1 billion
  5. One of only < 3% of funded startup founders in the United States who are African-American which makes him particularly prominent for the size of exit. The size of exit itself makes him prominent. This is the amount Instagram was purchased for by Facebook, for example. Huge.
  6. added repeated mentions by the Wall Street Journal. Articles only about him in prominent daily newspaper (such as USA Today).
  7. Please confirm that the above makes his article ironclad prominent and that it cannot be removed on Notability grounds (by, from my perspective that I just express here and in my next username) by obvious racists (IMO, though I will not name-call them that) and that you will fight to have it reinstated if/when it happens?
Thank you for making a judgment now. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is going to make any judgement now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
+1. Unless that lists also includes "substantial coverage in multiple sources with an editorial board that has a reputation for fact checking, that are unaffiliated with the subject". Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
You're conflating "notability" with "reliable source". Can I get your preemptive agreement that The USA Today is one such source (prima facie) except in editorials, and that where the prominence is in a certain field (tech) the specialized news sources there qualify as fine sources on notability grounds? I am not prepared to spend hours of my time only to get into a pointless war with 'grumps', so, yes, I would like complete consensus on notability as I add more and more information here. (Assuming the information turns out to be true, reliable and verifiable.) I am simply not prepared to waste hours of my time wiht racists and this is the only way I can think of avoiding doing so. I would like your complete preemptive agreeement to fight on my behalf based on agreement on notability based on my above numbered list. This guy is way more notable than tens of thousands of types of plants and animals we list, for example. Please agree based on my list. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the notability guideline says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." (emphasis mine). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Therefore, Martijn, can you agree that repeated mentions in the Wall Street Journal count as a reliable source and, therefore, you are on board with the consensus? Thanks so much by the way. What you've quoted is very good. 21:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, you've been falsified because you stated 'nobody is going to make any judgment now' but another user already replied "based on what you are saying he should be notable". Because you have 'grump' in your username it is false of me to assume good faith but I will still do so. Even though it sounds like you are preemptively defending a coming unjustified deletion, I will just ask you what facts can preemptively get your agreement to fight for non-deletion on "notability" grounds. Thanks. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I did say he should be notable, but no one will give you a definitive answer that he does meet notability guidelines without knowing who you are actually talking about. Will you tell us who you are talking about so we can look at the previously deleted article? -- GB fan 19:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, GB! I will write the article later, where it's up to me to justify the above claims with references. For now I'm adding you to a conensus taly at bottom. (next edit). Thank you. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
If it can be demonstrated through the necessary third-party published reliable sources that this individual meets our notability criteria, the article will be accepted. If it can't, it won't. We don't make hypothetical preemptive 'agreements' regarding article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Nobody said anything about article contents. We are discussing a notability issue. It is my impression that editors are gearing up whose POV is "no african american tech founder can ever be notable" and I would like to give you enough information to commit to the alternative side of that fight now, with the sole condition that the information turns out to be true and verifiable. This is racism on its face, and I'd like consensus here before I waste a minute of my time on Wikipedia. (Also recall this will be under a new username.) I've lost fights in the past with grumps who had nothing to do but pick a fight, and I don't have time or inclination for that. That's why we're building consensus here first. Any objections? What other notability metrics would you like me to give now? I'd like preemptive conensus here, thank you. I'm not on WP to waste my time. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Based on what you are saying he should be notable, but as Andy says we can't answer your question without specifics. Give me the name of the deleted article and I will look it over. -- GB fan 18:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
We can't give you preemptive consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
You can. I can just add info bit by bit until I have a whole article here and at some point there will be no hold-outs. Then I can actually write and prove with reliable references (such as USA Today non-specialist, Wall Street Journal specialist, and other daily newspaper mentions). If he's mentioned repeatedly by the WSJ and USA Today that makes him automatically notable, does it not? (Together with the above numbers). Unless you're trolling me Martijn I cannot imagine how you could possibly believe otherwise, since there is no space limitation on Wikipedia and thousands of articles exist that are obviously and clearly less prominent (for example things that do not have a single mention in any daily newspaper, such as highly specialized subjects.) Can you please agree that repeated Wall Street Journal mentions are enough to make someone prominent? I am starting to feel you are just trolling me, but please ask for what other tests I can give. The idea that someone who has articles in the USA Today written JUST about them could fail to be prominent is ridiculous on its face, and I'm on the verge of giving up trying to write this article. I feel like I'm being trolled. This is just a feeling and I am going to continue to assume good faith, but can you simply confirm that - OBVIOUS - repeated mentions in the Wall Street Journal as well as USA Today articles written ONLY about a person automatically make them prominent, together with the facts in my list? I would not like to give up due to a lack of consensus here, but if I do I am glad that it's after wasting 1 hour with trolls and not 10 hours.  :) So let's make me not give up. The answer is obvious to me with the information I have added here. I've now added 'repeated Wall Street Journal mentions' to my list above. Thanks for your feedback accepting the notability now. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
At this point, how about you stop wasting everyone's time and just give us the name of the subject? --NeilN talk to me 21:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I would never do that if it is not notable enough to have information on it on Wikipedia! That would be a true waste of your time, I'd never do that :-p This is, after all, Wikipedia. As you would like to read about it on Wikipedia, I'll include you on tentative consensus below. There's no space limitation of course :) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
You have wasted more time here than it would have taken you to write the article. Then we can give you the definitive answer you are looking for. I think there is some trolling going on here. -- GB fan 21:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi internet user, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'll attempt to answer the questions you've asked, and also some you haven't asked, but I feel important to touch on anyway. First the technical side of things, and the completely unambitious answers. Editors without an account (like you currently) are able to edit our pages, and submit draft articles. When you are logged in to an account you can also directly create articles without going through draft. Neither can view deleted revisions (an account has to have administrator capabilities enabled to do that). Most administrators are willing to mail anyone a copy of deleted content, or possibly temporary restore it on a user page (I am one of those). It's immaterial whether the request is made by someone with or without an account (but copyright violations and attack pages will never be restored).

You can create any username you like, within reasonable limits, and the username fanofequality doesn't cross those limits in my opinion. I believe that reasonably answers the questions on what you can do. Another question is should you do that?

We are very happy with anyone who helps improve Wikipedia, and creating an article about someone who meets our criteria for inclusion for biographies certainly helps improve Wikipedia. Your post however does raise some flags. The implied common goal of all Wikipedians is to make Wikipedia a better encylopedia. Your post indicates that though making Wikipedia is probably a beneficial side effect, you are here primarily to right great wrongs, and we've historically found that that often leads to difficulties sooner or later. Then again on the other hand, many new Wikipedians joined to right great wrongs, but got in the swing of things, and decided that the most fun great wrong to right is the deplorable state of many of our articles. In the end advocacy is not particularly welcome here.

When it comes to the username you suggested, if I were you, I'd want to re-think that, for two reasons. Firstly, if you do become a general Wikipedian, do you really want to be associated with that username? It does raise flags. For any username on Wikipedia that has "truth", "facts", "real" or "neutral" in it, I'm willing to take a 10 - 1 bet they are here to push an agenda (the one being a courtesy to User:Neutralhomer, otherwise it would have been 10-0). The username you've chosen raises the same flags for me. There's a good chance that goes for others as well, and it might not be advisable to invite kneejerk reactions based on your username. Lastly, far, far behind the other two points, did you know that our usernames can contain any character, including spaces and capital letters? User:Fan of equality would be so much nicer than User:Fanofequality.

As a last stray observation, you say "except of course any editors with the right could look up my IP". There are currently 41 people who have that capability, and they may only use it when there is a reasonable suspicion of foul play. Every time such information is viewed it leaves a log item, and there is a dedicated subcomittee to check if use was justified.

Summorising: we want a better encyclopedia. If you're helping us build that, we're grateful if you do that. If you're here for advocacy, the former still holds, but it often leads to problems later on. Feel free to ask more questions if you have them! Regards, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have an explicit agenda of including information on equality in America. The information can be neutral but I would like the account to be about it. Other editors have expressed the opinion that fanofequality is fine. Can you suggest what you would use for a dedicated account created to create a single page? (For the reasons that I had pointed out)?
Secondly, could you agree on notability (as compared with tens of thousands of unnotable plants and animals that have wikipedia pages) based on the above information I gave in the numbered list above? Can you agree to fight for restoration on notability grounds?
Thank you for the other information you have given. I have read it all, and await your agreement (consensus) on the above, as well as a username you would suggest I use if my goal with that username is to include information on equality in America and make sure highly prominent and notable articles are written? (e.g. by me.) Thank you. If you can't agree based on the list, could you try to express why not? There are fewer than a few thousand founders in America in his position. It's notable on its face (in my opinion). Thanks for any thoughts. I'd really not like to waste my time here and have dealt with trolls picking fights in the past. Thank you. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
(ec)Firstly, having a dedicated account for advocacy is simply not a good idea. Secondly, I can give you a resounding "yes" for notability if and only if you can give me an equally resounding assurance the subject is covered substantially in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In the context of Wikipedia I certainly won't fight for anything but what's best for Wikipedia. As for wasting your time, well, I do believe you are wasting your time if you insist on people giving some call or another on the notability of the subject without being willing to say what the subject is, or say if the subject actually meets our general notability guideline - and as unfriendly as it sounds; it's not only your time you're wasting with that. I'm always very willing to explain things about Wikipedia to those who have a genuine desire to understand them, but not so much to those who want to know how they can game the rules to abuse Wikipedia for advocacy. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel it's fair to call 'including verified notable information on a subject in an encyclopedia' 'activism' per se, but whatever. Is someone who wants to make sure calculus subjects are included a 'math activist'? It's just that nobody is antimath, there is no such term, so nobody will delete those articles, but 'racist' exists as a term because there is such a thing. I agree with another poster that it's a serious accusation and I'd never use a term like that other than here, without naming the article.
Secondly, thanks for your resounding answer :) As he has repeated mentions in the Wall Street Journal I'll accept it :). 212.96.61.236 (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I feel like someone needs to give a nod to our policy on assuming good faith here. I've seen the term "racist" – a serious accusation – thrown around pretty freely above. Fact is, there are many reasons the article could have been deleted that have nothing to do with racism. To wit:
  • The article may have failed to demonstration the notability of the subject, despite the fact that sufficient evidence to demonstrate such notability existed.
  • The article may have been created and deleted prior to the subject having established notability
  • The subject of the article, while apparently being a pretty well-known and decent human being, may not actually meet our notability guidelines. The "evidence" presented above does not specifically address our notability criteria, although it seems to indicate there is a case for notability based on our criteria that could be made.
The logic that the subject appears to be a notable African-American, but his article was deleted, ergo the deleting admin was racist is one riddled with fallacies, not to mention that a deletion on such grounds would go way afoul of policy and probably get the admin de-sysopped if not blocked or banned. Since we still don't know who the deleted article was about, we don't know what the reason for deletion was, so in good faith, let's back off the nasty racism accusations, mmkay? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I won't back off my impression (here only) because I couldn't click his redlink despite being followed by two founders whose I could. Why would anyone delete information that could be useful, from a Wikipedia? Nobody deletes articles on anything that's in the news that much. it should have just been increased in scope and breadth. Thanks for your feedback, it's interesting that it may have been notable without this being established by the article! Thanks for the above. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@212.96, I don't doubt that you are trying to improve wikipedia, but your approach is entirely wrong. I assure you that the article was not deleted because the subject was African American. I don't say this because racism isn't a real issue we deal with here, but because I'm an editor of Stormfront (and similar articles), and have dealt with it first hand. Such a decision would be an absurd violation of our policies, as well as the general attitude from our established editors; it would have been plastered all over our noticeboards, with editing sanctions to follow quickly after. None of us are pitted against the article because of the subject's ethnicity. We need to know the subject so we can determine key facts (like his prominence in reliable sources) that a novice editor cannot reliably assess.

You will not get an assurance that the subject is notable before providing his name, and even if you got an assurance here, it would not prevent the article from being deleted by a different set of editors later. If you really don't want to waste your time, provide his name, and we'll be happy to discuss the issue with you. Anything else is a waste of time not just for you, but for all of us too.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

consensus tally

based on the above it seems the below people are on board that if the article's references establish the same information I have included, its subject is obviously notable (of course, the quality of article written should still be high):

- Martijn Hoekstra ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.", and I assume WSJ and USA Today coverage count as reliable sources, and an article just about him as significant coverage. And of course specialist sources from the tech world. )

- GB fan ("He should be notable")

- NeilN - wanted name of article to read. As wanted to read it on Wikipedia based on information in list, the information implies its subject is notable.

No opinion expressed on this subject:

- Jess

Not on board (but seems grumpy and did not respond to follow-up questions):

- AndyTheGrump


Thank you for your opinion guys!!! This is more than enough information for me to go ahead and tackle writing the article. I am still awaiting a better name suggestion by Martijn Hoekstra who seemed opposed to the 'fan of equality' name. Kindly suggest one (anyone here can). I'll try to base the article around verified sources. Thanks again for all the help. You've been most kind. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not want to read the article. I merely wanted the name of the person (as multiple editors have asked you to provide). --NeilN talk to me 21:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

User galleries

Are personal image galleries in userspace allowed ? WP:NOTHOST is not too clear as I read it. Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 21:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Editors have galleries of photos they've taken or related to subjects they've edited. I don't see the harm as long as these photos are not of the personal/tourist snapshot variety. --NeilN talk to me 22:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Personal photos is what I am concerned about, I came across a gallery on a userpage (I have not messaged the user of my concerns yet) I wanted to check, obviously, beforehand. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
If the main purpose of them being here is to post their gallery, and nothing else worthwhile, then U5 (misuse as webhost) comes in. If they're illustrating work done, that's probably OK. Peridon (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Illustrating your userpage with one or two pictures of yourself (so other users know what you look like) is fine ... posting an entire gallery is excessive. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability criteria, military personel

WP:GNG and WP:BASIC says an individual is notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. Some folks, namely some under WP:MILHIST, seem to have developed their own view that having attained a high enough rank in a military is sufficient to make the individual notable, regardless of whether they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources (they refer to this view as WP:SOLDIER, e.g. here). Is this view really appropriate for application on Wikipedia? Why would this particular topic area (military personel) be exempt from standards like WP:V that are seen as being so fundamental in other topic areas?--Anders Feder (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: @MrX: I'd welcome your input on this. It is the general view I am asking about, not the case of the specific deletion request I linked to as example.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The subject still needs to meet the general notability requirements WP:SOLDIER just helps with some examples, it would be surprising if an individual with the level of "rank" in the milhist guideline (that is "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer") doesn't have multiple sources so they normally meet WP:GNG. MilborneOne (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
We must always remember that all guidelines on Wikipedia are trumped by common sense. Nothing is set in stone. Wikipedia is not a monolithic bureaucracy. We reach agreement through discussion and opinion, not by following strict rules. And to those of us who agree with WP:SOLDIER it is simply common sense that someone who has reached general, flag or air officer rank (or the equivalent in other walks of life) is notable by virtue of that rank. Otherwise Wikipedia is in danger of degenerating into a list of minor "celebrities" who may have reams written about them on the web by fanboys/girls but who are in fact "notable" for very little beyond being lovers of media exposure and experts in getting it. An encyclopaedia that has many thousands of articles on people like this (with the justification that they have heavy web coverage and therefore "must be notable") and rejects articles on generals and senior civil servants because their achievements aren't drivelled about endlessly on blogs and fansites (and therefore "aren't notable") is no encyclopaedia at all, but just a super-fansite. Frankly, that's not the project I joined and it isn't one I wish to be a part of. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
All that WP:SOLDIER says is that WP:MILHIST has found from over a decade of experience that individuals with high enough rank in a military invariably attract the significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. It is no different from our other notability guidelines. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly... WP:SOLDIER and other subject specific notability guidelines focus on the initial presumption of notability... while GNG focuses on the actual establishment notability. They are supposed to work in tandem. I have always looked at the SNGs as being a preliminary check... if a subject meets the presumption then there is a strong likelihood that they will pass GNG - You may have to search long and hard to find the required sources... but they probably exist. That said, passing an SNG does not "protect" the article from being nominated for deletion... but it does mean that we give it the benefit of the doubt when nominated. And to overcome the presumption, the nominator has to demonstrate that they have bent over backwards searching for sources, and not found any. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
To resolve some of the ambiguity here, I have found that WP:SNGs usually benefit from having a WP:FAILN-style section. The purpose of this section is to say something like "In our experience, a lot of independent (e.g., non-military/non-governmental) reliable sources exist for 99% of flag officers, but if you're looking at the 1% for whom such sources, then no, that rare one does not qualify for an article. It is impossible to write an NPOV-compliant article unless you can find independent sources." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability, reliability and bias - RfC

An argument can be made that, when assessing notability, requiring "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG) will entail a systemic bias against subjects in geographic areas where sources are typically unreliable due to being tightly controlled by central governments or militaries. Should subjects in these areas be exempt from the regular standards of reliability and independent coverage for the purpose of countering this presumed systemic bias? Please post your comments on this RfC.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There’s presumably nothing stopping foreign media under freer governments from covering the same subjects. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Question about patrols

Hello! I asked a question at Wikipedia_talk:Patrols#I_do_not_understand_patrols.2C_can_someone_explain_this.3F. Since WP:PATROLS does not seem to have a lot of people discussing there, I wanted to signal here that it seems that a lot of people asking about the patrol alert, and wanted to invite others to join in explaining the patrol process. I hardly understand it myself, and just want to document community norms. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Should Wikiquote have its users place bolding and wikilinking within quotations?

off-site canvassing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I note that WP:LINKSTYLE on the Manual of Style page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking says:

  1. Question: Should our sister website Wikiquote allow users to place their own chosen emphasis on quotations by adding bolding or wikilinking within quotations from other sources?
  2. Please see discussion there, at q:Wikiquote:Village_pump#Wikilinking_within_a_quote.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I can understand not allowing bolding or italicizing (ie emphasis) unless in the original... but why do we ban linking within a quote? Links simply tell the reader that we have an article on a topic... it isn't a form of emphasis. Blueboar (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Mainly because such links can easily be used to incorrectly stress or refer to topics not specifically intended by the person quoted -- one example given was a quote referring to "human nature" where each individual word was linked instead of the obvious combination of words (human nature). In another case, the Wikilink was not to the definition of a word but to an article marginally related to the word, etc. The idea of a quotation is not to lead readers with the editor's interpretation of the quote, but to show notable quotations which ought to have been referred to by others, and not just yanked from a person's speeches unless others noted it. Also it is likely that overlinking actually makes the quote less readable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I find it odd that canvassing for policy practices on Wikiquote is taking place at Wikipedia at all. They are different projects with very different goals. bd2412 T 21:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, shouldn't this question be asked on Wikiquote? Is Wikiquote allowed to decide how our policies should work? How about Wikisource? Should we place "citation needed" tags throughout the works there, or just plain delete everything for being original research that's so overly dependent upon primary sources so as to be plagiarism? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
This is obviously not a question of Wikipedia policy, which has no jurisdiction. It is pure canvassing – soliciting people at an external site to interfere in a discussion at Wikiquote. I find it not so much "odd" as reprehensible. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I move to {{hat}}/{{hab}} this discussion. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree. But sometime somewhere we should discuss weakening the Wikipedia guideline, which I have always thought makes no sense. It can only be actively misleading if the source may potentially have wikilinks (such as the very rare—at least in article space—instances of one wikipedia page quoting another). Zerotalk 19:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Perfect vs. past tense in biographies of people recently dead

We really don't need to amend the MOS to tell people to use proper grammar. BencherliteTalk 14:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

I'm suggesting an addition to the MOS: When the subject of a biographical article dies, adding the date and cause of death to the article and changing "is" to "was" in the lede isn't enough. Beyond that, the editor should carefully read through the article and change the tense of every verb form that implies that the person is still living. Generally, this means changing the perfect tense (has been, has risen, has supported, for example) to the simple past (was, rose, supported)— because they're not going to do any more of that.

In copyediting the page on Herman Badillo, a New York politician who died this past December, I noticed several jarring verb forms. Here is the lede sentence as I found it (bolding added):

Herman Badillo (pronounced bah-DEE-yoh; August 21, 1929 – December 3, 2014) was an American politician who has been a borough president of The Bronx, United States Representative, and candidate for Mayor of New York City.

"Was" is perfectly correct now that he's dead. "Has been" implies that his life is still going on and that this list could yet be extended with future accomplishments. Similarly for

In 1958, Badillo joined the "Caribe Democratic Club" and has since then held various offices within the City and State, including Bronx Borough President in 1966.

Compare the first biographical paragraph of his New York Times obituary:

Mr. Badillo rode many horses on New York’s political merry-go-round from 1962 to 2001. Besides being elected to four terms in Congress, he was a city commissioner, the Bronx borough president, a deputy under Mayor Edward I. Koch, a counsel to Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, a candidate for state and city comptroller, and a trustee and then board chairman of the City University of New York.

This thousand-word obituary doesn't contain a single perfect tense. Every verb about Badillo is in the simple past, or occasionally the past perfect: championed, rode, was, coveted, eluded, won, came, advocated, called, overcame, lost, defied, spoke, supported, concluded, advocated, opposed, became, had run, ... The Times writers pretty generally know what they're doing in terms of style and usage, and in this we should emulate them.

To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no way that a MoS guideline can impose on any particular editor a duty to go through and correct articles. All it can say is what the tense to use is for deceased persons (and I agree that you've correctly identified that). I expect that it already does say that, though I'm not going to go looking for it at the moment.
If it doesn't say that already, then I would agree it should be added. But an instruction to go through and correct the entire article — I don't think that's going to fly. We're all volunteers; you can't make anyone do any more than they want to. --Trovatore (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thnidu... anyone can edit an article. If there is a need to change the tense of the verbs at the Badillo article, do it yourself. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2015 (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.

Crosswiki deletion of user pages

Hi! Global user pages will let you edit your global user page from Meta, which will be shown on all wikis where you don't already have a local user page. With the extension finally set to launch on Wikimedia wikis on February 18th, many users are left with hundreds of local user pages which will hide their global page (you can check yours using the userpages tool). There's a discussion at m:Wikimedia Forum#Bulk deletions by Synchbot to decide when it's appropriate to delete someone's local user pages using Synchbot on self-request (including on enwiki). Your participation is welcome to settle the question before global user pages go live. —Pathoschild 03:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

MOS, citation style and all caps

The MOS has been categorical in its statement that one should "avoid writing in capitals", and gives the only exception as the Tetragrammaton YHWH. Obviously there are other exceptions when using caps and small caps should be considered perfectly permissible, for example when quoting text that uses caps, in interlinear gloss and also in citation styles that uses small caps for author names. However a group of editors working on CS1 and the citation templates have removed the smallcaps parameter from the template. This hs the effect of breaking the layout in all the articles that use this parameter (for example hundreds of articles under WP:MESOAMERICA, where smallcaps has been chosen as the preferred bibliographic style). And it also has the effect of bypassing our rule that states that any systematic citation style is permissible and enforcing a de facto citation style. Furthermore it is frustrating that the template editors keep changing the parameters without involving the content editors creating lots of work for editors having to change the citation style. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Exceptions_to_Small_Caps, and I have made the following edit to the MOS. Please give your input, this is a question that deserves wide community input from article writers as well as template and CS1 editors. It strikes me as excessive micromanagement of editors style choices to have such an inflexible policy on the use of capitalization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

For the context of others, the discussion that led to the removal of the small caps option from CS1 citations is here (the relevant part starts about 2/3rds of the way down). Recent discussion objecting to that removal is here. The "scap" format option previously produced citations that looked like:
Kipfer, Barbara Ann (2000). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. ISBN 0-306-46158-7. OCLC 42692203.
Where author / editor names were expressed via small caps. I have no strong personal opinion on allowing / disallowing the use of small caps in citations or other contexts, but I agree that getting wider community input on this issue is a good idea. Dragons flight (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I personally dislike the use of small-caps in citations, but I think we should allow the option. Disallowing small-caps discourages use of the relevant citation templates on some articles or for some editors who prefer small-caps in citations. Using those citation templates is advantageous because their format encourages unambiguous, well-parameterized, consistent citations—I would rather that we accept trivial formatting differences than discourage the useful underlying standards. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 22:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Are guidelines prescriptive?

Today, some editors on an article talk page told me, in effect, that guidelines are rules we must all abide by, with few exceptions. I'd always thought they were just advisory—a description of how consensus usually goes on a content or behaviour question, not a prescription—and consensus on individual article talk pages determines content (always assuming content complies with policy). But I looked a little into the history of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and see it was changed from advisory to prescriptive at the end of 2009 by several editors who thought guidelines and policies were essentially the same thing.

Is everybody cool with that?

Personally, I'd prefer that—for the kind of thing covered by guidelines such as picture placement, infoboxes, headings, etc.—article talk page consensus is given the last word. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe your understanding of it is how most people perceive the difference, as do I. RGloucester — ☎ 07:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps a heading of "Are guidelines prescriptive?" might be more accurate? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mandruss. Done.

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines says the following. Should it?

  • Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. [Whatever that means. I suppose it was originally "best practices".]
  • ...guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards [standards explained in policies] in specific contexts. [They say what is "best."]
  • Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense. [Implies we're as free to IAR with a policy as we are with a guideline.]
  • Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply [like policies]. ["Best practice" again.]
  • Use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; there will be occasional exceptions to these rules. ["Occasional exceptions" (like policies), "rules"]
  • Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined by the community through consensus. ["Best practice" again]
  • ...individual editors (including you) enforce and apply policies and guidelines. ["Enforce". I thought guidelines described common practice, and didn't prescribe best practice to be enforced.]

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

While policies seem to be regarded with more reverence and gravitas, I haven't noticed much difference in how the two are applied in practice. It's been one of the many things that baffle me about this place, so I'm glad you brought it up. I'll be watching. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It really depends on which guideline you are talking about. Our guideline pages are usually a combination of both "rules" and "advice"... and some are more "rule" oriented while others are more "advice" oriented. That said, We are usually much more willing to invoke WP:Ignore all rules when it comes to guidelines than we are when it comes to Policy. So, if someone is trying to "enforce" a guideline rule, and you don't think that rule makes sense in the specific situation... the best thing to do is go to the talk page, and explain why you think we should make an exception to the guideline in that situation. Consensus over-rules all rules. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • My perspective has been that both are prescriptive, but differ in what justifies breaking the rule. If you are going to do something clearly contrary to a policy under WP:IAR, it should be very deliberate, and you should have a compelling reason to do so. If you are going to violate a guideline, you should still have a reason, and be willing to explain if anyone asks, but the reason doesn't need to be a particularly weighty one, as long as its not a bad reason like "I just felt like doing it". I also agree with Blueboar, some guidelines carry more weight than others. WP:GNG is basically a policy level guideline, whereas something like Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload is good advice to follow, but isn't a big deal if someone occasionally doesn't follow and still uploads a usable image. Monty845 14:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Elaborating on what I said earlier, I believe policies to be core tenets of the encylopaedia that cannot and should not be overridden except in exceptional circumstances, per WP:IAR (conveniently, that is a policy). Guidelines, on the other hand, are indications of good practice (not necessarily "best practice"). They document procedures and conventions that are useful to follow in most cases. However, unlike with policy, there are many times when the application of guidelines is fluid and subject to talk page consensus. No talk page consensus can say "we don't need any citations for this article" and override WP:V. However, talk page consensus can determine whether a certain type of date style should be used in an article, or whether an event meets the event notability criteria, such as WP:LASTING or WP:PERSISTENCE. That is my interpretation of it, more or less, and it makes the most sense. In reality, no policy or guideline of ours can be prescriptive, given that IAR is a policy. Policies are really the base of the encylopaedia, the foundations. They are what hold up the roof. Guidelines are additional aid. They are not necessary for the function of the encylopaedia, but they help make it run more smoothly. Think of the difference between WP:GNG and WP:EVENT, for instance. RGloucester — ☎ 18:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There are two things I'm sure of with regards to this subject, firstly that there are probably almost as many viewpoints on this issue as we have editors, and secondly my own opinion on the matter - and I'm not even all that sure about the second one. My current view is as follows. Firstly, it's worth to note that whether guidelines are prescriptive or not is a moot point when people agree on applying the guideline. It only becomes relevant when they disagree. At that point, my point of view is that guidelines are summaries of discussions that were held earlier. They represent consensus of the community up to that point. While consensus can change, and the particular situation where you disagree with a guideline might be something that wasn't thought of when the guideline was established, in the vast majority of cases that's not the case. If an editor wants to edit against a guideline, I believe they firstly should understand why the guideline is there in the first place, and why the former consensus doesn't apply to the situation at hand. Neither the arguments "it's just a guideline" to justify ignoring it, nor "it's in the guidelines" to justify following it holds water from my point of view. Instead, when ignoring a guideline, one should have solid arguments in hand as to whether the guideline as written doesn't apply in that instance, and be on the cautious side of the be bold but not reckless balance. Going against a guideline has a good chance of being contentious, and will more often than not require discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, guidelines are rules. If people can be punished or censured for breaking them, even if they have a good reason, then they're rules and not merely guidelines. That's how they work in practice. For example, Wikieditors are not allowed to use American punctuation even in articles otherwise written in American English because the MoS requires British style in all articles. I got brought up on AN/I for fixing some strays (I took articles that used a mixture of American and British and rendered them consistent) even though there were no edit wars. The fact that guidelines are rules doesn't have to be a bad thing; we just need to acknowledge it and keep it in mind when we write and modify them: Is this rule based on sources and functionality or is it based on arbitrary whims? This rule gets challenged once or twice a year, so do we really need it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Um, Darkfrog... no one gets punished for using American punctuation. They may get punished for edit warring over punctuation... they may get punished if it seems that they are on a crusade to push a preferred punctuation style... but no one gets punished for simply using a punctuation style in the normal course of article writing. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It happened to me, Blueboar. There were no edit wars in the articles I was gnoming. I got brought up on AN/I for using American punctuation in the course of ordinary gnoming (I was also using British punctuation where that was the predominant system, in addition to other edits that had nothing to do with the Am/Br split). Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You have said, twice, that you were "brought up on AN/I". You haven't said what the result of the AN/I was. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find you the link, Mandruss. It was a while ago. In the meantime, at first the Admin said, "I agree with all [Darkfrog's] changes," then the person who reported me pointed the admin to WP:LQ, then the admin said something like "Why does anyone care about this?" then the reporter and someone else said, "We ASKED Darkfrog to stop using AmE!" and I said something like, "You liar! No you didn't!" (because they hadn't). Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Found it. Archive 554. June 2009. Here's a case in which the MoS was treated as a set of rules rather than as a guideline. [8] I'm not saying that's bad, even though it worked against me in that case. I'm saying because people take the "guidelines" so seriously, we have to be very careful about what goes into them. See the discussion about the MoS and the generic he above. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok. So you're citing a single incident from 2009, in which there was no sanction, and which was resolved as "Darkfrog24 said he'll stop". I don't even see an admin saying you were in the wrong, although my ADD prevents me from reading and absorbing every word. I'm sorry that happened to you, but IMO it's not terribly relevant to this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I brought it up as an example of a case in which a nominal guideline, the MoS, was treated as a set of rules rather than as a guideline. And thanks for your kind words. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I’d just like to point out that anyone could go to AN/I for any reason valid or frivolous. I could attempt to take you to AN/I for having a number in your username, even though there’s no policy, guideline, essay, or anything else that even mentions it. But I could still take you to AN/I; doesn’t mean I’d be remotely justified in doing so. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but if the rules say "no numbers in usernames," then justified or not you'll win. This didn't work out for me not because my accusers were justified but because someone put a whim in the MoS, and the MoS was treated as a set of rules and not a set of guidelines. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Most guidelines and policies are descriptive, inasmuch as they encapsulate what we've worked out – typically through some combination of accumulated historical experience, trial and error and amendment, and acrimony – the way to deal with or handle some situation in accordance with our mission. Sometimes it's the 'best' way; sometimes it's the 'mutually acceptable' way. (For instance, WP:MEDRS is an example of the former; we've outlined the key points to consider when sourcing medical claims in our articles, in order to present the most reliable information possible. WP:ENGVAR is an example of the latter; we've got it because it doesn't matter at all which regional variant of English is used to write an encyclopedia, the guideline provides a shortcut to avoid thousands of petty edit wars by individuals who really need to get a grip.)
    That said, many guidelines (and policies) are treated as being functionally prescriptive, because we've already had all the discussions and made all the required amendments and reached acceptable compromises on all the disputes. Policies and guidelines exist in their current forms because of (in many cases) years of discussion and evolution. For an 'established' policy or guideline, it is rare to encounter a situation that is entirely 'new': a problem or edge case that hasn't been previously contemplated or discussed. In the vast majority of situations, a policy or guideline is and should be treated as prescriptive because it describes the consensus that was already established based on the outcomes of arguments that we already had.
    In other words, we generally hew closely to our policies and guidelines for two often-related reasons: they generally produce good product, and they give us a way to not have the same arguments over and over again.
    If an editor wants to do something that contradicts the written word of a policy or guideline, they can do so—but only with great care. The onus is on them to demonstrate why the particular circumstance at hand differs from the circumstances contemplated in the development and maintenance of the existing rules. They are expected to show that ignoring (or better, adapting or modifying) a rule in a particular situation results in a material improvement to the project, and they ought to show that they aren't reopening a pre-existing argument and consensus that went against them. (While these two tests aren't usually explicitly spelled out, they tend to be what the question boils down to.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the way we work is a hybrid between being rule-bound and having a lot of freedom. Furthermore I think there is an understanding that there is in place a damping mechanism, preventing swings between adherence to policy and ignoring all rules. We tend to require extensive debate before making changes to the way we do things. Results of debates of all sorts are expected to fall somewhere between that which is indicated by counting votes and that which might be indicated by evaluating the quality of the arguments presented. This is just what I think I observe. I am not an administrator. Bus stop (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Policies and guidelines should both be followed. But I follow this simplified distinction; Guidelines governs content while policies govern conduct, and the latter can be enforced by administrators. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    Edokter... I get what that you are simplifying... but we do have Policies that govern content (WP:NOR for example) and Guidelines that govern behavior (Wikipedia:Etiquette). And admins can "enforce" both. Blueboar (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Guidelines should be treated with a lot of respect, especially those that are extensions or further explanations of policies; after all, they are not essays. If Wikipedia does not state outright that Guidelines must be obeyed, it's Wikipedia's way of not wanting to look like a set of rules on a prison or army noticeboard. There are plenty of editors who deliberately use 'But it's only a guideline' in order to justify their POV pushing and they should be dealt with accordingly and appropriately. 'IAR' does not mean Ignore Common Sense. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that you want to read Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. The answer about whether the contents of a page constitute mandatory rules is "it depends on the page". Admins cite a "mere essay" fairly often when they block people. This "just a guideline" contains a rule so firmly set that it is enforced in software. Many old editors believe that this fundamental policy is honored more in the breach than in the observance these days. Even worse, many subject-specific style pages that are labeled as being regular guidelines actually aren't guidelines at all. The labels on the top of pages aren't meaningless, but they aren't necessarily meaningful, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, What. I appreciate that. (As I did You don't own Wikipedia.) And I'm finding all the responses above and below very interesting. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • We have a long-standing policy, WP:NOTLAW, which explains that these things are not prescriptive. The current wording is "Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus..." Andrew D. (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that the guidelines are rightly prescriptive and that this can apply even when we think that the guidelines are erroneous. They provide a consistency. Even with topics that I regard to be patently ridiculous such as many of the applications of MoS:hyphen I think that the consistency is generally well applied. This is not do deny occasionally justified needs to apply WP:IAR but, in general, guidelines should be prescriptive. GregKaye 10:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Shavonne Potts got married; her later articles use her married name

I'm pretty sure this is the wrong place, but I need a starting point and maybe I can be directed to the correct place.

In many cases I have been the primary editor on a topic for which there are frequent updates, and it is often the same newspaper reporter that provides me with my source information for these numerous updates. I would say, then, that this reporter is the trusted expert on that topic, or as close to one as we can find. But what if it is a female, and after getting married, she takes her husband's name? We can see that it MIGHT be the same expert newspaper reporter, but how can we know for sure? One could go to her paper's web site and investigate this, but why go to all that trouble? Is there any way to document this in the articles that use her as a source, if she doesn't use her maiden name as her middle name in the articles that appear after the wedding?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(for article titles) See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Multiple and changed surnames – patronymics and matronymics. The page will often be changed to reflect the new name, with the assumption that the new name will become the WP:COMMONNAME. However, in some cases - and especially for people whose fame is "in the past" - the old name is retained, as it seems unlikely that the new name will become the WP:COMMONNAME. And, of course, there are people who are best known by their stage names, etc. As this is case-by-case, when in doubt, discuss on the article's talk page. Regardless, please ensure that there is a new redirect created, either from the married name (if the maiden name is used) or from the maiden name (if the married name is used). – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
(for citing) If you are citing a work and the name changes, I would just use the name of the author as it appears in the work. I don't know that there is any need to track the individual's name unless that individual has a Wikipedia article. With regard to the reliability of the individual as a source, I can see where you might want to privately track that, but ... unless the work appears in a (generally) unreliable publication, I don't see where it would be necessary. I generally don't care who writes a Des Moines Register article, for example, as the publication itself is generally reliable. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't quite sure which direction your question was going, so I answered both ways - hopefully one of them caught it. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
It was the second one, thanks. So there's really no need.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

cite foreign language

Is there any formal guidance for citing a forgein language in English Wikipedia? Particularly for citing Chinese which most of English can't read. As Jinyu Qin Society had been nominated for deletion due to having few English sources, how could editors avoid the potential nominatiomn for deletion when they write a Chinese article which has few or even no English sources, though they do have enough sources in its original language?--淺藍雪❉ 22:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

English sources are preferable, but if they can not be found or do not address the subject fully, forein language sources are perfectly fine. They obviously need to be reliable.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources for more guidance. --Jayron32 04:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    • it says 'a translation into English should always accompany the quote', does this mean you need to provide both english and orginal title? anyone know a good example?--淺藍雪❉ 20:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
      • The advice about translations is about literal quotations of foreign text in an article, not about the bibliographical details of a citation such as a work's title etc., if that's what you mean. However, providing a translation of a foreign title as part of a citation may also be a good idea, as a courtesy to the reader. Just put the English translation in square brackets after the actual title. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Also keep in mind machine translation, via Bablefish & Bing translator, will make the inclusion of a foreign language source useful. However (1) some languages I'd expect to see (e.g. Latin) are not supported, & (2) the quality of the translation varies greatly. (Using Bing translator, I've gotten within 80% of what I wanted with French -> English, but not better than 60% with German.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that if more articles were taken from non-English wikipedias into the English one, you would see a significant increase in the prevalence of non-English sources. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox salary

I have a quick question regarding content within an info box. When noting an individual's income or salary on a BLP info box, do we include the dollar amount cited in a reliable source even if it includes other expenses or reimbursements? Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: Suggest trying the talk page for the infobox template. I doubt there is a policy or guideline addressing this question, so it's out of place on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Self-correction per the statement at the top of the page: "If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards." So the question wouldn't belong here even if there were a policy or guideline addressing it. Template talk is still the place. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that salaries do not correspond to infoboxes, even for sports players. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Formula Policy for Exoplanets

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Reference Formula Policy for Exoplanets

RfC is on adding example to "case-by-case" exception to OUTING policy, for links to paid editing sites like Elance, for COI/SPA discussions

RfC is here: Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_Links_related_to_paid_editing Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC on GAN timing

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposal. ResMar 01:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Appending the Manual of Style on gender-neutral language

I'm closing this RFC per an AN request. There is no consensus to amend the MOS to add "... and prefer words such as 'chair'/'chairperson' or 'firefighter' to 'chairwoman' and 'fireman", but there is consensus to amend the MOS, by way of clarification, to instruct editors to avoid the generic he.  Sandstein  18:36, 11 March 2015 (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 present text of the Manual of Style's guidelines on gender-neutral language is as follows:

Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered, or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges).

Ships may be referred to using either feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers") or neutral forms ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. See WP:Manual of Style/Military history § Pronouns.

The proposed new text is as follows. Bold print indicates a change:

Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. For example, avoid the generic he and prefer words such as "chair"/"chairperson" or "firefighter" to "chairwoman" and "fireman." This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered, or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges). Ships may be referred to using either feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers") or neutral forms ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. See WP:Manual of Style/Military history § Pronouns.

An editor at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style has proposed this new wording, and it has been introduced here so that the community can comment on whether it should be adopted. RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Support (GNL)

  • Support – the added example is useful for showing what is meant by preferring gender-neutral language. Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support reference to generic he; other examples negotiable. I only included the "chair" and "firefighter" examples for balance, because they're one of the best and clearest parts of the GNL essay. The reason I suggested changing the text of the MoS is because of confusion regarding whether the MoS already bans the generic he (it does, but there are a few editors who think it doesn't). I see this as a clarification rather than an actual change in MoS rules/guidance/policy/what-the-MoS-does. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it matters if a few editors hold this view. It's obviously wrong and they are never going to win in a showdown. I wouldn't necessarily oppose just adding this clarification, though. Formerip (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose (GNL)

  • I dont see any reason to add examples to the current wording most people are aware of gnl and adding examples which clearly show a non-neutral point of view that he and man applies just to males where they have been used as gender neutral terms for years if not centuries. The current wording allows discussion and the use of such terms as used by reliable references when needed so I dont see a need to expand it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    Comment: The point of view that the "he" implies that all subjects are male did not come from any Wikieditor but from the sources: Oxford Dictionaries [9], the American Heritage Dictionary [10], Purdue [11], Dictionary.com [12], the National Council of Teachers of English [13], Chicago Manual of Style [14] and others all describe the generic he as sexist, advise against using it, or both (OED was also consulted and is silent on the matter). It is not inappropriate for the MoS to reflect English as it is. The MoS has held this position for a long time. The current proposal is intended as a clarification, not a change. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the current wording is clear enough and I don't see what value the examples would add. I also think that the guidance would benefit from more flexibility (if only a little), rather than less, because it says something that it can't possibly mean. Am I really obliged to say "monarch" in place of "king" or "queen" unless it is in a quotation or a title? I doubt anyone would take that idea seriously, but it is what the guideline seems to recommend. What about "actress"? I can't stress enough that we should enforce modern standards with regard to gender-neutral language, but we also ought to recognise that those standards are not actually absolutist. Tricky, though, because if you give them an inch they'll take the piss. Formerip (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    Former, the intention is that if you are writing about a specific person, the gendered term is fine. This is mainly discuss generic uses, if it's any king or queen, or if it's any firefighter. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    That's not what they guidance says, though, and I doubt that it is what it means. I think the community's intention is that we should use gender-neutral language wherever it is normal and reasonable, including, for example, avoiding terms like "policeman", "Jewess", "lady doctor" and so on, even where they might refer to individuals. Formerip (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    It says "This does not apply to ... wording about one-gender contexts". Usually a specific person has a single gender, so the context is obviously single-gender. “WarKosign” 11:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above, I do not see any reason why we need to add examples here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The proposed examples are likely to distract from the most important part of the guideline: ...where this can be done with clarity and precision. Without additional context, there is no way to tell whether those choices would provide clarity and precision, or the opposite. Monty845 04:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. On some occasions, the use of the generic "he" is more fluent than the gender-neutral "they" (which is what I would normally use). I agree that, in some contexts, it is now normal to avoid the generic "he" - especially in US English. However, I am not convinced that the requirement to avoid a generic "he" is universal enough to warrant a Wikipedia-wide ban, or whether it is instead something that is essentially a local English variant, based on expectations in that locations, and would therefore be allowed to vary from page to page. Bluap (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CREEP, WP:NOTLAW and WP:COMMONNAME. Some examples which occur to me are beauty queen and fishwife. Instead of this proposal, can we outlaw bizarre neologisms such as xe, which I see people using? This is supposed to be the English language wikipedia and it's bad enough that we have national variations to deal with. Andrew D. (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    In parts of the United States, teenagers have adopted yo as a gender neutral pronoun. How about we adopt that? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
    No gender-neutral pronoun (other than “it” or “they”) is common enough that its use here would not be confusing, and we would be justifiably accused of using made-up words. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my remarks at the MoS talk page – With rigidity, the MoS is useless. A straitjacket rule, in this case, is completely unworkable. This is especially true when the proposed examples, like "chairperson", are not supported by many RS. Usage of that term is extremely controversial. Sources such as The New York Times forbid it in their articles, and various parliamentarians are opposed to it on principle. In common usage, "chairman" is used for a variety of reasons. There is no reason that Wikipedia should proscribe a usage that is common, nor should it endorse a usage that is inherently controversial. The present wording does what it needs to do, per Monty845, and allows us the flexibility we need to make the MoS work. Usage of titles should be determined through talk page consensus and reliable sources. If someone consistently refers to themselves as an "actress", and if RS do so as well, there is no reason why we should forbid that usage. RGloucester — ☎ 19:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment which is probably best suited for this section. In addressing one of the specific examples above, chair/chairperson, there are cases where a woman has explicitly stated a preference for the term "chairman"; see for instance Esther Dyson. The problem I have is that the proposed wording makes no attempt to address these cases, and doing so will inevitably lead to even more verbiage and further convolute an overly complicated guideline on what is a rather insubstantial style point in English usage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if gender issues still prevail in the 21st Century, the problem is bigger than modifying MOS on WP. An attempt to neutralize it here (aka hide it) is what I consider regression, not progression. We are who we are, know what I mean? Atsme☯Consult 23:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with "firefighter", but I don't like when people replace "man" with "person". Man is supposed to be gender neutral. Furthermore, whether you believe so or not, the word mankind is gender neutral. As such, I propose this proposal. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    You mean, man should be at man (gender) with man re-directing to human?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    I wasn't actually proposing that, but yes that would make sense. However, many would probably argue against in due to common use. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose This is about acknowledging the sacred right to take offense, which I don't. People differ on how to solve the problem of a gendered language, not to mention various people who insist that someone else has to refer to them according to their made-up grammar. It's simply an invitation to edit war drama to put this clause in. Mangoe (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too proscriptive. And the examples are poor in any case. Chairman is gender-neutral, except when the PC brigade get involved (see the current discussion at Talk:Chairman), and "fireman" is also perfectly acceptable in an historical context when there were no female firefighters (i.e. most of the history of firefighting). Revisionism is never a good thing. These things should always be considered on a case-by-case basis, not laid down in stone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This RfC is a bit biased. I support gender-neutral language but not this proposal. There are lot of times when gender-neutral language should be used and lots of times when using gender-neutral language would requiring coining new terms, using unnatural language, and increasing confusion. I would prefer to see a proposal like this develop organically, with complaints raised about individual issues, those issues corrected with gender-neutral language, then over time a policy could be created with the collection of consensus statements which follow fixing real problems. I am not eager to make sweeping statements and generalizations. Off-wiki, I have experience drafting medical documents for the LGBT community and minority genders. I care about this issue, but resolving it is not easy, and there are not strong precedents for establishing best practices. Note that Gender-neutral language is a very poor article, and I would attribute this to the lack of public agreement in academia, public discussion, and what is published. Developing that article would be an excellent start to developing a background for best practices on Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    You say There are lot of times when gender-neutral language should be used and lots of times when using gender-neutral language would requiring coining new terms, using unnatural language, and increasing confusion. Any statement you know where the latter is true?? Please try to do an example where you feel very sure this is true. Georgia guy (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Georgia guy I am very sure this is true in situations where biological sex is discussed, and have come into conflict in situations where people want to avoid discussing biological sex. In public health projects overseeing HIV prevention there is a concept named "Men who have sex with men" ("MSMs"). For about 20 years Trans women have objected to being targeted with health services for MSMs because they identify as women, and yet from a health practice perspective, many health tools and interventions which are appropriate for men work well on trans women but would not work well on persons who were assigned as female at birth. The trans community would like for the public health community to use gender neutral terms in public health outreach or to simply be called "women" along with persons assigned as female from birth, and this community makes requests and demands this often. I see no resolution to this confusion anytime soon. The conflict is that the health practice community would like to group MSMs and trans women, but trans women prefer to identify as women and not trans women, so calling trans women "MSMs" is offensive and calling them "trans women" is not appropriate outside a clinical setting either. Because of limited funding, it is very difficult to make clinics for trans women populations which are separate from gay male cases. Saying "MSMs and women" is the most common demand but then health care providers in these situations are often not ready to process women assigned as female at birth. In cases of medicine and sexuality, especially for people with minority gender or sexual identities, either using gendered terms or gender neutral terms may be more preferable depending on the situation and I would like to avoid making hard rules to keep flexibility for people to make the best choice. I expect that other exceptions will exist in any article which has special attention to sexuality or sexual health. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some culture in fact encourages non gender neutral and I can see some people being offended by using gender neutral referring to some notable person they love.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 18:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see any benefit this might bring, and it will be confusing. Furthermore, if it is a feminist attempt, then it is simply not going to happen, as per Wikipedia policy.Green547 (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We have a good record of improving things in this area already, and I see nothing to be gained by this change other than unproductive wrangling. RomanSpa (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

The RfC is, in my view, premature in this form and the text to be added needs working on. I agree with " avoid the generic he", which I think was always the intended meaning. As regards the other issues, some might think "chair/chairperson" inappropriate while agreeing with the general principle of gender-neutral language, so I would choose a different example. We should also avoid language that might be understood as advocating avoidance of the male term (prefer words such as . . . "firefighter" to "fireman") when actually referring to a person of known sex/social gender, for example "he worked as a fireman", "he was chairman of . . .", "Sandra Bullock is an American actress". I think it would also be useful to mention differences in meaning (e.g. "the first actress to . . ." may not the same person as "the first actor to . . ."). --Boson (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

But it is always the same as "the first female actor to..." Georgia guy (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, and neither "female actor" nor "actress" are gender-neutral. The point is that we should avoid purportedly gender-neutral terms when they are in fact not gender-neutral. This includes especially the so-called "generic he", and it may include terms like "king" or "fireman" when used generically, i.e. in reference to a firefighter or monarch of either (or indeterminate) sex/social gender. I think the RfC in this form is premature, because the proposed text does not make this clear and therefore needs working on. --Boson (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that instead of
"For example, avoid the generic he and prefer words such as "chair"/"chairperson" or "firefighter" to "chairwoman" and "fireman."
the proposal should specify something like
"For example, when referring to persons of indeterminate social gender (i.e. who may be of of either, both, or unknown sex or social genders), avoid the use of he, him, etc. ("generic he") and generally avoid the use of generic terms that might be understood to imply a particular sex or social gender
The text still needs tweaking and should include examples where it is obvious that the noun or pronoun is being used "generically".
--Boson (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I like it, Boson, but I don't think we need to say "social gender" or "sex." In this context, the general-use "gender" should be sufficient, if we even need that. Maybe something like "Avoid referring to subjects as he, him, etc. unless it has been established that they are male." It's shorter and it accounts for non-human subjects, like bees. It might also sidestep the whole chess-context problem, which is what raised this issue in the first place Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, "actor" apparently implies someone of male gender, meaning that your proposed guidance says that we cannot use "actor". Instead, I think you should write "prefer usage of masculine-gendered terms over feminine-gendered terms", as that seems to be what you want to do. RGloucester — ☎ 02:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there's a growing feeling in the acting community that "actor" should be used as a gender-neutral term, so it seems that "actor" is becoming what "he" used to be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Therein lies the fallacy of all of your advocacy here and elsewhere. "Gender-neutral" apparently has no fixed meaning. You can determine whatever you think is gender-neutral, and say "this is gender-neutral", despite the fact that it isn't by your own definition of the term. "He" has always had two meanings, one gender-neutral and one masculine. Apparently it is now "no good" because it is "sexist" and can only refer to things of male gender. Somehow, however, the same person says that the word "actor" is now "gender-neutral", despite being a case of the same thing: a word that has both a gender-neutral meaning and a masculine meaning. Therefore, by the logic you are applying to "he", using "actor" is "sexist". This is absolute absurdity, and has no basis in language. It only has basis in politics, and politics have no place in the language. I believe that everyone should disregard all polemics by Mr Frog. His twisting of reality is so absolutely mad that it must derive from some plane of existence that I'm not privy to, despite my own acute madness. RGloucester — ☎ 05:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
RG, that's not a fallacy; that's English. It doesn't always follow fixed patterns. You can go look up the history of the word "actor" and see that it is currently undergoing a shift in meaning and usage. Actresses are slowly starting to say, "Call me an actor; 'actress' implies that my gender is more important than it is," and magazines and newspapers are altering their style guides to accommodate them. They are the ones choosing the gender-neutral term. Similarly, you can look up the generic he and see how it is also undergoing a shift, but it is much further along. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no shift. It is imaginary, and in your head, just as is this bizzare application of the term "gender-neutral" to mean anything that someone says is "gender-neutral" regardless of etymology. By that logic, I can say "actress" is gender-neutral, because I don't want to place an emphasis on the maleness of the "actors" (gasp) in question. Therefore, you, Mr Grant, are an actress. How do you plead? RGloucester — ☎ 22:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Etymology is irrelevant. What matters here is what people today imagine the words to mean. If a word choice—regardless of the entirety of the history of that word—causes a significant number of people to imagine that it’s offensively sexist, then we should avoid it; and if not, it’s acceptably gender-neutral. Also, your spelling of “bizarre” is bizarre. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel newcomers to this conversation should be advised of this: This text was proposed because of confusion/disagreement over whether the MoS ALREADY tells Wikieditors not to use the generic he. So if you write "oppose," it would be helpful if you specified whether you're opposed because 1) you think the MoS's position against the generic he is already clear enough or 2) you think it should not ban the generic he, in which case you should probably suggest new text that explicitly allows it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of the added text—avoid potential unintended sexism—but I also agree with some of the concerns posted by others here that it’s a bit too open to hypercorrection. If a less restrictive alternative can be proposed, one that allows for common sense without too much instruction creep, I’ll support that. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternate proposal… how about:

Use gender-neutral language (for instance, avoid the generic he) where this can be done with clarity and precision. This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered, or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges).

The rest stays the same. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I like it, but I'd put the "avoid the generic he" after the "clarity and precision" part. The order you've used implies "where ... precision" applies to avoiding the generic he rather than to using gender-neutral language:

Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. (For example, avoid the generic he). This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered, or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges).

We could probably keep the "firefighter" example but from the comments above, "chair" is probably not best. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course it applies to the given example of GNL, as it should to any example. Your version seems to imply that “avoid the generic he” is an example of where GNL can be used “with clarity and precision.” I disagree with this. Avoiding that use of the word is an example of GNL, but not necessarily an example of where it’s suitable. Consider the following:
  • You can eat whatever you want (even double chocolate fudge brownies and a huge slice of Oreo ice cream cake) as long as you don’t overeat.
  • You can eat whatever you want as long as you don’t overeat. For instance, eat double chocolate fudge brownies and a huge slice of Oreo ice cream cake.
In the first line, the example is restricted by the condition (as it should be). In the second, the example is ludicrously implied to satisfy the condition. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems that both cases of confusion can be avoided easily:

Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. Avoid the generic he. If a gender-neutral term is standard and widely understood, prefer it to its gendered counterpart. For example, prefer "firefighter" to "fireman." This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered, or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges).

No "for example," no problem. I've also reworked the firefighter example. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
And if the generic “he” cannot be avoided while maintaining clarity and precision? It should not be outright banned; it should be discouraged, avoided when reasonable. That’s what the existing text says. Maybe I’ve just looked at this too much and I’m not taking the paragraph as a whole… anyone else have an opinion on this last version? I do like and agree with the rest of the modifications, though. —174.141.182.82 (talk)
That's why we're saying "avoid" instead of "don't use." Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
That sounds OK to me. --Boson (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Now that I think of it, Anon174's concerns might be better addressed with "Avoid the generic he unless there is no clear and correct alternative" or something. That might not stop people from inserting it, but it would probably stop them from undoing other people's edits when they change it to plural or "he or she." Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Then:

Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. Avoid the generic he unless there is no clear and correct alternative. If a gender-neutral term is standard and widely understood, prefer it to its gendered counterpart; for example, prefer "firefighter" to "fireman." This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered, or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges).

I like it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, but too specific. Generic "he" is a single word, there are many others to argue about. How about "man" used to mean "human" ? Is singular they recommended/acceptable/discouraged/forbidden ?“WarKosign” 13:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
"Gender-neutral language" in general covers the use of "man" to mean "human." Generally, this conversation started as a way of showing that the basics in the essay on GNL were endorsed by WP:MoS. Copying the whole essay would be impractical, and the generic he seems like a good example (though "chairman" has shown itself not to be). Got any thoughts?
The singular they has been up for discussion many times. It is currently neither endorsed nor banned. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The word "man" is gender neutral, and hence not proscribed by the present guidelines. RGloucester — ☎ 06:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yo, check the date in your signature! It's not 1950 any more. Johnuniq (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Those that too quickly declare propriety outmoded will suffer a fate of timeless decay. RGloucester — ☎ 14:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
You’re silly. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

GNL in the MoS: Clarification regarding guidance on the generic he

We should probably get to the real issue before we change the text of the MoS. People opposing the new text here and at WT:MOS are split between "Don't change the text of the MoS because it is already perfectly clear that the MoS tells users to avoid the generic he" and "Don't change the text of the MoS because changing the MoS so that it tells users to avoid the generic he would be bad." (The "chairman" example was only ever here for balance.) The MoS, in its current form, leaves users divided regarding whether the generic he is already against guidance or not. Please answer with one of the following or equivalent (so long as you are clear about what you want to do and why):

AVOID
Change the text to tell users to avoid the generic he. (A) This is merely a clarification of what the MoS already says. (B) This is a change in guidance.
ALLOW
Change the text to specifically allow the generic he. (C) This is merely a clarification of what the MoS already says. (D) This is a change in guidance.
NO CHANGE
Do not change the text. (E) The MoS does not tell users to avoid the generic he, and it shouldn't. (F) The MoS already tells users to avoid the generic he, and it should. (G) Other.

We can talk about examples like "chair" and "firefighter" too but the non-hypothetical problem concerns the generic he. 22:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Responses (generic he)

Avoid (A) The MoS has banned the generic he for a long time, as indicated by its statement about gender-neutral language and its link to the essay on gender-neutral language, which mentions the generic he specifically. Because there is visible confusion about that, the text should be made clearer. I like the firefighter example, which was lifted from the same essay. Most dictionaries and style guides describe the generic he as sexist, tell writers not to use it, or both [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. The MoS should follow sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Avoid A: Using gender-neutral language means avoiding the generic “he” (a word choice that is decidedly not gender-neutral). The MOS presently says, “Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision.” This means, among other things, we are to avoid the generic “he” where this can be done with clarity and precision. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No change – "He" is a gender neutral pronoun, much like the word "man" is a gender neutral noun. RGloucester — ☎ 03:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So, reason E then? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I shan't be forced to submit myself to the reasons provided by the oppressor. RGloucester — ☎ 15:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I’ll… take that as a very confusing yes. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • G - none of the above. We have no consensus on whether the generic "he" in neutral or not, and thus we can not write any firm policy statement about it. I would actually take this a step further... We should either change the entire section to note that there is disagreement about the necessity for gender neutrality, or simply cut the section entirely and say nothing about gender neutrality. Blueboar (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Agreed—if there’s disagreement about something in the MOS, the MOS should say there’s disagreement. I do think the section belongs in there regardless, though. And the matter warrants further discussion outside of a polling context. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
It only looks like we have no consensus because of the way RG wrote the first of these two village pump RfC. Most of the "oppose" votes refer to the chair/chairman example and not to the generic he. Most of the participants in the conversation at WT:MoS were in agreement that the MoS already bans/disprefers/what-the-MoS-does the generic he and has for a long time. You said so yourself at one point. Removing the ban would be a change in policy.
As for consensus among sources, that is very clear: they are in agreement that the generic he is sexist and should not be used in modern contexts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
My view that there is no consensus is not based on this specific RFC alone. I question whether the community has ever had a true consensus on the issue of gender neutrality. If you look at the history of the section, it was first added in the wake of the great Bradley/Chelsey Manning debate... and there was a lot of POV pushing going on... on both sides of the debate. The section was did not have a proper consensus then, and it still does not have a proper consensus. Since it was first added (approximately a year ago), objections (or at least serious concerns) about it have been raised, and these have not been addressed. So... yes... what I am suggesting is that we change the policy to eliminate the "ban"... because the underlying rational behind the "ban" (that there is a need for gender neutrality in the first place) never had consensus to begin with. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Why then was it allowed to stay at all, treated as if it had consensus behind it? It’s been my understanding that if there’s no consensus about whether a new addition should remain or be reverted, it’s ultimately reverted. Or was there consensus only at that point in time? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
While I disagree with Blueboar about whether the MoS should require GNL, I can answer your question, Anon174: It is usually hard to change the MoS if anyone's feelings or personal beliefs are involved, and lots of people have personal beliefs about gender and politically correct speech. Even if you can cite a hundred sources supporting your position, people have their opinions and don't like to change them. Let's assume for the sake of explanation that Blueboar is right and the passage on GNL got into the MoS by mistake (it wouldn't be the only time something like that has happened). Even then, if there's no consensus to make a change, then the section on GNL will stay in, regardless of why it got there in the first place because the rules prefer the status quo (which would not include the new text mentioning the generic he). Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn’t the status quo be how it was before some new text got in by mistake? Otherwise, that just seems… broken, if rules can be dictated by the good timing of a bad edit. But I’m straying from the topic of GNL to a general question about consensus, I suppose (and I’m of the opinion that GNL does tend to be favored in WP). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
No. The status quo is how things are right before a new change is proposed (or boldly made and contested). This is an old change. Even if GNL got in there by mistake, it's been in there for years, so it's the status quo. I agree that this way of doing things could be improved upon, and if you hear about a discussion to change this part of how Wikipedia works, let me know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

NO CHANGE (G), we could use "he" to refer to a male, however, we can still avoid "he" when referring to a female person who, for example is a chairwoman. In that case we can use the title "chair", as opposed to chairwoman or chairman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam.gov (talk • contribs) 22:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sam.gov: The MoS passage on GNL says "This does not apply to ... wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges)" and no one has expressed any wish to remove that sentence. In this way, the MoS already says to use "he" to refer to men. The proposal refers to whether the text of the MoS should be changed to specifically address the generic he (either expressly allowing it or expressly not allowing it). Does this satisfy your concerns? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it does satisfy my concerns. Thanks. Sam.gov (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Sam.gov: I recommend giving this a read: Generic he. That’s the “he” we’re talking about, not the one used to refer to a given individual. The question is whether we should permit the use of “he” when the person (or the person’s gender) is unknown. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The link you provided leads to a non-existent page, which is why it is red. Anyhow, in regards to the question, I would not recommend using the generic "he" when referring to on unknown person (or if the person's gender is unknown) because it still sounds like "he" is referring to a male. Sam.gov (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, accidentally included formatting in the link name. Sorry, fixed that. And what you say is exactly the rationale for having the MOS discourage such usage. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Anyway, If it is exhibiting a strong feeling, I would still be cool with allowing the generic pronoun such as "man" be used in quotes or sentences such as:
   "All men are created equal."
   "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind."
   "Man cannot live by bread alone."
Using the generic he is grammatically correct per se, according to Generic he, but it may be confusing to readers when used in the normal sense, although, I can't seem to think of any examples of how these three sentences would be using in the normal, ordinary sense. So, I would strongly recommend exercising some judgement on when to use the generic "he" or "man". Hopefully, I explained it clearly. Sam.gov (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually I'm still a little confused about where you stand. Do you think we should change the MoS so that it allows the generic he, change it so that it doesn't allow the generic he or leave it in its current form (which people have been interpreting in opposite ways)? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: I think we should change it so that it doesn't allow the generic he, except under certain conditions, like a direct quote. Sam.gov (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
To avoid confusion, would you mind amending your initial NO CHANGE response here? (You can do so by <del>striking it out</del> and then <ins>adding your present position</ins>.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure thing, I struck it out and my present position is that we should change it so that it doesn't allow the generic he, except under certain conditions, like a direct quote. Sam.gov (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I vote this too. "we should change it so that it doesn't allow the generic he, except under certain conditions, like a direct quote" I'd also like to add that I think that it applies to certain image and graphic use as well. EX:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#mediaviewer/File:97%25_of_Climate_Scientists_Confirm_Anthroprogenic_Global_Warming.svg the representative scientists all look like men. And I may as well add this, I am currently involved in a discussion about the use of this non-gender neutral graph, and looking-for the best avenue to complain about it since it is used on several current articles and I'm hoping that it can be modified to conform to the MOS standard.2601:C:67C0:F8:35B5:3331:DAB7:A60E (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC) ADD link to Talk Page graph discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#The_97.25_graph-a_bold_edit_with_reasons 2601:C:67C0:F8:35B5:3331:DAB7:A60E (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you after looking at the picture you presented. It shows that all the representative scientists look like men, which in my judgement would be an exception to this. Sam.gov (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Avoid A: To me it is quite obvious that this was always the intended meaning but, since some editors appear to understand it differently, we should make it crystal clear. --Boson (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Avoid A: This is basic modern English, already the norm in education, law, business, etc. I cannot think of an instance when "he" would be required where a person's gender is unknown. Anyone who insists on masculine gender language because that's the old default, or worse, gender-aware language that sprinkles in a few feminine pronouns for a semblance of gender sensitivity, needs to go back to the English garage for a language tuneup. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • NO CHANGE G - I prefer, if changes were to be made, to use encouraging prose, and to gain adherents by the strength of sound reason alone. I am generally opposed to guidance which instructs one to avoid an otherwise correct grammatical construction, instead of just stating a preference for one construct over another. I cringe when I see such an effort - to bastardize a selective form of human expression. It is but the latest PC agenda, laying fodder to next vilify the incorporation of masculine and feminine nouns, along with their pronouns. As an aside, I find it mildly ironic that this proposal focuses exclusively on the generic he, while clearly intent to also preclude use of the generic she. Pardon me if my point is obscure - it derives from an opinion I hold. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow C closely followed by E. The guide makes clear the gender neutral generic he is permitted, because it's gender neutral. While I'm not a big fan of he over they for the generic pronoun, man as a prefix and suffix is often gender neutral and the appropriate term. Some Chairs are Chairs and some are Chairmen, a very few choose to be Chairwomen and Chairpersons, the appropriate term should be used based on the real world usage not wikipedia policy. Mankind is still called Mankind, Mankind is gender neutral. The Generic he (as it applys specifically to "Man" and "Men") is gender neutral.SPACKlick (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Avoid A; my sentiments match Boson's and Wikidemon's. -sche (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    To add to my comment: as was pointed out in the discussion on WT:MOS, use of "he" as an ostensibly gender-neutral pronoun has been considered sexist, and deprecated, since about the mid 20th century. (See e.g. When Words Collide: A Media Writer's Guide to Grammar and Style, 2007, ISBN 0495050253, and The Pocket Wadsworth Handbook, 2009 MLA Update Edition, ISBN 1439081816, the latter of which says on page 81 to "avoid using the generic he or him when your subject could be either male or female. [...] Sexist: Before boarding, each passenger should make certain that he has his ticket. / Revised: Before boarding, passengers should make certain that they have their tickets.") -sche (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Avoid A —"Generic he" fell into disuse in most varieties of the spoken language long before the PC police arrived on the scene, so let's stop labelling this a political issue. The problem is not that some may be offended (and some may), but that it's unnatural English that draws attention to itself. "Generic he" is not truly generic, but requires suspension of disbelief on the part of the reader. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:38, 5 March 2015 (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.

2015 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Final chance to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and the community comments phase of the process is approaching conclusion.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org.

Those who have not commented yet, are encouraged to do so over the next few days.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015.

For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC at WT: Reference Desk

A Request for Comments is in progress at the Reference Desks talk page concerning new guidelines about questionable posts and the responses to questionable posts. There has recently been considerable conflict about how to respond to questionable posts (e.g., troll questions), and the purpose of the RFC is to clarify guidelines about dealing with them. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Media Threat

I was curious if there has been any discussion about a policy similar to WP: NLT with regards to media threats. In essence an editor is upset about how a discussion is going on Wikipedia, and instead of working it through on Wikipedia and accepting consensus they go to the media with their story. I'm asking because I see a sufficiently large media circus would have a very similar or worse effect than a legal threat. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would have as much of a chilling effect as it would attract tendentious and stubbornly-incompetent meat puppets... Which would be a reason to add have some expansion of "no threats of media circuses." Ian.thomson (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think it could create a chilling effect if they targeted editors specifically. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Not a legal threat per se, but this kind of threat falls under WP:THREATEN, and may be considered a personal attack. Although it probably won't be productive to point it out to such a user, we do have an article on the Streisand effect. Ivanvector (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of Cast List in film articles

I have looked through dozens of film articles. The cast list is a list of actors/actresses and the character they played. One film, The Sound of Music, has extensive plot descriptions next to the cast name. This is inappropriate. However, someone basically says "other stuff exists, so what".

It is reasonable to copy all or nearly all film articles and keep the cast list as a list and move extensive character information to the plot?

Do not say to discuss it on the article talk page because there are about 2 people who own the article and they will insert there own personal agenda instead of following the Wikipedia way. Just answer the above bolded question to your opinion. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd raise this at WT:FILM, but it might also be worth noting WP:FILMCAST. No, the cast listings shouldn't extensively regurgitate the plot.
I looked at Talk:The Sound of Music (film) and I don't see any discussion of this issue. I'm not sure why you wouldn't even make the effort to engage other editors there, but assuming you do and the other links I provided don't lead to other editors offering feedback, there's the third opinion noticeboard or other forms of dispute resolution. In any case, I'm not sure why you raised the matter here, as this doesn't seem to be the appropriate forum for such a conversation. Good luck in any case. DonIago (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Please note this editor has, time and again, been directed to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. These are the basis for the "Wikipedia Way". As to the cast descriptions all that was asked was that WZp raise the issue on the talk page. Useful trims can proceed from there. Instead the editor has gone WP:FORUMSHOPping. MarnetteD|Talk 16:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
After a close perusal of the edits the trims have been restored so this thread can be closed if anyone want to do so. MarnetteD|Talk 16:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, closing this thread could be seen as unethical wrongdoing. See, MarnetteD may be unhappy that people are agreeing with me and prefers to hide things in that article talk page. However, this issue is bigger than that. It's a question to how we should treat film articles in general. Also, MarnetteD is saying things in bad faith, accusing me of forum shopping. I have raised this issue in ONLY 1 forum, not shopping. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
If you want to discuss film articles in general, why are you not raising the question at WT:FILM? DonIago (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Good idea, but I have been accused of forum shopping (see above) so I must let this thread go one for at least a little while because going to any other forum. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposals to improve Bot image reduction process

When a non-free file is tagged as being too large with {{non-free reduce}}, the file is automatically resized by a bot to an arbitrarily defined 100,000 pixels - regardless of the original size, quality or content of the image. I believe the current process has lead to errors which can not be reverted, I have highlighted some examples at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Request_for_re-examination_Wikipedia:Bots.2FRequests_for_approval.2FTheo.27s_Little_Bot.2C_Task_1. I have also proposed steps which I think will improve the process. It's been several weeks without input or change, so I'd welcome outside opinion. - hahnchen 19:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Footnotes with [emphasis added] or [emphasis in original]

The MOS allows italics within quotations provided a editorial comment is added after the quotation -- either "[emphasis added]" or "[emphasis in original]". This is clear, but the MOS is silent as to where this should appear with respect to footnotes generated by <ref>...</ref>. The choices seem to be:

  • (1) ref-then-comment: "blah blah blah blah."[1] [emphasis added]
  • (2) comment-then-ref: "blah blah blah blah." [emphasis added][1]

I believe ref-then-comment is the correct answer -- but I'd like to verify that here. If by some chance this has not been determined, please direct me to the correct place where I can invite comments toward a consensus. In any event, once the answer is known, I will edit the abovementioned MOS to explicitly state what is preferred and to use examples that make this clear. YBG (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Both are mostly proper, depending on the exact usage. If the quotation is encapsulated within a larger statement consisting of a single sentence, and has no internal periods (full stops) in the quote, then the proper usage is "That source actually says, 'Blah blah blah blah' (emphasis added)." If not, then it should go after the sentence or quote in the form (note capitalization and punctuation): "(Emphasis added.)" Personally, I feel that (emphasis in original) is unnecessary unless there is some particular reason to suspect that the emphasis in the quote was not in the original source or unless — and this sometimes wouldn't be proper in article text as original research — you're trying to emphasize the emphasis in the original source. However, having given those two cents, I would oppose having a guideline on how to use this. This is way too minor a usage issue to have a rule on (or to fight over, unless some particular usage changes the meaning or understanding of some article text). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I (fully) agree with the assertion that it is too minor a usage issue, considering we do just the same for sic at WP:MOSQUOTE, which is a similar case. --Izno (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, TransporterMan, for pointing out a few things I ignored:
  • (a) It may be unwise or inappropriate to add emphasis to a quotation
  • (b) If emphasis is added, it must be marked with [emphasis added]
  • (c) If it is obvious, [emphasis in original] is not absolutely needed
  • (d) The footnote may be separated from the quotation by non-quoted material
Keeping the last item in mind, this gives a 3rd possibility to the two above:
  • (3) comment-only: "blah blah blah blah." [emphasis added] blah blah blah blah blah.[1]
My question is based on assuming that the footnote comes immediately after the quotation and that it has been determined that a comment is needed. In such a case, I believe, it is better for the comment to come after the footnote (ref-then-comment). Can anyone think of a case when the other way around (comment-then-ref) would be better? YBG (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
self-whack! for obliviously failing to notice this was about the footnotes not about the placement, capitalization, and punctuation of the "emphasis added" part. I even missed the header mentioning footnotes. Wow. My opposition, above, about additional rule-making was about that part (which wasn't even on the table, duh), not about the footnote part. On the footnote issue <ahem>, my personal views diverge somewhat from the Wikipedia-official position on footnote placement. The official position is in the CITEFOOT guideline which says that footnotes should ordinarily be at the end of a sentence or paragraph except that, "If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence." So, in light of current guidelines, the footnote should always go at the end of the sentence, after the period/full stop, if not at the end of the paragraph. In either case, that would suggest that it come after the "emphasis added." <Steps up on soapbox.> However, I believe that limiting footnotes within a sentence to situations where they are particularly contentious is insufficient. If a sentence has multiple sources, then footnotes should go inside the sentence next to that part of the sentence which is supported by the footnote (and in that case, I don't think that it makes much difference if it comes before or after the "emphasis added"). Finally, while I fully agree that if you have a multi-sentence paragraph that is entirely supported by the same source that normal academic style says to only include a single footnote at the end of the paragraph. That works fine for materials which are going to be published on paper and are not, therefore, subject to subsequent modification, but here at WP doing it that way invites someone to come along and add material in the middle of the paragraph with a footnote at the end of the new material, giving the false impression that the original material which preceded the new material is unsourced or improperly sourced by the new footnote. I remember seeing a couple of proposals, through I don't remember where, to try to fix this by color coding (or something else...?) the material supported by a source, but they went nowhere. (As they probably should've; we have enough problem getting people to provide sources at all, then getting them to provide them adequately and with proper formatting. Adding that additional burden just discourages doing even that much.) <Loses balance and falls off of soapbox.> Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Pardon my being dense here, TransporterMan, but which of the two examples above do you think better, (1) ref-then-comment -or- (2) comment-then-ref? YBG (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Nested links

Input is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#RfC - Nested links as to whether we should delete the references to "nested links" from WP:LINKSTYLE. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

TBAN on what turns out to be a sock "transferable" to master?

Hi, quick question for y'all -- if a community TBAN is applied to an account after an AN discussion, and that account is later found out to be a sock of another account, can the TBAN be considered applicable to the master? Any ban is generally understood a restriction on the user, not the account, so to my eye this seems clear, but I'm unsure of what the "common practice" is. Just update WP:EDR with the master's name? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Support (Non-administrator comment) makes sense to me. The Tban is on the users behavior, on any account they are confirmed to be using. Just a question, if they are a sockmaster, shouldn't they be indeffed anyway? Or is this just in case they return in the future... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Masters aren't normally indeffed. Usually the socks are indeffed and the master blocked for abusing multiple accounts, but not indefinitely except for very serious cases or repeat offenders. Ivanvector (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! Still think bans apply to operator of account, all of their accounts both disclosed and undisclosed accounts. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I would say yes it would apply. If we had a user who had legitimate alternate accounts, as in say a public computer second account. And they were topic banned they should not be able to switch to the other account and edit in the same area. People get banned because their behavior in certain areas is undesirable, and there is no reason to believe that a person is going to edit differently underneath another account. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page font

Is there a policy or guideline regarding the use of non-standard fonts on talk pages? And if not should there be? I recently messaged user Leonardo the Florentine regarding their use of papyrus font on talk pages, a font that I find incredibly hard to read, but it seems there might not be any rule against it. Sam Walton (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If there were a guideline, it would be at or near WP:SHOUT. This has come up before (can't put my finger on it) and didn't go anywhere. I think it's at least as distracting as overuse of bolding and should likewise be strongly discouraged. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but there does not seem to be a policy specifically forbidding it. Talk pages are for everyone, they should maintain accessibility. WP:Deviations says not to use the <font> tag in articles but doesn't say anything about other namespaces. I've seen different fonts used on talk pages before and it's not usually a problem as long as the font is reasonable; maybe there should be a list of acceptable fonts to use instead of the default. Papyrus shouldn't be one. Ivanvector (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I would start with WP:HTML5, which mostly discusses which elements shouldn't be used on wiki and what their replacements are. Also, if I came across such a font in use, I would simply fix it per WP:TPG#fixlayout. If they object to your fixing it and throw a big stink, or there are enough instances of enough people fixing the problem and the user refuses to change the behavior then that user would fall under WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:NOTHERE and probably WP:IDHT and can be blocked accordingly or otherwise forced to comply with requested changes. Good luck! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
There's no need to use threatening language, this can be resolved with perfect civility. Also the policies you cited seem to fall outside the jurisdiction of the use of fonts on a talk page. Leonardo the Florentine (talk · contribs) 12:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I find it really annoying to read other fonts, Papyrus exceptionally so. I think that if someone wants to use a different font, then the font change should be client side, and so changes the font of everyone purely for that person. As far as the wiki markup itself, there should be no extra font markup, so that everyone has a choice and isn't subjected to something like that horror that is comic sans. SamWilson989 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind seeing a guideline on acceptable fonts created, but there doesn't seem to be common agreement on what an accessible font is. This page has some listed a ways down under "Font Readability" (Comic Sans is one, sorry Sam) and most other resources I look up have a list quite similar to this one. There will be some questionable fonts and discussion I'm sure, but a scripty cursive font like Papyrus should be clearly unacceptable. Ivanvector (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
My mother is a teacher at an infant school, and she uses Comic Sans on all of the documents as it is easier for children to read, so I do understand there's a time and a place for it. Unfortunately it looks ugly as hell and I'd much prefer the "Sassoon Infant" font as a replacement to Comic Sans. On the actual topic of fonts on wikipedia, perhaps rather than a guideline in the form of a list of acceptable fonts, a guideline that was a list of unacceptable fonts would work better, and wouldn't be as long. SamWilson989 (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
As a compromise, I'd be willing to use a different font. Could you suggest a few that are not too different from Papyrus but more amenable to yourself? I could test these and if there is an acceptable one the matter could be settled. Leonardo the Florentine (talk · contribs) 12:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Using Papyrus is damn near unreadable, especially at web resolutions and default font sizes. And I'm afraid this goes for any script-style font. There may be no policy pre se regarding the use of certain fonts, but it does border on disruption. Also, <font> is obsolete and may well be disabled in the furure. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I personally see no justification for having a different font from everyone else, since talk spaces are about clear communication, not self-expression. A customized signature is one thing (and many of them are over the line in terms of distraction); a different font for an entire post is another. I'll be very surprised if Flow supports such usage, for that reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Mandruss, I sympathize and acknowledge your point. But communication is not just about the transmission of information via the abstract construct known as the alphabet. Expression is a large part of communication, something which is used liberally when talking to someone face to face, like tone of voice, eye contact, body language, etc. In the absence of those things in the written word, what is left? Not a great deal, but at least emphasis can be made with the use of bold, capitals or italics. But if you as an individual can rule out expression on the basis of a preference, then I can rule it in on the same basis.
Regarding the use of different fonts - I have noticed that when following long discussions with many editors it is difficult to follow who is talking to whom, and what point is being responded, etc. There are countless examples of this, but I will give you one HERE. In this example user "Chrisrus" is responding to the wrong user "Tutelary", when it should be user "208.54.38.224", and it takes another user "NeilN" to point this out. It's not another user's job to do this. It's not signbots's job to do this. It's nobody's job to do this. This is standard confusion in a long monotonous thread, and is the result of a lapse of attention. I'm not saying everybody should use a different font, but one way to reduce the problem of what seems like looking in a haystack for a relevant comment could be by identifying them through a different font, which would jump out straight away. Leonardo the Florentine (talk · contribs) 18:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@Leonardo the Florentine: Monotype Corsiva is a cursive font that is much more likely to maintain accessibility and likely has good cross-platform support. May I suggest that? I have set it to size 4 to be more inline with the proper site font. I would prefer, however, that users were not allowed to use a different font for their contributions. Ivanvector (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've changed your example to be HTML5 compliant, and I'll note that this is no better. If you want to use it in your signature, that is fine as long as you omit the font-size: larger; bit since making your signature bigger is prohibited, but if you use it to format your entire comment that way, it will still be disruptive and will be removed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Technical 13, that is the second time you have used threatening language. It seems you have no policy basis for banning the use of preferred fonts in a talk page, other than it makes it difficult to read for some people. I acknowledge this and had already conceded to change the font, and even asked Sam, who started this post, to suggest some alternatives. However your threatening tone makes it difficult for me to remain civil. You have failed to provide me with a policy that expressly forbids the use of preferred fonts on talk pages. Instead you have now actually edited my comments, a practice I'm sure violates Talk page policy, saying further use will be "disruptive and will be removed". How exactly do you sanction that? Are you incapable of having a civil discussion about this without resorting to threats? Leonardo the Florentine (talk · contribs) 17:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Did someone say "Comic Sans"? — Keφr 16:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't really think there needs to be any rule restricting font use on user talk pages. Since user talk pages are primarily there to be used by the user in question, if the user in question (Leonardo in this case) can read the font, it should be acceptable. pbp 19:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Per WP:UP#OWN we can use whatever font we please. More importantly, who cares? if you don't like it, don't read it. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This post was about talk pages generally, I agree we shouldn't care too much about user talk pages. Sam Walton (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think there is a distinction to be made between an editor's main user page, and the user's TALK page. I am all for allowing creativity on an editor's main user page. That is where the user is allowed a lot of freedom of expression - and that freedom includes what fonts a user chooses to use ... If others don't like it they don't have to view it.
However, the same is not the case when it comes to user talk pages. Talk pages are for communication, and if creativity makes communication harder, it should be avoided. Others can not simply ignore your user talk page. Anyone who wishes to interact with you has to go to your talk page to do so. So user talk pages are not completely "your personal space". Reasonable restrictions are appropriate on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, Blueboar, your own user talk page is mostly for people to communicate to you. Therefore, the only real determiner should be if you can read the font of your user page. Conversely, when commenting on another person's user talk page, you should respect the layout/font/format/whatever of that page, even if it is not optimal to your needs. pbp 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There shouldn't HAVE to be a rule, this is not freaking kindergarten. Or perhaps it is, after a few lines into this discussion I stopped reading, because of shadows and fonts. I have notified people in the past of me being annoyed about their signature, and in my opinion, if people would just do that, at some point most people start going back to something simpler. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Ideally no rules at all would be needed at all, and we would all just get along perfectly with rainbows and unicorns, but this is the real world. So since apparently a rule is necessary, make it the simplest rule possible: just ban all custom talk page fonts. The default font has been chosen to be readable by the largest group of people, and as SamWilson989 points out, fonts can always be customised on the client side (by the reader), without inconveniencing anyone else. Spending time on creating a list of acceptable custom fonts or criteria for those would generate lots of pointless bickering, and the resulting list would probably end up ridiculously gerrymandered to accommodate the most bizarre personal preferences and opinions. And the rules would still be incomplete, generating yet more pointless discussions when unpredicted cases arise. Just ban it all and be done with it. This is not a web host. People are here to build an encyclopædia, not show off their HTML skills, or conduct pointless debates over the latter. — Keφr 16:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree fully. We shouldn't, and don't, need a list. We need to make it easy for people to improve Wikipedia, and we can do that by ending this now and banning server-side fonts on all talk pages. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know what type of people WP seems to attract, that so many people have to boil things down to specific rules and punishments governing every conceivable possibility. That goes both for "I am going to do this no matter how it affects others, because there is no policy specifically against it (yet)", and "you will change immediately or you will be punished" philosophies.
The fact of the matter is, a few people have now complained that script-based fonts in general, and papyrus in particular, are hard to read. Add me to the list. In a collaborative project, doing something that makes it difficult for other people is not productive. So Leonardo, please switch to the same font that everyone else is using. That's really all that should need to be said. You point out to someone that what they're doing is a problem to others, and they change it to be respectful and polite. That's how people I know in real life generally react.
If for some reason that isn't enough, then consider that you have specifically stated you are doing it as a social experiment. This is not a forum for a social experiment, we're trying to write an encyclopedia here. Also note that things that scream "LOOK AT ME! I'M SPECIAL!" seem pretty obnoxious, no matter what the actual intention.
I don't imagine too many people will care what font you use on your own user talk page, so I suggest a compromise: use the bog standard font on project and article talk pages, and use whatever font you want to on your own talk page.
If for some reason Leonardo declines this, one possibility (in lieu of getting out the threats and banhammers and the machinery for adding a new rule to the Book of Rules) is that comments in hard-to-read fonts will be ignored. This is one person, admitting he is trying to get attention: one great solution is to ignore him nad not treat it like a crisis. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just one more take on this issue. I looked at the talk page under discussion & couldn't see any difference in the font from any other Wikipedia page. After a bit of searching, I discovered the reason for this is that I set my font preferences to serif fonts in my common.css file. (I loathe sans serif fonts.) Which means even if someone were to set their talk page to Zapf Dingbats, I could still read it. Maybe if this personal preference were exercised more often, it wouldn't be an issue if people set their talk pages to exotic fonts, & we could all find something else argue about. -- llywrch (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Not everyone knows CSS, nor should they be required to learn it in order to meaningfully contribute without distractions. Many people like the defaults (this is why they are the defaults, after all) and are quite upset about having them overridden by people showing off. And it is not just fonts we are talking about. At the end of User:Kephir/gadgets/unclutter.css I put a lot of grotesque CSS hacks which disable all fancy user talk styles. They are neither complete nor without false positives — some perfectly fine talk styles are destroyed by this sheet (never mind media players, which do appear on talk pages from time to time). And while writing it I keep asking myself: why should I be required to go out of my way in order not to have to look at other users' tasteless animations, colour schemes, fonts, banners and other customisations? As WP:UP#OWN states, "pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier." To me, the boldfaced text clearly implies that you should not inconvenience other editors with your desire to be fancy.
    And yes, I agree, this is a relatively silly issue. So please resolve it quickly and with WP:NOT (especially WP:NOTWEBHOST) in mind. — Keφr 17:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles containing "Action of (date)"

Articles like Action of 13 January 1797 and Action of 11 November 2008... They are consistent, but are they commonly-used names? If so, why haven't I been aware of this? Do these titles explain what the events were about? --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: - this question is probably better placed at WT:MILHIST. Mjroots (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking WT:AT. Because of your suggestion, I believe that this venue is fine. --George Ho (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@George Ho and Mjroots: Was this discussed at WT:MILHIST? I couldn't find it. This seems to be a practice of either British historians re: history of the Royal Navy (a source would be nice to assert that) or Wikipedians involved in the same field. One can argue that naval battles are often fought far away from a geographical point of reference, however I notice that in French the same battles often have a name other than a date, such as fr:Naufrage du Droits de l'Homme for your first example. (One noticeable exception is the fr:Combat de Prairial, also called Bataille d'Ouessant/Battle of Ushant, but as prairial is a month of the Republican calendar, which was not in use for very long, it is specific enough.) Place Clichy (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Bias in "On This Day" section

Within the last 90 days, I perceive a slant in the articles selected for display in the main page's subsection "on This Day'. This bias takes the form of disproportionately selecting stories with an Anti-United States message or theme. Who ever is doing the selecting of items for this section seems to have an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JB94083 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Would you like to adduce any evidence at all to support your assertion? The archive is accessible from Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March. I've had a quick scan through the last fortnight or so, and nothing leaps out at me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
You can discuss items for inclusion for future and past dates on the talk pages. For example you can go here Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries/March_18 to suggest "On This Day" features for a few days from now. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
To the degree that your observation is true, it's probably got more to do with Wikipedia:Systemic bias than with any bad intention on the part of the user(s) deciding what gets in. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Although WMF is currently engaged in a lawsuit against the US government, it exercises no editorial control over the "On This Day" section Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I skimmed every item over 4 months. This a non-issue, unless User:JB94083 would like to lay out some details. Alsee (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Email throttle

Moved to WP:VPT#Email throttle. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

TFD re template:Maintained

Please see WP:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_16#Template:Maintained. 04:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:POLITICIAN

Being discussed elsewhere, so please don't fragment the discussion by commenting here. Please go to WT:POLITICIAN to offer your opinions. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2015 (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.

Per this discussion on ANI, there is some recent interest in the WP:POLITICIAN policy, particularly regarding the argument that "members of state legislatures" are "likely to be notable". Granted, this is a guideline and not a strict policy, but there seems to be some dissent, on the grounds of the sheer number of such politicians. (Personally, I'm also unsure of the cultural neutrality of the phrasing national, state or provincial legislature.)

Thoughts? 70.24.4.51 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel that unless there is enough coverage in secondary sources then the politician isn't notable. Merely being elected doesn't guarantee notability and there have been and are many unknown politicians that just run day to day routine activities for the state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
NOTE: There is a parallel discussion on this subject going on at: Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:POLITICIAN Issue. As I said over there, I definitely do not feel that being elected to a state (or provincial) legislature should automatically infer "notability" on such politicians (i.e. WP:POLITICIAN #1) – they seem to me to be more akin to the "local" politicians mentioned in WP:POLITICIAN #3, and so should not necessarily be assumed to be "notable"... --IJBall (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Please centralize the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:POLITICIAN Issue. Makes it easier to keep track of the discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing. Yes, I know that discussions often don't need to be closed, but closing this should prevent people from commenting here when they should go to WT:POLITICIAN instead. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2015 (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.

English Wikipedia Main page editing content

Wikipedia does not and will not promote your personal bigotry or otherwise censor the main page just because you don't want to learn about the world. Try Metapedia instead. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Today, March 23rd 2015, of the 26 headings on the main page there are twenty that reference the non-English speaking world and six that reference the English speaking world. This is not a satisfactory balance. Please amend the editing guidelines to include a majority of items on the main page which refer to the English speaking world. I realize the English language is widely spoken and the temptation to gain publicity in it must be very strong however I feel six out of twenty six is a dramatic imbalance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.210.40.116 (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You're joking, right? If a subject is notable, a subject is notable. Would you like us to exclude subjects that aren't American enough next? The servers are based in Florida. Perhaps we'll remove anything that's too socialist next, then anything that's too Jewish. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that too much foreign content is an issue.--64.229.165.21 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI, there are no WMF servers in Florida anymore. The active servers are in Virgina, and work is in progress on a second datacenter in Texas. There are also caching-only datacenters in California and the Netherlands. Anomie⚔ 10:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia desinged to contain information about all notable topics, regardless of which part of the world they're related to. The fact that 23% of all the references on the main page refer to parts of the world covering less than 10% of the world popualtion is a problem, and your proposal would make it worse. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

25th March: the bias persists, we are up to 6 English speaking topics out of 24 topic headings, this is equal opportunity gone beserk, an inversion of normality. Those people interested in non-English speaking topics can go to the main page for the relevant language version of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.210.40.116 (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC for status of Wikipedia's "No Medical Advice" policy

An RFC which may affect the status of Wikipedia's "No Medical Advice" policy is located here please comment if this interests you. --Jayron32 16:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser and Oversight appointments 2015: Voting on the candidates

Following community consultation, the Arbitration Committee is now voting on appointments to the Checkuser and Oversight roles at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Comments are welcomed at that page.

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Direct link to wikidata entry in infoboxes

I propose that data in infoboxes (and elsewhere in articles) transcluded from wikidata should have a (+/-) which should be a direct link to the entry at wikidata. An example is from Hu wiki where population are from wikidata, and have a (+/-) - see hu:Lyon ("Teljes népesség" in infobox). Motivation: Its very diffucult to edit infboxes which transclude data from wikidata. First you have to figure out that the data are from wikidata, next you have to find the "Edit links" which description says "edit interlanguage links" (or press alt-g - but who knows that) below interwiki links, and next find the entry on wikidata, and then hope the data was from wikidata and not some tricky template data list. Christian75 (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose the policy should be clarified, and a clear statement be placed in a suitable policy (such as WP:Verifiability that information that requires a citation should not be transcuded from WikiData because WikiData is not a reliable source. According to the "Verifiability" policy "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" should be supported by a citation to a reliable source. It has long been the practice in Wikipedia that the citation must be provided in the same article in which the material appears; it is not acceptable to cite an unreliable source which contains a citation to a reliable source.Jc3s5h (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a non sequitur. The fact that Wikidata is not a reliable source is irrelevant if a source can be provided either on Wikipedia in the context of the data or on Wikidata as part of the sourced statement. --Izno (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Disagree with User:Izno. If a claim requires a citation to a source, the citation must be contained in the article; a citation in WikiData is not sufficient to support a Wikipedia article. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Especially as WD is off-wiki for most WPs, and is filled by various WPs, even ones with dubious reputation. Once there is a tough regime of reliability for WD this may change, but not now. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 19:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You seem only to be disagreeing with my suggestion that the data can be sourced on Wikidata (and not also on Wikipedia) and not the fact they you seem to be wrong in your initial assertion that anyone would use Wikidata as a a source to be cited and not simply what it should be used for, which is as a database of information. Cool! Glad we agree. :) --Izno (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Christian75: can you link to an example of an article on the English wikipedia that has this issue? I think this is an excellent idea, but this seems like more of a technical than a policy issue and suspect you'd get better comment in a different venue. The citation issue strikes me as a distraction; if anything data are more "verifiable" from wikidata where they're less likely to suffer from copy/paste errors, accidental edits, or undetected vandalism. Transcluding something from wikidata is not substantively different from typing it in yourself, except that it's less likely to be wrong. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: - There are lot of examples, but here are a few: template:Infobox anatomy takes TH, TE and FMA from Wikidata (for example see Heart it has a field named FMA in the infobox with the value 7088 - if you want to change it 1) edit heart and figure out that there is no 7088. A normal user would quit now). Another example Linus Torvalds have a wife in the infobox with the value | spouse = {{#property:p26}} - how to add a source? You cant add it in the article because the value could be changed on wikidata, and if you source it at wikidata it doesnt show up in the article. (the references can be imported from wikidata). template:Infobox road get the name of the (image file name) map from wikidata, try to change the map in Creek Turnpike - in matter of fact I think (Im not sure) that all article with which transclude module:Location map could get their map from wikidata (if the article doesnt have the value). Christian75 (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Its a question of time before a lot of data are imported from wikidata, for example population for citys, melting point for chemicals, age of actors, ... I think it would be a good idea to have a policy saying that no data from wikidata may be imported unless it has a reference, and all data should be linked from the infobox for example with a (+/-) Christian75 (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Geo-locate Function on all user pages

(non-admin closure) Consensus is clearly against this proposal. wctaiwan (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2015 (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.

Can we retain a geolocate function on reregistered users talk pages? Reason: I've noticed over the years, that on especially the Ref/Help Desks, questions from newbie editors are easier to answer sometimes if we can simply geolocate their country. English Wikipedia is used world-wide now - as English is becoming the lingua franca. Yet, as soon as an editor registers, they cease to be identified as an IP address, and so that location information is harder to redly get. Wikipedia prides itself on reducing Wikipedia:Systemic bias. If we can quickly discover (at a click) the the OP's location we can more quickly suss out where the OP's AND his question is coming from. Say they are living in a part of the world where they are not familiar with (say) immersion heaters and ring circuits, and they have a question about this. Knowing their location we can save time (and the OP's embarrassment) by not assuming automatically that he knows the basics. Thus, making him feel like an idiot and us tearing-our-hair-out trying to suss out why he is asking, in order that we can answer the query the best we can... Even the US and Britain is divide by a common language and so I think, an automatic indication of where the editor resides would save a lot of thinking power. --Aspro (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • How would this be done without revealing the user's IP address? Wikipedia also prides itself on heavily guarding the anonymity of its registered users. By the way, what are immersion heaters and ring circuits? Ivanvector (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Anonymous users already show their IP Address. I'm suggestion that the geographical location of registered user is shown. Anonymity is still ensured.--Aspro (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Anonymity may still be technically ensured, but you'd be peeling back a rather large layer of protection with this proposal. Tarc (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Explain?--Aspro (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Tarc. Now, come on tell me.. – what “rather large layer of protection” has Ivanvector sacrificed by my knowing he is situated in Canada?--Aspro (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Because it is quite frankly really none of your business where I am logged in from, nor for any other registered user; that's for them to self-identify if they choose to. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I use my real name, and anyone who has a few minutes can find my address (in Southern California). If someone who knows me fairly well saw that I was suddenly posting from Texas, they could easily conclude that I have been called in to fix problems on a certain engineering project I did there a few years back and let that fact slip online. My customer in Texas might not like that being public knowledge. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: As to what is a ring circuit? You have provided a good example to my point. Knowing that you are both west & east of the world border. I can point out that your electrical distribution board probably has split phase to power your lighting etc., but full phase to your immersion heater off a spur. In other counties this heater may be on a ring circuit with no split phase. See what I mean! Knowing the editors location makes answering questions both on the Ref Desks and talk pages so much easier.--Aspro (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Coming back to Wikipedia:Systemic_bias. Jimmy Wales's vision was to spread knowledge. To US reader, there are about 250 million English speakers on the north american continent (some 20% less, it is reckoned, if one subtracts the Hispanics and other non English speakers) . There are over another 300 million people that use English outside of the US. And WP is the first port of call for many because it is so comprehensive. We need a link or way to realize instantly, that whilst the editor may be able to communicate in English – s/he may be living in a non US World and things that are common and every-day to us may not be to them.--Aspro (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
This is not a change that can be made per the privacy policy. --Izno (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Izno. See: The Wikimedia Foundation already does geolocation, for the following reasons: What do you mean you “infer my geographical location”? And why do you need to do that?. Most people are proud of where they live – OK there may be a few neurotics, paranoids and people that fit into neither category, that want to keep a low profile. Editors creating a new account would only have to opt-in to identify approximately where on this huge planet they are situated in-order-that-we-can-work-together-more-efficiently. I don't see the problem. --Aspro (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
See, here's the thing; you've identified a problem (possible language/locale barriers to getting to the heart of a question right away) but have settled for a solution (let us know where everyone's from) that would have far-reaching effects on every user of the project, not just the ones you're trying to reach. Have you considered other ideas, such as asking for locale/language information first? Tarc (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree, smells too much like "Big Brother" Mlpearc (open channel) 19:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Can't recall the actual statistics but most contributions to WP percentage-wise are from the US. Are you Tarc suggesting that we keep asking each and every time “are you from mainland US, Alaska, or Hawaii? State laws for instance, differ from place to place and so a simple question may require all this dialog that you seem happy we should endure for the sake of not having a simple approximate location identifier. What about editors from the rest of the world. Are we just playing lip-service to Wikipedia:Systemic bias? Where 'is' Big Brother in all this. Click on [20] do you recognize the location as being similar to your own? Is that Big Brother? I do not see the problem to something that most I think would be of benefit to the WP project and that would not sacrifice privacy as the WM Foundation see it.--Aspro (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be Question #1, but if you sense there's an issue, then it should be asked pretty soon in the process, sure. And that "geoiplookup" info should never be publicly displayed. Ever. If this would be opt-in, you're still going to have the same problem with users who opt-out, so what are you really solving? Tarc (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
So if I read this right you are wanting to do this to help newbie editors but this would not be on by default, anyone who wanted to use it would have to opt-in. How many newbie editors will know to opt-in on their preferences? This really would only be useful to newbie editors if it was turned on by default and editors could opt-out. I do not see how that will ever gain consensus. -- GB fan 20:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hey. When we instal an operating system we give our geographics so that the system can automatically do things like provide the right keyboard-layout and time zones and things. Many a newbie creating a new account on WP would see the sense in this and we can leave it up to their choice. Given an average cohort it is to be expected that some may wish not to public declare their location – and that is their right. I'm pointing out that the majority will probably see the sense that we can work together better, if we can instantly see that the poster is perhaps needing a little more help and guidance than our next-door neighbor. You seem to be judging this from your own auto-centric view point, without regard to difficulties that others may face. Goes back Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Are you for systemic bias or against it?--Aspro (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Taking this from another angle: there are many cases where this being available would seriously hinder productivity. If you've ever had the misfortune to wade into the disputes in any of our Eastern Europe articles, you'll see groups of editors lashing out at each other over assumed regional biases, even where none actually exist, and it is unfortunately not uncommon at all for a new editor wishing to contribute in that area to be faced with attacks from entrenched editors over nothing more than where they happen to live. I was once told very frankly by a well-known editor that I could not comment objectively on a contribution's neutrality because of my "Western bias". Of course I've been around a while and I assume that the editor meant something constructive (and probably did have a point) despite their attack, and I voluntarily posted my location so I can't really get mad about it if people make assumptions about my biases based on where I live. But a new user facing that sort of hostility for no other reason than that we know their location isn't going to stick around here very long. Also, it shouldn't need to be said, but there are serious real-world threats we can expose editors to by obliging them to reveal their real-world location.
I appreciate the spirit of your proposal to try to address systemic bias, but this isn't the way to do it. Ivanvector (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't buy the argument that this has anything to do with systematic bias, and I don't really appreciate Aspro "Are you for systemic bias or against it?". I'm not in favour of systematic bias, and I'm not in favour of this proposal. ffs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

  • This has to be the singularly worst idea I have ever heard. Where you are, who you are, what you do for a job, what religion you are, what your middle name is, or what you like on your pizza has no bearing on how you are judged at Wikipedia, nor should it. You should treat other Wikipedians with dignity and decency regardless of where they are from, and there is no way that knowing a person's location should have any bearing on your decision on how to deal with them. For that reason, you should not know that for registered users. Anonymity is one of the rights of registered users, and this is a cornerstone principle of Wikipedia. Who you are doesn't matter, it only matters what you do at Wikipedia, and we should in no way institutionalize a means to prejudice people against other users by their geolocation. Hell no. --Jayron32 00:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I vehemently disagree with Jayron, I have heard at least a few dozen ideas worse than this one. An editor can always volunteer his location on his user page or when he posts or when he is asked. One is actually warned when editing without being signed in that the IP will be revealed, and registering is suggested as a means of protecting one's privacy.
Yours, from the Kerguelen Archipelago, Elvis Presley 01:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no need for automatic Geolocating. If someone asks a question at a Ref Desk, and the answer to her question depends on where in the world she lives... you can always reply: "The answer to your question will depend on where in the world you live. If you are willing to share that information with us, we can give you a better answer." Then it is that editor's choice as to whether she shares her location or not. Simple, and respectful. Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hell no! I've answered some of the sort of questions described here, and not answered some others due to lack of location information, but that is a very small thing. A very big thing would be when the government of some authoritarian state like Singapore can look at the geolocate data for all the contributors to an article and focus all their effort on outing and punishing just the few under their jurisdiction rather than suffering the uncertainty that they are chasing down their expatriates in the U.S., or even just random foreigners. And the situation would be even worse if geolocating reveals an editor to be at a specific company, allowing someone who ordinarily would not go on a global hunt for random detractors to specifically try to get subpoena information for that one user. If you did this you'd be opening up a candy store and Wikipedia editors at the defendant's table would be the candy. Wnt (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE - Where I am at any given time is no one's business here. If someone chooses to make known some information about where they live, they can do that. I admit to being an American living in America. Any further details are my business only. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:42, 31 March 2015 (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.

Proposal for new redirect tagging template {{R with history}}

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requested_templates#.7B.7BR_with_history.7D.7D. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Author (BLP) uses pen name to not be harassed is now being outed with "real name"

Argument has been wikilawyered to death (see her Talk page), we need a policy change. Acharya S uses a pen name so that she won't be harassed (like Gamergate). She is also known as D.M. Murdock, not by her "real name". Her preference has been stated on her forum and she has submitted requests to Wikimedia (OTRS ticket 2010010110011483) to stop using her "real name," which she denies is her real name. The source editors use for her "real name" uses it only because he is (in Acharya S's words) a "libeler" and is "full of bile". There is absolutely no reason to use her "real name". It's really unplesent having to deal with this and I'm sure Acharya S is not happy either. Today I was called a "personal crucader" for reverting The Name at another article (dif). Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a pretty good reason to use D. M. Murdock as well as Acharya S - namely that she uses both herself in her publications and website[21]. Reliable sources also connect the names. She clearly goes by both names by the internet and cannot expect wikipedia to use only one of them. Our policies cannot protect names that are already in the public knowledge and used in reliable sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
There's no objection to using D.M. Murdock it's (Redacted) that is not approved. Ian.thomson (below) is an involved editor. The "consensus" he talks about is essentially mob rule and wikilawyering. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I've made no edits to the article or even the article's talk page. I have commented on two of the RSN and BLPN discussions as an uninvolved editor. You just didn't like what I concluded, and it looks like that was because it didn't fit your apparent mission. There's a difference between wikilawyering and editing within the site's policies and guidelines. You have provided no evidence that guidelines or polices were misinterpreted to push a particular goal. If anything, your reference to WP:OUTING could be construed as wikilawyering. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
You have been involved with The Name here. As for wikilawyering: if you don't like the laws (or WP policies) change them . . . that's what I'm attempting to do. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The post you tried to link to still concerns the Christ Myth Theory article and how it handles academia's dismissal of Murdock's ideas. At no point did I comment on the name.
There's a difference between changing unjust laws and forum shopping to game the system at the behest of off-site collaborators. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll also note that you failed to notify anyone who actually was involved in the article of this discussion. I'll go and make my first post to the article's talk page to notify them. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The consensus on the talk page, at RSN, at BLPN (and not just that time) is that it's fine to include her name because it is included documented in RSs. This WP:FORUMSHOPPING and your overreliance on Murdock's blogs and forums do tend to support the idea that you're on a crusade to make the article fit Murdock's off-site demands for the article, instead of policy or consensus based concerns. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
As far as a whole policy goes, if we have the real name, we should include it. Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge, full names included. However, there are exceptions to all rules (Ignore all rules?), and I think if the subject of an article wishes for something to be changed based off of harassment, rather than something criticising them but is well-sourced, then I think after a request to the Wikimedia foundation, that change, whatever it might be, should be changed. People have a right to privacy, it's a human right. She didn't sign that right away when she became a public figure by writing. No policy here needs to be made, it should be on a case by case basis. SamWilson989 (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
While there is a right to privacy, this isn't like publishing her home address or anything. The name is documented in reliable sources, and removing the name from our article and (if it were possible) all our mirrors would not really hide the information at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Although completely true, as now her name is on the internet, it will never leave, that isn't the issue here. She has explicitly asked her name not to be included on this website (doesn't matter about the rest of the internet) and so I believe quite firmly that she has the right to privacy and so we on this website should do what we can, adhering to the policies of BLP, and not include it on the article. It doesn't matter if the wikipedia mirrors show it, that's not what she's asked, she's asked it not be included here. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not see how someone who is actively promoting her books and ideas through podcasts and websites is attempting to stay private on the web. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's the point here, she's asked for her name not to be included. She doesn't include that name in her books, podcasts or website, so yes she's not a private person but to her, her name is. I cannot say I understand it myself, I'm just trying to interpret what I see into how this could possibly become something that needs to have a policy made about it, as that is the purpose of this discussion. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Just because something is suggested here doesn't mean a policy has to result from it, however. It could be dismissed as a continued WP:GAME by a tendentious editor who has repeatedly ignored clear consensus because it goes against her personal crusade.
The earlier comparison to Gamergate is flawed: the Gamergaters were spreading libel and real personal information (like home addresses), while this is just a first name that's documented in a variety of sources. The namedrop of Gamergate borders on a Reductio ad hitleram. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that just because something is suggested here it has to be implemneted, it's simply a discussion to see whether there should be a policy, or not. Sorry if I came across otherwise. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
A better example may be the Charlie Hebdo shooting, protecting Acharya S from religious fanatics. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
So anyone who supports including the article is like a murderous terrorist? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if it's published, then we have no prohibition on including it. In fact it's very important that we don't allow such a request, because this project is supposed to adhere to neutral point of view and allowing individuals control over their own information here specifically violates that. If there was a reason to believe that this information represents some sort of real, serious threat to this person then I suppose we'd have cause to deal with it. But we are not the publisher of this information, we are just repeating reliable sources.

That being said, it seems in this case that the source is obviously not reliable. The source is a person making it their mission to discredit this author, and is thus not independent and not reliable. Particularly because the author insists that the information is not true, and because we don't have a better source, we should not be including this. The lede of WP:BLP says "be very firm about the use of high-quality sources", and "contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis in original). Without a better, properly reliable source, this should be removed. Ivanvector (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that requests to exclude information should only be accepted if there is a threat of harassment or other issues surrounding that. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The source is on a mission to discredit the author according to the author. According to everyone else (including the RSN on it), the source is a reliable source that's on the broader topic of the Christ myth theory, which happens to address some of Murdock's ideas. Are we only allowed to cite sources that agree with Murdock now? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Ian makes an interesting point here. This could be seen, perhaps not unreasonably, at this point, to be an attempt at WP:GAME. Does BLP really apply selectively only to those works which the author him or herself has officially publicly discussed, or are they able to attempt to avoid negative discussion of their possibly less popular or supported works if they refuse to publicly acknowledge that they are the authors? Honestly, I cannot see that particular scenario having a "yes, they can do that" outcome, but it is possible, perhaps, that some other details are involved here. I haven't seen them though. John Carter (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
My point of view on this is that the dispute between the author (the subject) and the author of the source makes the source unreliable for this purpose, and the fact that there doesn't seem to be another source backing up the real name means that the sourcing is inadequate for the BLP policy. Of course the subject of a BLP does not get to cherrypick preferable sources, but if the information is reliable then there should be other sources available. If not, there's no harm to Wikipedia by not including it. Ivanvector (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Acharya S does not publish under the name "Dorothy". Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, she is quoted on the blog, "I have been advised by LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES not to disclose ANY personal information, because I was the victim of VIOLENT CRIME that included the felonious abduction of my small child. So, any and all attempts at publicizing what is believed to be my real name will be construed as a form of TERRORISM and BULLYING." Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
She's not disclosing her name, secondary sources are. It's terrible that her child was abducted, but:
  • she provided no evidence that the violent crime was connected to her name being public knowledge
  • the name has been public knowledge for some time
  • WP:SELFPUB does not allow us to use self-published statements for self-serving claims (as this fear-mongering is)
  • repeating this public knowledge is no more terrorism than mentioning that Charlie Hebdo published cartoons antagonizing Muslims (drastically less so)
  • it's a bit of a slippery slope to say that imply repeating her publicly known name would lead to more crimes
  • if it's not her name (as she indirectly claims), and she is being threatened, she should by all means encourage the mistake to misdirect people
Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that that evidence for the connecoitn between the name and the crime could be reasonably expected, nor that it is relevant. What is relevant to her is obviously that her online persona cannot be easily connected to her private identity. I think it makes sense to respect that under a "do no harm" provision. There is no weighty reason that I can see for including the name, but there is weighty reasons to exclude it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
There are ten non-primary sources on this page that mention the name Dorothy. It is effectively public knowledge. Wikipedia repeating that public knowledge doesn't "expose" her further, her name is already not hidden. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What policies could be easily changed

(edit conflict)* WP:BLPNAME: When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. It has been argued that she is not a "private individual" but everything else fits perfectly.

  • WP:BLPPRIVACY: With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. The Name has NOT been widely published and the one source is contemptuous.
  • WP:Self Identification is kind of a stretch but the spirit and intent is good: Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people says "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment", and on 9 April 2009 the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution urging that special attention be paid to neutrality, verifiability and human dignity. (The rest has to do with gender identity.)AzureCitizen argues this policy on Acharya S's talk page here. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
That last one is just an essay. It's not a policy that can be changed as it's not a policy to begin with. The only policy that is being discussed here and can be discussed is WP:BLP in general. Therefore only the first two links you gave should be discussed here. SamWilson989 (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, the Manual of Style states at MOS:IDENTITY that "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by Wikipedia content policies, such as those on verifiability, and neutral point of view (and article titles when the term appears in the title of an article). When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, Wikipedia should use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources; if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses." Therefore, we should be using reliable sources to decide which name to use in every case. It seems that there is clear policy here, and this isn't up for debate. On that case in question, there weren't reliable sources, so we used the term the person uses, as the policy states. There should be no policy change. SamWilson989 (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Why change Wikipedia policy when we can simply state that Acharya S' name is Dorothy M. Murdock as references by Maurice Casey ([22]) and numerous others; [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and [31]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed... Wikipedia should not "out" a person's real name... but if multiple reliable sources already report the person's name, then we are not "outing" the person by noting it ourselves. It's already "out". No need to change any policies. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Disagree: the basic human Right to privacy trumps all this. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it does in all cases, but in this case it does since there is no overwhelming necessity to include the full name - which is not the name she is known under and it is not widely published, and which could conceivably bring her in danger.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Not here to Right Great Wrongs. The only salient question is whether "Dorothy" is widely published. If so, use it; if not, don't. Rhoark (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Righting great wrongs and trying not to commit any are two different things.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
That's not many citations for someone's name! How many of those references were even cited? Maybe they got The Name from Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Ten sources aren't a lot? There are stable articles with fewer distinct sources than that! Also, your suggestion that any of them got the name from us is just grasping at straws unless you can provide evidence that the name was in the article before all of those sources were written. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Under WP:BLPNAME, "private individual" refers to someone who is not a "public official." (We could define what is meant.) Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
It is defined. It says "notable public figure," not "official" (which carries inaccurate implications incorrectly more specific than "figure"). If we try to read it as "official," that means that we'll have to rename some of our articles on actors to "that person who played (character name) in (movie name)." "Notable" is already defined elsewhere. WP:BLPNAME also says that if an individual's name is already covered in multiple secondary sources (especially outside of news sources), then it's fine to include. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
So, are we changing policy to fit the desire of Acharya S? Or, is there a need to change a policy that doesn't work? Ism schism (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
If it wasn't Acharya S, we wouldn't have this problem, it wouldn't be an issue. I question why some people insist on putting The Name in the article knowing that Acharya S doesn't like it. Why do you use a fake name? Wikipedia has a policy about WP:Self Identification and Wikipedia respects that. What's so hard about respecting a person's name?! The current policy isn't working because for the past five years some people insist on including The Name to the article. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
By some people you mean the many editors who have weighed in at RfC and multiple noticeboards and gained consensus which you disapprove of. WP:FORUMSHOP Capitalismojo (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I was trying to be polite and assume good faith and not accuse someone of bad faith or bullying or harassment or hypocrisy etc. This is someone's name, they don't like it yet some people insist on calling Acharya S by a name she dislikes. It's childlike (name-calling), trolling, malicious behavior. Maurice Casey, one of the sources for The Name is (in the words of Acharya S) "full of bile" and "libelous". Some people dislike Acharya S because she's antichrist or anti-christian.
I know several people who disliked their name and had it changed. If you called them by their former name out of ignorance and they told you their new name and that they didn't like their former name yet you insisted on calling them their former name it's disrespectful. I once tried to nickname my sister "A.J." for her first and middle name, which she hated (she hated her middle name) it was horrible teasing on my part and now that I'm older (more mature) I realize my name-calling behavior was wrong. It's similar to calling someone who dislikes their former gender the opposite pronoun of their gender identity, which Wikipedia respects. Wikipedia should respect the name that someone prefers to use, whether they legally changed it (or underwent sex-change surgery) or not. Raquel Baranow (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but there is a difference between referring to someone by an undesired name, and simply mentioning that name in passing. I am all for respecting the desire of the subject by having the the title of the article be at Acharya S... and in that article, we should routinely refer to her by that pen name (we do this for many authors)... however, that does not mean we should not mention what her real name is. Wikipedia is not Censored. Her real name verifiable information, supported by multiple reliable sources. It's worth at least a parenthetical remark. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Amanda Simpson was born a man, she's from Tucson (my current hometown) she changed her name and I'm sure I could find some reliable sources for her Real Name (it's not on her WP page) or I could go to the courthouse and find her name change or I could look through academic records. Now lets imagine she's a popular Christ myth theorist like Acharya S, someone puts her previous name up on Wikipedia and then spread it all around Christian apologist forums where it is picked up by scholars and published in their books. [This is exactly what happened to Acharya S in 2005 (yes, TEN years ago) and is in violation of several of the policies I mentioned below (especially, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops). So Amanda Simpson is (rightly) protected on Wikipedia and Acharya S is not? Censor this?! Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The reason Amanda Simpson's pre-transition name is not mentioned is because it doesn't appear in non-primary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that, I'll bet if I looked through the references in the WP article on Ms Simpson I could find mention of her birth name. Maybe even mention on a talk show or something. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Leelah Alcorn, Marja-Sisko Aalto, Barbra Amesbury, Nikki Araguz, Victoria Arellano, Nina Arsenault, April Ashley. That's just the "A's" in Category:Transgender and transsexual women. Their birth names are covered in secondary sources, and so are included in the articles (often in the first line). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I was right, one of the refs on Ms Simpson's WP page did have her former name. I can also see in the article history that her birth name was added by an IP and was removed. A Google search of "Amanda Simpson" and her birth name turned up >500 sources -- one of the top sources was a right-wing muck-raking website. Maybe we should have a policy about adding transsexual (or is the proper word, transgendered) individual's birth names. I would suggest that if they are not noted by their former name (such as is the case for Acharya S's alleged birth name), it should be left out of the articles. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope... We shouldn't expose ("out") a transexual's birth name, but we can (and should) mention what the person's birth name was, when reliable secondary sources have already mentioned it. The same is true for authors who go by a pen name. We shouldn't try to dig up their real name (for one thing, doing so would be a violation of WP:No original research)... but if reliable secondary sources have already revealed the author's real name, then we can and should mention what it is. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Why "should"? And what when that "should" is in conflict with another "should" namely that we should seek to cause no harm. Which "should" is weightier? And why? It seems to me that the only ethically viable argument is that the potential benefit of including the name is greater than the potential risk of doing so. I just don't actually see the potential benefit of including it. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
To answer my own point, WP:Gender identity, Common name can apply here too: When a subject changes names for any reason (even one unrelated to gender), Wikipedia rarely hesitates to make the change promptly if it is clear the new name will be the common name of the person going forward in time . . . . However, the old name should be kept as a re-direct if it is still a well-known name likely to be searched for by people unaware of the name change. In this case, the "old name" (i.e., the birth name) was never used professionally and is not likely to be searched. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Raquel Baranow do you understand the different between an article WP:TITLE and an article WP:LEAD?
If you understand the difference then to which does WP:FULLNAME apply? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that WP:RS had been rewritten to say that Google search results trump published books, because Ism schism has cited plenty of those.
Some people don't care what Murdock's views are, they're just opposed to the off-site collaboration to promote those views.
As for self-identification, we mention the birth name in those cases. Our article on Chelsea Manning says that she was born Bradley, and even has a pre-transition picture as the infobox picture. By that standard, it's totally fine to name the article Acharya S, refer to her as that or D.M. Murdoch throughout, but still list the name Dorothy Murdoch in the beginning. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
But wherein exactly lies the necessity to provide this piece of rather insignificant information the widespread publication of which may contribute to put the subject of the biography at risk of physical harm?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
By that argument, we should retitle the Selena Gomez article "the actress who played Alex Russo in Wizards of Waverly Place". If they are already at risk, they are already at risk, and Wikipedia is not demonstrably contributing further risk. The information is already public knowledge (ten sources is public knowledge). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Has Selena Gomez requested that her name not be used or stopped using it herself in response to her stalker case? I find your argumentation to be quite ethically shaky, and not really in line with our BLP policy in general. We do have a responsibility that our articles do not harm the people we write about, and taking into consideration subjects' statements and wishes is part of meeting that responsibility.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Maunus sorry, where do you get the impression that there is a stalker involved? I gained the impression last year that the issue was the critical reliable sources giving bio data on Acharya/Murdock's claims to have some scholarly background, wheras it appears a summer school in Greece is the only connection with the classical world?
Also all the books of Stellar Publishing are retailed as by D. M. Murdock so WP:FULLNAME is only supplying D[orothy], which is not revealing the name only repeating published academic sources for the full forname. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:NICKNAME also covers pen names and mainly has to do with naming the article: The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title, even if it is not their "real" name.... If people published under one or more pen names and/or their own name, the best known of these names is chosen. Could maybe be changed to omit real name under certain circumstances or after "article title" add: "and throughout the article". Could also add: "Pen names are often used for privacy reasons so if the "real" name is not widely used, be careful not to 'out' someone." Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I repeat... we are not "outing" anyone... Acharya S's real name has already been "outed". There are multiple highly reliable sources that mention her real name. Also: We are not talking about re-naming an article... the article title should remain at Acharya S. No all this angst is over including (at most) one small sentence mentioning her real name in passing (and perhaps not even that... it could be done as a parenthetical).
  • no change to policy needed. no indication there is any actual issue. no indication that changing policies to please one individual would not create more problems than it "fixes". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • A clarification for "courtesy" BLP issues might be in order. For example, we don't usually (NB usually ≠ always) include the birth names of transgendered people who have changed their names socially, even if those names are easily available on the internet. This courtesy does not depend upon the legal status of the trans person's name. We also don't usually include the full names of Indian people, because it's normal in that culture to write "A.B. Kumar" rather than "Ajay Kumar", although the subject of a biography might have the full name given. It might be appropriate to explain which classes of people are protected under our idea of courtesy (legal names of trans people) and which ones aren't (crime victims, if this discussion is actually representative of the actual community POV). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion: Jimmy Wales and Wikimedia on privacy in the New York Times

A few days ago, Jimbo and Lila Tretikov from the Wikimedia Foundation wrote an Op-Ed on privacy in the New York Times (over 400 comments) regarding a lawsuit they joined against the National Security Agency. In the essay they emphasise the importance of privacy to facilitate the free exchange of ideas, they call it "an essential right" protected by the Fourth Amendment: "It empowers us to read, write and communicate in confidence, without fear of persecution." They conclude, "knowledge flourishes where privacy is protected."

This is a no-brainer and essentially my conclusion (in regards to Acharya S) too. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It is however taken out of context and really has no relation to this issue at all.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Maunus. If you want to invoke a "Jimbo says" defense, try asking Jimbo for his views about this specific issue... but please don't take something he said about a completely unrelated issue and quote it out of context. Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Follow policy, follow sources - enough of this per "Of course the subject of a BLP does not get to cherrypick preferable sources, but if the information is reliable then there should be other sources available. If not, there's no harm to Wikipedia by not including it." per User:Ivanvector is correct, so since there are multiple sources then they should be included. It is possible that these multiple reliable sources will have a detrimental effect on the bio subject's credibility and income stream but otherwise can have no serious negative effect. ·maunus and Blueboar there are 2 RFCs open on the Talk:Acharya S page. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I think there is sufficient doubt about the number of reliable sources and the potential harm that in this case we ought to err on the side of caution, and not on the side of slavishly following some literalist interpretation of policy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
You inserted your comment above mine but I tend to agree. There's an apparent (or claimed by the subject) risk of harm, and having this information in the article doesn't really add anything that is vitally important to the topic. We should err on the side of privacy. But again, this doesn't require any changes to our policies. Ivanvector (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
What I said is absolutely correct: we do not cherrypick sources, and subjects of articles are not entitled to dictate what reliably-sourced information may or may not be included. However I have to say that this particular issue feels very icky, like a focused and sustained campaign of harassment directed against this author for her particular fringey views has found its way into Wikipedia, and I don't feel good about that at all. Although I don't think that any changes to our policies are advisable to accommodate this particular case, I'd be interested to hear what Jimbo has to say about it. And I'd be interested in hearing what Arbcom has to say about it, should it end up there. Ivanvector (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Ivanvector It's clear that the author wishes to present both (a) WP:FULLNAME and (b) WP:RS like a focused and sustained campaign of "harassment" (the author's charge) directed against the author for her particular fringey views. But we have had other authors who've not wanted reliable sources used in their articles and have lobbied against it. What makes this author exempt from (a) WP:FULLNAME and (b) WP:RS ? Or put the other way round: Why do (a) WP:FULLNAME and (b) WP:RS not apply to this article? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that we should not publish the name of an author if it is not covered in reliable sources. However in this case it appears it is covered in reliable sources. We are not revealing a secret, this is information that is already out there. We should not dismiss the content of reliable sources because the subject wishes to be presented in a certain way. Chillum 17:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Raquel Baranow: I redacted your earlier comment. To be clear for later readers, the argument appears to be that "D. M. Murdock" is also a pen name. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

These refs associate the titles with the name forms: [32], [33], [34]. If she has an outing issue, it would seem to be with the publisher of her Croatian edition or the library who catalogued it. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to be more than a little amused here. Is anyone supposing that the people who want to harm her cannot get her identity from non-Wikipedia source like the tens already posted above, all of them, I think found with simple google searches? May be we can also propose that we should exclude her real name because her enemies are indefinitely blocked from accessing those other sources, and virtual agents are following them in tandem with real life agents. The whole thing is a crooked United Nations conspiracy led by the Bishop of Outer Mongolia, because of the ancient cult of Gutentberg has an agenda to uphold the exclusivity of Encyclopedists. Dan Brown anyone? Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's really a question of hiding information. I think it's a question about whether our values include Wikipedia:Don't be evil or not. If we have information of marginal interest or relevance, and we know that our inclusion of that information upsets an innocent BLP, then do we want to insist that it be included, or do we want to show some human compassion?
Put yourself in her shoes: Imagine that you had a young child, and that child was being harassed or even kidnapped because of your writing. The police told you to be careful about what was posted online. Some Wikipedian kept adding information that the police told you not to post online because "we (almost) always add this". Would you say, "Oh, those silly boys over at Wikipedia! I guess it's really harmless for one of the biggest websites in the world to post the information that the police said not to post online. It's only used as a reference for names, locations, and other basic facts by nearly every journalist who will write about my books—what harm could possibly result?" Or do you think that this situation might make you sad and afraid? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
How are you suggesting we hide information that is easily found on the web? After all, it's the many reliable sources, found through searching the web and reading credible reliable scholarship, that inform us of Dorothy's name. There is nothing new being done with this. It's no secret, it's a well known and well documented fact. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
To me, even if it is easily found on the web, that is not a reason to include something a person finds harmful here on Wikipedia - with the possible exception of information that is centrally important to the article and also minimally hurtful. Here, it seems more like the birth name is tangentially relevant and an especially sensitive subject. I mean, nobody thinks the real name is a secret, the question is: should we widely publicize in a BLP something the BLP finds potentially harmful? I feel that including any information here increases its visibility, since we're such a popular website, and it seems to sort of ignore reality to pretend otherwise. If it was essential information it would be different, but this really isn't. To me at least. AgnosticAphid talk 04:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
We've been having a more clear-cut, yet still unresolved issue at 2012 Delhi gang rape, with some editors vehemently insisting that despite much of the world's media naming the victim, that a set of inconsistent statements by the father means that he might not want his dead daughter named, therefore Wikipedia must be nice and not provide the information. Maybe we need some sort of template to post to articles:
This Wikipedia biography is meant to include only such information as our volunteer (and occasionally paid) PR flacks think would be nice to include about the subject. We do not go the extra mile to include information, which is fundamentally useless for a reader who isn't even willing to pay for an article to have access to. To obtain facts that you think are "edgy", you need to be willing to pay royalties to a for-profit corporation, such as a newspaper, which has an income stream to pay for the liability insurance, risk of other legal action, and necessary lobbying activities to maintain the legality of their content. To indiscriminately offer to a low class the sort of information which properly is held by subscription to an elevated class of reader is the height of social and moral irresponsibility.

I mean after all, that's what Wikipedia seems to believe nowadays. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your sarcastic and simplistic comment doesn't grapple with the fact that sometimes the informative value of including some particular piece of personally identifying information in a BLP-ish article is swamped by the real or perceived harm that publishing that information would cause. Clearly there needs to be some kind of balancing between informational value and perceived harm, but it is really extreme and, to me, morally unpalatable to insist that we should always re-publish information about BLPs regardless of how trivial the information is or how legitimate the BLP's concerns are. AgnosticAphid talk 23:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Encourage use of "watcher" in place of "stalker" on talk pages

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 debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

Allow editors to choose for themselves for template usage, No consensus concerning editorial changes to watcher. Most of the comments concerned templates. And several noted that the term "stalker" was in general deprecated years ago. With that in mind, no prejudice against an WP:RM concerning renaming Wikipedia:Talk page stalker to Talk page watcher, WikiJaguar, or whatever else the community may decide. Further editing of the page should wait until after such an RM helps decide the "direction" of the page. (The goal being to avoid needless edit-warring.) Note that an XfD would of course also be an option. - jc37 05:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This idea stems from a discussion at the harassment policy regarding the possibly offensive use of "stalk", "stalking", "stalker" when talking about people on Wikipedia. It was decided several years ago to mark the WP:STALK shortcut historical due to the potential for offending users, and since the change there has been a note there advising editors that it should not be used.

Many of you who have edited user talk pages in the past have seen the {{talk page stalker}} template used as a neutral indicator that a comment is not from the owner of the talk page but from someone else who watches the page. The template links to Wikipedia:Talk page stalker which explains the template's use, and there are several related templates and userboxes floating around the project for this purpose. Recently, User:NeilN created a new template {{talk page watcher}} to allow the use of a similar template without needing to use the terminology that some users find offensive (and others have stated they find confusing). That template has been nominated for deletiondiscussion and that seems to be resulting in a snowball keep, with several commenters saying they prefer the new template over the old. That indicates to me that there is consensus to adopt this change (stalker -> watcher) across the project, and I would like to test that here.

I propose that in the project-side context of an editor who participates in discussions on other users' talk pages ([formerly] a "talk page stalker"), "watcher" should replace or be preferred to "stalker" in any place it occurs on the project.

This proposal includes:

This proposal does not include changes to the existing {{talk page stalker}} template such as changing its wording or redirecting it to the new template - it is transcluded nearly 10,000 times and changes to it will break things. Some users will want to continue using those templates or won't know about this change - they should be discouraged but not forcibly prevented from using it.

Cheerfully submitted; Ivanvector (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • (watching) Support - NQ (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Providing that both terms can be used at editors discretion, as appears to be the case. However see my comment downthread suggesting Talk Page Helper Irondome (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Seems perfectly sensible. Sam Walton (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is like trying to rename notability again. I don't see why we should get rid of this terminology, provided that a less potentially-offensive template is available for situations (newbies or otherwise) where it would be inappropriate - it was for this reason I !voted keep at the TfD. It's only a humour page, and changing this would detract from that. BethNaught (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment It was my understanding of the above that the essay (which is great) will still stand? After it does say "sometimes termed "watcher".." in the essay. Im hoping that can be left untouched, maybe a few tweaks to the banner headline? My vote depends on this and the level of "encouragement" to switch. I hope this is not PC related stuff.. Irondome (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I dont have a problem with an alternate template if users want to use it, but it should point to Wikipedia:Talk page stalker rather than creating a parallel universe. The TPS page makes it clear about the use of the term and I see no reason to make any changes. MilborneOne (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    User:MilborneOne, the proposal would be to rename talk page stalker to talk page watcher. There would be no parallel universe, just the same one with a slightly different name. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Happy to for watcher template to link to stalker but I dont see any reason to rename anything. MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ehhhhh... - Stalking is bad (m'kay?), but each way of fixing this I can see leaves something broken. The "other related changes that may be required" would have also been better left implied under WP:COMMONSENSE, since having it explicitly stated could be misconstrued as a borderline carte blanche. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Allow me to explicitly state here that carte blanche was and is not my intent. I simply thought I would probably miss something if I tried to list every change that would be necessary. Of course common sense is implied. Sorry for the confusion. Ivanvector (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support {{talk page stalker}} can be misleading and confusing. Users could misinterpret that as offensive. Sam.gov (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia cant please everyone, "watcher" is too broad in meaning. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding the essay (replying to several comments above): to be clear, the intent is to keep but modify Wikipedia:Talk page stalker by seriously downplaying the use of "talk page stalker" on that page, but not removing it completely because people are obviously used to it, and hopefully not changing the meaning of the essay. The idea is not to cluebat users into enforcing the change; regarding the "level of encouragement", the idea is limited to creating a sort of "new normal" by making changes to the essay. To that end I've created a draft of what it could look like; please have a look at User:Ivanvector/Talk page watcher. I think I've done a decent job of downplaying "stalker" while maintaining the jaguar analogy, and I think this fits in better with the theme of our other "wikifauna" pages (like WP:WikiGryphon, WP:WikiOgre, WP:WikiGnome, etc).

    As for redirecting {{talk page watcher}}, if no changes are made to the essay then redirecting there defeats the purpose of eliminating the reference to "stalking" in the template. If there is no consensus to modify the essay, I would prefer if the watcher template redirected somewhere else, like Help:Watching pages, or a new essay for this purpose.

    And regarding political correctness, yes this is a form of that. There are users here (new and established) who have experienced criminal stalking online and in real life, and who find the idea of people "stalking" their user spaces hostile and intimidating. We should be sensitive to that, and it's not difficult for us to be sensitive to that by making this change. There are other users who simply find "talk page stalking" confusing, and this also helps that. Ivanvector (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • As I recall, the "TPW" template was actually created at either my request, or the request of Durova; while she and I disagreed on many things, we both agreed that the "stalker" terminology was inappropriate, intimidating, and a few other descriptors that I'll leave out. Stalking is a serious thing, and concerns about personal safety and internet stalking have often been cited as reasons that women or people with a personal history of being stalked do not participate on Wikipedia. The use of the term "talk page stalker" is just one more example of the systemic biases found on this project. Risker (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    But one can choose to be a stalker if one wishes, is that correct? Irondome (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Irondome, I don't know if you intended it that way, but that has to be one of the creepiest things anyone has ever said to me on Wikipedia. Why in heaven's name would I wish to be a stalker? I've just finished saying that stalking is a serious and potentially frightening thing. Risker (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    I meant the traditional usage of the term as is used on WP, obviously. Irondome (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you for proving my point. It's incredibly creepy to suggest to someone who points out the offensiveness of the term "stalker" that they could be a stalker if they wanted. Risker (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    I have proved nothing. I merely wished clarification that if some users wish to use the old WP terminology, they would be allowed to. I am beginning to be irritated by your usage of the term "creepy". This dialogue appears to be saying more about your mindset than mine, which is merely in the spirit of inquiry. Let us get this straight at this point so we can have a constructive discourse. Regards Irondome (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    That isn't what you asked, Irondome; you personalized the question to me. There are neutral third-person pronouns that are standard usage for questions that are not intended for a specific individual. As to language, it evolves. This project long ago deprecated the term "wikistalking" because of the very negative connotations attached to the term "stalking". Terms to describe black people that were commonly used and accepted for generations today would practically brand the speaker/writer as a racist. I think we should all be getting past that. Sorry you don't like the word creepy; I'm using fairly mild descriptors here, but if you'd like we could try "threatening" or "menacing" or "sinister". Risker (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    No I did not. This may be a transatlantic language issue. "You" in UK English often means "one", as in "so you can use an Oystercard at weekends" (forgive the inane example). It was not aimed at you specifically. Please grasp that.Irondome (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Irondome and Risker: I am not proposing changing the {{talk page stalker}} template. It is used frequently and has been used many times in the past; removing it or changing its wording would be needlessly disruptive and could make many old conversations lose their meanings. I would support eventually marking it historical along the lines of WP:STALK in the spirit of this proposal (but never deleting it), but I think that is very unlikely to gain consensus at this time, and should be a future discussion. So yes, you would be allowed to use it. Ivanvector (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
That's how I interpreted your proposal, Ivanvector; while I believe the usage should be deprecated, I don't think it is necessary to go through and eradicate the historic uses any more than we eradicated the use of the term 'wikistalker' those many years ago. The continued use of such templates and terminology will become progressively less socially acceptable, as is the norm for archaic language. Risker (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Risker: The TPW template was actually created by me a couple days ago based on Template_talk:Talk_page_stalker. I don't think there's any community consensus to stop using TPS entirely but if there was, it should be fairly easy to get a bot to subst all the occurrences of tps (keeping the original wording) and then deactivating the template. --NeilN talk to me 18:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN:, this "Talk Page Watcher" template has been on my talk page since 2008. Risker (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I thought you were referring to the {{tpw}} template. --NeilN talk to me 19:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree with Risker that "stalker" is likely to be needlessly inflammatory to a non-trivial subset of our readers / editors. In the real world, stalking is no joke, and we don't need to trivialize the real world problem by using the same terminology in a benign context. I fully support efforts to deemphasize the term "stalker" and emphasize other terminology such as "talk page watcher". If individuals want to continue to refer to "stalkers" / "stalking", then that is on them, but in terms of the community's documentation and recommended templates, we can strive to be more inclusive. Dragons flight (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Do we have direct evidence that there is a direct correlation between the use of the term "stalking" on WP and editor recruitment and/or retention? Irondome (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Most users of reasonable intelligence should be able to see the joke in the old template. We should remove every bit of humour on this site just because some hypothetical person might misconstrue this VERY common use of the term (how often do people talk about FB stalking?). We can't and shouldn't try to please everyone and we can't help it if some people are so literal and thin-skinned they'll get offended. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 7 Adar 5775 03:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Umm. When people talk about Facebook stalking, they usually mean it in a very creepy way as in "I was Facebook stalking my ex-girlfriend" or "My ex-boyfriend has been stalking me all over Facebook". It may have been a joking term at one point, but the world has long since moved on and recognized the problems with internet stalking behaviour. Risker (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Never heard it like that amongst New York, DC, or London, 20-somethings or teens. They always use it in the joking sense (which alway sounds weird to me and I never say it, but I understand what they're referring to). They talk about actual stalkers in a much different manner and unfortunately, many people I know have actual stalkers. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 7 Adar 5775 15:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    What you say is true, Risker, but in the context of Wikipedia we have different terms, wikihounding, harassment and others, for that meaning. A "talk page stalker" isn't generally a stalker, and Wikipedians are aware of that. But this is why I support using either template, because of differing situations eg with newbies. BethNaught (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    BethNaught, the deprecation of the term "wikistalking" took place in 2007-08, specifically because it was a serious misuse of the term 'stalking'. One of the responses was for people who just really enjoy thumbing their noses at others to create the "talk page stalker" meme. It had little traction at first, but then people who didn't realise the history of having worked hard to normalize the definition of stalking on Wikipedia started seeing those cute little templates and thinking they were cool. And now Wikipedia has once again decontextualized a term that, to anyone outside of our little project, is pretty scary stuff. Stalking is not a good thing, and the same people who seem to proudly go around saying they're talk page stalkers would never want to associate themselves with other negative statements...for example, rapists, murderers, spousal abusers, revenge porn publishers... Risker (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support only the original proposal. Oppose any PC-deletion of {{talk page stalker}}. Briefly checking "What links here" for the template, it seems to be used most often between experienced editors, where such a misunderstanding about its intended meaning is very unlikely and the humour aspect should be clear enough. GermanJoe (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in the name of clear communication, of saying what we mean using existing English. Users should not be required to learn alternate definitions of emotionally loaded words to function in this environment. Besides, the use of "stalker" to mean something innocuous makes light of a very serious issue. Some subjects are not suitable for wordplay. (I'm generally opposed to PC, but for me that doesn't mean a black-and-white rejection of all sensitivity to the effect of words. That's the proper domain of stand-up comics, not Wikipedia.) As for precisely what I'm supporting, my preference would be complete elimination, but I support any step in that direction. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The lede of our own article on Stalking says: "Stalking is unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them. The word stalking is used, with some differing meanings, in psychology and psychiatry and also in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense." If someone were to tell you in any other fora, "I'm stalking you", or were to tell another person that they were stalking you, this would be considered threatening and would be grounds to go to court and get a restraining order. If someone were to post on your Wikipedia talk page (either to you or in response to another editor there) that they were stalking you, you could go straight to court with a printout of the page and say, "see, your Honor, they admit to stalking me right there". We should avoid pushing our editors to use terminology that could potentially put them in legal jeopardy. bd2412 T 18:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sure there is some MeatballWiki explanation for this phenomena, but it seems that as Wikipedia grows it is losing its sense of humor in an attempt to please everyone (which is difficult given the realistic interpretation of that statement). Which makes sense, but is disappointing all the same. I'd oppose this change, but I fear that it will ultimately, whether in this instance or another, be changed. To be clear, if you are the victim of honest and genuine stalking, please contact the authorities. If you are the recipient of a TPS template on your talk page, please do not contact the authorities. Killiondude (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - To say that one is "stalking" another is an overtly hostile description of an activity, one that does not really convey the benign sense of what "your page happens to be on my watchlist, so I'm commenting here" is meant by the use of this template. Tarc (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This comes across as a Liberal guilt kind of change. Users self-brand themselves as talk page stalkers, and the connotation being imposed on the term here simply does not apply. Keep both templates and allow users to choose what they will. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
This proposal is actually for keeping both templates, so users will still be able to choose either one as they wish. Ivanvector (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Partly because the previous oppose makes no sense, but really because naming it 'talk page watcher' is perfectly fine, as that's what it is about and the rest of the opposition seems to be based on the poor reasoning, 'we have to do it this way because, we have done it this way' Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Supposed to neutral aren't? Well "watcher" is quite plainly more neutral than "stalker". Leaky Caldron 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support My impression is that someone would describe him/herself as a "talk page stalker" to acknowledge the discomfort in a situation where a message would likely begin, "I hope you don't mind that I've been reading your talk page for some time now, but..." And when Wikipedia was a smaller place -- or at least hadn't suffered the chronic turnover it appears to experience in recent years -- & volunteers knew each other well enough to sense when someone might be joking, calling oneself a "talk page stalker" didn't have such a negative implication. (Sheesh, from a few threads I've read recently, there might be seriously creepy people amongst the established editors, & using the word "stalking" might be more accurate than some people may suspect.) Although I'm supporting the deprecation of the phrase "talk page stalker", I do so reluctantly because I'd prefer to not acknowledge that Wikipedia has changed in this way. -- llywrch (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    A good point. If we use "stalker" for this purpose, what word would we use for the real thing? And how confusing would that be? And it's true that madness exists in the world, even (especially?) here at good ole Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    What should we call the real thing? A wikicreep. But then some would complain that is being insulting & uncivil, even if it is the truth. -- llywrch (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    I would complain that it would contain no information content beyond a very loaded social statement. See "clear communication, of saying what we mean using existing English", above. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose plain and simple WP:BIKESHEDing and a rose by any other name is still a rose. We're talking about people who stalk talk pages, not people who stalk users which should be directly reported via WP:911. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note that users are confused by the terminology regardless of the debate over the appropriateness of the word stalker: here and here for example. Sam Walton (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support People can say "talk page stalker" all they want—no human rights are being infringed by this proposal. It's great that so many people have not been touched by stalking in real life, and so have no idea how creepy the term has become in the last decade, but the fact is that stalking really is a problem. I would favor deleting the pointless {{tps}} and {{tpw}} templates because they do nothing except add confusion for new users (who are the only people who need to see what the templates display). A newbie posts on someone's talk, and the response starts with gobbledygook with a link that has nothing to do with what is on the newbie's mind—how is that helpful? However, if the templates are used, "watcher" is the preferred term because it has no RL baggage, and correlates nicely with the "watch" link at the top of every page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I would therefore propose the term Talk Page Helper. Watcher is "creepy" too. very Orwellian. It has connotations of mass-survelliance which are every bit as disturbing in the post-wikileaks era as stalker. I think helper is friendly, neutral, unambiguous and would cover all the above issues. We can create a suitable image for "helper" and it can add its place in the wikifauna. I would suggest a cartoon-like angelic figure. Something along those lines. Thoughts? Irondome (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Although {{tps}} fits my sense of humor, it's not a bad change, considering the millions of eyes viewing the project, it's not a stretch of the imagination that it could be frequently miss-interpreted. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - If it were "watcher" now and we had an RfC to change it to "stalker", there would be 200 opposes. So, my twisted logic says support. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as inconsequential. No need to make changes that have no functional effect. --Jayron32 02:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Aside from what Jayron says (with which I agree), you have the issue of watchlists: some people frequently participate at pages not on their watchlists (I often participate at WP:AN, but there isn't a single projectspace page on my watchlist, and I'm a frequent contributor at some users' talk pages, but aside from my own, I don't watch any userspace pages), and some people rarely or never participate at pages that are on their watchlists. If we want to be "encouraging a less ambiguous usage", we should use a term that isn't commonly used here already. If you want to rename the concept, use "lurker" or some form of it. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support deprecation of tps, but I like Nyttend's "lurker" suggestion better than "watcher". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    I fear that "lurker" carries much of the same connotation as "stalker". What about Irondome's suggestion of "helper" as an alternative? Personally I prefer "watcher" because it ties in with existing wiki functionality (watchlists) as Johnuniq pointed out. Also, one can interject a one-off comment on a talk page they stumble across without it being on their watchlist. I often do. Ivanvector (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    Someone interjecting a one-off comment on a talk page they stumble across could hardly be described as a "stalker" or a "watcher"; more like an accidental tourist. bd2412 T 16:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    Talk page tourist could be a possibility. Perhaps we could create a "WikiTourist" WikiFauna essay. Ivanvector (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • suggest T P Follower Leaky Caldron 16:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Follower is good. A la FB. Follower or helper both have more positive vibes. Irondome (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, though I prefer "follower" to "watcher". It would be good to avoid negativity and confusion that can result from using "stalker", even though most of the time it's fine in its context. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    I've just noticed Nyttend's suggestion of "lurker", and I like that better than "follower", as it keeps the original humorous intent. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This goes to the core of the issue however. It seems clear that "lurker" is hardly less acceptable in some quarters as "stalker". One person's perceived harmless terminology is another person's poison. This has been made amply clear upthread. I believe we should be now concentrating on finding other terms which are acceptable to all. I still have issues with watcher, even though it dovetails into watchlist, etc. It is an increasingly interesting dialogue. I still support the continued usage of the now (apparently) deprecated terms until they fall into obsolesence, where peer-pressure will create evolutionary change. The question is, should it be follower, helper, or some other new proposal yet to be made. Irondome (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Based on how this discussion is going, maybe there's a case to be made for changing our own terminology as well. Not for this discussion, but maybe it would be worth talking about whether we want to change "watchers" and "watching pages" into "followers" and "following pages". The meaning of "following" in this context is very thoroughly ingrained in popular culture these days; it would be very unlikely to be misinterpreted. Just something to think about.
For the purpose of this discussion, I still prefer "watcher" to the other suggestions, if only because "watching" has a well-established meaning within Wikipedia. I also like "follower" for the reason I stated above - it's easily recognizable, even though we haven't typically used it here. I feel that we would have work to do to establish this usage for "helper" and "lurker", and "stalker" has been specifically rejected elsewhere, which is what this proposal is about. Ivanvector (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Opposed -- What exactly are you trying to fix? What some people think is an offensive word? That's not reason enough to change things, if that's all you're proposing. Damotclese (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict × 2) Yes, and "don't offend users" is a fine rationale for such a change. This proposal is an extension of having already made this exact change in the harassment policy, and has been done before at WP:VANITY for the conflict of interest guideline. Even so, I am not proposing eliminating the word "stalker" everywhere on Wikipedia; there is more detail about this in my "regarding the essay" comment above. Ivanvector (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Your question has already been answered, and the answer is not "what some people think is an offensive word". ―Mandruss ☎ 16:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
      • But it is "what some people think is an offensive word" and it is just an attempt to WP:CENSOR Wikipedia. Lurker, Watcher, and Follower are all just as offensive and "bad" as Stalker. The only one that isn't is "helper" and it's not accurate for what is happening. You could also suggest Liker (in the spirit of FaceBook), but I don't think that is really any better either. It's not broken, let's leave it as is. You want to use one of those other words, fine, you use the other word. You don't like a word used on your talk page, then put a note in your editnotice asking people to not use it because it makes you uncomfortable. I don't see anyone here in good faith that would object to that. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
        • There are no laws against lurking, watching, or following (except when put into very specific contexts not implied by the words alone), and no lives have been seriously damaged by any of those things. The word doesn't make me uncomfortable, and this is not about me or any one person in any case. You have completely missed the point of my argument and that of others. I'll say it for the third time, "clear communication, of saying what we mean using existing English". Stalking is not what we are describing and therefore it should not be the word we use. Would you defend a tongue-in-cheek use of "rapist" at Wikipedia? I'm certain many here would, since any restraint whatsoever in language is seen by them to be "censorship". No doubt they see a slippery slope that does not exist, omg if we do this what will be next?? The best alternative is a different question, and I don't have a strong opinion about that; most of the alternatives put forth would be a major improvement. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: this is becoming ridiculous. I have pages I watch, lurk, observe, stumble across. Most I can comment on without being an intruder. So many words tossed about to keep from using what is a perfectly good term. (accidental tourist, intruder, lurker, peeper, observer, off-side comment). Please just let us use the talk page stalker template or not at will. I can decide just fine. Fylbecatulous talk 17:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Stalker is needlessly scary. Change to follower would be better. This template is a perfect example of why there are so few female wikipedians. (And yes I realize that there is probably one woman out there who will now post and say "but I'm female and I think its funny!", this doesn't make it ok.) WP should be neutral and welcoming.pschemp | talk 12:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - needless to say, (perhaps), {{tps}} pages should not be deleted, but merely redirected to the better title.--John Cline (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per BD2412. -sche (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - There's no harm in changing it. Saying it's BIKESHEDing or too minor is just dismissing the issue. If it's so minor, then changing it to accommodate others shouldn't bother anyone either. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pointless, but whatever. This reminds me of a small(?) black rights group many years ago that demanded computer manufacturers change the terminology around "master" and "slave" drives because it offended them. Then, as now, the problem is not the terminology but the fact that people deliberately choose to assume the worst. The word is innocuous. People are dumb. Resolute 20:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a bit of light wiki-humour, no need to take it so seriously. I find it quite funny and will continue to use it. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the deletion or renaming, as appropriate, of all templates and pages that refer to it as "stalker". Certainly saying that you're stalking someone has a pointlessly chilling effect. --B (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have been stalked, and although I don't panic or get particularly stressed when I read the word it is occasionally a slightly unpleasant reminder. That said, it's a legitimate word in the English language, and has broader meanings. It might be politer to avoid its usage in the case of stalking humans (as opposed to stalking deer). RomanSpa (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The proposed change has no effect that is necessary for the continuance of the function provided by this terminology, and hence should be opposed as frivolous. Frivolity should be discouraged, and hence I must put my boot down on this misguided proposal. As it happens, it is natural that words have multiple meanings, and that in the course of human discourse new meanings are applied to old words. Let nature take its course. There is no room for prescriptivism. The terminology was envisioned as "stalker", and that should remain. RGloucester — ☎ 22:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"The terminology was envisioned as stalker" (envisioned terminology? and so what?). It's rather prescriptivist to follow your "envisionings" apparently. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Your claim is directly and clearly contradicted by the content of stalker, watcher, follower, lurker, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary tells a different story. wikt:watch says "The act of guarding and observing someone". wikt:lurk says "To remain concealed in order to ambush". wikt:follow says " To go after; to pursue". Any of these terms could be easily construed in the wrong way. KonveyorBelt 17:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I would disagree with the notion that Wiktionary, or any dictionary, compares with an encyclopedia when it comes to defining connotations of words. And I'm not aware of any anti-watching or anti-lurking laws, are you? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, largely because Mandruss nailed it, especially Users should not be required to learn alternate definitions of emotionally loaded words to function in this environment. APerson (talk!) 13:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support What we mean when we use the terms in a neutral or positive sense is indeed what is commonly called "watching". I don't think "Lurking is as good a choice, at is has negative connotations also , e.g. "robbers lurking waiting for a victim" DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per Mandruss (above). I have no especial love for the PC crowd, so any term that isn't a felony would be fine with me. Primergrey (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Mandruss. The word "watcher" strikes me as the clearest option that has been proposed, but "follower" and possibly "lurker" would also work. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Meh unnecessary policy creep - we really don't need a policy on this. — xaosflux Talk 04:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We're all adults here, and if we are so humor-impaired that we fail to see the humor involved in the "talk page stalker" template, and fail to see the difference between that and actual stalking/harassment, then perhaps we shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I personally think that being "humor impaired", in this instance, indicates an inability to identify a situation where being hilarious might be creating a divisive environment. Primergrey (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
There is somewhat of a difference between surveillance and pursuit, and I think that the latter is implied by "stalker". I've stated my opinion about the other suggestions elsewhere in this thread (still slightly prefer "watcher" for purely technical reasons) but really as long as we're making an effort to reduce the use of "stalker" here then I'm happy. I'm also from Toronto, but I haven't had any reason to think that the encouragement of more neutral language is a particularly Toronto-centric idea. Ivanvector (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
My experience is that more good things come out of Toronto than from across the border. Here's another possibility: User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle the black banner across the top of the page. Before the lightbulb goes out I'm listing some alternatives in a way that will make it easy for editors to make their preferences known and easier for whoever closes this discussion.
  • Support, as per numerous others, but notably User:Mr. Stradivarius. When I first encountered the essay, I have to admit that the terminology, even if slightly humourous, was a bit off-putting. My preference is "follower", but "watcher", and to a lesser extent, "lurker", is fine too. Apologies for putting my comment here, but the introduction of the "voting on terms" list by the IP user 87.81.147.76 broke the flow of the discussion a bit. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support from someone accused of being a stalker (all the way to arbcom) when in fact I was a insignificant observer/ watcher. If someone 'feels' watched, they sometimes feel 'stalked' and the situation escalates rapidly. Let us start down a notch by watching and it will take a little more effort to accuse some of stalking and then harrassing and then blocking and then banning.....   Bfpage |leave a message  22:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Meh. I respect the goals of this proposal, and have commented elsewhere about the gender-gap topic, but this strikes me as misdirected effort. It's pointing at a molehill and worrying about what an off-puttingly daunting mountain it must be to newbies, while surrounded by actual mountains. I suppose I'm mostly posting to object to the Disney-perky "helper" as a replacement. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Dont do disney or perky. Except if they are nipples of the female persuasion. Its either helper or stalker. Im as disney as jack the ripper. Irondome (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
What are Disney nipples? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
A sort of pinkish brown. Merry Melodies nipples are more purple. I hope that clears up that very subtle query. Irondome (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support -- I think this proposal is sensible and the opposing votes aren't very persuasive – to me, they are essentially saying 'man up, nobody means to be hurtful!', but really there is no reason at all to use a term that could be interpreted in a hurtful manner. I do think 'helper' is better, but I support watcher as well. AgnosticAphid talk 04:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page aficionado :My choice. It imports the concept of enjoyment rather than surveillance. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC) See my comment below.

Talk page follower

Talk page helper

  • Support The best of the lot. Totally descriptive. Implies a friendly and proactive co-editor who is willing to help out on issues. Does exactly what it says on the tin, or can. Further, has no connotations of observation in any form. That is obviously a given. Irondome (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page liker

Talk page lurker

Talk page observer

Talk page prowler

Talk page stalker

Talk page tourist

Talk page voyeur

Talk page watcher

  • I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a vote on a long list of alternatives, but maybe this is a good way to summarize the discussion, and in that spirit Maunus I've moved your comment/proposal down; feel free to move it back of course. I'll reiterate here that the spirit of this proposal is to reduce the usage of "stalker" in this context, thus it is the only option I oppose. I somewhat prefer "watcher" because this terminology is established in our site jargon and there are already templates available for use. I'm neutral on all of the other fine suggestions. Ivanvector (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand the problem. It's only when it relates to a person that "stalker" is offensive. I still oppose the move. Can we not make everybody happy by introducing a generic template, {{talk page|}} where the editor fills in the preferred term after the pipe? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I suppose you could, but that is not this proposal. The rationale is not exactly that people are offended by being called "talk page stalkers", I don't think that's an issue. The issue is that stalking is a real-life crime, and people who have been victims of it are uncomfortable with the idea of having people "stalking" them on this site. No matter how much we say here that it's just a joke, or intended to be humorous, or no big deal, it is a very big deal to some people, and having this entrenched in our site jargon has a chilling effect on people who might otherwise contribute. We can pretty easily solve this problem with very minimal disruption (possibly none at all) by modifying our language, and so we should, in the spirit of being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The proposal at hand is simply that we should not use "stalker" in this sense, at all, with the caveat that we can't eliminate it completely but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make an effort in that direction. As for what we should use instead, it doesn't really matter. I suggested "watcher" because it already has a meaning here, and many other editors have made fine suggestions, any of which support the spirit of the proposal. Ivanvector (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that you and NeilN are overthinking this. All the hurt I've seen relates to the description "wikistalking" and similar. Can you provide an actual example of an editor complaining about a picture of a big cat and accompanying stalking reference? I mean, plenty of women go on safari and I can't see any of them getting upset about the hunters talking about stalking the big game. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hunting animals, hunting people. Yes, that's completely the same. --NeilN talk to me 19:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have actually been stalked and don't oppose this because the term is obviously ironic and metaphorical. "Watcher" sounds like some sort of official title. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose there's little difference in my mind from a stalker or a watcher. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Both are equally sinister (if taken out of context) or fine (if taken in context). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I certainly have no objection to anyone's individual efforts to change the typical nomenclature in this area (provided that their insistence does not cross the line into trying to make this a mandatory approach), but I very much doubt that a major organized effort would confer any substantial benefit to the project (relative to the amount of work that would have to go into promoting the shift). My personal observations suggest that most everyone seems to understand that "talk page stalker" is used in a whimsical fashion; if anything it contains a kind of self-deprecating reference to the fact that someone is responding to a comment that was clearly addressed to someone else on that party's "turf", as it were. It seems well suited to that role, but any number of the suggestions above work just as well; of the alternatives suggested, I am partial to "voyeur" as it best seems to fit the context in which the current term is usually utilized. Snow let's rap 04:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal for a large-scale merge and splits in ARBPIA area

I made a proposal to refactor many (at least tens of) articles dealing with timeline of Israel-Palestine conflict. I would like as many people as possible to comment to be sure that there is no major objection. “WarKosign” 14:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality in articles

We should aim to use neutral words in articles way WP:NPOV. It's important to state no one's opinion at all but rather the true facts backed up with sources. So, for example words such as 'good', 'excellent', 'wonderful' should be avoided but also negative terms like 'bad', 'horrible', 'annoying' are also should best avoided.

In example: Mosquitoes are considered an annoyance to many. This is an opinion, so it should be replaced by something like, Mosquitoes are (length) long and weigh (weight) and lay eggs. Any questions? Antiv31 discuss 00:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

We already have this enshrined in policy. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch which covers exactly this, as well as all sorts of other words we try not to use. --Jayron32 01:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Those words are fine so long as they are attributed to the person/organization who said them rather than treated as facts. The following is a bad sentence: "The game is bad". The following is a good sentence: "Editor of Rolling Stone said the game was bad". --Izno (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
It is interesting to me that you would pick the mosquito as an example of how not to use negative adjectives. Some researchers claim that the mosquito is responsible for the majority of infectious disease related deaths on the planet. It would be hard to put a positive spin on that.
  Bfpage |leave a message  15:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Promotional username policy

After it was pointed out by HJ Mitchell in the question section of Jakec's RfA, the general practice at the UUA is to mark promotional account who haven't edited and/or haven't edited in a promotional manner with Wait until the user edits. and deny the report. However, this is not in line with the policy at WP:ISU which doesn't give any sort of provision for if an account hasn't edited or edited pages directly related to their name. If you go to the UUA this is extremely apparent, and I belive either the policy should be corrected or administrators should act in line with the policy. Therefore I propose that the first bullet point of the policy be amended to read "Usernames that are simply names of companies or groups are not permitted if the editor's edits are promotional in nature." -Kharkiv07Talk 13:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The practice evidently varies because I'll block shared use usernames on sight regardless of whether they've edited. If the aim is to disallow edits which can't be attributed to a single person then I don't see why I'd wait for them to edit and then block. I disagree with the proposed changes too, if the username is that of a company or group it doesn't matter whether their edits are strictly promotional or not, shared accounts simply aren't allowed. Sam Walton (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm with Sam Walton, the proposed change muddies the policy by creating an "out" for non-promotional shared accounts, and that is contrary to the policy. I see no reason if an account obviously implies shared use that we would wait for the group to edit. Admins should enforce the policy as written. Ivanvector (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

At WP:CORPNAME there's a provision that says "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked.", is that not the opposite of WP:ISU? It says and, implying that that's required. Kharkiv07Talk 16:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not at odds with WP:ISU, though, and I thought that's what you were asking about. An account with a promotional name might turn out to be unrelated and contribute constructively, so admins need to evaluate the user's edits before determining that it's a promotional account. For an obviously shared account, there's no reason to wait - shared accounts are simply not allowed, promotional or not. Ivanvector (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I also commonly block shared/promotional account names with no edits or with edits related to their organization. The only time I may grant a little leeway (in the form of a warning to rename within 48hrs or face a block) is if the user has made explicitly positive contributions and retention becomes more important than strict rule application. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If a username is not editing promotionally, there is no way to know the intent of the user. Also, inactive accounts are not blocked by matter of course. This is all spelled out in WP:BLOCK, which states "Blocks should be used to...prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia" (bold mine) an account which has not edited, or which is not being used anymore (recently) is neither imminent nor continuing. Also, if it hasn't done anything we don't know if it is disrupting Wikipedia. We should only block to stop accounts which we have evidence is currently disrupting Wikipedia, not by what they did some time ago and stopped doing, and not by what we guess they might do. --Jayron32 00:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Case : "A" using promotional name on en.wp, and he spam/promoting on other wikis, he don't get blocked on en.wp because he never made spam/promo edit on en.wp but his account got locked by m:Stewards for spamming, This idea is so useless, there are also other wikis that Instantly blocked any user with Company name attached to their account. User account name should be handled on case by case basis.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 10:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Some editors in this discussion appear to be conflating promotional and shared accounts, but they are different (if partially overlapping) concepts. WP:ISU says that "usernames that imply the likelihood of shared use are not permitted". WP:ISU itself doesn't explicitly say that these accounts with forbidden usernames should be blocked, but the blocking policy states: "Some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely", and the bullets listing these types of account include shared accounts and "inappropriate usernames" (linked to the username policy). So I think that HJ Mitchell's statement is contrary to policy as currently written (although my main objection at the RFA was to Harry's answering a question addressed to the candidate). --Stfg (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • From my experience, accounts with promotional usernames are single purpose accounts interested in writing only one article - their own. If their company's article doesn't survive CSD A7 or G11 (and they generally don't), any block of the account is generally superfluous. On the rare occasion they do, such as User talk:Kenny Crookston, I feel a more compassionate approach is better. In that case, the editor got himself renamed and unblocked, all was well, but equally he could have said "screw this for a game of soldiers" and left. Sure, if somebody is adding blatant spam repeatedly, or is not obviously one person, or doesn't respond to polite requests to rename their account, then block them, but give people a chance first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If I'm reading the OP correctly, there seems to be some confusion of the fact there is a difference at the base level between what is a promotional username and what is a implied shared use. WP:CORPNAME says that a promotional username like Bob@DunkinDonuts is allowed since it doesn't imply shared use. I repeat, those promotional usernames ARE allowed per policy unless the user only edits to put up an advertisement about their local branch of Dunkin' Donuts. WP:ISU says that usernames that are just the name of a company or organization are generally not allowed unless they fall under the WP:ISU#Exceptions. While blocking clearly ISU usernames after checking for exceptions may be fine in most cases, please do realize you are accountable for your actions and blocking such a username that was grandfathered may result in unnecessary drama. I didn't read any of the other replies because I'm in a hurry, and apologize if I am repeating what someone else may have said. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I havn't read everything either but, Technical 13 comment is spot on. AlcoaUSA is promotional and implies shared use, so is ResearcheratAlcoaUSA "as such a post may be held by different persons at different times" while MarkatAlcoaUSA is perfectly acceptable, as the account is clearly owned by Mark (an individual). IMHO a Upol who has not edited should be blocked regardless, because at that point it does not matter how the account edits the name is still a upol. Encouraging the user to change their name is always the best way to go, blocking the upol account is a good way to help them decide if they're WP:NOTHERE Mlpearc (open channel) 18:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • We should always consider promotional usernames in light of the idea that the person may have been or may someday be fired and may use the freedom of expression I would like all editors to enjoy to say things that might embarrass the company. When we look at a name like "MarkatAlcoaUSA" (I use this as a general example; I know of no such person or issues!), we should think, what will we say if Alcoa comes to us complaining that he said in a discussion that "personally, I think Hitler had the right idea..." or that he's on Commons posting behind-the-scenes educational images of a porn movie studio. I mean, we want editors to have a neutral point of view, which means they have to be able to have a neutral point of view, which means, if we would be at all vulnerable to giving in over claims that Mark is "demeaning Alcoa's trademark" or "misrepresenting the company" when he is being provocative, then he must not be allowed to edit with that username even if he is presently only ever saying things with a more conventional slant. Now I think we might do that with MarkatAlcoaUSA, saying that it's not our problem if one of their ex-employees decides to be embarrassing to them, but I have some doubts. Definitely it seems unlikely with "AlcoaUSA" or something more generic that we'd feel comfortable leaving the account to continue with that name, so we shouldn't let it start. In general companies should understand that by not letting an individual get his own password and right to represent the company however he wishes, we are doing the companies a favor, even if we seem to be standing in their way. Wnt (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The question confuses "promotional" with "shared use", and thus cannot be answered. However, I add this case to consider: Someone creates User:Andes Development Company. It makes no edits. How do you know that this is one of the many businesses with that name rather than an obscure reference to science fiction? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This policy has never made any sense to me. If a user's name is "YOU-SHOULD-BUY-FROM-MICROSOFT-RIGHT-NOW", then yes, block them as an obviously disruptive account. Or if they are obviously impersonating the company or they are seeking to advertise their company by posting about completely unrelated things just to get their name out there, then block them. But if the user name is simply the company name or is WidgetsIncMarketing and they create an article Widgets, Inc., then they are politely advising us that it is a COI account and we need to pay close attention to their edits. I would much prefer that they do that than make up an account whose COI is less obvious. --B (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Improve automated reduction of images

We use a bot to automatically downsize images. A bot decides what size an image will be, and in most cases there is no way of reverting it by users. I opened up a discussion at WT:BRFA but none of the users who approved the bot have responded.

There is very little oversight, and it means that free use images such as File:Slacker-logo-black-official-2015.png get reduced to an arbitrary 100,000 pixel guideline (which isn't even close to being policy). Read and comment on the proposals here. - hahnchen 23:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not hugely thrilled with the bot doing that. Though others will disagree, I think there are some cases, where having the larger image available for zooming is potentially a good thing. For example, if there is a software screenshot that someone created on their 1080p monitor and the bot reduces it to 300 pixels wide, that renders it completely pointless. I think that photos, album covers, and movie posters are pretty non-controversial for downsizing. But the rest of it? Not so much.
Resizing logos, on the other hand, is an absolutely ridiculous endeavor. I challenge anyone who disagrees to ask yourself WHY we downsize fair use images. Think about it for a minute. There are at least three reasons: (1) We don't want to replace the copyright holder's use for the image. When Warner Brothers puts a high-resolution movie poster on their website, they do so in order to attract visitors to their website. (I think that would be obvious.) So when we host the high-res version here, you no longer have to visit the movie website to download it and so we're replacing the copyright holder's purpose for their image. (2) We are building a free-content encyclopedia and don't want to be your go-to repository for non-free content. We want to wow you with our free content photos and how amazing they are, not with our photos we're using under a claim of fair use. (3) US law says that a consideration for determining fair use is "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" and so we're trying to use a lesser version of the copyrighted work.
None of those three reasons for reducing image sizes are at all applicable to logos. Resizing a logo is simply a pointless waste of time. --B (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. Per WP:LOGOS, Logos uploaded to Wikipedia must be low-resolution and no larger than necessary. There is no reason to have high-resolution logos on Wikipedia, certainly not in the case linked above. Relentlessly (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
What is the reason the guideline says that? It says it because it's parroting the fair use policy. While you are correct that there is no reason to have high-resolution logos on Wikipedia, there is also no reason not to. It neither helps nor hurts, either in terms of fair use law or in terms of our desire to minimize non-free content. IDEALLY, we would create SVG images from all of them (SVG images are vector-based and have no resolution). That allows the logo to be perfectly rendered at whatever size it needs to be for the article. --B (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The reason to use low resolution images is to keep our use of logos as far from the line as defined by US fair use law, which as one test is the amount of copyright-taking the unlicensed use has. The lower the resolution, the less copyright taking we do. Further, the far majority of logo use on WP is just to tie the visual look of the logo to the name the logo represents, with zero discussion about the visual aspects of the logo. It is there for identification, and nothing more. This can be done with a low-resolution image (eg no wider than 300px). --MASEM (t) 17:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly how does using a low-res version of a logo keep us far from the line of what is valid fair use under US law? Unlike a picture, where you derive entertainment/enjoyment/whatever from looking at the picture, and hosting a low-res version is less likely to compete with the copyright holder, that's not a thing for logos. And blindly resizing logos can have scaling problems where it winds up distorting the logo or hiding important visual elements. If we have a 1000px logo that is being displayed at 225px and the bot decides to resize it to 300px, then that can create display issues. (It's not great for a photo either, but it's potentially worse for logos.) Again, the ideal scenario is we have an svg and then all of the concerns go away. --B (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair Use law in the US is a defense, not an affirmation of allowance of use, that is based on evaluating the unlicensed use by 4 different tests. How well all four tests overall are met is used in case law to determine if copyright infringement did occur. So, for us, we want to make sure that we keep well inside the general bounds set by these tests. One of those tests is how much of the work that we are using. If the original image is a very high resolution raster image, then rote duplciation of that image on WP could potentially be a problem legally for us as we are taking the entire image at full resolution. A low resolution version of the same image makes the fair use defense much stronger. And no, we make no distinction between logos and, say, movie posters, because the law doesn't make this distinction either. It's a copyrighted image, so we'll use low resolution raster images for all purposes, with some limited exceptions when high fidelity is needed in conjunction with sourced discussion. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
"And no, we make no distinction between logos and, say, movie posters, because the law doesn't make this distinction either." Actually it does. Factor #2 is "The nature of the copyrighted work". So while obviously copyright law does not spell out specifics, this does at least tell us that there would be different rules for different kinds of copyrighted works. Factor #4 is "The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work". Since the kind of logos we're talking about (organizational logos) have no market value (in the same way that a photo potentially has a market value), there is an obvious distinction between what might count as fair use for a photo vs what might count as fair use for a logo. Fair use of a high-resolution photo (or movie poster, etc) has the potential do damage the market value. That just isn't a thing for logos. Bot-resizing of raster logos is simply a solution that solves no problem and has the potential (even if only in very few cases) to make an image display poorly. --B (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yet, if visual elements of the logo are not the subject of discussion, there is absolutely no reason to use a 1000px version when a 300px version (which is the largest that will be displayed inline in nearly all cases) will serve the exact same purpose - simply to help connect the visual logo to the entity to the reader. So it makes no sense to change the rules for logos and create a way for people to game the system for other works. (For example, I can easily see people arguing things like video game covers should be treated as logos to ask for larger images). We are not here to offer pretty , non-free pictures, unless they are absolutely necessary to discuss in conjunction with the text. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Let's be clear what I am talking about. I am only talking about automated bot resizing of PNG organizational trademark logos. None of these concerns are applicable if you have any kind of scanned image. I don't think that a 1000px should be preferred over the 300px - rather that it doesn't matter. What does matter is that you only want to resize things at most once. If we have a company logo and we're going to display it in exactly one article at 240px and an svg is unavailable to us, then we should take the camera ready logo from the company's website, resize it to 240px, and upload it at 240px. That's fine. But what isn't fine is when we take a 1200px image, resize it to 1000px, a bot drops it to 300px, and then we're really using it at 240px. So it's getting resized three times and losing detail potentially each time. --B (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Because of how thumbs works, and the rather strong insistance that we don't format to pixels but to the page to allow users and device to set the image size, we are always going to have the "last step" resize that we cannot avoid, and may introduce some raster reduction artifacts. The issue is when people do upload an image at 1000px or 1200px which needs not be anywhere close to that size for WP's purpose. That needs to be resized to ~300px to meet policy and the expected use. If the bot reduces the larger to the small image with poor artifacts we can always reup a version that is manually resized right, but I've yet to see a bot produce a smaller version that has these types of artifacts. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A lot of the discussion above is off topic and to do with general non-free guidelines. The point I'm making, is that there is no oversight of this bot. This bot removes information from Wikipedia, there is no way anyone would allow something to happen like that without oversight had it been text content, but it gets away with it because it's images. The examples here show free use images being irreversibly downgraded, it shows images that are barely resized at all, a process that does nothing but introduce artifacts. - hahnchen 12:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Again, it's not the bot's fault that editors decide to tag an image at 0.15MP for reduction. That's a problem with editors being far too picky about NFC which does not have those requirements. You should be calling out those editors that are being hard-nosed, though as noted, having a soft level where the bot should not operate even if the non-free reduction tag is present would help to prevent this type of misuse. But it still ends up being a human problem, not a bot problem. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
      • A bot that reinforces and magnifies bad editing is defective by design. You could have a bot that rev-deleted {{citation needed}} content from BLPs, and it would work as designed, but it places too much trust and not enough oversight on editors, and so would be defective. - hahnchen 11:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like somebody's trying to have it both ways. It's perfectly OK for the bot to reduce anything to 0.1 megapixels without human intervention, but it ought to be up to us poor fallible creatures to try to decide when the reduction is actually insignificant? Nonsense. Just program the damn bot not to try to reduce any file that is under 0.2 megapixels. It's not like the number is etched in stone, or in law, somewhere. This would give editors some incentive to hand-reduce the images with more attention to artifacts, in order to get a little extra resolution out of them. Wnt (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I would completely support a limit like that. The old DASHBot wouldn't resize anything smaller than (I believe) 0.16 megapixels, but the current Theo's Little Bot only uses a 5% threshold, meaning that it would reduce a .105 megapixel image to .1 megapixels, which is not only pointless but severely detrimental to image quality (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot for the relevant discussion). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The point is the bot does not work unless a human tags the image. This is not a fully automated task, and were that the case, I would fully agree that that's a bad thing. But because the bot is responding to the human tagging of an image, it is the human judgement if the image was missized to start with. And that's when you get bad cases - like if a 0.15 mp image is tagged. If the same editor is doing this, that's a behavior problem to be dealt with, not blamed on the editor taking advantage of a pre-approved bot task.
I'm not against a "won't resize" threshold, or some additional parameters that take more human interaction that demonstrate competence in knowing when a resize is necessary/appropriate, but does need to be like 0.15 or 0.2 mp where the bot should not do anything (beyond remove the tag and note it doesn't operate at this level). --MASEM (t) 21:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
To make a less radical change, I'll amend my above threshold to the 0.16 mp status quo ante. If an editor wants an image below that reduced, there is sufficient risk of a bad tradeoff between artifacts introduced vs. resolution reduced that he or she should do it manually. Wnt (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I submitted a pull request to modify Theo's Little Bot at https://github.com/theopolisme/theobot/pull/38, but Theopolisme hasn't been active on Wikipedia since February so I'm not sure if/when there would be any action on this.. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a start. I suggested a slightly different approach here, that it could resize it to a figure greater than 0.1MP (say 0.16MP), and for any further reductions to be done manually. Regardless, if the image is too small to be resized automatically, you'd want the bot to notify the tagger, and either place the image in Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing or remove the tag and notify the tagger to do it instead. You may need to edit Template:Non-free reduce to introduce this functionality. - hahnchen 20:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hahnchen: The bot isn't actually removing the information from Wikipedia. It is resizing the picture and flagging it for an administrator to actually do the removal (in your examples of the Slacker logo, All Men are Mortal cover, and Fantasic Four cover it was Cryptic, and in your Endless Legends example it was Philosopher). --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 16:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
This image is classified as PD-text logo, thus entirely free and public domain.
Here is my issue with this. First I oppose a bot doing this. Second, a large portion of of these "non-free logos" aren't non-free at all. For example, that Slacker logo (File:Slacker-logo-black-official-2015.png), is way under the Threshold of Originality, thus making it public domain, just like the Coca Cola logo I put in somewhere above. In fact, I will probably upload the high res Slacker image to commons soon. A bot can't discern this, and shouldn't be used. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on a new reliable sourcing essay

Motivated by some recurrent questions and misunderstandings at RSN, I've written an essay about reliable sourcing guidelines. The intent is to supplement policy pages (which are very bullet-point oriented) with guidance on identifying which policies are at the crux of an issue in a given case. I could particularly use feedback on two questions:

  • First, is what I've written an accurate reflection of policy? Some of the things I say are, by design, divergent from instances I've seen of policy applied in actual practice; however, they should adhere to policies as written and as applied in best practice.
  • Secondly, is it helpful? The hope is that someone having read it would be less likely to (innocently) engage in policy shopping or forum shopping out of ignorance, and instead cut to the heart of the matter.

Here is the essay. Rhoark (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark: After reading your essay, I think it is an accurate reflection of the policy. I find it helpful because it is very thorough in interpreting the policy. It even gives example of how various mediums are explained in the policy. Hope this helps. Sam.gov (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. I didn't spot anything wrong, and it looks like a valuable alternative to trying to digest the various formal pages. The final section on Editorial Discretion left me feeling a little concerned - not because there was anything exactly wrong with it, but because I imagine it as an inviting place for a problem editor to fly off the rails. Alsee (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
That is a possibility. It's something I felt had to be in the article, having so often seen people trying to use spurious RS arguments to exclude an opposing PoV. It may need a reminder that discretion needs support of consensus. Ultimately, that section will be counterbalanced when I give similar treatment to NPOV and FRINGE. Rhoark (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Subpage for repeated content

What is the current thinking about using "subpages" for repeated article content? To be specific: after noting that all the list articles at Lists of endangered languages use the same list of definitions of the relevant terms, I found Wikipedia:Transclusion#Pages with a common section, which seems to explicitly sanction placing these definitions in a "subpage" and transcluding that page into the relevant list articles. I did this, and then looked around a bit more and found a lot of apparent disagreement about whether such subpages are a good or bad idea. (I couldn't find a relevant passage in the MOS, since searches for "subpage" and "subpages" just turned up dozens of instances referring to subpages of the MOS itself.) Should I be doing this differently? Not at all? Note that the "not at all" option is somewhat problematic, since (1) the definitions are the exact ones used by a specific organization (UNESCO) and thus need to be the same across all relevant articles, and (2) the URL used to cite the definitions needs to be kept up to date on all the articles (it wasn't, resulting in an old URL that didn't actually work — this is one reason I made the changes I did). So, what's the current thinking about this kind of "subpage" usage? If the basic concept is acceptable, but not using "subpage-style" titles, I suppose I could move Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions to UNESCO definitions of language endangerment (or whatever!) to make it more like a legitimate, stand-alone article. (??) - dcljr (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If it remains a subpage, perhaps Endangered language/UNESCO definitions (see Endangered language#Defining and measuring endangerment) is a better location for it? - dcljr (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Subpages aren't actually needed at all, you can make use of WP:ONLYINCLUDE. Place the content you want transcluded between <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags in one article, and then you can transclude that section in another article like a template, but with a colon before the article title (i.e. {{:Article}}). For example, the infobox at Fremantle Prison is in between <onlyinclude> and </onlyinclude>, and History of Fremantle Prison transcludes it using {{:Fremantle Prison}}. - Evad37 [talk] 04:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The fundamental issue is that the content is structured wrong. You shouldn't need to repeat the content (and this is mainspace content, not template-space content) across N number of pages. We're working on the web, where one should hyperlink to a definition or similar. It sounds like your idea to make the definitions their own page may be a good one, but beware WP:N and WP:DICDEF. There may be another page where the definitions are suitable. (Subpages in the mainspace [using a slash] are not permitted per WP:Subpages.)

As for Evad's comment, that is possible, but I find it always to be a bad idea. The practice is unfamiliar to a lot of people, and taking the content up the quality ladder would surely see it removed. But additionally, main space pages should be for content that isn't repeatable across broad swaths of pages. I could probably hunt down a policy/guideline reference which excludes that practice from the mainspace. --Izno (talk)

I don't think it is always a bad idea - in limited circumstances, between a couple of closely related articles, data should be expected to be the same. Typically data presented in boxes/tables already uses transclusion from templates, so the double brace ({{ ... }} notation is already familiar in the "destination" article, and strategically placed hidden editing notes should be used to explain what is happening in each article. I can see no policy-based reason not to use onlyinclude transclusion in such (limited) circumstances, including for FAs and GAs - Evad37 [talk] 08:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. So you're saying there's still a lot of disagreement about this… [wink] I suppose Izno's solution is the "safest" policy-wise, even though it hides the definitions behind a link (which is somewhat inconvenient). I can use the copy of the definitions at Endangered language#Defining and measuring endangerment for this. - dcljr (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:POLEMIC

There is a flaw in point #3 namely when it comes to sock lists:

"Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed."

My Question

What does "imminently used" mean here and how long should sock lists in user-space be allowed to remain on Wikipedia? I want to post this example: User:Montanabw/Duck box that dates back to February 22nd.

What is a sock list?

Sock lists are lists placed in user-pages that link diffs made by editors to potential socks. For example under User:Beenhereforwaytoolong/possible socks there are these type of edits: User:Newuser8776 - <diff here> looks very much like User:Sockme's edit, we all know that User:Sockme used multiple socks and is indef banned so be wary of User:Newuser8776.

Proposal - We should add to the guideline about what to do when it comes down to possible sock lists in people's user-pages. My proposal is to set a time limit on how long content can be stored to use as evidence in an SPI case. Further, I also want to add to the proposal that users MUST be informed if they are placed on any list a user is making about them regarding an SPI. Sock puppet cases are serious, users should have a say if someone is building a case against them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It would seem appropriate to mention the related ANI thread, now closed. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • SPIs are filed when people are abusing multiple accounts, and thus violating Wikipedia policy (usually in nefarious ways). I fail to see what possible good it would do to let abusers know their behavior is being looked at -- that would just intensify their abuse and would subject the person who is taking the time to actually uphold Wikipedia's integrity to abuse, harrassment, and trolling. There is no harm whatsoever to an innocent person if they are being looked at or investigated (heck, all of our edit histories are public so people constantly look at each other's), so there is nothing for anyone abiding by Wikipedia policy to worry about. The only thing an enforced-prior-notification would do would be to protect the wrongdoers and punish the policy-supporters. I fail to see the logic or sense of that. "Sockpuppet investigations are serious". Again, not really seeing your point here. What exactly are you worried about? Someone scrutinizing you for sockpuppetry? If you have no sockpuppets, you have nothing to whatsoever worry about; nor does any other innocent person who may have inadvertently gotten named at SPI. It's a very careful, very controlled process. Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with the above, a list is not an SPI. But I assume the "imminently used" clause is there for a reason, and 50 days does not seem very imminent to me. If this list is considered to be consistent with the spirit of that guideline, perhaps the language could be clarified. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: What are people's thoughts on a template that will make stuff semi-hidden on user sub-pages? Anyone will still be able to view in edit mode, but only the user who's subpage it is will see the text in read mode. This should relieve concerns about indexing and dirty laundry being left in the open. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
That's simply a <!-- comment -->. However if it's not a good idea to do something, I don't believe it becomes a good idea, just because it's done covertly. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't display to the user who's userspace it is in if that was done. It'll be a little more complicated than that, but still fairly simple. The template would be able to automatically add categories, it could also display to only the user and all admins, and there are other things it could do such as add itself to a CSD cat after a certain amount of time or whatever. There is no reason that an editor shouldn't be allowed to concatenate information for a report in their user space if they wish, and I could see it as being useful to have that information kept a little more discrete to prevent possible socks from seeing it and becoming more disruptive. I suppose one of the downsides to the template is that it would create a WLH for the template and all of the transclusions would be a list of possible sock accounts which could be misused unless it was a subst only template. I don't really care either way, just figured I'd offer my services in template building to help with a potentially useful template for this. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
There's no way (short of deletion or RevDel, which would pervent even the userspace owner from seeing it) to have page source hidden from any user; if the sockpupet started to suspect this list exists, there'ss nothing to prevent him/her from looking at it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You aren't understanding what I'm trying to say, but since no-one is asking for I was offering, I guess it is a moot point. If it is desired to be an option, then please ping me back to this discussion, it can be technically accomplished with just a template by any user so only the user can view the content of the page in view mode (like I said, if someone really wanted to dig for it, they could still see it in edit mode, but they would have to know who was assembling the information and where they put it). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The above page in question (one of my subpages) was a collection of diffs and one of the individuals has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:ItsLassieTime (ILT). The ILT account dates back to 2009, popped up again in 2010, 2011 and 2012 before going quiet enough not to attract attention. So in this case, I think that these pages are not only acceptable, but to be allowed with specific guidelines that already exist: primarily a list of links or diffs with minimal commentary. Per a suggestion made at the AfD for the subpage of mine, it was noted that sometimes a search may turn up these subpages, so I think it's a good idea that we recommend adding the NOINDEX parameter to all such pages (I just did so today for the page at issue here.) I would be OK with other protections that allow a user to keep a list on-wiki (it's a lot easier as the links are clickable for later) and perhaps an admonition that such links be URLs and not wikilinks so that the page doesn't pop up on a "what links here" search. Montanabw(talk) 21:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary. The page already states "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." The clarification "diffs" is of course, illustrative and not exhaustive. We're already told that evidence being collected for DR processes, including SPIs or other reports of the kind, are allowed but time limited. Why do we need to repeat ourselves. Does saying it twice make it more true? --Jayron32 23:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose any changes- the last thing we really need is more red tape. Let's be honest, there is always someone keeping an eye on each others contributions and that is good, and healthy, and what the Wiki is built on. So what if we compile an easy list to go to if we suspect, but are not yet sure of something like sockpuppetry. Summary, less rules=better. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem is lately I have been seeing more and more sock lists users have go up for deletion, rather than have this as a reoccurring thing I feel we should come to a solution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

How would these "hidden pages" be better than keeping the evidence on your home computer and emailing anyone you think should know? ekips39 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment on ethnicity and sexuality in lead sections

Hey all,

I've opened up an RfC to try and clarify some of the language around the inclusion of ethnicity or sexuality-related information in the lead sections of articles about people. Comments appreciated! Ironholds (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_118&oldid=1192074913"